Responses to Religious Diversity

 Different people respond to religious diversity (the existence of other religions) in different ways:

  • The religious exclusivist holds that only their own religion is true.
  • The religious inclusivist holds that while other religions may be partly true, only the religion of the inclusivist is the most true.
  • The religious pluralist accepts the presence of all religions while remaining personally committed to their own religion. Basically: "live and let live".
  • The religious universalist holds that no matter what religion one follows, all will ultimately lead to salvation.
  • The religious syncretist personally embraces multiple religions, often combining elements from two or more, essentially creating their own personal spiritual path.

I am getting a metaphoric image in my mind of how these paths relate to and differ from each other: Imagine a mountain that all are climbing, trying to reach the top (the goal of religion, God or salvation, if you want).

·        The Exclusivist might be a single "straight and narrow" path from the bottom to the top and the only path that gets all the way to the top. The other paths (religions) would just be winding paths that are all dead ends, leading nowhere.

·        The Inclusivist path also leads to the top, but they would have other paths leading part way up the mountain and then merging into the inclusivist path to get to the top along the incusivist's path.

·        The pluralist might see all the paths lead all the way to the top, so it does not matter which path you are on, so long as you follow it all the way.

·        The Universalist might say that there is really just one wide path and each person/religion is moving along it on different sides or middle, and maybe at different rates of speed but, sooner or later, all will get to the top.

·        The syncretist might just be roaming through the trees, crossing from one path to another, with no clear direction. Enjoys visiting the different paths and different people along each path. For the syncretist, perhaps it is all about the journey rather than getting to the end? Maybe the syncretist loses sight of the end goal?

I am actually not happy with my image of the syncretist. Maybe one of you can paint a different image of this (or any of the other paths)?


Or, how about an image based on fruit:

Difference between pluralism and syncretism might be like the difference between a mixed fruit salad (where you can still discern the different kinds of fruits in the bowl) and a fruit smoothie (where the different fruits have been blended up and combined in such a way that you can no longer separate them from each other).

  The Pluralist:   Holds that we can all live peacefully, side by side, in the same society (bowl)



 The Syncretist:

    

To carry the analogy further...

·        An exclusivist would eat only one kind of fruit, claiming that is the best and that everyone ought to love and eat this fruit.

·        An inclusivist might eat many fruits but have a favorite that he likes better than all the others. Like the exclusivist, the inclusivist might hold that everyone else should also like this fruit best.

·        The universalist might hold that all fruits give you vitamin C so they are all good for you. It does not matter which ones you eat, just eat them to maintain good health.


Learn more about this topic at: http://bighominid.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-slog.html


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Religious Intolerance: Causes and Solutions, some observations

Why do people of different religions seem to hate each other so much? Perhaps because they are simply ignorant of how much they really have in common! I generally find that intolerance is a result of ignorance, and such ignorance and intolerance is often passed down to the next generation when people in positions of authority (parents, teachers, etc.) remain ignorant. Ignorance often leads to fear, fear can lead to hate, and hate can lead to violence. Knowledge is the key to avoid going down this path. Conflict between people of different religions may begin with simple ignorance. People who do not really know anything about other religions just assume the others are very different. They are not aware that many religions share the same basic ideas. Thus these people assume that the other religions must be wrong. Some people have the idea that "if my religion is right then you and yours must be wrong (and we can't let people go around thinking they know the truth when they do...
Read more

When I was an agnostic…

I was also anti-religion. In hindsight, I can now say it was because religion frustrated me. To be specific, it was the question of God’s existence that frustrated me. Or, more precisely, not being able to find an answer to the question is what frustrated me. I was in high school when it came to a head, when I gave up trying to find that elusive answer.   It followed me into college. Religion was not just something I “would not touch with a ten foot pole.” It was something I consciously and intentionally ran from, went out of my way to avoid. But I do feel that secretly – even hiding if from myself – I wanted to be religious; I wanted to believe. Now, when I come across an anti-religion atheist – you know, those outspoken “evangelical” atheist types who argue the “evils” of religion and the “childish silliness” of God belief – I believe that they do are as I was – a frustrated “want to” believer. All their anti-religion, anti-God talk is their way of reinforcing their...
Read more

Eastern Philosophy for Westerners

by Laura Ellen Shulman - Dec. '85   "Why do bad things happen to good people?" is a common question asked by Westerners. This situation is cause for much religious doubt in traditions based on a concept of an all good and just God. "If God is good why is there evil in the world which God created?" It is not justice when good people suffer. Job asks the same question and discovers that "his is not to reason why, his is but to do or die" without questioning what he cannot comprehend. The question is asked by all people in all times and places. Our solutions to the problem are diverse. When the philosophers of ancient India asked the question they came up with a much more psychologically satisfying answer. The Indian answer to the question is the basis of all later Indian religious development (including Jain and Buddhist as well as Hindu) while the Western "answer" continues to make religion very hard for many people to hold on to.   Indian Wor...
Read more