Jove Jim Aguas

Religious diversity has been a subject of many discussions and debates. Many scholars have concluded that although many religions exist, we can maintain a more accommodating and pluralistic attitude to this diversity. However, we may find contradictions when we reduce religious beliefs to their most fundamental tenets. Preferring one over the other may ultimately result in rejecting the contrary beliefs as false or unacceptable. Since religious beliefs have truth claims, they have epistemological importance. However, the challenge of religious diversity is not only on the epistemic level but more so in the social and political domains. This paper discusses the diversity of religions in Asia. It evaluates three views that may explain such diversity: Alvin Plantinga’s exclusivism, Karl Rahner’s inclusivism, and John Hick’s pluralism. Finally, it offers ways to respond to the challenge of religious diversity.

At the center of the various transformations and advancements inmodern society is man. It is man by whom and for whom these transformations and advancements are made. But one negative factoraccompanying these transformations is the violence or the degradation of the human person and his dignity, more alarming is the violence committed by man against his fellow man. Today, there is so much violence in the world, everyday we hear about killings, kidnappings, rapes, abortion, terrorist attacks, hunger, wars and many other acts of violence. It is ironic that, while the human person is the very victim of this violence, it is also the human person who is the perpetrator of such violence, man is simultaneously the victim and the culprit. Man indeed is a paradox, for while he is bestowed with dignity and good nature, he is also capable of doing evil and inflicting harm against others. This violent tendency happens because man fails to acknowledge the very dignity of his nature which is rooted in his fundamental relation with God and extended to his fellow human beings. Man is by nature good, but he is also capable of doing evil things. The Catholic Church through its teachings and writings have always emphasized the value of the person, while at the same time acknowledging the fact that he is as much capable of degrading himself. The Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World, “Gaudium et Spes” acknowledges the many divergent and contradicting opinions of man about himself, one of which “exalts man as the absolute measure of all things and debases himself to the point of despair. The result is doubt and anxiety.”

Modern life is convenient, efficient and comfortable— thanks to the advancement in technology in the modern society. But it is also problematic, complicated and sometimes meaningless and it breeds complacency, greed and discord. So the question that confronts us today is: how do we live or conduct ourselves is modern society with all its trappings and yet preserve our sense of dignity and simplicity? How do we live a life that is comfortable and meaningful, efficient and contented, convenient and natural? To get some insights we turn to the past and look for some lessons from two important thinkers and masters from the Western tradition—St. Augustine and the Eastern tradition—Lao Tzu. They are two prominent thinkers who came from different cultures, different religious orientations and times. The society and time they came from may be different from ours but they can still offer us some lessons how to live a simple and meaningful life in a modern society. Lao Tzu tells us that we need to go back to nature, follow the way of the Tao and be guided by the wu-wei. St. Augustine advices us that while we are physical and mortal creatures, we need to rediscover our moral and spiritual nature and live according to our divine image. Indeed the wisdom of the past both from the East and West can definitely guide us and give us valuable lessons.

As we face an uncertain future for our country, philosophers – the so-called lovers of wisdom - are tasked to revisit our role in shaping our country's future and molding the consciousness of our people, especially the young. In this paper, I focus on the evolution of philosophy in the Philippines, what we have done as teachers and philosophers in and for the academe, and what else we need to do not only for the future of philosophy in our country but for the future of our country as well. In this last point, I stress that we need to contribute to shaping the critical consciousness of our people as our contribution to nation-building. That must be the future of philosophy in the Philippines and its critical role in the future of our beloved country.