Talk:Religious pluralism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Where to List Inter-religious Attitudes?

Ian Barbour, in his book Religion and Science, defines five different attitudes religious communities can hold toward other religions (citing as references Owen Thomas, ed, Attitudes Towards Other Religions, and Hick and Hebblethwaite, eds, Christianity and Other Religions). Here's how the Barbour material matches (it mostly does) what's currently in Wikipedia:

1. Absolutism (equals exclusivism): that my religion is the only true one, all others are false.
2. Approximations of Truth (equals inclusivism: others have truth, but mine's the fullest expression of it.
3. Identity of Essence: Barbour describes this as believing all religions are basically the same though expressed in different cultural forms. I don't think this is the same as syncretism, so I think the idea is under-represented in this article and elsewhere.
4. Cultural Relativism: (equals relativism): religions must be understood in their self-contained, culturally-relative, and incommensurable settings. Belief claims have to be discounted.
5. Pluralistic Dialogue (equals this article): one example Barbour gives is of Hick - that the variety of traditions exhibit multiple forms of revelation as well as differences in human perception. Salvation (transformation to reality-centeredness) occurs in many traditions.

Since this article is about pluralism (only one of the five attitudes), where should the overall comparison be located? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedlau (talk • contribs) 21:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There is a spectrum of things we mean when we say Religious Pluralism. On the one hand, it can be a strictly descriptive term: that is, it simply refers to the fact that there are numerous religions, without making a value judgment. On the other hand, it can refer to a variety of philosophical positions that deny the existence of a best or final religion, instead affirming the validity of most or all of them. (This includes most notably Barbour's groups 3 and 4. Barbour's fifth point is really more a feature of the third and fourth. I would place Hick in group 3, myself. The classification scheme in Paul Knitter's No Other Name might be more helpful than Barbour's.)

I think that this article actually confuses matters by failing to distinguish pluralism as a sociological fact, and pluralism as a philosophy/theology of religions. The fact that we can have an article with this title without mentioning Hick, Knitter, or Wilfred Cantwell Smith is a symptom of that confusion. CaliforniaKid (talk) 11:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

We Should Split This Article

I propose splitting this into two articles: Religious pluralism (sociology) and Religious pluralism (philosophy). See my comments immediately above. In sociology it is a descriptive term for the existence of multiple religions alongside each other. In philosophy (and theology) it describes the idea that no religion stands out above the others as superior or final, but that all have validity.

The current content of the article obviously doesn't really fit either of these definitions. Most of it, I think, just needs to be deleted. I hate to say that about someone's hard work, but it's the truth. Maybe some of it can be incorporated into Religious Toleration, Interfaith, and Theology of religions. (Theology of religions is currently defined on that page as referring to Christian theology, but presumably other religions have their own theologies of religions. So that might be a good place for much of this article to go.) CaliforniaKid (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Inter-religious pluralism

Christian views

"there should be an end to proselytizing but that equally there should be no syncretism of the kind typified by the Baha'i movement" is being reduced to "there should be an end to proselytizing but that equally there should be no syncretism" as this is the section for Christian views of Inter-religious pluralism, not the section for Christian views of the Baha'i Faith. Daniel De Mol (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ecumenism vs. Syncretism

The sentence about ecumenism in the opening para is not really correct. This should be called syncretism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwlegg (talk • contribs) 14:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This page has evolved to focus on views (i.e., doctrines)

As it has evolved, almost all sections of this page have focused on views/doctrines/teachings, rather than attempting to systematically chronicle and evaluate historical behaviors. However, one or two editors (an IP, and then Profitoftruth85) have recently inserted material about how Hinduism has been appropriated by various political movements, and used as a support of intolerance. I believe this is an unpromising direction for this page. No doubt, historical examples can be found of how every major faith tradition has been abused by political movements. Most or all faith traditions will also have been seized upon by mobs and used as a source of sloganeering to justify violence. But turning this page into a chronicle of such abuses would profoundly change its focus. I propose/argue:

1. The main focus of the page should be maintained as views/doctrines/teachings by religious leaders / religious texts (subject to WP:DUE)

2. Examples of historical behaviors should be understood as relevant to the page primarily in how they might illustrate what those views can and have meant in practice (again, subject to WP:DUE)

3. Perhaps there is warrant for a "discrepant behaviors" section that cites examples of when avowed adherents to various traditions (often mobs and politicians, but sometimes religious leaders) have acted contrary to the teachings of their own traditions about pluralism. If such a section were constructed, I suggest it should note that such discrepancies are found across most or all traditions, without giving undue attention to the behaviors/failures of any one tradition (WP:DUE). Nor should it seek explicitly or implicitly to compare between different traditions the degree of historical or current hypocrisy, unless, of course, there are reliable scholarly sources that put forward such comparisons (see WP:NOR, WP:RS, etc.).

Without regulative principles such as these, I am concerned that the page could degenerate into a forum for advocacy of various grievances (WP:SOAP). Fora for legitimate grievances are indeed needed (riots by Hinduism-espousing mobs have been horrific, and sadly abetted by politicians), but this page is not the place for a forum for such legitimate grievances (WP:FORUM).

Based on the fact that #1 above seems already to have been the emphasis of the page (and #2 seems mostly through perhaps not fully already followed), I intend to remove the recently re-inserted commentary by the IP and Profitoftruth85; please do not re-insert without discussion, hopefully that addresses the above concerns. Thanks. Health Researcher (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Would someone please remove this statement: "This was a common historical attitude prior to the Enlightenment, and has appeared as governmental policy into the present day under systems like Afghanistan's Taliban regime, which destroyed the ancient Buddhas of Bamyan."

One should not put his historical analysis regarding Christian world age of enlightment and present day Afghanistan. Too much personal analysis that has no direct relation with religious pluralism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.69.118.26 (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

New tree proposal

To make it more readable and neutral, and not becoming a complicated modern philosophical categorization, I propose following tree (this is just tree explaination, will work on the sentences if agreed):

A. There are different idea on how religion interact in a common regional scope. 1. Religious Domination 2. Religious Toleration 3. Religious Pluralism 4. Syncretism

1. Religious Domination: One religion or group of religion demand superior position. Example: Christendom, Chaliphate, etc.

2. Religious Toleration: Believe that the dominant religion or dominant group of religion has to tolerate the existance of other religion (most of the time are the minority, however in some case are not). Religious toleration might still practice mild form of discriminating law or practices against other religion.

3. Religious Pluralism: Believe ("-ism") that all religion can co exist in equal manner, despite of its number of believer or its ownership of power in the region. Religion might still believe in its exclusivity and conceptual superiority toward other religion. Religion might still do proselytism campaign against another, and religious conversion is not prohibited. However religion has to promote secularism, acknowledge rights of other religion to be free of discrimination and to communicate their faith.

4. Syncretism: Believe that all religion is practically the same or can have commonality. Syncretism will always lead to religious pluralism but religious pluralism is not always happen through syncretism.

B. Doctrine/Theology of Pluralism in Each Religion (New thread). This is listing all religion theology regarding pluralism.

C. Religious Pluralism Approach: There are several approach to religious pluralism: 1. Extention of religious toleration. 2. Inter faith dialogue. 3. Syncretism. (even though syncretism is different that religious pluralism and pluralism can be achieved without syncretism, however syncretism will result in religious pluralism). 4. Non religious (secular or atheist) government intervention.

Existing sources. 36.69.118.26 (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Definition

This is a wrong definition of religious pluralism: "As acceptance of the concept that two or more religions with mutually exclusive truth claims are equally valid. This may be considered a form of either toleration (a concept that arose as a result of the European wars of religion) or moral relativism." This has no valid reference. Please remove this definition.

Reference that said it is wrong: http://www.pluralism.org/pages/pluralism/what_is_pluralism said: Second, pluralism is not just tolerance, but the active seeking of understanding across lines of difference. http://www.pluralism.org/pages/pluralism/essays/from_diversity_to_pluralism said: Third, pluralism is not simply relativism, but makes room for real and different religious commitments. Some people are wary of the language of pluralism, insisting that it effectively waters down one’s own religious beliefs by acknowledging that others believe differently.

Cause and adverse impact: This definition demote religious pluralism into inclusivism. While it is true that inclusivism will create religious pluralism, but religious pluralism is NOT always made of inclusivism. Exclusivism faith can develop religious pluralism. Inclusivism as a definition of religious pluralism is an insult from fundamentalist that refuse religious pluralism, and reason to demonize religious pluralism.

36.69.118.26 (talk) 10:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Poor Writing

The initial paragraph is poorly-written and in some cases not even comprehensible. Note:

Quote: Adherents of religious pluralism reject religious relativism. They do not believe that religious truth is relative. Same thing, written two different ways. Adherents of religious pluralism recognize that different religions make different truth claims.Is there some group that declares that all religions make the same truth claims? Also, can someone be an "adherent" of pluralism? That religions may apparently contradict each other but on closer examination may be widely different claims. This is not a complete sentence, and I don't know what the person what was even trying to say. Therefore all religions can be true as far as their own truth-claims are concerned. This sounds like an advocation of the position, rather than an explanation of it. For example, most Christians believe that Jesus was God incarnate and that he died for the salvation of humanity while Buddhists believe that meditation is the path to enlightenment which liberates the soul from the cycle of rebirth so that it may enter into Nirvana. Christians do not claim that Christ leads to Nirvana nor are Buddhists claiming that Buddha is the son of God. Therefore neither Christianity or Buddhism can claim absolute truth but both can be true. This is a poor explanation of both religions, and sounds again like an advocate rather than a description.

In general, the article could be improved by referring to other articles. A lot of the article sounds like an attempt to define multiculturalism rather than pluralism. 70.23.48.228 11:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this article is poorly written. Saying things like "pluralism is an achievement" is biased. "Achievement" has positive conotations. 82.153.120.93 (talk) 12:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Advocacy vs. Definition

Reading the opening paragraph it seems to be too knowingly advocating for Religious pluralism rather than defining. For example, "Mere diversity without real encounter and relationship will yield increasing tensions in our societies". Will it?

Or, for example "Tolerance is too thin a foundation for a world of religious difference and proximity. It does nothing to remove our ignorance of one another, and leaves in place the stereotype, the half-truth, the fears that underlie old patterns of division and violence. In the world in which we live today, our ignorance of one another will be increasingly costly. ". This is a lot of opinion. If all these statements are correct, they certainly clarify why religious pluralism (as compared with tolerance) is so important, but it's unclear whether these statements are meant to be definitive of the attitudes that inform religious pluralism or are advocacy itself. Who believes these things? Religious pluralists? It's not NPOV and again, it's concerned with advocating rather than defining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.226.100.228 (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Few people are editing with religious biases

Few people, very recently have been editing the article with their religious biases. I do not know if these users are bots or just biased users trying to vandalise the articles. I would request other users to be aware of these biased edits. One of them has copied information from an existing Wikipedia article and used it here. Thankfully It has now been removed. I have added actual information and a required topic in the Hinduism section of the article. This has been done not only to stop this particular user/bot but to also spread information about this topic. Being a professor in religious studies I have tried my best to be completely unbiased in writing the addition to this article. Dr. SriVenkataRamana (talk) 07:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the Hinduism section.

Is there a spelling problem with this phrase: " the aatma, which is the sole"? Does "aatma" refer to atman," and does "sole" refer to soul?2600:8801:B011:300:C926:120A:D748:FF98 (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC) James

I'm not sure. Perhaps Dr. SriVenkataRamana, who added it, can explain? I'm not sure what point this sentence is trying to make, as it seems to be connecting two concepts in Hinduism to each other, rather than to other religions? -- Beland (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Judaism section please

thank you. 67.8.169.171 (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)