Inter-Religious Understanding

BY S. DAVID MALAIPERUMAN, M.A., B.D., PH.D.

To those who claim that religion has fallen into disrepute in this age of science, that religion is a "relic of the superstition of the past," that it is "an obsessional neurosis of humanity," we have a sure answer. Or again, to those who claim that one religion is superior to another, that religious fervour leads to communal disharmony or that a particular religion has the monopoly of truth, we shall cite certain pertinent facts.

Inter-religious understanding presupposes an intelligent apprehension of religion in general. Modern scientific thought has invaded every field of inquiry and has revolutionized our knowledge. Religion refuses to be reduced in terms of creed, theological dogma, cult or metaphysics. Religion covers the whole domain of human experience. It is within the cradle of human experience that the ideal is born. The empirical approach naturally throws a bombshell in the camp of the supernaturalist, and the result is that religion begins to simmer down to its natural level in terms of social progression and cultural movement. The material of religion lies, therefore, within the portals of fact. Thus the spiritual and the physical become integral within such a significance of the natural, and the ideal is just as real as the geological structure of the universe, in so far as the ideal emerges from actual experience.

Only a scientific interpretation of religion can dispel superstition, bigotry, superiority-complex, blind idolatry or dogmatism. Scientific method is an instrument for the obtaining of trustworthy and adequate description in a particular field of materials. But it must be borne in mind that the getting together of a set of regulations which would meet the strictest requirements of science is a very slow and tedious process.

Religion must be understood in relation to the cultural and social milieu. The religious ideal cannot be divorced from its native soil. Thus Hinduism must be studied with its Indo-Aryan ground and Christianity in relation to Graeco-Roman culture and Jewish heritage. One must take into account the similarities in the working of the human mind in different geographical areas and not jump to the conclusion that one group necessarily borrowed or copied an idea from some other people or country. The comparative study of religions is helpful, provided that its method is understood aright. The comparative method is not to be used with a view to pointing out that one religion is superior to another. For instance, some missionaries have discussed Hinduism from an apologetic point of view and arrived at the conclusion that Christianity is the "crown of Hinduism." Or again, some Hindu scholars have tried to read Western thought in Hindu philosophy or vice versa. The comparative method, when rightly understood and used, is invaluable in the study of the social psychology of religion.

In an intelligent understanding of religious phenomena, certain laws of method must be observed. One must guard against bias. The most obvious bias is that of the apologist who has the natural tendency to boost his own religion even at the expense of scientific accuracy. The second bias is to import into fact an interpretation that is not native to the fact at all. Still another bias is that of selecting as religious phenomena only those factors that have logical consistency in keeping with one’s own experience, environment and age. All a priori constructions must be avoided and one must be willing to take only the facts that are found. Modern psychology does not allow any special sense or ‘faculty of faith’ as may be claimed by some adherents.

In order that an interpretation of religion be true, one must take the greatest care that there be no separation from the total situation which produced it. The history of religion is a history of the function of social life, and social values are primary. Religion has been defined as the shared quest for shared values, as the conservation of socially recognized values, as loyalty, devotion and commitment to that upon which one feels oneself dependent for the supremely cherished values of mankind. The following factors must be noted in all religions: (a) the goal which is the socially approved collection of practical and ideal values; (b) there is the social technique for their attainment (worship, ceremonial, ritual); (c) something upon which man finds himself dependent for the realization of the supremely worthful (God, Creative Order, Process of Integration……). Here comes theology or a cosmic setting.

When we view religion as the search of a people for a completely satisfying life, a quest for the supremely worthful, then the history of religion must call for the assistance of all the sciences that have any relation whatsoever with the behaviour of man and society. The future histories of religion will be co-operative efforts made by the specialists in the methods and materials of the various sciences involved.