Empirical (Religious) Questions ..

When I shared what we did at Harmony Centre to a group of scholars of religion and academics this afternoon, as a panelist for the Workgroup on Interfaith and Religious Education, I was introduced to very interesting and empirical questions on religion, religiosity, religious affiliation and interfaith dialogue.

We acknowleged that different societies or nations have different aims for interfaith dialogue. Take for example, New Zealand, which according to a recent census 40% of NZealanders did not specify any religious affiliation, promotes interfaith dialogue in response to the new situation as the country become more multi-cultural and multi-ethnic over the past few years. This same can be said for Australia, as well as many countries in Europe.

Indonesia during the New Order era, on the hand, promoted dialogue as a tool to maintain social stability. And interestingly Indonesia was hailed as an example of "religious harmony" before the fall of President Suharto. However dialogue (as a movement led by leaders of different religions) can also be subversive, as what happened in the apartheid South Africa and in several other places. Nelson Mandela acknowledged that religious institutions - more specifically inter-religious solidarity - played a major role in the fight against apartheid in South Africa. During the 1999 Parliament of World Religions, the former political prisoner said, "Without the Church and religious institutions, I would never be here today."

Prof Jan Hjarpe who is Emeritus Professor of Islamology at the University of Lund and a scholar in the history of religion suggested that what we are doing at Harmony Centre (particularly on Engagement and Learning) and those suggested by other panelists are considered as Interfaith Diapraxis and not Interfaith Dialogue. Interfaith diapraxis are efforts and activities much like our community engagement or social capital building activities. Interfaith dialogue on the other hand, questions and analyses the belief system of the other.

There were many other interesting remarks and citations. One such comment was from the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Maxime Verhagen who said, "two monologues do not make a dialogue". FM Verhagen also quoted the noted theologian Hans Jung who once said:

There will be no peace among the nations without peace among the religions and no peace among the religions without dialogue among religions, and there will be no serious dialogue among the religions without common ethical standards.

The empirical approach offered by Prof Hjarpe unveiled interesting insights and different perspectives to the issue of interfaith dialogue, religion and related concepts. What we assumed as given may now take a different meaning. For example, the term religiosity and religion. It was proposed that religiosity is experienced by every human being, a personal spiritual experience at the cosmic dimension. Religion on the other hand is systemised religiosity with its attendant distinctions and boundaries. When asked by a student how many religions are there in the world, he argued that there are as many religions as there are people, and even more, since humans experience spirituality or religious experience more than once in their lifetime.

Are those who affiliate themselves to a religion, necessarily a member of a religious community? Religious affiliation and religious communities are two different categorisations and concepts altogether. And because, religion is not a fixed entity and not a closed system, he claimed, how do we associate it to these categorisations. Can a person have more than one religious affiliation at any one point?

Another assertion was that religious affiliation increases when government or public institutions do not function effectively and primarily to benefit from a "secular" function provided by religious organisation or institution - not that they are becoming more religious, or because of piety. This was advanced when we discuss the declining interest in Europe, as opposed to the increased congregations in Asia.

Many questions lingered in my mind as we adjourned for the afternoon tea.

But the three that stayed with me, even after dinner were -

a) Are we doing interfaith for a non-religious (or secular) goal?
b) Are we religious affiliates rather than religious adherents? and
c) Is there more religion (in public) and less religiosity (in private)?

These questions required an empirical approach to get its answers.

And it calls for the empiricists within ourselves.