First Things First
The rise of religious pluralism in societies has created a new climate for theologians. As prominent theologian Langdon Gilkey says:
If I were asked what are the biggest changes in theology since the first half of the twentieth century, since the great neoorthodox days, I would mention, first, the concern for the issue of the pluralism of religions, and second, the deep, and very new, theological concern with nature.
One of the primary issues that is often comfortably ignored in a homogeneous religious environment is the starting point for a theology. Every theology starts somewhere. That starting point varies from theologian to theologian. Most theologians grow up within some religious tradition and that is a natural starting point. If that is the case then there will be a natural bias towards the worldview/ontology of that tradition. In the past this have not been much of a problem because religious traditions tended to be isolated from one another, usually geographically. In isolation the fundamentals that a theology is based on rarely come into question. Today things are different. With the advent of globalization of businesses and the ability to travel and move freely about most of the world, adherents are seeing the rise of religious pluralism in their communities. That pluralism calls into question an uncritical acceptance of a particular starting point within a tradition. This is especially acute when the foundations of a particular theology rely heavily on scripture. In the world, scriptures abound. We have the Bible, the Koran, the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, the Tao, etc. In many cases each of these has a different starting point for their understanding of reality and its relationship to the divine. Those points of departure are significantly formative in what follows in the theology or religious philosophy. For those theologians who wish to be relevant in a global environment it is no longer possible to avoid defending why they start where they do in their theology. If embraced, that defense, however, has gotten much more complex. It is not enough to just appeal to some scripture as authoritative. To just say that one’s worldview or ontology is an authoritative starting point because the Bible says so, or the Koran, or the Upanishads shuts down dialog between the world religions and is a particular problem when trying to persuade those who are looking for a religious home. Something outside the traditions must be offered. Once that is done then a true dialog can ensue. But where could such a starting point come from? I think it has to come from experience.
Unless a theologian claims supernatural authority (which also shuts down dialog) for how they begin their theology then experience is all there is. For many people this would create a great discomfort. They find security in giving de facto authority to their particular tradition’s take on reality. A modern theologian can not afford to adopt that position. Theologians must decide whether they are first theologians, per se, or first Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. theologians. If they claim to be theologians, per se, first then that broadens the epistemic issues they must address.
If experience is the only valid starting point for third millennium theology, then how can one proceed? I think the first step is to recognize that all explications of theology and religious philosophy found in the scriptures and writings also proceeded from a personal analysis of experience. There are obviously many human experiences that one can draw into the question of structure of reality. Love, hate, suffering, guilt, individuation, participation, pleasure, pain, life and death are only a few of the experiences that can enter the mix of puzzling out an ontology. Each of the great traditions have chosen a few of these experiences to emphasize in forming their starting points. For Eastern religions a prominent one was suffering. For Western theisms it was guilt and justice. From those emphasized experiences whole theological and religious philosophical systems were built.
So what does human experience tell us about reality? We all experience guilt. Does this mean we are fallen creatures that must be saved or is the structure of life as it should be and in order to experience the beauty of life we must also struggle with the ambiguities that are present. We all experience suffering. Does that mean that ultimately suffering must be eliminated or does it mean that in order for there to be life there will always be the potential for suffering? Does our experience of evil cause us to reject this world, something needing to be transformed, or is life something so wonderful that even though there will always be the potential for evil, it is worth it? These are examples of how one can take the experience of life and opt for different ontologies.
If there can be no particular ontology given de facto authoritative status and experience is the only criterion for determining theological starting points then a subjective decision must be made which particular ontology seems to match experience. This can create a point of departure for a theology but that is not the end of it. As a theology develops each step of the way must also find a comfortable match to experience. Those ensuing matches must not only include subjective intuitions about reality but also the full range of human knowledge and understanding at the time. This means as Gilkey suggests that theology must also embrace what we know about nature. Those theological starting points that eventually end up coming into conflict with the best knowledge we have about nature from science and philosophy must be critically reexamined.
Now this approach may seem too indeterminate for something so important as religion. However, I am of the opinion that there is no other alternative going forward into this millennium. Those theologies that fail to defend, from outside their traditions, the starting points and the theology that ensues will become less and less appealing to many people. In the end, the loss of idolatrous absolutes is really a blessing. It means that faith must come from a personal conviction that accepts its fallibilistic nature. If one truly believes that there is a unity of being and knowing in the world’s participation in the divine life, then a faithing fallibilism is completely warranted.
Steve, you have mentioned in another that you think that ontology is a logical starting point. I agree if we are talking about natural theology, which I agree with Tillich (opposed to Barth) is an important part of theology. However, in my own thinking I personally prefer to exand the ontological starting point and consider three philosophical questions or problems that are really inter-related: (1)the ontological or metaphysical problem– Why is there something rather than nothing? (2)The epistemological problem– How do we know and how do we know we know? And (3) The moral problem– What is right and wrong? Are morals absolute? Are they universal? I think people from many different backgrounds, traditions and cultures can have meaningful dialouge discussion and debate considering those questions alone. However I would also argue that logic and understanding logical argumentation are critical in finding a reasonably objective common ground for meaningful discussion. I think that is even more important than experience.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER —
Hi John,
I agree completely.
I would argue that all the things you mentioned are really just our interpretation of experiences. Where else would they come from? Of course, our experiences ensue from the ontology of the cosmos. What has to happen is an extrapolation of those experiences to the underlying reality. As far as dialog between the religious traditions the first thing to be understood is that the traditions do interpret our experiences differently. Once that is understood a critical examination of those interpretations can begin.
For instance, in virtually all the traditions there was a world rejection where the presence of evil or “wrong” in the world and ourselves was interpreted as a corruption of what the world essentially is or should be. This is basically the Platonic interpretation. Is this really the correct interpretation or are there other viable ones? I think there are. The task for those who want to look critically at religious sentiment today is to re-examine our experience of reality and see if what we experience necessarily leads to a corruption or “fallen” ontology. Is there really a life that is “perfect” i.e. without the potential for evil or does life entail that risk. In order to answer that question a structural model for life without the potential for evil must be constructed. Personally I can’t think of a structure of life that I would want where there is no potential for evil. Remember that all the things we love about life are the product of the very same structures that make the potential for evil possible.
The other day on the Today show they had Jewish theologians and adherents talk about what they thought heaven would be like. One person said what it meant was that one could eat ice cream all day and not gain any weight. Would that really be a life one would want? Is part of the beauty of life the struggle and victory over competing forces in life (yin and yang)? I think so.
I think that almost all religious adherents don’t give a second thought to the foundations of the faith. They just accept the dogma of the tradition without really thinking if it fits reality both as we experience it personally and scientifically. If that is put on the table perhaps fresh new ideas can be offered where the traditions might come to agree on one or several appealing ontologies.
Comment by Steve Petermann —
Steve, I am a little confused by some of your thinking. In another of your posts you talk about an ontological monlism which you call “aspect monism” but here and elsewhere you are talking about Yin-Yang which to my understanding is is basically and therefore ontologically dualistic. How can you have a position that is ontologically both monistic and dualisitic? Or are you suggesting that Yin-Yang is just a moral dualism?
You also ask,”Is part of the beauty of life the struggle and victory over competing forces in life (yin and yang)? I think so.” Are you suggesting that god and evil are co-eternal? That to have purpose and meaning we must have the struggle between good and evil?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER —
Hi John,
Yin and Yang is not an ontologically dualistic concept. To the contrary. You can check out the Wikipedia article to see this. As the article states the forces of nature (i.e. postive and negative) are of one ontology but also polar opposites. Also if you look at the symbol of yin and yang you see in the middle a unity of both.
I wouldn’t say it as you did because that seems to create a dualism between God and evil where each is independent of the the other. Instead what I am saying is that it appears that life necessitates the potential for evil to exist. The very same forces that create the beauty of the forest and ocean also are responsible for tornadoes and hurricanes.
Yes, I think probably so. Let me quote again Tillich on this:
Isn’t blessedness what is sought? If so then the negative will always be present. Otherwise all that is left is stagnation.
Comment by Steve Petermann —
Steve, You seem to be establishing some kind of moral dualism based on Yin-Yang. Since Yin Yang according to Wikipedia “represents the Eastern dualism philosophy of balance of balance, where two opposites co-exist in harmony and are able to transmute into each other…” (see the Yin-Yang entry under “dualism”) are you suggesting that if we get too much good in the world we must then balance it off with more evil? Or, is this something that Nature does on it’s own? If that’s true how can we ever talk about victory as Tillich says in your preceding quote? Isn’t our life or existence simply an unending struggle with no clear winners or losers?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER —
John,
Yin and Yang are not moral opposites. They are the structure of reality. Morality comes when the yin and yang of a situation is evaluated and a moral decision is made. Every moral decision must find the right balance of things. There are always trade offs in moral decisions where the right balance must be chosen. This represents evaluating the yin/yang of a situation and chosing the mix of the two that correlates with some moral standard. This is what makes morality so challenging. For instance to kill a burgler may save the lives of self or loved ones but it also sacrifices the life of the criminal. What is the best moral decision in this situation? For a pacifist the lives of self and loved ones are of lesser importance than the moral principal of non-violence. To most other people the lives of loved ones takes precedent. Yin and yang just represents the the pull towards one side or the other in a decision. Yin and yang are not the choice itself.
Comment by Steve Petermann —