The Strife of Systems: a beginning

After flipping through it and reading random selections, I've begun to tackle Nicholas Rescher's The Strife of Systems in earnest. The book addresses the "problem" of philosophical diversity; as Rescher writes in the brief preface:

It is notorious that philosophers disagree. This book develops a theory that accounts for this phenomenon in terms of the very nature of the subject. It argues that the cause of philosophical disagreement ultimately lies in conflicting "cognitive values" that relate to such matters as importance, centrality, and priority, and set the standards in whose terms philosophers appraise the analogies that determine the plausibility of the fundamental contentions of their systemic conditions. It thus traces disagreement regarding philosophical doctrines to a disagreement regarding values and concludes that philosophers will never actually settle their disputes. An orientational pluralism is bound to prevail.

I've been wanting to get my hands on this book for a while because theologian S. Mark Heim, in the 1990s, based his entire theory of religious diversity on Rescher's work. One of the foremost questions in my mind is, "What made Heim think that Rescher's work, which applies to philosophy, applies equally to religion?" Heim's Salvations: Truth and Difference in Religion might be summed up by a rephrasing of the above. Watch what happens when I replace key words (replacements italicized):

It is notorious that religious believers disagree. This book develops a theory that accounts for this phenomenon in terms of the very nature of the subject. It argues that the cause of religious disagreement ultimately lies in conflicting "cognitive values" that relate to such matters as importance, centrality, and priority, and set the standards in whose terms believers appraise the analogies that determine the plausibility of the fundamental contentions of their systemic conditions. It thus traces disagreement regarding religious doctrines to a disagreement regarding values and concludes that believers will never actually settle their disputes. An orientational pluralism is bound to prevail.

This is, I think, essentially Heim's approach in Salvations. Is it justified? Does Rescher's philosophical work map neatly onto religious questions?

Stay tuned. I'll have more to say about this book, I'm sure. Thanks again to reader Hahna for having bought it for me.


_