Academic Connections, International

aconnectionsi@gmail.com © Academic Connections, International

Annotated Background Readings

Audi, Robert (editor). The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1995.   See pps. 624-25 for a broad philosophical notion of pluralism.

Collins, Robin. “Eastern Religions” in Reason for the Hope Within, edited by Michael J. Murray.  Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1997.  

    See pps.182-216.

    I find this article very helpful, though brief, in laying out the basic contours of Eastern religious thought--forms of Hinduism and forms of Buddhism--and the underlying rational issues as they relate to the problem of religious pluralism.   A useful place to start if your campus has large pockets of these religious adherents.  

Hondreric, Ted (editor) . The Oxford Companion to Philosophy.  New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1995.  

    See p. 690 for a political definition of pluralism.

Langerak, Edward. “Theism and Toleration” in A Companion to Philosophy of Religion, edited by Philip L. Quinn and Charless Taliaferro.  Malden, MA: Blackwell Publisher’s Ldt., 1997.

    See pps. 514-21 for a summary of the received tradition which forms a rough basis for the sociological objection to theistic (Christian especially) exclusivism.  Note that Langerak is clear to point out the difference between toleration and indifference or the “broad-minded celebration of differences” that toleration is sometimes confused with.

    It seems to me that this is imperative to understand this line of argument in order to avoid missing the mark (by answering questions that nobody is asking), and in order to get a sense of the political conception of liberalism (for eg. John Rawl’s views) that deeply influences academe.  This will allow you to direct your rebuttals in ways that will help you from unnecessarily stepping on the sensitivities of academic liberals.  That is, it can help you separate yourself as a religious exclusivist from the mistakes that some religious exclusivists make and have made and also give you a sense of the grey areas in policy issues that have formed in the history of Western culture.

    That is to say that things like the problem of pluralism doesn’t emerge in a political and cultural vacuum.  Instead they emerge in a political and cultural history which is typically presented from the point of view of the latest political and cultural victor--in this case, political and cultural liberalism.  This history and cultural consensus help shape and form the sociological “plausibility structure” (or accepted opinions) in which rebuttals and defeaters are countenanced.   To not take the time to grasp this legacy is to invite misunderstanding by not couching your arguments in terms that connect with the audience that holds these views.

O’Connor, Timothy. “Religious Pluralism” in Reason for the Hope Within, edited by Michael J. Murray.  Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1997.  See pps. 165-81.  

    An extremely helpful introduction to the subject and critical examination of some of the key arguments given in support of the “many roads” to God arguments in rigorous terms and other arguments as well.  His arguments are important to be familiar with, but the key to apologetic work in academe (other than writing) is learning to express those arguments verbally in such a way to engage your listener.  So having a good rebutting defeater for religious pluralism arguments is probably not by itself enough to win people’s hearts and minds.   This covers the intellectual problem very well, but the “non-rational” problem that apologists face is that holders of “many roads” to God argument are often expressing deeply held values and not just rational arguments in support of their view.  Since in this venue I’m concerning myself with the rational arguments and not the non-rational, I leave to you as homework to contemplate handling what is conceivably non-rational opposition.