From dialogue in general to interreligious dialogue in particular
We cannot deny it: in French society Islam appears in different forms varying between a very worrying violent Islam and a tolerant and open Islam. While the Muslim community (in its majority) aspires to live in peace and shares the same needs as many French citizens: to have a better standard of living, to flourish, to offer their children better education and access to culture, while claiming the right to practice one’s religion with dignity.
However, the amalgamations persist and sometimes generate aggressive reactions from the adversaries of Islam. To understand each other and dispel misunderstandings, dialogue and exchange groups have been created under different names: inter-religious dialogue, Islam-Christian Relationship, Muslim-Christian Friendship, Association le Pont, etc. Are these groups really in the logic of a dialogue or that of communication?
This is the question that I wanted to clarify in this point of view, by differentiating between dialogue and communication, by defining the part of communication in a dialogue, and finally saying what purpose should be given to inter-religious dialogue to make it more useful. and more effective (socially and humanly speaking)?
Preamble :
Certainly, communicating is a quality that we share with animals, communicating to exchange information (by signs, cries, howls, etc.), on the other hand, dialoguing remains a specifically human ability since it is linked to reason and requires a talk together.
In communication, people produce messages and generate information without there necessarily being any possibility of questioning. This is what characterizes, for example, interreligious dialogue in a general way, since the exchange is limited to talking about its traditions, its worship, its diet, festivals, etc. even if sometimes the question of the purposes and origins is addressed, but this remains limited to the dissemination of information.
While dialogue should be something completely different, we must not be in a logic of dominant-dominated (transmitter-receiver), each person participating in the dialogue must implicitly recognize themselves as a thinking subject endowed with intelligence, capable of understanding of meaning, to appreciate its theoretical scope and moral quality. And therefore be able to approve or disapprove.
What is the form of the message?
In a communication, the message transmitted is information (a signal in the literal sense of the term) which is intended to be objective, with a precise goal (dates, organization, clothing, type of meal, etc.). Currently, in the so-called interreligious dialogue the information is often objectified and is not subject to criticism and repetition, its meaning is not what is in question between the different interlocutors (a meaning must be able to evolve during the discussion so that the message can take shape and not just be communicated).
In interreligious dialogue, the discussion is generally around non-evolving, traditional and repetitive things (prayers, baptisms, festivals, etc.). In this case we do not dialogue, we monologue, we use the other as a communication tool (unintentionally), to self-confirm and self-appreciate ourselves. The discussion begins between beings who are convinced in advance, so we avoid the effort of thinking and taking a step back from our convictions. And consequently, even losing the ability to dialogue with oneself and accentuating conformism.
Hence the interest in dialogue which will allow the message to be rectified and assured during an objective discussion, subjecting it to criticism and evaluation. A message which often arises from a singular approach, which requires confrontation and otherness to test its validity.
How to make an interreligious discussion useful?
The purpose is easy to understand if we give the dialogue its true meaning.
Today, with this way of considering interreligious dialogue, the purposes are those of communication, that is to say rather affective purposes (to feel a presence, to know each other, to reassure the other,…). While interreligious dialogue must have universal and useful ends (to humans and society). It must respond to existential problems of man (the human condition): why believe? What is life? What is death? What is justice? What is truth? What is modernity? Human man, animal man? Can faith heal? Reason, secularism,…
Interreligious dialogue must also be an opportunity to demonstrate (to everyone) the contribution of religion to society in general (to develop living together), and to man in particular (to recharge his batteries). to live in society for example).
Through exchange (a sort of collective mediation) on questions linked to the purpose of human existence, men express their opinions, discover the plurality of judgments and because any self-respecting mind cannot be satisfied with the simple communication of their principles and convictions, they seek through dialogue and by putting their singularity into perspective to overcome it and consequently to rise. The clash of opinions and conflict are an infinite horizon. As soon as we consider the measure of everything, the very idea of truth loses its meaning.
A fruitful and sincere interreligious dialogue would bring openness to others, a space for expanding our singularity and valuable help in making it our own. Without the search for a universal reason (normally above our intelligence), we will be condemned to remain in dispute, a reason which leads us to become partners in a common approach and not adversaries.
In interreligious dialogue, we must go beyond the effects of announcements and the exchange of information to establish a so-called communicative action, in which the interlocutors will find a common good and together define a universal for humanity.
