Pluralism and existential issues

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.