Two big reasons NOT to hold exclusive religious beliefs

As I get farther along in my graduate program and begin to narrow my interests, I have discover that religious pluralism is the thing that really fascinates me and that I want to make a career studying. How do individuals and religious groups respond to to religious diversity? How do they handle the knowledge that there are groups that hold beliefs about life, reality, right and wrong, and the universe that conflict with theirs? How do Americans react to growing numbers of non-Christians in the U.S.?

In the process of reading and studying the topic, I have come across and come up with some interesting thoughts about religious diversity. First of all, back in the 1960s one notable sociologist of religion, Peter Berger, wrote a book essentially saying that in a modern, pluralistic society, religious diversity will have the effect of diminishing the plausibility of ALL religion. In a religious monopoly, as has existed at times and perhaps in some places today, religion has the privilege of having a taken-for-granted quality about it. It maintains a "sacred canopy" over society. It dictates reality. However, when there is religious diversity, the plausibility of any one religious system is called into question when people are aware that others have different beliefs. Plausibility structures, those underlying bases of support coming from social confirmation, social structure, etc., are weakened. Berger argues that religion is relegated to the private sphere and becomes a mere preference. It no longer can define reality for its adherents.

His theory was very influential and was the leading view of religious pluralism until fairly recently, when some sociologists of religion incorporated economic theory into theories of religious growth and vitality in the U.S. They basically argue that religious pluralism increases religious participation and commitment by forcing religious groups to be more effective and compete for members. They tend to stay away from issues of plausibility, which was Berger's main thing, but their theory seems to imply that there are no issues of declining plausibility in modern, pluralistic societies. One problem with their theory, though, is that it seems to fit best for the case of the U.S., but not so well for western European countries in general.

The two theories I describe above seem to conflicting. However, I think they are both true, or can be, to an extent. I do think that religious diversity makes people call into question taken-for-granted religious beliefs and doctrines. I think it can have the tendency to diminish religious plausibility. More educated people tend to have less orthodox and exclusive religious beliefs, as well as city-dwellers, two groups that have more exposure to religious diversity. However, I think Berger's theory is overstated at certain points, and I think that personal social networks are generally sufficiently strong to maintain religious plausibility. I also think that the more recent theory of religious pluralism has merit, and I believe that it does a lot to explain why American religion is where it's at today.

So, is religious diversity good or bad? Is it possible to hold exclusive or absolutist beliefs in the face of religious diversity? Personally, I have a hard time with exclusive or absolutist religious beliefs. I think they have a tendency to be divisive, to help maintain negative or harmful social attitudes, to squelch individual searching and exploration, and in general are not good for a person or for society. That's my feeling.

I have two primary reasons why I think holding exclusive religious beliefs is problematic. First, the "hiddenness" of God leaves us with an incredible amount of ambiguity and uncertainty, and should make us all quite tentative with regards to our theological beliefs and should allow others great freedom in forming their own views and living by them. I can't claim to have come up with this on my own - I read it recently in a book. It really made sense to me. In fact, the hiddenness of God is so profound to me that I felt it much more honest and healthy for me to be agnostic. However, experiences of the divine are intensely personal and I can't say with certainty that others have not experienced God. At any rate, it should make us quite tolerant of religious diversity. However, when religious beliefs take away freedoms, perpetuate inequality, or are in general bad for folks, then I think we should challenge them.

The second reason is what I might call the "arbitrariness of birth" or something like that. What I mean by this is essentially that each of us could have easily been born into a completely different family in a completely different society and been socialized into a completely different belief system. This ought to make us incredibly patient with one another and make us rather tentative with regards to our religious beliefs, which in many ways are products of a particular place and time in history. Now, even if you believe that you were somehow chosen by God to be born a Christian here in the good old U.S.A., this should still be a compelling reason. Because that means that that poor non-Christian over somewhere in Asia that will never have a chance to learn about Jesus and the gospel was somehow chosen to be where he was. And, that would make God pretty lame, now, wouldn't it?

So, there you have it. There are probably other reasons why we ought to be careful not to be exclusive or absolutist in our beliefs, and why we ought to at least be tolerant of religious diversity, but these are two awfully good ones in my opinion.

Is religious diversity good? I think it could be. I believe that religion is socially constructed. I believe that is a reflection of a particular culture's beliefs, hopes, wishes, dreams, and customs. It represents the highest aspirations of humankind. As such, we ought perhaps to pay some attention to it, even if we find it not to our liking sometimes. Maybe we could all learn something from each other.