Pluralism and existential issues

Thomas Hidya Tjaya, Boston, Massachusetts

The recent fatwa (edict) by the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) outlawing liberal Islamic thought and pluralism seems ironic in the wake of the Bali Declaration signed by leaders and scholars of some of the world's major faiths. While the Declaration encourages all efforts toward building interfaith harmony in the global campaign for a culture of peace, the fatwa seems to do precisely the opposite, condemning religious teaching and practice influenced and shaped by religious pluralism.

It is no surprise that the reaction against such decrees has mostly been negative, out of the concern, among others, that they may create a backlash against the labors for peace and harmony among religious believers.

There are many presuppositions behind the idea of religious pluralism that may have not been adequately brought to the fore and examined. One of them can be found in Edwin Arifin's article when he writes, "Pluralism generally does not claim that all religions are absolutely true. Pluralism does not say all truth is relative, but it does accept different responses to truth that are conditioned by history and culture. Truth in pluralism is different from the specific truth claims of the world's religions" (The Jakarta Post, Aug. 4, 2005).

This condensed statement lies at the core of the idea of religious pluralism, which needs to be unpacked. But instead of doing it analytically, let us try to take an existential approach to elucidate the practical consequences of such a presupposition and the epistemological problems that go with it.

Let us first take the last statement that Truth (with a capital T) in religious pluralism has to be distinguished from the specific truths (with a small t) of the world's religions. It would be interesting to find out whether ordinary believers would easily buy the claim.

Most of them would identify their beliefs and the religious teachings they practice with Truth, rather than simply a specific truth. Otherwise, it would not make sense, it is often argued, to believe what they believe. Why would anybody believe and even commit themselves to something that is merely partial and conditionally true?

For this very reason most world religions claim, some more loudly than others, that they alone possess the whole Truth that will necessarily guide believers to heaven. This is often done in such a way that it ends up virtually denying any truth that may exist in other religious traditions. If every religion claims to possess the whole Truth, then the clash of truth claims becomes inevitable and, as we have seen, not rarely leads to acts of violence. Thus, there is some epistemological problem lingering here as to how the truths claimed by all religions are related to one another.

What often complicates this issue is the contingent aspect, at least initially, of our becoming a believer in a particular religious tradition. I once attended a seminar at Harvard University on the topic Why I am a Catholic?". A similar gathering could be held within any particular religious tradition and even across religious boundaries as a means of enhancing mutual understanding and respect of both one's own faith and the religious diversity in our society.

In any case, what was interesting from the seminar is that most of the panelists, before elaborating the religious teaching and practice they treasure in their tradition, point to the contingency of their becoming who they are: they become Catholics simply because they were born to Catholic parents.

Many of us have a similar experience in that we never really choose to become a Muslim, Christian, Catholic, Buddhist, or others for the reason that we happened to be born to parents who already embraced that particular religion. As we grow up and become more aware of religious plurality in our society, we may begin to question our own beliefs and to wonder whether things could have been otherwise.

Depending on its extent and depth, such questioning may sometimes lead us into an existential crisis and even conversion. In the end, the guiding principle is that we must adhere to what we truly believe and commit ourselves to it.

Unfortunately, in such a volatile situation, we human beings, mortal as we are, are often more attracted to easy solutions instead of going through a long and often painful struggle. Unable to find epistemological satisfaction with the question of how the truth in our own religion is related to that in others, we may simply assume the position and declare that our religion possesses the whole truth and consequently, the rest are false beliefs.

Likewise, instead of faithfully walking in the spiritual journey and keeping our mind and heart open to the reality of religious plurality in our society, we may find it easier to close our eyes and ears by condemning those who are not "with us," thus protecting ourselves from anything that may lead us to a deeper existential struggle.

Religious pluralism is seen, with fear and trembling, as a threat to one's own identity and group. The history of many world religions testifies to this phenomenon. Religious leaders, particularly, tend to be deeply concerned with the unity of religious teaching and practice as well as with the statistics of their believers.

That's their job, which is often more aggressively done when politics intervenes and their sense of security is being threatened. But as we all know, religion is not primarily about statistics or unified teachings, but rather about our hearts being surrendered to the Almighty in love. If we find ourselves caring more about statistics and monolithic religious teachings rather than about our hearts, I think we are in a big trouble as believers.

The epistemological question of religious truth may not be easily resolved. Likewise, any spiritual journey remains hard and painful. What we cannot deny is that religious pluralism has increasingly shaped our world. On the sociological level this may lead to social segregation and even to violence.

For this reason political philosophers such as John Rawls in his book Political Liberalism (1993) followed by The Law of Peoples (1999) has introduced the idea of "public reason" as the foundation for a democratic society characterized by what he calls "a pluralism of incompatible yet reasonable comprehensive doctrines."

The issue of peace and harmony, or the problem of stability, as Rawls call it, is essential to the establishment of a just society shaped by such religious pluralism. Meanwhile, individual believers continue to be reminded of the spiritual journey that they need to go through faithfully, if religion is to become what it is all about. Let this common journey be made without the interference of politics.

The writer is a lecturer at the Driyarkara School of Philosophy in Jakarta. He is currently pursuing a doctorate in philosophy at Boston College, Massachusetts.