在某些领域，并不存在多元主义这一概念。以科学为例，人们默认只存在一个正确的答案。诚然，可以同时存在多种相互竞争的理论，但最终人们认为其中有一种理论是正确的，而科学家的职责就是去调查、辩论、分析、仔细考量，并努力得出那个答案。

When it comes to certain fields, there is no such concept as pluralism. In science, for example, it is assumed that there is only one right answer. Sure, there can be multiple competing theories, but ultimately one theory is assumed to be the correct one and it is the job of scientists to investigate, to debate, to analyze, to carefully consider, and to work to come to that answer.

相比之下,今天的人们并未被教导去认为任何一种宗教是对的或错的。相反,宗教被视为关乎个人身份认同、个人情感以及个人主观感受到的东西。宗教不关乎事实与知识,因此,这种观点推论道,怎么能认为任何一种宗教是“正确”或“真实”的呢?如果你持这种“主观主义”的宗教观,那么你就可能倾向于认为,在某种意义上,“所有宗教在某种程度上都是真实的”。

In contrast, today we are not taught to think of any given religion as being right or wrong. Rather religion is about personal identity, personal feelings, what you subjectively feel to be the case. Religion is not about facts and knowledge, therefore, the reasoning goes, how can any given religion be considered “correct” or “true”? If you are coming from this “subjectivist” view of religion, then you might be prone to think that, in a sense, “all religions are true” in one way or another.

但从历史上看，人们并不是这样看待宗教的。宗教曾被人们以一种类似于今天看待科学的方式来理解：理解实在，就意味着理解真主，而理解真主，就意味着理解祂所说的话。因此，在过去，社会中最有学识、最受教育的人，往往也是对宗教学问最精通的人，这并非巧合。同样，过去的宗教间辩论主要在神学层面展开，例如基督徒与穆斯林辩论神的本质、神的属性等问题，而今天为数不多的宗教间辩论，则多聚焦于人权、妇女权利、宽容等道德议题，这也不是偶然的。

But historically, people did not have this view of religion. Religion was thought of in a similar way to how people today think of science in the sense that understanding reality means understanding God and understanding God means understanding what God has said. It was no coincidence, then, that typically the most knowledgeable and educated people in society in the past were also the most religiously learned. It is also not a coincidence that inter-religious debates in the past happened on the theological level, e.g., Christians and Muslims debating about the nature of God, His attributes, etc., whereas today, most of the handful of inter-religious debates that happen focus on moral concerns like human rights, women’s rights, tolerance, etc.

值得注意的是，对宗教持“客观主义”的看法本身并不违背宽容。例如，我们当今的世俗社会在科学问题上持客观主义的看法，但对于在科学知识上不懂或甚至在科学信念上完全错误的人，社会依然是宽容的。然而，当人们错误的科学信念伤害到他人时，当今社会便会划出界限，而其中所谓“伤害”的界定，正是依据被视为正确的科学范式来确定的。

It is important to note that having an “objectivist” view of religion does not in itself contravene tolerance. For example, our present secular society has an objectivist view when it comes to science, but there is still tolerance for people who are scientifically illiterate or who may even be downright wrong about what they scientifically believe. However, present society draws the line when it comes to people’s incorrect scientific beliefs harming others, where harm itself is defined according to what is considered to be the correct scientific paradigm.

以疫苗接种的争论为例，就是一个简单的说明。人们可以对疫苗对儿童的影响持任何看法，但到了某个时候，政府被赋予了干预的职权，规定儿童必须接种疫苗等。这是因为人们认为，如果任由人们坚持其错误的信念超过某个界限，就会产生更广泛的负面后果。

A simple example is the whole vaccination debate. People can believe whatever they want about the impact of vaccines on children, but at some point, the government was given the mandate to intervene and say that children must be vaccinated, etc. This is because there was a belief that if people were allowed to pursue their incorrect beliefs past a certain point, that would have wider negative ramifications.

或许我们应当以同样的眼光来理解伊斯兰的宽容。在过去的伊斯兰社会中，这种宽容同样存在。伊斯兰教法对基督徒、犹太人及其各自宗教活动的宽容，是众所周知并有文献记载的。换言之，从主流范式的角度看，人们可以是“错误的”，但这种宽容是有其界限的。在当今的世俗社会中，我们同样能看到这一点，只是人们并未以这种方式来理解它。

Perhaps we should understand Islamic tolerance in the same light. In past Islamic societies, this kind of tolerance also existed. Muslim and Islamic law’s tolerance for Christians, Jews, and their respective religious practices are well known and documented. In other words, there was room for people to be wrong from the perspective of the dominant paradigm but there were limits to that tolerance. This is something we see in present secular society as well, though things are not conceived as such.