The label "deep pluralism" is not merely descriptive. It is also a positive claim. (cf 'deep ecology': the dominant worldview has blinded us to our integral relation to the natural world) I will identify three approaches to religious pluralism. One is developed in the context of the history of religions (primarely descriptive). A second arises as theologians committed to a particular tradition, usually some form of Christianity, reflect about other traditions (Generally, theological pluralists identify what is to be respected in other traditions with those features that resemble elements in their own. The more generous among these theologians acknowledge that they find in some other traditions a richer development of elements that have not been sufficiently emphasized in their own tradition. Hence, without in any way conceding basic lack or failure of one's own tradition, one may ac knowledge that some other tradition is in some limited ways superior.) The third has been developed by philosophers of religion. A philosopher of religion may view the various traditions without commitment to any one. From this point of view, the question of their relative strengths and weaknesses can be examined more dispassionately. One could well claim that this is a deeper pluralism than is that of those precommitted to one tradition. (..) John Hick regards the ultimate itself as purely noumenal in Kant's sense, and he calls it the Real. All traditions aim to change the orientation of people from centering on self to centering on the Real. (..) It is our judgment, in stead, that there is a plurality of ultimates and a plurality of practical goals. (..) The truly controversial position of process thinkers is that there is a plurality of ultimates. (..) JBC: God and creativity as complementary ultimates. (..) We can learn about God from one fam ily, about what Whitehead calls creativity and the Buddhists call emptying from the other. (..) God, world, and creativity all have their reality dependent on one another. They cannot be ranked in terms of their relative ultimacy. (..) I suggest that the ideal ori entation is one that takes all three into account with deep appreciation. (..) John Hutchison that classified the religious traditions of the world as cosmic (natural world), acosmic (fundamental principle), and theistic (supreme spirit). (..) learning meditation from Buddhism (..) learning to live closer to nature, recognizing our interdepencence and kinship with other creatures from the more cosmic traditions (..) We may recognize that what others do complements what we do without seeking to adopt their practices. This complementarity will be richer if most people specialize in one form or another. But it is not richer if they fail to realize the value of the other complementary paths. propose that this recognition of deep differences in orientation and in goals is a deeper pluralism than what has been generally called pluralism in the past. We propose also that it encourages all of us to sink our roots deeper into our own traditions precisely so that we can appreciate and learn from others. Deep faith and deep pluralism go together. |