Critical Interaction with "Couldn't They All Be True?"
Written: April 1st, 2015.
Abstract: Having recently written an extensive essay where I argue that all world religions cannot be true [1], my good friend Bruce interacted with the arguments therein and provided me the opportunity to expand my thoughts and augment the essay with considerations about Eastern religions in particular, and how they relate to Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) more generally. Below is an edited transcript of our dialogue (originally in text message format, believe it or not). I end with a reflection on the quality of our discussion.
I. Discussion
Miles - Certainly, there is much more hope for religious pluralism when considering eastern religions than western (though, of course, Islam is an eastern religion, but that is beside the point). They are far more tolerant of each other, and permit a wide diversity of views under the "orthodox" umbrella. Indeed, according to philosopher Stuart Hackett, Taoism and Confucianism absorbed many beliefs from each other in their later manifestations. Neo-Confucianism looks a lot like classical Taoism, and Neo-Taoism looks a lot like classical Confucianism!
Nevertheless, I don't really see how any of this helps the religious pluralist. The Buddhist, for example, still claims that reincarnation is in fact true, and he claims the ultimate unreality of all distinctions. The Hindu believes that the purpose of human life is release from the process of reincarnation, and that God is not a personal being, but rather the impersonal Ultimate beyond all distinctions. These claims, if true, entail necessarily that Abrahamic religions are false, and vice versa. Moreover, eastern religions are incompatible with one another. They teach different things about life and the universe. The important distinction to make here is between tolerance and truth. From the mere fact that eastern religions are tolerant of one another and allow each other to coexist, it does not follow that they can all be true.
Bruce - I would call Islam western. If Islam is eastern, you could also make an argument that Judaism and Christianity are both eastern as well. Be that as it may, I guess a better distinction here is between Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic religions.
I was mostly referring to East Asian philosophy and spirituality. I intentionally left Hinduism alone. But if we look at East Asian practices like Shinto, Taoism, Confucianism, and Steppe sky worship, all these religions can coexist on a philosophical level quite well. Also, I would argue that tolerance can turn into "truth." We see this as Buddhism crosses over the Himalayas to China, where soon it's beliefs start to "mesh" with traditionally Chinese/Japanese/Korean beliefs. My point is that some religions, particularly Abrahamic ones, as well as Hinduism and some schools of Buddhism, are mutually exclusive. But if we look at most other faiths, especially East Asian ones and the pagan faiths of ancient Europe/Africa, they can easily coexist and "all be true." What I am trying to say is that the idea of religions being mutually exclusive only really applies to a select few faiths (which does goes along with your main point: all religions cannot be true).
Miles - Let me make a couple of points here. In the first place, I suppose that if multiple religions could all really, objectively be true, then they would be the same religion, because all of these supposedly different religions would be claiming the same thing about life, the universe, and whatever else. Moreover, your example of Buddhism mixing with local Chinese religions does not suggest that both religions can be true. After all, the hodgepodge religion that results is not the same one as either Buddhism or Chinese religion. The so-called hybrid religion takes bits and pieces from both and melds them into one coherent whole. It does not, however, take both belief systems in their entirety and combine them. That would just be two religions grouped under one name. The point is, the possibility of creating a hybrid religion from two parent religions in no way suggests that the parents both be objectively true. To illustrate, you can take bits and pieces from two scientific theories and make them into a coherent hybrid theory, but that in no way shows that the original two theories can both literally be true!
Miles - Let me make a couple of points here. In the first place, I suppose that if multiple religions could all really, objectively be true, then they would be the same religion, because all of these supposedly different religions would be claiming the same thing about life, the universe, and whatever else. Moreover, your example of Buddhism mixing with local Chinese religions does not suggest that both religions can be true. After all, the hodgepodge religion that results is not the same one as either Buddhism or Chinese religion. The so-called hybrid religion takes bits and pieces from both and melds them into one coherent whole. It does not, however, take both belief systems in their entirety and combine them. That would just be two religions grouped under one name. The point is, the possibility of creating a hybrid religion from two parent religions in no way suggests that the parents both be objectively true. To illustrate, you can take bits and pieces from two scientific theories and make them into a coherent hybrid theory, but that in no way shows that the original two theories can both literally be true!
Furthermore, the willingness of eastern religions to mesh reflects, not the fact that they all teach things consistent with one another, but rather the tenacity with which easterners adhere to their religion; they do not hold their beliefs dogmatically. They are far more willing to change their beliefs and adopt new ones than followers of the three great Abrahamic religions. But of course, less tenacity on the part of eastern religious followers does not imply religious pluralism regarding those belief systems.
Bruce - I guess that is true, but I think only from a very Abrahamic perspective. However, I think some religions allow for much more coexistence with each other. To go back to my East Asia examples, there is a saying in China: many paths, one destination. Now I guess you could argue that this sort of makes any religion that can have this policy a sort of "hybrid religion", with other faiths that follow this principle. However, two faiths that both "coexist" philosophically do not have to be the same in their beliefs. Think about it like this. Walking, driving, and biking all have the same end result: reaching a destination. However, they are all very very different ways of achieving this result. I think many faiths, notably East Asian ones, follow this principle.
Miles - Ah! Now I think I see where you are coming from. The Chinese proverb you mention, "Many paths, one destination", has to do with salvation, not truth. It is like the saying, "All roads lead to God." This is not meant to suggest that all religions are literally true, but that all, whether true or not, are genuine means of achieving salvation. That is an entirely different question than the question my paper addresses. Moreover, if a religion does mean to say that all religions are literally true, then that just is to say that that religion teaches religious pluralism. But even if all the religions in the world, Eastern or Abrahamic, taught pluralism, how would that even so much as suggest that religious pluralism is true? If my paper is correct, any worldview that teaches pluralism is false! The arguments I presented against it are not refuted by pointing out that some religions teach it. For example, I argued that because all world religions teach inconsistent and even contradictory things, they cannot all be true. This argument is valid whether or not religions accept the conclusion.
Bruce - Do they all though? It seems you are coming at this from a very Abrahamic perspective, where the religions have very differences which cannot be reconciled. I think this is because the idea of an "organized religion" with set, defined principles that can only be true at the expense of others is unique to only some religions, Abrahamic faiths in particular. I think especially in Eastern faiths and "religions" (if you could call them that), these belief systems evolved and grew together, and are not necessarily as contradictory as you would think. There is a name for this, namely, syncretism.
Miles - Sure! I'll accept that wholeheartedly. Abrahamic religions are far more standardized than eastern religions. But now I no longer see the significance of your point. Eastern religions, whether compatible with each other or not, are incompatible with Abrahamic religions. Therefore, religious pluralism cannot be true. It's not as if Eastern religions are contentless. They really do assert things about the world. Buddhism really does assert the ultimate unreality of distinctions and the truth of reincarnation. Abrahamic religions teach contradictory views on both of these issues. So religious exclusivism still cannot be avoided.
Bruce - Oh yeah, I wasn't trying to disprove your essay at all. I just think it's interesting how in the west we evolved much more "exclusive" faiths.
Miles - Right. One of the distinguishing features of Eastern philosophy is its inclusivistic attitude. I originally took you to be arguing that this fact somehow supports religious pluralism.
Bruce - And yeah, Buddhism in its purest form really is not compatible with much else, but the forms of Buddhism we see springing up in China and Japan are much different than the Indian version. It is a fascinating subject that I wish I knew more about, but basically Buddhism evolved into something much much more compatible and even non-exclusive with systems like Confucianism, Shinto, and Taoism.
My point is this: In a world where the Middle East didn't exist, total religious pluralism could be a viable possibility.
Miles - I would agree if it could be demonstrated that Confucianism, Taoism, Shinto and so forth do not teach inconsistent things (regardless of whether the religions themselves teach that they alone are right). I am not convinced this can be done.
Bruce - I personally think they can, but I would not want to do a full write up or anything without checking some sources first. However, I think in certain cases, inconsistent teachings does not necessarily mean that one's religion is right and the other is wrong, especially when part of the other religion's worldview is that it is not the exclusive truth. With things like one God vs. many, or whether Jesus was divine, there can be no doubt that only one side can be correct. However, when it comes to the beliefs you mentioned, I think that the teachings can be different but still not exclusive. In some cases, I think the universe can allow for multiple paths.
Miles - I am open to that suggestion is a general sense. I guess I would just need to see a concrete example, you know what I mean? As in, belief X is inconsistent with belief Y, but X and Y can both be true. At least, you would have to give an explanation as to how two inconsistent beliefs can both be true. So the ball is in your court, as it were.
Bruce - I guess that is true, but I think only from a very Abrahamic perspective. However, I think some religions allow for much more coexistence with each other. To go back to my East Asia examples, there is a saying in China: many paths, one destination. Now I guess you could argue that this sort of makes any religion that can have this policy a sort of "hybrid religion", with other faiths that follow this principle. However, two faiths that both "coexist" philosophically do not have to be the same in their beliefs. Think about it like this. Walking, driving, and biking all have the same end result: reaching a destination. However, they are all very very different ways of achieving this result. I think many faiths, notably East Asian ones, follow this principle.
Miles - Ah! Now I think I see where you are coming from. The Chinese proverb you mention, "Many paths, one destination", has to do with salvation, not truth. It is like the saying, "All roads lead to God." This is not meant to suggest that all religions are literally true, but that all, whether true or not, are genuine means of achieving salvation. That is an entirely different question than the question my paper addresses. Moreover, if a religion does mean to say that all religions are literally true, then that just is to say that that religion teaches religious pluralism. But even if all the religions in the world, Eastern or Abrahamic, taught pluralism, how would that even so much as suggest that religious pluralism is true? If my paper is correct, any worldview that teaches pluralism is false! The arguments I presented against it are not refuted by pointing out that some religions teach it. For example, I argued that because all world religions teach inconsistent and even contradictory things, they cannot all be true. This argument is valid whether or not religions accept the conclusion.
Bruce - Do they all though? It seems you are coming at this from a very Abrahamic perspective, where the religions have very differences which cannot be reconciled. I think this is because the idea of an "organized religion" with set, defined principles that can only be true at the expense of others is unique to only some religions, Abrahamic faiths in particular. I think especially in Eastern faiths and "religions" (if you could call them that), these belief systems evolved and grew together, and are not necessarily as contradictory as you would think. There is a name for this, namely, syncretism.
Miles - Sure! I'll accept that wholeheartedly. Abrahamic religions are far more standardized than eastern religions. But now I no longer see the significance of your point. Eastern religions, whether compatible with each other or not, are incompatible with Abrahamic religions. Therefore, religious pluralism cannot be true. It's not as if Eastern religions are contentless. They really do assert things about the world. Buddhism really does assert the ultimate unreality of distinctions and the truth of reincarnation. Abrahamic religions teach contradictory views on both of these issues. So religious exclusivism still cannot be avoided.
Bruce - Oh yeah, I wasn't trying to disprove your essay at all. I just think it's interesting how in the west we evolved much more "exclusive" faiths.
Miles - Right. One of the distinguishing features of Eastern philosophy is its inclusivistic attitude. I originally took you to be arguing that this fact somehow supports religious pluralism.
Bruce - And yeah, Buddhism in its purest form really is not compatible with much else, but the forms of Buddhism we see springing up in China and Japan are much different than the Indian version. It is a fascinating subject that I wish I knew more about, but basically Buddhism evolved into something much much more compatible and even non-exclusive with systems like Confucianism, Shinto, and Taoism.
My point is this: In a world where the Middle East didn't exist, total religious pluralism could be a viable possibility.
Miles - I would agree if it could be demonstrated that Confucianism, Taoism, Shinto and so forth do not teach inconsistent things (regardless of whether the religions themselves teach that they alone are right). I am not convinced this can be done.
Bruce - I personally think they can, but I would not want to do a full write up or anything without checking some sources first. However, I think in certain cases, inconsistent teachings does not necessarily mean that one's religion is right and the other is wrong, especially when part of the other religion's worldview is that it is not the exclusive truth. With things like one God vs. many, or whether Jesus was divine, there can be no doubt that only one side can be correct. However, when it comes to the beliefs you mentioned, I think that the teachings can be different but still not exclusive. In some cases, I think the universe can allow for multiple paths.
Miles - I am open to that suggestion is a general sense. I guess I would just need to see a concrete example, you know what I mean? As in, belief X is inconsistent with belief Y, but X and Y can both be true. At least, you would have to give an explanation as to how two inconsistent beliefs can both be true. So the ball is in your court, as it were.
II. Reflection
Given the extemporaneous nature of our conversation, mistakes, errors, and muddled arguments inevitably crop up. If I had the time, I would write a new essay expanding on my above comments ("Couldn't They All be True? - Part Two", perhaps?). But alas, it not meant to be. I will restrict myself to a consideration of the quality of Bruce and I's dialogue, rather than on assessment of the arguments therein.[2]
The outstanding strength of our interactions lie not in the soundness of the arguments put forth or validity of points made, though I think these were strong on both sides. First, the cordiality with which we carried the discussion is commendable. I have never had a more civil conversation about the fundamental nature of religious belief than with my good friend Bruce. Most times, my interlocutor reacts in anger and frustration, and the interaction becomes less than fruitful. This is understandable, given the emotional nature of religion and deep-seated beliefs more generally. But the above stands as a shining exception. It serves, I think, as a model dialogue that others should strive to achieve.
Second, the interaction was genuine. Bruce truly had questions and concerns about my essay, and I gave responses that I felt were genuinely valid. It does no one any good to win an argument by putting forward arguments that one knows are bad, in the hope that one's opponent does not know it! Both Bruce and I made arguments we felt were sound, and both of us sincerely wanted to find out the truth of the matter. This allowed for a productive and enjoyable conversation.
Third, the discussion was progressive. We made progress towards a new understanding; or at least I did, at any rate. We may have been talking past one another near the beginning, because I did not correctly understand his objection. But we worked through this misunderstanding until I did hear what he was actually saying, and could give him a meaningful response. We both made concessions to one another as we realized the validity of the other's points (e.g., I concede that different beliefs systems can both be true, even if they do not teach the exact same), and this allowed for a truly helpful dialogue.
The outstanding strength of our interactions lie not in the soundness of the arguments put forth or validity of points made, though I think these were strong on both sides. First, the cordiality with which we carried the discussion is commendable. I have never had a more civil conversation about the fundamental nature of religious belief than with my good friend Bruce. Most times, my interlocutor reacts in anger and frustration, and the interaction becomes less than fruitful. This is understandable, given the emotional nature of religion and deep-seated beliefs more generally. But the above stands as a shining exception. It serves, I think, as a model dialogue that others should strive to achieve.
Second, the interaction was genuine. Bruce truly had questions and concerns about my essay, and I gave responses that I felt were genuinely valid. It does no one any good to win an argument by putting forward arguments that one knows are bad, in the hope that one's opponent does not know it! Both Bruce and I made arguments we felt were sound, and both of us sincerely wanted to find out the truth of the matter. This allowed for a productive and enjoyable conversation.
Third, the discussion was progressive. We made progress towards a new understanding; or at least I did, at any rate. We may have been talking past one another near the beginning, because I did not correctly understand his objection. But we worked through this misunderstanding until I did hear what he was actually saying, and could give him a meaningful response. We both made concessions to one another as we realized the validity of the other's points (e.g., I concede that different beliefs systems can both be true, even if they do not teach the exact same), and this allowed for a truly helpful dialogue.
For these three reasons, I am very pleased with the critical interaction Bruce gave to my essay, and I thank him for probing deeply into its arguments, and strengthening them as a result.
Notes
[1] "Couldn't They All Be True?" - A Reflection on World Religions
[2] Bruce has been unable to write a reflection, given his other obligations, so just my reflection will be posted until further notice.
[2] Bruce has been unable to write a reflection, given his other obligations, so just my reflection will be posted until further notice.
Comments
Post a Comment