The Epistemology of Truth-Claims in the Global Multi-Religious Ambiance
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF TRUTH-CLAIMS IN THE GLOBAL MULTI-RELIGIOUS AMBIANCE Ewere Nelson ATOI Abstract The interpretations of truth-claims inherent in the theology of different world religions have a negative epistemic bearing on the religious belief systems of humankind and, as such, affect interreligious relations. This paper therefore, explicates the theological and philosophical issues in truth-claim discourse with a view to endorse a tenable approach for addressing the problem of conflicting truth-claims. The various notions of religious truth-claim, i.e.— exclusivism, inclusivism, non-exclusivism, pluralism and relativism, are explored and critically analyzed. The author submits that pluralist philosophy offers a better approach to curtail the problems emanating from conflicting truth-claims and promotes interreligious relations among the world religions. Unlike other notions which claim that truth is domiciled in one religion (exclu- sivism), other religions have partial truth (inclusivism), religious truth should be held tentatively (non-exclusivism), other religions should be merely toler- ated (relativism), pluralism advocates for energetic engagement with religious diversity, the—active seeking of understanding across lines of differences among religions. Keywords Truth-claims, world religions, religious diversity, interreligious relations Author Ewere Nelson Atoi, Ph.D. is a Lecturer at the Department of Religious Studies, Gombe State University, Gombe, Nigeria. INTRODUCTION The upsurge of hostile reactions from a particular group of religious practitioners towards religious adherents across religious divides, which is almost becoming a fundamental attribute of most religious traditions in the global multi-religious space, has continued to raise philosophical questions concerning the claims made by religious adherents about the Studies in Interreligious Dialogue 28/1, 129-147 doi: 10.0000/SID.28.1.3285347 © 2018 by Peeters. All rights reserved. 130 EWERE NELSON ATOI nature of the religious ultimate1 or divine reality. Most religious traditions in the world make claims about the nature of the ultimate reality with each of them appealing to religious experience as evidence for their claims (Heim 2000:435; Atoi 2016:1). These claims, however, do not rest on evidences that could convince all reasonable people, thereby giving rise to the epistemic problem of religious diversity. In the episte- mological discourse of the religious ultimate, we often encounter reli- gionists who maintain that exclusive religious beliefs can be justified in the face of a multiplicity of religious traditions. However, this stance on religious truth statements is more theoretical than practical, because almost all religions have some common grounds in their beliefs and prac- tices. For example, almost all traditions will agree that unprovoked killing is wrong, and Jews, Christians, Muslims, and many Hindus believe there is an ultimate and personal God. Although such similarities of religious truth statements exist, one frequently encounters claims such as; “no one outside my religion will be saved.” This issue of salvation becomes even more complex, because it occurs differently in different traditions and, the precise time of salvation is cloudy. For some religious traditions, such as we can find in Hindu and Buddhist beliefs, there can be an eventual salvation even if a previous opportunity was missed, perhaps after many reincarnations. For some other traditions, salvation occurs only once, precisely at an end-of-time judgment as in the case of Christian and Islamic eschatological theology (Smith 2007:336). The controversy emanating from truth-claims becomes more baffling in the domain of epistemology because various claimants have not been able to substantiate clearly that the statements purported to be about the nature of ultimate reality are actually the true state of affairs. Intrinsically, religious truth-claims have a negative epistemic bearing, not only on the beliefs that are outputs of a particular religious tradition but also on the total religious belief systems for which conflicting truth-claims are sourced (Quinn 2001:64). In this light, some pertinent questions readily come to mind: How does one know that something has been affirmed? What warrants one to make truth-claims? Can such claim or belief really be justified epistemologically? Is belief the same as knowledge? Can our human mind and knowledge accurately describe the nature of ultimate reality? What might be the possible epistemologically justifiable response to the reality of the religious ultimate? It is against this background that 1 Religious ultimate in the context of this paper refers to the supreme and final goal of religion. TRUTH-CLAIMS IN THE GLOBAL MULTI-RELIGIOUS AMBIANCE 131 the writer utilizes historical, analytical, critical and constructive methods to investigate truth-claims in the global multi-religious ambience with the principle aim of explicating the theological and philosophical issues inher- ent in truth-claim discourse and endorses a tenable approach for address- ing the epistemic problems of truth-claim in the global theological milieu. EPISTeMOLOGY OF ReLIGIOUS TRUTH-CLaIMS In its most general sense, epistemology has to do with “the theory of knowledge and justification” (Audi 1998:1). According to Kirk, episte- mology is simply a discipline which studies the articulated or unexpressed convictions which all people have about knowledge and how it is possible to know. As such, the discipline deals with the assumptions that underlie any assertion that people make about any aspect of life. In many ways, it concerns itself with the question of the meaning of truth and the criteria that must be adopted in order to be able to distinguish true and false statements. It is important to state that the study of knowledge and belief is a highly developed inquiry. Much of it focuses on particular beliefs or types of belief and criteria for truth. In other words, knowing something is equivalent to ascertaining its status as truth (Kirk 2004:132-133). “Truth-claim” on the other hand means any explicit or implicit claim to truth. That is, any statement which explicitly or implicitly upholds that a particular state of affairs is true (Netland 1987:93). In religion, truth- claim is the belief that one’s experience of the divine reality alone is entirely true while others are partially true or false (Atoi 2016:1). It is pertinent to state that there are a myriad of epistemological confu- sions confronting truth statements in diverse religious communities today because different religions have different experiential practices with systems of possible over-riders, which vary so much from one religion to another (Quinn 2001:61). In nearly every part of the world, we experience a multiplicity of religious traditions. Many of these traditions offer par- ticular and often conflicting perspectives on the nature of the religious ultimate, the human predicament, the path or paths to a resolution, and an eschatological vision of the idealized state (Lee 2012:64). These epis- temological problems are even more serious when not only the means but also the end itself is different. That there are differences among the different religions of the world is commonly accepted but how we are to make sense of these differences and how we are to live in the light of conflicting religious truth-claims and commitments is highly contested. 132 EWERE NELSON ATOI A special category of truth statements are those which focus on the exclu- sively religious pursuit of salvation. These are in relation to the final ideal state of the individual or group and the prescribed method of attaining this goal. Many varieties of mode of achievement obviously describe what this salvation entails, ranging from heaven to nirvana (Smith 2007:335-336). Christians for instance, operate under assumptions such as the authorita- tiveness of Scripture and the soteriological normativity of God’s redemp- tive work through Jesus Christ (Lee 2012:65). According to Neill: The Christian faith claims for itself that it is the only form of faith for men. By its own claim to truth, it casts the shadow of imperfect truth on every other system. This Christian claim is naturally offensive to modern man, brought up in the atmosphere of relativism, in which tolerance is regarded almost as the highest of the virtues. But we must not suppose that this claim to universal validity is something that can be quietly removed… (Neill 1984:30). It is most likely that Neill sees such Christian claims to religious truth as offensive to modern man because Christian practices have rivals which are on an epistemic par with Christian tradition on the issues of religious truth statements (Neill 1984:30; Quinn 2001:62). The heightened aware- ness of these conflicting truth-claims has created epistemological prob- lem for religious diversity in the global theological space. In this light, the big question before the theological community is: How can truth be determined, considering the challenges of contextualization, relativity, and historicity? A good number of possible explanations have been pro- vided within the scholarly arena; these include denial of truth statement, claims of misinterpretation or misunderstanding, among others (Lee 2012:64; Smith 2007:336). Smith reacting to truth statements opines that truth and falsity as generally understood are inapplicable to religious traditions. According to Smith: I would contend that man’s