Such a person is seeking the benefits of religion without the costs, the costs being assent to a specific set of truth claims and obedience to religious authority, both of which it is especially hard for modern man to accept. — Thorongil

This sounds a lot like Dietrich Bonhoeffer's "cheap grace":

“Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves. Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession...Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.” — Dietrich Bonhoeffer

You are right that "religion is an inherently communal and institutional enterprise". It is within the collectivity of a congregation that one finds religion. It is easy to claim that one is "spiritual" rather than "religious" because "spiritual" is amorphous, vague, undemanding, and solitary -- at least the way the term is commonly used.

This sounds a lot like Dietrich Bonhoeffer's "cheap grace": — Bitter Crank

Interesting quote. I will look him up now.

It is easy to claim that one is "spiritual" rather than "religious" because "spiritual" is amorphous, vague, undemanding, and solitary — Bitter Crank

Yes, exactly! The bolded word in particular summarizes my point well.

Such a person is seeking the benefits of religion without the costs, the costs being assent to a specific set of truth claims and obedience to religious authority, both of which are especially hard for modern man to accept. Simply put, it isn't certain that the benefits of religion can be had outside of it. — Thorongil

What are the benefits? I don't think I agree with your assessment here. But, you seem to be describing a definite type of person that exists; the "spiritual but not religious", the type who wants to avoid conflict by painting over disparate views with a broad brush. They have a fear of commitment.

But it's possible to study religion and philosophy in more depth and come to a perennialist conclusion. You haven't actually shown an argument for why the idea of different religions having kernels of the truth is wrong. It looks like your argument is just that taking some religious stances but then not adhering to one is fruitless because it's undemanding.

On the other hand, the notion that different philosophies, different religions, might have bits of truth in them, amongst the dross, is a far more demanding prospect. It requires both a courage (the sense of leaving the familiar shore in favor of the uncharted sea), as well as a comforting reliance on the spiritual intuition which is the tool that uncovers those truths, and the very tool that sparks the belief in the perennial nature of truth.

the "spiritual but not religious", the type who wants to avoid conflict by painting over disparate views with a broad brush. — Noble Dust

@Wayfarer >:O

They have a fear of commitment. — Noble Dust

Yes, that's why they always carry a pink flying pony around, which they have to always hug tightly to their chests O:)

What are the benefits? — Noble Dust

Good question. In my final paragraph, I alluded to what I would probably take to be one important benefit, namely, the ability to be personally transformed in a positive way. I would add the benefit of knowing the truth. I think people are attracted to a religion, or ought to be, first, because they believe it to be true and believe it will bring them closer to the truth, and second, because they desire personal transformation. Jesus, for example, says he comes not for the well but for the sick. Those who are well don't need a savior, so if one believes one is well, then that person has no need of and likely doesn't care about religion. That is fine by me, but I am not well and nor do I believe the world to be well either, so I am interested in religion.

But, you seem to be describing a definite type of person that exists; the "spiritual but not religious", the type who wants to avoid conflict by painting over disparate views with a broad brush. They have a fear of commitment. — Noble Dust

Yes, well said.

But it's possible to study religion and philosophy in more depth and come to a perennialist conclusion. You haven't actually shown an argument for why the idea of different religions having kernels of the truth is wrong. It looks like your argument is just that taking some religious stances but then not adhering to one is fruitless because it's undemanding. — Noble Dust

Correct. This is exactly what I'm arguing.

On the other hand, the notion that different philosophies, different religions, might have bits of truth in them, amongst the dross, is a far more demanding prospect. It requires both a courage (the sense of leaving the familiar shore in favor of the uncharted sea), as well as a comforting reliance on the spiritual intuition which is the tool that uncovers those truths, and the very tool that sparks the belief in the perennial nature of truth. — Noble Dust

Not to mention, a pretty thorough knowledge of the world's religions so as to rule out any one of them being exclusively true.

Not to mention, a pretty thorough knowledge of the world's religions to as to rule out any one of them being exclusively true. — Thorongil

Here's a question for you: would you join a religion while willingly knowing that not one religion is exclusively true? Could you do this while also submitting yourself to the demands of your religion? How would you reconcile your philosophical knowledge with your submitting to religious authority? Honest questions that I'm interested in.

the ability to be personally transformed in a positive way. — Thorongil

Have you experienced religious transformation?

Jesus, for example, says he comes for not the well but the sick. Those who are well don't need a savior, so if one believes one is well, then that person has no need of and likely doesn't care about religion. That is fine by me, but I am not well and nor do I believe the world is either, so I am interested in religion. — Thorongil

I think the irony is that everyone is sick.

You have reality backwards. "Perenialism" and any other set of -isms are not the sort of thing from which a description or exposition of which "LEADS TO", or has things that follow from. Perennialism is a gross categorisation of a complex set of positions.
There is no such thing as a perennialist, but if there were his position would be far more credible than the one which you seem to be groping towards. And nothing is implied in your definition of perennialism which suggests from the two questions that he might want his religious cake and eat it to. Just because a given religion might contain such truth does not mean that the "perennialsit" what ever the hell that is, wants something from that religion.
And I have no idea why you think your last paragraph means anything, or follows from anything.

In sum, perennialism leaves one in precisely the same set of circumstances one was in before its acceptance. — Thorongil

I think it would be preferable if everyone returned to the mentality which underlay the 'Religious Wars' of Europe, where entire communities were engaged in murdering each other over over differences in doctrine. Or the highly fruitful Mughal invasions of India, wherein millions of Buddhists and Hindus were slaughtered for idolatry.

Societies should definitely clamp down on pluralism, also. Tolerating a range of perspectives on religious matters is surely a form of modern deviance.

All of which simply goes to support the ultimate truth, which is atheism. Atheists point out, rightly, that each 'religion' claims to have a unique truth, which is different to all the other 'religions', and can't co-exist with it. But from any rational or objective point of view, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that they all cancel each other out, that no 'religion' has or is the truth, but they're simply cultural projections and collective wish-fulfilment.

All of which simply goes to support the ultimate truth, which is atheism. — Wayfarer

It's interesting you believe this leads to atheism.

Atheists point out, rightly, that each 'religion' claims to have a unique truth, which is different to all the other 'religions', and can't co-exist with it. But from any rational or objective point of view, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that they all cancel each other out, that no 'religion' has or is the truth, but they're simply cultural projections and collective wish-fulfilment. — Wayfarer

But why couldn't it be that religions are like peaks of a mountain range? There's different peaks which reach to different heights. But then there would be a religion which towers above the rest and is "most true" if we can so say - the highest peak. A religion which has access to the fullness of Truth.

I think your view is too black and white - all religions attempt to reach truth and fail (thus no religion is true).

would you join a religion while willingly knowing that not one religion is exclusively true? Could you do this while also submitting yourself to the demands of your religion? — Noble Dust

No. That would be dishonest, and I respect the religious enough not to patronize them or to dissemble my beliefs in their midst.

How would you reconcile your philosophical knowledge with your submitting to religious authority? — Noble Dust

In terms of my joining a religion, I wouldn't demand that all of its claims be rational, just that they are not irrational.

Have you experienced religious transformation? — Noble Dust

No. I often wish that I could, though.

"Perenialism" and any other set of -isms are not the sort of thing from which a description or exposition of which "LEADS TO", or has things that follow from — charleton

And this was precisely my point. So thank you, dear charleton, for repeating it.

dear charleton — Thorongil

(L) >:)

There's different peaks which reach to different heights. But then there would be a religion which towers above the rest and is "most true" if we can so say - the highest peak. A religion which has access to the fullness of Truth. — Agustino

I can't abide 'triumphalism' in any way shape or form. Or the implicit and sometimes explicit authoritarianism that is an inevitable consequence.

Besides, amongst the numerous defects of this OP, is the idea of perennialism as 'a religion'.

I think it would be preferable if everyone returned to the mentality which underlay the 'Religious Wars' of Europe, where entire communities were engaged in murdering each other over over differences in doctrine. Or the highly fruitful Mughal invasions of India, wherein millions of Buddhists and Hindus were slaughtered for idolatry. — Wayfarer

While I appreciate the sarcasm, this is a straw man. The obverse of perennialism is not, and need not be, a form of religious exclusivism that brooks no dissent and whose interactions with other religions are violent. My contrast with exclusivism was religious inclusivism, which is perfectly compatible with a religiously pluralistic society that upholds the freedom of religion.

But from any rational or objective point of view, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that they all cancel each other out, that no 'religion' has or is the truth, but they're simply cultural projections and collective wish-fulfilment. — Wayfarer

Why is this the only rational and objective point of view? I don't see that it is.

Besides, amongst the numerous defects of this OP, is the idea of perennialism as 'a religion'. — Wayfarer

I can only guess as to what these unenumerated, numerous defects are, if you will not tell me what they are. The one defect you list here will itself require some elaboration.

No. I was not agreeing with you but damning you for your childish framing.

Now, what follows from perennialism? I answer: nothing. If it turns out that all religions are merely groping in various ways toward some truth exclusive to none of them, then one has, ipso facto, ruled out belonging to any one of them. — Thorongil

I find this a painfully ignorant and hostile sentiment. That is what caused the sarcastic response.

I have a busy day ahead, and I could effortlessly produce 5,000 words on this topic, but I won't have time, so will try and keep it brief.

The idea of 'the perennial philosophy' has many precedents but the term 'philosophia perennis' goes back to Leibniz. However he was drawing on the Italian renaissance humanists, among them Ficino and Pico Della Mirandolla, whose Oration on the Dignity of Man was practically a perennialist manifesto.

But they in turn drew on many earlier sources, mainly Platonist or neo-Platonist //edit//and Hermetic//. Ficino was commissioned to produce Plato's complete works in Latin. (These are all great minds, of whom I only too readily acknowledge my scant learning.)

In the East, the Hindu sages have long held an idea of the 'sanatana dharma' which is the 'eternal faith' of which the Hindu vedas are expressions. But India naturally tends towards pluralism. That is why the Christian missionaries found it so hard to make headway there - throngs would come to their churches, sing hymns, praise God, and then move right next door and do the same for Ganesha or Hanuman. All the Divine, right? (Not forgetting that the Church of St Thomas in Goa is one of the most ancient Christian denominations in existence, founded by the Apostle. Little known fact).

What irks me about @Agostino is the undercurrent of Christian triumphalism, accompanied by crypto-facist political tendencies. Let's not forget that the Inquisition had torture instruments inscribed with the motto 'For The Greater Glory of Christ', eh?

My philosophy is (for some reason) deeply informed by Platonic Christianity - I found the modern classical writers on Christian mysticism highly attractive (Dean Inge, Evelyn Underhill among them. I have also just recently discovered radical orthodoxy - had I encountered these kinds of teachings I might well have stayed Christian. But, as everyone here knows, I converted to Buddhism. However one salient point about Buddhism is this: it is a vehicle, a raft. It doesn't proclaim that it owns the truth, it points towards it, and every individual has to work out how to get there. 'Work out your own salvation with diligence' were reportedly the last words of the Buddha, who left no heir. Ultimately, he said 'all dharmas are to be abandoned, to say nothing of a-dharma'. Work that one out!

We do live in a pluralist culture - I mentioned this before, Agustino regards it as a consequence of sin (is that right?) But I think a plurality of perspectives and views is unavoidable. We can't proclaim 'one truth faith', especially on a philosophy forum (although I think it is perfectly acceptable to believe it.)

Anyway I have to tear myself away, busy Saturday, wife will be very annoyed with me 'playing with my invisible friends', I will leave you with this memento from the late great Huston Smith.

No. I was not agreeing with you but damning you for your childish framing. — charleton

Sure.

I find this a painfully ignorant and hostile sentiment. That is what caused the sarcastic response. — Wayfarer

I never intended to be hostile, unless you interpret any perceived opposition to your views as amounting to hostility.

I have a busy day ahead, and I could effortlessly produce 5,000 words on this topic, but I won't have time, so will try and keep it brief. — Wayfarer

:-|

The idea of 'the perennial philosophy' has many precedents but the term 'philosophia perennis' goes back to Leibniz. However he was drawing on the Italian renaissance humanists, among them Ficino and Pico Della Mirandolla, whose Oration on the Dignity of Man was practically a perennialist manifesto.

But they in turn drew on many earlier sources, mainly Platonist or neo-Platonist. Ficino was commissioned to produce Plato's complete works in Latin. (These are all great minds, of whom I only too readily acknowledge my scant learning.)

In the East, the Hindu sages have long held an idea of the 'sanatana dharma' which is the 'eternal faith' of which the Hindu vedas are expressions. But India naturally tends towards pluralism. That is why the Christian missionaries found it so hard to make headway there - throngs would come to their churches, sing hymns, praise God, and then move right next door and do the same for Ganesha or Hanuman. All the Divine, right? (Not forgetting that the Church of St Thomas in Goa is one of the most ancient Christian denominations in existence, founded by the Apostle. Little known fact). — Wayfarer

So far, this is just a genealogy of certain figures apparently associated with perennialism, not a refutation of anything I said. The genealogical approach to religion, incidentally, is employed John Milbank, the titular head of the so called "radical orthodoxy" movement in Christian theology, which you mention later in your post. I must say that I side with Paul Griffiths in the following video on this subject (who, by the way, recently resigned from his post at Duke due to pressures from the leftist thought police, as shown here).



So, how is what you're doing not simply an endless prologue, as even Milbank admits this approach can become? You said my post had defects, but you don't tell me what they are! Instead, you give me genealogies and criticize @Agustino, who hasn't even really featured in this thread.

What irks me about Agostino is the undercurrent of Christian triumphalism — Wayfarer

Why cannot he claim that what he takes to be true is, in fact, true? What's wrong with "triumphalism?" To the extent that he does display it and that you do not mean to use the term purely pejoratively, he doesn't do so for no reason. You seem to be assuming some kind of malevolence that may not be and, I suspect in his case, is not there.

accompanied by crypto-facist political tendencies — Wayfarer

He's doesn't appear as a fascist to me, which is such a tiresome accusation. Is there really no other way to describe his views than by linking him to what is popularly conceived to be the worst thing ever? Can you actually back up the claim? I'm open to seeing him in a new light if you can provide the evidence.

Let's not forget that the Inquisition had torture instruments inscribed with the motto 'For The Greater Glory of Christ', eh? — Wayfarer

Are you not here simply assuming that Agustino has "forgotten" the Inquisition?

I have also just recently discovered radical orthodoxy - had I encountered these kinds of teachings I might well have stayed Christian. But, as everyone here knows, I converted to Buddhism. — Wayfarer

This is bizarre to me. Why not reconvert to Christianity if radical orthodoxy has convinced you of its truth? Is someone forcing you to be a Buddhist? Do you feel you must continue to be one out of habit? I would say the same thing if the positions were reversed. In other words, if you had been a Christian the whole time and recently discovered Buddhism and thought it to be true, I would see no reason why you ought not to convert to Buddhism. Truth is truth. Or has radical orthodoxy provided you with something different? What is it about this theological movement that would have made you stay a Christian?

However one salient point about Buddhism is this: it is a vehicle, a raft. It doesn't proclaim that it owns the truth, it points towards it, and every individual has to work out how to get there. 'Work out your own salvation with diligence' were reportedly the last words of the Buddha, who left no heir. Ultimately, he said 'all dharmas are to be abandoned, to say nothing of a-dharma'. Work that one out! — Wayfarer

I don't buy it. The truth of nirvana is the truth itself, the very highest form thereof, for one obtains perfect knowledge of the nature of existence. The Buddha's teachings are a raft meant to bring one to this truth. In Buddhism, there are only two truths, the truth of ordinary language and perception and the truth of enlightenment. There is no third which subsumes the latter, as in the perennialist's scheme.

We do live in a pluralist culture - I mentioned this before, Agustino regards it as a consequence of sin (is that right?) But I think a plurality of perspectives and views is unavoidable. We can't proclaim 'one truth faith', especially on a philosophy forum (although I think it is perfectly acceptable to believe it.) — Wayfarer

That's weird you would think that. Why can't we?

I will leave you with this memento from the late great Huston Smith
— Wayfarer

@Erik, you should watch that video in Thorongil's post. It relates to what we were talking about before in the Post-Truth thread regarding philosophers needing to follow tradition, or being able to free themselves from it.

I can't abide 'triumphalism' in any way shape or form. Or the implicit and sometimes explicit authoritarianism that is an inevitable consequence. — Wayfarer

Yes, I can see that you can't abide it, but your inability to abide it doesn't mean that it's not true, which is what we should be discussing.

The point with your criticism of me with regards to pluralism is that you deny the triumph of truth. You don't seem to understand that there is a relationship between truth and authority - in that truth is authoritative. If truth is no longer authoritative, then we end up in a post-truth world, and I think we have actually been in a post-truth world for a very long time - largely because of people like you, I would add. When you irrationally undermine authority and 'triumphalism' then you also undermine truth, for how can truth exist if it is not authoritative? Is it not its authority that guarantees its truth so to speak? Its unavoidableness? It is the authority (its unavoidableness) of the law of gravity that guarantees its truth.

Your argument is basically - well if we accept any non-pluralistic truth or set of beliefs, then we are more likely to have conflicts than otherwise. Conflicts are bad (since they can lead to things like the Inquisition), the truth is good and therefore truth cannot be non-pluralistic. It's a pragmatic argument through and through, it has nothing to do with what actually is true, but with what you think truth ought to be on a pragmatic level. So you don't even consider non-pluralistic truths - you reject them, almost on an a priori basis. How it that being rational - being a seeker of truth - rather than of your own fancies?

What irks me about Agostino is the undercurrent of Christian triumphalism, accompanied by crypto-facist political tendencies. Let's not forget that the Inquisition had torture instruments inscribed with the motto 'For The Greater Glory of Christ', eh? — Wayfarer

Yeah there's Big Brother on one side, and Brave New World on the other. We're so close to the latter, that swinging towards the former is just a way to avoid imminent disaster.

We do live in a pluralist culture - I mentioned this before, Agustino regards it as a consequence of sin (is that right?) — Wayfarer

No, not as a consequence of sin, but rather as a consequence of weak-willed people, who no longer believe in truth - they prefer social utility to truth. To avoid conflict, they will renounce truth - exactly like you! "Oh let's not talk about that because it's a hot button issue" - really Wayfarer, who are you kidding? Yourself? You either stand up for truth, or you don't - if you lack the courage to stand up for truth, then you should at least admit to it, instead of pretending that's not the case and forming ad hoc rationalisations to explain your behaviour such as hot button issues and the like.

"Oh, it's useful to say all religions are true, I'll get along better with my coworkers! Let's do that". New Agers pick and choose truth based on how useful it happens to be in the particular circumstance. But how is usefulness to be decided? Certainly not based on truth! It is rather decided on their whims and desires - their whims and desires become truth - they become authoritative.

See, I am not like you. I would rather be rejected by the whole world and society and hold fast unto truth, rather than accept untruth in order to be well liked, respected, with many friends, etc.

But I think a plurality of perspectives and views is unavoidable. We can't proclaim 'one truth faith', especially on a philosophy forum (although I think it is perfectly acceptable to believe it.) — Wayfarer

Why can't we proclaim 'one truth faith'? Again, this is an a priori for you. You're just rejecting it because it's not socially useful - it's likely to lead to conflict. But that has nothing to do with what the truth is, which is what you should be considering, independently of your prejudice.

I'll check it out. Thanks for the heads up.

What's wrong with "triumphalism?" — Thorongil

Why can't we proclaim 'one truth faith'? — Agustino

This is a philosophy forum. There are many Christian theology forums out there.

This is a philosophy forum. There are many Christian theology forums out there. — Wayfarer

So is a philosophy forum not meant to be for people who are searching after the truth? What if this truth happens to be a one faith truth? :s I'm just asking you to consider the possibility.

My admiration for the idea of 'perennialism' is not because of 'picking and choosing' or 'being politically correct'. My dear one works for a Christian aged care organisation, and most of my extended family are committed Christians. I myself still have many Christian leanings. But I have been drawn to Buddhism for many reasons, which I won't bore anyone with. My two (grown) sons are generally pretty indifferent to any kind of spirituality, but if they declared that they were interested in Christianity, then I would have no qualms about that whatever. But nevertheless, I try and live as a practicing lay Buddhist in a Christian household in a generally secularist culture.

That is why I would like to think that there is an over-arching reality of which the different faith traditions are expressions. But that seems too much to countenance here on this forum so I'll shut up.

See, I am not like you. I would rather be rejected by the whole world and society and hold fast unto truth, rather than accept untruth in order to be well liked, respected, with many friends, etc.

...Why can't we proclaim 'one truth faith'? — Agustino

In a philosophy forum I look to argument, not proclamation. Proclamation is for propagandists, and belongs elsewhere than here. I also look for mutual respect among people who accept each other as intellectual equals, whatever our differences.

My admiration for the idea of 'perennialism' is not because of 'picking and choosing' or 'being politically correct'. My dear one works for a Christian aged care organisation, and most of my extended family are committed Christians. I myself still have many Christian leanings. But I have been drawn to Buddhism for many reasons, which I won't bore anyone with. My two (grown) sons are generally pretty indifferent to any kind of spirituality, but if they declared that they were interested in Christianity, then I would have no qualms about that whatever. But nevertheless, I try and live as a practicing lay Buddhist in a Christian household in a generally secularist culture.

That is why I would like to think that there is an over-arching reality of which the different faith traditions are expressions. But that seems to much to countenance here on this forum so I'll shut up. — Wayfarer

Okay, that's all fine, I'm not questioning that. I'm rather interested to know if you ever considered that truth may be a "one true faith" kind of truth, and if so, why did you rationally - and not emotionally or based on considerations of usefulness - reject that idea? That's all. I have no qualms with you believing in perennialism, I just want to know why you think it's true rather than why you find it useful, etc.

Agreed.