In nearly all dimensions of society, the modern rationalist mentality is playing an increasingly greater role in determining how man approaches the various aspects of his life, religion being no exception. This new perspective inevitably leads to a dilemma in the minds of spiritual practitioners: how does one reconcile the apparent conflicts between the religions without simply affirming one and denouncing all others as false? Focusing primarily on the dialogue between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Martin Lings explains how a follower of each of these traditions can recognize the legitimacy of the others. Lings challenges the possibility that God could provide only one path to Salvation while simultaneously allowing such widespread diversity of belief.

Author Schuon begins this brief survey: "The Western mentality has given rise to four metaphysical perspectives which are either perfect or at least satisfactory as the case may be, namely: Platonism, including Neo-Platonism; Aristotelianism; Scholasticism; Palamism." He then suggests where the works of the philosophers Kierkegaard (in particular), as well as Heidegger and Pascal are situated in regard to those four metaphysical perspectives.

In this article, Frithjof Schuon argues against Epicurus’ formulation of the problem of evil. As Schuon explains, the world’s remoteness from God necessarily implies a degree of perversion, making the concept of a world without evil absurd. Although God is all-powerful in relation to the world, Omnipotence does not imply the ability to will the absurd. Schuon’s perspective is presented alongside those of many other prominent philosophers, including Plato, Plotinus, and St. Thomas.

Seyyed Hossein Nasr summarized this essay as describing "the metaphysical significance of mâyâ as both veil and principle of relativization and manifestation of the Absolute." Although the terms Âtmâ and mâyâ come from the Vedantic tradition, the essay includes examples of a number of Christian doctrines considered from the standpoint of these metaphysical principles.

Both Indian Cosmology and modern science constitute attempts to understand the cosmos at its most basic level. However, modern science is essentially materialistic, seeking an explanation of the universe in terms of "basic particles", whereas Hindu Cosmology is concerned with non-substantial, "basic principles." The adoption of science as the ultimate approach to understanding the cosmos is based on the assumption that the universe must be reduceable to physical phenomena alone. Ian Watson offers Hindu Vedānta, which rejects this notion, as an alternative.

Between Platonic philosophy and Christian theology there exists a contrast regarding the role of logic in understanding divine Reality. According to Platonist thought, there is nothing within the structure of divine Reality which does not conform to logical analysis. This led the Platonists to dismiss such doctrines as the Trinity as absurd. Christian theology, while not denying the validity and significance of logic, maintain that metaphysicial Reality is beyond the reach of logic, and as such can only be express in paradoxical terms.