The simplified definition of absolute truth is an unalterable, permanent fact. After taking this course and reflecting about the five religions we have studied, the concept of one religion having the absolute or universal truth no longer makes sense. By studying religion through a comparitive approach as we did in this Religious Analysis course does force one to rethink what we mean by “religion” and the concept of truth as it applies to religion, since one may have used to look at other religions through the eyes of their own religion instead of from an equivalent point of view. However, some people today still believe that there is only one religion that contains “the truth,” these people are not only your average conservative Christians or Muslims, but also great theologians and philosophers, such as Karl Barth.
Among those who believe that only one religion contains the universal truth are the philosophers. Philosophers tried to define what exactly absolute truth is. It was generally stated as something that was essential or ideal, rather than the superficial. One example is Plato, who believed absolute truth existed but that truth on Earth was just a shadow of the ideal absolute truth existing in the universe. This concept of the ideal, is used by religious groups to show the source of a given faith, like the Bible.
There was also the prominent 20th century theologian, Karl Barth, who held on to the absolute truths and believed only Christianity contained the universal truth. It seems each religion believes they have the absolute truth, but how can it be that all of them have it. Can it be that each has somewhat of the same idea, which contributes to the whole idea of absolute truth? For the Christians their absolute truth comes from the Bible, for Muslims it is the Quran, and so on for each religion with sacred books and teachings. Each is convinced that they alone hold “the truth,” as if it is singular so only they alone can have it, and all other religions who try to measure up to this level of truth are wrong. After all, religion does basically mean a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.
However, by studying religion in a comparative approach as we did in this class one sees how the concept of truth applied to religion is changed. Previous to this course, one would approach other religions in a sort of religious ethnocentristic way, seeing their religion as superior to the ones they are suppose to learn about. But by studying religion in a comparative way one is able to let the ethnocentrism go and see each religion for what it really is. Before taking this class, I had some idea of how Judaism, Christianity and Islam related, but from this course I was able to get a better understanding of the religions and see how each tied together from the Religion of Israel.
Followers of Buddhism and Hinduism also believe they separately hold the absolute truth, and although they have different teachings from those of the three major monotheistic religions, before this class I would not have been able to understand how them having “the truth” was possible. Each of these religions may have contrasting teachings and feel only they themselves hold the absolute truth, but with this class you are able to see how the line between the absolute truth is blurred and each religion has a part in the concept of truth. So to say that one religion is true and holds the truth and all others are false, would be wrong.
To conclude, by taking this Religious Analysis course through a comparative approach my opinion on believing one religion has the absolute or universal truth has changed. It is now clear for one to see that each religion contains a piece that makes up “the truth” and no one religion can have universal truth. Also by studying religion comparatively one is able to look back on what one meant by religion and the idea of truth as it applies to religion, and how that thinking has transformed.
