In the richly diverse context of multicultural societies, inter-religious understanding stands as a crucial pillar for societal harmony. Within this context, one might ask: What key factors contribute to the problems associated with inter-religious understanding and disputation? How could a philosophical exploration of language and grammar illuminate and address these intricacies? Furthermore, is it possible to transform inter-religious controversy into a productive and beneficial practice? This article post aims to interlink these aspects, underscoring the vital role of grammatical nuances in nurturing deeper and more respectful interactions across different religious traditions.

Grammar, in its essence, is the framework through which the elements of an assertion synergize to construct and convey meaning. This principle becomes particularly central when examining inter-religious communication and understanding, where assertions from one religious tradition often seem to contradict those from another. These contradictions, however, are frequently not inherent in the assertions themselves but arise from the varied interpretations of their meanings. When subjected to philosophical scrutiny, many of these seeming contradictions dissipate, revealing a deeper harmony in the underlying messages.

This process of understanding necessitates distinguishing between two types of grammar, a concept rooted in the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein (Wittgenstein, 1968, sec. 373) and further elaborated in the philosophies of Grammatical Thomists, such as David B. Burrell (Burrell, 1973, 1979, 1995). Wittgenstein’s differentiation between ‘surface grammar’ and ‘depth-grammar’ seems particularly illuminating in this context. Surface grammar refers to the immediate, superficial interpretation of an assertion – the meaning that is most readily apparent and often the first one grasped upon initial exposure to the statement. It represents the typical, everyday understanding of language. On the other hand, depth-grammar ventures beyond the superficial layer, exploring how words and expressions are employed within specific contextual frameworks to serve specific purposes. This deeper exploration seeks to uncover the nuanced, often hidden meanings that lie beneath the surface. 

It is through this lens of depth-grammar that the true intentions, layered meanings and deeper insights embedded within religious assertions can be revealed. By applying this analytical approach, what initially appears as stark contradiction can often be reconciled, unveiling a richer tapestry of understanding that bridges the gaps between differing religious perspectives. The distinction between surface and depth-grammar becomes especially relevant in addressing inter-religious confrontation. Consider a scenario where two religious assertions appear to be in direct contradiction. The most effective approach in such a case is to examine the depth-grammar of these assertions. This process involves answering a series of questions: What context frames each assertion? Are there other related statements within this context that might offer a more explicit understanding? What underlying purpose does each assertion seek to fulfill? Perhaps most crucially, how do the individuals involved in the inter-religious communication interpret these assertions?

Engaging in this line of questioning is reminiscent of the Socratic Method, which emphasizes the pursuit of deeper understanding through a continuous cycle of questions and answers. By asking a question about an assertion, receiving a response, and then posing a further question based on that response, a dynamic and elucidative dialogue unfolds. This iterative process of inquiry and clarification continues, each layer of questioning peeling back another layer of meaning, until the true essence of the assertion is laid bare. This method does not merely seek to resolve the apparent contradictions but aims to foster a more thoughtful comprehension of the beliefs and values underlying the assertions. It encourages participants in the dialogue to transcend the surface level of their statements and explore the deeper philosophical underpinnings. In doing so, it sometimes reveals that the perceived contradictions are more a matter of different grammars, i.e. different combinations of meanings of the crucial terms, rather than a straightforward disagreements. (Andrejč, 2016, p. 175). By exploring the depth-grammar of religious assertions in this manner, what begins as a critical disagreement can evolve into a rich, enlightening discourse, enhancing mutual understanding and respect among diverse religious groups. This approach not only clarifies the meaning of individual assertions but also contributes to a broader understanding of the complexities and nuances inherent in inter-religious relations.

This method can resolve many disputations between differing religious assertions, whether they are from distinct faiths or various denominations within the same tradition. For instance, the exploration of the concept of God within the three Abrahamic religions brings to light a more explicit and controversial facet of this kind of contention (Taheri, 2023). Yet, what about assertions that remain contradictory even after investigating the depth-grammar? Several strategies can be employed to handle these persistent disagreements. One strategy is to avoid focusing on these contentious assertions in public inter-religious dialogues, emphasizing instead the points of agreement. This approach fosters mutual respect, steering clear of divisive topics. Another strategy, aligning with the principles of religious pluralism, as advocated by John Hick (Hick, 2004), encourages open discussion of these contradictions. Here, the emphasis is on acknowledging and respecting the diversity of beliefs without elevating one over another in terms of truth. A more interactive approach is to let the perspectives from other religious traditions challenge and refine our own understanding. This not only encourages a more open-minded exploration of faith but also promotes the idea of different religions as varied expressions of a singular, ultimate truth. Such engagement can lead to a revision of one’s beliefs, fostering a deeper appreciation for the multifaceted nature of religious truth (Clooney, 2010; Cornille, 2020; von Stosch, 2012). Each of these approaches, whether it is focusing on common ground, discussing differences without claims of supremacy, or being open to revising our beliefs, contributes to a richer, more empathetic understanding of the religious landscape. They encourage moving beyond mere tolerance to a realm of deeper mutual respect and understanding, acknowledging the diverse yet interconnected and bi-directional nature of inter-religious understanding (Jedan, 2023; Taheri, 2022).

In summary, the following key points can be delineated. When confronted with an assertion from a religious tradition different from one’s own, certain measures should be taken to thoughtfully prevent inter-religious mis-undersatndingunderstanding. The initial step involves a deeper inquiry into the true meaning of that assertion. If this meaning aligns with one’s own beliefs, the disagreement is essentially nullified. Conversely, if a genuine struggle persists, it becomes socially and sometimes politically important to assess the usefulness of expressing such a disagreement. This involves considering how the divergence might serve as a catalyst to enhance and refine one’s religious understanding in light of the contrasting religious assertions. I maintain that these steps are feasible through a committed and thorough grammatical analysis.

For a detailed examination of the strategies discussed in this article, see my doctoral thesis, ‘Meaning and Oneness: A Burrellian Reading of Ṭabāṭabāʾī’s Approach to Religious Language’.

Bibliography:

Andrejč, G. (2016). Wittgenstein and interreligious disagreement: A philosophical and theological perspective. Palgrave Macmillan.

Burrell, D. B. (1973). Analogy and philosophical language. Yale University Press.

———.  (1979). Aquinas: God and action. Routledge and Kegan Paul.

———. (1995). Philosophy and Religion: Attention to Language and the Role of Reason. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 38(1–3), 109–125.

Clooney, F. X. (2010). Comparative theology: Deep learning across religious borders. Wiley-Blackwell.

Cornille, C. (2020). Meaning and method in comparative theology (First edition.). Wiley.

Hick, J. (2004). An interpretation of religion: Human responses to the transcendent (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.

Jedan, C. (2023). The Consolations of Travel: Reading Seneca’s Ad Marciam vis-à-vis Paul of Tarsus. In Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Travel Experiences: 3rd century BCE – 8th century CE (pp. 33–54). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.

Taheri, J. (2022). Traditions-Oriented Approach in the Comparative Philosophy of Religion. Poligrafi, 27(105/106), 201–226. https://doi.org/10.35469/poligrafi.2022.228 

———. (2023). Semantics of divine names: Tabatabai’s principle of ‘focal meaning’ and Burrell’s grammar of God-talk. International Journal of Philosophy and Theology, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/21692327.2023.2169743. 

von Stosch, K. (2012). Comparative Theology as Liberal and Confessional Theology. Religions, 4, 983–992.

Wittgenstein, L. (Josef J. (1968). Philosophical investigations (G. E. M. (Gertrude E. M. Anscombe, Trans.; Repr. of English text with index.). Blackwell.