Pluralism or Monism

Either/Or and Both/And

The metamodern move is to hold multiple perspectives, to be able to frame divisive issues as Either/Or and Both/And and Neither/Nor or some other way.

With assistance from Perplexity AI, here is some reasonable criticism of pluralism.

Reasonable Critiques of Pluralism

Pluralism, broadly understood as the recognition and accommodation of diverse values, perspectives, or methodologies within a society or discipline, is often celebrated for fostering tolerance and inclusivity. However, several substantive critiques have been raised against pluralism, especially in religion, philosophy and political theory. Below are key criticisms, each supported by scholarly analysis.

Fundamental Contradictions Between Religions

Religious pluralism often posits that all religions are equally valid paths to truth or the divine. However, a major critique is that the world’s religions make mutually exclusive and often contradictory claims about core issues such as the nature of God, the path to salvation, and the ultimate destiny of humanity. For example, Christianity teaches that Jesus is God incarnate, while Islam regards Jesus as a prophet and explicitly denies his divinity. Hinduism, meanwhile, may view the divine as an impersonal absolute, in contrast to the personal God of monotheistic faiths. These fundamental differences are not merely superficial but go to the heart of each tradition’s worldview, making the claim that all religions are equally true logically incoherent.

A Slippery Slope to Relativism

A pluralist approach to philosophy, while valuing diversity and the coexistence of multiple perspectives, faces significant challenges that call its coherence and practical utility into question. One major critique is that pluralism often lacks a unifying evaluative framework, which undermines its ability to provide clear guidance in philosophical inquiry or normative deliberation. Unlike monistic approaches that seek overarching principles or criteria, pluralism accepts the incommensurability of competing values and viewpoints, making it difficult to adjudicate between them or reach definitive conclusions. This can lead to a form of relativism or skepticism where no single position can be rationally preferred, thereby risking paralysis in philosophical reasoning or ethical decision-making.

Moreover, pluralism’s emphasis on the irreducible diversity of perspectives may inadvertently diminish the role of rigorous argumentation and critical scrutiny, as it tends to treat all viewpoints as equally valid without sufficiently robust quality criteria. This “anything goes” perception can erode standards of justification and intellectual rigor, potentially allowing less coherent or less justified positions to stand on par with well-supported ones. Additionally, pluralism struggles to address the problem of authority and legitimacy in philosophy: without some shared grounds or criteria, it becomes challenging to justify why one should accept or act upon any particular philosophical claim. This is especially problematic in practical contexts where decisions must be made despite persistent disagreement. Finally, pluralism’s recognition of deep and persistent disagreement, while realistic, can undermine the aspiration for consensus or stable foundations in philosophy, leaving open the question of how to navigate conflicts in values or beliefs constructively. Thus, while pluralism rightly highlights the complexity and diversity of human thought, it faces substantial difficulties in providing a coherent, actionable, and critically accountable philosophical methodology.

Pluralism’s Challenge to Justification and Consensus

A core critique is that pluralism makes it difficult to justify collective decisions or the use of state power in a way that is acceptable to all citizens. In political philosophy, Rawlsian liberalism attempts to address this by seeking a conception of justice that is rationally acceptable to each citizen, leaving room for ethical diversity. However, critics argue that this approach relies on controversial assumptions in metaethics, conceptions of truth, and moral psychology—assumptions about citizens’ motivations and their willingness to prioritize political over non-political values. These assumptions are themselves subject to reasonable disagreement, undermining the hope for stable consensus and making the justification of political principles precarious in genuinely pluralist societies.

In political science, pluralist theory has been critiqued for its inability to adequately account for structural inequalities and the realities of power distribution. Empirical studies have shown that pluralist analyses often fail to grapple with economic and political inequalities, sometimes even obfuscating findings that contradict their ideological assumptions. Critics argue that pluralism’s emphasis on the multiplicity of groups and interests can obscure the dominance of powerful actors and the persistence of systemic inequities, thereby offering an incomplete or misleading account of political reality.

With assistance from Perplexity AI, here is some reasonable criticism of Monism.

Reasonable Critique of Monism

A reasonable critique of religious monism—the belief that all of reality, including the divine and the cosmos, is fundamentally one—focuses on its inability to adequately account for the diversity and particularity evident in religious experience, doctrine, and practice. Religious monism, as exemplified in traditions like Advaita Vedanta or certain strands of New Age spirituality, posits an ultimate unity underlying all apparent multiplicity, often identifying the individual soul with the divine or asserting that all distinctions are ultimately illusory. Critics argue that this approach glosses over the profound differences between religious traditions, especially those that maintain a clear ontological distinction between the divine and creation, such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. For example, the Christian doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, or the Islamic concept of God’s absolute transcendence, are fundamentally at odds with monistic claims of undifferentiated unity. Moreover, religious monism can be criticized for failing to account for the reality and significance of individual conscious experiences, moral agency, and the apparent multiplicity of beings in the world. This tendency toward abstraction risks erasing the richness and specificity of personal and communal religious life in favor of a homogenized metaphysical vision. From a social and ethical perspective, monistic systems may also struggle to provide a robust basis for pluralism and tolerance, since the insistence on ultimate unity can lead to the marginalization or dismissal of alternative viewpoints and traditions. Finally, the metaphysical assumptions underlying religious monism—such as the reducibility of all distinctions to a single reality—are themselves highly contentious and may lack persuasive justification, especially in light of the persistent and meaningful diversity found in both religious belief and human experience.

DEI - diversity, equity, and inclusion - is currently under attack, particularly in the United States. Multiculturalism is under attack. In practice, in 2025, pluralism does not seem to be working. Culture war continues to rage. It seems foolish to deny that societies everywhere are facing significant problems that seem to be growing.

Pluralism has not led us to a world where everyone can thrive. But, imo, monism is not possible and would probably be worse. Believers in monism, such as Christianity, need to face some facts.

In the early Middle Age, there was primarily One Univeral Church, The Catholic Church and, of course, some heretics on the fringes. In the 11th century, The Church split into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. In the 16th century, it split again with the Protestant Reformation. Today Christianity has six main divisions. Today Christian denominations can be numbered in the thousands. Christian monism is at best an aspiration and perhaps only a hopeless illusion.

The Thirty Years' War that was fought primarily in Central Europe between 1618 and 1648 was primarily a war between the Catholics and the Protestants, with hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Looking elsewhere as a quick aside, there are two main branches of Islam - Sunni and Shia - and no unity is to be seen in the Muslim world.

Looking elsewhere again, a singular approach based on science and science alone has also not delivered on its promises.

What to do?

I am not a believer in Utopia. I favour a metamodern approach, Protopia, a society that makes incremental progress towards improvement, acknowledging imperfections and challenges. And I hold an unresolved contradiction. My hope for incremental progress is fading and I have moved in the direction of desiring radical change. But currently we are seeing radical change but in a direction away from goodness.

Nevertheless, as an aspiration, I hold the hope of the emergence of cohesive pluralism. My pluralism has room for everyone willing to find common cause in our humanity. My pluralism has room for those Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and my tribe, Secularists, who seek to live together in peace. And I will peacefully oppose monism to the best of my limited ability.

Unlike what I see in the US, I have hope for my home country Canada which has a high degree of religious freedom without any illusions of being a Christian nation. But we have much work to do. Maintaining healthy pluralism will always be hard work and maximizing coherence will be even harder.