Religious Pluralism and the Problem of Absolute Truth | Philosophy Optional Notes for UPSC PDF Download

Religious Diversity in the Contemporary World

• The modern world is characterized by a multitude of diverse religions, encompassing a wide range of religious beliefs and practices.
• Globalization has heightened awareness of this religious diversity, leading to increased encounters between different faith traditions.

• Unfortunately, along with religious diversity, there is a widespread prevalence of conflicts related to religion.
• Such conflicts span from historical religious wars to individual acts of violence and even verbal disputes.
• Religious discord continues to be a challenging reality in the past and present.

• The current Dalai Lama advocates achieving interreligious harmony through mutual understanding of various religious traditions.
• This entails recognizing and appreciating the intrinsic value present in each religious tradition.

Understanding and Interpreting Religious Claims

• Religions inherently make claims about reality and humanity's place within it.
• These claims are central to their teachings and doctrines.

Nature of Religious Claims:

• Religions provide explanations for key aspects of human existence, including the human condition, its problems, and potential solutions.
• The nature of these claims varies significantly among different religions, which sometimes leads to contradictions and conflicts.

Soteriological Goals in Different Religions

• Soteriological Goal: Achieving "moksha," which involves liberation from the cycle of death and rebirth (samsara) and absorption into the divine reality, Brahman.
• Paths to Moksha: Three paths (margas) - the path of knowledge (jnanamarga), the path of devotion (bhaktimarga), and the path of action (karmamarga).

Buddhism:

• Soteriological Goal: Attaining "nirvana," signifying liberation from the cycle of samsara and the extinction of all desires, cravings, and suffering.
• Four Noble Truths: Understanding and practicing the four noble truths and the noble eightfold path are central to achieving nirvana.

Judaism:

• Soteriological Goal: Attaining blessedness with God, both in the present life and, possibly, the afterlife.
• Achieving Blessedness: Fulfilled by adhering to divine commandments (mitzvot) and engaging in practices such as Sabbath observance, synagogue attendance, festival celebrations, and strict obedience to Jewish Law.

Christianity:

• Soteriological Goal: Spiritual transformation and eternal presence with God in the kingdom of heaven.
• Accomplishing the Goal: Through God's grace, exemplified through Christ's atonement for sin, received by faith in Christ and the sacraments, and by following God's law.

Islam:

• Soteriological Goal: Attaining blessedness in paradise through submission to Allah's laws and His mercy.
• The Five Pillars: Achieved by adhering to the five pillars of faith in Allah and Muhammad, daily prayers, almsgiving, fasting, and the pilgrimage to Mecca.

These religious traditions hold distinct soteriological goals and paths to salvation. The differences in their teachings and practices often lead to theological disparities and varying ethical perspectives.

Religious Claims and Their Significance

• While religions make claims about fundamental aspects of existence, these claims can vary significantly among different faith traditions.

Significance of Contradictions:

• Contradictions in religious claims are a source of difficulty and can lead to interreligious conflicts and disputes.

Seeking Understanding and Harmony:

• Fostering interreligious harmony involves recognizing these differences while appreciating the value each tradition brings to the diverse tapestry of religious beliefs and practices.

Philosophical Approaches to Religious Diversity

Atheism:

• View: All religions are false, and there is no truth in their central claims.
• Central Assertion: None of the religions' teachings are accurate.

Agnosticism:

• View: It is impossible to determine which, if any, religion is most likely to be true.
• Central Assertion: Remaining agnostic is the best response to the claims of any religion.

Religious Relativism:

• View: Each religion can be considered true and effective for its followers, but there is no objective or tradition-transcending sense of religious truth.
• Central Assertion: Religious truth is relative and varies among different traditions.

Religious Pluralism:

• View: All world religions are correct, each offering different paths and partial perspectives on the one Ultimate Reality.
• Central Assertion: All religions have a piece of the truth and contribute to the understanding of Ultimate Reality.

Religious Inclusivism:

• View: Only one world religion is entirely correct, but other religions may contain partial truths or reveal aspects of the truth.
• Central Assertion: Salvation or enlightenment may be attained through other religions, although one religion is closest to the truth.

Religious Exclusivism:

• View: Only one world religion is correct, and all others are mistaken.
• Central Assertion: Salvation or liberation is exclusively found within this one true religion.

Religious Inclusivism and Exclusivism

Agreements:

• Both assert the existence of an objective reality to which religious truth claims correspond.
• They agree that one religion is closer to the truth concerning matters of God or Ultimate Reality and salvation or liberation than other religions.
• Acknowledge that different religions contain seemingly incompatible truth-claims.

While inclusivists and exclusivists share common ground, they differ in their views on the fundamental truths in other religions and whether salvation or liberation can be attained by adherents of those religions:

Exclusivism:

• Belief: Fundamental truth is exclusively within one religion, and salvation or liberation is only attainable within that one true religion.
• Argument: Real religious differences exist, leading to intractable disagreements among religious traditions.
• Prominent Position: Widely held among adherents of major world religions.

Inclusivism:

• Belief: One religion is privileged, but other religions also contain important truths. Seekers from various traditions can find salvation or liberation.
• Theistic Inclusivists: God is present in all religions but most clearly manifested in one. Other theistic religions are correct about the existence of a personal God.
• Non-theistic Inclusivists: Ultimate Reality is found by truth seekers from all religions, with the clearest understanding in the one privileged religion.

Objections to Inclusivism and Exclusivism

1. The "Myth of Neutrality":
   • Argument: Critics argue that there are no religiously neutral or objective criteria to determine the truth of one religion or worldview over others. Claiming one religion as true or exclusive may be inappropriate and morally offensive.
   • Response: Some exclusivists and inclusivists contend that religious beliefs should not be subjected to rational assessment, as they are matters of faith. This perspective is known as fideism, which emphasizes faith over reason.
2. The Justice Objection:
   • Argument: Exclusivists may be seen as unjust because they suggest that people, often unaware of other religions, are morally and epistemologically responsible for affirming religious truths they have never encountered. This objection is particularly targeted at monotheistic religions with a concept of final judgment in the afterlife.
   • Scenario: The objection often relates to the idea that billions of people throughout history and across the world are unaware of religions beyond their own. For instance, how could the God of Christianity condemn those who have never heard of Christianity to eternal perdition?
   • Unjust Condemnation: Critics argue that it seems unjust for people to be denied salvation or liberation solely due to their lack of knowledge, especially when there are good, sincere, and devoted individuals in various world religions.
   • Inclusivist Response: Inclusivists are less troubled by this issue since they believe that those who haven't encountered their religion in life may still attain salvation or liberation in the afterlife through other means.

These objections highlight concerns related to fairness, moral responsibility, and the implications of exclusivism on individuals who may have limited exposure to different religious beliefs. Inclusivists, while not immune to criticism, face fewer challenges in this regard due to their more inclusive stance.

Religious Pluralism

• According to Hick, individuals experience and understand Ultimate Reality, or "the Real," through different interpretive concepts, such as personal, theistic categories (e.g., Allah or Yahweh), impersonal, pantheistic perspectives (e.g., nirguna Brahman), or even completely non-personal understandings (e.g., nirvana).
• Hick uses the Hindu parable of the blind men and the elephant to illustrate how individuals are like the blind men, with their viewpoints limited by their culturally shaped concepts. In this parable, each blind man touches a different part of an elephant and interprets it differently, much like how individuals from various religious traditions perceive and describe Ultimate Reality differently.

Key Points of Religious Pluralism:

1. Religious Transformation: Hick emphasizes that religious doctrines and dogmas are important, but the fundamental aspect of religion lies in personal transformation that occurs within the religious context.
2. Ineffable Nature of the Ultimate Reality: The nature of the Ultimate Reality, according to Hick, is "ineffable," meaning it transcends human concepts. This concept aligns with mystical experiences where individuals encounter the divine in ways that cannot be precisely described.

Duck-Rabbit Analogy: Hick employs the duck-rabbit analogy, which is drawn from Ludwig Wittgenstein's work, to illustrate the pluralistic hypothesis. In this analogy, a culture that is familiar with ducks but not rabbits would see an ambiguous image as a duck. Similarly, a culture that knows rabbits but not ducks would interpret the same image as a rabbit. Both cultures would not even recognize the ambiguity.
Hick's application of this analogy suggests that the ineffable Real can be authentically experienced in different religions based on one's religious concepts. For instance, the same transcendent reality might be experienced as Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, or shunyata, depending on the individual's religious framework. This highlights the idea that diverse religious traditions offer valid paths to understanding and connecting with the Ultimate Reality, as perceived through their unique lenses.

Objections to Religious Pluralism

1. Logical Contradiction: One objection posits that religious pluralism is logically contradictory. It argues that by asserting that no religious position is superior or truer than another, proponents of pluralism, like John Hick, are making an exclusive claim about the nature of the Real and salvation/liberation. In essence, they argue that their own pluralistic view is superior to all others. This objection suggests that the very idea of religious pluralism is inherently self-contradictory.

2. Skepticism About the Real: Another objection against religious pluralism is that it leads to skepticism or agnosticism about the nature of the Real. It argues that if religious truth claims are contextually bound and only pertain to phenomena rather than noumena, then it becomes challenging to ascertain whether the Real is not merely a human psychological projection or wish fulfillment. This skepticism arises from the notion that attributes like goodness, love, power, or justice may not apply to the Real since it transcends human conceptual understanding. If the Real is beyond our comprehension, how can we be certain that it exists?

3. Aspectual Pluralism: Some proponents of religious pluralism, such as Hick, posit the existence of an objective Ultimate Reality that is knowable to humans. However, this objection points out that an alternative version of pluralism, known as aspectual pluralism, can avoid certain philosophical challenges of the pluralistic hypothesis. In aspectual pluralism, individuals can offer valid descriptions of the noumenal, allowing them to access the Real.

According to this perspective, the different religions reflect different aspects of the Real. Analogous to natural kinds, such as gold, which have both an unobservable essence and observable properties, the Real has an essence that manifests through various religious traditions. Each religion offers a unique perspective on the Real, shaped by its conceptual framework, religious structures, and practices. This approach avoids the epistemic opacity associated with the pluralistic hypothesis and allows for a more direct exploration of the Real.
These objections challenge the coherence and implications of religious pluralism, prompting further debate and discussion among philosophers and theologians.

Objections to Aspectual Pluralism and Religious Relativism

1. Syncretism: One objection to aspectual pluralism is that it may inadvertently lead to syncretism. Since each religion is seen as capturing only a partial aspect of the Real, it could be argued that creating a new syncretistic religion might provide a more comprehensive understanding of the Real by combining multiple aspects. This objection raises concerns about the potential dilution of the unique insights and teachings of individual religions in the pursuit of a more complete grasp of the Real.

2. Skepticism: A related objection to aspectual pluralism suggests that adherents of this view may face religious skepticism. The argument here is that, on the aspectual view, descriptions of the Real are filtered through the cultural and enculturated lens of various traditions. As a result, these descriptions may not provide adequate knowledge claims about the Real. This epistemic challenge raises doubts about the authenticity and reliability of religious experiences and their descriptions.

3. Religious Relativism: While religious relativism offers an alternative approach to dealing with conflicting truth claims among different faith traditions, it also faces its own objections. The criticism is that it posits that each religion's truth claims are valid only within the context of its own worldview. This relativism acknowledges that different religions are rooted in incompatible worldviews that may even contradict each other.

The objection highlights the potential problem of relativism's inability to make objective, universal claims about religious truths. By tying the validity of religious claims to their conformity with specific worldviews, it may undermine the ability to engage in meaningful interfaith dialogue and comparative religious studies.

In sum, these objections challenge aspectual pluralism and religious relativism on grounds of syncretism, skepticism, and the potential limitations of religious relativism in facilitating interfaith understanding. They underscore the complexities and nuances in addressing religious diversity and the conflicting truth claims of different faith traditions.

Objections to Religious Relativism and Critieria for Evaluating Religious Systems

1. Logical Incoherence: One objection to religious relativism is that it is logically incoherent. It argues that the claim that truth is individualistic, as implied by relativism, contradicts the position that truth is relativized to a cultural worldview rather than individual beliefs. This raises questions about the consistency and coherence of the relativistic position itself.

2. Inadequate Description of Religious Beliefs: Critics argue that religious relativism does not accurately represent the actual beliefs of adherents of different faith traditions. Many religious believers historically and traditionally assert that their religious claims are objectively true and not just relative to their own worldview. In practice, adherents of various religions have often held exclusivist positions, where they believe their faith to be objectively true for everyone, regardless of their worldview.

Criteria for Evaluating Religious Systems:

1. Logical Consistency: The fundamental propositions of a religious system should be logically consistent with each other, meaning they should not contradict or defeat one another. A logically inconsistent system is often seen as problematic because it undermines the system's internal coherence.
2. Coherence of the Overall System: The fundamental propositions of a religious system should be related in a way that offers a unified and coherent understanding of the world and humanity's place in it. Incoherent systems may appear disjointed or contradictory, making them less persuasive or compelling.
3. Consistency with Knowledge in Other Fields: Religious systems should not contradict well-established knowledge in other fields, such as science, history, psychology, and archaeology. If religious claims conflict with widely accepted empirical evidence, they may be subject to skepticism and doubt.
4. Reasonable Answers to Fundamental Questions: Religious systems should be able to provide reasonable and plausible answers to fundamental questions about existence, purpose, morality, and other philosophical concerns. Systems that fail to address these questions adequately may be seen as incomplete or unsatisfactory.
5. Existential Plausibility: A religious system should be livable based on its fundamental beliefs and practices. It should provide guidance and meaning to adherents without requiring them to borrow beliefs from other, contradictory religious systems. A system that cannot stand on its own may be considered less credible.

Religious Diversity and Religious Tolerance

The section discusses the relationship between religious diversity and religious tolerance. It mentions the perspective put forth by Philip Quinn, which argues that acknowledging religious diversity can lead to greater religious tolerance. However, it also presents objections to this idea, including the view that acknowledging diversity might not necessarily weaken individuals' beliefs in the superiority of their own faith and that it could even lead to more intolerance in some cases.

The Dalai Lama's perspective on religious tolerance is also mentioned, emphasizing the importance of understanding other faith traditions and appreciating their value to foster interfaith harmony. The section highlights the need to recognize and respect the beliefs and practices of others without necessarily affirming that all traditions are equally true. The goal is to advance in tolerance while promoting understanding and learning about religious others.