Don't All Religions Point to the Same God?

Isn't it arrogant to single out one tradition, when every faith is really reaching for the same divine reality?

The objection, at its strongest:

Every great tradition reaches toward an ultimate reality: Brahman, the Tao, Allah, the God of the philosophers, the God of Israel.
These are just different cultural names and images for the same transcendent truth, glimpsed from different angles.
To insist that one of them is uniquely correct is parochial arrogance: the accident of where you happened to be born, dressed up as certainty.

In response:

Agreeing partly is not agreeing entirely. That the traditions overlap — many affirm a transcendent source, a moral order, a call to humility — is real and worth honoring. But overlap is not identity. They make contradictory claims about the very thing at issue: whether the ultimate is personal or impersonal, whether it has acted in history or stands aloof, whether it can be known or only dissolved into. These cannot all be true at once, and pretending they are does not respect the traditions: it flattens them.
The same mountain picture is itself a claim, not neutral ground. Saying "all paths climb the one mountain" sounds humble, as if it stands above the quarrel. But it doesn't: it is one more claim about what is ultimately real, that no single tradition has the whole truth and all are partial. That is a strong position, and it flatly contradicts every tradition that says getting God right actually matters. So the pluralist hasn't escaped the question "which view is true?" He has just answered it, in favor of his own.
The sharpest split is personal versus impersonal. This stage already turned on it: reason arrives at a first cause that knows and loves, not a blind force. A tradition that turns that personal God back into an impersonal ground — a state, an energy, a principle — isn't simply describing the same God in other words. It is denying the one feature the argument actually established. That is not two names for one thing; it is a real disagreement about what the ultimate is.
Where you were born shapes what you believe, not what is true. It's fair to say upbringing colors what each of us finds plausible, but that cuts every way at once. It is just as true of the pluralist, the atheist, and everyone else. It tells you how people come to their convictions, not which convictions are right. The real question was never "who was raised where?" but "which account actually holds together and fits the evidence?"

So the point is not that other traditions are worthless: this stage has insisted they each keep something true. It is that only one keeps every thread reason traced: one, personal, and self-revealing in history. Singling it out is not arrogance if it is where the argument leads; it would be arrogance to override the argument to keep the peace.