Theology WebSite's
    Christian Book HighLight

Book HighLight Index

Global Philosophy of Religion: A short introduction
by Joseph Runzo

Even before picking this book up, the title had me thinking. To set forth a Global Anything in 264 pages is a daunting task. And what exactly is a "Global Philosophy of Religion"? Would a Global Philosophy attempt to reduce all non-global philosophies into a single universal system? (The elusive Perennial Philosophy?) History has shown that such attempts fail at meaningfulness. Would such a Global Philosophy strive to delineate a meta-philosophy incorporating all non-global philosophies intact, under a new universal understanding? This would truly be an accomplishment, since to do so would in many cases require the circumvention of logic. What then is a Global Philosophy of Religion? Desiring to know more, I opened the book.

Joseph Runzo has published several titles dealing with specific topics in relation to comparative religions. A brief search of Amazon will bring up titles by Runzo such as The Meaning of Life in the World Religion, Ethics In The World Religions, Human Rights and Responsibilities in World Religions, and Love, Sex, and Gender in the World Religions, to name a few. These works approach World Religions in a comparative manner, seeking insight into a particular topic by comparing and contrasting each religion's treatment of the given topic. In Global Philosophy of Religion Runzo similarly approaches the topic of Philosophy of Religion through the various perpectives of the world's major religious traditions. Runzo is often categorized a pluralist due to the seriousness in which he approaches and understands various religion's convictions. His approach in Global Philosophy of Religion is no different, placing side by side Eastern and Western religious world views and philosophical intuitions.

The project set forth in Global Philosophy of Religion is to arrive at a philosophical argument justifying religious belief which transcends what he takes to be the limitations of traditional Western rationalistic attempts. In seeking this new argument, Runzo addresses the strengths and weaknesses of many of the philosophical arguments put forth by Judaeo-Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims. After dispensing with the tradtional rationalistic approaches, Runzo sets his sites on what he deems the non-rational or "extra-rational" elements of religious belief, namely love, faith, compassion and devotion. By grounding a philosophical argument in these extra-rational elements, which he demonstrates exist in all the major religious traditions, Runzo believes he has found the means whereby a universal demonstration of the justification of religious belief can be set forth.

More specifically, Runzo deals specifically with three classic epistemological problems. They are:

1. What is the rational justification for holding one set of religious beliefs instead of some alternative religious (or non-religious) worldview?
2. How could one's own religious beliefs be rationally justified when there is insufficient proof?
3. Are the non-rational elements of religion somehow rationally justified?

Those familiar with discussions in Religious Epistemology will immediately recognize problem one outlined above. Rational justification of "belief" is the perennial endeavour of religious epistemology, though perhaps not precisely in the form set forth by Runzo. Rather than ask 'What is your justification for believing A rather than believing B?', we most often find the question 'What is your justification for believing A rather than NOT believing?' Runzo's formation of the question assumes that whatever worldview you choose, whether that of empirical science or Tibetan Buddhism, your convictions will ultimately ground in a faith position. Runzo makes it clear early on that we must recognize this inability of science to answer the type of questions religions are primarily concerned with. Whereas science is limited to answering questions regarding the 'What' and 'How' of phenomena, it is unable to penetrate the 'Why'. Religions deal primarily in delving into the 'Why' of life, death and the universe. Thus once either the strict empiricist or religious fideist attempts to answer, for example, the question "Why do we exist?", both must equally rely on faith and presupposition.

Problem two deals with the inadequacy or lack of sufficent proof to rationally justify one's belief. This scenario will also be quite familiar to those exposed to religious epistemology, since it is the case that very few epistemological arguments involve a set of criteria for rational justification which both sides will adopt. In fact, much of the effort of religious epistemology is often spent arguing for this or that criteria. (!) Thus the question Runzo here raises is an important one which is inevitably dealt with by most if not all believers attempting to demonstrate the meaningfulness of their belief. To gain a purview of the way in which Runzo will address this problem, one need only look to the third problem he sets forth.

Runzo's third epistemological problem should catch every philosopher's attention. He asks forthrightly: Are the non-rational elements of religion somehow rationally justified? In other words, if the rational arguments for justifying religious belief are bankrupt, how far will arguments based on the non-rational elements of religion take us? As mentioned above, by non-rational (or "extra-rational") Runzo has in mind love, faith, compassion and devotion. These, of course, should not be understood as irrational but rather as seemingly genuine responses whose motivations generally lie outside the sphere of strict philosophical or logical elucidation. But even so, how might the rationale of a non-rational response be philosophically justified? Runzo's attempt to answer this question is the goal of Global Philosophy of Religion.

For purposes of discussion, Runzo lumps the non-rational elements together under the rubric of 'Love' and then develops a working definition. The term 'serpahic love' is employed to describe "the ultimate love of the Divine, as well as the human love which is modeled in the World Religions on Divine Love". Contrary to the traditional Christian habit of qualitatively distinguishing between Agape and Eros, Runzo argues that these latter are not two different types of love but rather the two poles of Seraphic love. He writes:

For we can ask what motivates agape. And the motive for agape is the passionate, devoted love which is eros. So agape and eros form a dynamic pair... Eros (or bhakti) is the dynamic pole of seraphic love which brings humans also to have agape (or egoless love).

As to whether or not Runzo's argument (and this is indeed all of it) is adequately convincing or not, I will leave to the reader. But the reason behind this argument is clear. Runzo must retain certain relational elements in his definition of ultimate love in order for his working definition to adeqauetly function in the upcoming rational justification. More specifically, Runzo seeks to include in his working definition six characteristics of eros, which are more fully delineated in his earlier The Meaning of Life in the World Religions. These are: relationality, surrender, vulnerability, integration, union, and equality. These interpersonal and relational elements will become critical for Runzo's argument that an ultimate religious response of seraphic love implies an Ultimate Other.

Now that we have a working definition of love, Runzo sets forth the argument whereby seraphic love is justified. He does this by introducing the discussion of values, multiple and single, extrinsic and intrinsic. Runzo here adopt's Robert Nozick's (The Examined Life) definition of intrinsic value as that which is "organically unified". Runzo writes:

The degree to which something is organically unified is determined by how much diversity is being unified as well as the degree of unity that is acheived within that diversity. In short, the greatest intrinsic value results form the greatest intergration of the greatest diversity. This is why human life has greater value than works of art or than plant life.

In other words, "the value of a thing is enhanced by meaning. [And] meaning comes from a thing's connectedness to other things". Within this dynamic of value and connectedness Runzo may argue that those love relationships whereby subject and object's interconnectedness increase causes or implies an increase in the individuals' intrinsic and extrinsic value. He then suggests that ultimate meaning can only be derived through connectedness to something outside ourself which is unlimited in value. This, of course, is where the Ultimate Object of justifiable religious belief is introduced. By attaching the notion of an increase of value to the act of loving, Runzo has put forth a rationale or justification for loving. And by introducing the relational aspects of eros into his definition of divine, seraphic love, Runzo finds implicit within such love an argument for God, since "the presence of love in the universe and the obligation to love implies a transcendent love". In the final pages of the book, Runzo delineates a formal "Argument For Love" whereby the causal relation between divine transcendent love and human involvement in seraphic love is laid out. I will leave the full exploration and analysis of Runzo's formulation to those who wish to read the book.

Runzo's project is quite interesting for a number of reasons, including the following. It is clear that he views traditional Western approaches which emphasize rationalistic justification as inadequate and thus seeks an alternative means of justifying religious belief. He takes his que from Hindu thought wherein the ways of knowledge (jnana-marga), devotion (bhakti-marga) and action (karma-marga) form an interrelated triad whose pinnacle is the Absolute. In associating Jnana-marga with Western rationalistic approaches, Runzo turns to Bhakti-marga or 'Love'. And just as knowledge and devotion are interrelated in Hindu thought, so Runzo understands rationalism and love as interrelated in Western thought. For this reason, it seems, he claims to circumvent a rationalistic approach by philosophically arguing for the value of love. In essence Runzo simply talks about love using philosophical language and methods. Thus whether or not he has really circumvented rationalistic approaches is perhaps questionable.

Much of Runzo's project would find support among contemporary philosophical and theological movements wherein critiques abound of traditional Western philosophy, with its reliance on notions of 'Being' (as in, for example, the classic Ontological Argument). These groups likewise hail the bankrupcy of rationalistic approaches in discussing the Transcendent, and several point to relationality toward the Other as the sole alternative paradigm. But few of these groups would agree to Runzo's method of arguing for a justification of love based on the resulting increase of the value of those involved. In life, one's relationships of love are rarely if ever motivated by a desire to increase one's "organic unity" or intrinsic value. If such motivations did exist, there would be no need to categorize 'Love' as a non-rational entity. Rather, love, particularly religious love toward an Ultimate Other is better described as a rapturous encounter, a terrifying obligation, or a mysterium tremendus. Human experience of such love, if authentic, stands in no need of such justification, and this is the non-rational reality of love. Although Runzo's purpose may indeed be noble, his implied suggestion that we must ultimately seek a philosophical rationale for Love would seem to diminish the experiential validity of compelling love of the divine while at the same time raises some serious philosophical problems. For example, wouldn't Runzo's method of justifying Love via Value suggest that the "value and meaning" of the life of a man with no friends is relatively less than a man with 10 friends? And to what extent ought we to apply this interrelatedness of Love, Value and Meaning to theological discussions of God's nature? Must we posit the necessity of a beloved created order in order for God to possess ultimate Meaning and Value? If not, why?

The clear strength of Runzo's work is the respect and seriousness extended to various traditions' perspectives on meaningful demonstrations of God's presence. As a perrenial student of Western theology, I admit I found the sections dealing with classic dilemmas in religious epistemology sorely wanting. I was hoping, for example, that Runzo's expertise in World Religions might somehow bring a fresh approach to the clash of scientific and religious perspectives in the West, but I was disappointed by the brief discussion of the topic. However, while I am not completely ignorant of Buddhist and Hindu worldviews (I teach World Religions in a university, after all), there were many sections of Global Philosophy of Religion dealing with non-Western religious arguments which I found fascinating and informative.

I can recommend this book to students of World Religions, Oriental/Non-Western Philosophy, Missions, Theological Contextualization, and possibly Philosophy of Religion. Students significantly familiar with Analytical Philosophy, Philosophical Theology, and Western discussions in Religious Epistemology may find Runzo's arguments to contain less than the standard of analytical rigor generally expected in such discussions. This book is an easy read and is often engaging. The non-Western elements are indeed educational and Runzo's familiarity with diverse traditions is apparent throughout. Though often covered only cursorily, many of the main elements of religious epistemology are referenced in this work, as well as many which students rarely encounter, including Buddhist metaphysics, Hindu Theism, and Jewish approaches to the Problem of Evil. Much of Runzo's work is also sympathetic to a conservative or evangelical position, particularly in his defense of theism, his recognition of the intuitableness of divine love and relational aspects of the divine nature, and the overall conviction that religious belief not only ought to withstand humanistic critique, but can be adequately and rationally justified given the right philosophical argument.

You may Read Amazon's Reviews or Purchase This Book here

Author: Joseph Runzo
Publisher: Oneworld Publications Ltd; (October 2001)
ISBN: 185168235x
Paperback: 264 pages

Reviewed by Scott David Foutz

Chicago-North Shore Therapy.com