Re: Is there a god?
- From: Dianelos Georgoudis <dianelos@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 07:07:04 -0800 (PST)
On Oct 12, 12:57 pm, "Philip Saunders" <philip.saund...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Richard Corfield" <Richard.Corfi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in[snip]
messagenews:slrngf18vf.l9g.Richard.Corfield@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The problem is that, stepping back from Christianity for a bit, person
A could spend their life believing that Jesus loves them, that the Holy
Spirit guides them, telling themselves this every Sunday and perhaps
more often. They can pray a lot, go to church, help the homeless, and
they can have an Experience.
Similarly person B can spend their life believing that Krishna loves
them, is there as a guiding light from within, every time they go to the
temple and perhaps more often they reinforce this. They can pray a lot,
go to the temple, help the homeless, and they too can have an
Experience.
In each of their world views they can believe that their diety is the
source of that experience, or whatever their religion tells them it is.
Holy Spirit, Awakening. Looking from outside, if these were two
experimental subjects for example, we can't really spot a difference.
Looking from the outside? But you aren't even attempting that. First you
decided the internals and then, what a shock having made the internals
virtually identical, you now say that in your artificial case the externals
are surprisingly similar. lol
Perhaps the wording was not the best, but the question remains and is
I think an important one: Different religions are indeed mutually
contradictory in the way they describe reality. Nevertheless we
recognize in some of the followers of all religions a way of life we
consider to be excellent. If it is true that it is religious belief
that moves people to ethical perfection, how does one explain the
above facts? Or, to put it in Christian terms, if as the Gospels say
one is to recognize truth by the fruit it brings forth then what do
you do when different religious claims to truth bring forth equally
good fruit?
I think an important part of the answer is to recognize that what all
major religions essentially teach is not contradictory: They all teach
that reality is far deeper than what meets the eye, that there is a
transcendental meaning in the human condition, that this
transcendental meaning can be realized by living in a particular way
in this life, that life continues far beyond death, and that the
ultimate goal of life is one's union with the very center and ground
of that transcendental reality. Most significantly the way of life all
great religions teach is virtually identical, and can I think be
described concisely as the path of selfless love.
So far so good. On the other hand different religions do make
contradictory claims: Christianity says that God incarnated in Jesus
of Nazareth, Judaism and Islam deny this, Buddhism arguably denies
that there is such a person as God in the first place. What is one to
make of such differences? Well, one obvious thing is to assume that
some of the religions have it wrong. Another thing is to see that
sometimes the contradiction is only superficial. Take for example
Buddhism, a major and arguably non-theistic religion. Is there a
contradiction between Buddhism and theism? Not really. All religions
purport to describe the deepest structure of reality. Theism claims
that reality at bottom consists of a person of utter perfection called
God. Buddhism on the other hand may be concentrating on the non-
personal aspects of fundamental reality. Properly speaking theism does
not say that God is a person, but that God is no less than a person.
So different religious traditions may describe different aspects of
reality with different emphasis. In other cases I suppose the
contradictions are real but their relevance overblown. Take for
example the Christian belief of the incarnation. I myself hold this
belief (I am preparing a post explaining why). But suppose I would
find out some time in the future that this belief of mine is wrong.
Would that be a crushing realization? Would it really invalidate a
life in Christ, would it remove His path? Would it make Jesus less
admirable or lovable or less of a role mode or less relevant for one's
life? Would it make Christianity less meaningful? Hardly. Before all
else religions are not belief systems, they are ways of life. And the
way of life that Christ is, is illuminated by but does not depend on
Christianity's dogmatic beliefs. We are used to thinking of reality as
a space out there in which we move, but perhaps a better picture is to
visualize reality as the movement in which we partake. - Anyway,
alternatively, consider the possibility that Jews and Muslims were to
find out that God did in fact incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth. Would
that amount to a crashing realization for them? Would a good Jew or a
good Muslim now feel they have not really been good people, or that
their having been good people was invalidated by their new
understanding? Would that new understanding take anything away from
the merit of their previous life? Hardly; rather it seems to me it
would add to their merit because without knowing all there is to know
about Christ they followed Him. So, in conclusion, we tend to
exaggerate both the contradictions between religions, and the
relevance of these contradictions.
Another question in the current context is this: How can one explain
that people of the same religion sharing exactly the same beliefs and
finding themselves in similar circumstances can give fruit that is so
different? I think this question is not difficult to answer: Religious
faith is not only a question of abstract belief, but mainly a question
of how one is, of one's experiential reality, and hence of the path
one follows in life. Obviously it's quite possible for people to
believe in the existence of God and to live for all practical purposes
exactly as if they didn't believe it. Similarly it's quite possible
for people to believe that smoking is very bad for their health and to
live for all practical purposes exactly as if they didn't believe it.
Perhaps the following story may help explain what I am trying to say:
In some villages in the north of Greece there is the custom to walk
barefoot on red-hot embers during some festivities. The feet of these
people do not get burnt and they claim they don't feel any pain. The
physics of the phenomenon have been studied and are quite interesting.
Now suppose persons A and B visit such an event for the first time
with the idea of trying to walk on embers too. A understands the
physics of the phenomenon perfectly well. Person B does not understand
the physics very well but has a friend in that village whom she trusts
and who smilingly invites her to walk on the embers with him. Who of
the two, A or B, is more likely to walk on the embers? The one who has
more understanding or the one who has more trust? In my mind it's much
more likely that B will do it, and after doing it she will know about
walking on embers in a way that no amount of scientific studying can
reach. If B had understanding also it would be even better, but
understanding is not what's fundamental in religion, trust is and how
trust empowers us to live well.
I have a 4 years old daughter. With other parents we have formed what
we call "a school for parents" to learn about child rearing under the
guidance of Vicky, a psychologist. Anyway the other day we all had
dinner together in a taverna. At one point I was discussing with Vicky
how interesting it is to use Internet to discuss with other people
around the world about any subject matter that interests one. She
asked me what interested me and I said philosophy of religion. She
asked me what that is and I explained to her that that is the project
of grounding religious belief on reason. She surprised me by saying
that in this case philosophy of religion is a contradiction in terms.
Now I don't agree with her for I think that philosophy of religion is
eminently meaningful and that one can demonstrate on reason alone that
theism (and indeed Christianity) is the ontology that best explains
the whole of our experience of life. But she gave me a striking
analogy which made me think. She said: imagine you want to invite me
to a feast; in order to do that would it make any sense at all for you
to explain to me the physiology of eating?
So in conclusion it is important to realize that even though religion
is a belief system too, it is in essence something that transcends
propositional beliefs. Religion is about assuming in one's life the
proper relationship with transcendental reality [1]. That's the
meaning and purpose of religion. And religion achieves this not only
through its propositional content, but perhaps more importantly though
the communal experience. Ideally what religion is about is to build on
Earth an imitation of heaven, a very rough imitation but one that can
help us prepare for the afterlife.
[1] Truth itself can defined as what characterizes the propositions
that drive us to assume the proper relationship with reality.
.
- Prev by Date: Aiding and Abetting Personal Abuse
- Next by Date: Re: Huge Biblical events aren't big in the real world- so doesn't theBible mention the big events
- Previous by thread: Re: Is there a God?
- Next by thread: Re: Is there a god?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
