Reading: Rahner, “Religious Inclusivism”, pp. 588-595 & Dalai Lama, “Buddhism and Other Religions”, pp. 577-581
Note: The primary reading for next class is Rahner; the Dalai Lama piece is meant to complement the Rahner reading. The editors give a good summary of the Dalai Lama “interview” (I’m not sure it’s a real interview). The editors also give a good overview of Rahner, but I will add a few observations here.
Reading Guide to Rahner: The first few paragraphs of the Rahner are, if read too quickly, hard to understand, but the next few pages are much easier. Rahner begins by noting that Catholics (and, indeed, all Christians) can no longer ignore the fact of religious diversity. Given cross-cultural influence, the issue of how to respond to religious pluralism (the fact that there are so many different, incompatible religions) is more pressing than ever. He then discusses how Christians should respond to this fact. In the section titled First Thesis, he acknowledges that Christianity was not always “the religion which binds men to God”; he then argues that although Christianity is “the absolute and only religion for all men”, it is not the case that all men are now under an “absolute obligation” to encounter God through Christianity. He contrasts this position with the “normal” or traditional position on Christianity, which says that from the time of the Apostles, all are bound to approach God through Christ; the implication of this normal position is that anyone who does not acquire “saving faith” in Christ is condemned. Second Thesis: prior to the point where Christianity is an absolute obligation, non-Christian religions are lawful (see the text for what he means). This section of the article repays close reading. It will help to notice that Rahner is making a few important assumptions: (a) Christianity, properly understood, commits the faithful to believing that God desires that all men be saved and thus provides adequate opportunity for each to be saved; (b) if (a) is true, then that implies that Christianity cannot always and everywhere be the only way to achieve salvation; (c) religion is inherently a social phenomenon, at least as it has been and is in practice a social institution. Rahner is also making implicit assumptions about how a just God would interact with men and about the conditions of being morally responsible for having rejected God. Third Thesis: Christians should regard members of non-Christian religions as “anonymous Christians”. Nonetheless, Christians should still proselytize. Fourth Thesis: it is not presumptuous, but humble, to view non-Christian believers as “anonymous Christians”; we should not expect religious diversity to die out any time soon.
As is perhaps evident from this reading guide, the most difficult part of the reading is the Second Thesis; this is also the meatiest part of the reading.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
For the Dalai Lama reading: I disagree with the claim on page 578 that says “If we view the world’s religions from the widest possible viewpoint, and examine their ultimate goal, we find that all major world religions, whether Christianity or Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism, are directed to the achievement of permanent human happiness.” This seems like a very Buddhist thing to say, but I am not convinced all Christians of Muslims will come particularly close to agreeing with this. From my Christian perspective, human happiness is a goal but not the ultimate goal. A number of Christian denominations teach that the ultimate goal is a relationship with God. Becoming a better human being is important, but it is out of gratitude for what has already been accomplished and is not the ultimate aim.
The Dalai Lama seems like a pretty awesome and chill guy, and he takes a much more open approach to religion compared to Rahner (which I am much more fond of- the Dalia Lama that is). To me, the idea that most religions ultimately strive towards human happiness is pretty straight forward and makes sense. Sure, some religions might advocate a relationship with their god as the ultimate goal, but what is the point of that? A relationship is something that both parties can take away something from, which is usually love and happiness. I'm with the Dalai Lama all the way.
The Dalai Lama hit on a few points that I would expect a non-religious person to make: that religions serve a social purpose, that religions tend to maximize human happiness, and that religious diversity isn't something to be shunned since different 'tastes' appeal to different people. What got me though is that the Dalai Lama still did what every religious person anywhere does: he emphasized that only through his religion could one achieve ultimate salvation/happiness.
The Rahner reading on the other hand was unbearable. Here I have to disagree with Dr. Smith's synopsis: he doesn't argue that christianity is “the absolute and only religion for all men”. He simply states it. I give Rahner's article about as much philosophical weight as the guy who invented the flying spaghetti monster. Using a book which says it's the only way and then proclaiming your religion as the only way because of the book is about as textbook circular reasoning as you can get.
I liked the Dalai Lama article. I am like Jarrod though. In the Christian religion the bible explicitly states that in following Crist you will have struggles and pain. I think they all seek for a more peaceful way of coexisting with the people around us. I do agree though that buddists and christians can coexist in a western society peacefully.
I like the Dalai Lama’s view on religion much more than Rahner’s. It seems to make sense to me that the point of religion is for people to reach happiness although like Jarrod said I bet some religions would not agree with that being the ultimate aim. After reading Rahner’s article I wondered what if someone never had the opportunity to hear about or be introduced to Christianity. According to Rahner they can be saved as “anonymous Christian” through the truth in the religion that they do practice, for example Buddhism. So what about a person who is Christian but decides that Buddhism is better for himself then will he go not be saved even though the “anonymous Christian” did get saved practicing Buddhism. It seems unfair that that one would be saved and the other not even if they were practicing the same religion.
I agree with Dan and the Dalai Lama. I think the ultimate goal of any religion is to achieve human happiness. This might be done through a relationship with God, but this is what is supposed to bring you peace of mind and happiness. If you believe that through Christ you will find salvation, isn't that supposed to bring to the greatest happiness? And sharing that happiness with others and bringing them to Christ is bringing about more happiness? You may suffer through "struggles and pain" but knowing you are saved is supposed to bring you joy and appreciation.
I do not agree with human happiness being an ultimate goal of being a Christian. Yes, it is nice to be happy, but I do not go to church every Sunday morning to achieve happiness. If you look through the Bible, the people serving God are not serving strictly because they want to achieve happiness. I do not know alot about other religions, so I cannot speak on behalf of those, but I do know I strongly disagree with this point from a Christian perspective.
Post a Comment