Sep
9
For one of my seminars I am reading Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith & Mission by Harold Netland (2001). I would highly recommend this book to anybody interested in religious pluralism. Netland begins by discussing the cultural context that has given rise to postmodernism and religious pluralism (the belief that all religions are more or less equally salvific). Netland then proceeds to analyze and critique religious pluralism, focusing extensively on the model proposed by John Hick, one of the leading proponents of religious pluralism. Netland finishes by proposing an Evangelical theology of religions.
In one of his chapters Netland presents what he sees to be some of the problems with religious pluralism. I would like to present a few of them:
1. Pseudopluralisms: some advocates of religious tolerance and what appears to be religious equality are actually “covert inclusivists.” That is, although they appear to be saying that they accept all religions, they actually believe that their own is superior. For example, the Dalai Lama is a known proponent of religious tolerance, yet for him “salvation” is ultimately attained within Buddhism. He does not overtly seek to convert people to Buddhism because of his belief in karma and reincarnation; it is not because he thinks that all religions are equally true.
2. Reinterpretation of beliefs and Reductionism: Religious pluralists in order to make their model “work” are forced to reinterpret religious beliefs in a way that would be unacceptable to orthodox believers of the various traditions.
3. Personae/Impersonae: The problem of whether God/the Real/Ultimate Reality that religious pluralists describe is personal or impersonal is another weakness of religious pluralism. Pluralists are unable to convincingly explain how “the Real” can be personal for theists like Muslims and Christians and impersonal for others like Zen Buddhists and Advaita Vedantists. If pluralists end up attributing either a personal or impersonal nature to “the Real” they will be privileging some traditions over others, which is what they are supposedly trying not to do.
4. Ineffability: Religious Pluralists argue that “the Real” is ineffable and has a nature that is beyond the concepts that we have. Although we are unable to fully comprehend God, this does not mean that literally none of the properties attributed to God actually apply to God. According to Netland, this is “self-referentially incoherent” since at least the property of being ineffable would apply to God. Thus, God would not be beyond all our categories of thought and language. Moreover, Netland points out that if no substantial qualities can be properly applied to God then the appropriate response would be “agnostic silence” since we would know nothing about God.
To conclude, Netland argues that a genuinely pluralistic model must be coherent and must not privilege any particular religious perspective. When discussing with so-called pluralists remember that pluralists are usually forced to either distort the religious beliefs of others or they unintentionally end up privileging a particular religious tradition (usually it is their own).
Comments
2 Responses to “Harold Netland’s critique of Religious Pluralism”
Leave a Reply
-
Flickr Photos
More Photos
Nice, practical, and applicable. All ingredients that make up a great post!
I forgot to mention that it appeals to simple reason and logic, which really is what makes it practicle and applicable.
(Sorry for two posts, I know you were hoping for some outside contribution!!)