My problem exactly. Exactly!
So, pluralism. Big naughty word for most Christians. I was intrigued to find it discussed most sympathetically in Terence Penelhum's terrific little book Christian Ethics and Human Nature (which, incidentally, was possibly the best thing I got out of bible college). Penelhum defines the pluralist position in terms of various worldviews, including Christianity, containing elements of truth, or analogies that are useful/appropriate to some degree, though in fact ultimate Truth is something removed from or higher than any particular interpretation.
Penelhum indicates that his sympathies are with the pluralists. "Each of the faiths orients us in its own way towards the Real, so that salvation consists in a progressive change in human life from self-centredness to reality-centredness." He notes that someone with this point of view cannot really claim, for example, to know that God is personal (as per the Semitic traditions) rather than impersonal (as per many eastern traditions), but must concede that all these ideas are analogical rather than absolute. This is all familiar stuff to you all I know.
Then comes the part that warrants my title above:
"My problem [with this form of pluralism] is a psychological rather than a logical one. I am unclear how the pluralist hypothesis is supposed to coexist with actual religious practice. It is one thing to have a theory about what people who practise something are really doing, whether or not they know it. It is another to have a theory about one's own religious practice and hold that theory along with the practice itself. How whole-hearted can one be about one's religious worship and prayer if one believes that the prayer is addressed to a being who is merely a phenomenal stand-in for a reality that cannot correctly be described in personal terms, but merely appears personal from within the vantage-point of our culture? It seems to me that the culture-specific features of one's own religious tradition are bound to lose their devotional urgency if this sort of arrière pensée is present in the devotee's mind."
Penelhum indicates that his sympathies are with the pluralists. "Each of the faiths orients us in its own way towards the Real, so that salvation consists in a progressive change in human life from self-centredness to reality-centredness." He notes that someone with this point of view cannot really claim, for example, to know that God is personal (as per the Semitic traditions) rather than impersonal (as per many eastern traditions), but must concede that all these ideas are analogical rather than absolute. This is all familiar stuff to you all I know.
Then comes the part that warrants my title above:
"My problem [with this form of pluralism] is a psychological rather than a logical one. I am unclear how the pluralist hypothesis is supposed to coexist with actual religious practice. It is one thing to have a theory about what people who practise something are really doing, whether or not they know it. It is another to have a theory about one's own religious practice and hold that theory along with the practice itself. How whole-hearted can one be about one's religious worship and prayer if one believes that the prayer is addressed to a being who is merely a phenomenal stand-in for a reality that cannot correctly be described in personal terms, but merely appears personal from within the vantage-point of our culture? It seems to me that the culture-specific features of one's own religious tradition are bound to lose their devotional urgency if this sort of arrière pensée is present in the devotee's mind."
posted by Kat | 11/22/2007 09:06:00 pm
2 Comments:
Sounds vaguely like 'bad faith' to me. Read Sartre already.
It depends what you 'believe in.' I stopped going to church because *that* expression of Christianity stopped making any sense to me. (Does God care about us singing crappy sentimental songs? Think not.)
However, I do believe that Jesus was pretty onto it, and taught a good way to live, and I don't think that requires any sort of belief in the magical – Jesus' way makes sense by rational measures. So, I have no problem 'believing' that following the example of Jesus is a good way to live. I guess the question is whether you consider that a religious expression of faith or not...
Post a Comment
<< Home