The futility of interfaith dialogue
Stephen Prothero's book God Is Not One | photo courtesy of harpercollins.com
Settings in which interfaith dialogue takes place often have a very respectful atmosphere in which many of the participants engage themselves in a trusting and hopeful manner. The environment is created by the knowledge that a type of understanding and even compromise is occurring that is generally inconceivable in many parts of the world. The void that is created by the lack of understanding can be, and inevitably is, filled with fear and hatred.
So on the surface, interfaith dialogue seems like a great solution to solving many of the world’s problems. Some say it might be naïve to think that it can truly solve them, however.
So is interfaith dialogue the bridge across the chasm of ignorance many fall into? Or is it a bandage covering up the wounds of our differences that will never heal?
After all, unless we as a species are headed towards universal secular humanism, the major religions of world can’t ignore their differences when relating to each other. There are proponents of the idea that interfaith dialogue is futile that are vehemently against it without a proper understanding of what it is or adequate knowledge of world religions.
Just search any combination of the words in the title of this piece, and you are sure to be rewarded with a wildly ignorant plethora of websites and blogs. One such blog reasons that this type of discourse is a trick employed by the Muslims who the writer believes to be sworn enemies of the West. Another postulates it is a common method used by Christian missionaries to brainwash non-Christians they feel to be inferior.
However, there are also intellectuals who make compelling arguments. One such intellectual is Stephen Prothero, a professor in the Department of Religion at Boston University. In his book, "God is Not One," he acknowledges the notion that the essential message of most religions is more or less the same but also thoughtfully raises the conundrum of particular features of different religions that become so problematic.
The specific rituals, familiar and distinguishable stories and minor unique nuances are just as important to many followers as the numerous qualities they share with other religions. While he doesn’t approach organized religion with the perceived hostility of some New Atheists like Richard Dawkins, he does refer to interfaith dialogue and universalist leanings as a “lovely sentiment” but ultimately "dangerous, disrespectful, and untrue”.
Despite this, interfaith dialogue has yielded very positive results in many situations. When communities are confronted with hate crimes or misunderstandings involving bad sentiment towards one particular faith group, interfaith groups are known to respond much more effectively than individuals. While the overall goal of interfaith dialogue may be unachievable, cynics would say so is world peace… but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it.
As a strong advocate of interfaith dialogue, I have found Stephen Prothero’s argument a fairly compelling one and have been searching for a equally compelling counter-argument.
Strangely enough, the survival of my confidence in interfaith dialogue came from one of my favorite people — someone who doesn‘t even exist. He is the character named Bernard played by Dustin Hoffman in the 2004 film "I Heart Huckabees." Bernard's thoughts on metaphysics are a comforting rebuttal for me to Prothero’s argument which is also represented partially by another character in the movie with an opposing ideology. As Bernard so perceptively puts it, “We need to learn how to see the blanket truth all the time…”
Ahmed Chaudhry was born in Lahore, Pakistan, and moved to the Michigan in 1994. As a recent graduate of Albion College, where he received a degree in biology and religious studies, he plans to pursue a career in public health.
Comments
robyn
Sun, Dec 5, 2010 : 1:36 p.m.
Thanks for the correction - I was going from memory of what I had read in the past. The point I was trying to make is that there are similarities and both religions do share common ground - in this case, Jesus is known to both religions and does hold a prominent role. Obviously more important to Christians than Muslims - but there is a foundation of commonality that can lead to discussion.
PeaceMaker
Sun, Dec 5, 2010 : 8:15 a.m.
@Robyn "In the Quran Jesus is Isa, which is short for In sha Allah, Messenger of God. So there is a lot similarity between the texts - but enough difference that is a bit difficult for some to accept - on both sides." In sha Allah is "God Willing" not short for "Isa"....please stand corrected.
DeeDee
Sat, Dec 4, 2010 : 9:15 p.m.
Ahmed, you first say that there are compelling arguments in God is Not One, and then find the quote We need to learn how to see the blanket truth all the time comforting. Sorry to be so dense, but the "blanket truth" is basically, that it's all One. One truth, many paths, and more important, many metaphors. People confuse the religious metaphor that they embrace with the truth at the heart of spirituality. But maybe it's not that important, if we just have the sense and inner strength to obey the will of all gods (and better yet goddesses) that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us! Blessed Be :-)
robyn
Fri, Dec 3, 2010 : 8:11 p.m.
@ lib: Sorry to correct you but not all Christians believe that Jesus is God. While some do - it is not a belief shared by all. Also - in speaking with people of Islamic faith, the Jesus/God thing isn't what I have been asked. They tend to ask if I believe Jesus is the son of God. In the Quran Jesus is Isa, which is short for In sha Allah, Messenger of God. So there is a lot similarity between the texts - but enough difference that is a bit difficult for some to accept - on both sides. Suffice it to say that people who have very strong religious convictions are 'protective' of those beliefs. Our religious beliefs can be so deeply personal that having someone else tell you that you're wrong is probably a lot like being told you're not really who you think you are. I think the most important part of discussing religion with those that have a different belief than I do is to be considerate of THEIR beliefs and NOT try to push mine on them. Or tell them that they are wrong. It's not wrong to them. Just as mine are not wrong to me. However - this only works if BOTH sides can agree to be respectful and considerate. In all honesty - I find it far less difficult to discuss religion with others - even if our religion is different - than discussing religion with people that hold no religious belief. People with no beliefs tend to make rude remarks and treat those that don't share their non-belief as ignorant or delusional fairy tale believers. I'm not quite sure why this is - perhaps the belief in God - no matter how it is practiced connects us or gives us some sort of 'peace' that those without just don't have. Whatever the cause, I more often than not enjoy conversations about religion and I like learning about the beliefs of others...
Will Warner
Fri, Dec 3, 2010 : 4:38 p.m.
The best we can do is agree to disagree, and the worst is to try to convert each other by the sword. Or we could try to handle the unpleasent truth, enjoy life and enjoy each other's company. Let me suggest, as gently as I can, the blanket truth: Life pointless. We have no permanent or cosmically meaningful existence. Your life has only the meaning you give it. This is hard to face, I know. But despite millennia of wishful thinking and hoping it is otherwise, all we have are different "likely stories" about a soul and an afterlife, and not a single experiment to test these stories. Tellingly, the stories are all fashioned to be untestable. With no actual evidence to the contrary, in all likelihood when you die it will be for you as if you had never been born. Again, hard to face, I know.
Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice
Fri, Dec 3, 2010 : 3:52 p.m.
I find that there are two wrong ways to approach interfaith dialog: 1. We're all the same, the differences between us are just illusions, let's all hug and sing Kum Ba Yah. 2. We're right, you're wrong. I have nothing to learn from you. We have nothing in common. Now sit down, shut up, and let me set you straight. Interfaith dialog at its best recognizes both the shared experiences and the differences. -Chuck Warpehoski
sbbuilder
Fri, Dec 3, 2010 : 2:42 p.m.
Since the early '80's the Catholic Church and leaders from the Jewish faith have been in almost constant dialogue. There has been major reconciliation on both sides. This dialogue has born concrete positive results. Just one example.
Rork Kuick
Fri, Dec 3, 2010 : 1:43 p.m.
Nice. Thankyou. I'm wildly enthusiastic about finding common ground to try to improve people's lives. My counter example to pro-life as unifying would be the goal of reducing unwanted pregnancy. Maybe we will bicker about the methods employed to achieve shared goals, but some of that is healthy, and leads to questioning the actual efficacy of the methods rather than just debating our various paths to utopias (though in good company, that's fun too). (I found the headline provocative = good bait. Tricky.)
Speechless
Fri, Dec 3, 2010 : 1:19 p.m.
Whether discussing religion, politics, music, literature, or the fate of millionaire college football coaches, one will always encounter irreconciliable differences to some degree. That happens in life. To once again quote the King's prayerful lament from South Central: Can we all just get along?
silverwings
Fri, Dec 3, 2010 : 11:36 a.m.
Poor headline, AnnArbor.com. He's arguing in favor of interfaith dialogue, not that it's "futile."
Heidi Hess Saxton
Fri, Dec 3, 2010 : 7:53 a.m.
Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta is perhaps one of the strongest arguments for interfaith interaction. She and her sisters, the Missionaries of Charity, routinely reached out the poorest of the poor without proslytizing, seeing the face of Jesus in Hindu and Muslim alike. The effectiveness of her approach may be seen by the respect and outright affection the people of India demonstrated at her funeral. In this dear woman we see the secret to constructive interreligious dialogue: combating a common enemy, whether that be poverty, natural disaster, or assaults on human dignity. For example, in the United States the pro-life movement has helped to unify various Christian traditions that have long been unable to see eye-to-eye in practically any other context.