UNIT 4 RELIGIOUS PLURALISM

Contents

4.0 Objectives
4.1 Introduction
4.2 The Reality of Plurality of Religions
4.3 The Marks of Plurality of Religions
4.4 Survey of Our Responses to Religious Plurality
4.5 Towards a Fellowship of Religions
4.6 Let Us Sum Up
4.7 Key Words
4.8 Further Reading and References.
4.9 Answers to Check Your Progress.

4.0 OBJECTIVES

In this unit we shall try to arrive at the following objectives:

• We shall try to understand the phenomenon of religious plurality with a special reference to
our country.
• We shall try to understand the impact of this phenomenon of religious plurality and its
challenge for an adequate response.
• We shall try to understand some responses to the phenomenon of religious plurality.
• We shall try to propose ‘pluralism’ as an adequate response to the phenomenon of religious
plurality.

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Diversity is a lived experience. In our world, particularly in India, we experience diversity of

religions, cultures, world-views, languages and customs. India is not only a ‘melting pot’ of
diverse religions but a place of mutual interaction, dialogue and appreciation of everything plural
that forms the fabric of our country.

In this unit, we focus our attention on the experience of diversity of religions in our world and in
our country and try to understand how we can respond to this dynamic scenario that invites a
responsible and creative response. Today people of every religion in the light of their experience
of religious plurality are led to reflect on the question of diversity of religions. Why are there

1
many different religions? If God is one, why is there no one religion? How should these religions
relate to each other? Yes! No one can escape this and other similar questions.

4.2 THE REALITY OF PLURALITY OF RELIGIONS

The Experience of Plurality

The experience of plurality is an undeniable fact. We, as beings-in-a world, experience ourselves
as relating to a world that is embedded with rich and complex diversity. Within this complexity,
we experience a great variety of religions. This experience of otherness of various hues and
colours is inevitable and inescapable. We Indians are blessed with great model of unity in
diversity. Our country has displayed an amazing ability of accepting and letting diversity flower.
This diversity somehow manifests that there is no one meta-way of being an Indian. India has
always been a home of diversity and has a rich tradition of harmonious living in a dynamic
multicultural society. This characteristic openness to otherness is something our country shares
with Asia, which is a continent that bubbles with multiplicity of cultures, plurality of religious
traditions, languages and socio-political reality. Our country is a land of immense diversity. Her
diversity, which emerges from geography, is reflected in her history and confirmed by the
ethnography. Indian culture is therefore by definition a culture of multiplicities, a culture of
differences. It may be said that our country not merely tolerates differences, but protects, fosters
and celebrates diversity. There are more than 4000 different communities that make our country
their home and this diversity extends to religions, languages, cultural practices, dresses, cuisine,
levels of economic development, etc. What is ancient and what is most modern are to be found in
India side by side. That is why we say that there are many ways of being an Indian. Hence,
Amartya Sen says “In our heterogeneity and in our openness lies our pride not disgrace”.

Ethical Imperative of Plurality

The anubhava of plurality is inescapable. It challenges us to respond. On the one side there is a
tendency of absorption, domestication, totalization, and homogenization of the other into our
own categories. This means that the otherness of the other is often flattened down, rounded of its
sharp, rough surface and reduced to the same.

Emmanuel Levinas, a French Philosopher, brings home this insight when he points out that the
other is often totalized, and hence, the radical exteriority that characterizes genuine otherness is
lost and the other is merely included within a totality. True otherness can only be experienced in
a relation with a being beyond the totality. It is in the otherness, in the difference, in the plurality
that we can experience the being beyond totality. Thus otherness, difference and plurality are the
manifestation of the sacred. We might say that difference and plurality is divinely ordained. It is
in the horizon of otherness that has to be respected, valued and discerned; we can notice an
immanent order within the plurality of religions experiences. This is evident from our sacred
writings in our country that welcome every otherness when they say “Let good thoughts come
from all directions”. This ethos is grounded in a deep belief that every being belongs to the
family of God (Vasudeva Kuttumbakam). This belief brings about a deep respect to all religions
(Sarva Dharma Samanvaya) that is deeply enshrined into the secularism of our constitution. The
deep sense of interconnectedness that is embedded in the Vedic teachings or the tribal experience
of our people informs the Dharma of every Indian to work to build a nation which brings about

2
the welfare of all (loksangraha). This welfare is not restricted to humans alone, much less to a
caste or class of humans. Thus, we can see that the bedrock of our nationhood is our openness to
all beings.

The Experience of Plurality of Religions

The experience of plurality of religions is at the basis of every form of response to the
phenomenon of multiplicity of religions. Ordinarily, we all tend to subscribe to a belief that the
religion we adhere to enjoys the highest status in terms of truth and validity and so we seem to be
unable to question our critic, re-think our tradition from within. As a result the other religions
that we encounter are either refuted as mistaken or are interpreted in the light of the basic
principles evolving from the religions of our adherence. This attitude often becomes responsible
for separation, distrust and even warfare among religions. But today more and more enlightened
humans have come to realize that it is a sort of self-impoverishment to refuse to learn from,
differing ways of being human. Hence, our experience of plurality of religions teaches us that
diverse religions are basic expressions of different ways of being human. In our country, it
becomes a different way of being an Indian. There is no one way of being an Indian. Our unity in
diversity is at the heart our nationhood.

Check your progress I

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.
b) Check your answer with those provided at the end of the unit.

1) Is India’s diversity a pride? Explain.

............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................
2) Write a short note on religious plurality and different ways of being human

............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................

4.3 THE MARKS OF PLURALITY OF RELIGIONS

Other Religions as Bridges

Often the other religions were perceived as boundaries and humans took upon themselves as
their duty to guard the purity of their religions. A cursory glance of the history of religions
reveals a painful narrative of religious violence. The claim of a particular religion to be the only
true religion is among other factors that instigate and generate religious violence. Some analysts
trace the roots of religious violence to the ‘religious’ following of the well-known theory of
Rene-Girard who presents his argument with an analysis of the role of violence in the
construction of human culture in general, and religious culture in particular. He teaches that
violence is mimesis or the desire to have what another one has. This leads to rivalry and conflict.
Since each one has desires violence threatens to pervade the group. At this time violence is

3
projected on a weaker person who is killed. She / he become a scapegoat and provide release
from the feeling of violence. Thus, he views religious rituals which are often bloody, as safe
detonation of the violent human impulse. Others view the phenomenon of religious violence as
complex irrupting in particular circumstances due to many factors that are often extra-religious.
These views refer to the abuse of religions for political as well as economic gains. But religions
have great resource to building peace and harmony in a violence-ridden world.

Decalogue of Assisi

1. We commit ourselves to proclaiming our firm conviction that violence and terrorism are
incompatible with the authentic spirit of religion, and as we condemn every recourse to
violence and war in the name of God or religion, we commit ourselves to doing
everything possible to eliminate the root cause of terrorism.
2. We commit ourselves to educating people to mutual respect and esteem in order to help
bring about a peaceful and fraternal co-existence between people of different ethnic
groups, cultures and religions.
3. We commit ourselves to fostering the culture of dialogue, so that there will be an increase
of understanding and mutual trust between individuals and among peoples, for these are
the premises of authentic peace.
4. We commit ourselves to defending the right of everyone to live a decent life in
accordance with their own cultural identity and to form freely a family of their own.
5. We commit ourselves to frank and patient dialogue, refusing to consider our differences
as an insurmountable barrier, but recognizing instead that to encounter the diversity of
others can become an opportunity for greater reciprocal understanding.
6. We commit ourselves to forgiving one another for past and present errors and prejudices,
and to supporting one another in a common effort both to overcome selfishness and
arrogance, hatred and violence, and to learn from the past that peace without justice is not
true peace.
7. We commit ourselves to taking the side of the poor and the helpless, to speaking up for
those who have no voice and to working effectively to change these situations, out of the
conviction that no one can be happy alone.
8. We commit ourselves to taking up the cry of those who refuse to be resigned to violence
and evil, and we desire to make every effort possible to offer the men and women of our
time real hope for justice and peace.
9. We commit ourselves to encouraging all efforts to promote friendship between peoples.
For we are convinced that, in the absence of solidarity and understanding between
peoples, technological progress exposes that world to a growing risk of destruction and
death.
10. We commit ourselves to urging the leaders of nations to make every effort to create and
consolidate, on the national and international levels, a world of solidarity and peace based
on justice.

There is no doubt that religions have a great potential to develop peace and harmony. For
instance, Christianity speaks of every human being as a child of God created in the image and
likeness of God. Islam considers humans as vice-gerents of Allah. Hindus evoke the presence of
the divine in the human in an Advaitic (non-dual) perspective, the Buddha nature latent in every

4
human being, and the Jains stand on the ground of Ahimsa or non-violence. These and other
values flowering in our religious traditions have the great potential that can promote peace and
harmony in our world. Hence, religions need to explore the possibilities of setting free these
potentials for building peace and harmony. Inter-religious dialogue needs to become the order of
the day at the service of peace.

Religions Serve Humans

We have seen that different religions are different ways of being humans in the world. Hence, the
presence of difference, diversity, and otherness draws us to respond respectively and
collaboratively. This calls for an attitude of openness and recognition of difference. The
religious other is recognized, affirmed and accepted. This presupposes the acceptance of the right
of the religious other to be (exist) and to be different. The theist tends to accept difference as
divinely intended and as such cannot be domesticated, absorbed and erased into the same. Non-
theists accept difference on the strength of the richness of diversity of reality as such. Yet there
is religious intolerance springing in certain theists as well as non-theist religious circles.
Fortunately, there is world-wide realization that our religious other is first of all a human person.
Hence, any interaction whether favourable or unfavourable always takes place among people. It
is always real flesh and blood human beings that engage in meaningful dialogue or mindless
confrontation. Hence, it is of prime importance to realize that before we are Hindus, Muslims,
Buddhists, Christians, Jains, and Sikhs, we are humans. This realization is deeply connected to
the prospects of peace in our world. Therefore, inter-religious dialogue becomes an important
weapon of building peace and harmony. Religious traditions that care for the well-being of
society cannot fail to realize the crucial importance of harmony and understanding among the
religious groups. Religious groups as social units wield power and their actions affect positively
or negatively other religions groups or units in society. This means the fact of being religious
does not force them out of the social sphere. Hence, religious traditions have a great
responsibility of being self critical. This is often neglected as the religious traditions are
engrossed in projecting their noblest images and doctrines. Hence, religious traditions have to
conduct a realistic and genuine assessment of their actual state, and role they play or fail to play
in the contemporary situation of a society. This will keep religious traditions in touch with actual
life and everyday experience. It is only when we have religious traditions that are self-critical
that our religions will promote sarva-jiva-sukham, happiness to all living beings.

The Irreducibility of Religious Experience

John Hick, a British thinker, relies on Ludwig Wittgenstein’s discussion of family-resemblance
and attempts to understand plurality of religions. Wittgenstein took the example of games to
drive home his notion of family-resemblance. We have different types of games: ball games,
card games, games played with sports equipments etc. Some are solitary, others are competitive,
and others are played in turns. But all these activities are called games.

Hick derives from the above discussion a way of understanding religions. He says that the
different religions form ‘a complex continuum of resemblances and difference analogous to
those found within a family’. The above concept of religion has its merits, but it might appear to
do violence to difference and diversity that we notice among religions. Michael LaFargue and
Mark Heim seem to overcome these pitfalls when they view religious faith as an experience of
some good, and the experiences are distinctive in each religion. God, Nirvana, Tao, etc have

5
irreducible different meanings. Thus, religions are different systems of meanings built around
such distinctive experiences. It is the diversity and irreducibility of religious experience that is
the heart of plurality of religions.

Check your progress II

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.
b) Check your answer with those provided at the end of the unit.

1) How did Wittgenstein influence John Hick’s thinking on Religious pluralism?

............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
2) How do religions serve humans?
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................

4.4 SURVEY OF OUR RESPONSES TO RELIGIOUS PLURALITY

The experience of religious pluralism has evoked multiple responses across the world. Alan Race
(1983), evaluating the Christian response to religious diversity, coined the threefold Typology:
Exclusivism-inclusivism and Pluralism in his book, Christianity and Religious Pluralism:
Patterns in Christian Theology. But this classification of the various responses has many
limitations and one might trace them simultaneously among different members of the same
community at the same time. Keeping this in our mind, we shall try to portray different
approaches to religious plurality gathering them under four groups. The atheist/naturalist
approach, the exclusivist approach, the inclusivist approach, and the pluralist approach.

The Atheist / Naturalist Approach

Hans Küng presents the position of the atheist views on both religion and religious diversity as
‘no religion is true. Or else: all religions are equally untrue’ Quinn takes reductive naturalism as
an option by which he seems to explain away all religions as ‘products of merely human
projection mechanism.’ Thus, he successfully reduces all religious diversity to non-religious
factors. We can notice a naturalistic interpretation of religious phenomena in many western
thinkers like Feuerbach, Freud, Durkheim and their successors. This naturalist/atheist approach
manifests a clear bias against religion.

The Exclusivist Approach

The term ‘exclusivism’ is etymologically derived from the Latin verb ex-claudere, which means
to shut out. Persons who hold exclusivism are those who believe that there can be only one true
religion and that is ones own. We might trace doctrinal exclusivists or soteriological exclusivists
among those who adhere to exclusivism. Doctrinal exclusivists are those who view that the
doctrines of our religions are completely true and the doctrines of all others are false.
Soteriological exclusivists view that only one religion offers effective path to salvation or

6
liberation. John Hick views such an exclusivist position as unfair, objectionable and opines that it
stems from parochial egotism.

The Inclusivist Approach

The inclusivists present one tradition as having the final truth and are an effective way of
salvation or liberation while other traditions, instead of being regarded as worthless or demonic
are seen to reflect aspects of or to constitute approaches to the final truth or salvation. Among the
Christians, this approach becomes an attempt to hold together the two axioms of ‘universal
salvific will of God’ and ‘salvation’ through God in Christ alone. We can find this position
among J.N.Farquhar, Karl Rahner, Gavin Costa and others.

The Pluralistic Approach

The pluralistic perspective maintains that all religions are equally valid paths to God / ultimate
reality / the sacred or salvation. Pluralistic approach is greeted as the only adequate model for
inter-religious relations. John Hick, Mark Heim, Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Paul Knitter, Stanley J.
Samartha, Leonard Swidler, Raimon Panikkar, are some of the important exponents of religious
pluralism. Although each of them has one’s differences yet all of them agree that different
religions are diverse means of knowing and experiencing God/ the Really Real and / or ultimate
liberation or meaning of life in a culturally, historically and linguistically conditioned manner.

John Hick, for instance, identifies the philosophical theory of religious pluralism as “the theory
that the great world religions constitute variant conceptions and perceptions of and responses to
the one ultimate, mysterious divine reality and within each of them independently the
transformation of human existence from self-centeredness to reality-centeredness is taking place.
Thus the great religious traditions are to be regarded as alternative salvific ‘spaces’ within which
or ‘ways’ along which men and women can find salvation, liberation and fulfillment”.

Mark Heim has a different approach towards religious pluralism. Mark Heim takes his religious
pluralism to its logical conclusion. He states that all religions are real alternatives, with each
having its own distinct religious fulfillment. Hick seems to propose that all religions finally serve
one end. Mark Heim seems to propose that all religions serve multiple ends. Thus, Heim rejects
‘unitive pluralism’ of Hick. Unitive pluralism again is guilty of holding that there is one effective
religious goal. This is achieved by somehow disregarding all the empirical and
phenomenological elements of religions as extrinsic and accidental to the true, core and essential
dimension that is somehow thought to be common to all religious traditions. Heim finds this
homogenizing tendency of unitive pluralism not free from the hegemony of exclusivism or
inclusivism. He says exclusivism, incluvisim and unitive pluralism are imperialistic. The
difference is only in degree. He intends to recognize the integrity of religious traditions in their
own terms. He finds that this approach can recognize the truth or validity as well as difference
across the diverse religions. We have already seen that he has rejected the pluralistic theories that
claim to transcend confessional particularity and provide a unique level of religious core
common to all religions in a ‘no-man’s-land.’

Hence, Heim is modest in his claims. For him religious pluralism will have to be among other
religious commitments and perspectives, and not above them. He bases his position on the views

7
of Nicholas Rescher and finds a theory that will somehow respond to religious pluralism
adequately. Rescher calls his view as orientational pluralism in his work, The Strife of Systems.
He rejects three possible philosophical responses to plurality: (1) one response he calls the
‘unique reality view’: reality has a determinate character and only one of the competing
descriptions can be rationally adequate; (2) another response he calls the ‘no-reality view’: there
is no ultimate reality or at least none that can be known. Therefore, philosophical truth-problems
are pseudo-problems, which need to be reconceived, not answered or argued. The task of the
philosopher is to lead people out of their bondage in this mirage; (3)and a third response is
‘multifaceted reality view’: each competing view gives truth, but none gives the whole. He
quotes Good-man to make this point “there is no one way the world is, but there are ways the
world is”. The inadequacy of each view makes it possible for us to think that an all-inclusive
view is possible to arrive through accumulation of all. Rejecting the three positions we have just
discussed, Rescher advocates what he calls orientational pluralism. It accepts that one and only
one perspective is appropriate from a given perspective, but we must recognize that there is
diversity of perspectives. The distinctive thing about Reschers’ view is that a practicing
philosopher naturally proceeds by inclining to the unique reality view. Argument and inquiry can
operate only from a perspective. From a given perspective there is ultimately one rationally
defensible

Rescher advocates the irreducible plurality, and holds that perspectives cannot be combined.
Heim recognizes orientational pluralism as the only authentic response to pluralism since it
allows us to recognize a religious view as one among many and at the same time maintains its
own ‘universal claim’. This means orientational pluralism accepts the validity and universal
claim of other religious tradition while at the same time upholding the preferable validity and
universal claim of ones our religious tradition. Thus others are justified to hold views that are
contrasting to ours. This is a kind of pluralistic inclusivism.

4.5 TOWARDS A FELLOWSHIP OF RELIGIONS

S. J. Samartha says that just after India’s political independence in 1947, despites the fresh
memories of how the country was fragmented on religious lines, in the constituent assembly,
working on a constitution for the republic of India, there was a suggestion to erase the words “to
profess, practice and propagate as a fundamental right of the minority communities. But one can
notice an amazing spirit of broad-mindedness and a spirit of tolerance among the founding
fathers of our constitution towards the minority communities. Hence, arrogant claims of
normativeness of a single monolithic religious tradition are very much against the spirit of our
constitution.

Religious pluralism is not just constitutionally upheld, it is also religiously dignified, especially
by the Hindu mainstream religion in our country.

The Hindu (Vedic / Vedantic) view of religious pluralism could be summarized thus:

8
 1. The One Absolute Reality is nirguna Brahman (beyond words and concepts, beyond
nama-rupa, beyond knowledge and experience). Response to this reality is silence.
Brahman is silence!
2. The highest metaphysical categories through which the One Absolute Reality is thought
of are sat-cit-ananda. (Saccidananda Brahman is saguna Brahman). Response to this
Reality is mystical realization of the oneness of Atman and Brahman.
3. When the One Absolute Reality is conceived as a Personal God, it is thought of as Father,
Mother, Lord, Master, Creator, Preserver, Destroyer, All-knowing, All-powerful, etc. All
religions can address the Ultimate Reality with these Personal attributes and yet know no
division. Response to this Personal God is love, and loving surrender.
4. When the One Absolute Reality is given sectarian personal names, “individuation” takes
place in the Ultimate Reality, or rather; division takes place in Human Consciousness
regarding the One Absolute Reality. (E.g. Yahweh (Jew). Allah (Muslim), Shiva, Vishnu,
(Hindu), etc.). This individuation gives rise to Religious Pluralism, each religion with its
own ritual, myth, doctrine, ethics, social structures, and personal/mystical experience.
Response to this Reality could be faithfulness and worship, tolerance and co-existence,
respect and love for all.
5. The One Absolute Reality takes upon itself limitations so as to make it available to
human beings: avataras incarnations, manifestations. Human beings build up Images,
Statues, Idols, Sacred Places, Sacred Objects, Temples, Mosques, and Churches, etc. The
Personal God takes more and more anthropomorphic character. Response to these
Incarnations is in terms of worship and rituals, defensive and apologetic, emergence of
sub-sects, ritualism, clericalism, etc.
6. When worshippers of the (i.e. when one religion tries to impose its theology, worship,
image of God, etc. over others), intolerance and conflicts happen between Religions
aiming at extermination of other gods and religions.

Hence, religious pluralism that we have seen above is mainly of inclusivist shape and form. Our
country also exhibits the pluralist form of religious pluralism. The Syad Vada of the Jains is one
important form that can generate plural religious pluralism. Pluralism has several values to a
contemporary world.

1. It provides spiritual and cultural resources for the survival of different people in their
search for freedom, self-respect and human dignity. When nations and peoples are
politically dominated, economically exploited and militarily intimidated what else do
they have for the survival of their spirit except their religions and cultures which can
never be taken away from them?
2. A plurality of religions, cultures, ethnic groups and languages can be a guarantee against
fascism because it will resist the imposition of any “one and only” religion or ideology on
all people.
3. Pluralism introduces an element of choice by providing alternative visions of reality and
ways of life.
4. Plurality provides multiple spiritual resources to tackle basic problems which have
become global today. The availability of many resources to tackle these problems should
not be looked upon with suspicion but accepted with gratefulness. People in mono-
religious situations are becoming a little more pluralist.

9
4.6 LET US SUM UP

An adequate and human response to the phenomena of plurality is indeed urgent for the peace
and harmony in the world. The peace in the world depends on the peace among religions. Hence,
religious pluralism becomes an important way of dealing with our experience of plurality of
religions.

Check your progress III

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.
b) Check your answer with those provided at the end of the unit.

1) How do exclusivists approach the concept of religious pluralism?

............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................

4.7 KEY WORDS

Ethnography: Ethnography is a kind of writing that uses fieldwork to provide a descriptive

study of human societies. Ethnography presents the results of a holistic research method founded
on the idea that a system’s properties cannot necessarily be accurately understood independently
of each other.

Culture: Culture (from the Latin cultura stemming from colere, meaning “to cultivate”) is most
commonly used in three basic senses: 1.excellence of taste in the fine arts and humanities; 2. an
integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for
symbolic thought and social learning; 3. and the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and
practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group.

Parochialism: The term parochial can be applied in both culture and economics if a local culture
or a local government makes decisions based on solely local interests that do not take into
account the effect of the decision on the wider community.

4.8 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Check your progress I
1) Our country is a land of immense diversity. Her diversity emerges from geography reflected in
her history and confirmed by the ethnography. Indian culture is therefore by definition a culture
of multiplicities, a culture of differences. It may be said that our country not merely tolerates
differences, but protects, fosters and celebrates diversity. There are more that 4000 different
communities that make our country their home and this diversity extends to religions, languages,
cultures, practices, dresses, cuisine, levels of economic developments, etc. What is ancient and
what is most modern are to be found in India side by side. That is why we say that there are

10
many ways of being an Indian. Hence, Amartya Sen says “In our heterogeneity and in our
openness lies our pride, not disgrace”.
2) The experience of plurality of religions is at the basis of every form of response to the
phenomenon multiplicity of religions. We might all agree that every religion has always been
aware of its religious ‘other’ or that religions are plural or that there are other religions, other
than one’s own. This consciousness of plurality has evoked diverse responses from various
religions. Hence, the fundamental experience of plurality of religions becomes an imperative that
generates authentic dialogical encounters as well as extremist fanatic exclusivist responses. This
experience of plurality is indeed foundational because it poses very difficult and relevant
questions. How can persons and communities with radically differing conceptions of the world,
human life and God come to the understanding and appreciation of each others ways of being
human? How with all our diversities, can we humans learn to live together peacefully and engage
fruitfully in a complexly interconnected world? These questions are of special importance for us
in our country and the response to them can build or destroy our nation.

Check your progress II

1) John Hick, a British thinker, relies on Ludwig Wittgenstein’s discussion of family-
resemblance and attempts to understand plurality of religions. Wittgenstein took the example of
games to drive home his notion of family-resemblance. We have different types of games: ball
games, card games, games played with sports equipments etc. Some are solitary, others are
competitive, and others are played in turns. But all these activities are called games. Hick derives
from the above discussion a way of understanding religions. He says that the different religions
form ‘a complex continuum of resemblances and differences analogous to those found within a
family’. The above concept of religion has its merits, but it might appear to do violence to
difference and diversity that we notice among religions.
2) Different religions are different ways of being humans in the world. Hence, the presence of
difference, diversity, and otherness draws us to respond respectively and collaboratively. This
calls for an attitude of openness and recognition of difference. The religious other is recognized,
affirmed and accepted. This presupposes the acceptance of the right of the religious other to be
(exist) and to be different. The theist tends to accept difference as divinely intended and as such
cannot be domesticated, absorbed and erased into the same. Non-theists accept difference on the
strength of the richness of diversity of reality as such. Yet there is religious intolerance
springing in certain theists as well as non-theist religious circles. Fortunately, there is the world
wide realization that our religious other is first of all a human person. Hence, any interaction,
whether favourable or unfavourable, always takes place among people. Hence, it is of prime
importance to realize that before we are Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Jains, and
Sikhs, etc., we are humans.

Check your progress III

1) The term ‘exclusivism’ is etymologically derived from the Latin verb ex-claudere, which
means to shut out. Persons who hold exclusivism are those who believe that there can be only
one true religion and that is one’s own. We might trace doctrinal exclusivists or soteriological
exclusivists among those who adhere to exclusivism. Doctrinal exclusivists are those who view
that the doctrines of our religions are completely true and the doctrines of all others are false.
Soteriological exclusivists view that only one religion offers effective path to salvation or

11
liberation. John Hick views such an exclusivist position as unfair, objectionable and opines that it
stems from parochial egotism.

12