全球化帶來諸宗教的普遍、無條件並置。在這種背景下，宗教對話與宗教批評已成為不可避免的時代課題。本文分析了法輪功練習者與香港佛教徒之間（2000年6、7月間）的爭議，利瑪竇地圓說傳入中國後所引發的「宗教間」諍論，尼采對佛教的非議，拉什迪事件等案例，試圖區分並重新界定「宗教對話」和「宗教批評」。在宗教並置的背景下，宗教對話是指那些出於良好意願的宗教間的話語或言論溝通；宗教批評則是由某種宗教間的爭端或衝突所引發、針對特定宗教觀念或現象的批評、檢討，乃至後續的話語或言論爭鋒。宗教對話與宗教批評在語境的性質上是大不相同的：前者更多地表現為一種宗教性的語境，後者更多地表現為一種政治性的語境。在分別探討兩種語境下不同的話語方式和倫理要求後，本文對二者進行了對照式總結。

Globalization brings about a universal and unconditional juxtaposition of religions. In this context, both religious dialogue and religious criticism become inevitable items on the contemporary agendas. In this article, the author analyzes several interreligious issues: the dispute between Falun Gong practitioners and Buddhist believers in Hong Kong (2000), the controversy between Matteo Ricci and famous Chinese Buddhist in the late Ming Dynasty, Nietzsche’s criticism of Buddhism, the Rushdie Affair, etc. The author discriminates religious dialogue from religious criticism and redefines them. In the context of religious juxtaposition, religious dialogue refers to the verbal or written communication that is based on good interreligious will; while religious criticism refers to the interreligious controversy and debating resulted from certain interreligious affairs or conflicts. The discursive nature of religious dialogue and religious criticism is quite different from each other. The former is more a kind of religious context, the latter that of political. The conversation manners and ethic requirements are then discussed and compared between the two contexts of religious dialogue and religious criticism.