Inter-religious dialogue as a task of applied science, religion
this lecture I gave in September 2003 at the meeting of German Association for the History of Religions (DVRG) in Erfurt in the lead by Prof. Dr. Hubert Seiwert panels Applied Religion . Unfortunately, there were no proceedings and no special publication of this panel, so I text my first post here. As the footnotes here can not be played properly, I have labeled Fn in parentheses after the respective position and placed under the text as endnotes.
advance Abstract:
in religious studies circles, the inter-religious dialogue generally regarded as a matter of theology and religious sciences commitment is as detrimental to the value-neutral self-understanding of the subject. Religious studies can and should devote themselves to inter-religious dialogue only, by making it an object of research, but she could not participate actively and normative because it is often said.
This paper takes a different view and tries sensible arguments for a contribution of religious studies at the inter-religious dialogue to gather. Religion is like science in general, as the company judged responsible, ruling out an eventual value of freedom. Interfaith dialogue is considered a matter that concerns not only the official representatives of religious institutions, and indeed not even just religious believers, but as a social task that is necessary to a peaceful to enable people to live together and Subgesellschaften in the global, multicultural and pluralistic world society. Since the inter-religious dialogue, as in the political diplomacy, interest groups collide, apologetics and polemics can be found as well as understand interminable listening. Just because the science of religion is independent of religious institutions, they can take corrective action, and let the methodological waiver of metaphysical truth claims the area of this side-human come into its own and results from the history of religion, and sociological and psychological research, moderating and facilitating the Talk contribute. It is not just a question of representing a religious party in the dialogue, but also to assume the role of facilitation, mediation and impartial review. must take sides and will the science of religion but very well for a vision of a peaceful and pluralistic society and a self-critical and honest discussion, which are also sources of its own existence. This paper represents so well the utopias of the project, the Global Ethic of Hans Kung or the World Conference on Religion and Peace and also complained that religious scholar (s) in this and similar projects are not sufficiently represented. Peter Antes, co-founder of the association to encourage the meeting the world religions and intercultural conversation eV, Michael von Brück, which unfortunately chosen journal dialogue of religions has given out, and Norbert Klaes, who was for a time President of WCRP Europe, but are good examples of well-known religious scholars who act as such in the inter-religious dialogue, without letting the religious studies thus become a pseudo-theology.
-
Full Text:
When I started in 1993 to study theology, guided and motivated me already the idea that could make a dialogue of religions a significant contribution to the peaceful living together of people. Religious studies I seemed to be a science, which could still better than the theology serve this dialogue, as theologians regarded the things too much from the more or less narrow perspective of their respective own religion here, during the science of religion seemed to be able to the whole panorama unbiased to have in view.
But I learned pretty much the first thing that interreligious dialogue is not a matter of religious studies, for which party in the dialogue, the religious studies should he represented, as it was their right but to keep from the evaluation of religious truth claims out and in dialogue but it go to religious truth claims. Religious studies could inter-religious dialogue scientifically studied, but did not participate. That made sense to me at first, but more the old idea that I had actually driven in the science of religion in it, not quite me.
that religious truth claims, especially if they belong on a metaphysical, transcendent themes are outside the methodological verifiability of religious studies is a basic maxim of our profession that I would not question here. Less clear but seems to me the question of the value of freedom, or neutrality answered, because, first moves the science of religion, like any science in business conditions, which in turn follow preceding value orientations are (which touches on questions of academic and educational ideals of economy and finance, politics in general, etc.), and secondly, be subject to scientific methods, ethical value judgments (which touches on questions of how to deal with research subjects, especially when these people, or subjects with rights and dignity, but also the consequences of knowledge publishing on the following values discussions, etc.). Religious studies is therefore just as much as any other science in a value-free space.
that interreligious dialogue is not just a matter of theologians and other religious leaders, experienced I impressive in July this year at the meeting project inter-religious Europe in Graz . (Fn 1), where projects were presented for inter-religious coexistence in our European society, from politicians, police officers, filmmakers, teachers and pupils, and of course by theologians.
And last year published a book of speeches by our Federal President Johannes Rau, entitled Dialogue of cultures - the culture of dialogue, tolerance instead of arbitrariness , (FN2) in which it from his perspective as head of state again and again to the need of intercultural and interreligious dialogue indicates. Thus, the inter-religious dialogue is not only a religious, but also a political matter. Seen in this way not only raises the question of whether religion itself as a religious scholar, but whether one can or should get involved in politics.
If I as a theologian me of my responsibility is aware of it, what questions I ask and how I would answer the questions, and whom I serve like the answers I think ultimately, it seems to me the question whether my work a can have an impact on the living together of people, and if so, what should have and what not. If I want to answer these questions, I'm in the middle in value orientations, normative and not think that is more purely descriptive.
The influence of an individual scientist may be small, and yet, our society through the influence of science since the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and then changed decisively, to the pluralistic, individualistic society in the election of our time constraints. The sciences had such a decisive influence on the religious life of the people. Liberal and fundamentalist theology would not have occurred without confronting religious people with the sciences.
scientists now have the choice, this impact that their work has on society as their responsibility to accept and exercise-or the responsibility entirely to the recipients of scientific Work in rebuttal. Can operate as a biologist basic research, either as an anatomist, a biochemist, a behavioral scientist or an environmentalist, his results or to publish the subject in general and the question of who takes the consequences of the reception of research results and theories, completely indifferent face. It can also work specifically for a particular audience, whether the pharmaceutical industry, agriculture, the television viewers, the environmental movement, etc.. Thus, a religious scholar to publish his results without any thought of social consequences or targeted for a Commission of Inquiry, a local government administration, Protection of the Constitution, the dialogue and ecumenical movement work, etc.. If a scientist a target audience in mind, there is still a difference in whether he will be paid by that or not, if he accepts a job or his own client, whether he is the target audience liked or want that first win for himself and his work .
Within this scenario, I now see no reason why a religious scholar's work should not be at the service of inter-religious dialogue. There is now only the question of how to do this and consider what he has to.
science consists of research and teaching. Research consists of questions and methodically disciplined Way to answer the questions. Teaching consists in research results, methods, theories and perspectives of the discipline to teach the people. Recipient of teaching are students, but also the public and all institutions in society, including religious groups and religious institutions and individuals.
is to research the possibility to selectively adopt those issues that are important in the dialogue. Here, of course, exclude purely theological questions for the religious studies research, but otherwise, offer all the issues discussed on the Questions of religious history, theology and the history, Questions about the connection between religious and other cultural or social factors, for example according to social conditions in which religious people live, questions about the mental experience and behavior of religious people in general and questions about similarities and differences between the religions. So there are the normal issues that concerned the science of religion anyway.
The difference with the so-called interest-free basic research is that is needed here specifically to the topics of conversation, and so even after the controversy raised by the dialogue partners.
consists in teaching the opportunity to formulate the research results to target such that the desired recipient, identify the venues of inter-religious dialogue, understand and integrate into their world images. Just to do this, there is an additional quality, which religious scholars acquire in the course of their study and professional practice, namely to be able to think his way into feeling in the individual different religious mentalities, even if no scientific qualities, but general human, but which may be just related to the acquired knowledge through science to a very useful inter-religious and intercultural competence. Part of this competence by result that we discussed in the study of living religions, especially its research findings with representatives of the religions studied. (Fn3) because it leads to a dialogue between science and religion, and trained in this way of thinking about the question of religious leaders. This is often a stressful and even stressful undertaking, because the ways of thinking can there are very divergent, and one can get annoyed very much by the feeling of understanding others not at all what you want out and why you ask that question and the matter way and not want to be different. Or to go to great doubts concerning their ability, the religion which we explored, to understand at all when one of this lack of understanding of their representatives is kept constantly under his nose. In any case, you learn the fact that one judge can consider most of the facts from very different angles and without the latest to come to a verdict about them, a knowledge that is in the dialogue would be of considerable value. Because of it's ability of self-relativization can grow, and just because it is not rare hitch.
Is it so equipped as a religious scholar in this way with cross-cultural material and understanding skills, you can try the venture, which issues between representatives of different religions, but also between them and secular representatives to clarify institutions or ways of life.
It is clear now but the question is to enter a religious perspective from which scientists in the dialogue. It stake now is only partly a matter of taking scientific perspectives of religious, but also about non-religious perspectives of the same representatives to make themselves understood. That sentence implies that I believe in interreligious dialogue not only the dialogue between representatives of different religious parties but also between the religious and secular viewpoints. Furthermore, I understand including the dialogue being conducted within religious organizations among its members and even the monologue of a man with himself in confrontation with other religious or secular doctrines, so what Raimon Panikkar described as intra-religious dialogue. (FN4)
religious scholars can, in principle, participate in three different perspectives on inter-religious dialogue:
1) The religious scholar brings his own religion to the mix and uses the above skills from understanding the different perspectives to bring its own to the horizon of understanding the other person and to qualify them, and both their own, and the religiosity of others to consider both from a scientific perspective. This would be the religious scholars actually a religious dialogue partner who is also a religious scholar. In this position you can then distinguish whether it also represents a religious community or only its individual religiosity.
2) The religious scholar makes his own religion with intent on the sidelines, acting as neutral reporting, facilitator, mediator and / or interpreter. (FN5) This requires the discipline to stick with their religious, theological or religious and philosophical opinions back But this you learn in the course of religious studies student so from the beginning.
3) The religious scholar but does not represent the perspective of a religion, but a secular institution, as the government or its constitution or the business of a company, a citizens' initiative, a political party or a club.
The second option is the one that has to be mentioned most purely a religious studies. What you also decide, two things are essential importance.
first One has to view his interlocutors disclosed.
second The other party must accept it.
latter is not always easy, but possible, as some representatives of our profession have already proved.
examples:
Peter Antes:
Peter Antes is co-founder of Association to encourage the meeting of world religions and intercultural conversation eV (FN6) He understands his specific religion scientific task for the religious-based party and a mediator to be simultaneous interpretation. The interpreter does not mean here the function between languages like German or Arabic, but between religious speech levels, each with its specific characteristics, which are often sources of misunderstandings. His own religious conviction, he can be here, still in the religious studies research, outside, and that is recognized by the other dialogue partners and accepted. He is it certainly believe that, if the religious scholars are in a state employment relationship is, for example, a lecturer at a state university, was his duty to uphold the basic policy of the State, for which he works. And he could do, for example, by working in inter-religious dialogue for the peaceful coexistence of people of different religious beliefs in that same state (FN7)
Norbert Klaes.
Norbert Klaes, also a member of the Association to encourage the meeting of the world religions and intercultural conversation eV , some years as chairman of the World Conference on Religion and Peace (WCRP) Europe . (Fn8) participate in inter-religious dialogue does not participate primarily as a religious scholar, but as a European Christian, but one that enabled by his religion scientific knowledge of the religions in a special way to do so. As a specific contribution of religious studies, he also sees the mediators and interpreters function (FN9)
Michael von Brück.
Michael von Brück manages to participate on several levels at the inter-religious dialogue. He is a theologian, a Protestant theologian and Zen and yoga teacher. He was Associate Editor of dialogue between religions, for economic reasons unfortunately never been (FN10), he always brings representatives of different religions talking to each other and it is also his scientific research, for example, the Buddhist-Christian dialogue in the written with Whalen Lai book Buddhism and Christianity (FN11) in the service of mutual understanding (Fn12)
Udo Tworuschka.
Udo Tworuschka propagated an applied or practical theology, which describes as violent, fanatical religiosity just not worth it neutral, but it applies with respect to judgmental position, and make the effort, inter-religious disputes, the example of the embattled Jews, Christians and Muslims Jerusalem describe, so that the different religious meanings are clear and mutual understanding of the contending parties is possible. It calls on the existing capabilities in the religions of tolerance, so you must rely on a desire for peaceful coexistence not only to secular values and looks inspired in its approach from Johann Gottfried Herder and Gustav Mensching. founded together with the Protestant theologian Reinhard Kirste and he directs the Center for Interreligious INTR ° A that gives the series religions talking out (Fn13)
Wolfgang Ganter.
Wolfgang Ganter represents a religion of science, which remains open to philosophical issues and questions of transcendence, but even without the claim, the answer to religious studies methods to the end. He is a serious attitude towards religious subjects as a party without them and their beliefs to reduce premature to historical, social, psychological and general cultural facts. And it is his intention to make the border between availability and uncontrollable even the apodictic formulations tend to callers aware of and to convince the principle of open question that just does not allow for last-valid answers, but the Need for transcendence of each formulation on a secret everyone formulatability always dehydrating stresses out. (Fn14)
I thank all these gentlemen for their thoughts and advice that they have me verbally or by mail or e-mail to send and apologies that I have not mentioned all the religious scholars who worked in the past and present in inter-religious dialogue, in one way or another were or are. For example, during the meeting in Erfurt DVRG during the panel discussion at the Town Hall, Hans-G. expressed Kippenberg and Michael Pye under Peter Antes. The former emphasized the importance of religious studies research in the intra-religious community discourses contribute to enable them to enrsthaft with existing problems, such as the often denied violence in Buddhism, accept, and the latter mentioned a dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Tenrikyo, who was due to religious studies presentation a success.
You have to remember one thing: The rationale of religious studies engagement in interreligious dialogue arise not from the scientific methods of the subject, but operate from its social context or formulated more precisely, of the living conditions and resulting social commitment of the people, the science of religion . Subject to the commitment is never the religion of science, but scientists are religious and religious scholars (FN15) that are not just theoretical entities, but living beings of flesh and blood. It is also clear that the obligation is not affecting everyone equally, because not everyone lives in the same conditions and carries on his work. Ultimately, religious scholars not to work towards peace obligation than other people, no less, and our work-related opportunity to make peace work is precisely on issues that have to do with religion and religions, of which interreligious dialogue in the manner described herein is an obvious. (FN16)
I even try to learn from all these approaches. I think it depends very much on the conversation from the context and the interlocutors how much you put back his own religious identity, or perhaps more likely may disclose or even should. I am Deputy Head of WCRP Cologne / Bonn (Fn17), and in our small inter-religious discussion groups where people know each other, and the identity of religious studies the participants will know, I can express more times my own religious beliefs, as if I explicitly before me stranger itself out as a religious scholar. But if I a public lecture Example, about Islam and violence hold, I am only religious scholars, and external I do not value neutral to my religious identity, but I'm still not there. But I was sometimes wonder whether I, who am a member of the German Buddhist Union (DBU) would attend as representatives of Buddhism in a panel discussion on religion and violence. As I said also, and tried with all due sympathy and part identification, I have for Buddhism to be an objective and balanced, not idealized representation. This objective distance to my own religious ideas I've learned in the study of religion, and I think I have learned so well the dialogue partners, the other professions, it may be a role model. Honesty and sincerity are after all in all religions, with their representatives, I had to do personally so far, high values, at least in theory. Sometimes, but it has problems in the necessary honest with yourself and the other faiths counterparts over and you do not pollute their own nest by adding to that, even in their own religion, all is not ideal, as it should be. We can just religious studies by our expertise and our own methodological reflection and self-relativizing our own religious or ideological beliefs of great value to inter-religious dialogue.
Footnotes:
Fn1: The meeting was held on 5 until 9 July 2003 in Graz, instead, organized by the Peace office of the City of Graz and the city of Sarajevo under involvement of WCRP Europe. The project results will be published on the Internet from September 2003. See http://www.friedensbuero-graz.at/
Fn2: See Johannes Rau. Dialogue of cultures - the culture of dialogue. Tolerance instead of randomness. Freiburg, Basel, Vienna (Herder) 2002.
Fn3: See also Rainer bottle. Religious studies Joachim wax. Berlin, New York (Walter de Gruyter) 1978, p. 299ff.
Fn4: Raimon Panikkar Cf. The new religious path. In the dialogue of religions live. München (Kösel) 1990th
FN5: This approach is represented by Peter Antes except by Klaus Hock. See Klaus Hock. Introduction to Religious Studies. Darmstadt (Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft) 2002, p. 179
FN6: Cf eV the statutes of the association to encourage the meeting of world religions and intercultural dialogue, registered in Hildesheim on 27 June 1997.
FN7: I refer to conversations with Peter Antes REMID during the conference "Religions: concrete. Religious Research in Germany: Concepts - Objectives - Perspectives " from 13 to 15.6.2003 in Leipzig, as well as an exchange by mail and e-mail during the year 2003.
Fn8: http://www.wcrp.org WCRP to see their website for the international and http://www.wcrp.de for the German level.
FN9: See Norbert Klaes. Experience in the "World Conference of Religions for Peace (WCRP). In: Anton Peter (ed.). Christian faith in multi-religious society. Experience, theological reflection, missionary perspectives. Immensee (New Journal for Mission Studies) 1996, p. 91-108. - Furthermore, I refer to during discussions with Norbert Klaes the above meeting of the project Interreligious Europe on 5-10. July 2003 in Graz and a postal exchange.
FN10: The magazine was published from 1991 to 1998 twice a year in Christian Kaiser Verlag. See also Michael A. Schmiedel. From the end of a magazine. Dialogue between religions was discontinued after eight years. In: Sacrament & Da Vinci Code, Journal of Comparative Science of Religion Student Council of the University of Bonn, No. 5, January 1999, p. 18f, accessible on the Internet under http://www.fs-rewi.uni-bonn.de/ss . / ss5a8.htm .
FN11: Michael von Brück and Whalen Lai. Buddhism and Christianity. History, confrontation, dialogue. München (CH Beck) 1997 or the 22000th
Fn12: I refer to an e-mail exchange with Michael von Brück April and June 2003.
Fn13: See Udo Tworuschka. Epilogue to Gustav Mensching: The error in religion, Heidelberg 1969th In: Gustav Mensching. The error in religion. An introduction to the phenomenology of error. Nordhausen, (Bautz) 2003. Trans. Self-understanding, methods and tasks of the religion and its relation to theology. In: Udo Tworuschka (Ed.), Religion in Jena. Jena 2003, p. 20-42. I also appeal to an e-mail correspondence with Udo Tworuschka April to August 2003, through which he me a part of the lecture text, he occasion of the Honorary Professorship for Dr. Herbert Schultze at the University of Duisburg-Essen on 23 June 2003 and has held an autobiographical text about his path to religious studies, who has sent in October 2003 by Böhlau-Verlag appearing in honor of Michael Kloecker. Internet address for INTR ° A: http://www.interrel.de .
Fn14: Wolfgang Ganter is one of my religious studies teacher in Bonn, and over the years I have attended so many events with him and done so many interviews with him, so that it is difficult to agree on a time or to a particular Correspondence appointed. Extra I would like to mention but its in the town hall next to the Heinz Robert Schlette including organized public lecture series 26 is an illusion, the manuscript of my left Wolfgang Ganter - March 2003 lecture given dialogue of religions?.
FN15: When I left the female form so far away, because then only for better readability. I mean by "religious scholars" are men and women of our times.
FN16: I write after reading Bretislav Horynas contribution to this conference volume, which thinks more about the religion and its epistemological side.
Fn17: We have a single page on the Internet: http://www.maennerrock.de/WCRP-Koeln-Bonn/wcrp.html or http://www.wcrp-koeln-bonn.de.vu .
0 comments:
Post a Comment