公共領域中宗教交談的方法論檢討與展望

Methodology of Interreligious Dialogue in the Public Sphere

沈清松(Vincent SHEN)

公共領域 ； 宗教交談 ； 溝通理論 ； 相互承認 ； 相互外推 ； Dialogue among Religions ； Methodology ； Communicative Theory ； Politics of Recognition ； Dialogue as Mutual Strangification

哲學與文化

44卷4期（2017 / 04 / 01）

5 - 24

繁體中文

本文將檢討公共領域中宗教交談的方法與理論基礎。首先檢討哈伯瑪斯「公共領域」概念，並參考中國哲學家（如慎到）之所謂「公」。然後，集中在羅爾斯（John Rawls）、哈伯瑪斯（JürgenHabermas）與泰勒（Charles Taylor）三人所提供方法論之檢討，並提出作者本人理論的展望。大體說來，羅爾斯基於公共領域中一切決策之「公平」，將各種宗教信道德信念納入無知之幕；而哈伯瑪斯於其公共領域概念與溝通理論中雖可討論宗教議題，但其基本方法仍從理性論辯模式來考量；至於泰勒的相互承認雖觸及宗教交談最基本的底線，但仍然無法達成相互理解與相互豐富之旨。為此，本人將「宗教交談」視為不同宗教彼此之間「相互外推」的過程，並針對涉及對不同終極真實的信念彼此之間相互外推，提出更為講理的方法論考量，以提升「相互承認」到「相互豐富」的高度，達成各不同宗教彼此之間正面相互交談、對待與相處之道。

This paper will focus on the methodological foundation of interreligious dialogue in the public sphere. First, we will examine the concept of ＂public sphere＂ as proposed by J. Habermas, all in referring to Chinese philosophy, in particular to Shen Dao as example, for the Chinese idea of the ＂public.＂ Then, we will examine the methodological theories of John Rawls, Jürgen Habermas and Charles Taylor, before we focus on my method of ＂dialogue as mutual strangification.＂ Rawls, who takes Kant's autonomous rationality as his ideal, forbids religion, seen by him as irrational, to be a public sphere player. Rawls puts all believes in life meaningfulness into the veil of ignorance. As to Habermas, who accepts religion to be an informal player, requests that all religions, if they want to play in the public sphere, should translate their discourse into secular terms. Charles Taylor, who appeals to a politics of recognition, thus accepts religions and their belief in ultimate reality, does not open to many others and does not enhance itself to the politics of generosity, therefore cannot achieve mutual enrichment. In view of these critical reflections, I propose mutual strangification as a reasonable method of religious dialogue. Also I will propose a principle of difference, by which ae can establish different layers of public sphere.

1. Bailey, T.(ed.),Gentile, V.(ed.)(2015).Rawls and Religion.New York:Columbia University Press.
2. Farge, Arlette(1992).Dire et mal dire, l'opinion publique au XVIIIème siècle.Paris:Seuil.
3. Habermas, Jürgen(1995).Reconciliation Through the Public Use of Reason: Remarks on John Rawls's Political Liberalism.Journal of Philosophy,92(3),109-131.
4. Habermas, Jürgen,McCarthy, Thomas(Trans.)(1984).The Theory of Communicative Action.Boston:Beacon Press.
5. Mendieta, Ed.(ed.),VanAnterwerpen, J.(ed.)(2011).The Power of Religion in the Public Sphere.New York:Columbia University Press.
6. Rawls, John(1971).A Theory of Justice.Cambridge MA:Harvard University Press.
7. Rawls, John(2005).Political Liberalism.New York:Columbia University Press.
8. Shen, Vincent(ed.)(2015).Chinese Spirituality and Christian Communities: A Kenotic Perspective.Washington DC:Council for Research in Values and Philosophy.
9. Taylor, Ch.(Ed.),Casanova, J.(Ed.),McLean, G.(Ed.)(2012).Church and People: Disjunctions in a Secular Age.Washington DC:Council for Research in Values and Philosophy.
10. Taylor, Charles(2007).A Secular Age.Cambridge MA:Harvard University Press.
11. Taylor, Charles(1991).Ethics of Authenticity.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
12. Taylor, Charles(1995).Philosophical Arguments.Cambridge, Mass:Harvard University Press.
13. Taylor, Charles,Heft, James(Ed.)(1999).A Catholic Modernity? Charles Taylor's Marianist Lecture.New York:Oxford University Press.
14. 沈清松(1992)。傳統的再生。臺北:業強出版社。
15. 沈清松(2004)。書評：麥可．哈特、涅格利《全球統治》（Michael Hardt & Antonio Negri's Empire）。哲學與文化，31(6)，109-112。
16. 沈清松(2002)。對比外推與交談。臺北:五南圖書出版公司。
17. 郭慶藩集釋(1982)。莊子集釋。臺北:世界書局。
18. 錢熙祚校(1975)。慎子。臺北:世界書局。

1. 李彥儀(2019)。當代中華新士林哲學視域中的「宗教交談」論述──以沈清松先生「相互外推」模式為核心的展開。哲學與文化，46(11)，141-163。
2. 劉久清(2017)。公民宗教與宗教公民。哲學與文化，44(4)，159-174。
3. 劉久清(2018)。山林倫理是公民倫理─由「無痕山林」與〈失去山林的孩子〉談起。應用倫理評論，64，29-88。