Recent Peer-reviewed Articles by Peter Admirand on Interfaith Dialogue
Recent Peer-reviewed Articles by Peter Admirand on Interfaith Dialogue
“Atheist Critiques of the New Atheists: Advancing Atheist-Theist Dialogue.” Interreligious Studies and Intercultural Theology, 4.2 (2020):176-200 [DOI] [Details].
Abstract
In this article, I examine atheist critiques of the New Atheists. The goals are both to highlight the diversity of atheist views and to examine how these intra-atheist dialogues and exchanges can advance atheist-theist dialogues and partnerships. As is commonly stressed, many New Atheist works tended to treat religion in a fairly provincial, negative way, leading many theists to claim their faiths were misrepresented or painted with an overly negative brush. Examining recent works of atheist thinkers like Michael Ruse, Philip Kitcher, Chris Stedman, and Timothy Crane presents atheist positions still critical of religious belief and arguments for God’s existence, but in a humble, open, non-judgmental, and reason-based approach. After examining a number of these works, the article concludes by highlighting seven features for viable and humbling atheist-theist dialogue for atheist participants. It also adds five lessons and examples theists can learn from this more conciliatory, dialogical approach.
*
“Building Bridges among Bridge-Destroyers: Post-Conflict Interfaith Dialogue after the Bosnian War.” Soundings, 103.4 (2020):419-448 [DOI]
Abstract
Focusing on the Bosnian war (1992–1995), and its lingering consequences, this article turns to witness testimonies to situate and evaluate the place and value of interfaith dialogue in a post-conflict setting. It particularly focuses on the horror of neighbor killing neighbor, a seemingly intractable divide for any hope for future reconciliation and role for dialogue. To pave a way forward, this article assesses the aims and work of interfaith bodies and groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina seeking to establish peace and some form of interfaith and intercultural normalization after the Dayton Accords.
*
“Following the Breadcrumbs: Jesus as Superfluous to Salvation? A Catholic Search.” Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations 15.1 (2020):1-22 [Details]
Abstract
In this personal reflection and analysis, I, as a Catholic theologian, grapple with the haunting theological question of Jewish scholars, David Patterson and David Berger: Is Jesus, for Jews, “superfluous to salvation?” In light of major advances in Christian-Jewish relations and dialogue, most recently in the 2015 Vatican document, “The Gifts and Callings Are Irrevocable,” I seek to follow and assess where the (theologically rich) breadcrumbs lead me. Context and personal narrative become the first path as I trace how and why I reached their question—and my deep need to try to answer it, amidst a wounded, if not broken Church, still reeling from the child abuse scandal, among other ills. I then turn to Peter Phan’s interfaith Christology as presented in The Joys of Religious Pluralism—an important touchstone book—to acknowledge how a change in the papacy from Benedict to Francis can be seen as opening up, if not momentarily avoiding, the over-policing of certain theological pathways. I then return to Berger and Patterson’s question in the conclusion which they ask in “fear and ‘trembling.”
*
“Humbling the Discourse: Why Interfaith Dialogue, Religious Pluralism, Liberation Theology, and Secular Humanism Are Needed for a Robust Public Square.” Religions 2019, 10, 450.
Our public square is in need of much refurbishment, if not reconstruction. Access for many seems barred by various ideological platforms and walls. Some are deemed too much of this, another too much of that: liberal, religious, anti-Trump, anti-Brexit, pro-life, anti-gay—whatever the label or brand—and some access points are opened, others closed. Gatekeepers are many, deeming who really counts, who really represents. The public square, of course, should be big, bustling, semi-chaotic “places”, rife with ideas, questions, passion, and curiosity, yet measured by standards of decorum, listening, and mutual respect. Most importantly, it should be characterized by a robust (or spunky) humility, aware of its strengths and its weaknesses. It is fair to say that in 2019, our public square could use a little uplift. While certainly not a miracle cure, nor the only possible salves, interfaith dialogue, religious pluralism, liberation theology, and secular humanism have much in their favor to nuance, challenge, and yes, purify our present polarized, and so sometimes catatonic public square. After a brief overview first explaining the title, along with what is meant in this paper by the secular and humility, it will then be argued how interfaith dialogue, religious pluralism, liberation theology, and secular humanism can liberate and purify our public square discourse—namely by practicing and promoting a robust humility.