Recogitating over pluralism
Pluralism discourses is problematic. We know that diversity is a fact, but why we are diverse in religious andcultural matters is difficult to understand. We can not refuse the plurality, but it also difficult to manage. The problem is how to come up its in better understanding. Today, pluralism discourses has become not only antropological and sociological discourses, but also philosopical and theological discourses. Two person who seems have a lot of contribution in proposing this isues is Jhon Hick and Sayyed Hussein Nasr. Their ideas have many respons from other scholar. Some of them I will explain below.
After Jhon Hick and Naser propose pluralism as a key to understanding religions there are many reaction to them. Reaction come from some theologion and some scholar who feels uncomfortable with their argumentation. Therefore, actually almost all of them accept Hick ideas about pluralism, but they questioning some fundamental issues bolstering. Some sholar that come from Islam, Christianity, and Buddha questioning the ontological bases of theidea of pluralism because Hick aruges that his theory overally covered to all traditions. However, the fact Hick did not give strong argumentation of what hi says comprehensively. Every religion has uniqueness that make dificult to generalize because of the culture and the history is different.
Actully, I get same aprehension from the articles of Mehmet Recber (Hick, the real and all-haqq), Muhammad Legenhausen (Misgiving about the religious pluralism of Sayyed Hossein Nasr and Jhon Hick), and Jhon Cobb (Beyond pluralism, from Christian uniqness reconsidered). As a fact wheter direct or dim they accept the theory of pluralism. Because Hick and Nasr give a rational explanition for that discourses. Although Hick and Nasr have different ways to explain it. Where Hick more stressed to philosophical approach and Nasr stressed to theological aproach they meet in the important issues that is the ultimate reality as a root of pluralism.
Hick influenced by Kant philosophy about nomena and phenome. In his views everything have a nomena. The atribut of nomena is difficult to understand because it cannot be observed. But nomena make fenomena exists. Religion is like fenomena, because it exist from the awe feeling to the ultimate reality. It means he says that religion are come from human experience of ultimate, so because there are many people in history it is possible for human to interperet the ultimate with different kinds and different expressions. For Hick, truth claim is not becasue they have different ultimate reality (it is like vague God), but because of human interpretation. what Hick stated look like clear, but for Heckber it is too reductionist. Although Hick qoutes some verses of the Qur’an, he did not analyze it verses from the historical context of the verses. The real in Hick term really did not equal with the concept The Real in Islam, Heckber states. If Hick analogy all religion is same, then Islam have some fundamental uniqueness that different from others, it is possible to question it. Catwell smith also says that Islam is not really have similiar catagory with other religions. Because Islam, as later monotheism have sistematic and modern doctrines.
Nasr’s thought is more influenced by theological doctrines. His theory argues that all religions came from God’s revelation. It means that religion is not come from human experinces per se, but come from God trough prophet or messenger. From theological perspectif it cannot be understood if god lets human alone to do worst things without god ruller. Although for some theologian its clear, not for Legenhousen. He opposes that Nasser not really give a clear argumentation for his theories. Even he seem like a theologian rather than philosoper. He says “Nasr fall short of allowing revelation the absolute status it must posses if it is realy understood as nothing less than god’s direct communication to huminity”.
Whatever religion is important to understanding religion. But, I think we must more ballance to see this discourses. Heckber and Legenhousen I see is actually support to Nasr ideas, because maybe they have same background. In the other hand, also Cobb sees that Christianity have special uniqueness that different with other religions. So, that all not good solution for better understanding. Even arising new truth claims. But, whoever is difficult to placed him self in a neutral position. Hick is influenced by Christian thingking, according to Heckber. That all then make dialog of religion changes not from doctrine of religion but from third issues, like human right, kindness, and so forth. That indicate pluralism as univerasl understanding has fail to work.
In posmodernism eras, we sometimes difficult to act wheter we should follow universal or particular ideas. In one hand, we have uniquenes of people that become identity, whereas our live cannot avoid others people who live in surroundings. It is fact that religion have different doctrine and ritual. Saying that something is truth is easy to same follower, but contrary when we say it to the other out side one religion can emergence disconcert situation.
Its true that both philosophy and theology talk about the ultimate reality, or specifically truth. But if we try to understand it by the theological perspective it more difficult in resulting similar conclussion. I think we should back to Hick aproach by using philosophical methods. Wheter we use western or nortern philoshophy. Perhaps, Shoun theory is good. He say that one religion is follow religion before. But, that aim wheter to correct nor to bring new doctrine I dont know. Or we can use another philosophy, like “Ilumination concept” from Suhrawardi, or using language game concept of Witgenstein. Every single philosophy can describe nomena as unspoken, or unreach being that will give balance understanding. The most important think is we must back to the our experince, our heart, our awareness, as human not horse.[]
