Interfaith Dialogue

Fenster writes:

Following up on Fabrizio’s atheism post.

Worth looking at the numbers.

Here is Pew’s assessment of religious affiliation in the United States.

major_religious_traditions

The unaffiliated make for a large number–over 16%, or 10 times the number of Jews or Muslims and over 20 times the number of Muslims or Buddhists or Hindus.

Most of the unaffiliated are casually so.  Only 1.6% describe themselves as atheist and 2.4% as agnostic, with the balance (12.1%) “nothing in particular”, with this split almost evenly between “secular unaffiliated” and “religious unaffiliated.”  So Bill Maher probably goes too far in making his claims about the large number of actual non-believers, since a lot of these folks are not so much active non-believers as they are just indifferent.  But these are still big enough numbers.  There are still way more actual self-described agnostics and atheists than Jews or Muslims or Mormons or Buddhists.  And it seems likely that some number of the casually unaffiliated are objectively atheists or agnostics, but just don’t want to use the words to describe themselves.

As The Economist recently pointed out, those of little or no express faith have not had an easy time of it in the public square, given the tendency to distrust non-believers.  That does not condone obnoxious behavior on the part of organized atheists, like the Times Square billboard this Christmas season.

american-atheists2

But I still generally agree with Maher that non-belief needs more respect.  Whether this is the way to do it is another question.

Some of this relative exclusion of the other is just human nature.  Believers tend to reach out first to other believers.  Further, believers of somewhat like minds will reach out to one another before they reach out to others whose faiths are further afield.  Interfaith dialogue in this country is by and large an Abrahamic religion kind of thing.

After the Newtown shooting, Morning Joe hosted an interfaith discussion including a bishop, a rabbi and an imam.  That’s a pretty common format, expressing the desire to be ecumenical at least among one’s extended religious family.  And that three-way dialogue seems to be the most common format overall–a Google search reveals three-way Abrahamic conclaves here, here, and here.

What’s interesting about this given the Pew numbers is the relative absence in interfaith dialogues not only of non-believers but also adherents to other, non-Abrahamic faiths.  According to Pew, there are more Buddhists than Muslims in the United States, and Hinduism is not far behind.  Why not at least include them, and continue to stiff the non-believers?

Perhaps we just have not yet mastered the doubletalk required for interfaith discussions to include religions that come from an entirely different space?  Maybe, but we could probably stretch the doubletalk if we needed to.  But do we need to?  Maybe not.  It seems to me more likely that the relative absence of Buddhists and Hindus reflects the fact that conflicts on those religious borders have not yet risen to the point that they need to be managed.

And isn’t that what interfaith dialogue really is: an effort to manage potential conflict? After all, interfaith dialogues are not the most intuitive thing.  If you believe x and someone else believes y, the simplest and most direct course is for you to defend x and question y.  Yes, you can try to find least common denominator similarities among different religions, but it is hard to truly reconcile them.

It’s like the push for multiculturalism: as long as you have two cultures bristling up against one another, there will be a felt need to tamp down inevitable conflicts via beliefs and habits that are strongly counterintutive.  But perhaps necessary and useful.  That’s why I gave one cheer to multiculturalism on 2Blowhards some years back.  Ideas don’t have to be logical or consistent for them to be useful or helpful in fixing vexing social conundrums.

Here is a rabbi on HuffPost telling it like it is.  C’mon, let’s face facts, he argues–interfaith dialogue mostly doesn’t work.

(M)ost of we time we are satisfied with mouthing a few noble, often-repeated sentiments. Thus, we affirm the importance of mutual understanding, tolerance and dialogue; we assert that all human beings are created in the image of God; we proclaim that despite our differences, all of our traditions preach love of humankind and service to humanity. Nothing is wrong with these sentiments, of course; in conceptual terms, I believe in them all. But if we don’t dig beneath the surface and focus on substance rather than rhetoric, they mean very little. . .  interreligious dialogue truly touches us when we can discuss what we all know to be true but what we rarely say: that, in some ways at least, we all believe in the exceptionalism of our own traditions.

Just so.

But does this make the exercise useless?  That depends on what its true function is.  Participants may expect revelation and synthesis, having based their participation on such hopes.  If so they will be disappointed.  It is probably more correct to say that we engage in these things to stop us from following the internal logic of our faiths, and in turn causing social harm.  In that sense interfaith dialogue can be said to work even if it doesn’t feel too good.

About Fenster

Gainfully employed for thirty years, including as one of those high paid college administrators faculty complain about. Earned Ph.D. late in life and converted to the faculty side. Those damn administrators are ruining everything.
This entry was posted in Philosophy and Religion and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Interfaith Dialogue

  1. If you are interested in some new ideas on interfaith dialogue and the Trinity, please check out my website at http://www.religiouspluralism.ca, and give me your thoughts on improving content and presentation.

    My thesis is that an abstract version of the Trinity could be Christianity’s answer to the world need for a framework of pluralistic theology.

    In a constructive worldview: east, west, and far-east religions present a threefold understanding of One God manifest primarily in Muslim and Hebrew intuition of the Deity Absolute, Christian and Krishnan Hindu conception of the Universe Absolute Supreme Being; and Shaivite Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist apprehension of the Destroyer (meaning also Consummator), Unconditioned Absolute, or Spirit of All That Is and is not. Together with their variations and combinations in other major religions, these religious ideas reflect and express our collective understanding of God, in an expanded concept of the Holy Trinity.

    The Trinity Absolute is portrayed in the logic of world religions, as follows:

    1. Muslims and Jews may be said to worship only the first person of the Trinity, i.e. the existential Deity Absolute Creator, known as Allah or Yhwh, Abba or Father (as Jesus called him), Brahma, and other names; represented by Gabriel (Executive Archangel), Muhammad and Moses (mighty messenger prophets), and others.

    2. Christians and Krishnan Hindus may be said to worship the first person through a second person, i.e. the experiential Universe or “Universal” Absolute Supreme Being (Allsoul or Supersoul), called Son/Christ or Vishnu/Krishna; represented by Michael (Supreme Archangel), Jesus (teacher and savior of souls), and others. The Allsoul is that gestalt of personal human consciousness, which we expect will be the “body of Christ” (Mahdi, Messiah, Kalki or Maitreya) in the second coming – personified in history by Muhammad, Jesus Christ, Buddha (9th incarnation of Vishnu), and others.

    3. Shaivite Hindus, Buddhists, and Confucian-Taoists seem to venerate the synthesis of the first and second persons in a third person or appearance, ie. the Destiny Consummator of ultimate reality – unqualified Nirvana consciousness – associative Tao of All That Is – the absonite* Unconditioned Absolute Spirit “Synthesis of Source and Synthesis,”** who/which is logically expected to be Allah/Abba/Brahma glorified in and by union with the Supreme Being – represented in religions by Gabriel, Michael, and other Archangels, Mahadevas, Spiritpersons, etc., who may be included within the mysterious Holy Ghost.

    Other strains of religion seem to be psychological variations on the third person, or possibly combinations and permutations of the members of the Trinity – all just different personality perspectives on the Same God. Taken together, the world’s major religions give us at least two insights into the first person of this thrice-personal One God, two perceptions of the second person, and at least three glimpses of the third.

    * The ever-mysterious Holy Ghost or Unconditioned Spirit is neither absolutely infinite, nor absolutely finite, but absonite; meaning neither existential nor experiential, but their ultimate consummation; neither fully ideal nor totally real, but a middle path and grand synthesis of the superconscious and the conscious, in consciousness of the unconscious.

    ** This conception is so strong because somewhat as the Absonite Spirit is a synthesis of the spirit of the Absolute and the spirit of the Supreme, so it would seem that the evolving Supreme Being may himself also be a synthesis or “gestalt” of humanity with itself, in an Almighty Universe Allperson or Supersoul. Thus ultimately, the Absonite is their Unconditioned Absolute Coordinate Identity – the Spirit Synthesis of Source and Synthesis – the metaphysical Destiny Consummator of All That Is.

    After the Hindu and Buddhist conceptions, perhaps the most subtle expression and comprehensive symbol of the 3rd person of the Trinity is the Tao; involving the harmonization of “yin and yang” (great opposing ideas indentified in positive and negative, or otherwise contrasting terms). In the Taoist icon of yin and yang, the s-shaped line separating the black and white spaces may be interpreted as the Unconditioned “Middle Path” between condition and conditioned opposites, while the circle that encompasses them both suggests their synthesis in the Spirit of the “Great Way” or Tao of All That Is.

    If the small black and white circles or “eyes” are taken to represent a nucleus of truth in both yin and yang, then the metaphysics of this symbolism fits nicely with the paradoxical mystery of the Christian Holy Ghost; who is neither the spirit of the one nor the spirit of the other, but the Glorified Spirit proceeding from both, taken altogether – as one entity – personally distinct from his co-equal, co-eternal and fully coordinate co-sponsors, who differentiate from him, as well as mingle and meld in him.

    For more details, please see: http://www.religiouspluralism.ca

    Samuel Stuart Maynes

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s