Advertisement

Philosophia

, Volume 47, Issue 4, pp 1053–1068 | Cite as

A Critique of Victoria S. Harrison’s Internal Realist Approach to Pluralism

  • Daniele BertiniEmail author
Article
  • 38 Downloads

Abstract

Victoria S. Harrison’s theory of internal pluralism approaches religious beliefs in terms of conceptual schemes. To her, this approach has the advantage of preserving core pluralist intuitions without being challenged by the usual difficulties (such as the incompatibility problem). My claim is that this is not the case. After providing a succinct presentation of internal pluralism, I show that the critique of traditional pluralist views such as Hick’s may also be addressed to Harrison. There are two main reasons in support of my claim. Firstly, a believer’s common understanding of religious experiences (both mystical and ritual) conflicts with the way in which internal pluralism understands religious belief. Such conflict implies that if internal pluralism were a sound theory, most religious beliefs would turn out to be false, and, contrary to Harrison’s intention, they would be rendered cognitively irrelevant. Secondly, internal pluralism excludes the possibility of religious disagreements. By applying to religions an epistemological approach based on conceptual schemes, doxastic dissent is actually dismantled at the cost of developing an entirely solipsistic reading of religious beliefs. In the final section of my paper, I will show that such unattractive features are consequences of the notion of conceptual scheme.

Keywords

Religious pluralism Internal pluralism Religious diversity Religious belief Victoria S. Harrison 

References

  1. Adams, N. (2006). Making deep Reasonings public. Modern Theology, 22(3), 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alston, W. P. (1991). Perceiving God. The epistemology of religious experience. Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bertini, D. (2016). Tradizioni religiose e diversità. Verona: Edizioni Centro Studi Campostrini. yyyyy.Google Scholar
  4. Burley, M. (2018). Religious diversity and conceptual schemes: Critically appraising Internalist pluralism. Sophia.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-018-0637-x.
  5. Byrne, P. (1984). Mysticism, identity and realism: A debate reviewed. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 16(3), 237–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Harrison, V. S. (2006). Internal realism and the problem of religious diversity. Philosophia, 34(3), 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Harrison, V. S. (2008). Internal realism, religious pluralism, and ontology. Philosophia, 36(1), 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Harrison, V. S. (2012). An Internalist pluralist solution to the problem of religious and ethical diversity. Sophia: International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 51(1), 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heim, S. M. (1995). Salvations. Truth and difference in religion. Maryknoll, NY: Orbus Books.Google Scholar
  10. Herrmann, E. (2003). A pragmatic realist philosophy of religion. Ars Disputandi, 3(1), 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hick, J. (2004). An interpretation of religion. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McKim, R. (2012). On religious diversity. Oxford & New York: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Moran, D. (2000). Hilary Putnam and Immanuel Kant: Two ‘internal realists’? Synthese, 123(1), 65–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Plantinga, A. (2000). Pluralism. A Defense of Religious Exclusivism. In P. L. Quinn & K. Meeker (Eds.), The philosophical challenge of religious diversity (pp. 172–192). Oxford & New York: OUP.Google Scholar
  15. Putnam. (1981). Reason, truth and history. Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ruhmkorff, S. (2013). The incompatibility problem and religious pluralism beyond hick. Philosophy Compass, 8(5), 510–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Volpe, G. (2005). Teorie della verità. Milano: Guerini e Associati SpA.Google Scholar
  18. Wainwright, W. J. (1970). Stace and mysticism. The Journal of Religion, 50(2), 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Studi letterari, filosofici e di storia dell’arteUniversity of Rome Tor VergataRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations