Any given religion is better off without the ideas that it is "the one true religion" and the others are not, as if the several religions were engaged in a zero sum contest for religious truth. They need to drop the idea of "the true religion," to stop running "negative ads" about everyone else's religion or lack of religion, and to kick the habit of claiming that their particular body of beliefs is a better fit with what is "out there," as if a religion were like a scientific hypothesis, which is the mistake of the Creationist "scientists." Unlike a scientific theory, there is not one reason on earth (or in heaven) why many different religious narratives cannot all be true. "The one true religion" in that sense makes no more sense than "the one true language" or the "one true poetry," "the one true story" or "the one true culture." While rejecting the modernist idea that science is the exclusive depository of truth, we should have learned something from modernity--post-modern means having passed through and learned a thing or two from modernity--namely, that religious truth is true with a truth that is of a different sort than scientific truth. Religious truth is tied up with being truly religious, truly loving God, loving God in spirit and in truth (John 4:24), and there are more ways to do that than are dreamt of the faithful in the traditional confessions. Loving God in spirit and in truth is not like having the right scientific theory that covers all the facts and makes all the alternative explanations look bad.That last sentence is possibly the catch for some folks. For them, God needs to be provable if their faith is to be worth a damn. God is more like a hypothesis waiting to be tested, than a faith to be cherished and practiced religiously.
Friday, February 23, 2007
True as in Scientifically or True as in Religiously
The following is a quote that I read last night. It is from the philosopher/theologian, John D. Caputo, in his book On Religion. For me, it is a very powerful and sensible statement. For others, I'm sure it will smack of heresy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
"God is more like a hypothesis waiting to be tested, than a faith to be cherished and practiced religiously."
I like this even better then the quote fom Caputo.
Although, I agree in essence with what Caputo is saying, there is in my mind an important point which he fails to bring up. Scientific (or rational) truth is either true or false. Spiritual truth is much bigger then this and can not be limited to true or false, however, there is still the aspect that I call fullness and this for me is what differentiates the various religions in our world.
Fullness asks the question, how complete is this knowledge? Islam has as a core teaching submission to God and this is a great thing, but it does not teach the fullness of love as Christianity does. As a consequence they tend much more to be a violent people. Buddhism teaches many true things about suffering but never answers the question of where it came from in the first place or how it can be overcome on a universal rather then simply a personal scale. Christianity provides the missing pieces.
This is why Christain cultures have tended to be much more culturally and institutionally active in providing help for the poor then Buddhist cultures where the spiritual path is very personal.
Marcus Borg for instance teaches many good things about spirituality that are oftentimes missed in the traditional evangelical church but he has lost sight of the fact that God is a personal God and instead made Him into an impersonal force. This looses some of the fullness of who God is and steals from those who take this path some of the joy that comes from relating to God on a more personal level.
Cgrace,
Thanks for commenting on this post.
I'm not so sure that Muslims "tend much more to be a violent people." More violent than whom? I would ask first of all. Secondly, historically speaking, I think we can find streams of violence running through every religious tradition.
I understand that for many people "Christianity provides the missing pieces" for understanding life. But I hesitate to place Christianity above Islam and Buddhism. In my mind, they are all faith traditions that provide religious truths to their blievers.
Caputo asks a wonderful question: "who do I love when I say that I love God?" He urges us to admit that ultimately we do not know in any epistemologically rigorous sense of the word. We have faith, in other words. This doesn't mean, however, that God is an impersonal force. It just means we are never certain. And so I think that Borg and Caputo are trying to get at the same point. And generally, it is a point that I agree with. It doesn't take away from those that envision a very personal God or relationship with Jesus, it just cautions them not to take their personal vision of God as The Only vision of God possible.
thanks for replying, I love a good discussion.
"He urges us to admit that ultimately we do not know in any epistemologically rigorous sense of the word."
True, but in the Contemplative tradition of the church, God, although He cannot be known epistemologically, can in a real sense be known experientially. What the mystics claim is that the fellowship with God that was lost in the garden can be regained, that they have regained it. This goes way beyond simply knowing Him by faith. Also these mystics claim that the God they have experienced is a personal force.
Contemplatives talk about the different energies that one can experience during contemplative prayer. Some of these are our own metaphysical energies such as the eastern religions speak of when they talk of chakras or the kundulini energy. But the Christian mystics also talk of the energy of the Holy Spirit in the heart and the personal felt presence of God known in the mind. Each of these are separate things. Now it may be that Borg has experienced some of the impersonal energies and therefore bases his teaching on that. (if he and Caputo are basing their teaching simply on reason rather then experience then they really deserve little notice)
But if everyone from Thomas Merton and Father Keatings in the modern age, to John of the Cross and the medeveal mystics, to the Patristic Fathers say they have experienced this personal God, I think we have to take that into serious consideration.
In The Philokalia vol 4 Gregory of Palamas has an in depth essay on the distinction between the energies (impersonal force) and essence (personal felt presece) of God.
Now if we have some people saying they have experienced the impersonal forces and some say that they have experienced both personal and impersonal forces, doesn't it make sense to think that both exist, it is just that not everyone has the same depth of experience?
Also the Bible teaches that God is personal. Why reject the Bible, the historical teaching of the Church and the testimony of the Christian contemplatives. For me the weight of the evidence is obvious.
PS
see here
and here
Whoops, pushed publish instead of edit. Anyway in the first link notice the difference in the John of the Cross quote between participation in God's Being verses participation in His Likeness. In the first is the impersonal energies, the second the personal.
Cgrace,
I don't doubt the value of a personalized relationship with God. And you are right that there is a great and wonderful tradition that has emphasized this.
But I have two reservations.
One: for me, this tradition isn't evidence of the kind that makes me weigh in favor or not. Rather, it is evidence of a way of relating to God in a particular kind of way--a personal way.
Two: for me, I'm wary of your use of "depth" to describe these relationships. Why? Because "depth" implies a hierarchy that situates the more genuine from the less. Your talk suggests that while Caputo and Borg may be useful, there lack of "depth" makes them less valuable. I disagree (if that it what you are in fact arguing). I think a better way to think about it is to simply see them as different ways of relating to God. They are different and that difference calls for a respect, it calls for us to overcome our insecurities and fears of that different faith tradition
To respect something doesn't mean that I have to give all things equal weight. I can respect my friend's opinion that we should continue to keep troops in Iraq, but I am going to give greater weight to the opinions of the people living there on whether they think we are being useful or helpful. The Iraqies have more depth of experience in the situation. Their understanding is more genuine. Does this mean I am disrespecting my friend? or am I simply making a right value judgement?
BTW, I don't have insecurities and fears toward other faith traditions. I am open to seeing in them whatever good I can and to seeing in them whatever weakenesses appear. I judge out of my own experience and I am open to learning differently.
I have a certain parenting style. I relate to my children a certain way. That does not mean I don't study what other parents are doing and try to improve my relationship. In the same way I have no problems giving advice to other parents about how to change the way they relate to their children in order to improve that relationship if it seems to me to be less then ideal. I give the advice out of what I have learned in my own experience.
Same with my relationship with God. I know the advantages of having a personal relationship with God so I offer people what I see as the better way. Simply because I see my way as better does not mean I am disrespecting their way, nor does it mean I am insecure in my way. It simply means I am sharing what I see as the truth for them to evaluate and try for themselves if they care to.
I may not be big on propositional truth, but I do believe that there are better and worse ways to do things.
Cgrace,
Sorry about the dealayed response, I've been out of town.
Sure, we have to make judgement calls in life and respect doesn't imply equality. On that we agree. We even agree on the issue of Iraq--insofar as the people living their have experiences that most of the policy makers inside the Beltway lack.
But the war in Iraq isn't quite the same thing as a relationship with God. I just don't believe that we can so easily name those that have a more or less genuine relationship with God.
My question would be: by what standard do you make this judgement? How are we to know who has the more genuine relationship with God?
I'm just gussing, but the one that has a more genuine relationship with God is probably the one whom we agree with, the one whom we can identify with, the one that most resembles our views of how we should relate to God.
Post a Comment