I have in my own amateur way studied religious, spiritual, and atheistic philosophies, and have actively pursued enlightenment in several of these traditions. What I have come to ask myself is this: when it comes down to it, at the core, is there any true difference between all of these human attempts to explain the inexplicable? Can it be agreed that regardless of the dogma entertained by an individual, the basis of any of these spiritual constructs is one of belief? Philosophers have compared knowledge and belief for many ages, the main Platonic concept is this: belief becomes knowledge if and only if the belief can be proven as true. Since one cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that any of these systems of soul searching is true then why should they not all be labeled as equally existing within the realm of belief? There is a simple question to answer the previous: why can't mankind get over themselves? I don't want to turn this into a full blown epistemological debate but it almost must be: belief is the core of any religious/spiritual/etc. debate.
So to sum things up I present the two main questions for today.
Question 1 (main discussion for today): Is there one true primary difference between any modes of human spiritual understanding?
Question 2 (derivative question to be discussed next time): Why do these concepts of belief continue to permeate our modern world?
Well thinkers I hope you have something to think about and if you know something that I do not, would you be so kind as to share it with me?
-ShemS
2 comments:
While I have some working knowledge of world religions, the depth of my knowledge is somewhat limited. However, as this is not a dogmatic discussion, this may be enough. Religions can be classified into two major categories: those that rely solely on the internal and self-actualization, and those that rely on the influence of an outside power or deity to aid in their attempt to self-actualize. Perhaps a third category could be added: those religions which do not believe humanity capable of self-actualization. Yet, this third category seems inextricably linked to the second in a disconcerting way.
Reflecting on my own religious beliefs, I see Christianity falling into this second category. Please excuse my use of dogma to explicate this idea, as it seems a necessary evil. Christian doctrine states that mankind is inherently “sinful”, in other words, mankind is prone to making immoral and unethical decisions and actions. Doctrine attributes this “imperfection” to the edenic mythos; Adam and Eve were given specific rules to follow which they disobeyed, and, as such, they allowed “sin” into the world. We could tangent into a discussion of edenic myth as a big, prudish slap on the wrist for human inclination towards sex, however, religious tension over sex versus procreation is another box of apples entirely. ;)
Back to the point at hand. Christian doctrine believes that because of the sinful nature inherited from Adam and Eve’s disobedience in the Garden of Eden, humankind is incapable of acting perfect. Mankind can never reach his true potential, that for which God created him, because of his inclination towards “sin”: sex, knowledge, godhood, etc . . . . Thus, God is said to have sent Jesus Christ, the physical embodiment of God himself, as a perfect sacrifice. His death on the cross cancels out mankind’s “imperfection” and thus, through J.C., mankind is able to negate all its mistakes and reach self-actualization.
But, again, this is all dogma and doctrine. Right or wrong, in its most trimmed version, Christianity is a religion in which its followers rely on an outside deity to intercede on their behalf and enable them to reach self-actualization. And categorized in this way it appears no different from Judaism (J.C.’s own religious affiliation), Islam, Wicca, or ancient Roman, Greek and Nordic traditions.
In that case, as a Christian, shouldn’t I see that all of these are true religions? Shouldn’t I “get over myself” and just recognize the validity of all world religions as embodiments of spiritual truth?
“Belief becomes knowledge if and only if the belief can be proven as true.” In light of this statement two proverbial wrenches get thrown into the works.
Faith. This word has a heavy religious connotation, however, it is important to consider how much of our daily life relies on faith. Since the attempt of this board is to address these ideas in a Socratic way, my mind is pulled back into the Greek and Roman philosophers. I am reminded of an argument made, I believe it was by Lucretius (without my books at hand I am unable to verify whether I have the correct philosopher with the correct theory), in which he discusses the failings of human senses. His theory is that the senses are fallible. When a stick is stuck within a pool of water, it appears to bend, the submerged portion of the stick turned at an unnatural angle. Our eyes see it as such, and if our senses, in this case our eyes, were infallibly capable of discerning truth, this would mean that the stick does in fact bend when submerged. The water and light create an optical illusion which contradicts the other senses (the stick still feels straight). What can be taken from this illustration is that truth can not necessarily be determined based on our observation through our senses. Yet, we rely heavily upon the belief—the faith—that the information we receive from our eyes and ears are valid truths. When we walk down the street we assume that there is not a yawning precipice before us because we see sidewalk. We have faith that our eyes are being “truthful”; if we did not, if we TRULY believed our eyes were lying to us, we would never walk down the street, let alone leave our beds in the morning. Truth IS, essentially, Faith. All scientific theorems and the laws of physics are “truths” established based on our observations of the universe. Humankind has made conjectures as to how the universe works, and as individuals we accept these ideas.
So what then is true? How does belief transcend into knowledge?
It doesn’t. Belief and knowledge are the same thing. We KNOW things because we BELIEVE them to be true. If I believe the pot of water on the stove is boiling hot and that if I stick my hand into it I will get horrific burns, you can try and convince me all that you want that the water is ice cold, but there is no way I am sticking my hand down inside that pot of water of my own free will. Unless you can present me with enough evidence to change my belief the only truth worth a lick to me is what I know—that which I believe to be true—that the water will burn me. No one can act against what they truly believe unless another belief intercedes and usurps the first.
Our daily lives are an act of Faith. We function based on a set of beliefs that we have accepted to be truths. This belief-set is the knowledge of how the universe works.
You ask “isn’t our desire to define truth in itself our own pompous pride? Shouldn’t we be willing to accept that we don’t know everything?”
You ask a question about objectivity to a race of creatures whose existence is reliant upon subjectivity. I walk down the street because I see a sidewalk and believe that it is there, and as such can walk down the street because there is no belief in my greater than that of there being a sidewalk to walk on. Maybe you see a gaping hole beneath my feet, yawning its maw to swallow me whole. Unless I can observe that hole for myself in some facet or you have in some previous situation created a strong enough belief in me that your observations are more reliable than mine, I’m going to look at you like you’re a loony. Of course there’s a sidewalk there. I can see it and so I believe it’s there. Thus its existence has to be true, and how could you be so dumb as to tell me that my knowledge of that sidewalk is incorrect. You’re not going to be able to change knowledge of that sidewalk.
So what does this have to do with religion? Essentially, we can not function without some set of beliefs. We have accepted a certain set of truths as knowledge and we function within those. While we may respect your system of truth and knowledge, we can not believe it unless you can prove it to us. And as most religions rely on faith and that which can not be observed by the five senses (as fallible as they are), how can we disprove each other let alone prove our own truths. Even though, at the core, Christianity and Judaism fall into the same category, it is unlikely that someone of the Jewish faith will be able to convince me that J.C. was not the messiah and that my eternal soul is dependent upon my accepting my failings to always do what is moral and right and rely on my belief that he is my liaison and path to enlightenment. Doctrine and dogma are part of religion. They are the daily beliefs that there is a sidewalk, or that there is a yawning precipice. And if your doctrine says that I’m going to die from walking into that chasm, of course you’re going to try and save me because to you that is truth and knowledge.
However, I also have the option to believe that you see a gaping chasm at my feet. To see that for you the chasm is truth and knowledge and if you step any further forward you will fall into that chasm. And I can respect your decision to walk around it. But I can not believe your truth. I will always believe there is a solid sidewalk in front of me.
~D. Douglas
In the interest of cohesiveness, I will address the questions of the original post initially, and decide later if I have the intellectual fortitude to respond to the first comment.
"Is there one true primary difference between any modes of human spiritual understanding?"
In this case, I would have to argue both yes and no. I say no if we make the assumption that we are discussion religions and philosophies as they were at their conception. Jesus, Siddhartha Gautama, Confucius, Muhammad, etc.; their original ideas all seem to have stemmed from the basic concept that people should be good and respectful of themselves and of others. Whether you measure your life by the 10 Commandments, the five-fold path, the Three Jewels of Tao, or Confucian Ritual you are, in essence, living these philosophers hopes for an ideal world.
So where is this utopia in which we should all be living? This is where I argue yes, there are differences between modes of spiritual understanding. This difference occurs when good ideas and philosophies become religions. For example, before Constantine held the famous Council of Nicaea, Jesus was never definitively a deity in any form. He was a man with many admirable ideas that encouraged people to love one another and live a life of goodness. Remove the extrinsic motivation that following this path leads to Heaven, and Jesus is no different that Siddhartha before he became the Buddha, or Muhammad before he was named prophet, or any other philosopher that underwent a similar transformation. It is when these philosophies take off into something of an epidemic that the fundamental difference of which the Poster asks occurs.
In an effort to prevent a religious revolution, governments adapt (not adopt) these ideas into what we call “religion.” At their core, they still maintain the same hopes for goodness and love, but the government’s interference overshadows these hopes. The Council of Nicaea named Jesus as a deity, and in doing so they made him an authority figure, a man to be reckoned with. Now the idea that people should live their life in a good and peaceful manner had become doctrine; rules by which followers must live.
In another step away from the original philosophy, this newly adapted religion “Christianity” becomes the National Religion of Rome (a far cry away from sending Christians to the lion’s den. Hypocrisy is fun.). What were once good, wholesome suggestions with which many agreed were now doctrine and law that were forced upon a largely Pagan populous. While this quelled a large group of people, now there were the Pagans to appease. The solution was to further adapt Christianity and assimilate the Pagan holidays into the Christian Calendar (and poorly, I should add. I think we can all safely say that Jesus did not lay eggs or have an affinity for fluffy bunnies.). Thus Christianity became something entirely derivational of what it originally should have been back when Jesus was giving his Sermon on the Mount. This basic theme of the bastardization is true for many organized religions.
So what is the difference in the modes of spiritual understanding? I’ve been very deliberate in my word choice thus far to prevent any confusion over what I am about to write. When the ideas first come into being, they’re philosophies. When they’re altered by the government as a form of population control, they are religions. Therein lies the difference. Buddhism, for example, remains a philosophy; a group of ideas people choose to follow. One can in fact be both Buddhist and Christian. One cannot, however, be both Jewish and Christian (sorry Jews for Jesus).
“Why do these concepts of belief continue to permeate our modern world?”
I have several theories as to why this occurs. The first of these is control. Countries with national religions, or large religious sects (like the Roman Catholic Church) use the power of religious doctrine to control the masses. As for the reason why the aforementioned masses haven’t revolted, I maintain that it is out of fear. This is no a static fear. It can be one, a few, or all of the following:
-Fear of persecution by the government/religious leaders
-Fear of ostracism by friends/family
-Fear that if they choose not to believe, they could be proven wrong at death and be condemned to their Hell equivalent.
-I call this the “just in case” point. One believes “just in case.”
-Fear of the realization that there may not be anything after death, and they fear nothingness. They force themselves to believe because they can’t handle the emptiness in the pit of their stomach when they think about death.
There are other reasons, I am sure, but these are those I could think of quickly and without too much research.
Post a Comment