A Christian has the one view that social order and culture should be based on the singular one religion of Christianity. This is referred to as Christian culture. A pagan has the one view that social order and culture should be based on a plethora of faiths. This is referred to as multi-culturalism.
Note though that the second view is not more pluralistic or tolerant than the first view or to say it positively; note that the second view is just as homogeneous and intolerant as the first view. Both the first position that has the one view that social order and culture should be Christian and the second position that has the one view that social order and culture should allow for multi-faiths are both positions that are advocating one single view of the way social order and culture should be. Both views are equally non-pluralistic because the first view allows only for Christian culture and the second view allows only for polytheistic culture. The first rules out any culture that is uniquely polytheistic. The second rules out any culture that is uniquely Christian. Both views are equally intolerant because the first view will not tolerate those who want to overthrow Christian social order and culture with polytheism while the second view will not tolerate those who want to overthrow polytheistic social order and culture.
Multi-culturalism, religious pluralism, and cultural tolerance is a myth.
In systems of thought, if you dogmatically start without God, you cannot logically end with Him.
Humanism dogmatically assumes that God is not the measure of reality, but that humans are. They dogmatically start without God, therefore any god they accept is not God.
Humanism will always deny Christianity that is Christian, because Christianity dogmatically asserts “that God is and does accordingly. . .” in direct opposition to humanism’s “that man is and does accordingly. . .”
Christians who want to “get along with” humanists have already bought into humanism’s lie that “getting along” is possible while retaining one’s true beliefs.
Choose this day whom you will serve. As for me and my house, we shall serve the LORD.
Joshua,
It is interesting that you should bring those points out because I was just reading today how Cartesian rationalism does the very thing you reference. The author was insisting that Des Cartes only brought God into his system in order to support his system. Hence, God was used to support his subjective starting point.
What’s also interesting is that Augustine used a similar dubito that Des Cartes but he used it in a whole different context. Clark goes into this in his history of philosophy book.