Tarence Wade French

Cultural Values and Religion

PH. D. DISSERTATION

IN THE FOCUS AREA OF COMPARATIVE RELIGION
SUPERVISED AND DIRECTED BY PROF. DR. DR. MUHAMMAD SCHMIDT
INTERNATIONAL FAITH THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF THE
INTERNATIONAL FREE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL UNIVERSITYÒ

SUBMITTED IN 2005

LIST OF CONTENTS

Statement of Honor ... 3
My Position ... 4-15
WORLD RELIGIONS ... 15-32
The Vedic gods ... 16-19
The Upanishads and Vedanta Philosophy ... 19-21
Hinduism ... 21-24
The Samkhya and Yoga Darshanas ... 24-27
Tantism and Hatha Yoga ... 26-27
Buddhism ... 27-30
Eastern Religions - Taoism ... 30-32
CHRISTIANITY, JUDAISM AND ISLAM ... 32-38
The nature of creation in Christianity ... 35-37
God and creation in Judaism and Islam ... 37-38
Conclusion ... 39-40

Bibliography ... 41

My Position:
My position in writing this dissertation is to show the differences between today′s religious sects. In no way am I being objectionable to others beliefs or practices. I am merely explaining the religious differences, which will give the reader a firmer understanding of religious practices within various culture societies. In order to learn about an individual, you must first study the individual. Due to the respect of other religions, I will not be opinionated or argumentative in any nature in reference to others beliefs. This dissertation is strictly a research paper, which will give the reader an idea about the world′s religious communities.

Introduction:
“At one time every nation, every civilization and every religion of earth had its own history, its particular origin and its own future... Today nations, civilizations and religions unavoidably enter a ‘single, common world’.” (Moltmann cited in Hick & Hebblethwaite 1980 p. 191). In the past, and still to a degree today, the religion in which a person believes and to which he adheres depends upon where he was born. “That is to say, if someone is born to Muslim parents in Egypt or Pakistan, that person is very likely to be a Muslim; if to Buddhist parents in Sri Lanka or Burma, that person is very likely to be a Buddhist; if to Hindu parents in India, that person is very likely to be Hindu; if to Christian parents in Europe or the Americas, that person is likely to be a Christian” (Hick cited in Hick & Hebblethwaite 1980 p. 172).

However each country is now beginning to be exposed to many different religions and religious traditions. This is especially seen within the developed countries such as the United Kingdom. No one religious group is in absolute majority. It could be said that everyone is a member of a minority, yet because of life in this ‘single, common world’ it is impossible for religions to exist in isolation. With the existence of many different faiths comes the problem of conflicting truth-claims - does it matter that they are all claiming to be the ‘true’ faith?

The Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw once said, “There is only one religion, though there are a hundred versions of it”. In our pluralistic society an increasing number of people find such an interpretation of religion appealing. Is it possible that Buddhism, Christianity, Sikhism, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism represent differing, yet valid, paths to the same ‘destination’? If this is the case, there is no need to argue as to which religion is the ‘true’ religion. Such disputes would be pointless. But is this a justified opinion? Traditions from religions such as Islam and Buddhism differ significantly from one another. How can one account for the differences between the faiths, yet claim that they are all ‘true’? From a personal perspective, I find it to be a contradiction to say that they are all ‘true’. Surely if they are all ‘true’, it undermines the very foundation of each faith? This essay will seek to investigate Pluralism and Singularism in the light of this opinion.

“The pluralist paradigm has been characterized as one that maintains that other religions are equally salvific paths to the one God, and Christianity’s claim that it is the only path (exclusivim), or the fulfillment of other paths (inclusivism) should be rejected for good theological and phenomenological reasons” (D’Costa 1986 p. 22). This position can be traced from Troeltsch and Hocking onwards and John Hick is now thought to be the main proponent of this argument in the 20th Century. Advocates of this position are aware of the diversity in belief and practice that differentiates each of the main world faiths, but still insist that “the great religions are all, at their experiential roots, in contact with the same ultimate divine reality” (Hick 1990a p. 114).

This attitude has attracted support due to three main reasons. Firstly, it is intolerant to assert that one religion is the true religion and others, which are different, are false. Surely it is this kind of intolerance that has caused much bloodshed in the past?

Secondly, as outlined at the beginning, “until comparatively recently each of the different religions of the world had developed in substantial ignorance of the others” (Hick 1990a p. 109). The great religions have therefore all developed within their own historical and cultural settings. “This means that it is not appropriate to speak of a religion as being true or false, any more than it is to speak of a civilization as being true or false. For the religions, in the sense of distinguishable cultural streams within human history, are expressions of the diversities of human types and temperaments and thought forms” (Hick 1990a p. 112). Hick goes on to explain that “the different religions are different streams of religious experience, each having started at a different point within human history and each having formed its own conceptual self-consciousness within a different cultural milieu” (Hick 1990a p. 114). It is such differing experiences of the reality within their own cultures that has led to increasing differentiation and contrasting elaboration within the religions. This is why Hinduism, for example, is a very different religion from Christianity and is why they experience and conceive the divine so differently.

[...]