Book Reviews

Books reviewed:
Robert Clark, Mr. White's Confession
J. Wentzel van Huyssteen, The Shaping of Rationality: Toward Inter–disciplinarity in Theology and Science
Phil Hefner's, Errata from Dialog 41, no. 1 (Spring 2002)     

Doing Dialogue Interreligiously

Abstract : The essay explores the motives for dialogue, the conditions for a meaningful dialogue, and the benefits of a successful dialogue in order to understand the significance of doing interreligious dialogue interreligiously.     

普兰丁格的矛盾——普兰丁格的宗教排他论与有保证的基督教信念

该文针对美国当代宗教哲学家普兰丁格(Alvin Plantinga)“有保证的基督教信念”①的宗教真理认识论,指出,按照普兰丁格的排他论的宗教真理认识论,并不能保证基督教信念在面对其他宗教信念时具有优越性,因为其他宗教也可以宣称它们符合普兰丁格的宗教真理标准,从而它们的信念为真。因此普兰丁格的认识论是自相矛盾的、失效的。相比之下,普兰丁格的老师阿尔斯顿(William Alston)的实践的和生存论的宗教真理进路更为可取。     

On Being Lutheran In A Religiously Plural World

Abstract : For those of us who are self‐consciously Lutheran, the reality of contemporary religious pluralism engenders important theological questions. The thesis of this essay is that “being Lutheran” within the context of contemporary religious pluralism requires the creation of “Lutheran identity” that is pluralistic in structure, while simultaneously avoiding either theological exclusivism or theological inclusivism. The implications of this thesis are that (1) dialogue with the religious traditions of the world is of primary importance for thinking Lutherans, and (2) the church's witness and mission needs to be reconfigured in light of the practice of interreligious dialogue.     

FRANK CONVERSATIONS

I contend that Jews, Christians, and Muslims who seek peace should not be reluctant to acknowledge the existence of their sometimes profound disagreements, or to affirm the truth of their own beliefs and practices. Since this places me at odds with John Hick, I analyze his views, granting the strengths of his critical realism and arguing that his revisionist–pluralist theory of religion has significant limitations for interreligious dialogue. Since the veridical–pluralist alternative I propose facilitates rather than stifles disagreement, I examine three different conceptions of dialogue that acknowledge the importance of disputes among those searching for truth. I also discuss three virtues—honesty, empathy, and humility—whose cultivation would make us less likely to fail in our search for truth and the peace that is its sign and fruit.     

The Presuppositions of Religious Pluralism and the Need for Natural Theology

In ‘The Presuppositions of Religious Pluralism and the Need for Natural Theology’ I argue that there are four important presuppositions behind John Hick’s form of religious pluralism that successfully support it against what I call fideistic exclusivism. These are i) the ought/can principle, ii) the universality of religious experience, iii) the universality of redemptive change, and iv) a view of how God (the Eternal) would do things. I then argue that if these are more fully developed they support a different kind of exclusivism, what I call rational exclusivism, and become defeaters for pluralism. In order to explain rational exclusivism and its dependence on these presuppositions I consider philosophers J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, and Alvin Plantinga, who offer arguments for their forms of exclusivism but I maintain that they continue to rely on fideism at important points. I then give an example of how knowledge of the Eternal can be achieved.

Dialogue in Dialog: Christology

David R. Mason, A Christology of Universal Redemptive Love , p.149
Carol Jacobson, Universality and Uniqueness: A Response to David Mason , p.160
Lois Malcolm, Generative Christology: A Response to David Mason , p.162
Paul Sponheim, Probing and Protesting: A Response to David Mason , p.164
David R. Mason, Response to Jacobson, Malcolm, and Sponheim , p.166     

FOOD ETHICS: A CRITIQUE OF SOME ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVES ON GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD

This article critiques some Islamic approaches to food ethics and the debate over genetically modified (GM) food. Food ethics is a branch of bioethics, and is an emerging field in Islamic bioethics. The article critically analyzes the arguments of the authors who wrote in favor of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) from an Islamic perspective, and those who wrote against GMOs, also from an Islamic perspective. It reveals the theological and the epistemological foundations of the two main approaches. Moreover, it provides an attempt to critique what is perceived as an exclusivist and legalistic trend adopted by some authors. It argues that an alternative approach that acknowledges the priority of reason in ethics and is at the same time rooted in Islamic tradition would be more inclusive and constructive.