Teaching Philosophy of Religion

Teaching Philosophy of Religion: a Comparative Approach Charles Ess Interdisciplinary Studies Drury University Springfield, Missouri A Work in Progress… Prelude: Why Comparative Approaches in Philosophy? Overall Structure – texts, core concepts First Encounter: Western Philosophy of Religion vis-à-vis The Analects Student Comments Failures – don’t try this at home… Convergences? Thoughts and Suggestions? Prelude: Why a Comparative Approach? 1. Pedagogical effectiveness: ethnocentrism – “ontological shock” – epistemological humility Philosophy: helping students make articulate their implicit, underlying assumptions a worldview that is made up of basic beliefs about reality, identity (including gender), values, a "logic" that broadly determines whether diverse elements of one's reality [e.g., male/female, humanity/nature, humanity/divinity relationships] are structured in more dualistic and oppositional fashion and/or more complementary, non-dualistic fashion) so that these basic assumptions may then be critically considered, perhaps reshaped, even rejected, in the process of constructing our own worldviews (where such construction is part of the "growing up" process as imaged in Prelude: Why a Comparative Approach? This process of making articulate what has always been inarticulately assumed is dramatically helped along by encountering peoples, languages, and ways of life resting on a worldview different from one's own. In this "culture shock" is "ontological shock" - the recognition that what one has believed and assumed all one's life is not necessarily shared by all other human beings. Prelude: Why a Comparative Approach? 2. Theoretical / Philosophy of Religion: My view of Western philosophy as itself the result of hybridization – and as marking out a hybridizing trajectory  how far will “the Other” of Eastern thought prove to be irreducibly different from Western thought? In specific / “case-study” terms: A. Western substantive language and thus categories vis-à-vis classical Chinese nondual terms, e.g. xin, etc. (Ames & Rosemont, 1998) Prelude: Why a Comparative Approach? Indo-European languages as “substantive”  Western philosophical interests in identifying the unchanging stuff (Greek, hyle) underlying a changing surface of plural appearances / an unchanging self/identity likewise underlying a changing surface of plural appearances: cf. Plato Vis-à-vis Prelude: Why a Comparative Approach? classical Chinese as “eventful,” “processional,” relational in character, so as to be marked with …not a concern to describe how things are in themselves, but how they stand in relation to something else at particular times. (Ames & Rosemont, 23) such that Prelude: Why a Comparative Approach? “Persons are not perceived as superordinated individuals - as agents who stand independent of their actions - but are rather ongoing “events” defined functionally by constitutive roles and relationships as they are performed within the context of their specific families and communities, that is, through the observance of ritual propriety (li).” (Ames & Rosemont, 29) Prelude: Why a Comparative Approach? 2. (Theoretical / Philosophy of Religion) specific / “case-study”: B. John Cobb’s arguments for the coherence between Christianity and Buddhism ..  General / theoretical: C. Definitions of “religion”  How far can traditional Western philosophy of religion adequately approach and understand Eastern traditions? Prelude: Why a Comparative Approach? 3. Practical/applied – ethical/political: An increasingly interdependent “global village”  increasing cultural / religious / political conflicts… A. (No comment) B. Even in cyberspace… Culture and Communication: CATaC‟98 / ‟00 / „02 What happens in praxis as CMC technologies US are implemented across a continuum of Europe Middle East indigenous cultures? Asia peoples Contrast/Conflict white middle class males vis-à-vis … females / AfricanAmericans / Hispanics / AsianAmericans / Native Americans (Stewart et al, 2001) Rey’s study of German-, French-, Italianspeaking Swiss (2001) Israel (Dahan, 1999); Kuwait (Wheeler, 2001) Singapore; Japan (Heaton, 2001); Malaysia (Abdat & Pervan, 2000) Indonesia (Rahmati, 2000); Thailand (Hongladarom, 2001) Malaysia Kelabit (Harris et al, 2001); Philippines (Sy, 2001); South Africa (Postma, 2001) “NO THANKS!” eKiribati (Solomon Islands – Sofield, 2000) Prelude: Why a Comparative Approach? 3. Practical/applied – ethical/political: An increasingly interdependent “global village”  “Cultural hybrids / polybrids who have become sufficiently familiar (“familial”)with the languages, cultures, practices of “others” to be able to live, engage in dialogue, “negotiate,” etc., in more than their own culture – and thereby move from ethnocentrism to a humility, respect, and pluralism that preserve and enhance diverse cultural identities, traditions, etc. Prelude: Why a Comparative Approach? 3. Practical/applied – ethical/political: ”The democratic potential of the Net for promoting „civic pluralism‟ will partly rely on its being constructed by those capable of negotiating global differences, creating multiple, complex meanings and crossing boundaries.” -- Voices of Afghan Women - Beverly Bickel Texts Gary E. Kessler (Editor). Philosophy of Religion: Toward a Global Perspective. Thomson, 1999. The Analects of Confucius: A Philosophical Translation. Confucius. Henry Rosemont, Jr., and Roger Ames, translators. Ballantine Books, 1998. Henry Rosemont Jr. Rationality and Religious Experience: The Continuing Relevance of the World's Spiritual Traditions. Open Court, 2001 Barbara Brown Taylor. The Luminous Web: Essays on Science and Religion. Cowley Publications, 2000. The Oxford Study Bible: Revised English Bible with Apocrypha. Edited by M. Jack Suggs, Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, and James R. Mueller. Plan Review of traditional-Western philosophy of religion: Shaped by monotheistic assumptions of Judaism, Christianity, Islam Traditional topics: I. God questions Rationalist efforts to prove the existence of God Fideism / rationalism debate  relationship between science / religion? The nature and attributes of God (necessary existence? God’s knowledge? God, eternity and temporarlity, etc.) The problem of evil (“theodicy”) Plan Review of traditional-Western philosophy of religion: II. Human questions: The nature of the soul (immortal? Free? Relatiionship to body? Etc.) (What does the existence/character of God imply for) human values, ethics/morality, politics, attitudes towards the environment, etc.? Epistemological questions – e.g., are “mystical” experiences veridical? RELIGIOUS PLURALISM – HOW DO BELIEVERS / RATIONALISTS RESPOND TO THE DIVERSITY OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS? Plan Comparative Dimensions I. “Add and stir” approach – include readings within traditional topics, e.g. 1. What is Religion – Nishitani 2. Ultimate Reality (Kessler, ch. 2), includes Lao-tzu Shankara 3. Proofs for Ultimate Reality (Kessler, ch. 3), Udayana (Nyaya – East Indian) Dharmasiri (Buddhist) Plan Comparative Dimensions I. “Add and stir” approach – include readings within traditional topics, e.g. 4. Religious Experience (ch. 4) includes Suzuki on Satori […] 9. Faith and reason includes Rhadakrishnan, “Intellect and Intuition” 11. Religious Pluralism includes Raimundo Panikkar (Catholic / Hinduism) Arvind Sharma (Advaita Vedanta) Purosottama Bilimoria Plan Comparative Dimensions II. Testing our frameworks (the way is made in the walking of the way…) A. Students develop their own definitions of “religion,” “ultimate reality” in response to reading, discussion of Kessler, chs.1, 2 B. Students test their definitions vis-à-vis The Analects a) Language and Metaphysics b) The Analects, Bks. 1-10 Plan Comparative Dimensions II. Testing our frameworks (the way is made in the walking of the way…) C. Kessler, ch. 11, “Are All Religions True?” (religious pluralism)  Henry Rosemont, Jr., Rationality and Religious Experience  Barbara Brown Taylor, The Luminous Web First Results Comparative Dimensions II. Testing our frameworks (the way is made in the walking of the way…) A. Students develop their own definitions of “religion,” “ultimate reality” in response to reading, discussion of Kessler, chs.1, 2 B. Students test their definitions vis-à-vis The Analects a) Language and Metaphysics b) The Analects, Bks. 1-10 First Results Comparative Dimensions Instructor‟s hypothesis: the Western-oriented categories – including a “substantive” approach to philosophy rooted in Indo-European languages (so Ames and Rosemont) – especially as these traditionally make a sharp contrast between Divinity / ultimate reality Philosophy Religion Will prove inadequate for understanding The Analects First Results Comparative Dimensions BOY, WAS I EVER WRONG…. At least, according to my students! 1. In particular: M.C. („03): Cobb‟s account of “ultimate reality” includes “principles of rightness”; The Analects provide us with such principles, and thus are an account of ultimate reality. A.T. (‟03): You can get yourself in line with the rightness of the world without being able to comprehend it or speculate about it. First Results John Cobb (1977) on Buddhism and Christianity (via Heidegger and Whitehead  dialogue, convergence, not identity) Principle of rightness: “The rightness in question expresses itself in diverse ways. There is a rightness of style or form, propriety, appropriateness, good judgment, wisdom. Only in special circumstances is it expressed in clear-cut moral dualities of „ought‟ and „ought not.‟” [cf. phronesis in Aristotle] First Results Comparative Dimensions BOY, WAS I EVER WRONG…. At least, according to my students! 1. On these accounts, then, Confucianism counts as “religion” – i.e., a framework that includes an account of ultimate reality – even though Confucian thought does not a) emphasize developing or understanding a cosmology, nor does it b) focus on a (monotheistic) conception of Divinity as central to its concerns (neither Tian nor the Dao are “God” in a Western sense, etc.) First Results Comparative Dimensions BOY, WAS I EVER WRONG…. At least, according to my students! 2. The Tao is not as inscrutable as Lao-Tzu might have us think! S.G. (‟05): analogy between the Tao: “Being and non-being produce each other; difficult and easy complete each other; long and short contrast each other; sound and voice harmonize each other …” And harmonic-overtone singing! First Results 3. Convergences? A. John Cobb on Buddhism and Christianity B. Post-Cartesian conceptions of “reason”? First Results 3. Convergences? A. John Cobb (1977) on Buddhism and Christianity (via Heidegger and Whitehead  dialogue, convergence, not identity) Principle of rightness: “The rightness in question expresses itself in diverse ways. There is a rightness of style or form, propriety, appropriateness, good judgment, wisdom. Only in special circumstances is it expressed in clear-cut moral dualities of „ought‟ and „ought not.‟” [cf. phronesis in Aristotle] First Results B. Post-Cartesian conceptions of “reason”? William James’ “Will to Believe” Radhakrishnan on intuitive knowing Marilyn Piety on Kierkegaard’s notion of “passional reasoning.” Each in their own way rejects a Cartesian – not necessarily a “Western” understanding of reason as radically divorced from and thus opposed to emotion, feeling, intuition, sense, body, etc. – In favor of a nondual conception of self in which reason and emotion play complementary roles  B. Post-Cartesian conceptions of “reason”? Recent, nondual conceptions of self in which reason and emotion play complementary roles  i) pre-Cartesian understandings of reason – most notably, Plato’s notion of “erotic” reason as developed especially in The Symposium but also in The Republic. ii) as the example of Rhadakrishnan makes clear – this (re)turn further represents a convergence towards Eastern views as more characteristically nondualistic, e.g., specific Hindu notions of intuition, as well as Confucian notions of xin (“heart-and-mind”), etc. First Results First Results C. Convergences in the Philosophy of Religion? As contemporary Western conceptions of Self (reason+feeling+body) Reason (reason+feeling / intuition) Shift from Cartesian dualisms To “Western nondualisms”  Greater coherence / resonance with Eastern religion/philosophy First Results C. Convergences in the Philosophy of Religion? Perhaps my students weren’t so confused after all? Comments? Questions? THANKS!