Reading: Griffiths, “The Uniqueness of Religious Doctrines”, pp. 581-587
Reminder: Matt Reynolds is presenting tomorrow.
Recommendation: Since Griffiths refers a couple of times to pluralism, you may find it helpful to read the editors’ introduction to this section (pp. 573-576) or at least to read the description on p. 575 of pluralism. Each of the 3 philosophical articles (defending, respectively, exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism), refers to at least one of the other two positions.
Reading Guide: Using examples drawn from both Christianity and Buddhism, Griffiths discusses “the five most important dimensions of religious doctrine” (582). Religious doctrines serve as community rules, determine community boundaries (who is part of the community & who isn’t), shape and are shaped by “the spiritual experience of the communities that profess them” (583), “make members” through education and evangelism, and express what the community takes to be “salvifically significant truths” (585). Given these functions or dimensions of religious doctrines, one should not expect religious communities to abandon their universalist and exclusivist claims unless one can offer them “vital and pressing reasons” for doing so. Griffiths concludes with a short section on the uniqueness of Christianity, but he could just as easily have concluded with a section on the uniqueness of Buddhism, Islam, or some other religion. Those of you who have taken Comparative Religions or have direct experience of some other religious tradition should feel free to bring up examples of doctrines within those traditions that serve one or more of the functions listed above.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Although I think I agree with Griffiths' five dimensions of religious doctrine, it seems like he is putting religion in a labeled box (or boxes) and saying that it all fits in there. I also don't like the fact that he only uses Christianity and Buddhism as examples. Sure, he could have used other examples, but he didn't. It seems as though he only put the example of Buddhism in his writing to make his case for Christianity more credible. If he had brought in a third religion, I think his writing would have been more credible.
In reply to Dan- I think he doesnt use other examples, becuase thats his point. He doesnt have to, all other religions fall within this 'box' he has defined.
Altogether, I dont find this article that meaningful. There is really no good point to it. I feel like Griffiths is just stating facts. I wonder what Griffith would say not about shared stories (ie genisis, flood, rising from the dead) in relation to shared doctrines.
I would have to ask the same question as Laura- what about those shared morals and stories? While his knowledge of Buddhism seems well versed, I wish he had picked some other examples of religion. He didn't even pick Christianity as a whole- just Anglicanism, which I found lacking. I, too, saw no real point to this article, except perhaps as an interesting and informative piece that went into some good detail about a religion with which I have no real experience (Buddhism).
I agree with the comments, I dont see the point of the argument except to state facts about Buddhism and Christianity. Yes, each doctorine impacts its respective religion, but I found myself asking so what? in this article. The article was a nice change of pace from what we have been talking about, but I felt like he was stating the obvious in his claims.
Griffiths definitely needs to expand his article to include more religions than solely Christianity and Buddhism. It seems that this article creates an atmosphere of restrictiveness not only to those within a religion but a restriction from those outside the religion. He paints the picture that members of these religions keep with their own kind while pushing away "outsiders." I really don't like how he discusses the boundaries of religion.
Yes, religious docrtines do define and govern religious communities. They are also significant to those within the community. I am honestly having trouble deciphering the significance of the main ideas here. They aren't very disputable. They seem fairly concrete. Also, I'm not completely clear on how this passage is at odds with a pluralistic view of religion.
I think that reason to question one's religion is the fact that there are other major religions out there. If not everyone can be right, then most people are wrong, stating most because even the major religions of the world have lass than 50% belevers. Defining each religion by it's parts doesn't give any more of a compelling argument for believing in something than not believing in something.
Post a Comment