Religious Taxonomy, Academia, and Interreligious Dialogue

Abstract

Religious traditions have six different ways of being religious embedded in them. Conflict among religious people can eventuate as much from these different modes as from theoretical differences. Recognizing the different ways of being religious can lead to more productive interand intrareligious dialogue. Interreligious dialogue in depth and without compromise is to me an intriguing possibility well worth pursuing, both from a personal standpoint of faith as well as academically. My interest in it is not simply practical as a means to what is likely to emerge from a meeting of significantly different religious minds and spirits; it is also a theoretical or philosophical interest. My remarks will primarily reflect this philosophical interest, although I happen to be a Christian and my personal interest in interreligious dialogue is in part an expression of my faith. Accordingly, my approach to the questions posed for the session is to attempt to explain how academic theory can facilitate dialogical practice and to argue that it should do so. Professionally, I have long been interested philosophically in the possibility of empathetic understanding between persons of differing religious and/or metaphysical conviction. Exactly what is its nature? What is its epistemological significance? To what extent, and under what conditions, is it possible? What are the criteria of its successful practice? And what is the ground or basis of its possibility? One aspect of this interest was re-cently issued in a book, Six Ways of Being Religious: A Framework for Comparative Studies of Religion (Wadsworth). At an early stage of the editing process, the subtitle of my book was phrased, 'A Framework for Comparative Studies of Religion and Interreligious Dialogue. The conceptual framework conveyed by the book is still intended to facilitate interreligious dialogue, despite the publisher's decision to omit the latter phrase in the interest of simplicity. In general, the remarks that follow stem from my book, where my argu. ., e ond Dialogue: Toward a Mutual Transformation of Chrisis (Philadelphia: Fortre s, 1982). , d is After Patriarchy: A Feminist History, Analy is, and Reis (Albany: State University of New York, 1 93). , cade ia, and Inte religious Buddhist-Christian Studies 18 (1998). ? by University of Hawai'i Press. All rights reserved. This content downloaded from 157.55.39.132 on Thu, 15 Sep 2016 05:46:50 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms