Human Destinies: Philosophical Essays in Memory of Gerald Hanratty

Chapter Twelve: Relativism and Religious Diversity

t w e l v e relativism and religious Diversity Maria Baghramian Cultural diversity creates not only sociopolitical but also philosophical headaches. the Encyclopedia Britannica estimates that there are about ten thousand distinct religions, of which 150 have at least one million followers . according to other methods of individuation, there are nineteen major world religions subdivided into 270 large religious groups, and many smaller ones.1 these religions often profess conflicting articles of faith, metaphysical outlooks, ethical beliefs, and injunctions for religious practices.2 logically speaking, not all religious doctrines could be true, but the difficulty is to decide which one(s), if any, are. Given seemingly incompatible and competing religious beliefs, there are at least five options available.3 secular atheism secular atheists deny the truth and validity of all religious claims and explain religions’ prevalence in terms of the social and psychological needs of believers; in other words, we can maintain that all religions are equally false and based on an explainable “God delusion.”4 this op290 relativism and religious Diversity 291 tion, despite its satisfactory simplicity and its many vocal and articulate supporters among the intelligentsia, has failed to gain widespread support. exclusive monism religious exclusivism maintains, rather heroically, that only one of the many existing religions has an exclusive claim to truth and that those not fully in accord with it are mistaken or misguided. religious exclusivism is a prominent feature of the orthodox interpretations of major religions and is defended strongly by fundamentalists of all creeds. adherents of different religions almost inevitably believe in the inherent superiority of their faith, but their partiality does not offer grounds for establishing its unique truth. the difficulty with religious exclusivism is the absence of a universally accepted criterion, evidence, or experimental procedure to establish a ranking of different religious beliefs. it may be suggested that the superiority of a particular religious outlook can be established by virtue of its beneficial consequences. the approach is sometimes justified by reference to matthew 7:16: “By their fruits you shall know them.” But which “fruits” are to be picked as relevant to the task of comparing different religions, and what are the criteria for establishing the success of such fruit inspection? are we to concentrate on worldly goods or the redemption and reward awaiting the faithful in the hereafter? the ultimate goal, in many religions, is to achieve eternal salvation rather than comfort or happiness in this transient realm. the two types of good seem incommensurable, and if the eternal trumps the worldly, as it is claimed to do, then the suggestion that we should rank religions in terms of their beneficial consequences becomes unworkable. alternatively, it may be claimed that religions should be ranked in terms of their conceptual or theoretical superiority : we could, for instance, use criteria such as internal coherence and rational plausibility to establish the superiority of a particular religious doctrine. such measures, however, even if successfully applied, introduce extraneous rational and prudential considerations that are alien, if not antithetical, to religious faith. in almost all religious traditions, 292 Maria Baghramian having faith involves an element of unquestioning and hence nonrational acceptance. to rank religious beliefs in terms of internal coherence or rational plausibility flies in the face of this defining feature of faith. inclusive monism the inclusive or liberal version of religious monism denies the import of the perceived diversity and minimizes its scope; the claim is that the extent of the alleged differences between religions has either been exaggerated or misunderstood. Beyond the apparent dissimilarities, many core similarities unify all religions into a single overarching true message. according to one version of this approach, as explored by people such as William James, John e. smith, and ninian smart, the essential unity of religious beliefs is located in the recurrent patterns of diverse religious systems. For instance, William James proposes that in every clearly articulated religious system there are at least three discernible structural elements: first, a vision of an ideal, variously described as Ground, Order, Person, Divine nothingness, or similar, which defines the true fulfillment of man and everything else; second, a judgment which discloses in the actual world some defect or flaw that separates present life from the ideal fulfillment; and third, the Power— be it knowledge, a person, a divine law, or a model of conduct—whose function it is to nullify the distorting effect of the flaw and unite man...