yes and no.

It depends on the individual actually. An individual with an absolutist point of view can remain tolerant but the way I see it, it is pseudo-tolerance. He may remain tolerant out of pity or if they are forced by the law.

“Oh let them practice what they believe in because in the end I am the one that will be let into heaven and they will burn in the fiery pits of hell.”

Fake and forced tolerance. Tolerance that is only on the surface level. The reason for this, is because we have intertwined our personal identity with our religious identity. I am no longer Ben, but I am now the Catholic, or the Muslim etc, etc. And as human beings we have pride, we always want to be above others (often secretly). So if we are given the chance to be above others even in religion, then why not?

I’ll go to heaven, he’ll go to hell, I win. 

Well actually there are other reasons why soem people are unable to acknowledge the possibility that other religions can save humanity in the end, such as the fear that their religion turns out to be inaccurate but then I would be making an essay about religiosity. haha

hope that helps!

*oh forgot to add about true religious pluralism because true tolerance can arise when we embrace true religious pluralism.

David Ray Griffin, a process philosopher focusing on religion defines religious pluralism as consisting of two affirmations, one negative and one positive:

The negative affirmation is the rejection of religious absolutism, which means rejecting the a priori assumption that one’s own religion is the only one that provides saving truths and values to it’s adherents, that it alone is divinely inspired, that is has been divinely established as the only legitimate religion, intended to replace all others. The positive affirmation, which goes beyond the negative one, is the acceptance of the idea that there are indeed religions other than one’s own that provide saving truths and values to their adherents.

Well this is the understanding of religious pluralism for me.

metta.