Surely, ambiguity will never be fully eliminated from human discourse and it is not always destructive of meaningful dialogue. Even so, ambiguous terms can lead to a failure of communication.

In many cases, reasonable dialogue is stifled due to lack of clarity concerning key terms in a discussion.

Consider the case of two disputants discussing whether or not the claim that “Fred and Carmen have the same car” is true. After listening to the discussion, an outside observer rightly asks for clarification. “Is the word ‘same’ in the statement to be understood as meaning identical or similar?” This seems to be right-headed since the truthfulness of the statement is dependent upon what is meant by the term “same.”

If the former understanding is correct, then the statement is an affirmation that the vehicle that Fred and Carmen share is one and the same with an identical vehicle identification number. It is also clear that if the latter understanding is in view, then the implication is that there are at least two vehicles of similar make or model that both Fred and Carmen have in common. What this shows is that the word “same,” like many terms in natural language, often suffers from a degree of ambiguity.

Likewise, the term “religious pluralism” is somewhat ambiguous. How might we respond to the question, “What do we think about religious pluralism?” On the surface, it would seem to be clear that Christians ought to dismiss the notion out of hand and affirm in step with biblical teaching (John 14:6, Acts 4:12) and historic orthodoxy that Jesus Christ is the only means of salvation.

Patrick T. Smith is assistant professor of theology and philosophy at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts.

Read More:

http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=1036&var3=main