The possibility of adhering to only one religion today, and to consider it the only true religion, may seem unattainable, even absurd. In fact, for hundreds of years man has fought with people of other religions because each religion thinks they hold the real truth. If allowing different religions throughout the world keeps man in constant turmoil, the need for a religious commonality, though seems absurd, should actually be the goal for humanity. By using the reason within our own human knowledge there must be a way to solve these divisions and find common ground. Indeed the only way to solve these divisions is to have an understanding for a clear general revelation. Today, the difficulty of religious pluralism may lead one in an overwhelming paradox; given that there is no universal scripture leading everyone to the same higher Truth, the theory of general revelation proving God’s existence, must be accepted as the starting point for religious belief for all humans.
The central idea behind religious pluralism is to have an understanding that one’s religion is not the only religion while keeping a peaceful relationship between these groups; this is the belief that more than one religion can teach the truth. John Hick, being the most influential philosopher with the association of religious pluralism, believes that all religions hold the same basic orientation and share the same hope for salvation. For Hick, the Ultimate Reality (God) is at the center of all religions and that although these religions are different, they are also complementary and that they each are at attempts to approach this Reality.
Another way to interpret religious pluralism is to understand the term by Rosemary Reuther called ‘ecclesial ethnicity’. This is to say that a person is generally apart of their religious community due to being born into that religion; therefore, “one’s religious commitment is usually a matter of ‘religious ethnicity’ rather than of deliberate comparative judgment and choice” (1). John Hick’s pluralistic view of religion leads us to believe that, regardless of ethnicity, all religions have something in common making it possible to compare them. If this be the case, then Hick would conclude that the concept of the Ultimate Reality is the commonality.
My claim is that religious pluralism only delays conflicts we have in the world, it does not solve them. It does not solve these disputes precisely because not all religions lead to the same Ultimate Reality. In order to rationally understand what this ultimate reality is we need to have a full understanding of what general revelation is. This is our starting point. This starting point of knowledge shows the possibility that humans can know some things about what is eternal. The term transcendent is particularly important in theology as it is generally used in reference to God, as God is beyond the material world. To understand the concept of God you must first understand that this means there must be something eternal, which I will later argue. So in referring to God, the transcendent, I mean the Eternal.
Comprehension of the correct view of the Eternal is the key aspect to having knowledge of general revelation. In Theism, for example, they believe in one God, the eternal who created all things. In here, we will come to learn that there must be something eternal, without beginning, and without end, that is the creator. Although, many religions do not believe in a single Eternal, if even an Eternal at all. How do we come to an understanding of the Eternal and if it even exists? With the proper use of reason we can reveal the existence and nature of the Eternal and that this knowledge can be known by all persons at all times. It is also important to be consistent when determining the recognition of the Eternal. It would be inconsistent to say that the material world is eternal because this concludes that the material world is self-maintaining, and thus produced its own parts, and therefore itself. This view, like many others, is inconsistent with the use of reason, henceforth, sets up the need for a clear general revelation of what we can know about the Eternal. By understanding general revelation we are able to find that there is a common knowledge about the Eternal that is accessible to all humans. It may be argued that many people don’t have the access to knowing the Eternal, and that without this access they are then not required to seek knowledge about the Eternal. This is a false analysis and demonstrates that general revelation has been rejected.
(1) Hick, John. Problems of Religious Pluralism. London: Macmillan, 1985.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThese issues are exactly what need to be openly discussed. People are often scared to talk about things like this, or get offended, resulting in the topic being completely overlooked. I have run into the argument that states ‘we can never get everyone to conform to one belief (such as the way of peace instead of war, or the belief that only one religion leads to the Truth)’. My response to that is that we just shouldn’t even try then right? Where would the world be today if people didn’t stand up for a change they believed in? Would women be able to vote? Would the black community be able to get the education they are able to now? Would we have a black president today? Is it worth it to sit back and say “Let’s keep solving problems with the same kind of thinking we used when we created them”? Albert Einstein didn’t think we should, and for right reason. I hope that as more posts are up it becomes clearer that this argument that only one path leads us to God is possible, but it certainly is up for debate.
ReplyDeleteAs far as being born into a religion and living your life out that way without a second thought, I completely agree with what you say. People are ignorant to the world we live in. As Socrates said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Again, how would it ever be possible to get everyone in the world to examine their life and their beliefs? It is foolish to think that one person can change the world, but who would I be if I didn’t try to help inform at least a few people? If not just the people around me. Imagine if everyone lent a helping hand to just one person. It’s like the movie Pay it Forward. However, everyone likes the idea, but it’s too much work, I’ll let the next guy take care of the good deeds. Same goes for us with gaining knowledge and wisdom, and then helping to spread that. We must believe in our religion with rational proofs, and we can.
When concerning the eternal concept, you speak as a skeptic. If there is no proof, then you cannot believe. What I will show, is that there is in fact proof. I will use reason to prove the existence of the unknown, of God. I will not use “fluffy stories” in the sense of religious experiences, to make you feel like God could exist. I will step aside from using the Bible as my source for God’s existence as that already assumes God exists. These are the things people need to examine, instead of just sitting back and letting someone else do the work for them, because often times when that is done, the interpretations get vastly distorted.
Great response! Thank you!
While I agree that "religious ethnicity" has a huge impact in many people's lives, I know that people can transcend its simplicity and truly search for truth.
ReplyDeleteReligious plurality is necessary for freedom and democracy to exist, but we must make a concerted effort to strive for a religions commonality. There can't be many paths to the same place, it is this sort of universalism which prevents religious commonality and keeps us in the perpetual cycle of plurality. Universalists have twisted the word "evangelical" and consequently villainized those who fit it's definition and strive for commonality.
The funny thing about people trying to grasp some concrete proof that God exists, is that it isn't really possible. Faith is essential in many aspects of our life. We have faith that wind exists, but we can't see it. We see its effects, much in the same way that we can see the works of God.
I would assert that it takes more faith to believe in the "scientific" theories as they address creation. The big bang theory and evolution for example, violate the second law of thermodynamics as it relates to entropy. Entropy is probably most easily described as a measure of disorder in a system. The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy increases over time.
If entropy exists and the second law of thermodynamics is accepted scientifically, then how can anyone assert that the universe is the result of a massive explosion whereby over billions and billions of years, single cell organisms developed into complex, multi-celled organisms? How can chaos create order? If I gave you all of the components to build a computer and some explosives, how long would it take for the explosion to make a functioning computer?
It is counter intuitive to believe that our universe as we know it came from a chaotic event. While I find these issues with commonly accepted "scientific" creation theories, there is still a greater issue. Where did the "primordial hot and dense initial condition" that created the universe come from?
To me, it takes a greater faith to believe in a theory which is so full of holes and blatant disregard of rules which should govern any scientific theory.
Sorry to rant, it is with no malice that I present my assertion,just strong observations and a passion for truth.
On the topic of faith being essential to believe in the existence of God, I would like to discuss the necessity of reason and faith working together.
ReplyDeleteMany people believe that religious belief cannot be tested for truth; this is where the concept of faith comes into play. If you are to say that a religious belief cannot be tested for truth, then that also means that everyone’s beliefs must be regarded as equal. You cannot say “I do not KNOW which religion is true, but I KNOW you’re wrong”. You cannot have faith that your religion is correct and KNOW that another is wrong. That statement is contradictory. Many people feel that everyone is entitled to a religious belief free from rational scrutiny and may choose whatever faith-views they want to. Is this because people think if everyone can believe what they want we can all get along? This all boils down to the belief of religious pluralism.
Can we say that religious ideas have a connection with logic? Some think faith is something someone believes in that is either lacking in or entirely contrary to reason. In Joseph R. Farinaccio’s book ‘Faith with Reason’ he explains:
“When it comes to questions of personal faith-beliefs we need to understand that while we may enjoy the political freedom to hold irrational views we do not have an intellectual right to believe whatever we want. An analogy would be the belief in Santa Claus. Many of us once thought Santa Claus was real. It is acceptable for children to believe in Santa Claus. But if we continued to believe in Santa Claus as teenagers our parents would have been understandably concerned. As we grow older we are expected to correspond our beliefs with rational thinking. Yet when it comes to certain religious or secular beliefs this rule is often abandoned” (7).
What Farinaccio is explaining here is that we cannot believe in God by having faith alone. If we are to do that, then it gives us no way in knowing which path is the correct path to follow. This leads us to believe that we can have reason within faith, and that by connecting the two together we can have a knowledge and understanding of God. If the fundamental nature of faith is knowledge and understanding, and man is to be saved through faith, then God, as the foundation of knowledge is to “provide humanity with the knowledge that will enable it to apprehend the truth and thus save itself” (8). Thus, as I have stated in my more recent posts, we are to have knowledge about God and the existence of God through a clear understanding of general revelation prior to redemptive revelation, such as the Bible.
Can you say, “I have FAITH that God exists and that God created the universe, and I KNOW that my religion is the right path to follow. I also KNOW that any other religion that of my own is false.”?
If you believe that faith is having blind belief without rational and logical proofs, then you absolutely cannot say the above statement.
(7) Farinaccio, Joseph. Faith with Reason: Why Christianity is True. New Jersey: BookSpecs Publishing, 2002.
(8) Esposito, John. The Oxford History of Islam. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
I guess I assumed that faith was coupled with reason. But you do bring about a good point that many people do have blind faith. It is the responsibility of every person to study their beliefs and the beliefs of others. Many people don't study other religions because they have blind faith. It is for this reason, I have studied many religions and continue to do so.
ReplyDelete