Rationalistic and Mythological Pluralism

Since the issue has come up both in Facebook and Blogspot comments, I figure that I would address it: what does one do when one is a pluralist, and participates in the community while eschewing deeply-held beliefs in the community? While I am still working out an answer (this is a critical and highly complex issue for the pluralist, I think, and kudos to all who called me to explain myself more), I think it would be helpful to lay out two poles of pluralism: the rational, and the mythological.

Now, any given pluralist-orthodox interaction will most likely lie somewhere in the middle, and I think that any such interaction will necessarily share in both aspects, but identifying the extremes will provide an explanatory model at least. The Rational Pluralist has a different theory behind the religious symbolism, where the symbolism is for the masses. These people need something to hold on to, and it will lead them to live their lives in a better fashion; the symbolism may actually participate in the truth somehow, even if not literally. The Pluralist knows the truth of the matter, but for the sake of the well-being of the community will only lead to the truth those with the commitment and aptitude to realize it. The models for the Rational Pluralist view I take to be the medieval Averroists and Maimonideans, who basically held that a good chunk of their religions where Aristotle wrapped up in something palatable to the average believer.

The alternative is the Mythological Pluralist. Unlike the Rational Pluralist, the Mythological Pluralist doesn't have anything else to put behind the communal view; she thinks that it isn't quite right, but has nothing better to put in its place. It is the closest to the truth that she will get. For that reason, she treats it as a movie, or a book: one suspends disbelief in these stories, and simply lives in the world without questioning it. Upon reflection, she will disbelieve that Christ actually lived as an historical figure (or at least she will be agnostic concerning it), but most of the time she is living it instead of reflecting on it. She will participate in the conversations of the community with little difference in day-to-day life.

So, both of these pluralists can live in the community while engaging in communal conversation. I think that the key for both is that orthopraxy is more important than orthodoxy, and that the latter is unattainable for most people (if not for all). The problem with pulling too much in the Mythological direction is that one loses the ability to legitimately criticize community standards, because one refuses to call them into question in daily life (although, hasn't one already done so by choosing the Mythological route? How can one live mythologically if one does not see a problem in living literally, and how can one morally see a problem in such an important area without desiring to fix it? How can one see any problem if one does not have any better explanation of what is truly Real?). The problem with the Rational direction is that one is essentially lying to the community (although, because there is simply no better option; does this make a difference? Is symbolism a lie when the audience takes it literally? How does Jesus fare on this, with his parables and how His audience took them?); there are some issues with elitism as well, which may make a difference to some people (though, is this a legitimate issue, since one would expect that God would make the truth known to as many as possible and so within their abilities, or merely a taste forced on it by our culture, since we should expect that those who have studied longer and harder do actually know more about what they say?). Does a middle ground help alleviate these problems, or compound them?