Pluralism

**donsaeid** · 10-05-2006, 11:30 AM

Pluralism in philosophy

Pluralism in philosophy is another name for the marketplace of ideas. Theoretically, many different schools of thought will influence each other, which may eventually lead to a more advanced and logical way of thinking.

Legal Pluralism

Basic thought:

* many things that lack the formal status law fulfill a similar function
* unwritten rules
* should these be considered as "law" as well?

Legal Pluralism allows for moral laws that are unwritten as formal laws. These laws include religious accommodations that are unjustified to receive a full pedigree and hence in the eyes of a positivist, law.

Sources of such pluralist laws include the Koran, Sunna, Ijma ... whereas most modern western nation-states take the basis of their legal system from the Christian superpowers of old (i.e. Britain, France, etc), which is also why moral laws found in the Bible have actually been made fully-fledged laws, with the initial grund-norm set far back in legal history, hence fulfilling the priority of both the positivists and the naturalists.

Broaldy any country that has more than one legal system could be considered to be following a legal pluralism. among many countries that had come under colonialism there exists plurality of law. some of which were guided by the western law paradigm. While people living in countries had their own way of organising the society there emerged a situation where their practices were in conflict with that of the modern western laws.

Religious pluralism (rel. comparative religion) is a loosely defined term concerning peaceful relations between different religions, and is also used in a number of related ways:

* As a synonym for religious relativism; that one's religion is not the sole and exclusive source of truth, and that some level of truth and value exists in at least some other religions.
* As a synonym for ecumenism. At a minimum, ecumenism is the promotion of unity, co-operation, or improved understanding between different denominations within the same religion, or sometimes between different religions. The latter is sometimes called Macro-ecumenism.
* As a synonym for religious tolerance, which is a condition of harmonious co-existence between adherents of different religions or religious denominations.

Pluralism as the belief that more than one religion can teach truths

In its strongest sense, religious pluralism holds that no single religion can claim absolute authority to teach absolute truth. The word of God is not literal religion. On the contrary, religion attempts to describe God's utterances. Given the finite and fallible nature of human beings, no religious text written by Man can absolutely describe God, God's will, or God's counsel, since it is God apart from Man who reveals the divine thoughts, intentions and volition perfectly.

Religious pluralists point out that nearly all religious texts are a combination of an assortment of human observations documented, for example, as historical narratives, poetry, lections, and morality plays. Accordingly, a distinction exists between what may be claimed as literal in a religious text and what may be metaphorical. The text, therefore, is open to interpretation. In this light, no religion is able to comprehensively capture and communicate all truth. Although all religions attempt to capture reality, their attempts occur within particular cultural and historical contexts that affect the writer's viewpoint.

Believers in religious pluralism, in this sense, hold that their own, self-made syncretistic (the combination of different forms of belief or practice)belief system is "true". In other words, their religion is the most complete and accurate interpretation of the divine, though they also accept that other religions teach many truths about the nature of God and man, and that it is possible to establish a significant amount of common ground across all belief systems.

Many religious pluralists claim that members of other faiths are searching for truth in different ways, and that human fallibility limits all religious knowledge. Despite these limitations, religious pluralism does not preclude individual thought or participation in rituals or spiritual experimentation with any chosen religion or community; rather, such worshippers practice according to personal traditions, preferences, and community norms, while recognizing a host of practices or interpretations by others.

Many Western pluralists hold that it is both permissible and beneficial for people of all beliefs to develop some form of religious pluralism. They believe that it is intellectually legitimate to do so because of a series of critical changes that have taken place since Biblical times. Our perception of Man's place in the natural world has changed as a result of changes in scientific thought. Philosophers challenge humanity to rethink its understanding of truth, and the very way that language is used to convey this understanding. Today advances in travel and communications make isolationism impossible. Advances in weaponry and warfare can enable religious intolerance to become extremely destructive to all societies involved, as this can now lead to mass-murder on scales previously unimaginable.

In the last century, liberal forms of some religions (Reconstructionist Judaism and Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalism, etc.) have modified some of their religious positions. As opposed to orthodox believers, religious liberals no longer claim that their religion is complete and of absolute accuracy, and in fact view many claims made within their scriptures as questionable or incorrect.

Some religions hold a retrospective form of religious pluralism. A religion can tolerate and sometimes endorse religions that were created before its own beginning, but will not accept any new religion which has arisen later. For example, Christianity accepts some aspects of Judaism, but generally rejects Islam. Islam accepts some aspects of Christianity, but does not tolerate the Bahá'í Faith. Most adherents of Bahá'í Faith accept Christianity, Islam and Judaism, but do not accept theological innovations that have been created in their own community.

Pluralism is not relativism

Adherents of religious pluralism, in the scholarly sense of the term, reject religious relativism. They do not believe that all religions are equally and unequivocally true. The reason is that they recognize that different religions make certain claims that logically contradict each other. For example, most Christians believe that Jesus was God incarnate and part of the Trinity, while both Muslims and Jews hold that it is impossible for any human to be God incarnate, and that no Trinity exists. Christians believe that Jesus was crucified and died on the cross, while Muslims believe that Jesus was not crucified and did not die on the cross. Therefore, claiming that both Christianity and Islam are both simply "true" gives rise to a logical contradiction.

However, the distinctions between the concepts of religious pluralism and religious relativism are much more blurry and ill-defined. In common usage the two terms are often interchangeable.

**donsaeid** · 10-05-2006, 11:32 AM

Pluralism as interfaith dialogue

Religious pluralism is sometimes used as a synonym for Interfaith dialogue. Interfaith dialogue refers to dialogue between members of different religions for the goal of reducing conflicts between their religions and to achieve agreed upon mutually desirable goals.

Inter-religious dialogue is difficult if the partners adopt a position of particularism, i.e. if they only care about the concerns of their own group, but is favoured by the opposite attitude of universalism, where care is taken for the concerns of others. Interfaith dialogue is easier if a religion's adherents have some form of inclusivism, the belief that people in other religions may also have a way to salvation, even though the fullness of salvation can be achieved only in one’s own religion. Conversely, believers with an exclusivist mindset will rather tend to proselytize followers of other religions, rather than seek an open-ended dialogue with them.

Conditions for the existence of religious pluralism

Freedom of religion encompasses all religions acting within the law in a particular region, whether or not an individual religion accepts that other religions are legitimate or that freedom of religious choice and religious plurality in general are good things. Exclusivist religions teach that theirs is the only way to salvation and to religious truth, and some of them would even argue that it is necessary to suppress the falsehoods taught by other religions. Some Protestant sects argue fiercely against Roman Catholicism, and fundamentalist Christians of all kinds teach that religious practices like those of paganism and witchcraft are pernicious. 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.

Many religious believers believe that religious pluralism should entail not competition but cooperation, and argue that societal and theological change is necessary to overcome religious differences between different religions, and denominational conflicts within the same religion. For most religious traditions, this attitude is essentially based on a non-literal view of one's religious traditions, hence allowing for respect to be engendered between different traditions on fundamental principles rather than more marginal issues. It is perhaps summarized as an attitude which rejects focus on immaterial differences, and instead gives respect to those beliefs held in common.

Giving one religion or denomination special rights that are denied to others can weaken religious pluralism. This situation obtains in certain European countries, where Roman Catholicism or regional forms of Protestantism have special status. For example see the entries on the Lateran Treaty and Church of England

Certain religions such as Bahá'í, Shinto and Taoism may be considered more characteristically inclusivist than others.

Relativism, the belief that all religions are equal in their value and that none of the religions gives access to absolute truth, is an extreme form of inclusivism. Likewise, syncretism, the attempt to take over creeds of practices from other religions or even to blend practices or creeds from different religions into one new faith is an extreme form of inter-religious dialogue, which just tries to seek common ground between what already exists in the different religions. Syncretism must not be confused with ecumenism, the attempt to bring closer and eventually reunite different denominations of one religion that have a common origin but were separated by a schism.

The existence of religious pluralism depends on the existence of freedom of religion. Freedom of religion exists when different religions of a particular region possess the same rights of worship and public expression. Freedom of religion is restrained in many Islamic countries, such as in Saudi Arabia, where the public practice of religions other than Islam is forbidden, and in the Palestinian Authority, where Arab Christians report they are frequent victims of religious persecution by Muslims.

Religious freedom did not exist at all in some communist countries such as Albania and the Stalinist Soviet Union, where the state prevented the public expression of religious belief and even persecuted some or all religions. This situation persists still today in North Korea.

History of religious pluralism

Some forms of religious pluralism have existed in the Indian Subcontinent since the establishment of the Hindu Vedas around 2500 BC, followed by the rise of Buddhism around 500 BC and subsequently during the course of several Muslim settlements (Delhi Sultanate 1276-1526 AD and the Mughal Empire 1526-1857 AD). In the 8th century, Zoroastrianism established in India as Zoroastrians fled from Persia to India in large numbers, where they were given refuge. The colonial phase ushered in by the British lasted until 1947 and furthered conversions to Christianity among low caste Hindus. In 1948 as many as 20,000 Jews Bene Jews and Cochin Jews lived in India, though most of them have since emigrated to Israel.

Religious pluralism in Europe

Antiquity

The polytheistic Roman empire saw the traditional Roman religion as one fundamentals of the Roman republic. They saw Roman virtues as an important link in their multiethnic empire. Being polytheistic, Romans did not mind if conquered nations went on worshipping their traditional gods, as long as they also presented token offerings to the Roman gods. In many cases this compromise was easily reached by identifying the traditional gods with similar Roman gods. Failure to offer up this token worship was seen as disloyal to Rome, and an act of political rebellion against the Emperor.

There was, though, a problem with people whose religion excluded the veneration of other gods - especially the Jews and the Christians. The Romans tended to view this as rebellion, and so it resulted in many conflicts arising from often unintended offenses, like putting a statue of an emperor in a prominent place in Jerusalem which resulted in a public revolt. Similarly difficult to understand for the Roman mindset was the attitude of Christians who rather chose torture or death instead of offering a little incense to the Roman emperor. From the Roman view, the refusal to venerate the Roman emperor was political treason.

The edict of Milan which decreed tolerance of Christianity was followed by a time of parallel existence of Christianity and paganism which was, though, far from an actual religious pluralism - the religion of the emperor was always at an advantage, and the Arian, trinitarian and pagan emperors in the fourth century saw it as perfectly legitimate to take measures against religious leaders who did not share their belief. By the fifth century, the western Roman Empire had crumbled, but the same patterns of behavior continued in the Gaul, Celtic, and Germanic kingdoms that replaced it.

Medieval times in Europe

After the breakdown of the Roman Empire in the West, in western Europe the population was a huge, diverse mix of latin peoples, Germanic peoples who had been absorbed into the Empire and its Legions over the course of hundreds of years, and newly arriving Germanic tribes that were migrating into western europe. In each of these vaguely defined categories were some Christians, some pagans, and great many who subscribed to some elements of both. In the German tradition, the chief of the tribe was also religious leader, so conversion of the leaders (even if for political reasons) was followed in many cases by Christianization of the tribe - with the chief of the tribe being now the de facto head of the Christian church. There were very frequent instances of parallel pagan and Christian religion, but tolerance of old or new religion was up to the personal preference of the local lord.

The tradition of the head of the tribe as head of the church was continued by the Kings which these chieftans eventually evolved into, with the king and/or emperor holding by virtue of office the right of investiture of bishops and also of deciding in religious matters - Charlemagne, e.g., took the pope to task because the pope did not use the filioque in the Nicene Creed. The religion of the ruler was the official religion of the people and, again, any tolerance of foreigners or remnants of pagans was up to the present ruler. The unity of religion was generally seen as a prerequisite for any worldly state - a divergent religion was in the consequence not regarded just as a religious problem but also an action against state and ruler punishable by criminal law.

In the high middle ages, the worldly powers clashed with the power of the pope on the matter of deciding about religious questions - while the details varied by country, the overall result was that the Roman Catholic Church was able to, for a short time, exercise control over the religious practices of countries, even against that Ruler's will.

**donsaeid** · 10-05-2006, 11:33 AM

The Protestant Reformation

The Protestant Reformation broke the overriding power of the Catholic Church over religious policy and belief in Europe and touched off the 30-years War which involved virtually every nation on the european continent. Much of the fighting occurred between German/Swiss nobility who had sided with Martin Luther and John Calvin's Protestant movement, and French and Spanish forces under the command of the then-french Papacy. When the dust settled after the religious wars, the general rule was "cuius regio, eius religio" - the countries and principalities had to adopt the religion of their respective ruler, while divergent people were left with the choice between submission or emigration.

Restrictions on smaller Protestant sects who disagreed with the national churches in these countries prompted such groups as the Pilgrim Fathers to seek freedom in North America, although many historians have noted that when these groups became the majority they sometimes sought to deny this freedom to Jews and Roman Catholics.

Enlightenment

In the second half of the seventeenth century, partially out of being tired with the religious wars, partially influenced by early enlightenment, several countries adopted some sort of tolerance for other denominations, e.g. the Peace of Westphalia 1653 or the Edict of Tolerance in England in 1689.

Protestant and freethinking philosophers like John Locke and Thomas Paine, who argued for tolerance and moderation in religion, were strongly influential on the Founding Fathers, and the modern religious freedom and equality underlying religious pluralism in the United States are guaranteed by First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states:

"Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

In the United States religious pluralism can be said to be overseen by the secular state, which guarantees equality under law between different religions, whether these religion have a handful of adherents or many millions. The state also guarantees the freedom of those who choose not to belong to any religion.

While the United States had to begin with no dominant religion or denomination, this was very different in European countries who have, without exception, a history with one dominant Christian denomination whose influence on their culture is felt until present times. Enlightenment in Europe did not so much promote the rights of minority religions but the rights of individuals to express beliefs diverging from the mainstream religion of the country, while belonging to that religion or being outside of it. While European countries generally went the way of gradually increasing the rights for minority denominations and religions, until today the stress is more on the freedom of belief of the individual and the rights of religious organizations are often limited by the state to prevent them intruding upon the individual religious freedom.

Classical Greek and Roman pagan religious views

The ancient Greeks were polytheists; pluralism in that historical era meant accepting the existence of and validity of other faiths, and the gods of other faiths. Greeks and Romans easily accomplished this task by subsuming the entire set of gods from other faiths into their own religion; this was done on rare occasion by adding a new god to their own pantheon; on most occasions they identified another religion's gods with their own.

Inter-religious pluralism (between different religions)

Jewish views

There is a separate entry on Jewish views of religious pluralism, which discusses both classical and modern views of Judaism's relationship to other religions, and the permissibility and purpose of inter-faith theological dialogue.
[edit]

Christian views

Classical Christian views

Christianity teaches that mankind's nature is corrupted and damaged, and that the result of such damage, known as Sin, is damnation. To avoid such a fate, Christianity teaches that Jesus was God made flesh in a literal manner, and that he suffered, died, and rose again so that the divine punishment intended for those who did not have a relationship with God would instead fall upon Jesus himself, and that by accepting various beliefs about Jesus and God and repenting, a person could then have a meaningful relationship with God and avoid damnation, and be given gift of eternal life in Heaven, as well as have their spiritual natures repaired and renewed so that they were no longer inherently corrupted by sin.

Christians hold that the consequence of self-separation from the triune God, (caused by Sin), who they view as the ultimate source of all life, is eternal death. Some view Christianity as a form of egalitarianism, because it teaches that all humanity potentially has equal access to salvation: a person simply has to renounce their sins and sincerely believe in the death and resurrection of Christ.

Christians have traditionally argued that religious pluralism is an invalid or self-contradictory concept. Maximal forms of religious pluralism claim that all religions are equally true, or that one religion can be true for some and another for others. This Christians hold to be logically impossible. (Most Jews and Muslims similarly reject this maximal form of pluralism.) Christianity insists it is the fullest and most complete revelation of God to Man. If Christianity is true, then other religions cannot be equally true, although they may contain lesser revelations of God that are true. So the pluralist must either distort Christianity to make it pluralistic, or reject it and acknowledge that one cannot be a complete pluralist.

One image of the Church that was often used by the Church fathers was that of a hospital. In this analogy the doctor does not always care for a patient in the way the patient would like, but in the way best suited to bring about healing to the patient. (Entry into the hospital should of course be voluntary.) Doing what pluralists ask would be somewhat akin to accommodating the false "pillow prophets" of the Old Testament who prophesied to the king what he wanted to hear, predictions of victory, rather than God's words of certain defeat that could only be avoided through thorough repentance. Thus, Christianity must preach salvation through the Church to all outside the Church, in order to help people realize that through conversion to Christianity one will achieve salvation.

To these Christians, it appears to be a contradiction for non-Christians to acknowledge the validity of Christian prayers or sacraments, but continue to deny the beliefs which underlie those prayers and sacraments. The central sacrament, the Eucharist, for example, is believed to be the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ (in some branches of Christianity; this is a belief held by those who subscribe to transubstantiation); belief in its efficacy is based on the belief that it really and truly is. If a person were to deny that the Eucharist is Christ's body and blood, that would amount to denying that it unites us to God, imparts grace, or administers any other benefit, save possibly through a sort of psychological placebo effect.

Calvinist Christian views

Calvinist Christianity, unlike other Christian traditions which generally hold that conversion is a voluntary act of the will, holds to the doctrine of Total Depravity, according to which no sinner can convert to Christianity of their own initiative. Rather, God must take the first step by sovereignly opening that person's heart and turning their mind toward Himself. They also believe in Irresistible grace, which holds that once this is done the sinner in question cannot help becoming a believer.

Many Calvinists also hold to the Augustinian idea of "Two cities", of God and of Man; the realms of "special" and "common" grace. The world is lost, but not abandoned by God. Although Calvinists believe God and the truth of God cannot be plural, they also believe the civil ordinances of man, which restrain man from evil and encourage toward good, are ordinances of God (regardless of the religion, or lack of it, of those who wield that power). Christians are obligated to be at peace with all men, as far as it is up to them, and to submit to governments for the Lord's sake, and to pray for enemies.

Calvinism is not pacifistic and Calvinists have been involved in religious wars, notably the French Wars of Religion and the English Civil War. Some of the first parts of modern Europe to practice religious tolerance had Calvinistic populations, notably the Netherlands, although other Calvinists practiced religious persecution as the other factions did.

**donsaeid** · 10-05-2006, 11:33 AM

Modern (post-Enlightenment era) Christian views

In recent years, some Christian groups have become more open to religious pluralism; this has led to many cases of reconciliation between Christians and people of other faiths. The liberalization of the majority of Seminaries and theological institutions, particularly in regards to the rejection of the notion that the Bible is a divinely authored document, has facilitated a much more human-centered and secular movement within mainstream Christian denominations, particularly in the United States. Most mainstream churches no longer hold to exclusivist views on salvation. In some cases, these changes in denominational doctrine are so pronounced that the entire basis for the organization's original founding no longer exists. Many denomination Christian Churches are essentially Unitarian Universalist churches, with a different name.

The most prominent event in the way of dialogue between religions has arguably been the 1986 Peace Prayer in Assisi to which Pope John Paul II, against considerable resistance also from within the Catholic church, invited representatives of all world religions. This initiative was taken up by the Community of Sant'Egidio, who, with the support of John Paul II, organized yearly peace meetings of religious representatives. These meetings, consisting of round tables on different issues and of a common time of prayer has done much to further understanding and friendship between religious leaders and to further concrete peace initiatives. In order to avoid the reproaches of syncretism that were levelled at the 1986 Assisi meeting where the representatives of all religions held one common prayer, the follow-up meetings saw the representatives of the different religions pray in different places according to their respective traditions.

In recent years there has been much to note in the way of reconciliation between some Christian groups and the Jewish people. Many modern day Christians, including many Catholics and some liberal Protestants, have developed a view of the New Testament as an extended covenant; They believe that Jews are still in a valid relationship with God, and that Jews can avoid damnation and earn a heavenly reward. For these Christians, the New Testament extended God's original covenant to cover non-Jews. The article Christian-Jewish reconciliation deals with this issue in detail.

Many smaller Christian groups in the US and Canada have come into being over the last 40 years, such as "Christians for Israel". Their website says that they exist in order to "expand Christian-Jewish dialogue in the broadest sense in order to improve the relationship between Christians and Jews, but also between Church and Synagogue, emphasizing Christian repentance, the purging of anti-Jewish attitudes and the false 'Replacement' theology rampant throughout Christian teachings."

A number of large Christian groups, including the Catholic Church and several large Protestant churches, have publicly declared that they will no longer proselytize Jews.

Many Christians, including most conservative Protestants, reject the idea of the New Testament as an extended covenant, and retain the classical Christian view as described above.

Roman Catholic views regarding Confucianism

The question of whether Confucianism, and Chinese folk religion, consists of worshipping a God or veneration of a saint was important to the Roman Catholic church during the Chinese Rites controversy of the early 18th century. This dispute was between the Dominicans who argued that Confucianism and Chinese folk religion was worship, and therefore incompatible with Catholicism, and the Jesuit who argued the reverse. The pope ultimately ruled in favor of the Dominicans, a decision which greatly reduced the role of Catholic missionaries in China.

Eastern Orthodox views

The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that it is the only path that one should choose for salvation. On the other hand, the Church also teaches that no human being, by statement nor by omission of a statement, may place a limit upon God's will, who may save whomsoever it pleases Him to save.

Some compare the Church to Noah's Ark. It is not impossible for someone to "survive the flood" of sin by clinging to whatever driftwood is around or by trying to cobble together a raft from bits and pieces of whatever floats, but the Ark is a far safer choice to make. Likewise, the heterodox and even non-Christians might be saved simply through God's own choice, made for His own reasons, but it is far safer for any individual person to turn to the Orthodox Church. Thus, it behooves Orthodox Christians to exhort others to take this safer path. Likewise, the Orthodox remember that Christ mentions one, and only one thing that unfailingly leads to perdition--blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. No other path is explicitly and universally excluded by Christ's words.

Orthodox Christianity has a long history of religious tolerance that has evolved towards some degree of religious pluralism. Advocation of justice and peace towards members of other faiths is seen in a 16th century encyclical written by Ecumenical Patriarch Metrophanes III (1520-1580).

This document was written to the Greek Orthodox in Crete (156 following reports that Jews were being mistreated. The Patriarch states, "Injustice ... regardless to whomever acted upon or performed against, is still injustice. The unjust person is never relieved of the responsibility of these acts under the pretext that the injustice is done against a heterodox and not to a believer. As our Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospels said do not oppress or accuse anyone falsely; do not make any distinction or give room to the believers to injure those of another belief."
Rev. Protopresbyter George C. Papademetriou, An Orthodox Christian View of Non-Christian Religions writes:

The Fifth Academic Meeting between Judaism And Orthodox Christianity was held in Thessaloniki, Greece, on May 27-29, 2003. In his opening remarks, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew denounced religious fanaticism and rejected attempts by any faith to denigrate others. The following principles were adopted at the meeting:

* Judaism and Christianity while hearkening to common sources inviolably maintain their internal individuality and particularity.
* The purpose of our dialogue is to remove prejudice and to promote a spirit of mutual understanding and constructive cooperation in order to confront common problems.
* Specific proposals will be developed to educate the faithful of both religions to promote healthy relationships based on mutual respect and understanding to confront bigotry and fanaticism.
* Being conscious of the crises of ethical and spiritual values in the contemporary world, we will endeavor to identify historical models of peaceful coexistence, which can be applied to minority Jewish and Orthodox communities in the Diaspora.
* We will draw from our spiritual sources to develop programs to promote and enhance our common values such as peace, social justice and human rights, specifically addressing the concerns of religious minorities.

Writing for the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Rev. Protopresbyter George C. Papademetriou has written a summary of classical Christian and Greek Orthodox Christian views on the subject of the salvation of non-Christians. In his paper An Orthodox Christian View of Non-Christian Religions writes:

In our times. Professor John N. Karmiris, University of Athens, based on his studies of the Church Fathers, concludes that the salvation of non-Christians, non-Orthodox and heretics depends on the all-good, allwise and all-powerful God, who acts in the Church but also through other "ways." God's saving grace is also channelled outside the Church. It cannot be assumed that salvation is denied non-Christians living in true piety and according to natural law by the God who "is love" (1 John 4:, In his justice and mercy God will judge them worthy even though they are outside the true Church. This position is shared by many Orthodox who agree that God's salvation extends to all who live according to His "image" and "participate in the Logos." The Holy Spirit acted through the prophets of the Old Testament and in the nations. Salvation is also open outside the Church.

As is common in many other faiths, the question of salvation for those outside of Orthodox Christianity is understandably secondary to what the Church expects of its own adherents. As St. Theophan the Recluse put the matter: "You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever."

**donsaeid** · 10-05-2006, 11:34 AM

Latter-day Saint Views

The churches of the Latter Day Saint movement, because of the nature of its beliefs about the apostasy of other religions, feel they, individually, are the only way to be saved. This belief is the direct cause of the missionary movements of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the practice of Baptism for the Dead in that and other Latter Day Saint denominations. That church, however, does participate in the World Council of Churches,and works closely with other religious and faith based groups, specifically in post-disaster areas. The second largest Latter Day Saint denomination, the Community of Christ is slightly more ecunemical, follows doctrines closer to mainstream Christianity, and does not practice Baptism for the Dead.[citation needed]

Muslim views

Islam, like most other monotheistic faiths, views itself as the only true path for following the will of God and going to Paradise (also, Heaven). Nonetheless, Muslims consider the monotheistic faiths that precededed it, Judaism and Christianity, as valid for their followers. (Qur'an, Sura 5, verse 44 and verses 46-7, verse 69) The Qur'an also accepts diversity of religions as created by God:

for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way, and if Allah had pleased He would have made you (all) a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed. (Sura 5, verse 48 - source: [1])

Nevertheless, Muslims hold that for someone to worship other any other gods or deities (shirk (polytheism))is a sin that will lead to eternal separation from God. This also applies to Christians believing in the Trinity of God (Sura 5, verses 72-74)

This view does not always translate to religious intolerance. Islam in theory has guaranteed freedom of belief and freedom of worship from the time of Muhammad himself, at least for Christians and Jews who accept Muslim rule. Non-Muslim minorities living under Muslim rule were guaranteed certain freedoms and protections, under the dhimmi system. Although that system was initially for people of the book (i.e. Jews and Christians), some Muslims extended to include Mandeans, Zoroasterians, and Hindus. Some Muslims, however, disagree, and hold that adherents of these faiths cannot be dhimmis.

Despite the common allegation that Islam spread by the sword, in reality, forced conversions of adherents of other religions is not sanctioned by Islam, and was not common throughout Islamic history. Muslim rule spread through conquest, however, and this indirectly coerced many to convert to Islam. In other words, war was waged to put lands under Muslim rule, but the subjects were theoreticaly free to continue practice whatever religion they chose. However, most of the time they were subject to taxation (as were Muslims themselves through zakat), economic impediments, restrictions on political participation and/or social advancement based on their non-Muslim status. At one time this was not a unique activity of Muslim countries, as similar legal restrictions and penalties were imposed on minority Christian groups within European Christian countries.

Religious persecution is also not sanctioned by Islam, although a few occurrences are known in history, but are mostly due to cruel rulers, or general economic hardships in the societies they are in.

To that effect, most pre-Islamic religious minorities continue to exist in their native countries, a fact which is in glaring contrast to the extinction of Muslim minorities in Europe at the time of the Renaissance.

Over the centuries, several known religious debates, and polemical works did exist in various Muslim countries between various Muslim sects, as well as between Muslims and non-Muslims. Many of these works survive today, and make for some very interesting reading in the apologetics genre. Only when such debates spilled over to the unlearned masses, and thus causing scandals, and civil strife did rulers intervene to restore order and pacify the public outcry on the perceived attack on their beliefs.

As for sects within Islam, history shows a variable pattern. Various sects became intolerant when gaining favour with the rulers, and often work to oppress or eliminate rival sects (e.g. Mu'tazili persecution of Salafis, Safavid imposing Shia on the population of Iran, ...etc.). Sectarian strife between Shia and Sunni inhabitants of Baghdad is well known through history. In contrast, several sects coexist in other parts of the Muslim world with little or no friction.

Bahá'í views

Bahá'u'lláh, founder of Bahá'í Faith, urged the elimination of religious intolerance. He taught that God is one, and has manifested himself to us through several historic Messengers. Bahá'u'lláh taught, therefore, that Bahá'ís must associate with peoples of all religions, showing the love of God in relations with them, whether this is reciprocated or not.

Bahá'í's refer to the concept of Progressive Revelation, which means that God's will is revealed to mankind progressively as mankind matures and is better able to comprehend the purpose of God in creating humanity. In this view, God's word is revealed through a series of messengers: Abraham, Krishna, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, and Bahá'u'lláh (the founder of the Bahá'í Faith) among them. In the Book of Certitude, Bahá'u'lláh explains that messengers of God have a two-fold station, one of divinity and one of an individual. According to Bahá'í writings, there will not be another messenger for many hundreds of years. There is also a respect for the religious traditions of the native peoples of the planet who may have little other than oral traditions as a record of their religious figures.

With regard to the pluralism vs relativism argument above the Bahá'í Faith holds that such contradictions or differences among religions are due to one or another of several possible explanations but so maintaining that the divine basis of the religions are all true while allowing for differences to arise on non-essential (though sometimes still important) doctrines. The first that some laws are eternal and unchangeable and consistent across religions while other do vary as according to the expressed choice of the Founder of the Religion decides oneway or another perhaps more in tune with the needs of the era of the new decision(need ref). The second possible reason for the differences among the religions is that the problem isn't in the statements in the scriptures but to the exclusivity expressed by limited human understanding(need ref). Essentially this is a test against the hubris of thinking that just because something is stated clearly that all the meaning is equally clear and no further learning is needed. For example the contradition of whether Jesus was crucified or not (in Christian vs Islamic points of view) it comes down to what was crucified, or more properly, what Jesus really is. If you say he is a body, then both scriptures can be interprited in support. If you say he is a soul, then clearly a soul cannot be kept nailed to a cross, indeed a nail cannot touch a soul. So those who see only the body nailed do not grasp the reality of the soul - something both scriptures supportSee section IV,C. The redeming function of the sacrifice of Jesus is not impuned according to the Qur'an. However it is important to note that while this contradition can be explained, not all contraditions have been explained - it's an exercise for the reader afterall. The third way religions can differ is in matters that are purely made up by human authority which is to say that the respective scriptures are not in conflict but the religious practices are(need ref).

Hindu views

The Hindu religion is naturally pluralistic. A well-known Rig Vedic hymn stemming from Hinduism claims that "Truth is One, though the sages know it variously." (Ékam sat vipra bahudā vadanti) As such the Hindu religion has no theological difficulties in accepting degrees of truth in other religions. Just as Hindus worshiping Ganesh is seen as valid those worshiping Vishnu (who accepts all prayers), so someone worshiping Jesus or Allah are accepted. Indeed many foreign deities become assimilated into Hinduism, and some Hindus may sometimes offer prayers to Jesus along with their traditional forms of God. For this reason, Hinduism usually has good relations with other religious groups accepting pluralism. In particular, Hinduism and Buddhism coexist peacefully in many parts of the world.

**donsaeid** · 10-05-2006, 11:37 AM

Sikh views

It is claimed that the Sikh Gurus (religious leaders) have propagated the message of "many paths" leading to the one God and ultimate salvation for all souls who treading on the path of righteousness. They have supported the view that proponents of all faiths can, by doing good and virtuous deeds and by remembering the Lord can certainly achieve salvation. The students of the Sikh faith are told to accept all leading faiths as possible vehicle for attaining spiritual enlightenment provided the faithful study, ponder and practice the teachings of their prophets and leaders. The holy book of the Sikhs called the Sri Guru Granth Sahib says: "Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false." SGGS page 1350. [1]

The Guru Granth Sahib also says that Bhagat Namdev and Bhagat Kabir who were both believed to be Hindus, both attained salvation though they were born before Sikhism took root and were clearly not Sikhs. This highlight and reinforces the Guru's saying that "peoples of other faiths" can join with God as true and also at the same time signify that Sikhism is not the exclusive path for liberation. Again, the Guru Granth Sahib provides this verse: "Naam Dayv the printer, and Kabeer the weaver, obtained salvation through the Perfect Guru. Those who know God and recognize His Shabad ("word") lose their ego and class consciousness." SGGS page 67 [2] Most of the 15 Sikh Bhagats who are mentioned in their holy book were non-Sikhs and belonged to Hindu and Muslim faiths, which were the most prevalent religions of this region.

Sikhs have always being eager exponents of interfaith dialogue and will not only accept the right of other to practise their faith but have in the past fought and laid down their lives to protect this right for others. See the sacrifice of the ninth Sikh Guru, Guru Tegh Bahadar who on the final desperate and heart-rendering pleas of the Kashmiri Pandit, agreed to put up a fight for their right to practise their religion. In this regard, Guru Gobind Singh, the tenth Sikh Guru writes in the Dasam Granth:
For these reasons, the Sikhs have promoted their faith as an Interfaith religion and have taken a lead in uniting all the different religions of the world so that together peace and prosperity can be found for all the peoples of this Globe and the suffering of the poor of the Third world can be properly addressed together. The message of unity of the faiths is summed up in this quotation from the Guru Granth Sahib: "One who recognizes that all spiritual paths lead to the One shall be emancipated. One who speaks lies shall fall into hell and burn. In all the world, the most blessed and sanctified are those who remain absorbed in Truth." (SGGS page 142) Srigranth.org, SGGS page 142

Jain views

One of the fundamental features of Jainism is Anekantavada, or the doctorine of non-onesidedness. Jain philosophy accepts the relativistic view of looking at things from all points of view. Anekantavada requires that one should not reject a view or a belief simply because it uses a different perspective. One should consider the fact there may be truth in other’s views too, and no one should insist that their philosophy, sect or religion, or their perspective is the only true one.

Buddhist views

The wisdom tradition of Buddhism necessarily entails a plural position since it is a "middle way" tradition which ideally eschews extremism of any sort, but fundamentally does not adhere to ideas of religious syncretism. The earliest reference to Buddhist views on religious pluralism in a political sense is found in the Edicts of Emperor Ashoka:

"All religions should reside everywhere, for all of them desire self-control and purity of heart." Rock Edict Nb7 (S. Dhammika)

"Contact (between religions) is good. One should listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others. Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, desires that all should be well-learned in the good doctrines of other religions." Rock Edict Nb12 (S. Dhammika)

Ethnocentrism of any sort (including the idea of belonging to a 'school of Buddhism' as well as evangelism and religious supremacism) is in Buddhist thought, rooted in self-grasping and reified thought - the cause of Samsara itself. However, that is the official view of traditional Buddhism, Buddhists understand that "ignorance" or "avidya", which is akin to "original sin" in Buddhism, is the source of all misunderstandings, war and turmoil. The removal of that ignorance takes time and effort on the part of everyone, Buddhist and non-Buddhist alike. Buddhism isn't about easy miracles or cures, but hard won liberation through constant effort and striving to destroy ignorance.

The current Dalai Lama has repeatedly pointed out that any attempt to convert individuals from their beliefs is not only non-Buddhist, but abusive: the identification of evangelism as an expression of compassion is considered to be false, and indeed the idea that Buddhism is the one true path is likewise false for Buddhists. What Buddhists are encouraged to do is to act as sensitively and appropriately to each situation as they can, and in the process not allow any reifying views obscure their capability to do so. Buddhists are supposed to use their understanding of the shortfalls of the world as the basis for compassion, and then focus this compassion on their own development: as enlightened beings, they will be able to deal more adequately with the sufferings of the world.

In brief then, the expression of compassion is done so in the languages and beliefs that Buddhists find around them. For instance, when Buddhists talk with Christians, it is an abuse to deny Christ, God or the immortal soul- what they can hope to do is to help people within their own belief structure to greater insight and greater kindness. Indeed what Buddhists philosophers such as Nagarjuna and Candra***ti demonstrated so well is that Buddhists can use language to defeat language. Buddhists can use the conventions of the world to reveal them for what they are, within the contexts that they find them. If Buddhists wish to help those around them, they are admonished to continually demonstrate examplary behaviour, displaying a way of being that inspires everyone to better themselves, which is contextual, sensitive, and everyone-centred. These positions hold for both inter-religious and intra-religious pluralism.

The Buddha also related to issues of "religion" using the parable of a man wounded by an arrow asking who shot the arrow, what the arrow was made of, and so forth, until he finally died. This parable is meant to show how it is not Buddhism's domain to focus on the supernatural. In this sense, then, Buddhism can be "compatible" with other religions - Buddhism and Christianity, for example, are hardly mutually exclusive.
[edit]

Intra-religious pluralism (between different denominations within the same religion)

Jewish views

Jewish views on relations between different Jewish denominations is covered in the entry on Jewish views of religious pluralism.

Christian views

Classical Christian views

Before the Great Schism, mainstream Christianity confessed "one holy catholic and apostolic church", in the words of the Nicene Creed. Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Episcopalians and most Protestant Christian denominations still maintain this belief.

Church unity was something very visible and tangible, and schism was just as serious an offense as heresy. Following the Great Schism, Roman Catholicism sees and recognizes the Orthodox baptisms as valid. Eastern Orthodoxy does not have the concept of "validity" when applied to Sacraments, but it considers the form of Roman Catholic baptism to be acceptable, if still devoid of actual spiritual content. Both generally regard each other as "heterodox" and "schismatic", while continuing to recognize each other as Christian. Attitudes of both towards different Protestant groups vary, primarily based upon how strongly Trinitarian the Protestant group in question might be.

Most Christians hold that the Christian church is not just an institution, which can be broken into many denominations. They hold that each instituted church is able to worship God in a way that conforms to Scripture, which allows for many different styles and customs. They hold that all true Christians are united in belief in Jesus Christ, which can be judged against such documents as the Apostles' Creed.

Modern (post-Enlightenment era) Christian views

Many fundamentalist Protestant Christian groups hold that only fundamentalist Protestant beliefs provide a pathway to God and salvation. All other Christian groups are held to be heretical, and are sometimes attacked as Satanic. Neo-evangelical Protestant Christian Churches reject this view outright, and hold that most forms of Christianity are valid pathways to God. They continue to believe in "one" church, but see the Church as being generally invisible and intangible. Many Protestants doubt that either Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy are still valid manifestations of the Church.

Modern Christian ideas on intra-religious pluralism (between different denominations of Christianity) are discussed in the article on Ecumenism.

**donsaeid** · 10-05-2006, 11:37 AM

Muslim views

Classical Muslim views

Like Christianity, Islam originally did not have ideas of religious pluralism for different Islamic denominations. Early on, Islam developed into several mututally antagonistic streams, including Shiite Islam and Sunni Islam. In some periods believers in these two communities went to war with each other over religious differences.

Modern (post-Enlightenment era) Muslim views

The concept of pluralism was introduced to Islamic philosophy by Abdolkarim Soroush. He got the idea from Rumi the famous Persian poet and philosopher. Soroush tried to expand his theory and put it on a solid foundation. His views have been criticized extensively in traditional religious circles.

Some Shiite, Suni and Sufi Islamic leaders are willing to recognize each other's denomination as a valid form of Islam. However, many other Islamic leaders are unwilling to accept this; they view other forms of Islam as outside the Islamic religion. Violence between different forms of Islam continues to the present day.

**donsaeid** · 10-05-2006, 11:38 AM

نگاهى به پلوراليسم يا تكثرگرايى اديان

اين نوشتار به طور اختصار در صدد توضيح، تبيين و نقد رويكردهاى مختلف در باب وحدت و كثرت گرايى اديان است; گرچه تفصيل آن فرصت و مقالات ديگرى را مى‏طلبد. پلوراليسم مكتبى است كه اصل و مبناى خود را تعدد و تكثرگرايى مى‏داند و پلوراليست‏شخصيتى است كه به كثرت گرايى گرايش دارد.

از عوامل مؤثر در شكوفايى علم و انديشه در يك جامعه، گسترش بستر گفتگوها و مناظره‏هاى علمى است و رشد كمى و كيفى هر دانشى زاييده تضارب آراى و تبادل انديشه‏ها مى‏باشد. تكامل علم كلام نيز از اين اصل مستثنا نيست و اين زمينه به لطف الهى بعد از انقلاب در جامعه ما پديد آمده است و با طرح ديدگاهها و عقايد مختلف در باب دين‏شناسى و كلام اسلامى نيز بسط بيشترى پيدا كرده و از خمودى و خموشى بيرون آمده است. اين گونه جريانهاى علمى باعث‏شد تا نسبت‏به دلايل و براهين خداشناسى تعمق بيشترى شود و مسائل جديدى چون وحى و ايمان، مساله تحقيق پذيرى و معنا دارى گزاره‏هاى دينى، مسايل زبان دين، تكثرگرايى اديان و غير آنها به عرصه كلام اسلامى نيز پا نهد.

اين نوشتار به طور اختصار در صدد توضيح، تبيين و نقد رويكردهاى مختلف در باب وحدت و كثرت گرايى اديان است; گرچه تفصيل آن فرصت و مقالات ديگرى را مى‏طلبد. پلوراليسم مكتبى است كه اصل و مبناى خود را تعدد و تكثرگرايى مى‏داند و پلوراليست‏شخصيتى است كه به كثرت گرايى گرايش دارد، در مقابل كسانيكه به وحدت و يگانگى و نوعى انحصارگرى دين رو مى‏آورند. اين مكتب به زير بخشهاى پلوراليسم اخلاقى، پلوراليسم سياسى و پلوراليسم دينى دسته بندى شده است. پلوراليسم اخلاقى مكتبى است كه مبدا و معيار خوبى و بدى را بيش از يكى بداند كه لازمه آن، نسبيت اخلاق خواهد بود و نتيجه آن التزام به تساهل و مدارا در صحنه عمل فردى و جمعى است. پلوراليسم اجتماعى يكى از مباحث فلسفه علوم اجتماعى است كه اعتقادش بر اين است كه جامعه بر اساس گروههاى قومى يا نژادى پيدايش يافته است. پلوراليسم سياسى يكى از اصول بنيادين دمكراسى ليبراليسم است كه به توزيع قدرت سياسى ميان گروهها و سازمانهاى مستقل از دولت‏براى مشاركت آنها در صحنه سياست و سياستگذارى اعتقاد دارد.

در روزگار گذشته اديان و مذاهب نسبت‏به يكديگر هيچگونه آشنايى نداشتند و اگر كنش و واكنشى بين آنها برقرار مى‏شد عمدتا مبتنى بر نوعى تعارض و كشمكش دينى و مذهبى بود و كمتر به بحث و گفتگو براى نيل به شناخت عميق و يا رسيدن به تفاهم مى‏پرداختند. ولى در يك قرن اخير پژوهشهاى علمى در جهت درك و شناسايى دقيق‏تر اديان به وجود آمد و اولين ارمغان اين پژوهشها، نشان دادن وجود دعاوى متعارض در ميان اديان بود و در نتيجه ورود مساله‏اى جديد در قلمرو فلسفه دين.

اگر بخواهيم ملموستر سخن بگوييم، در واقع، ما الان با اين پرسش مواجهيم كه با وجود پيشفرض انحصارگرايى كه در اديان آسمانى و غير آنها وجود دارد، چگونه مى‏توان راه رستگارى را به ساير اديان سرايت داد؟ بديهى است هر شخصى در هر مملكتى پا به عرصه گيتى نهد، آيين و مذهب آن سرزمين را انتخاب و پيروى مى‏كند و همه اين اديان در باب غايت و سعادت آدميان و بيان حقايق مربوط به خدا و انسان اختلاف نظر دارند. به گفته جان هيك «برخى بر اين پندارند كه هر دينى براى باور داشتن به حقيقى بودن خود به دليل يا دلايلى استدلال مى‏كند و در ضمن به نادرستى دين مخالف فتوا مى‏دهد. نتيجه اينكه براى هر دين خاص، همواره دلايل بسيار بيشترى براى اثبات نادرستى آن دين وجود خواهد داشت. » (جان هيك، فلسفه دين; مترجم بهرام راد، ص 226.)

از همه مهمتر براى هر متكلمى اين واقعيت محرز است كه غير از دين او اديان و مذاهب ديگرى نيز وجود دارد. در نتيجه بايد نسبت‏به آن اديان نيز اظهار نظر كند، ويژگيهاى مشترك و مختص آنها را بشناسد و با روش تشخيص صدق و كذب، به داورى ميان آنها بپردازد و با شيوه‏هاى خرد پسندانه از گزاره‏هاى دينى و معتقدات موجود در متون مقدس دين خود دفاع عقلانى كند، و به شبهات و اعتراضات پيروان ساير اديان و مذاهب جواب منطقى ارائه دهد و نيز بايد به اين پرسشها پاسخ دهد كه آيا راه رستگارى، سعادت و نيل به حقيقت‏براى ساير اديان امكان پذير است‏يا خير؟ آيا براى همه اديان مى‏توان گوهر واحدى فرض كرد و آيا با گفتگوى بين‏الاديان و يا نسبيت گرايى ومانند آن مى‏توان به حل دعاوى متعارض در اديان پرداخت؟ نكته قابل توجه اين است كه پلوراليسم ومكتب تكثر گرايى را به دو بخش درون دينى وبرون دينى تقسيم كرده‏اند; پلوراليسم درون دينى يامذهبى بر اين اعتقاد است كه همه تفسيرهاى مختلف از دين واحد، كه به پيدايش مذاهب و فرقه‏هاى مختلف منجر شده است، صاحب حقيقت و سعادت مى‏باشند. همانند اين سخن در نظريه تصويب اشاعره و معتزله - كه به نوعى به جمع نقيضين منجرمى‏شود - وجود دارد.پلوراليسم برون دينى اين‏است كه همه اديان متفاوت، واجد حقيقت و سعادت مى‏باشند.

تقسيم ديگر پلوراليسم، اين است كه برخى از آنها هدف و حقيقت را متعدد مى‏دانند و گروهى ديگر هدف را واحد ولى راههاى رسيدن به آن حقيقت و هدف را متعدد مى‏شمارند. در مقابل پلوراليسم، بنيادگرايى مذهبى قرار داردكه نه تنها حقيقت را واحد مى‏داند بلكه همه راهها را مسير درستى به طرف هدف قلمداد مى‏كند.

بعد از طرح و باز شدن مساله، اينك به توضيح رويكردها و رهيافتهاى مختلف كه توسط متكلمان و فيلسوفان دين ارائه شده است مى‏پردازيم. بسيارى از اين رويكردها را آقاى پروفسور ريچاردز گلين رئيس دپارتمان تحقيقات دينى در دانشگاه استرلينگ در كتاب به سوى يك الهيات چند دينى نگاشته است. اين كتاب در مقاله‏اى توسط يكى از اساتيد حوزه و دانشگاه در شماره اول فصلنامه حوزه و دانشگاه معرفى گرديد و اين نوشتار بيشتر ناظر به همان مقاله است، گرچه به ديدگاههاى برخى از انديشمندان داخلى نيز توجه شده است.

رويكرد اول:
رويكرد گفتگوى بين الاديان; اين ديدگاه نمايندگانى چون جان هيك، نينيان سمارت، ويلفرد كنت ول سميت، رايموند و پانيكار دارد. اين گروه بر آنند كه به سود هيچ دين تاريخى خاصى نبايد دعاوى انحصارگرانه داشت، بلكه محقق در مقام مطالعه و تحقيق در اديان و مذاهب گونه‏گون بيش از هر چيز، بايد نوعى شرح صدر و احساس همدلى داشته باشد. بايد توجه داشت كه احساس همدلى درگفتگوها نه تنها باعث زوال خلوص عقيدتى پيروان اديان نمى‏شود، بلكه بر غنا و عمق فرهنگ دينى آنها مى‏افزايد. (فصلنامه حوزه و دانشگاه، سال اول شماره 1 ص 62 و نيز همان‏مجله سال دوم شماره 6 ص 83 به بعد.)

به نظر مى‏رسد اين رويكرد به تساهل و مسامحه نزديكتر است تا به يك بحث فلسفى و كلامى. به عبارت ديگر، اين ديدگاه يك نوع رويكرد اخلاقى وروانشناختى است نه يك رهيافت فلسفى، كلامى. مشكل ما اين است كه آيا همه متدينان و مؤمنان مى‏توانند به سعادت و حقيقت‏برسند يا سعادت وحقيقت منحصرا از آن دين و يا مذهب خاصى است. رويكرد گفتگوى بين‏الاديان، گرچه به حال برخى از متدينان مفيد است و باعث غناى معرفت دينى و حتى تقريب بين اديان و مذاهب مى‏شود ونوعى همدلى و شرح صدر براى مباحثه كنندگان وزوال تشنج اجتماعى براى متدينان به ارمغان مى‏آورد، ولى هيچگاه اختلافات را از صحنه معرفت دينى بر نمى‏چيند و در نهايت، سؤال بى پاسخ باقى‏مى‏ماند.

شايان ذكر است كه پيشوايان دين اسلام، بالاخص مذهب تشيع به مناظره توجه فراوانى داشتند و با مخالفان خود با كمال سعه صدر به بحث و گفتگو مى‏نشستند و اگر يكى از اصحاب با مخالفان خود با تندى برخورد مى‏كرد مورد سرزنش امام قرار مى‏گرفت و بر همين اساس دانشى بنام علم المناظره در تاريخ كلامى شيعه پديد آمد كه در آن آداب اخلاقى و منطقى گفتگوها و مناظرات درج شده است. خلاصه سخن اينكه بين پلوراليسم و تسامح دينى نبايد خلط كرد. تسامح يك راه حل عملى براى زندگى مشترك ومسالمت آميز اجتماعى است و به عبارت ديگر نوعى آزادى و احترام به حقوق پيروان ساير اديان است و اين راه حل غير از پلوراليسم مى‏باشد البته، به‏جهت ارتباط روانشناختى كه بين عقيده و عمل‏برقرار است انسان پلوراليست در مقام عمل به نوعى‏تسامح نيز كشيده مى‏شود.

رويكرد دوم:
از طريق نسبيت گرايى پاسخ خود را به نمايش مى‏گذارد. اين گروه، از يكسو، با اطلاق گرايى و طرد گرايى مخالفند و از سوى ديگر، به جهت آشنايى با دگرگونيهاى تاريخى معتقدند همه چيز، از جمله پديدارهاى فرهنگى، آرا و نظرات دينى و اخلاقى، در معرض تحولى تاريخى هستند و به عبارت ديگر، همه اديان با راههاى مختلف، وسيله نجات و فلاح را در اختيار آدميان مى‏نهند. بنابراين، نبايد به اختلافها و راههاى متفاوت يكديگر بينديشند، بلكه بايد به ما به الاشتراك خود توجه نمايند و از ما به الاختلاف پرهيز كنند.

اين پاسخ كه از سوى افرادى چون ارنست ترولچ متكلم و فيلسوف آلمانى (1923 - 1865) و آرنولد تواين‏بى مورخ و فيلسوف تاريخ انگليسى (1975 - 1889) ارائه شده است دچار اشكالات معرفت‏شناسى و كلامى است. اشكال اول اين است كه اگر اين گروه به تحول تاريخى همه پديده‏ها و همچنين نسبيت واقعى و خارجى گرايش دارند، پس نبايد به مقوله‏اى به نام‏نجات و رستگارى باور داشته باشند، در حاليكه اين عناصر، هدف نهائى همه متدينان است; زيرا در مفهوم هدف نهايى تصور ثابتى تعبيه شده است كه با تحول همه جانبه نسبى گرايان سازگار نيست. دوم آنكه مستلزم ناسازگارى بين تحول همه جانبه و پذيرش ما به الاشتراك ميان اديان است. توضيح اينكه اگر همه پديده‏هاى عالم، متحول و متغير باشند، پس چگونه ممكن است‏يك يا چند امر مشترك و ثابت در همه اديان پيدا كرد، آنگاه به متدينان توصيه كرد تا توجه خود را به آنها جلب كنند.

سوم، اشكال مبنائى است و آن اين كه تحول عمومى ميان پديده‏ها مورد پذيرش هيچ انديشمند رئاليستى واقع نمى‏شود; زيرا در غير اينصورت، اولين پديده‏اى كه با اين نظريه ذبح مى‏شود، نظريه نسبى گرايى صاحب اين رويكرد است كه تحول عمومى آن‏را به ثبات تبديل مى‏كند. و چهارم اين كه وجود يك امر مشترك ميان همه اديان هنوز ثابت نشده است; گرچه بعضى از اديان وجوه مشتركى دارند مانند اعتقاد به يگانگى حق تعالى كه دين يهود و اسلام‏نسبت‏به آن اشتراك دارند، ولى اين برداشت از يگانگى با انديشه مسيحيت هماهنگى ندارد زيرا تفسيرى كه مسيحيان از يگانگى خداوند دارند با تثليث‏سازگارى دارد.

**donsaeid** · 10-05-2006, 11:38 AM

رويكرد سوم:
افرادى چون شلاير ماخر، كارل گوستاو يونگ آن را ارائه كرده‏اند و پاسخى گوهر گرايانه است. اينها ضرورت دين را در وجود گوهر دين پذيرفته‏اند. شلاير ماخر مى‏گويد: تكثر اديان براى پديدار گشتن جامع و كامل وحدت متعالى دين ضرورت دارد، چرا كه هر دين خاصى بخشى از ذات و گوهر دين ازلى و ابدى را تجسم مى‏بخشد. برخى ديگر چون هاكينگ بدون تاكيد بر خصايص اديان، مشتركات اديان را گوهر دين مى‏دانند. يونگ نيز كه بر خلاف فرويد موضع مثبتى در قبال دين اتخاذ مى‏كند، گوهر دين را بهداشت روانى انسان دانسته و از عناصر طبيعى زندگى بشر بشمار آورده است.

رويكرد سوم نيز گرفتار اشكالاتى است. اولين اشكال اين است كه به چه ضمانتى اديان گوهر واحدى دارند و از چه طريقى گوهر واحد تمامى اديان را مى‏توان كشف كرد؟ اشكال دوم اين است كه اگر وجود صدف براى اديان ضرورت و تاكيد نداشته باشد، گوهر اديان نيز نمى‏تواند تداوم داشته باشد. به عبارت ديگر، گرچه تمايز صدف و گوهر اديان را بپذيريم، نمى‏توان ضرورت وجود صدف را انكار كرد; زيرا هر انسان متدينى اگر قرار باشد به گوهر دين خود نايل آيد، به ناچار از طريق صدف به آن مى‏رسد ولذااين‏رويكردبه‏خواسته‏پلوراليسم‏تحقق نمى‏بخشد. زيرا هر دينى به انحصار صدف خود فتوى مى‏دهد.

برخى چنين پنداشته‏اند كه معناى نفى ضرورت وجود صدف اين است كه هر كدام از صدفهاى اديان، انسان متدين را به گوهر مشترك مى‏رساند; مثلا با اعمال عشاى ربانى، نماز خواندن و سير و سلوك بودائى و برهمائى و ساير رفتارهاى دينى رسيدن به گوهر مشترك، امكان پذير است. بنابراين، تاكيد بر اين صدفها نادرست و حتى لغو و بيهوده است.

ولى اين پندار نه تنها با خاتميت كه جزو ضروريات دين اسلام است منافات دارد، بلكه با نسخ شرايع كه مورد پذيرش بيشتر اديان است نيز ناسازگار است. زيرا يكى از معانى نسخ شرايع، نسخ صدفهاست نه نسخ گوهر مشترك و اين نسخ صدفها از مقتضيات زمان سرچشمه گرفته است. و لذا، گرچه رهبران مذهب كاتوليك براى نجات اديان غير مسيحيت جايگاه و شانيتى قائل شدند، ولى لطف وافر ونجات‏كامل را منحصر در جستجوى در سنت مسيحى مى‏دانند.

اشكال ديگر اين كه تفسير برخى از معتقدان اين رويكرد كه مبتنى بر فرض وحدت گوهرى اديان بود، مبتنى بر يك مبناى معرفت‏شناسى مى‏باشد و آن تمايز بين واقعيت فى نفسه و واقعيت پديدارى است. به اين معنا كه واقعيت فى نفسه واحد است، ولى واقعيت آن‏چنان كه به ذهن پديدار مى‏شود تكثر دارد; پس بر اين مبنا مى‏توان گوهر دين را واحد و مشترك دانست،گرچه صدفها يعنى راههاى رسيدن به آن، به‏دليل سنتها، فرهنگها و زمينه‏هاى مختلف معرفتى،متفاوت باشند.

بر اساس اين مبناى معرفت‏شناسى، مكتب پلوراليسم كه مبتنى بر فرض وحدت گوهرى اديان است گرايش ايدئاليستى و نسبى گرايى پيدا مى‏كند; زيرا مكتب رئاليسم دو شرط، لازم دارد: اول: تمايز بين ذهن و عين; دوم: تطابق فى الجمله ذهن با عين. در نتيجه، تمايز عمومى و كلى ميان واقعيت فى نفسه و واقعيت پديدارى جز نسبى گرايى چيز ديگرى را به ارمغان نمى‏آورد.

رويكرد چهارم:
رويكرد تجربه وحيانى و دينى است. تفسير اين رويكرد را افرادى چون پل تيليش فيلسوف و متكلم پروتستان آلمانى (1956 - 1886) ارائه كرده‏اند. اين رهيافت از تجارب و حيانى همگانى كه مختص يك شخص يا يك دين نيست‏بهره مى‏گيرد. به عقيده وى، در تجارب دينى بشر سه عنصر عمده در كار است كه عبارتند از عنصر رازگونه، عنصر عرفانى و عنصر پيامبرانه كه اگر اين سه عنصر هماهنگ و متحد شوند چيزى بنام «دين روح عينى‏» فراهم مى‏آورند واين همان مطلوبى است كه اديان در طلب اويند و در هر دين تاريخى فقط بخشى از آن به ظهور رسيده است. پس، حجيت مطلق و منحصر به فرد در هيچ دين خاصى وجود ندارد. (حوزه و دانشگاه، ش 1، ص 62.)

توضيح رويكرد مذكور اين است كه تجربه دينى به معناى ارتباط انسان با خداوند يا به بيان كلى‏تر، مواجهه انسان با امر قدسى است. اين نوع از تجربه، دقيقا، همانند تجربه‏هاى حسى، سه ركن تجربه‏گر، متعلق تجربه و تفسير تجربه‏گر از مورد تجربه را داراست. قبل از ارزيابى اين رويكرد لازم است‏به تفاوت ميان تجربه دينى و تجربه حسى بپردازيم.

تجربه دينى ديرياب است و بيشتر مواقع براى نوادرى از انسانها پديدار مى‏شود يا بهتر است‏بگويم، كمتر كسانى آن را احساس مى‏كنند ولى در تجربه حسى عموم انسانها توان دريافت آن را دارند. ديگر اينكه تفسيرهاى تجربه حسى متفاوتند و از طرفى ابزار مشترك و مورد اتفاقى در ميان همه اديان وجود ندارد تا با آن صحت و سقم تفاسير را بدست آورد. سر و راز اين نكته در اين است كه مفسران تجربه‏هاى دينى در فرهنگها و سنتهاى مخصوص سرزمين خود به سر مى‏برند و آن عوامل اجتماعى و محيطى به گونه‏اى خاص در تفسير آن مفسران اثر مى‏گذارد و به همين دليل به تفاوت و اختلاف در تفاسير كشيده مى‏شود.

سوم اينكه تجربه‏هاى حسى از نوع علوم حصولى هستند. بر اساس برخى نظريه‏هاى پذيرفته شده در فلسفه علم، علوم تجربى جز گمان، چيزى براى تجربه‏گران به ارمغان نمى‏آورند ولى تجربه‏هاى دينى معلوم حضورى بوده و عالم بطور مستقيم با آن ارتباط دارد و يقين واقعى به تجربه‏گر عطا مى‏كند. البته، تفسير و تبيين اين دو نوع تجربه از سنخ علم حصولى هستند و از اين جهت هيچ تفاوتى با يكديگر ندارند.

چهارم: بسيارى از تجربه‏هاى دينى مشكل وصف ناپذيرى دارند. يعنى در قالب زبان عادى نمى‏گنجند و سر وجود شطحيات در عرفان نيز همين نكته مى‏باشد ولى تجربه‏هاى حسى چنين معضله ‏ ى ندارند.

پنجم: آرامش، خشنودى، صفا و بسيارى از اوصاف مثبت روحى ثمرات تجربه‏هاى دينى است كه به تجربه‏گر هديه مى‏كنند ولى هيچكدام از اين ويژگيها از طريق تجربه‏هاى حسى بدست نمى‏آيد.

ششم: برخى از تجربه‏هاى دينى از امور عقل گريزند. يعنى عقل توان درك، تفسير و توجيه آنها را ندارد و اگر عقل در آن قلمرو وارد شود، به تعبير عرفاءعقل بوالفضول ناميده مى‏شود. ولى تجربه‏هاى حسى معمولا يا از نوع گزاره‏هاى عقل ستيزند يا ازنوع‏عقل پذير.

با لحاظ وجوه اشتراك و تفاوت تجربه دينى با تجربه حسى آيا مى‏توان به تجربه واحد و مشترك بين اديان رسيد و نوعى پلوراليسم دينى يا وحدت گوهرى اديان را پذيرفت؟به نظر مى‏رسد اين راه نيز كامياب نيست. زيرا همانگونه كه تفاسير مختلف تجربه دينى از فرهنگ، سنت، اوضاع اجتماعى و اوضاع روحى افراد متاثر است، حقيقت تجربه دينى كه براى تجربه‏گر پديد مى‏آيد نيز از عوامل فوق تاثر مى‏يابد و در نتيجه تجربه‏هاى دينى همانند تفاسير آنها متفاوت و مختلف خواهند بود.

اگر، به گفته پل تيليش، هر دينى فقط به بخشى از روح عينى نائل مى‏آيد، چگونه و با چه روشى وجود آن حقيقت اثبات مى‏شود و مى‏توان گفت هر دينى به بخشى از آن رسيده است؟ شايد در واقع هر يك از اديان به واقعيتى مستقل از دين ديگر نائل شده باشد. پس اين ادعا كه همه اديان به بخشهاى مختلف يك حقيقت رسيده‏اند ادعاى بدون دليلى مى‏باشد.

رويكرد پنجم:
رويكرد انسان مدارانه يا مسيح مدارانه است كه عقايد ثامس، ستانلى سامارثا، و پل دواناندان را بيان مى‏كند. اين هيافت‏به مشتركات ميان اديان در امور مربوط به عالم ناسوت و نيز مسائل و مشكلات مربوط به انسانى كردن شرايط زندگى در جهان كنونى التفات دارد. به تعبير ديگر، بايد ديد كه اديان در امور مربوط به دنيا چه وجوه اشتراكى دارند و نبايد به مباحث مربوط به عالم لاهوت و زندگى آن جهان توجه كرد. (فصلنامه حوزه و دانشگاه شماره اول.)

بيشترين چيزى كه در اينجا جلب توجه مى‏كند آن است كه اكثر اديان مخصوصا اديان آسمانى به حيات پس از مرگ و عالم لاهوت عنايت فوق العاده‏اى دارند، به گونه‏اى كه برخى آن را گوهر دين شمرده‏اند. چگونه غفلت از چنين ركنى امكان پذير و مورد پذيرش اديان مى‏تواند باشد. ثانيا همين اديان در مسائل مربوط به عالم ناسوت و انسان اختلافات مبنائى و اساسى دارند كه شايد كمتر بتوان وجه مشتركى در اين باب بين اديان يافت. به عبارت ديگر هر دينى جهان بينى خاصى دارد كه با اديان ديگر تفاوت مبنائى خواهد داشت و از همه مهمتر تفاسيرى كه مفسران دين واحد به لحاظ تاريخى در عرصه معرفت دينى دارند نيز يكسان نيستند. براى مثال پاره‏اى حيات اخروى را غايت و گوهر دين معرفى مى‏كنند و دنيايى كردن دين را كمرنگ و يا بى‏رنگ جلوه مى‏دهند، يعنى به سكولاريزه كردن اديان كمتر گرايش دارند و برخى ديگر به كلى مخالف‏اند. نتيجه آنكه اين رويكرد نمى‏تواند با توصيه خود اقتران يا وحدتى ميان اديان پديد آورد.

رويكرد ششم:
ديدگاه ويليام اى.كريستين در كتاب معنا و حقيقت در دين مى‏باشد. وى ضمن بيان تفاوت ميان ايمان و معرفت مى‏گويد پيام‏هاى ايمان دينى مانند «عيسى نجات دهنده است‏»، «خداوند بخشاينده است‏»، «آتمن برهما است‏»، «همه بوداهايكى هستند»، گرچه با يكديگر متفاوت هستند، ولى مانعة‏الجمع نيستند; البته اديان در بعضى از گزاره‏ها با هم اختلاف دينى صريحى دارند. مثلا مسيحيت مى‏گويد: «عيسى نجات دهنده است‏» در حاليكه يهوديان خلاف آن را مى‏گويند، لكن وقتى منظور هر دو را بررسى مى‏كنيم آشكار مى‏گردد كه آنها اساسا سخن همديگر را نقض نمى‏كنند; زيرا منظور يهوديان از مسيح، موجود غيرالهى است و مراد مسيحيان از او كسى است كه منجى انسانهاى گنهكار است. پس، در اينجا دو مفهوم متفاوت از مسيح بيان شده است و از اين رو دو حكم مختلف نيز اثبات گرديده است. به تعبير ويتگنشتاين متاخر مى‏توان گفت هر دينى نوعى صورت حياتى با بازى زبانى خاص خود; زيرا مسيحى و بودائى مثلا دو قوم مختلف هستند و به جوامع و سنن دينى متفاوت تعلق دارند و به زبانهاى دينى مختلف سخن مى‏گويند. در نتيجه، هر يك از اين زبانها در درون و متن يك صورت حيات دينى خاص معنا دارد. پس، با اين نظريه ديگر مساله آزار دهنده دعاوى متعارض بين اديان حل مى‏گردد.

لكن ويليام كريستين اين راه حل خود را ظاهرى دانسته است; زيرا بين يهوديان و مسيحيان نوعى عدم توافق جدى درباره حقيقت عيسى وجود دارد. گروهى همان حقيقت را منجى بنى اسرائيل دانسته و دسته ديگر آن را مردود شمرده است و به طور كلى علت انشعاب اوليه مسيحيت و دين يهود همين نكته بوده است. به عبارت دقيقتر، از نظر كريستين اختلافات دينى به دو دسته اختلافات عقيدتى و بنيادين دينى تقسيم مى‏شود. بخش اول از اختلافات دينى از اين نوع مى‏باشد كه محمولات مختلف به يك موضوع واحد نسبت داده مى‏شود. بخش دوم از اختلاف دينى آنست كه موضوعات مختلف به يك محمول مرتبط مى‏شود. مانند اختلافى كه بين دوگزاره «خداوند مبدا هستى است‏» و «طبيعت مبدا هستى است‏» وجود دارد و معتقدان به آنها را به موحد و غير موحد تقسيم مى‏كند; نتيجه نظريه و اشكال كريستين اين شد كه اين رهيافت‏براى حل مساله مفيد نمى‏باشد.

**donsaeid** · 10-05-2006, 11:39 AM

رويكرد هفتم:
نقد ديدگاه دين واحد مى‏باشد كه توسط ويلفرد كنت ول اسميت در كتاب معنا و غايت دين ارائه شده است. وى دقيقا با مفهوم دين واحد به مخالفت پرداخته و مى‏گويد اين يك انحراف جديد است كه كسى فكر كند مسيحيت‏يا اسلام بر حق است. زيرا مسيحيت، دين هندو، دين يهود، دين بودا، اسلام و... نوعى پديدار و آفريده‏اى از آفريده‏هاى انسانى هستند. لذا به جاى انديشيدن در باب اديان به عنوان نظامهاى مانعة الجمع بهتر است‏حيات دينى انسان را يك زنجيره توانمند بشمار آوريم كه در درون آن برخى اختلافات عظيم، زمينه‏هاى تازه‏اى از نيرو، با قدرت كمتر يا بيشتر بوجود آورده است... مسيحيت از طريق كنش و واكنش پيچيده عوامل دينى و غير دينى تحول و تكامل يافته است. انديشه‏هاى مسيحى در درون فضاى فرهنگى كه فلسفه يونانى آن را به وجود آورده بود شكل گرفته است. كليساى مسيحى، به عنوان يك نهاد، تحت تاثير امپراطورى روم و نظام حقوقى آن قرار گرفته است... ذهنيت پروتستان بازتاب مشرب و طبيعت نژاد آلمانى شمالى است و اين بدان معناست كه واقعا نمى‏توان از درستى و نادرستى يك دين سخن گفت; زيرا اديان به معناى جريانهاى دينى - فرهنگى مشخص و متمايز در درون تاريخ انسانى، بازتاب تنوعات انواع انسانى و طبايع و صورتهاى انديشه هستند. همين اختلافات بين ذهنيت‏شرقى و غربى كه در صورتهاى مختلف عقلى، زبانى، اجتماعى، سياسى و هنرى تجلى پيدا كرده است محتملا در بطن اختلافات بين دين شرقى و غربى هم وجود دارد.

تفاوتهاى اديان از سه جهت قابل بررسى است:

1 - تفاوت‏ها از لحاظ تجربه واقعيت الهى;

2 - تفاوتهاى نظريه فلسفى و كلامى در باب آن واقعيت‏يا در باب نتايج تجربه دينى;

3 - تفاوتهاى موجود در تجربه‏هاى اساسى.

در تفاوت نوع اول، اصل غائى به عنوان خير متشخص، اراده و غايت تحت اسامى مختلف يهود، خداوند، الله، كريشنا و شيوا شناخته مى شود. شايد اين تجربيات واقعيت متشخص و نا متشخص غايت كل، مكمل يكديگر شناخته شوند و نه مانعة الجمع. تفاوت نوع دوم نيز بخشى از تاريخ رو به تكامل انديشه بشرى است كه در طى زمان اين اختلافات مرتفع مى‏شوند; زيرا آنها به جنبه تاريخى و فرهنگى مشروط دين، تعلق دارند كه در معرض تغيير هستند. بخش سوم از تفاوت ميان اديان، بزرگترين مشكل در راه وفاق و وحدت اديان به شمار مى‏رود; زيرا هر دينى داراى بنيانگذار و كتاب مقدسى است كه در آن واقعيت الهى انكشاف پيدا نموده و به عنوان امر قدسى تجلى يافته است و نوعى پاسخ بى چون و چراى ايمان و پرستش را طلب مى‏نمايد.

اين راه حل نيز داراى مناقشات فراوانى است كه به برخى از آنها اشاره مى‏كنيم. اول آنكه آقاى اسميت‏بين دين و معرفت دينى خلط كرده است; زيرا آنچه تحول و تغيير مى‏پذيرد و يا از عوامل برون دينى متاثر مى‏شود معرفت دينى است نه دين. زيرا دين، چه به معناى متون دينى باشد و چه به معناى حقايق دينى، ثابت و غير متغير است، مگر اينكه متن دينى را تحريف شده بدانيم. دوم اينكه نه تنها تفاوت نوع سوم بين اديان قابل درمان نيست،بلكه درمان تفاوت نوع اول و دوم نيز از ناحيه اسميت ناتمام است. اما، درمان تفاوت نوع اول، تمام نيست، زيرا دليلى وجود ندارد كه تجربه‏هاى اديان از واقعيت الهى مكمل يكديگر باشند، براى اينكه در تفسير اين تجربه‏ها دو احتمال وجود دارد: احتمال اول اينكه هر يك از اديان بخشى از واقعيت الهى را تجربه كنند كه در اين‏صورت تجارب مختلف اديان مى‏توانند مكمل يكديگر باشند. احتمال دوم اينكه هر يك از اديان واقعيت مستقلى را تجربه كنند كه در اين صورت اين تجارب، مانعة الجمع خواهند بود. پس با وجود اين دو احتمال،پذيرش يكى از آنها ادعاى بدون دليل محسوب مى‏شود.

درمان تفاوت نوع دوم هم ناكام است; زيرا تاريخ تكامل انديشه‏ها نه تنها رفع اختلافات را نشان نمى‏دهد، كه بر عكس، به وجود اختلافات فراوان وتكامل كمى تفاوتهاى بين انديشه‏ها دلالت دارد وپيدايش گرايشهاى مختلف ميان علوم دليل بر ادعاى ماست.

در نهايت، راه حل شوراى دوم واتيكان مبنى بر اينكه «كسانى كه به رغم ميل خود هنوز نسبت‏به انجيل مسيح جاهل هستند، اما با وجود اين با اخلاص در طلب خداوند هستند... اين كسان مى‏توانند به سعادت ابدى نايل شوند» جز مشكل اجتماعى هيچ گرفتارى ديگرى را حل نمى‏كند، يعنى مشكل معرفت‏شناختى و كلامى تعارض آراى اديان را درمان نمى‏نمايد. زيرا بر فرض اينكه براى سعادت برخى از مخالفان مسيحيت چاره‏جويى كنند ولى مشكل رسيدن به حقيقت‏با اين راه حل قابل چاره نيست. علاوه بر اينكه برخى از مخالفان مسيحيت مانند كسانى كه به هر انگيزه‏اى گرايش به دين ديگرى را ترجيح داده‏اند از نظر اين شورا به سعادت ابدى نمى‏رسند.

رويكرد هشتم:
ايمان گرايى به جاى شريعت گرايى است. آقاى محمد مجتهد شبسترى در توضيح اين مطلب مى‏گويد: شريعت، يعنى، يك سلسله گزاره‏هاى اعتقادى و يك سلسله آداب و رسوم و مناسك و قوانين. وقتى در جامعه‏اى سازمانها و نهادهاى دينى بوجود آمدند، سيستم‏هاى عقيدتى و عملى در شكلهاى دگم، و در قالب قوانين خشك و شعائر و آداب، يك جامعه بسته‏اى را بوجود مى‏آورند و مانع از انعطاف پذيرى مى‏شوند و كسانى را كه با آن سيستم عقيدتى و عملى نهادى شده، زندگى نمى‏كنند نفى مى‏نمايند.

و اما مراد از ايمان دينى، يك تجربه است كه سيال است و هم به نفى ديگران نمى‏انجامد. ما در پلوراليسم دينى از امكان وجود حقيقت در چند دين سخن مى‏گوئيم، نه از وجود مسلم حقيقت در ساختار تمام اديان. پس پلوراليسم دينى به اين معنا كه ممكن است‏حقيقت نهايى در شكلهاى مختلف تجلى يافته باشد، هرگز به معناى پذيرش همه واقعيتهاى موجود در همه اديان نيست. در نتيجه، هميشه بايد يك نقد دايمى مستمر نيز با پلوراليسم دينى همراه باشد; زيرا حقيقت پنهان است و انسان متدين دائما بايد با نقد زندگى كند. به عبارت صريحتر، شريعتى كه به صورت آداب و رسوم و سيستم عقيدتى و اجتماعى در آمده است مورد قبول نيست، ولى شريعتى كه تجليات تاريخى، اجتماعى، جسمانى و زبانى آن تجربه دينى زنده فعال است مورد پذيرش است; زيرا اين نوع از شريعت‏سيال و سازگار با تجربه ايمانى است.

نكته ديگر اين است كه مفهوم قانون و نظام اجتماعى به معناى جامعه شناسى و فلسفه حقوق در صدر اسلام نبوده است.

اگر تعبير حكم يا حلال و حرام خدا وجود دارد، به معناى نظام خانواده يا نظام اجتماعى نبوده است‏بلكه مساله تعيين رابطه خدا و انسان است. يعنى، اگر انسان بخواهد در هر موردى، مثلا در ارتباط با همسر و فرزند، خداپسندانه عمل كند، بايد اينچنين عمل كند. در واقع، چنين اعمالى موجب تقويت و تضعيف ايمان مى‏شود. نظام‏هاى حقوقى براى تنظيم ارتباطات دنيوى افراد با يكديگر و نيز با دولت لازم است، ولى تبعيت از اين سيستم حقوقى دين و ديندارى نيست; چيزى كه با دين و ديندارى ارتباط پيدا مى‏كند اين است كه روشن شود اين عمل، تجربه دينى را تقويت مى‏كند يا تضعيف. تفاوت پروتستان‏ها با كاتوليكها نيز در اين است كه گروه اول به تجربه دينى عنايت‏بيشترى دارند ولى گروه دوم روى قانون بودن دين تكيه مى‏كنند. نتيجه سخن اين شد كه بايد شريعت را از حالت رسوبى به صورت يك سيستم حقوقى، اجتماعى و آداب و رسوم بيرون آورده و به آن شكل تجلى عملى تجربه دينى ايمانى داد. آنوقت‏شريعت، عبارتست از معيارهاى رفتار آدمى كه از تجربه دينى تغذيه مى‏كند و همه جوانب زندگى انسان را پوشش مى‏دهند. در اين صورت، شريعت نه تنها در مقابل ايمان نيست‏بلكه مكمل آنست.

راه حلى كه آقاى مجتهد شبسترى مطرح كردند، گرچه ظاهرى زيبا و جذاب دارد ولى اشكالاتى هم بر آن بار مى‏شود. اول آنكه اين نظريه، تعارض آرا و عقايد را حل نمى‏كند; زيرا اگر بپذيريم شريعت را نبايد به صورت آداب و رسوم و سيستم نظام‏مند عقيدتى و اجتماعى ارايه كرد و بايد به صورت سيال و سازگار با تجربه ايمانى و دينى درآيد، اين صورت سيالى كه دين پيدا كرده است، متناسب با جامعه و فرهنگى مى‏باشد كه از آنها تاثير پذيرفته و باعث‏سيلان او شده است و بالطبع آن دين با تجربه دينى كه در آن جامعه تولد يافته، سازگارى مى‏يابد و از آن رو كه جوامع و فرهنگها، مختلف هستند به ناچار اديان و تجارب دينى آنها نيز تفاوت پيدا خواهند كرد. آنگاه به آغاز نزاع باز مى‏گرديم يعنى سخن از سعادت و وصول به حقيقت پيش مى‏آيد كه از آن كدام تجربه دينى و دين است؟دوم آنكه ايشان فرمودند ما در پلوراليسم دينى از امكان وجود حقيقت در اديان متعدد سخن داريم نه از وجود مسلم حقيقت در آنها. به نظر مى‏رسد اين سخن مشكل تعارض اديان را حل نمى‏كند زيرا مراد از «امكان‏» احتمال عرفى است‏يا امكان منطقى. «امكان‏»، عدم را نفى نمى‏كند. ثانيا گزاره‏هاى اخبارى فراوانى در متون دينى اديان وجود دارد كه ظاهر تناقض آميزى دارند و امكان وجود حقيقت در همه اديان نسبت‏به اينگونه قضايا مستلزم اجتماع نقيضين است. براى مثال مسيحيان، مسيح معهود را منجى بشريت مى‏دانند ولى يهوديان و مسلمانان آن را انكار مى‏كنند. آيا با اين دو ادعاى متعارض، امكان وجود حقيقت در اين اديان قابل تصور است؟ گويا ايشان بين دو نظام ارتباط انسان با خدا و ارتباط انسانها با يكديگر و همچنين بين شريعت واجد سيستم عقيدتى و اجتماعى و شريعتى كه تجربه دينى را فعال مى‏كند تعارض و تمانع مى‏بيند. به نظر مى‏رسد مانعى ندارد حلال و حرام خدا درباره مسائل خانواده، هم نظام خانواده را تشكيل بدهد و هم رابطه خداپسندانه را و از طرفى تجربه دينى آنها را نيز تقويت كند.

رويكرد نهم:
ديدگاه جان هيك است. وى در باب اينكه چگونه ممكن است تمام تصورات و تصديقات اديان گوناگون از واقعيت الهى صادق باشد، چنين پاسخ داده است كه ميان واقعيت فى نفسه و واقعيت در نزد ما تمايز وجود دارد و سر اين تمايز در اينست كه واقعيت غايى و الهى نامتناهى است و از اين لحاظ فراتر از درك انديشه و زبان بشرى است. البته، اين رويكرد با چهارچوب فلسفى امانوئل كانت‏بسط و تكامل يافته است زيرا وى ميان عالم فى نفسه و عالم ذهن دوگانگى قائل شده است. جان هيك به داستان معروف مردان كورفيل تمسك مى‏جويد كه هر يك توصيفى از فيل دارند و مى‏گويد متدينان به اديان مختلف نيز جريانى شبيه اين دارند. نتيجه آنكه هيچ دينى حق انحصارگرى و حقانيت‏خصوصى ندارد; زيرا هر دينى به گوشه‏اى از واقعيت آن هم به صورت پديدار دسترسى دارد.

اولين مناقشه‏اى كه بر جان هيك وارد است مشكل نسبيت گرايى نظريه ايشان مى‏باشد، زيرا پذيرش تفاوت ميان «حقيقت آنچنان كه هست‏» و «حقيقت آنچنان كه مى‏نمايد» و انكار مطابقت ذهن با خارج يا به تعبير ديگر عدم تطابق فنومن با نومن بارزترين عقيده نسبيت گرايى علمى مى‏باشد.

اشكال دوم اين است كه به چه دليل همه متدينان همانند مردان كور به يك واقعيتى به نام فيل برخورد كرده باشند. شايد هر گروهى يك واقعيت فى نفسه خاصى را يافته باشند.

سوم آنكه همه رويكردهاى پلوراليسم اگر به تعدد حقيقت معتقد باشند، چنين رويكردى به نسبيت گرايى در حقيقت رو آورده است و از آن جهت كه برخى از اين حقايق نقيضين هستند اين ديدگاه گرفتار اجتماع نقيضين خواهد شد و اگر حقيقت را واحد، ولى راههاى رسيدن به آن را متعدد بداند، از آنجا كه اين راهها نوعا پيشفرضهاى معرفت‏شناسانه متعارض دارند، پذيرش همه آنها انسان را به نسبيت گرايى در معرفت منجر مى‏كند. البته اگر انديشمندى معتقد باشد كه حقيقت واحد است و هر راهى، ولو به تمام حقيقت منتهى نشود، ولى مقدارى از آن را به دست مى‏دهد، يعنى براى همه ميسر است، نمادى از آن حقيقت نمايى را تحصيل كنند تا زمانيكه اين راهها مستلزم تناقض و اجتماع نقيضين نشوند، چنين انديشه‏اى گرفتار نسبيت گرايى نخواهد شد.

**donsaeid** · 10-05-2006, 11:40 AM

رويكرد دهم:
تحقيق فرجام شناختى است كه بر اساس معيارهاى صدق و حقانيت، دين حق را از دين باطل جدا مى‏كند. البته در اين كه معيار صدق و حقانيت چيست اختلاف وجود دارد. عده‏اى اخلاق را معيار صدق تلقى مى‏كنند، گروهى تجارب و حالات دينى را و برخى رفع نيازهاى بى بديل را ملاك صدق معرفى مى‏كنند و دسته ديگر معيار را مطابقت‏با واقع دانسته‏اند. (فصلنامه حوزه و دانشگاه، شماره اول، ص 62.)

به نظر مى‏رسد اين راه حل بهترين پاسخ به سؤالات طرح شده در آغاز مقاله است. ما نبايد اصرار كنيم كه همه اديان راه سعادت و حقيقت را طى مى‏كنند، بلكه با معيارهاى منطقى به حقانيت هر دينى كه رسيديم سعادت و حقيقت را از آن او خواهيم دانست. يعنى، بعد از اثبات ضرورت دين و نبوت عامه به حقانيت نبوت خاصه مى‏پردازيم و اما براى اثبات حقانيت نبوت يك نبى راههايى وجود دارد كه برخى از آنها عبارتند از:

1 - گفته‏هاى وى با عقل تباين و تعارض نداشته باشد.

2 - در ميان گفته‏هاى وى تناقض‏گويى نباشد.

3 - بر اساس ادعاى خود، انسان را به هدف عالى رسانده و نيازهاى ادعا شده او را بر طرف كند.

4 - از طريقى مانند معجزه، ارتباط خود را با عالم غيب اثبات كند.

البته اين بحث كه حقانيت يك دين به چيست؟ خود، بحث جدى و قابل تاملى است كه در اين نوشته نمى‏گنجد. از طرف ديگر به نظر نگارنده مساله تكثر يا وحدت اديان نيز هنوز دوران جنينى را در فرهنگ ما مى‏گذراند و اميد آنكه با طرح بحثهاى مختلف به رشد و بالندگى آن كمك دهيم.

Pluralism

Pluralism

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment