IS ABSOLUTE TRUTH INTOLERANT?

1. “This school advocates pluralism”
"An institution of higher learning is a place where you would expect to find the right answers to some of the most important question in life. Yet a secular college or university is usually one of the last places to find such answers with respect to the pursuit of absolute truth. Christian students who arrive on these campuses normally find themselves in an environment that offers many different answers to the same ultimate questions in life. This philosophical position is known as pluralism. Pluralism is the logical conclusion of a relative view of truth. It is also a denial of the laws of logic, for it insists that both A and non-A can be true."(Geisler & Bocchino, Unshakable Foundations,pg 38)

By the way.. If you truly believe in pluralism then wouldn't my view of reality and absolutes also be true ;)

Our perception of reality has no bearing on it. No matter how I perceive gravity, If I jump off the Empire State building… I’m toast! I am totally open to the idea that we all have gotten it wrong (although I do not believe that). I am not, however, open to the idea that we are all right. The reality in her example is still the elephant! It does not matter how blind men perceive it. Saying that they are wrong is not intolerant or unloving in any way. It is the truth. We all, at some point, have to believe that the information we are given is accurate. How do we know George Washington was the first president of the United States? None of us were there. Yet ask anyone that question and the answer will be George Washington.

2. "How is it that everyone in this class recognizes the truth of what I have just said except you?"

Think about this. Isn't the instructor going against the philosophy of pluralism by arguing her view of “absolute truth” is better than the student's? What we have to ask ourselves is this. Are philosophical and religious ideas matters of taste (pluralism) or matters of truth (absolutism).

"The simplest way to answer this question is to let those who believe that truth is a matter of taste decide for themselves. Let’s say that we are having a discussion with some people who believe that all philosophical and religious statements are merely a matter of taste. If this is the case, they should not defend themselves when we disagree. If they begin to defend their view that these statements are matters of taste (or even think their statements are true), the truth is revealed. Why should they get upset if we prefer one view to another as a matter of taste?

For example, if you were to say, “There is no such thing as truth with respect to philosophy,” one can simply ask, “Is your statement true?” An intellectually honest individual should see the self-defeating nature of his assertion. Hence, philosophical statements are matters of truth. But what about religion? Do religious claims belong in the realm of taste and personal preferences? Imagine you are John Tate, let’s take a closer look at what was communicated in your class.

Your professor strongly held that religious beliefs were matters of taste, of personal preferences. She believed that, with respect to religion, what was true for one individual was not necessarily true for another. The easiest way to check the validity of her belief is to simply apply her claim to itself and see if it passes its own test. You can accomplish this task by asking your professor the right question, such as “Is your idea-that what is true for one individual is not necessarily true for another-is that true for you or is it true for me and everyone else in the class also?”

If Professor Stone’s view were only true for her, because she prefers to believe it as a matter of taste, why was she trying to convince you that it must be true for the entire class? If religious beliefs are just a matter of personal taste, then it makes no sense for Professor Stone to argue that her position is true for everyone. Her perspective only makes sense if she really holds to the conviction that religious beliefs are matters of truth. Professor Stone contradicted herself by preaching a personal view of tolerance while being intolerant of John’s belief in “religious” absolute truth. It is clear that philosophical and religious ideas are matters of truth and not matters of taste.(Geisler & Bocchino, Unshakable Foundations,pg 38-41)