Disagreement, Difference and the Function of Interreligious Dialogues

"Becoming Better Versions of Ourselves Religiously"

Abstract

This article develops an account of dialogue that is not oriented towards agreement but towards constructive disagreement. The interreligious dialogue serves as an example in which enduring disagreement is not a problem to be overcome but a potential source of epistemic and religious growth. Against both classical religious pluralism – seeking common ground -, and approaches modelled on the epistemology of peer disagreement - emphasizing the rational resolution of disagreement -, I argue that dialogues can succeed without convergence. Their aim is neither agreement nor conversion, but a deeper understanding of other religions that enables participants to become better versions of themselves religiously. To explain the epistemic conditions that make such dialogue possible, I develop the notion of modal justifiability, distinguishing it from both present justification and unjustifiability. This notion clarifies why some religious differences invite dialogue while others do not and shows how disagreement can function as a constructive hermeneutical resource rather than an epistemic threat.