• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
MichaelGuzman1
Religious Pluralism and The Diversity of The Anthropomorphic Religious ExperienceThe various religions of the world all share a common ideology—“[the radicaltransformation] from [an]…unsatisfactory state to [one that is] limitlessly better” (
 John Hick, Ten Essential Texts p. 451
)
.
It can safely be said that all forms of religion point tothe Christian idea of salvation in different ways. Whether it may be the Christian accountof human redemption through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Islamicaccount that God created man embedded with his best qualities and the knowledge of the“One,” but through ignorance has lost that knowledge and therefore salvation is found inits rediscovery. The fulfillments of nirvana in the Buddhist tradition or Brahman in theHindu religion likewise, are all personalization’s of the divine—different conceptions of the Ultimate. As humans we cannot fully grasp the concept of the ultimate, so we haveattributed the human qualities in which we experience to conceptualize the One, theAbsolute—God—our ultimate concern. Paul Tillich in
“Symbols of Faith”
discusses his philosophical idea of the symbolic and mythological nature of God and religious beliefs.He discusses the various ways myths and symbols can be valuable for religiouscommunities and also, why the truth of, or affirmation of God and religious beliefs ismeaningless.In
“Symbols of Faith,”
Tillich’s argument stems from the idea that religionshould be interpreted as symbolic in nature. With this philosophical view in hand, onecould make the inference that since religion is essentially a human interpretation of thedivine, that salvation could be attained from more than one singular religious experience.Yielding the possibility for the plurality of religious experiences—an idea that wouldshake the confines of western theology, yet provide the grounds for a universal
 
MichaelGuzman2
acceptance, appreciation and respect for the diversity of the human religious experience.Paul Tillich explains that symbols, if used to express the ultimate concern, cannot be literal and therefore must be perceived as symbolic in nature, because to accept themas literal interpretations, one would be applying ultimacy (or divine truth) to something physical, something finite, formed and interpreted in the human mind. Tillich maintainsthe idea that “that which is true ultimate transcends the realm of finite reality” (p. 385).And therefore, no human conception, understanding or explanation “can express [theultimate] directly and properly” (p. 385). Tillich even goes as far as to say that even “Godtranscends his own name” (p. 385). He further clarifies that, for instance, “when weattribute [humanly traits] to him, power, love, [and] justice, [we are speaking]symbolically [of] that which is beyond finitude and infinity” (p. 386). Thus, nothingshould be ultimately concerned except that which is ultimate. No religion, scripture, text,handbook, or manual should be a substitute for that which is ultimate. If you acceptTillich’s premise, all religious texts must be interpreted as symbols of the ultimate.Accepting this notion gives rise to Tillich’s claim that the “stories of divinehuman encounters” are mythological symbols of faith (p. 387). These mythologicalstories allow man to conceptualize something as infinitely great as God. Tillich claims:“Even
one
God is an object of mythological language, and if spoken about isdrawn into the framework of time and space. Even he loses his ultimacy if madeto be the concrete concern” (p. 388).God and the symbols of religious experience must be understood symbolically, so thesymbols themselves do not turn into idolatrous representations.
 
MichaelGuzman3
Myths, like symbols, can also be expressed in different ways and have variousfunctions in the communities which find truth in them. Myths can be understood literallyor symbolically as “broken myths” and/or “broken consciousness of myth.” Brokenmyths are those in which are acknowledged as myths but are not substituted by another.For instance, the fairy tale of Santa Claus is a broken myth, for it is acknowledged asmyth but children are still led to believe it. This myth specifically, although like manyothers (especially those of greater importance), is essential in communities to establishgood behaviors among children with the idea of reward for good behavior and punishment for bad behavior. The truth of the myth does not affect its effectiveness. Thissimple idea brings up the question: Does the literal truth of religious stories, or stories ingeneral, affect the benefits they have for religious communities? Philosopher John Hick,like Paul Tillich, addresses this question in his work 
“Religious Pluralism and Salvation.”
However, before we address this the remaining types of myths must beexplained.Tilichs’ explanation of “broken consciousness of myth” relates to those groups of  people whom cannot distinguish between the mythical and the literal claims of their religious text. However, once the individual or community realizes the once literalscripture as mythological, either the now ‘broken myth’ is replaced or the group partakesin the latter stage of literalism. They “half consciously, half unconsciously” notice thedispute and discrepancy presented, however, they push the questions away for whatever  personal reasons and continue to follow the broken myths—while still affirming of themin the literal sense. This is one of the most dysfunctional forms of religious experience, because eventually the question will have to be resolved. The group’s constant denial of 
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...