Witnessing as an alternative approach of religious truth. A comment on Rawls’s idea of comprehensive doctrines

P. Jonkers
{"title":"Witnessing as an alternative approach of religious truth. A comment on Rawls’s idea of comprehensive doctrines","authors":"P. Jonkers","doi":"10.15407/fd2022.01.036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper offers a critical examination of the term ‘reasonable comprehensive doctrines’, which is a key term in Rawls’s Political Liberalism. It is argued that this term is not accurate anymore to catch the current shape of religious and secular worldviews and the nature of their truth claims, because it focuses too much on the doctrinal character of religious truth, which plays a central role in Christianity but not in many other religions and secular worldviews. However, sociologists of religion and philosopher Charles Taylor have pointed out that a shift in people’s attitude towards religion has been taking place since the last decades of the twentieth century, resulting in a more existential and less doctrinal approach to religious truth. This focus on ‘lived religion’, inspiring the faithful put their lives in the sign of (the truth of) these doctrines, explains why Rawls’s doctrinal approach falls short of expectations in finding a response to the challenge of religious pluralism. Yet, in the conclusion of this paper it is shown that Rawls also values witnessing as an alternative, more existential approach to religious truth, although it plays a rather marginal role in his work.","PeriodicalId":315902,"journal":{"name":"Filosofska dumka (Philosophical Thought)","volume":"56 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Filosofska dumka (Philosophical Thought)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15407/fd2022.01.036","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The paper offers a critical examination of the term ‘reasonable comprehensive doctrines’, which is a key term in Rawls’s Political Liberalism. It is argued that this term is not accurate anymore to catch the current shape of religious and secular worldviews and the nature of their truth claims, because it focuses too much on the doctrinal character of religious truth, which plays a central role in Christianity but not in many other religions and secular worldviews. However, sociologists of religion and philosopher Charles Taylor have pointed out that a shift in people’s attitude towards religion has been taking place since the last decades of the twentieth century, resulting in a more existential and less doctrinal approach to religious truth. This focus on ‘lived religion’, inspiring the faithful put their lives in the sign of (the truth of) these doctrines, explains why Rawls’s doctrinal approach falls short of expectations in finding a response to the challenge of religious pluralism. Yet, in the conclusion of this paper it is shown that Rawls also values witnessing as an alternative, more existential approach to religious truth, although it plays a rather marginal role in his work.
见证是宗教真理的另一种途径。罗尔斯综合学说思想述评
本文对罗尔斯政治自由主义中的一个关键术语“合理的综合学说”进行了批判性的考察。有人认为,这个术语不再准确地捕捉宗教和世俗世界观的当前形态及其真理主张的本质,因为它过于关注宗教真理的教义特征,这在基督教中起着核心作用,但在许多其他宗教和世俗世界观中却没有。然而,宗教社会学家和哲学家查尔斯·泰勒(Charles Taylor)指出,自20世纪最后几十年以来,人们对宗教的态度发生了转变,导致人们对宗教真理采取了一种更存在主义、更少教条主义的态度。这种对“活的宗教”的关注,激励信徒把他们的生命放在这些教义(真理)的标志中,解释了为什么罗尔斯的教义方法在寻找对宗教多元主义挑战的回应方面没有达到预期。然而,在本文的结论中表明,罗尔斯也重视见证作为一种替代的,更存在主义的宗教真理方法,尽管它在他的作品中起着相当边缘的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信