This week we confront the problem of religious diversity. On the formal level, the wide variety of perspectives that we tend to call "religious" presents a genuine challenge to the philosopher of religion: What exactly is this object "religion" that the philosopher is meant to scrutinize? There seems to be an overwhelmingly diverse set of particular examples to choose from. Perhaps there is a single essence of religion (the "very thing" religion, going back to Socrates' naive question: _ti esti_, what _is_ it _really_?) that we can discern. But then how do we account for the plurality of different religions, religions which contain radically different beliefs? Maybe (on the other side) religious worldviews are in fact incommensurable: each is completely different from and not translatable into the terms of the others. But then what happens to the project of "philosophy of religion"? Must it then be simply the unpacking of one view at a time, or maybe the unpacking of just one, and the assertion of its truth? That sounds like...theology.
On the related practical/ethical level, these questions has important ramifications. If religions in fact have a common basis, perhaps there is common ground for agreement, in a world that is rife with religious conflict. But perhaps that compromises the particular vision of each tradition out of existence. Many religionists claim that their way is the only way, and they even try to use reason to do it. Before discounting this sensibility as tragically intolerant, we might suggest that _truth_ in general (if it is a real truth) is intolerant...intolerant of error and falsity!
Nadine
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed this weeks reading about religious diversity. Obviously, I have always been aware of the existence of religious diversity, but I suppose it has only been recently that I see the major problems with religious diversity. I was most drawn to Joseph Runzo’s Religious Relativism. Runzo highlights six potential responses to conflicting “truths” surrounding religion: atheism, religious exclusivism, religious inclusivism, religious subjectivism, religious pluralism, and religious relativism. In other words, he provides six options for coping with religion and diversity.
Obviously, it is immensely difficult to argue the validity of one belief besides simply saying “because….”. As human beings, we live in a society where many of the people believe that their religion is right, because that is what they were told and how they have been raised. Oftentimes, it is not worth arguing with such people, because it is unlikely their opinions will change. My question, and in a sense issue with the notion of religious diversity, is so what? As far as I can see there is no way to say this religion is valid, while this religion is not, that is not based on some kind of a bias. At the end of the day, we really can’t say this is my religion and therefore it is true. Or can we? The rules of religion seem to be very different than anything I’ve ever seen. There seems to be this acceptance of the idea that religion has a different set of rules, and it is perfectly okay for me to defend my religion with no other argument other than the fact that it is what I believe. I guess this leaves me wondering if this whole notion is correct? I’m not so sure something like this can be defined as correct or not, but regardless of if it is right or not, it is wholly unlikely that this different set of rules for religion will be disappearing anytime soon.
Courtney Zehnder
ReplyDeleteI would like to begin by calling Keith Ward's essay ("Truth and the Diversity of Religions") "badass." I found his attack on Hick's pluralistic hypothesis very astute and found myself saying "yes" to myself alot as I read it. The first critique he lays out is so important, saying that (religious) beliefs are truth claims, believing them to be true is to affirm that reality really is as they say, that our affirmations can be fallible, and thus an affirmation always excludes via its nature SOME state of affairs. A quote I loved from that is "if an assertion excludes nothing, it affirms nothing," going on to say that all truth claims are necessarily exclusive.
I also really enjoyed his statements about ineffability. Hicks says that all religions strive towards the same ultimate, yet ineffable ultimate reality. Ward challenges how Hicks can be so certain they are striving for the same thing using a simple but convincing example: I don't know what X is and I don't know what Y is and it does not then follow that X is identical to Y. To be identical, you must be able to agree upon some deciding factors that identify X and Y in order to see how exactly they match up.
His strongest point for me is when he distinguishes between "X is to be used as a noun" and "X is the referent of some noun." One of my biggest problems with arguments for the existence of God is that since we can conceive of the infinite, it must be real. In that case, "the infinite" "is to be used as a noun" as in it can fill that grammatical function in a sentence but "the infinite" is NOT "the referent of some noun" i.e. it cannot be found in reality. Just because language permits us to SAY something does mean we should believe it to exist.
while going through these readings i tend to veer towards wards "soft pluralism". my main issue with Hicks idea of pluralism is the "ultimate truth" or the "real-an sich", he expresses all while focusing on salvation in a way which not all religions are aimed toward.
ReplyDeleteWhen thinking about religion though, function in real life, in the sense of tolerance and "neighbors", i would think moving towards a secular society would prevent such issues. the problem i see even with that is it is hard to keep out ones religious backgrounds, which tend have the things they were taught to entwine with their lives. Leaving such things off the table when discussing how to live side by side seems a bit detrimental to understanding and being able to come up with a distinct set of universal rules to live by. to make successful set, i' sure you would have to take each of these relgions into account, or to make it easy but get rid of it entirely
mentioning before that i tend to veer towards ward's soft pluralism, but going more towards hicks idea of the real-an-sich, i could guess that perhaps this path represents a force able to manifest in ways necessary to encourage people to live the life they need to be happy. the pluralism concept seems to become a religion unto itself here, and a very presumptuous one. in this theory there should be more similarities and a more singular goal. i could see something like this aimed more towards the individual in this case than groups. still, people and ideas can't go on existing in a vacuum, society calls for some conformity so the "personal religion" is thrown out in favor of a mass functionality.
Granted these past ideas are all based on pluralistic beliefs. going onto an inclusivism an exclusivism, it would probably be more difficult in setting up societal standards. Regardless of whether or not you think one is capable of getting "salvation" whether they follow your religion i don't think factors much when setting up rule for everyone to live by. if you believe one way is he true way, i don't think there would be much openness to rules that go against your beliefs, and here i can see issues of oppression showing up.
K. byrnes
Karen
ReplyDeleteJohn Hick’s solution to the religious diversity problem is one that would exist in a utopia. Religious pluralism seems like Hick giving a hug to the entire world; it’s too nice. Though it would be wonderful if everyone could subscribe to Hick’s theory, it is absolutely not possible. He makes valid points such as, “nor can we reasonably claim that our own form of religious experience…is verdical whilst the others are not.” It's interesting to question how people know that their religion is in fact the right one.
This leads right into Plantinga’s argument of religious exclusivism, which in my opinion, is what most people actually are, whether they admit it or not. Having a faith, or even having absolutely no faith, you are holding onto something you believe to be true, why else would a person set this as one of their beliefs? Plantinga points out something many people experience when discussing religion, “as an exclusivist, I realize I can’t convince others that they should believe as I do, but I nonetheless continue to believe as I do.” No matter how fervently you argue your point, the other person will most likely not be convinced, and you also will not be swayed in their direction either.
Being tolerant of other religions is quite different from being a pluralist. You can be tolerant without believing that each person has truth in their religion. But I believe most people, myself included, are exclusivists.