「宗教交談」（inter-religious dialogue）是全球化時代的人類文明的重要議題之一。沈清松先生以「當代中華新士林哲學」（Contemporary Chinese Neo-Scholasticism）作為論述視域，以走出自我封閉的主體並邁向多元他者的思索與實踐為理論主軸，提出以「相互外推」作為基礎的「宗教交談」模式，為「宗教交談」開啟不同的理解視野與實踐之道。 本文將透過天主教神學家保羅．尼特對西方基督宗教神學與宗教交談模式的觀察與討論，並對比尼特的模式，指出先生「相互外推」宗教交談模式的特色與睿見。有別於西方以基督宗教神學為背景，環繞著各宗教「真理」宣稱，各宗教型態的異同與彼此教義、概念的澄清與諸概念之間對比融通的可能性、「宗教交談」之所以可能的外在條件與交談的目的等議題的建構或倡議的種種模式，先生的「相互外推」模式為這些向外求索的種種向度與條件指出人的本然善性或人性內在的動力作為其內在基礎，並由此而論人的「相互性」以及「存在相關性」，進而幫助我們考慮宗教之間的「相互性」與「存在相關性」，且以之作為「宗教交談」的底蘊。此本然善性也是人之所以能在相互外推的過程中時時自反內省之基礎，或有助於緩解在宗教交談過程中所產生的真理宣稱、教義爭論等問題。不過，就宗教領域信仰層次而言，先生所理解的「終極真實」及其提出的「多元他者」概念或有進一步發展的可能性。

“Inter-religious dialogue” is one of the most significant issues of human civilization in the global era. Against the background of Contemporary Chinese Neo-Scholasticism, by taking consideration and practice of the transformation of subject from its self-enclosedness toward interacting with “many others” as the main theoretical axis, Prof. Vincent Shen proposed an alternative model of “mutual strangification” for interreligious dialogue. This paper aims to present the characteristics and the insight of Prof. Shen’s “mutual strangification” model for interreligious dialogue through comparing it with both models for interreligious dialogue that have been classified and discussed by the Roman Catholic theologian Paul Knitter and also with Knitter’s own theory. This paper argues that, unlike those models that have been established in the tradition of Christian theology focusing on the “truth claim,” the clarification of the core notions, indoctrinations and the possibilities for their mutual translatability of different religions as well as their similarities and dissimilarities and on the external conditions for interreligious dialogue, Prof. Shen’s model highlights the original transcendental goodness or the innate motive force within human nature as the inner foundation for the aforementioned aspects and takes it as the ontological basis for “human reciprocity” and “human interconnectedness.” This reading of interreligous dialogue may help us to rethink the reciprocity and interconnectedness among religions. Moreover, the original transcendental goodness or the innate motive force within human nature is understood as the key for self-reflection in the process of mutual strangification and it may thus enable us to reconcile the complications of the truth claim and religious indoctrination in the religious dialogue. However, Prof. Shen’s conceptions of “Ultimate Reality” and “many others” in the field of and in the practice of religious faith might need further development.