Public Journals

Critical Realism and Comparative Epistemology in Interreligious Engagement

Comparative Method in Interreligious Engagement

Craig L. Nessan, Wartburg Theological Seminary

Inter-Religious Dialogue: Heart, Hands, and Head (Leonard Swidler).

Critical Realism as Method:

  1. Noumena-Phenomena (Kant)
  2. Ontological claims about something real
  3. Varied and partial apprehension and language
  4. Something is at stake in truth claims
  5. Contrast with postmodern relativism

Chart Comparing the Human Problem in Religions

Religion                      Problem                       Solution                      Salvation

Christianity                 sin                               grace/forgiveness        eternal communion

                                    (broken relationship)  in Jesus Christ

Islam                           disobedience               submission to Allah    bliss of heaven

Judaism                       idolatry                       covenant faithfulness  shalom

Hinduism                    ignorance                    margas/paths               moksha

Buddhism                    desire/attachment       four noble truths         nirvana

Confucianism              disorder                       humaneness (jen)        heavenly order

Taoism                                    control                         in tune with flow/Tao            balance

Criteria for Evaluation (Mark Heim, Salvations, 175 and 221)

  1. Error
  2. Valid, though penultimate alternative
  3. Convergence, even identity
  4. Inclusivist: Toward the same end

In this outline, I am entirely employing Barbour as a resource for a practical application of critical realism to interreligious engagement. The important point is that this method allows for partial agreement about specific religious beliefs, not just agreement or rejection. It calls for a qualitative understanding of what the religious other is saying. This accords with my understanding of what Heim proposes in his approach in Salvations, going beyond the pluralistic paradigm of Hick and Knitter.

Furthermore, I propose an interreligious dialogue process focused on ethical commitments of the religions:

In future interfaith dialogues, representatives of the world religions should focus on the question: To what degree do the ethical commitments of your religion promote the following four commitments: peacemaking, social justice, ecojustice, and defending human dignity (cf. Hans Küng on a Global Ethic)? This process could follow the model of the World Council of Churches for consensus building by asking four questions:

  1. To what extent does your religion recognize these four ethical commitments as an authentic expression of its convictions?
  2. What consequences does your religion draw from these four ethical commitments for its relationships with other religious groups, particularly with those that recognize the same commitments as expressions of authentic faith?
  3. What guidance can your religion take from these four ethical commitments for its educational, ethical, and spiritual life and witness?
  4. What is the religious rationale, based on your core convictions, that makes necessary either agreement or disagreement with these four ethical commitments? 

Through this process, interfaith engagement could explore religious beliefs leading to common ethical affirmations, rather than focusing primarily on doctrines or beliefs that might surface significant differences. Interfaith dialogue through this process would be substantive about matters related to the survival of our world. This dialogue should not be reserved for “experts” in interfaith dialogue. Instead, the search for ethical common ground invites the participation of all religious leaders and the members of local faith communities.

Paul Knitter has proposed the theme of human suffering as the basis for conversation among people from different religions as they gather in small groups. Given our increasingly pluralistic religious environment, new initiatives in interfaith dialogue based on the search for shared ethical commitments can hasten mutual understanding of our neighbors while also fostering hope for the survival, even flourishing, of Earth and all its creatures.

Bibliography:

S. Mark Heim. Salvations: Truth and Difference in Religion. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1997.

Peniel Jesudason, Rufus Rajkumar, and Joseph Prabhakar Dayam, Editors. Many Yet One?Multiple Religious Belonging. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 2016.

Paul Knitter. One Earth, Many Religions: Multifaith Dialogue and Global Responsibility. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1995.

Hans Küng and Karl-Josef Kuschel, Editors. A Global Ethic: The Declaration of the Parliament of the World’s Religions, trans. John Bowden. New York: Continuum, 1993.

Carol Schersten LaHurd, Editor. Engaging Others, Knowing Ourselves: A Lutheran Calling in a Multi-Religious World. Minneapolis: Lutheran University Press, 2016.

Eboo Patel. Interfaith Leadership: A Primer. Boston: Beacon Press, 2016.

Leonard Swidler. “The Cosmic Dance of Dialogue: Dialogue of the Head, Hands, Heart, the Holy,” in Dialogue for Interfaith Understanding, Interfaith Studies in Theory and Practice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.

Miroslav Volf, Ghazi bin Muhammad, and Melissa Yarrington, Editors. A Common Word: Muslims and Christians on Loving God and Neighbor. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.