|
|
Tehran:
Sallam Publications, 1st publication 1999, 5th
publication 2000
Dr Abdolkarim Soroush stood for religious
pluralism in a paper called Straight Paths (Serathayeh mostaqim), Kian
Monthly (banned in 2000). Under the unhealthy climate in which politics is
developing, critiques on this paper in the official Iranian press diverted
from the focal point. Sallam Daily (banned in 1999) took the initiative
for holding a technical debate between Soroush and Kadivar in September
1997. The script of the debate was then submitted to the two sides for
editing and the edited version appeared in five parts in Sallam Daily in
February 1998. Later on, Sallam Publications published the book in the
early days of Kadivar's imprisonment with neither of the two sides'
supervision.
According to Soroush, the outset of religious pluralism is through
adopting the indispensable compatibility and plurality of religions and
promotes the natural event and multilateral structure of reality meeting
the demand of humankind perception. The diversity of religions and also
truths has not come about as a product of the misunderstanding and
antagonism of a group of religions. It is through the active plurality
existing within the domain of religions that two readings may be given:
the causative reading and the rational reading. The causative reading
leaves nothing behind stating that everyone adopts religion blinded by
emotions and biases while their interests dictate their rationality.
Through bringing reasons, however, one ends up with the reasons’ having
the same momentum and the realm of religion is the realm of abundance of
reasons. The forerunners of religion have presented their reasoning based
on their own claims. In the meantime, they have also listened to each
other’s argumentation but have not reached agreement. The secret behind
this issue is the indispensable plurality of truth. The realm of religion
is one in which meaning is sought and the quest for meaning is the realm
of plurality, an inevitable plurality of appreciating religious experience
and understanding religion. In this sense, truth may be considered as a
hermeneutic truth and the diversity and variety of truth should be taken
as an unavoidable phenomenon.
Kadivar believes that truth is unified which can be readily conceived by
humankind. Any religion and ideology is correct to the extent that it
enjoys truth. A religion may be hypothesized that has achieved this truth
more than other religions and incorporates the positive points of other
religions. Hence, religious pluralism is not necessarily confronted by
religious exclusivism but also religious inclusivism. The real diversity
of religions has both reasons and causes. The difference of capacity among
humans and the labyrinth-like structure of truth are some of the reasons
for the variety of religions and also temptations and worldly desires are
among the causes of plurality of religions. It would be wrong to put aside
such causes in all religions and generalizing such causes in adopting all
religions would be a baseless claim. Announcing the realm of religion
within the domain of the abundance of reasons requires certain
epistemological principles and specific theological instruments.
Epistemologically, nevertheless, the theory of religious pluralism would
be a step beyond the context of the positions of critical realism towards
absolute relativism. It is not just the plurality of religious
interpretations here that count but the plurality of truths, the diversity
of indispensable compatibilities, straight paths, and the abundance of
causes; in other words, diversity of interpretation has led to diversity
of truth. Furthermore, first-grade monotheistic theological conclusions
may not be derived from second-grade epistemological and extra-religious
interpretations of religions. In addition, the reasons’ enjoying the same
momentum are not unlimited, hence, the domain of humanities and, even
further up, the domain of sciences in its absolute form is the one of the
abundance of causes.
With respect to theology, however, accepting religious pluralism and the
indispensable diversity of truths and the abundance of causes within the
sphere of religions is in violation of the righteousness of a specific
religion and its supremacy over other religions. That extra-religious
judgment cannot tolerate this intra-religious judgment. Accordingly,
religious righteousness and faith would be causeless, invalid, and
rejected. Faith would only be the case when there exists a supreme,
unique, and one-of-a-kind truth. The impossibility to discern between true
and void is the rational necessity of religious pluralism. Accepting the
abundance of causes would not allow any opportunity for the righteousness
of religion, no beliefs, no morals, and no other domains. Religiosity,
altogether, is incompatible with religious pluralism since the latter
would mean that anyone who has adopted any religion for any one cause or
another has accepted truth because the truth itself is diverse. Plural
truth itself is coherent with absolute cognitive relativism. Furthermore,
resorting to seeking the truth in the domain of religion would not resolve
the question of righteousness of a specific religion and the indispensable
and compatible diversity of truths is incongruous with adopting the
righteousness of a specific religion. Adopting the indispensable diversity
of meaning and the intrinsic ambiguity of the text is another window
towards the absolute relativism perspective.
Back to Comments On Dr. Soroush |
|
|