Some Reflections on Tenability of Pluralism, Transformation and Trivialization of Religions

In this essay, I try to examine a few basic questions about the tenability of any pluralistic viewpoint and further see how most formulations of accommodative religious pluralism either transform or trivialize the religious points of view. I consider Baghramian’s idea of innocent defensible pluralism against Davidson’s objection, but wonder whether it would satisfy the religious practitioner and theorist. I also consider the liberal treatment of pluralism which is non-neutral and favours a disenchanted picture balancing interests and power; there is reasonable disagreement but no genuine value plurality. I also worry about criteria of what will count as ‘egregious human right violation’ and who will divide the reform. Many religions do not share the idea of the equal autonomous moral agent of liberal democracy. I briefly illustrate the presence of reason and argument in religion with the help of some examples from Nyaya Vaishesika and its opponents. I also mention debate in Indian epics to illustrate rational argument in tradition. This is to especially contrast with demands for complete unreason in religion expressed by notable thinkers like Hilary Putnam and Kierkegaard.