Is Universalism Harmful To Interfaith Dialog?

[Neon Genesis]

In this weekend's episode of the State of Belief podcast, Rev Gaddy had an interview with Professor Prothero, who has written a new book about the problems with religious universalism. Professor Prothero's main argument is that the belief that all religions worship the same god and everyone gets saved is an insult to the diversity of religion and that all the major world religions are completely different from each other. He claims that if everyone went to heaven when they died, Hindus would be disappointed that they didn't wind up in the afterlife they were expecting to go to and that this belief is really condescending to believers. He argues this belief will actually hurt interfaith dialog because its disrespects the unique aspects of each religion by downplaying their differences. He thinks it's through the promotion and understanding of our religious differences that will lead us to a more productive dialog. I personally disagree with his arguments.

 

I think it's more condescending to believe that anyone who doesn't agree with your beliefs is somehow sub-human and I'd be more upset that I wound up in eternal torture in hell than I would if paradise didn't turn out the way religious people said it would. And wouldn't religious liberals be just as disappointed that their universalism afterlife wasn't real, too? I also don't see how universalism means religious believers have to ignore their differences. I think he's making a false dichotomy where you have to either focus 100% on the similarities or either 100% focusing on the differences but I think it's possible to focus on what makes your religion or philosophy unique while not letting the differences get in the way of what we share in common. I think that many church schisms begin when someone thinks their belief is the one true way and everyone else is wrong and sinful. Frankly I think there's enough division in the world as there is and the world needs to focus more on finding common ground but it doesn't mean we have to give up on diversity all-together. What are your thoughts on this? Do you think it's the differences in religion that will produce greater interfaith dialog than the similarities? Do you think it's insulting to believers to emphasize the similarities? Here's the episode for anyone who wants to listen: http://stateofbelief.com/show-archive/236-may-15-16-2010

 

Edit: I hope it was ok for me to post this in this forum. The State of Belief podcast is a progressive Christian podcast but the topic was on interfaith dialog of all religions, so I wasn't sure where it should go.

[Antlerman]

Not having taken the time to listen to his full explanation, off the top of my head I'd say I do see a great value in looking at similarities, as well as differences. The differences are important in recognizing our cultural frameworks, the similarities in recognizing our commonalities beyond our cultures. It's the latter that I'd say is that is what indicates something essential to us, something that we connect with when we are able to set aside placing all meaning in those differences.

 

If what I gather on the surface, without the benefit of actually listening to him yet, that he sees that trying to find truth in someone else's point of view means trying to learn something where we might be wrong, than I'd say I hope he understands it applies to him as well. It would be utterly arrogant of him, and immature, to be thinking in the back of his mind that ultimately he hopes others would come to see his point of view and be saved. I wouldn't be able to hold him in much regard if he was thinking on that shallow of a level.

 

I'll try to listen to what he may be saying as time permits.

[Deva]

I listened to Professor Prothero on the podcast and find myself basically agreeing with him. There can certainly be legitimate parallels drawn between religions a la Huxley's "Perennial Philosophy", but there are also major differences that cannot be ignored. Buddhism and Christianity are not about the same thing. All religions are NOT the same. Glossing it over and pretending it doesn't exist is intellectually dishonest.

 

I think it could be productive to have dialogue, but if the differences are just not mentioned and only the broad similarities then it is just not addressing the issue.

 

Perhaps it is my inextricable fundy background, but I don't like ecumenical services. I have only been to one and that was enough. It was in a Jewish Temple. I was in the Episcopal Church at the time and my priest embarrassed himself by saying that Jews and Christians have the same Messiah, it is just that Christians believe he already came and Jews are still waiting for him. I am thinking "what did I just hear?"

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Perhaps it is my inextricable fundy background, but I don't like ecumenical services. I have only been to one and that was enough. It was in a Jewish Temple. I was in the Episcopal Church at the time and my priest embarrassed himself by saying that Jews and Christians have the same Messiah, it is just that Christians believe he already came and Jews are still waiting for him. I am thinking "what did I just hear?"

On the other hand, I once went to a an interfaith lecture at my college this last term that was about tolerance and Hinduism. They had two guest speakers, this Hindu lady who gave us an introduction to her religion and talked about her culture and faith, and this evangelical Christian professor who held similar views to Prothero about interfaith dialog. He gave a simplified overview of Christianity where he basically asserted Trinitirian Christianity was the correct historical orthodox position of Christianity and oversimplified the conflicts between the early Christian churches over the divinity of Jesus. It was a very weird lecture to me because on the one hand, they were trying to encourage dialog and understanding with Hinduism, on the other hand, he believed Christianity was the one true religion that was going to heaven and everyone else was going to fry in hell. Of course, he didn't say it like that and he was trying to be nice and accepting, but he used the standard metaphors evangelicals use to make hell seem logical. I was a little disappointed in the Christian guest and was more interested in what the Hindu lady had to say.

[Shyone]

Universalism is like tiptoeing through a mine field. You might call it a "mind field."

 

Clearly, religions have mutually contradictory concepts, and attempts to draw from their similarities have generally resulted in "new religions" that also somehow manage to contradict existing religions (e.g. Bah'ai).

 

Ironically, it is government that, by forcing them to get along with one another and marginalizing religion, has forced them to fall back on the "universal principles" in order to further the goal of any particular religion.

 

"In God We Trust" is not a specifically Christian, Islamic, Hebrew or Hindu phrase, but each can claim it as furthering the purposes of their religion. Graduation prayers, when they are allowed, are "general" enough not to offend any particular religion (usually). "Under God" sounds innocuous to almost all people of faith.

 

Ultimately, this is all for show, and the specific religions still hold on to their doctrinal differences. The RCC in particular will not concede that one can reach nirvana through any route but theirs.

 

It is the doctrines of the churches that distinguish them, and it is those doctrines that allow them to keep membership (and money). Without such strong bonds to particular religions, people would simply buy a bible and figure it out for themselves, or adopt a position that is so generic that church isn't necessary.

[Deva]

It is the doctrines of the churches that distinguish them, and it is those doctrines that allow them to keep membership (and money). Without such strong bonds to particular religions, people would simply buy a bible and figure it out for themselves, or adopt a position that is so generic that church isn't necessary.

 

That's right (see Shyone I can agree with you!). Each adherent of a religion considers that they have the truth or at least the true world view or why would they even bother attending?

 

I honestly do not know how a productive ecumenical dialogue would be conducted. I also see a minefield. Some mutual tolerance could possibly be achieved if all parties tried hard enough to understand the others' viewpoint but I have never seen this take place.

 

Generally what happens is that the common elements in religions are emphasized and the differences ignored.

 

I am thinking of a book I have called "The Good Heart" where the Dalai Lama and some Catholic monks had a dialogue. The common elements of the monastic system and the sections of the Bible where Jesus shows compassion were emphasized and many other positions were ignored. Yes, it is a fact that the RCC believes it has the only true way. Yet, you won't find the Catholic representatives in this book saying that in the presence of the Dalai Lama. It is all kind of fake.

 

On the other hand too, I realized after reading this book that the only Christianity the Dalai Lama is halfway familiar with is Catholicism.

 

The intention was good, but it seemed kind of dishonest in a way.

[Shyone]

The intention was good, but it seemed kind of dishonest in a way.

I know what you mean.

 

I'm actually kind of worried about the opposite problem - that religions will join together. If it weren't for the existence of Hinduism, three varieties of Abrahamic religion, Buddhism and others, we would hardly have anything to point to and say, "if you're right, then why does the majority of the world disagree with you?" Or anyone but atheists for that matter.

 

Given that they're all man made anyway, I can't see them trashing their cherished doctrines for a little unity however.

[florduh]

Is Universalism Harmful To Interfaith Dialog?

Who gives a shit, really?

 

Religion is by nature exclusive. That's what gives it its power.

 

There is no reason to assume they all hold a piece of Truth, or indeed that any of them have any Truth at all.

[Neon Genesis]

Another inconsistency in Prothero's argument is that he criticizes pluralists for over-emphasizing the similarities in religions when that's impossible to do because they all say completely different things, but then he turns around in his definition of "true" Christianity and over-emphasizes the similarities in fundamentalist Christianity to prove that it's what Christianity is really all about. Like he argues that Christianity isn't about morals or ethics but it's about sin and Jesus being the solution to sin, but Prothero is simply using only the most fundamentalist examples of the world religions to prove his point while ignoring the diverse schisms within individual religions. Like he tries to argue that univeralism is not the true Christianity and arguing that there is such a thing as a universally accepted definition of true Christianity while at the same time arguing that there are no universally accepted similarities in religion. If there's no universally accepted similarities in religion, how can there be a universally accepted definition of what the one true path of a religion is?

[Shyone]

Another inconsistency in Prothero's argument is that he criticizes pluralists for over-emphasizing the similarities in religions when that's impossible to do because they all say completely different things, but then he turns around in his definition of "true" Christianity and over-emphasizes the similarities in fundamentalist Christianity to prove that it's what Christianity is really all about. Like he argues that Christianity isn't about morals or ethics but it's about sin and Jesus being the solution to sin, but Prothero is simply using only the most fundamentalist examples of the world religions to prove his point while ignoring the diverse schisms within individual religions. Like he tries to argue that univeralism is not the true Christianity and arguing that there is such a thing as a universally accepted definition of true Christianity while at the same time arguing that there are no universally accepted similarities in religion. If there's no universally accepted similarities in religion, how can there be a universally accepted definition of what the one true path of a religion is?

If you're on "the right path" then it's "universal" to you. Maybe?

 

Makes my head spin.

[Neon Genesis]

My point is that if we can determine that the version of Islam that terrorists believe in is the "true" version of Islam and the Islam of the moderate believers is a false heretical faith, then is that not admitting there are certain similar doctrines held by Muslims that make Islam recognizable, which is contrary to the critics of universalism that claim all religions are totally different?

[NotBlinded]

I have to say, IMO, that of course they are all the same. They are all made up stories about what each of them thinks God is. They may be different in regards to the content of the stories, but they are the same psychologically. Not a one of them knows anything about what God is or even if it is at all. The myths are just expressions of what they believe it to be.

 

To dive deeper into the metaphors and archetypes is to discover that humans have a tendency to use the same ones over and over in order to get across a meaning. Water is a good example and being swallowed or to fall in a well of some sort expresses another meaning.

 

Yes, they are the same. They all point to "something" that none of them knows intellectually.

[Deva]

NotBlinded, the "made up stories" are all different. Therefore they are not the same.

[NotBlinded]

NotBlinded, the "made up stories" are all different. Therefore they are not the same.

Are the blind feeling the elephant all talking about the elephant?

 

Now if we can just get them to agree that not a damn one of them has ever seen the elephant, then dialogue could begin.

 

 

 

"Truth is one, the sages speak of it by many names." Rig Veda

[florduh]

Is it possible there's no elephant at all?

[NotBlinded]

Is it possible there's no elephant at all?

Absolutely.

[florduh]

So maybe the blind men are just feeling themselves! Explains a lot about religion!

[NotBlinded]

So maybe the blind men are just feeling themselves! Explains a lot about religion!

Or each other!

[HarrisonFnord]

"Hey guys! I just found the trunk!"

[Rev R]

"Hey guys! I just found the trunk!"

 

sorry that's not the trunk

 

edit: but on the up side the elephant may like you more

[florduh]

Ewwwwww! Why is it eating a peanut?

[NotBlinded]

"Hey guys! I just found the trunk!"

 

sorry that's not the trunk

 

edit: but on the up side the elephant may like you more

[Guest Valk0010]

You can manage universalism(seems like a form of cognitive dissonce to me) I think it is better for religion

 

all these interfaith conferences can't solve shit, when there is hell involved

[Neon Genesis]

Apparently Prothero thinks universalists are too pluralistic but atheists aren't pluralistic enough and he claims all atheists are intellectually dishonest http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/07/01/why-is-stephen-prothero-so-hard-on-atheists/:

It’s not easy to defend Stephen Prothero when he writes about atheists. I wrote before that he knows a lot about our “community” even if he wrongly calls atheism a religion with our own brand of fundamentalists.

 

His new book is God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World — and Why Their Differences Matter and he’s still doing interviews all over the place for it. But the more of those he does, the more I want to keep my distance.

 

Take this interview with Nicole Neroulias, for instance:

 

Why are you so hard on atheists?

 

I think they’re intellectually dishonest, and I think it’s the hardest religious position to take up. With Christianity, you just have to affirm that Jesus is God and sent to the world to save the world. With atheism, you have to reject every single god. There’s a lot of gods out there. I think many atheists are not actually atheists; they’re just people who’ve rejected the Jewish or Christian God, more specifically the god that their parents taught them. They don’t know anything about the Hindu divinities. How can you reject a god that you’ve never even heard of?

 

That’s like asking how we could dismiss the existence of all unicorns when we’ve only rejected two species of them.

 

The same arguments that made us lose faith in our family’s god apply to other gods all the same. They’re all fictional. You want us to believe in your god? Prove to us that your god exists. It’s that simple. And it’s a challenge that no religious person has ever met.

 

And for what it’s worth, Christians reject all the same gods atheists do… with one exception. Prothero never faults them for that.

 

Even the interviewer didn’t seem to like his explanation:

 

Perhaps they just feel committed to scientific evidence rather than mystery?

 

Then I hope they never read a novel, since mystery lies at the heart of so many novels! But, even rejecting the supernatural, not all religions have gods, not all religions necessarily have the supernatural. Confucianism and Buddhism might be the religion for them.

 

Isn’t Prothero the religion expert? Many forms of Buddhism buy into the concepts of karma and rebirth — are those not supernatural? And if you don’t believe in those, what exactly makes it a religion? Same deal with Confucianism, which seems more like a philosophy that a deity-centered faith, which is really what atheists have a problem with.

 

You can label your belief system whatever you want. Atheists don’t see evidence for any god and that eliminates most religions. To say that we could be Buddhists (or whatever) is missing the point.

[Shyone]

Perhaps they just feel committed to scientific evidence rather than mystery?

 

Then I hope they never read a novel, since mystery lies at the heart of so many novels!

 

He's closer to understanding than he realizes. Novels are fictional. Mystery, in the sense of religious mystery, is all about fiction.

 

What a maroon!