Introduction
A philosophical narrative represents the possibilities of a new approach to a problem and its solution. The concept of narrative itself became widely used in public knowledge about half a century ago. Still, the question of integrating narrative into modernity, and especially into religious representations, remains relevant. In Narrative Philosophy of Religion: Apologetic and Pluralistic Orientations, M. Burley examines the phenomenon of ‘narrative’ in religion: in particular, the two types of orientations that can be applied to it. The author draws attention to the differences in these orientations and supports his position with examples from different narrative sources. Burley offers a new understanding of the religious narrative, so interest in his work is justified. An analytical review of his position is part of an understanding of the philosophical narrative of religion.
Overview of the Article
The article is divided into several logical parts, each presenting an argument for the author’s position. In the first argument, Burley explains the emergence of narrative as a style and its value and contribution to the development of interpersonal communication. Moreover, the author draws attention to the fact that narrative can deepen the debate about understanding the purposes of philosophy as a science. Then he uses several individuals as allies: E. Stump, S. Sutherland, and W.D. O’Flaherty. Through the lens of their analysis of the philosophy of religion, Burley assesses apologetic and pluralistic principles in the narrative. The author identifies two goals in his work: first, to determine the contribution of narrative to religious possibilities; second, to distinguish between the two orientations. It is evident how close the author is to the second orientation, about multiple approaches and diversity of opinion. However, Burley’s style is analytical, rigorous, and without subjective evaluation, making the article an exciting subject for reasoning and critical analysis of arguments.
The Analyses
This part is devoted to an analytical reflection on the author’s position and arguments to support his opinion. Burley seeks to draw a line between two diametrical views of religion and allow the reader to consider the application of a pluralistic orientation to philosophical and religious knowledge. The author adheres to this orientation: this can be seen because only one argument is made in favor of the apologetic one. Burley likely finds some internal resonance in the plurality of views, perhaps characteristic of all researchers. The following is an analysis of each argument with an eye toward a deeper understanding of the author’s position.
Apologetic orientation is examined through the view of E. Stump, who proposes to ‘defend’ religious beliefs through personal beliefs. The author believes that Stump has an overly romanticized and probably idealized view of religion. To support this argument, Burley refers to her book on Job, which feels excessively tense. According to the author, the tension arises from an abundance of humility with suffering. For Stump, the obvious point is that the highly horrific acts of humanity (e.g., the Holocaust) cannot be used as arguments in denying religion. However, Burley insists that such a one-sided position is difficult to understand, especially for nonbelievers, and that such a view is generally unpersuasive. The author evaluates Stump’s work from someone who does not understand personal communication with God if he is one for all. Burley is critical of the one-sided approach and therefore expresses distrust.
It is good to mention that Burley uses a comprehensive system for analyzing the possibilities of the pluralistic approach: he applies three types of narratives that help to expand philosophical knowledge. Along with S. Sutherland, the author suggests looking at religion from two perspectives: in Dostoevsky’s novel, the most visible differences. Burley maintains that disagreement with God is not a deliberately lousy reaction but that pluralism of opinion is instead a boost to religious possibilities. He believes that narrative as a literary style is an excellent opportunity to think philosophically and evaluate multiple reactions to the same event. The author revisits the theme of suffering and evil, which further convinces the reader of his view of the vitality of all human reactions manifested.
The argument with Phillips and his understanding of the possibility of religious meaning in a modern form of consciousness seems somewhat strange and misunderstood. Burley finds a connection between this view and Stump’s attitude toward religion, so he operates with the assertion that encounters with evil/suffering do not always lead one to withdraw from faith. Such an argument characterizes the author as a genuinely multifaceted and reflective person, strengthening his pluralistic ideas. Burley again mentions the Holocaust and yet agrees that it cannot be reckoned with in the traditional philosophical narrative of religion. Expansion of space and knowledge must go hand in hand with an awareness of suffering as a trial in faith, but the author offers an understanding of the plurality of views on the subject. Burley is antagonistic toward those sources that avoid mentioning suffering and try to protect religion from all attacks.
Standing aside is the author’s position on the mythological perception of religious beliefs. Burley believes that overcoming traditional Western theistic conceptions of God can be detrimental to general philosophical knowledge because it obscures the problem of evil. The ethical mythological values that emerged in India are an outlet for the new reality field of standard Western thinking. The author finds it correct to apply different opinions and theories to form a worldview about the universe. Burley considers the narrative approach to be heterogeneous, and it is this characteristic that the author finds valuable for a new perspective on the philosophy of religion.
The Critical Evaluation
The author’s position can be viewed from several angles, as it shows strong pluses, but some minuses are worth noting. One can highlight its overall structure and the author’s attention to each opinion among the positive and pronounced aspects of the work. In addition, the course of applying several important and relatively well-known narrative sources that support the author’s position looks excellent. The arguments used by the author not only justify the aims of the article but produce results. Burley recommends a reconsideration of traditional attitudes, and his position seems convincing (because of the pluralism inherent in his narrative).
However, the article has incomprehensible and contradictory points: for example, Stump’s position is initially a valuable innovation for the author, but as the piece progresses, he convinces us of its limitations. In addition, the mix of opinions on the Holocaust prompts the idea that the author himself is not entirely convinced of his words. Among other disadvantages, the author also fails to be specific: yes, he seems to favor pluralism, and the arguments in his favor are good, but Burley never mentions a personal opinion. Most likely, for adherents of an apologetic orientation, the article will only reinforce their position, not reveal the potential of pluralism.
Conclusion
In summary, Burley’s paper is a relatively extensive sketch of opposing views on the philosophical narrative as a way of interpreting religious belief. The author adheres to a pluralistic orientation, supporting it with arguments using three types of narrative. The author’s concern with the theme of evil and suffering runs through the entire article. Burley’s strengths are solid argumentation and a clear structure, but the lack of expression without attaching other sources reduces the report’s credibility.