Response paper to Interreligious dialogue and Ethical aims of social inquiry (Academic study of Religion)
Bellah believes that study of religion must have
ethical aims. He justifies his conclusion with brilliant examples from many
researches in scientific works which always include the aim for their results.
For instance, he tells the aim of Leviathan’s Hobbes is about making peace and
social control in the society. Based on that proofs, Bellah convinces that
every scientific works should be emphasized in the end of research, not in the
process of research. The end of research is about the ethical aim they have to
do or concern after that research. Bellah promotes that the end of scientific
result is moral value such as “to listen, to reflect, to criticize and to
respond as the tasks of social inquiry”[1] for
making a better life in future.
Dunbar promotes “interreligious dialogue” as one of
the works of academic study of religion. For Dunbar, interreligious dialogue is
“respectful communication between two or more persons committed to different
religions about issues of religious significance, in a common attitude of open
mindedness.”[2]
Based on that definition, Dunbar argues that interreligious dialogue must
contain four requirements: “1) interpersonal communication, 2) different
religious commitment, 3) a mutual attitude of respect and open mindedness, 4)
significant religious content in or implied by the conversation.”[3] From
that explanation, it can be concluded that interreligious dialogue is the two side
conversation equally and fairly, and one aim for reaching better understanding
the others.
Relating Dunbar to Bellah, interreligious dialogue
can be one of the ethical aims of social inquiry foremost in the academic study
of religion. It is quite possible because Bellah and Dunbar impose the aim and
the process of scientific works must be ended by moral aim, to get better life
in future. The advantage of interreligious dialogue is that every person or
religion can stand equally and fairly without fearing to become inferior group
in that dialogue. This dialogue is possible because the members realize and
have consciousness first that they gather together for making dialogue to get comprehensive
understanding one another. The drawback of interreligious dialogue is sometimes
it merely formal activity. There is no further action how to make it real in
the realm of religious life.
The problem between interreligious dialogue and
academic study of religion is about the “objectivity”. Dunbar argues that the objectivity
of religious studies makes only stereotypes and cannot prevent the problem in
the future. Thus, he proposes three ways of studying interreligious dialogue as
descriptive, prescriptive and experiential way[4]. Those
explanations mean that the dialogue will be attractive and more helpful by
throwing away the principle of objectivity within.
To sum up, the ethical aim of
social inquiry can be found in interreligious dialogue. With several
requirements, interreligious dialogue offers the broader perspective and
solution for many problems within religion and inter-religion for getting
better understanding and life in the future.
Komentar
Posting Komentar
Thanks for your comment. God bless you always. :)