“Neo-inclusivism” is explained and assessed as an approach to the problem of the conflicting claims to truth of different religions, with reference to inter alia John B. Cobb (Jr.), Gavin D'Costa and Paul Ingram. For the neo-inclusivist the truth of a religious tradition depends on its inclusivistic capacity, i.e. its capacity to assimilate other traditions. For ex ample, by being enriched and transformed through “radical openness” to other traditions, while remaining “committed” to her own tradition – so the neo-inclusivist claims (...) – the theology of the Christian can become “truly global”. Neo-inclusivism seemingly transcends the absolutist habits of inclusivists, i.e. to assess the religious other in view of criteria (the inclusivist's own religious tradition) with which the other does not identify himself or herself. However, the neo-inclusivist plays down the possible limits of inter religious openness and is overly optimistic about the possibility of a “truly global” theology. Moreover, whether the neo-inclusivist's “committed openness” significantly differs from the approach of those who arbitrarily use the definitive norms of their own religious tradition to assess other traditions, is at least debatable. Whatever the case may be, insofar as tolerance cannot tolerate intolerance, the neo-inclusivist is necessarily intolerant, and, in this sense, “absolutist”, towards those who make their own beliefs normative for all and shun themselves from the assessments and new insights of others. S. Afr. J. Philos. Vol.23(1) 2004: 82-107. (shrink)

Do adherents of different religious traditions communicate and, if so, how? What enables them to do so? What is interreligious “communication”? These issues are ad dressed with reference to Wilfred Cantwell Smith's hermeneutical rule, and to inter alia Paul Knitter, Martin Heidegger, Hans-Georg Gadamer, David Tracy, and John Dunne. Four responses to the question as to what permits interreligious communication are criticised. According to a fifth response, on which the author elaborates, interreligious communication is not – as the objectivist claims (...) – possible because members of different religious traditions speak the very same language, or – as the relativist claims – impossible because they speak radically different languages. Adherents of different religions communicate, if at all, by means of an analogical language. This language is the product of persistent efforts to understand the religion/faith of the other as he or she understands it. Paradoxically, the language that permits inter religious communication is thus the product of such communication. Without thereby reverting to objectivism or an essentialist view of religion, the author identifies five “less unstable” similarities between religions. These and other “less un stable” similarities might assist believers in their efforts to under stand the religious other. (shrink)

How may or should adherents of a particular religion assess other religious traditions? Whether they can avoid both absolutism and relativism depends on the availability of “ecumenical criteria”, i.e. a common scale in view of which the adherents of different religious traditions may jointly judge these traditions. It is argued that such a scale may exist even if we assume that the adherents of the different religions do not have any religious beliefs or criteria in common. This scale may exist (...) insofar as believers may share certain meta-religious criteria, e.g. the coherence of beliefs, their existential relevance and efficiency – i.e. their capacity to meet needs and concerns, including ethical-political and scientific concerns – and the impressiveness of beliefs. As such these criteria coincide with conditions that regulate the effective functioning of religions as ultimate frames of reference. However, it is not assumed that these criteria constitute ahistorical foundations. Adherents of the different religious traditions may not agree on the coherence, the existential relevance and efficiency, or the impressiveness of beliefs. Neither will they necessarily agree that these considerations are appropriate. Whether such an agreement exists will only, if at all, become apparent through inter religious dialogue. S. Afr. J. Philos. Vol.23(3) 2004: 302-326. (shrink)