Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, my topic is monotheism and the meaning of coexistence,
from a philosophical perspective. Never before in the history of mankind has there been a situation where a multitude of civilizations and religions has co-existed in a more complex and immediate form than in our era of globalization.
Anywhere on the globe, the human being is faced with the simultaneity of different metaphysical conceptions and belief systems.
This diversity exists under conditions that are increasingly determined by technology of which, at the beginning of the 21st century, the most salient feature are the digital information and communication techniques.
In earlier eras, a community may have been able to retreat into its own domain and to shield itself from outside influences.
This option, not to interact, not to communicate, this option is not available anymore.
Through all of recorded history, religious differences have all too often been causes of conflict between communities of believers or the political entities, namely states, in which those communities are organized.
The Crusades of the Middle Ages are testimony to this.
People have eagerly tried and invested a lot of intellectual and emotional energy to identify the differences that distinguish them from one another in order to assert their cultural and religious identity.
To justify their hegemony or to justify their hegemony.
Drawing the borderlines between us and them as a means of self-assertion has been part and parcel of identity politics until the present day.
To the point that even within communities, subgroups, I mean smaller communities, have seriously striven to distinguish themselves from one another.
Inter- and intra-religious conflicts, often fueled by socio-economic interests, have constituted an important part of the history of civilizations.
Since Samuel Huntington, upon the end of the Cold War, introduced his thesis of an intrinsic hostility between different religious worldviews, the paradigm of clash of civilizations has become a buzzword in discourses on world order.
And in particular, as regards relations between the Western world and the world of Islam.
The simultaneity of distinct civilizational and religious life worlds and value systems under the conditions of our global village has given new importance to peaceful coexistence.
To the ideals of peaceful coexistence.
In the context of globalization, the plurality of religious faiths has become, as I indicated at the beginning, has become a fact that determines everyday life in our interconnected world.
It has become an inescapable social reality.
To manage cultural and religious differences in a rational manner is now an imperative of peace at the local, at the regional, as well as at the global level.
This is where philosophy of religion can play a useful role.
There should be no misunderstanding, however.
Acknowledging a plurality of religions and analyzing or accepting their structural content does in no way imply a defense of relativism.
Accepting religious pluralism is also not to be confused either with a reductionist approach that merely derives religious dogma and belief from historical or sociocultural factors,
subordinating it to the empirical realm or with forms of religious syncretism.
To describe the compatibility of a plurality of faiths with the universality of truth,
one might use the metaphor of the Copernican model in cosmology.
All theistic belief systems actually reveal different aspects of one and the same reality of the true God,
merely taking different paths, so to speak, to achieve the same goal,
in a way that is similar to the planets revolving around the same star, namely the Sun,
which keeps them in their unique place, but along different trajectories.
It is certainly legitimate to describe the actual multitudes of belief systems empirically and in their sociological, psychological and historical dimensions.
But only a deeper phenomenological approach will help us to understand religious experience as a comprehension of the world sui generis
and to grasp its inherent metaphysical truth in a manner that allows us to reach an understanding of ourselves in the context of the cosmos.
The universe. Just to give one example, the classical Aristotelian notion of the Supreme Being as the Proton-Kinun-Akineton,
translated the first unmoved mover, this notion has, through the ages, informed metaphysical thinking
in different religious and civilizational contexts.
General ontological concepts that transcend, that go beyond cultural differences, indeed allow the philosopher to undertake a structural comparison between distinct systems of faith and their metaphysical notions.
And, subsequently, they help the believer to better define and defend his own position.
A logical point can also be made in this ontological context, namely in regard to the ultimate truth that is expressed in and conveyed through the three monotheistic religions.
And I mean by this the following.
If there exists only one God, then this God must be one and the same for all.
There cannot be three different gods for Jews, Christians and Muslims.
Only three different perceptions of God or manifestations of truth in the context of the respective revelation.
Awareness of this logically obvious but not the less often neglected truth can foster a deeper sense of community among believers and may contribute to religious and societal peace beyond all those historical and socio-cultural differences.
In this context, let me recall a message from one of our religious leaders in Austria.
In this case, this cardinal Franz Koenig, Archbishop of Vienna, underlined that, and I quote,
particularly today, a discussion between Islam and Christianity on monotheism has a beneficial function and should contribute towards the reduction of suspicion, towards the understanding of the peoples of the world and the peaceful coexistence of nations.
End of quote.
He made these remarks in a message addressed to the first international conference on the concept of monotheism, tauchid, in Islam and Christianity, which I organized in Rome in the year 1981.
I had then characterized the aim of this undertaking, namely an analysis of the central metaphysical notion of monotheism as to deepen one's own self-comprehension or self-understanding through the encounter with and respect for other religions and cultural traditions.
This is what I then have identified as dialectics of cultural identity, which is the basis of a genuine understanding and mutual appreciation among civilizations.
It goes without saying that this reflection about the nature of monotheism also includes the teachings of Judaism.
As regards the role of philosophy in thinking about faith, I would like to make one more point.
One more point.
It is obvious, but must be stressed nonetheless, that philosophy of religion is not identical with religious philosophy.
The philosophical approach per se is neutral vis-a-vis a particular faith.
It embodies the universality of the mind without prejudice to the individual religious commitment of the philosopher.
A widely used term such as Christian philosophy, to give just one example that illustrates this semantic or terminological issue.
This term relates to the philosophical ideas developed by thinkers who, as individuals, belong to the Christian faith.
It does not mean that the specific notions or theories expounded by them as such are exclusively Christian.
And the same could be said about other philosophical discourses in other cultural and religious contexts.
No one can claim the logos, or in the modern world, reason or rationality.
No one can claim the logos as a privilege of his religion alone, excluding believers of other faiths from the community of discourse
and denying them the status of equal partners in the quest for metaphysical truth.
Any exclusivist approach is intrinsically alien to the philosophical mind in whichever historical or sociological context.
Endowed with the capacity of self-reflection, which cannot merely be reduced to the physical realm as, for instance, evolutionary epistemology tried to do.
Endowed with this capacity of self-reflection, the human being has always striven for the ultimate truth and meaning of life.
The search for the transcendent has united thinkers of all civilizations throughout the ages.
This genuinely philosophical quest is based on experience and reason in a comprehensive sense, and not only in the meaning of European enlightenment.
Through its universal outlook and transcending cultural differences, as I said, philosophy has created a common space of reflection on the existence of the absolute.
This is the essence and basis, I think, of the mission of philosophy, also in the present age.
In spite of the vain efforts in our modern era to relegate religious experience to the psychological and sociological domains.
It is here where the question of the specific meaning of co-existence between different religions and the civilizations associated with them comes into play.
We cannot avoid posing the one fundamental question, namely, in what sense may one speak of co-existence if one bears in mind that each religion represents the ultimate truth in a form that is unique to its socio-cultural environment,
and to the supernatural environment, and to the circumstances of its revelation.
In view of this uniqueness in the self-perception of each tradition, one may conceptually distinguish between institutional co-existence, which implies mutual respect between different religions,
and with their specific manifestations of truth and religious practices, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the joint spiritual undertaking among those who analyze and compare the underlying metaphysical notions.
The latter relates to the efforts of those who engage in the philosophy of religion, who analyze the distinct forms of revelation of the absolute and its categorizations,
and who undertake to relate the basic elements of each system of faith to other such systems.
Hermeneutical analysis and structural comparison between concepts of faith are the field where a philosophical approach, in clear distinction from an apologetic one, is conceptually appropriate and theologically legitimate.
I would like to conclude by referring again to the anthropological constant that is at the roots of religious belief as well as philosophical thought.
The quest for the absolute is an intrinsic characteristic of the human being.
The quest for the absolute is an intrinsic characteristic of the human being. It is the essence of our common spiritual heritage.
While in the religious domain, this effort is pursued on the basis of revelation and faith, the philosophical method is solely dependent on reason, human reason.
These two distinct approaches are not contradictory, but complementary.
Without imposing itself on the original domain of faith, philosophy, through an analysis, as I tried to demonstrate, of the common structure of religious experience,
may assist the believer to overcome a mere apologetic approach and to reach out to the truth revealed in other religions.
In this way, philosophical reflection of and understanding between religions may give metaphysical depth to our modern technological civilization, which in its globalized version risks forgetting its metaphysical roots.
In the spirit of unity in diversity, co-existence between the monotheistic religions can indeed become the cornerstone of a lasting order of peace and justice in the 21st century.
Thank you for your attention.