Features of the interpretation of non-traditional religiosity in analytic and pragmatic philosophical traditions

The prevailing approach to the description of non-traditional confessional groups in domestic social science perceives non-traditional religions as competing with the mainstream for spiritual dominance. This overlooks that many non-traditional religions initially position themselves as complementary to the mainstream spiritual tradition. The shift in research perspective allows us to evaluate non-traditional religious movements not as autonomous and self-sufficient theological systems, but as dynamic factors existing in continuous interaction with other elements of the religious-cultural landscape. Within the framework of the proposed theoretical model, the coexistence in one cultural landscape of two or more religions with different social statuses is considered as a set of specific language games with different scenarios. In this case, the result of social interaction between different types of religiosity can be predicted through the analysis of the logical and linguistic compatibility of game scenarios. In conditions when religion is a key factor in the life of society, and statements of a religious nature are considered ontologically significant, the contradictions between the doctrinal pictures of the world are insoluble even on the basis of compromise. At the same time, when moving to the position of pragmatism, the situation with the coexistence of alternative language practices is simplified: the dominant scenario is secular metadata, in which both types of religious consciousness can be considered as local subsets. The conflict potential of modern interreligious discussions is associated not with the discrepancy between traditional and non-traditional forms of religiosity in the content of the teachings, but with the fact that within the religious groups themselves, which have doctrinal unity, there are simultaneously people who interpret the ontological status of faith judgments in different ways. A pragmatically oriented part of believers in a secular state considers doctrine as a regional ontology, fundamentalists demand a literal understanding of doctrine as a global deontology. Changing the optics and applying the methods of analytic and pragmatic philosophy to the analysis of non-traditional religions would allow us to look at the problem from a non-obvious side and shift the focus in research on non-traditional forms of religion from descriptive to general theoretical. The authors declare no conflicts of interests.

Keywords

Authors

References