Talk:Religious pluralism/Archive 1

Uh, I have issues with a couple of sentences:

the Jews teach that their faith is only the most complete and accurate revelation of God to humanity that we have ........... Judaism held that although only Judaism was true

First, this characterization may lead some to believe that "pluralism" means that everyone has an equal right to be ethnocentric (or whatever). It isn't that I disagree with this, but this is a view an outsider (someone in an objective or non-partisan) position can believe about "religions" – this is very different from a religion itself taking a pluralist position vis a vis itself and other religions.

Could you clarify your thoughts on this issue. The sentence you mention was specifically in the section on "Jewish views"; this it was not a claim about pluralism in general, it was only about a Jewish view of pluralism. RK

What I mean is this: to me, this account of Judaism makes Judaism (at least according to some people at one time) non-pluralistic. The article points out that in a rather different way Christianity, or a major version of Christianity, is non-pluralistic. Now, in the other articles we have been discussing, I think the major thread of the discussion was attempts within those religious traditions to revise their views of themselves so that they would become pluralistic in their own attitudes towards the truth. But looking at the descrtiptions of Judaism and Christianity in this article, I see a different -- also valid, important, and in many ways related, but still, I think, different -- which is, how can someone who is not an Orthodox/fundamentalist Christian or Jew come up with a set of beliefs about "the truth" that would allow them to respect both orthodox/fundamentalist Christianity. I guess I am asking "pluralism for whom?" and "pluralism for what purpose? because I strongly suspect that people who answer these questions differently are likely to come up with different kinds of pluralisms.

Second, and more important, I question the accuracy of this claim about Judaism. Does the Jewish tradition (either the sages in the Talmud, or the major midrashic works) claim that the Hebrew/Jewish religion is "the most complete an accurate?" I don't think so, although I would defer to RK or others. But I really don't believe that Judaism ever held that "only Judaism" was true. - SR

There are many traditional rabbinic statements to this effect, yes. In fact, I am understating the traditional Jewish view. Although I am not Orthodox, I admit that many non-Orthodox rabbis fail to accurately describe the views of our religious predecessors to their congregations. In some ways, Orthodox rabbis are correct when they say that non-Orthodox rabbis over-stress the pluralistic parts of Judaism, and fail to quote the many parts of the tradition which explicitly state that other faiths are incomplete or misleading. (These people, however, did not claim that all gentile faiths were completely false.) The non-Orthodox may be correct in stressing that we need to concentrate on and develop the pluralistic path, but they need to explain that the path they teach is not synonmous with what every Jewish community in the past has believed. (Similar, yes.) Over the next week I will be adding more references and quotes on this topic from Jewish, Christian and Muslim perspectives, with quotes and resources for further reading. RK

First of all, I am a little skeptical of Orthodox Jewish claims that their account of "traditional" Judaism really reflects the beliefs of, say, the Tanaim. Pilpul and a whole lot of midrashic technique often involves making claims about what a text "really" means by taking it out of context and putting it in a new one. I am not claiming that I really knbow what the Tanaim really thought. I am claiming that knowing what they thought is not so simple as just reading the Talmud, because the reading that makes most sense to us today, or made the most sense to people in the 10th century, may nevertheless not be how people in the 2nd century understood things.

That said, let's say I grant your point (I know you know these texts a lot better than I do). I think that for me the crucial issue here is that not all Jews agree, and Judaism has changed. I think even "traditional" or "classic" Judaism may be too braod a term. I understand that I may be asking for a degree of detail inappropriate for the article, but beyond distinguishing between Tanaim and Amoraim and Medieval commentators, I'd even like to see distinctions between J and D discussed!

I admit I have an underlying motive for this preference. When we scrutinize differences in beliefs and attitudes over time, it becomes possible to show how those beliefs and practices were influenced by their historical context. Thus, beliefs that appear to be absolute are revealed to be contingent.

Perhaps my position is controversial. But if you share or are sympathetic with my view, I think explicating these changing attitudes, and trying to account for why at one time Jewish claims may not have been absolute at all, then they were very avbsolute, then they became more moderate again, etc., would add tremendously to the educational value of the article.

I do believe that it held, categorically, that God exists and is one, and that all polytheistic faiths are categorically wrong. This is significant and must be recognized. Nevertheless, this is a Jewish claim about the world, not a Jewish claim about Judaism. I mean, Genesis tells of God's relationship with Adam and Noah, the fathers of ALL of us (i.e. humanity) but although this is a "Jewish" belief in that Jews believe it, it is not a belief about Jews because Adam and Noah were not Jewish, were not Children of Israel, were not Hebrews. - SR

I agree. I didn't realize that the entry, in its present early state, implied otherwise. It can be rewritten. RK

Well, it is a judgement call and I am not so sure myself. But I do think that there are people out there who think that because Noah or even Job are in the Bible, they must have been Jewish. And as a Jew, I am very proud that one of the greatest (in my opinion) books on our relationship to God is about a non-Jew. And the significance of course is not that non-Jews can reach God, but that they can reach God by being righteous in their own way and not only do they not have to obey halakha, they do not even have to believe in the covenant at Sinai or even that anything happened at all at Sinai!

Judaism (Hebrew/Israelite religion) claims that other Gods are false Gods and that other peoples will come to no good worshiping them. It also hates it when Jews worship false Gods. But I do not recall ANYTHING that suggests that Judaism as such is "true" for non-Jews. God is true for all, but Judaism as such is for Jews! Given this I do not understand the claim that "Judaism held that only Judaism was true." I just don't think Judaism ever claimed this.

I agree. I don't think that the article implies this, but if it does, just point out where and it can be rewritten. Or maybe the entry doesn't say anything about this either way, and this point just needs to be made explicit. The way I understand it is this: Judaism claims that the Jewish faith really is true in an absolute sense, and not just for Jews. (Of course, how can one hold that facts are relative?) I wanted to say that Judaism, however, also teaches that gentiles are not obligated to become Jews. In fact, Judaism only teaches that gentiles have a very small list obligations that they are bound to follow (i.e. the 7 Noachide laws.) RK

I think in context these points should be incorporated into the article. But I must point out that there are many people who do not at all define facts as absolute, but indeed claim that they are relative. People who follow the later Wittgenstein would argue that what constitutes a "fact" is contingent on the particular language-game. Some historians of science would arge that what is recognized as a fact is depends on what paradigm you are operating in. Some social scientists (there is a famous book called The Social Construction of Reality by Berger and Luckman) argue that facts are social constructs. And of course, these views provide great theoretical justification for any kind of pluralism.

Also the revelation at Sinai was a profound event for Jews. But wasn't it just for Jews? Does anything in the account claim that it was the most complete an accurate revelation of God? I am not sure that the Torah or the Talmud ever even claim that it is possible for God to reveal Himself "completely." - SR

I fully agree, Judaism holds that the teachings of the Torah are just for Jews. Gentiles are not bound to follow all the laws therein. Judaism does not teach that the Torah, or even the Tanach (Hebrew Bible, Old Testament) is the final and complete word of God. In fact, Judaism holds by the precise opposite; that no one document or set of documents can ever contain the total and unambiguous word of God. That is precisely the point of the oral law. I think this point is mentioned somewhere further down in the entry, although it could be made more explicit and moved to a better location. RK

yes, I think these points are important enough that they should be more explicit.

Perhaps I am ignorant of some important proof-texts – which I hope someone would then provide. I have just enough doubt to not want to revise the article unilaterally -- SR

Here are some 'proof-texts' from the Old Testament that many Christians interpret to mean that the Hebrew religion was intended to be shared with the entire world.

* Isaiah 42:6-7 -- Israel is to be a light to the nations.

* Genesis 12:3 -- God told Abraham, "... and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."

* Daniel ch. 3-4 -- Nebuchadnezzar ends by praising the God of Daniel.

* Daniel 6:26-27 -- Darius decrees that everyone in his kingdom should worship the God of Daniel.

* Jonah 3:2-10 -- Jonah tells the people of Ninevah, outside of Israel and Judah, to repent; they do, and God forgives them.

* Joel 2:28-29 -- "Then afterward I will pour out my spirit on all flesh..."

* Amos and other prophets not only called Israel and Judah to repent of their sins, but the surrounding nations as well.

* 2 Kings 5 -- Naaman the Syrian was instructed by Elisha to wash in the Jordan to be cured of his leprosy. He was offended at this, thinking his own Syrian rivers were just as good, but was healed when he followed Elisha's instructions.

* There is also Rahab of Jericho who joined the Israelites, and Ruth the Moabite who married Boaz and declared her faith in the Hebrew God, and other such individuals.

These are undoubtedly 'proof-texts' and subject to differing interpretations. Nevertheless, these and other passages suggest to Christians that God revealed himself to the Hebrews in a special way so that he could be revealed to people of all nations and religions. --Wesley

I have an issue with the definition of religious pluralism. Isn't it not just theological attempts at reconciliation of some sort, but also political? And pluralism in a political sense is a different issue entirely from the theological sense. Perhaps this is really an article on ecumenism rather than pluralism. --Eric

Good points. First, I do think that pluralism is a political issue, among other things, but certainly a larger issue -- eventually I hope this article would be linked to a more general one on pluralism. - SR

Are you sure? The Jewish and Christian sources I have read seem to be strictly philosophical, theological and ethics-based. RK

Yes, I am sure -- I grant that theologians and religious leaders may be ignorant of the current work by legal scholars and political theorists. I grant that they may not need to know what those other people are doing; indeed, perhaps political theorists and legal scholars would benefit from learning what theologians are talking about. Nevertheless, the issue of pluralism really is a crucial issue in political theory. Stanley Fish has written about this, although I cannot give refernces. Also, look for a book edited by Amy Guttman called Multiculturalism

Second, this article is motivated by some lengthy discussions on other pages, espeically "Christian anti-semitism" and "Anti-semitic verses in the New Testament;" certainly there are conceptual issues in taking elements of that discussion out of context to develop a new article -- perhaps here is where you can make more specific contributions. Finally, the issue of ecumenicism is important but I think different (although there would be value to a linked page). Ecumenicism has a narrow and a broad meaning. The narrow one is really inappropriate here -- an attempt to bring together various Christian churches/movements/sects. The broader meaning suggests some kind of universally or generally accepted claim. In the case of Christianity and Judaism, belief in God/theism is a basis for ecumenicism. But I do not think that that really gets to the issue that people here want to address. - SR

I agree. The first definition of ecumenism that you bring up does not fall under religious pluralism. In fact, ecumenism (in this sense) may well be more political than theological. Perhaps this is what Eric means. The second definition of ecumenism that you bring up does is different; that version is a theological issue that many refer to as a "religious pluralism" issue. In responde to your point below, I would say that this secondary meaning of ecumenism is a part of religious pluralism, rather than a separate topic. Pluralism is used by many different people to cover a wide array of ideas.RK

You may be right, I haven't thought it through enough. In any event, I think a paragraph in the article situating pluralism as a notion (it is the opposite of x; it is like y and like z but in different ways) would be really useful.

Pluralism is different from ecumencisism in that if refers to how groups with conflicting or exclusive beliefs can relate to one another. But I do not think that it is purely political in that it is a matter solely of practical institutional arrangements or simply a guarantee of freedom of religion. The fundamental issue (in my opinion) is, in what ways and to what extent does one's desire to relate to others require one to change one's conception of one's self? How is a particular religion to understand and express its own truth-claims, given that it knows, and wants to respect, religions that make opposing truth-claims? Well, this is my take on it, perhaps what I wrote will give others (hint hint RK and Wesley and perhaps others) a chance to say more and explore further what this article should and should not be about. -- SR

I see what you're saying. I think it's a great subject to talk about, although I'm not sure how it fits into an encyclopedia article. I'm not sure that pluralism is what's being discussed here, but it's not exactly ecumenism either. If it were called "theological pluralism" that might be clearer, but I'm not going to be the one to change the name at this point! On a personal note, my own religious faith makes some pretty exclusivistic claims, but it also recognizes people of other faiths have or can have considerable truth and can ultimately end up in the same place. But not all people believe that way. It is an interesting subject. --Eric

Eric, that is precisely it; this entry is indeed intended to discuss what you call "theological pluaralism". I called it "religious pluralism" only because that is the phrase I have seen used more often than any others. I think that you see the phrase as having a different meaning; in any case, the definition in the article can be worded so as to make this distinction clear. Obviously, on Wikipedia nothing is set in stone. The title of this entry can certauinbly be changed. However, given the articles I have read so far, I would argue that among those who discuss this subject, the current title is more well known. But other perspectives are still necessary to add in this discussion. RK

Not even having read the article, I'd say that unless we can supply a citation from a theologian or religion professor or two, using the exact phrase "religious pluralism," the article is going to have to be changed radically--renamed, deleted, etc. We are reporting about actual scholarship here, not doing it ourselves. --LMS

But, as I expected, the term is certainly used: Google search for "religious pluralism" --LMS

I looked at Google, and it looks like the term is used more often in the context of religious diversity, although sometimes in the way the term is being used here. Check out the listings for theological pluralism, and it's lot closer to what's being talked about here, I think. --Eric

Like many topics in religion and theology, this specific topic is certainly referred to by different names, by different authors. There is no one set name. I chose "religious pluralism" as the title of this entry only because it seems that more people who discuss this topic use the phrase rather than any other phrase. If in our reading and surveying we find that some other phrase is actually used more often, then we should certainly change the title of this article to that phrase. RK

No comments on the content here, just an explanation of what I did:

moved the page to a lower-case title (but not this talk page--too much trouble to do that, just changed the link). We'd write "religious pluralism," I guess, not "Religious Pluralism," so the lower-case title is better. See naming conventions.

bolded the title.

removed the bullets. Generally, in an encyclopedia, I think it's best to stick with full prose sentences. Bullets are a bit overused on Wikipedia, I think, just because they're so easy to use--not because they are necessary.

--Larry Sanger

Larry, I think you're wrong to do this because:

Bullets are a great form of organization

They make it easy to distinguish points;

They look cool.

Anyone can easilly follow the arguments; in paragraph form it is sometimes harder to do.

And did I mention that they look cool?

RK

Eric writes "Isn't it not just theological attempts at reconciliation of some sort, but also political?"

Well, for some people that is true, I guess. But for the people whose works I have read, the primary motivation is ethical and theological. This article, as it currently stands, is not about ecumenism at all; it is about theological pluralism. While some people may have political reasons for such theologies, I have not yet come across their writings. If you have any ones to suggest, that would be much appreciated. RK

I would say that this secondary meaning of ecumenism, as stated by SR, is a part of religious pluralism, rather than a separate topic. Pluralism is used by many different people to cover a wide array of ideas. We probablu shouldn't be too strict in giving it a narrow definition. RK