Editing Philosophy of religion (section)

===Diversity and pluralism===
{{See also|Religious pluralism}}
[[Image:Yashovijaya.jpg|thumb|225px|Jain philosophers, such as [[Yashovijaya]], defended a theory of [[Anekantavada]] which could be interpreted as a form of inclusivism.]]
The issue of how one is to understand religious diversity and the plurality of religious views and beliefs has been a central concern of the philosophy of religion.

There are various philosophical positions regarding how one is to make sense of religious diversity, including exclusivism, inclusivism, pluralism, relativism, [[atheism]] or [[antireligion]] and [[agnosticism]].

[[Religious exclusivism]] is the claim that only one religion is true and that others are wrong. To say that a religion is exclusivistic can also mean that salvation or human freedom is only attainable by the followers of one's religion.<ref>Rowe 2007, pp 181</ref> This view tends to be the orthodox view of most monotheistic religions, such as Christianity and Islam, though liberal and modernist trends within them might differ. The philosopher [[William L Rowe]] outlines two problems with this view. The first problem is that it is easy to see that if this is true, a large portion of humanity is excluded from salvation and it is hard to see how a loving god would desire this. The second problem is that once we become acquainted with the saintly figures and virtuous people in other religions, it can be difficult to see how we could say they are excluded from salvation just because they are not part of our religion.<ref>Rowe 2007, pp 182</ref>

A different view is inclusivism, which is the idea that "one's own tradition alone has the whole truth but that this truth is nevertheless partially reflected in other traditions."<ref>Hick, John. "On Conflicting Religious Truth-Claims," p. 487.</ref> An inclusivist might maintain that their religion is privileged, they can also hold that other religious adherents have fundamental truths and even that they will be saved or liberated.<ref>Meister 2009, p. 28</ref> The Jain view of [[Anekantavada]] ('many-sidedness') has been interpreted by some as a tolerant view which is an inclusive acceptance of the partial truth value of non-Jain religious ideas.<ref>Barbato, Melanie. Jain Approaches to Plurality: Identity as Dialogue. BRILL 2017, p. 124.</ref> As [[Paul Dundas]] notes, the Jains ultimately held the thesis that Jainism is the final truth, while other religions only contain partial truths.<ref>Paul Dundas (2004). Tara Sethia, ed. [https://books.google.com/books?id=QYdlKv8wBiYC ''Ahimsā, Anekānta, and Jainism'']. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 123-125. {{ISBN|978-81-208-2036-4}}.</ref> Other scholars such as Kristin Beise Kiblinger have also argued that some of the Buddhist traditions include inclusivist ideas and attitudes.<ref>Kristin Beise Kiblinger. Buddhist Inclusivism: Attitudes Towards Religious Others</ref>

In the modern Western study of religion, the work of [[Ninian Smart]] has also been instrumental in representing a more diverse understanding of religion and religious pluralism. Smart's view is that there are genuine differences between religions.<ref name="auto9">{{cite web| url = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/philosophy-religion/| title = Taliaferro, Charles, "Philosophy of Religion", ''The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ''(Winter 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)| date = 12 March 2007| last1 = Taliaferro| first1 = Charles| access-date = 12 December 2017| archive-date = 2 July 2019| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190702090734/https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/philosophy-religion/| url-status = live}}</ref>

Pluralism is the view that all religions are equally valid responses to the divine and that they are all valid paths to personal transformation.<ref>Rowe 2007, pp 185</ref> This approach is taken by [[John Hick]], who has developed a pluralistic view which synthesizes components of various religious traditions. Hick promotes an idea of a noumenal sacred reality which different religions provide us access to.<ref name="auto9"/> Hick defines his view as "the great world faiths embody different perceptions and conceptions of, and correspondingly different responses to, the Real or the Ultimate."<ref>Hick, John. "On Conflicting Religious Truth-Claims," p. 487</ref> For Hick, all religions are true because they all allow us to encounter the divine reality, even if they have different deities and conceptions of it. Rowe notes that a similar idea is proposed by [[Paul Tillich]]'s concept of ''Being-itself''.<ref>Rowe 2007, pp 186</ref>

The view of [[Perennial philosophy|perennialism]] is that there is a single or core truth or experience which is shared by all religions even while they use different terms and language to express it. This view is espoused by the likes of [[Aldous Huxley]], the thinkers of the [[Traditionalist School]] as well as [[Neo-Vedanta]].

Yet another way of responding to the conflicting truth claims of religions is [[Relativism]]. [[Joseph Runzo]]., one of its most prominent defenders, has argued for ''henofideism'' which states that the truth of a religious worldview is relative to each community of adherents.<ref>Meister 2009, p. 35</ref> Thus while religions have incompatible views, each one is individually valid as they emerge from individual experiences of a plurality of phenomenal divine realities.<ref name="auto10">Meister 2009, p. 36</ref> According to Runzo, this view does not reduce the incompatible ideas and experiences of different religions to mere interpretations of the Real and thus preserves their individual dignity.<ref name="auto10"/>

Another response to the diversity and plurality of religious beliefs and deities throughout human history is one of [[skepticism]] towards all of them (or even [[antireligion]]), seeing them as illusions or human creations which serve human psychological needs.<ref>Rowe 2007, pp 184</ref> [[Sigmund Freud]] was a famous proponent of this view, in various publications such as ''[[The Future of an Illusion]]'' (1927) and ''[[Civilization and Its Discontents]]'' (1930). According to Freud, "Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires."<ref>Meister 2009, p. 15.</ref>

While one can be skeptical towards the claims of religion, one need not be hostile towards religion. [[Don Cupitt]] is one example of someone who, while disbelieving in the metaphysical and cosmological claims of his religion, holds that one can practice it with a "non-realist" perspective which sees religious claims as human inventions and myths to live by.<ref>Meister 2009, p. 15-16.</ref>