|
" Mutual constructive engagement: A Macintyrean approach to theology of religions—Christianity and Islam in conversation "
David J. Brewer
Murphy, Nancey C.
| Document Type
|
:
|
Latin Dissertation
|
| Language of Document
|
:
|
English
|
| Record Number
|
:
|
804440
|
| Doc. No
|
:
|
TL49271
|
| Call number
|
:
|
1880538449; 10255288
|
| Main Entry
|
:
|
Chaudhuri, Diviani
|
| Title & Author
|
:
|
Mutual constructive engagement: A Macintyrean approach to theology of religions—Christianity and Islam in conversation\ David J. BrewerMurphy, Nancey C.
|
| College
|
:
|
Fuller Theological Seminary, Center for Advanced Theological Study
|
| Date
|
:
|
2017
|
| Degree
|
:
|
Ph.D.
|
| field of study
|
:
|
Center for Advanced Theological Studies
|
| student score
|
:
|
2017
|
| Page No
|
:
|
221
|
| Note
|
:
|
Committee members: Early, Christian; Karkkainen, Veli-Matti
|
| Note
|
:
|
Place of publication: United States, Ann Arbor; ISBN=978-1-369-63060-2
|
| Abstract
|
:
|
In this dissertation I argue that Alasdair MacIntyre’s account of tradition-constituted rationality resolves several of the major problems that impede progress for pluralism in theology of religions. Pluralists are motivated by two primary concerns—accounting for the radical diversity of religious belief without negating their intrinsic truth or salvific efficacy, and providing motivation for interreligious dialogue. The first commitment, I contend, undermines the second, for if there is no difference between religious traditions in respect to truth, then there is little to be gained from constructive dialogue at an epistemological level. The first commitment is similarly undermined by the tendency of pluralists to appeal to some form of universal grounding for all religious belief. MacIntyre’s account resolves both of these problems. First, by arguing that all rationality is constituted by historically-situated traditions of enquiry, MacIntyre is better able to account for true diversity, arguing that every tradition forms from particular authoritative texts and voices in response to unique historical circumstances, not from universal grounds. Second, by arguing that every tradition is always capable of encountering epistemological crises that call into question the very possibility of knowledge, he not only resolves the problem of relativism, but also preserves true motivation for dialogue, since it is always possible, in the midst of such a crisis, for one tradition to learn from another.
|
| Subject
|
:
|
Religion; Philosophy; Epistemology; Philosophy of Science
|
| Descriptor
|
:
|
Philosophy, religion and theology;Divine action;Epistemological crises;Interreligious dialogue;Islam;Rationality;Science and religion
|
| Added Entry
|
:
|
Murphy, Nancey C.
|
| Added Entry
|
:
|
Center for Advanced Theological StudiesFuller Theological Seminary, Center for Advanced Theological Study
|
| |