جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « Religious Exclusivism » در نشریات گروه « فلسفه و کلام »

David Basinger is among philosophers who defend religious exclusivism. He tries in his various writings to provide a new explanation for supporting this approach. Although he is supposedly a religious exclusivist, his different attitude towards religious diversity and his acceptance of some of the principles of religious pluralism have put his explanation under critics. This research tries to explain Basinger’s theory, criticize its foundations, and examine whether it is a successful approach to defend religious exclusivism. The study shows that some of the bases accepted by him are inclined to religious pluralism, including lacking objective criteria for comparative evaluation of religions, substitution the explanatory role of religious propositions for the description of reality, and considering the followers of religions equal in accessing the sources of knowledge.

One of the logical requirements of welcoming to rational dialogue between religious traditions is, at least, avoiding of exclusivism towards own religious tradition. Since the logical requirement regarding confronting with other religions’ facts and realities is to desacralize own religious teachings, accept the possibility of some realities in other religious traditions and some mistakes in our religious tradition. Religious exclusivism, but, is as the most significant obstacle concerning such rational impetuously action. Because the crucial religious presupposition of exclusivism is restricting of truthness and salvation in our religious tradition, and other religious tradition were/are deviated from them. Such thinking has trained its followers needless to recognize rationally other religions and independence of listening to their realities and has persuaded its believers to invite others, as unbelievers, to own religion through using some software methods, like religious missionaries or hardware methods like sacred war. So religious exclusivist has no ear to listen and no eye to see other religions realities. Hence, based on religious exclusivism, logical and rational dialogue between religious traditions is impossible. The strategy for exiting of this crises is leaving exclusivism and to desacralize of our religious teachings and welcoming to some truths that maybe exist in other religions, as well as our religious tradition.

The purpose of this paper is to compare Hick’s pluralism with Plntinga’s exclusivism concerning religious diversity. In explaning his pluralistic approach، Hick introduces problems of Christian exclusivism and inclusivism and contends that the only way to get rid of these challenges، is the theological revolution of the «Christ-centered» to «God-centered» by means of a religious pluralism. He holds that the apparent differences between religions and their claims arising of negligence from the symbolic language of religion. Plantinga contrary to Hick، differs between religions as a reason for the contradictory stance of pluralism، and sees the legitimacy of religious exclusivism. In explaining and defending his exclusivistic position، he rejects both moral and epistemological criticisms. Finally through his «proper function theory» and through borrowing from the «Aquinas- Calvin Model» Plantinga tried to justify the validity of their religious exclusivism. By comparing these two views and their principles and arguments، it seems that، both views on major issues، particularly in terms of epistemological justification، are confronted with some problem. However، it seems that Hick''s theory، for the emphasis on the aspect of the tolerance between faiths، is more attractive than Plantinga’s religious exclusivism.

This article aims to present a clear horizon of religious pluralism and its relation with different religions including Christianity and Islam in particular.To this end, first exclusivisim and inclusivism are discussed. Reviewing inclusivism and exclusivisim John Hick, the founder of contemporary theory of religious pluralism, defends religious pluralism and maintains that it is the only justification for religious diversity. In his view, the rightfulness and the salvation in life is not a monopoly of a single religion. Every religion shares an equal degree of rightfulness and salvation. He believes that there will be no peace among world religions as far as every religion believes itself to be the superior. A sustainable and peace and true dialogue can occur only when we accept that different religions are different but equally valid interpretations of the ultimate reality and God. He also believes that pluralistic thoughts stems from the eastern and Islamic thought. In other words, the east not the west is the origin of religious pluralism. As cases in point, he cites from Khajah Abdullah Ansari, Mwlana and Ibn Arabi.