sbchan
11-16-2006, 06:44 PM
AT A GLANCE: RELIGIOUS DIVERSITY
1. Intellectual Responses to Religious Diversity
1.1. Skepticism
• Religious diversity provides reasons for doubting that any religion is true or leads to salvation.
1.2. Exclusivism
• Salvific Exclusivism: only one religion is true and that is the only religion that leads to salvation (enlightenment, Nirvana, and so on).
• Doctrinal Exclusivism: only one religion is true. Doctrinal exclusivists come in two forms: those who don’t think those of other religions will attain salvation (salvific exclusivists) and those who do think those of other religions will attain salvation (inclusivists).
1.3. Inclusivism
• The view that while there are many different paths to salvation, only the teachings of one religion can be true.
1.4. Pluralism
• The view that many religions both lead to salvation and are true.
2. Do the Facts of Diversity Rule Out Exclusivism?
• Hick says that in most cases, a person’s religious preference is determined by accidents of birth.
• Hick does not infer that people aren’t entitled to their religious beliefs.
• This conclusion might seem to follow nonetheless.
2.1. Van Inwagen
• “Hitler youth” analogy intended to show that even though our views are “conditioned” by our upbringing, this isn’t a reason to doubt them.
• Response: Van Inwagen fails to distinguish between influences that are neutral or helpful and influences that undermine rationality.
2.2. Plantinga
• For any philosophical view we hold, there are times and/or places such that if we had been born then or there, we wouldn’t have held the view we do now.
• Response: Hick’s observation suggests that religious belief isn’t just influenced by upbringing but seems largely determined by it.
• Issue: is religious belief the result of a reliable process?
2.3. Reliable and Unreliable Belief-Forming Mechanisms
• Members of one religion could be directly inspired by God.
• Problem: even if this is true, members of that group have no basis for thinking that they are the privileged ones.
2.4. A Biblical Analogy
• Plantinga imagines someone who honestly thinks that what King David did to Uriah was not despicable.
• The existence of such people would not be a reason for us to doubt our own moral judgment.
• Reply: this is not a good analogy. A person like that would be clearly morally incompetent. Members of one religion usually have no reason to think that members of other religions are incompetent.
3. Pluralism
• Hick thinks people are entitled to trust their religious experience.
• He views pluralism not as a religion but as a religious hypothesis intended to make sense of religious diversity.
• The Real is beyond our grasp, but different religions can bring us into partial contact with it mediated through the symbols and concepts we have available.
3.1. Metaphors for Pluralism
• The duck-rabbit.
• Quantum theory and wave-particle duality.
• The stereogram.
a. To the skeptic: the fact that you can’t see something doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
b. To the exclusivist: there may be more than one legitimate way to see something.
4. Problems for Pluralism
• Pluralism is more like a religion than Plantinga admits: it offers a particular and contentious view of the divine.
• Hick might reply that religion isn’t just doctrine.
• The exclusivist might answer that doctrine still matters.
5. Religious and Non-Religious Differences
• Deep differences in philosophy don’t usually persuade us to abandon our positions. Why should religions be different?
• Answer: it doesn’t have to be, but for most people, religious beliefs aren’t held on philosophical grounds.
• Usually (e.g., in the abortion debate), intellectual responsibility calls for thinking about other people’s views and considering their arguments.
• People usually don’t approach inter-religious difference this way.
• This may have a pragmatic justification
6. A Modest Proposal
• Believers are seldom in a position to be sure that they aren’t missing something that members of other faiths see.
• Getting religious truth right is likely to be difficult.
• One can hold religious beliefs in a non-grasping way.
• One can have religious beliefs without being too concerned about whether people who disagree are wrong.
WEB RESOURCES AND FURTHER READING
There is a great deal of statistical information about various religions at
http://adherents.com.
One of the largest sites on the internet for the discussion of religious and interfaith issues is http://beliefnet.org.
John Hick has his own website at http://www.johnhick.org.uk.
S. Mark Heim explores the view that there may not be just one Ultimate Good in his book, Salvations: Truth and Difference in Religion (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1995).
1. Intellectual Responses to Religious Diversity
1.1. Skepticism
• Religious diversity provides reasons for doubting that any religion is true or leads to salvation.
1.2. Exclusivism
• Salvific Exclusivism: only one religion is true and that is the only religion that leads to salvation (enlightenment, Nirvana, and so on).
• Doctrinal Exclusivism: only one religion is true. Doctrinal exclusivists come in two forms: those who don’t think those of other religions will attain salvation (salvific exclusivists) and those who do think those of other religions will attain salvation (inclusivists).
1.3. Inclusivism
• The view that while there are many different paths to salvation, only the teachings of one religion can be true.
1.4. Pluralism
• The view that many religions both lead to salvation and are true.
2. Do the Facts of Diversity Rule Out Exclusivism?
• Hick says that in most cases, a person’s religious preference is determined by accidents of birth.
• Hick does not infer that people aren’t entitled to their religious beliefs.
• This conclusion might seem to follow nonetheless.
2.1. Van Inwagen
• “Hitler youth” analogy intended to show that even though our views are “conditioned” by our upbringing, this isn’t a reason to doubt them.
• Response: Van Inwagen fails to distinguish between influences that are neutral or helpful and influences that undermine rationality.
2.2. Plantinga
• For any philosophical view we hold, there are times and/or places such that if we had been born then or there, we wouldn’t have held the view we do now.
• Response: Hick’s observation suggests that religious belief isn’t just influenced by upbringing but seems largely determined by it.
• Issue: is religious belief the result of a reliable process?
2.3. Reliable and Unreliable Belief-Forming Mechanisms
• Members of one religion could be directly inspired by God.
• Problem: even if this is true, members of that group have no basis for thinking that they are the privileged ones.
2.4. A Biblical Analogy
• Plantinga imagines someone who honestly thinks that what King David did to Uriah was not despicable.
• The existence of such people would not be a reason for us to doubt our own moral judgment.
• Reply: this is not a good analogy. A person like that would be clearly morally incompetent. Members of one religion usually have no reason to think that members of other religions are incompetent.
3. Pluralism
• Hick thinks people are entitled to trust their religious experience.
• He views pluralism not as a religion but as a religious hypothesis intended to make sense of religious diversity.
• The Real is beyond our grasp, but different religions can bring us into partial contact with it mediated through the symbols and concepts we have available.
3.1. Metaphors for Pluralism
• The duck-rabbit.
• Quantum theory and wave-particle duality.
• The stereogram.
a. To the skeptic: the fact that you can’t see something doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
b. To the exclusivist: there may be more than one legitimate way to see something.
4. Problems for Pluralism
• Pluralism is more like a religion than Plantinga admits: it offers a particular and contentious view of the divine.
• Hick might reply that religion isn’t just doctrine.
• The exclusivist might answer that doctrine still matters.
5. Religious and Non-Religious Differences
• Deep differences in philosophy don’t usually persuade us to abandon our positions. Why should religions be different?
• Answer: it doesn’t have to be, but for most people, religious beliefs aren’t held on philosophical grounds.
• Usually (e.g., in the abortion debate), intellectual responsibility calls for thinking about other people’s views and considering their arguments.
• People usually don’t approach inter-religious difference this way.
• This may have a pragmatic justification
6. A Modest Proposal
• Believers are seldom in a position to be sure that they aren’t missing something that members of other faiths see.
• Getting religious truth right is likely to be difficult.
• One can hold religious beliefs in a non-grasping way.
• One can have religious beliefs without being too concerned about whether people who disagree are wrong.
WEB RESOURCES AND FURTHER READING
There is a great deal of statistical information about various religions at
http://adherents.com.
One of the largest sites on the internet for the discussion of religious and interfaith issues is http://beliefnet.org.
John Hick has his own website at http://www.johnhick.org.uk.
S. Mark Heim explores the view that there may not be just one Ultimate Good in his book, Salvations: Truth and Difference in Religion (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1995).