Intellectual Responses To Religious Pluralism

Scholarly Perspectives on Religious Pluralism

Wilfred Cantwell Smith[^17]

Wilfred Cantwell Smith says that theology needs to be true to a modern perception of the world.  His rejection of supernaturalism can also be discerned in the writings of some contemporary religious pluralists. Smith rejects the idea that God has constructed Christianity in favor of the idea that God has inspired us to construct it, as He/She/It has inspired Muslims to construct what the world knows as Islam, or…Ramanuja to write his theological commentaries.  He also rejects the idea that, “God has given Christianity privileged statutes,” and he adds that the assumption by Christians that they have been accorded quite special treatment by God, available to no one else in like measure is “theologically wary.”[^18]  He instead affirms “pluralism,” according to which the figure of Christ is only one from among others (through) which God has entered history, so that we can hold that God has played in human history a role in and through the Qur’an, in the Muslim case, comparable to the role in the Christian case in and through Christ. Smith’s rejection of the idea of God as an omnipotent being who, whether always or only sometimes, simply determines the events of our world, is suggested by his statement that part of the truth about God is that “God is confronted with recalcitrance…of us human beings.”[^19]

Smith strongly urges the necessity of learning each other’s religious language and thought forms.  Only then will the vocabulary problem be solvable.  As a contribution to the process that one must go on while learning their language, Smith offers the following suggestion as a possible basis for discussion between theists and non-theists: “by the term God one means a truth-reality that explicitly transcends conception, but in so far as conceivable is that to which man’s religious history has at its best been a response, human and in some sense inadequate.”[^20]   Smith strongly urges that our understanding of each other’s concepts be anchored in history, even for history-transcending and self-transcending concepts such as God.  The problem is that some religions claim that truth is not anchored or revealed in that historical process, but in the reality that is behind or beyond it.

In his book,Toward a World Theology , Smith gives careful attention to the importance of language in religious dialogue.  Although he agrees that knowledge of each other’s language is essential, he takes a further step in suggesting the need for some common operational or generic terms in which communication across religions can take place. He proposes the construction of conceptual categories to facilitate dialogue and attempts to begin this by redefining the terms faith, salvation, theology, and God.  Some scholars see a very real danger in this approach as the construction of such categories will lead to the formation of a meta-language, which would be yet one more thought form to add to those already existing.  The best safeguard against such a danger, they claim, would be to let the various religions speak as much as possible in their own language and thought forms.

Mircea Eliade[^21]

Mircea Eliade’s great worksThe History of Religious Ideas andPatterns in Comparative Religion show he dared to interpret all phenomena (i.e. ideas, rituals, myths, symbols, and sacred texts) and illuminate the meaning of each by its relationships and interconnections to each other.  Above all, as in the interpretation of art, Eliade insisted that the interpreter of religion needs to locate and interpret not the period-pieces of religion but the classics; those original religious expressions of the sacred which remain highly particular in both origin and expression.  These classics, for Eliade, also disclose the universal reality of the religious as the manifestation of the cosmos and, ultimately, of Being itself.[^22]   By focusing major attention on the interpretation of all religious classics in all religions, moreover, Eliade’s interpretation theory may hold a singular clue to understanding the elusive phenomenon of religion.[^23]   By taking this approach, Eliade welcomed the other, the different, and the many as equal participants in the religion of the cosmos that unites all humanity and as equal participants who could teach modern mankind the fuller meaning of a new humanism that would finally take seriously the whole of humanity.[^24]   Eliade’s approach teaches us that the interpreter of religion must be willing to interpret the claim to the attention of the other in order to understand even the self.  In seeking dialogue with the archaic other, one needs to pay attention to the archaic traditions alive in the world as well as to remember one’s own repressed archaic heritage.  The archaic is as the “Other,” but must not be allowed to be merely a projected Other.  Its memory lives even now: memory heals, memory liberates, and memory manifests the power and rhythms of the sacred cosmos itself.[^25]   That cosmos the archaic traditions can teach us to see anew with the always youthful eyes of their healing memory.

Ninian Smart[^26]

Ninian Smart argues that the philosophy of religions should be extended to the philosophy of worldviews in order to develop a new understanding of religious pluralism.  For Smart, the Western philosopher of religious studies deals at the intellectual level with a relatively simplified system of ideas in comparison with the complexities of the modern systematic interpretation of Christianity and Judaism.   He argues that the philosophy of religions should be broader.[^27]   Thus, the new term “the philosophy of worldviews” seems more appropriate.   The philosophy of worldviews is tied to worldviews as they actually exist in the world as well as their developmental historical contexts.  Such a philosophy, Smart claims, is closer to the analysis of reality which is absent in the modern philosophy of religions.  The task, then, is to clarify the criteria for determining the truth between the different worldviews and outline an inventory of considerations relative to the truth of worldviews.  These considerations are related to consistency, tension, epistemological tension, rivalry, ethical insights, and psychology. This makes systematic theology more difficult, but richer.  For Smart, the major consequence of applying this philosophy is the sense of inclusiveness that becomes requisite for reflections on the nature and the destiny of human beings.  Smart argues that a major consequence of his intellectual enterprise is that, “the philosophy of worldviews reminds one how much the practical and the theoretical are interwoven in humankind’s system of belief in a way

which leads to a gap between epistemology and commitment, that is, between the softness of evidence and the deep meaning of a movement or tradition.”[^28]    A serious challenge to Smart’s views is how to define the term “worldview” and “religion.”  These terms remain so very ambiguous and possibly could have so many conflicting interpretations.

Stephen Kaplan[^29]

Stephen Kaplan argues that religious pluralism is a modern position born not out of openness of one religious tradition to another, but rather out of a philosophical attempt to confront the confluence of cultural boundaries and the growth of relativism.  For Kaplan, the major world religions are not traditionally pluralistic; they are either exclusivistic or inclusivistic.  For Kaplan, exclusivism tells us that there is no salvation outside of one particular religious tradition, whereas inclusivism extends the possibility of salvation to those outside its fold.  However, the means of salvation and the form of salvation are restricted to that which is found within the inclusivist’s tradition.[^30]   Kaplan proposes inDifferent Paths, Different Summits: A Model for Religious Pluralism a new form of religious pluralism, namely an ontological and stereological pluralism.

In Kaplan’s book, the aim is to, “attempt to envision how more than one religious tradition can be ultimately true, not penultimately true; ….to conceptualize the logical framework in which ultimate reality may be conceived as plural, not singular.”[^31]   Moreover, Kaplan provides a metaphysical system whereby people may view religion as simultaneously existing, equally valid, and (perhaps) mutually exclusive, yet not contradictory.  In this metaphysic, there may exist multiple ontologies.  Each is to be viewed on its own terms and judged within its own stereological providence.  Kaplan constitutes a valid religion by the efficacy of its stereological solution to the human condition.  To this end, he utilizes the model, provided initially by David Bohm, of holography.[^32]   Bohm’s goal is to use the holographic model to explain the possibility of viewing both quantum mechanics and relativity theory as simultaneously existing and mutually exclusive, but not contradictory.  Using this holographic model as a guide, Kaplan indicates that 1) both domains logically demand the other; 2) both are simultaneously existing and neither is logically prior; and 3) both are interpenetrating.[^33]

Kaplan chooses to use Bohm’s holographic model in order to understand particular stereological solutions as professed by three specific religious traditions.  The stereological solutions with their representative religions are: theistic salvation according to Richard of St. Victor, monistic non-dualistic liberation as represented by the Advaita Vedantin, and the process non-dualistic liberation of the Yogacara Buddha. With these traditions, Kaplan achieves a variety of religious perspectives and places them, complete with their ontological perspectives, within his metaphysical system.  In this form of religious pluralism, different individuals with different beliefs and religious practices reach different conclusions to the human existence - or different stereological conclusions.  This model proposes that within one, and only one, metaphysical universe can there be different ontological natures.  Each of these equal and simultaneous

ontological natures provides different individuals with the opportunity to achieve different stereological ends; different forms of liberation or salvation.  In this form of religious pluralism there are many different paths as well as many different summits.  With regard to the issue of ultimate truth, Kaplan argues that being right does not necessitate that someone else is wrong.  On this basis, one does not demand that the other abandon or denigrate their claims to truth in order to ensure one’s own claims to truth.

Harold Coward[^34]

Harold Coward argues that the history of religions shows that each religion rose in a religiously plural environment and shaped itself in reaction to that pluralism.  For Coward, religions and philosophies responded to pluralism in different ways.  Some religious philosophies attempted to reduce all religions to one universal faith implying that all religions are really the same.  This view has been considered unacceptable by many major religions like Christianity and Islam.  For Coward, this view leads to a violation of the principles of religious freedom.  Some philosophies suggested that the various religions have never been distinct entities.  Coward responds that in their instrumental forms, religions have constantly borrowed from and interacted with each other.[^35]   Another common feature that Coward observes in the history of religions is that the superimposition of one’s own criteria of validity upon another religion can lead to tension and isolation.

Coward attempts to indicate six presuppositions upon which the religious dialogue of the future should be grounded.[^36]    These presuppositions are: (1) that in all religions there is experience of a reality that transcends human conception; (2) that reality is conceived in a plurality of ways both within each religion and among all religions, and that the recognition of plurality is necessary both to safeguard religious freedom as well as to respect human limitations; (3) that the pluralistic forms of religion are instrumental in function; (4) that due to our finite limitations and our simultaneous need for commitment to a particular experience of transcendent reality, our particular experience, though limited, will function in an absolute sense as the validating criterion for our own personal religious experience; (5) that the Buddha’s teaching of critical tolerance and moral compassion always must be observed; and (6) that through self-critical dialogue we must penetrate even further into our own particular experience of transcendent reality (and possibly into the transcendental reality of others).

For Coward, a basic prerequisite for future dialogue is that all participants have accurate information about each other’s religions. Fulfilling this prerequisite is probably the single largest obstacle to the success of religious dialogue.  Coward notes that the majority of people today are illiterate of their own religion as well as the religion of others.  Therefore, the academic discipline of religious studies has a major role to play in overcoming this problem.[^37] Intellectual knowledge of the belief systems of all religions is needed, but will not be sufficient by itself.  For Coward, one will not be able to emphasize the sense of transcendent reality that the forms of each religion seek to convey if only surface or basic intellectual knowledge is achieved.  Thus, true empathy and understanding

require that we learn each other’s language, for therein are the important nuances of transcendent experience that are often lost in translation.  Coward points out that the educational prerequisite for future dialogue is a stiff and a serious one, requiring dedication and effort from all who would partake of this dialogue.  Pluralism should be based on dialogue*.*   In this conext, he proposes that the language of pluralism is that of dialogue and encounter, give and take, and criticism and self-reflection.  Dialogue means both speaking and listening, and that process reveals both common understandings and real differences.

John Rawls[^38]

“The Fact of Pluralism”, as John Rawls calls it, has not merely developed by means of migration, but rather through communication and the global disintegration of communication barriers.[^39]   For Rawls, pluralism has led to a differentiation of social positions, which have created incommensurable philosophical, religious, and moral positions through the process of modernization.  These can no longer be reduced to former value system, due to the democratic structure of the occidental world.   Rawls’ idea is to prove that the “Fact of Pluralism” does not create indifference or even skepticism, but rather the opposite in the search of modern societies for (even if only minimal) forms of consensus building, which enables the survival of plurality according to Rawls. He adds his central question, which at the same time is a central question for religions, inter-cultural education: “How is it possible, that there may exist over time a stable and just society of free and equal citizens profoundly divided by reasonable religions, philosophical, and moral doctrines?”  For Rawls, if one acknowledges that there is always certain coherence between the “other” and “oneself,” one also has to acknowledge that the “other” remains constantly different.  There is no way to homogeneity by trying to make the different alike.   For Rawls, the recognition of a pluralist society underwent several stages:

The first stage is the confessional pluralism dating back to the medieval days.  These developments are most visible in the effects of the Reformation through its social and religious impacts with the falling apart of a unifying religious concept.

A second stage is the social phenomenon of “class pluralism” dating back to the early days of industrialization in Europe.

A third stage is the appearance of secularization and accompanying ideologies leading to socio-religious as well as political plurality.

A next stage seems to be the cultural pluralism dating back to migration movements (labor and political conflicts) since the middle of the 20th century.  This process has gained momentum in recent years due to increased political upheavals and ecological devastation as well as related natural catastrophes.  This development includes the growth of religious pluralism in many Western communities.

The present economic situation (globalization) supports development, which can be termed ethnic and religious plurality.  The function and role of the nation-state is of lesser and lesser importance and a new momentum stems from the struggle of minorities for traditional religious-cultural, including territorial settings. Thus, within a culturally unifying attempt of

economic globalization, the plurality of the local gains a new momentum in what is often termed the “village world.”

Economic globalization is an abstraction that is often discussed in exclusively economic terms.  It is progress measured according to improvements in the infrastructure, in industrialization, and in a nation’s GNP –all in the belief that growth in these fields will ultimately raise the quality of people’s lives.  And it will, but quality of life depends also on other factors that are frequently left out of the equation.  One such consideration is humanitarianism, and human rights, which recognizes the common humanity shared by each and every individual.  Another related concern that places the individual squarely in the context of his or her community is culture and religion. Closely related to both is the question of identity.  Sociologists tell us that every individual plays a multiplicity of roles related to the family, the workplace, and a host of communities ranging from the religious to the political.  In other words, we all possess diverse and divergent identities that make each of us unique.

Sayyed Hossein Nasr[^40]

In his article “To Live in a World with No Center - and Many,” Sayyed Hossein Nasr gives several of his reasons for a pluralistic worldview.[^41]   According to Nasr, the very existence of human life requires living with a meaning-giving center to which all aspects of human life are related.  For Nasr, the existence of such a center is necessary for avoiding a life of chaos.  Only through orienting our lives towards a meaning-giving center can we eliminate the dangers of nihilism, atheism, and other ideologies that threaten the sacred aspect of human life.

Nasr argues that Western civilization created a center that underlied all aspects of human life during medieval times.  Although this center, or homogenous worldview, has been challenged in many aspects since medieval times, Nasr argues that ethical life survived until recent decades without being challenged seriously.  However, during the past few decades, even the, “very foundations of the ethical norms” have been challenged.  Other developments, such as new nihilistic philosophies, various attempts at the revision of history, and the deconstruction of sacred scripture and well-known works of literature, have helped create a chaotic and centerless world where our absolute values have lost their ultimate point of reference, Nasr argues.

Nasr explains that pluralism has been widely considered the only alternative to this centerless worldview.  According to Nasr, one of the most important reasons why pluralism has been so important, especially during recent times, is that given the present world situation, we can no longer isolate ourselves from exposure to other religious, cultural, and ethnic diversities.  This exposure helps us understand and appreciate the true nature and value of the other.  For Nasr, several developments, especially in the United States, have prepared the ground for a more pluralistic appreciation of the other.  In today’s United States, one can easily see that there are multiple religions, along with diverse cultural and ethnic identities.  Thanks both to migration and conversion in the North American continent, there are numerous types of religious people.  Accordingly, Nasr argues that the

diverse religious and philosophical currents and ethic groups have helped strengthen a more pluralistic consciousness.  Given the pluralistic context of the present world, he says that, “on the religious level, it becomes even more difficult to assert the truth of only our religion while denying any truth to the religions of others.”[^42]

Although he affirms the value of pluralism, Nasr is very concerned about the loss of the notions that give meaning and value to our lives.  He writes:

“But what about the question of truth? And what about the principles of human action, the ethical norms by which we must live as individuals and also members of a human collectivity? Can we simply affirm pluralism with total disregard for the truth and falsehood of things or have a view of the world without a frame of reference?”[^43]

In Nasr’s view, any pluralistic position that will encourage the loss of our values is deeply problematic.  Such loss would bring about destructive consequences.  For Nasr, the reality of pluralism cannot be ignored, so we can no longer live in a nostalgic world whether or not there be only one center.  Considering the dangers of a centerless world, relativism and nihilism are likewise not real options. But, “there is also another possibility, which is to be able to live in a world with many centers while confirming the reality of the center of our own traditional universe.”[^44]  The real solution to the issue of pluralism, Nasr further holds, lies in accepting, “the transcendental unity of religions at the level of the Absolute,” endorsing the fact that, “all paths lead to the same summit.”[^45]   He believes that his version of pluralism, according to which there is only one Absolute and all manifestations of the Absolute are relatively absolute,[^46] can do justice to all the traditions.

For Nasr, every religion and culture is based on a center from which moral, social, intellectual, and artistic values stem.  The real task before us, therefore, is to live in a way that appreciates the value and importance of these various religions and cultures without falling into the dangers of sheer relativism and nihilism.  How is that possible? What is the constructive part of Nasr’s argument that will make it possible to live in the midst of such multiplicity and diversity without falling into sheer relativism?  Contrary to those who see diversity as an inevitable cause for “the clash of civilizations;” Nasr argues that diversity does not necessarily imply such a clash.  The reason for this argument lies in the considerable similarities among various traditions.  In Nasr view, “there is a remarkable unanimity in the various traditional religions and philosophies, which provide the guiding principles concerning the meaning of human life, the significance of the good as the principle of human actions, and the presence of a transcendent dimension to human existence.”[^47]  Nasr argues that although there are many theological differences among these religious traditions, those differences are “overshadowed by the reality and presence of the Ultimate.” Therefore, those differences possess a secondary importance for Nasr.

Martin Marty[^48]

Martin Marty argues that, “… it is impossible to make sense of the Native-, African-, European-, Asian-, or Hispanic American peoples and their traditions without engaging in profound exploration of their religious

dimensions.”[^49] As a religious historian, he has confidence that free societies are going to continue to possess religious pluralism as well as agencies that care about the religious education of that society. The challenge for Marty is how to learn to live creatively with them. Marty also suggests that pluralism can mean three things:[^50] 1) “It can grow simply out of the empirical reality, the given situation, the morning news.” By this he means that when we look at the Western culture there are many groups of various kinds, and he illustrates with religious groups (at least 440) to which must be added the number of sects, cults, causes, and cells; and that we look out on a nation in which there are a great number of religious realities. 2) Pluralism can mean “political resolution, the polity which allows a people to have a civic peace.”  For example, in United States, “it is agreed that any and all religious groups, as long as they keep certain general norms and standards of the society - a society that has the broadest norms ever known - are fully welcome.  Most importantly, there is not to be a privileged group and there are not to be liabilities against those who keep the civic peace.” 3) Pluralism can mean “philosophical pluralism.” Here, Marty is taking about whether people view reality as cohesive with a single center, or if it is in some way plural.  Marty says that as long as pluralism exists, one can live creatively with it and therefore make the best of it.