Unlearning in Inter-Religious Dialogue

Robert H. Munson, ThDAdjunct Faculty,

Philippine Baptist Theological Seminary

We are pretty good at discussing things with people we agree with... but not so great with

people we disagree with.

This is even more so when it comes to people who have different cultural or even

worldview perspectives.

This presentation is written from an Evangelical Christian perspective, generally. So one of the goals of inter-religious dialogue

would be hope for transformation.

Unlearning #1. There really is no such thing as “Proof.”

People often go into a conversation with the mindset that they are going to prove that the other person is wrong and they are right.

“Proof” doesn't really have much to do with anything outside of mathematics and some limited roles in “formal logic”.

A better goal would be to make a case for your belief that is reasonable and “compelling.”

Replace “Proof” with the “Illiative Sense.”

John Henry Newman (1801-1890), Catholic theologian, promoted the idea of the “illiative sense” over “explicit reason.”

Most things we think we know, we really don't truly “know.” Rather, we accept via a set of “converging probabilities.”

Adapting an Argument by Newman, “How do we know that Luzon is an

Island?” All the maps we have seen show it to be an

island. It is taught to be an island in schools around the

world. We have not heard anyone who questions its

status as an island. Its geopolitical and economic history is

consistent with its status as an island.

Adapting an Argument by Newman, “How do we know that Luzon is an

Island?”None of the previous statements PROVE that Luzon is

an island, but the weight of the statements together add credence to the belief that Luzon is in all probability an island.

To PROVE to a skeptic that Luzon is an island, one would have to sail all the way around Luzon, or walk its entire coastline, with the skeptic.

The illiative sense is the “sense of certitude” that what is said stands the test of being true, even without absolute proof.

Therefore,

Don't try to prove what you believe is true. Rather use ideas or stories that resonate with

the other person (both logically and emotionally) that add credibility to what is said.

Give the other person time... don't try to force a response. The illiative sense usually takes some time.

Unlearning #2. Focusing on Disagreements Does Not Lead to

Agreement Some believe that to convince someone that

one is right, it is necessary to focus on the differences, and argue over the differences.

The biggest single problem with that is what is known as the BACKFIRE EFFECT.

The Backfire Effect

The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking.

The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/

The Backfire Effect

Being wrong is shameful, so people react strongly to people who challenge them with being wrong. They become defensive of their core beliefs, and more skeptical of arguments against.

A better way to argue with people is NOT TO ARGUE. Listen respectfully and non-judgmentally to what they believe, and share respectfully and gently what you believe.

Consider using “Compliance Bias” Just as we tend to react without much

consideration against things we disagree with, we often warmly accept, again without much consideration, things we tend to agree with.

Consider Nathan, telling the story of the Ewe Lamb to King David, getting him to connect with the poor man, even though he was (obviously) the rich neighbor.

Consider Paul in Athens starting with Greek mythology and philosophy to lay a groundwork of agreement with Christian thought.

Unlearning #3. Don't Focus on Contradictions

Some love to argue that other people's beliefs have contradictions, or their canon has contradictions.

The thought is that contradictions “prove” (there is that word again) that something is false.

The problem is that contradictions are everywhere... and they are culturally-laden.

Consider 4 Types of Contradictions Formal Contradictions. These are contradictions in

form or wording. These are everywhere, and are commonly intentional. The Beatitudes could be argued as formal contradictions... “Blessed, or honored, are those who are dishonored.” In Genesis, it says that God flooded the earth and all life died... a couple of verses later, it says that some survived on the ark. Contradiction in rhetoric only.

Formal contradictions are everywhere and say nothing about truth or falseness.

Source: John Goldingay, “Theological Diversity and the Authority of the Old Testament”

Consider 4 Types of Contradictions Contextual Contradictions. These are

contradictions because they have different contexts. For example, Isaiah told the king that Jerusalem will be spared by God. Jeremiah told the king that Jerusalem will be overtaken and destroyed. Moses said that we are to obey the Law. Paul says that we are not under the Law. In these cases, the contexts are different, so both statements are true.

Contextual contradictions are everywhere and say nothing about truth or falseness.

Consider 4 Types of Contradictions Substantial Contradictions. Some statements may

point to a truly different perspective. For example, the writer of Ruth may have a truly different perspective than Ezra. Or writer of Ecclesiastes may have a truly different perspective than the writer of Proverbs.

If true (and it is hard to say if this is true) is this a problem? Maybe, maybe not. Unique perspectives do not mean, necessarily, that they are opposed to each other. Substantial contradictions are a concern, but doesn't prove much of anything in practice.

Consider 4 Types of Contradictions Fundamental Contradictions. Some statements are so

in opposition to each other that they appear to be irreconcilable.

This commonly happens between two different religions or worldviews... but it is pretty difficult to identify in one's own religion, and even more difficult to identify in someone else's religion.

It is best not to seek to point out fundamental contradictions.

Additionally:Most contradictions people point out are not actually

contradictions: People not living up to the standards of their faith (true

of all religions) Things that challenge personal experience or

credibility (internally social being or an uncreated book)

So don't focus on contradictions

Instead, focus on why the other person believes what he believes or accepts.

<Don't ask “Why do you believe that?” It sounds judgmental... just invite them to talk more about their beliefs and how these beliefs are lived out by them.>

Unlearning #4. People do not follow official religious beliefs.

Many Christians believe that a Hindu believes official “Hindu” beliefs, a Muslim believes official “Islamic” beliefs, and so forth.

As such, Christians study “official” religious beliefs and then argue based on those beliefs.

Then when discovering that the other is not fully orthodox in his or her faith, the Christian challenges them with regards to their “heterodoxy.”

There are two problems here.

Often arguments that are based on the orthodox views of a religion, are not very compelling for the average adherent to that religion. As such, one is preparing an argument without someone to argue with.

Arguing that a person is not orthodox in their religion's belief, is likely to (according to the backfire effect) push them towards orthodoxy in that faith, rather than Christianity.

A Better Option

Have a basic understanding of other religions, but don't focus on “being an expert.”

Rather, become an expert in what they believe and why.

Recognize that if their “foot is outside of the door of their religion” that means that on some level the door is open. Don't fight it, honor it.

Unlearning #5. Culture has a huge effect on “What Makes Sense?”

Some think that what is reasonable to one person will be reasonable to all people.

But culture has a huge effect on how people interpret experience, and guide our decision-making processes.

How one interprets “stubbing one's toe” is contingent on one's worldview. Even more so, when it comes to determining answers to the great questions of life, worldview is important.

Example: Ockham's Razor

Ockham's Razor is a logical argument that the simplest explanation that serves to cover the known circumstances is probably the correct explanation.

For instance, if one comes home and finds a window broken and a rock lying in the middle of the floor, Ockham's Razor would say that the likely (simplest) explanation is that a rock was flung through the window, breaking the glass, and settled in the middle of the floor.

Ockham's Razor Tends Not to Work So Well with Culturally-Laden

Circumstances. Which is a simpler explanation? That a divine

eternal being created the universe, or that a string of beneficial accidents?

To one who has already a naturalistic worldview, the explanation of an eternal divine entity seems unnecessarily complicated.

For one who already assumes a supernatural worldview, the explanation of lucky accidents seems very contrived.

Example: Pascal's Wager

Pascal's Wager has been used to argue for Christianity for those living within a Christian-dominated society. On the other hand, a similar argument has been used in support of Allah in Muslim dominated societies.

But Pascal's Wager doesn't work (in support of Christian or Muslim God) in pluralistic societies.

A Better Solution

To the extent possible, work from the system of the other person, not one's own. Utilize the metaphors that they understand and appreciate.

Work with their worldview to the extent it is possible, rather than against it.

Unlearning #6. We are primarily Emotional Beings, NOT Cognitive

Beings Some Christians seek to have an answer for

everything... schooled in research and debate. But debates rarely work, because people don't

really base their beliefs on cognitive processes. The Illiative Sense, described earlier, is a mixture of cognitive and affective processes, leading towards a decision.

In Fact... A related mistake is the belief that emotions cloud our

judgments and makes it hard to make decisions. While that can happen, the truth is that those who have had

organic damage to the limbic systems of their brains (“seat of emotion”) have trouble making decisions.

It is the emotional part of our brains that ultimately weigh facts with feelings to pass judgments.

Typically, groups that grow through conversion (rather than biological growth) tend to grow, not through theological arguments, but through emotional or relational means (doing acts of kindness, and building belongingness).

Therefore,

When interacting with those of other religions, don't ignore issues of truth and of reason, but don't make that your focus.

Demonstrate God's love in action, in listening, in respect, in empathy.

Attempt to understand their concerns from their perspective, not from the perspective of one who is trying to win a battle.

A Curious Way of Relearning

After unlearning, it is time to relearn. Strangely, a book was written about 80 years ago that deals with many of the ideas that are effective for Inter-Religious Dialogue.

It is strange because the book wasn't written for IRD, but as self-help for people in business.

“How to Make Friends and Influence People” by Dale Carnegie

Example: From Chapter: “How to Win People to Your Way of Thinking”

The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it. Show respect for the other person's opinions. Never say,

“You're wrong.” If you are wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically. Begin in a friendly way. Get the other person saying “yes, yet” immediately Let the other person do a great deal of the talking Let the other person feel that the idea is his or hers.

Example: From Chapter: “How to Win People to Your Way of Thinking”

Try honestly to see things from the other person's point of view

Be sympathetic with the other person's ideas and desire.

Appeal to the nobler motives Dramatize your ideas Throw down a challenge

Taking Carnegie's recommendations and putting them into IRD

Avoid getting into arguments about faith Demonstrate respect the person and his beliefs Model humility and honesty by admitting personal mistakes

and even mistakes in one's faith group. Build rapport early with the other person... not conflict or

hostility. Focus more on similarities or common ground, especially

early. Listen, respectfully, more and talk less.

Taking Carnegie's recommendations and putting them into IRD

Don't tell them what to think, help them come to conclusions for themselves.

Empathize with them and try to see the world from their own viewpoint.

Recognize and value their hopes and desires. Identify the best in the other person and connect to that. Demonstrate your thoughts with imagery and action Challenge them act, in some small way, on their questions,

concerns, and decisions.

Unlearning in Inter-Religious Dialogue

Robert H. Munson, ThDAdjunct Faculty,

Philippine Baptist Theological Seminary

www.munsonmissions.org