Pragmatism, Relativism, and Religion: a Christian Theological Reflection on Richard Rorty’s, Hilary Putnam’s, and Richard J. Bernstein’s Views on Relativism

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국조직신학회
· 수록지 정보 : 한국조직신학논총 / 77호 / 127 ~ 179페이지
· 저자명 : 김효석

초록

Our age seems to be an age of thoroughgoing relativism. Many Christians have thought that relativism is a serious challenge for their traditional beliefs, such as the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. With regard to the issue of relativism, three influential neopragmatists―Richard Rorty, Hilary Putnam, and Richard J. Bernstein―provide us with im- portant and useful ideas and thoughtful insights. In the present pa- per, examining the three philosophers’ discussion of relativism, I will attempt to get some insights into the problem of relativism and religion. All three thinkers argue that there is no Archimedean point; that we must begin within our communities, traditions, and net- works; that total relativism is self-refuting; that human rationality is less algorithmic than had been thought. They also emphasize the im- portance of dialogue. However, there are differences in their thoughts and emphases, too. Rorty emphasizes usefulness, inter- subjective agreement, and contingency. From the perspective of in- ternal realism, Putnam wants to defend rationality, objectivity, and truth. Bernstein presents hermeneutical therapy and pragmatic falli- bilism as ways to go beyond objectivism and relativism. Sometimes the three thinkers argue against each other, showing exactly the op- posite view. From my Christian theological perspective, I share my reflections on the issue of relativism and religion. First, I agree that there is no God’s-Eye point of view. Second, our tradition is the only starting point for us but it can and must be transformed through vari- ous kinds of dialogue with human experience, other disciplines and traditions. Fallibilism is helpful for that dialogue. Third, despite the importance of transformation of tradition, we should not overlook our ancestors’ valuable insights within our tradition. Finally, “How can we hold both fallibilism and absoluteness of religious belief at the same time?” is the question remained.

참고자료

· 없음