So who is good, and who is bad? Not surprisingly, many nonexclusivists and pluralists will find this basic line of reasoning persuasive. What follows are, therefore, only brief surveys of major trends, roughly sketched, of work in these two general areas.
While few challenge this as a valid goal, there is, though, continuing controversy over one common method by which educators attempt to engender this type of empathy in students. However, most current discussions of religious diversity presuppose a realist theory of truth—that there is a truth to the matter.
Some beliefs may serve a foundational role in the total belief system of an individual or community, in which case its epistemic status is somewhat different than other beliefs. Christianity, he argues, cannot recognize any other religion as providing the way to salvation.
Religious Diversity and Epistemic Obligation No philosopher denies that the awareness of realization of seeming religious diversity sometimes does in fact have an impact on an exclusivist—from causing minor uneasiness to significantly reducing her level of confidence in the truth of certain beliefs to precipitating belief abandonment.
There is no one true religion and, therefore, no one, and only one, path to eternal existence with God. Prophethood Ahmadiyya Ahmadis recognize many founders of world religions to be from God, who all brought teaching and guidance from God to all peoples.
Such parity does not necessarily reduce justification below a level sufficient for rational acceptability. And to attempt to do this in a public school setting will be seen by many as violating the prohibition against both restricting the free exercise of religion and promoting a given religion Basinger, Salvific pluralists, however, find such reasoning no more convincing than that offered by exclusivists.
I looked for God. For example, Alvin Plantinga acknowledges that if a proponent of a specific religious perspective has no reason to doubt that those with whom he disagrees really are on equal epistemic footing, then he is under a prima facie obligation to attempt to resolve the conflict.
Of course, this is not to say that non-Christian traditions do not also contain patriarchal elements, and it is likewise the task of the feminist pluralist to analyze these critically cf. Accordingly, while thinning her theology may be a rational choice that can minimize conflict for the exclusivist, no one is arguing that a certain amount of epistemic conflict will not remain.
While some form of justice is a central value in most religious traditions, the ways in which such a value is understood and practiced can vary considerably. So if the desire is simply to also encourage students to believe it wrong to treat those of other religions in intolerant or discriminatory ways and to believe it right to accept those of other religions as persons with equal inherent value, few will object.
While some many issues that philosophers discuss have practical implications for how we view ourselves and treat others, none is more relevant today than the question of religious diversity.
Furthermore, concepts, practices, and experiences arising from non-Western traditions may deserve special attention since they have traditionally been given less consideration in Western philosophical and theological discourse.
Even if it were the case that only one religious tradition correctly represented the Real, it would not be possible for humans to know this with any certainty. Nevertheless, the Real remains the final referent of the ontological claims made by the different religious traditions, even though such claims can at best only partially approximate the real truth of divine reality.
In his Speeches on Religion, Schleiermacher explains that religion is primarily a matter of intuition or feeling, with the entire universe as its object.
The contention here, it must be emphasized, is not that such resolution is always possible or that an exclusivist must necessarily give up her belief if no resolution is forthcoming.
Religious Diversity and Religious Tolerance Religious intolerance, defined as the practice of keeping others from acting in accordance with their religious beliefs, is not new.
Hick argues for salvific pluralism on what might best be called metaphysical or epistemological grounds. As noted earlier in our discussion of religious diversity and epistemic obligation section 3some philosophers agree with Alvin Plantinga that the proponent of a given religious perspective need not grant that his competitors are actually on equal epistemic footing and is thus justified in continuing to maintain that his perspective is superior without further reflection Plantinga Those who know God and recognize His Shabad "word" lose their ego and class consciousness.
From the One Light, the entire universe welled up. But not only does he highlight two increasingly popular pluralistic claims about religions— 1 that the beliefs of many religions are equally valid expressions of faith, expressions that adherents of these religions should be allowed or even encouraged to maintain and 2 that religious believers of all faiths should identify and focus on what these religions have in common—he highlights what such pluralists often note as the main benefits of widespread affirmation of these beliefs: And there is increasing awareness that the practical import of intra-theistic diversity is just as significant as is that of inter-theistic diversity.
Such beliefs, as Gellman defines them, are the epistemic givens in a religious belief system—the assumed, foundational truths upon which all else is built.
That is, Hick maintains that the belief claims of the various historical religions have traditionally been articulated in ways that imply a realist perspectivep.
He recognizes that challenges to this version of exclusivism are made on moral and epistemological grounds, and attempts to defend it against both by showing that, in one way or another, these challenges ultimately undermine themselves. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah.
Together with his later writings on pragmatism and pluralistic metaphysics, James serves as important touchstone for later theories of religious pluralism — especially those emerging from process philosophy see below. It is Allah Who knows, and ye who know not! Insofar as they share a critical stance toward male-dominated traditions of thinking about religion generally and diversity specifically, feminist approaches to religious diversity may serve as points of contact between analytic and continental discussions.
That is, an efficacious salvific process changes lives in the sense that it begins to turn people from thinking about, and acting only to enhance, their own personal well-being to viewing themselves as responsible participants in a much greater, more expansive reality.
Importantly for Derrida, it also entails a recognition that one stands in a similar relation to the other as one does to the divine. It is perhaps not surprising, then, that serious philosophical approaches to religious diversity tend not to adopt either of these positions but rather to treat diverse religious traditions as at least possibly having some positive relationship to an ultimate reality.
Hostilities were frozen for a three-month period during which the Arabs pledged not to wage war. Another important feminist contribution to religious pluralism is the critique of conceptions of particular religious traditions as possessing single, uniform identities.
This, however, means that an educator can justifiably attempt to convince students that all religions are equally valid expressions of faith only if she or he can justifiably attempt to convince conservative proponents of some of these religions that some of their core doctrinal beliefs need to be modified or rejected.As the name of the worldview according to which one's own religion is not held to be the sole and exclusive source of truth, and thus the acknowledgement that at least some truths and true values exist in other religions.
The earliest reference to Buddhist views on religious pluralism in a political sense is found in the Edicts of Emperor. Pluralism (political theory), belief that there should be diverse and competing centres of power in society Legal pluralism, the existence of differing legal systems in a population or area Pluralist democracy, a political system with more than one center of power.
Religious Diversity (Pluralism) First published Tue May 25, ; substantive revision Fri Sep 4, With respect to many, if not most issues, there exist significant differences of opinion among individuals who seem to be equally knowledgeable and sincere.
Political Pluralism -- A General Definition Political pluralism is a participatory type of government in which the politics of the country are defined by the needs and wants of many. Political pluralism is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Advocating Pluralism is an attempt to make sure that everyone has a seat at the table, and that all solutions to our nations struggles include provisions for the needs of all, and not just a select few.
Particular attention needs to be made to those who lack the financial resources to purchase political influence. Pluralism is multiplicity.
It has different meanings in the philosophy of religion, ethics, law, political science, etc. The common factor that holds true for all of these is to acknowledge multiplicity or plurality in contrast to unity or exclusi.Download