Religion: Exclusivist, Inclusivist, Pluralist, or Other?

[Sentama Lin]

In a lot of comparative religion studies there are three general views of religions and their truth as it relates to each other: Exclusivist (only one truth is right, only one truth can be right, and we have the absolute right truth), Inclusivist (our truth is the most right, but the truth can still be discovered by other religions), Pluralist (everyone discovers the same truth regardless of the religious path). I would also argue another view of comparative religion: ethnologically/culturally-sensitive comparison (the religions cannot be compared to each other because they were created from different cultures and of different necessities).

The Exclusivist Path

Exclusivists would believe that their religious thought is the correct thought and the only correct thought in existence. For example, a Christian Exclusivist would say that Jesus and the Gospels are the only way of reaching salvation for one's soul. All other paths would be totally false and the extreme in this path may even condemn, a priori, that any other way of life is totally against the will of G_d.

The viewpoint does make sense; after all how can there be more than one absolute truth? However, in practice, it's illogical in real life practice. It's extremely harsh to condemn someone because of a different life view, particularly if said person has never had exposure to what an exclusivist would claim is the ultimate truth.

The Inclusivist Path

Inclusivists believe that their religious thought gives the most-true truth, but doesn't deny that truth can be realized in other lifestyles - including other religions and from people who have a lack of religion. Going back to Christianity, a Christian Inclusivist would say that Jesus and the Gospels are the best ways of reaching salvation for one's soul, but would deny that their path is the only true way to reach salvation. Some of the truths found in Christianity can be found in other religions and the faithful of other religions (and, perhaps, the good non-faithful) can even be saved.

This is obviously more lenient than the exclusivist position but it still ponders the question: who, then, has the ultimate truth? Inclusivists would all answer that they have the best truth. Religions that follow an Inclusivist position (this includes the Catholic Church) essentially has a hierarchy of goodness of different religions. Long story short, it's a nicer way of saying 'you're correct, but we're still better.'

The Pluralist Path

A pluralist, then, believes that we all have access to the truth, regardless of belief or lack of belief. The best way to think of a pluralist thought of religion is to think of an apartment complex, with floors showing one's "trueness", and each floor having a suite for each religion in the world. People would strive to get higher and higher up to attain a more true truth. But the truth is no longer limited by a certain religion; all people can attain it. Essentially, everyone is correct.

The problem with this though is that all religions are not after the same thing. Abrahamic Salvation is not the same as Nirvana, Moksha, or the Dao. A sterilization of religions into a statement that resonates that we are all right is insulting to individual faiths and lack of faiths because it totally dismisses what knowledge and truth they do know because everyone apparently can know it.

The Ethnologically/Culturally-Sensitive Path

This is a situation that I've discussed with colleagues and others who could not justify either Inclusivism or Pluralism as an appropriate way to compare religions. The thinking of being ethnologically and culturally sensitive stems from the fact that religions developed from a culture that needed it - not the other way around (religion did not develop a culture, which people would definitely argue, because it's a very secular way of defining religion). People created religion for their purposes and to answer their questions and to give them all some form of peace and knowledge about the world as they understand it. As such, it is inappropriate to merely compare religions with each other. Religions must be compared in the context of their individual social culture then links can form with other cultures and their religions.

It's a secularized, people-driven approach rather than a faith-based religion first approach, but I feel it's a better way to describe religious though: "Our culture created this out of necessity; your culture made this. We are right in our own cultural context."

---

What views of comparative religious thought do people agree with? Are there problems with any of these other methods? Are there other ways to look at faiths (or lack of faiths)?  

[Mugen Nagrom]

Not to wild about any of those, the last one does state a good fact but as a person with little to no culture I'm kind of out of luck. All religion really wants is people following its path, and it limits everyone with its culturally excepted morals, mm I really don't wanna say to much more its just such a pain to argue these things  

[boopsie63]

Oh my Lord!! The only path I thought I was following was the one to heaven cry  

[Thaliat Everwood]

Ok, I don't follow any of these paths. I was going to say Culturally Sensitive, but even that doesn't work for me. I believe everyone has access to the truth and that there are multiple was to reach that truth. I believe no single religion has all the answers, nor is any religion completely wrong. I also believe that beliefs can be completely different and yet have different bits of the same truth. I believe no one will EVER have the full truth in this lifetime....we all need to die to fully reach the final truth, and I'm not ready for that just yet.

I do believe in a form of existence after this life, though I do not know what that existence is or how it will work for us.  

[124-C]

I printed off your post and have revisited the concept about a dozen times in the past week, Lin, but all I can really say is that what you are describing may be new to comparative religion studies, but that's really just how anthropologists study religion. Religion is a result of a culture's inability to understand or control different aspects of their existence.

@Mugen — Culture: Sets of learned behaviors and ideas that human beings acquire as members of society.  

[Sentama Lin]

@Thallie: Forgive me for potentially putting words in your mouth, but are you saying, then, that the ultimate truth is not necessarily found by one path of faith (or, lack of faith; I need a better way to describe atheism) but through the actual person searching for said truth? And, in a sense, makes it different than a pluralist's point of view?

@Tsuj: Essentially... Yes, it's pretty much how anthropologists study religion - looking at the people first and figuring out what necessitated the belief. Granted, no religion can be solved only through the sciences (in my opinion) so even the last approach I mentioned has flaws in that it doesn't take account tricky things to explain or prove, like faith, reincarnation, etc., etc.. For example: how do you find out what necessitated the belief of reincarnation?

@Mugen: Because of Tsuj's definition, you have a culture. Ergo you have a religious belief (even if that belief is that there is no belief, if that makes sense).  

[Mugen Nagrom]

pssh, I didn't really mean it like that, I meant I don't have much cultural heritage in my life, whats with everyone sticking to one definition these days; there are such things as common terms beyond just dictionary definitions  

[Sentama Lin]

Yes, but you still have a culture, even if it's your own. And some form of belief system, even if it's a no-faith belief. Also... the nature of the IDD sort of implies were talking in scholarly/academic thought, hence using dictionary definitions to better elaborate what we're talking about.  

[Thaliat Everwood]

Sentama Lin

@Thallie: Forgive me for potentially putting words in your mouth, but are you saying, then, that the ultimate truth is not necessarily found by one path of faith (or, lack of faith; I need a better way to describe atheism) but through the actual person searching for said truth? And, in a sense, makes it different than a pluralist's point of view?

Sort of.

My path is different in that it recognized that no one is entirely correct, but everyone can sill have a correct piece of the truth, even those who don't believe...because in their disbelief they do not believe in the bits that are incorrect. Even conflicting cultures can have aspects of the truth, whatever it may be, and that aspect may be completely different from aspects other religions may hold...but being different does not mean opposite, it is just a bit of the truth others have not yet come to realize.

Seems to me that pluralists think everyone is correct, just looking at things differently. I think that because people look at things differently it allows us to find different bits of the truth, but not to necessarily put the pieces together to get the full truth. So no one is fully correct.

Of course, no one is going to find any bits of truth without looking for them to recognize them.  

[Taeryyn]

I'm sure the whole thing is over my head, but I would say I'm a pluralist, if anything.

I sort of relate religion to...well, having a healthy diet. There is no one single way to eat healthy. Be ye vegetarian, omnivorous, raw vegan, or something else, you still have the ability to attain the "ultimate truth". Same goes for religion. Even though each path may have unique qualities and its own special tricks of the trade, it isn't necessarily any "healthier" than a path that follows a different regime.

There's give and take, and I feel that the "healthiest" paths are well-balanced. ; ) Not too extreme. I wouldn't say every single possible religion is "right", but that it's more about one's actions and intentions than one's actual religion.

I'm probably oversimplifying. xp  

[124-C]

Thaliat Everwood

Sentama Lin

@Thallie: Forgive me for potentially putting words in your mouth, but are you saying, then, that the ultimate truth is not necessarily found by one path of faith (or, lack of faith; I need a better way to describe atheism) but through the actual person searching for said truth? And, in a sense, makes it different than a pluralist's point of view?

Sort of.

My path is different in that it recognized that no one is entirely correct, but everyone can sill have a correct piece of the truth, even those who don't believe...because in their disbelief they do not believe in the bits that are incorrect. Even conflicting cultures can have aspects of the truth, whatever it may be, and that aspect may be completely different from aspects other religions may hold...but being different does not mean opposite, it is just a bit of the truth others have not yet come to realize.

Seems to me that pluralists think everyone is correct, just looking at things differently. I think that because people look at things differently it allows us to find different bits of the truth, but not to necessarily put the pieces together to get the full truth. So no one is fully correct.

Of course, no one is going to find any bits of truth without looking for them to recognize them.

Like the blind men and the elephant, right?  

[Sentama Lin]

Le Petit Prince! <3

Thallie, I understand what you're talking about, and I'd like to think that that's how many people think about other beliefs that are not their own. How would you respond to someone who asks "But there has to be a belief that's totally right; we can't all be right, can we?" I know you sort of answered it, but it does beg the question "if none of us can fully grasp the whole truth, how can we attain the whole truth?" This probably leaves the religious realm altogether (maybe) but I'd feel, then, it would be the people that we know that'll let us learn the entire truth.

Tsuji, perfect story for this thread, just to add.  

[Thaliat Everwood]

Sentama Lin

Le Petit Prince! <3

Thallie, I understand what you're talking about, and I'd like to think that that's how many people think about other beliefs that are not their own. How would you respond to someone who asks "But there has to be a belief that's totally right; we can't all be right, can we?" I know you sort of answered it, but it does beg the question "if none of us can fully grasp the whole truth, how can we attain the whole truth?" This probably leaves the religious realm altogether (maybe) but I'd feel, then, it would be the people that we know that'll let us learn the entire truth.

Tsuji, perfect story for this thread, just to add.

Question 1: "But there has to be a belief that's totally right; we can't all be right, can we?"

No, there does not have to be a belief that is totally right. We can all have ideas that are partially right. But it does not mean any one belief is totally correct by default. This is not to say there aren't those who have managed to come really close in their life time, but I wouldn't know who they were if anyone has gotten that close to being totally correct.

Question 2: "If none of us can fully grasp the whole truth, how can we attain the whole truth?"

We can attain it if we look for commonalities between various beliefs and are willing to keep an open mind about beliefs that contradict our own. Only by being open to all beliefs will we have a chance at finding the whole truth. The truth can't be given straight out, it must be sought out because the truth lies in the discovery of our journey. It isn't the answer at the end like a math problem or a treasure marked on a map, but the realization of what we learn while trying to reach the end of our lives' journey. The "end" is when we realize that we've found our truth within ourselves and still realize that there is more to come by learning from each others' varying beliefs.


As for the blind men examining the elephant to guess it's identity, it is a good example, I agree.  

[Suma-Kaur]

As for religion i am Hindu.  

[Tayi Monster]

I have no religion... not even atheist...
I don't understand religion...
yeah sweatdrop