Gloria:
Okay, I spent a good portion of today, off and on, writing this especially for you.
I will be honest and upfront. I think that I am right and everyone else should think basically like I do. But, if you really think about it, that is perfectly reasonable and rational because no one walks around thinking their religious views (or lack thereof) are wrong and still keeps those views.
Most everyone is motivated by a combination of emotion and reason. I tend to first be motivated by mostly logical arguments, and then my emotions. Some people it is the other way around. I don't know what motivates you best when it comes to these matters, but I am hoping that you will come to the same conclusions that I have. Since I don't know you well enough to tailor my arguments to your personality, I am just going to keep going with the autobiographical sort of self-dialog I have started.
When it comes to religion, I eventually became concerned with what is true. A belief, hypothesis, or proposition about reality is true if and only if it accurately describes the way reality really is.
Many people view religion as a sort of spiritual hobby, hence the adage “find something that works for you.” They see it as something that can give them meaning in life, something that they find they agree with, something that appeals to them, something to provide a framework for ethics and some sort of spiritual comfort, as well as some kind of hope of life after death. I cannot tell you the number of times I used (and heard) the phrase, “all religions teach basically the same stuff, to do the right thing.” (Often people will have no religion because they see it as a crutch and they don't need some religion to tell them the right thing to do.)
This was part of the reason I became a Chan Buddhist. I was a martial arts student for a while (Hung Gar Kung Fu) and was introduced to the religion that way. It appealed to me because I liked how it described the world, the ethics were great, and over all it was beautiful and provided meaning for my life. It also helped provide some inner peace.
In addition, it is very tolerant. For example, it did not claim that you had to be a Buddhist to go to heaven. Just keep doing the right thing and eventually you will get there . . . if there is such a place. Actually, Chan practitioners never really bother themselves with questions of god, heaven, hell, afterlife, etc. Those things are just not of interest. I didn't need some god to bribe or threaten me to get me to do the right thing. Such things were, at best, a crutch.
Many people also view all the different religions as different perspectives of the same basic idea, i.e., do the right thing. That was my view. Either “god” revealed “himself” in many different forms, or people are expressing their view of god differently. Live and let live, as far as I was concerned. Just don’t mess with me, or I’ll put my Hung Gar Kung Fu mojo on you.
You probably have heard the story of the Indian Raj who saw three blind men feeling an elephant. One blind man felt the tusk and declared “An elephant is just like a spear!” Another blind man felt the tail and declared “No, the elephant is like a rope.” The third blind man felt the elephant’s side and declared “No, an elephant it truly like a wall.” However, the Raj saw that each man only perceived a piece of the truth and the men had to basically combine their views to get the correct picture.This is often said about the world’s religions and that people are intolerant for saying others religions are "wrong" because we all are only feeling part of the elephant. We should not be so intolerant and declare our way to god/heaven the only right one. The nerve of those bigots! Besides, who cares what people think, as long as they do the right thing and don't hurt others. That is how I felt?
However, I eventually realized there is a problem with the elephant. On further reflection, it turns out this story is really just poor thinking and is a self-refuting line of logic. It is sadly is used as a cliché.
Here is the trouble with the elephant – the Raj was not blind and was in the privileged position to see the truth and declare what the truth was. Only someone who can see and has access to the truth is able to declare the other men wrong and state what the elephant is really like. (Also, what if the elephant could talk and tell us about itself? I am not being silly here, but am making a metaphorical comment about "revealed" religion.)
However, those who use the elephant story with respect to religion are claiming that everyone is wrong and each religions, like each blind man, only have part of the truth. But if everyone is wrong, then they are wrong too and can make no such claim. They are blind just like us.
However, if they are right in their claim that we only perceive part of the truth, how is it that they (like the Raj) are in the privileged position to see the truth? How is it they can see (the truth) while the rest of us are blind, as they claim?
This is not just a fancy play on words or a word trick, but reveals a fundamental and fatal flaw in their thinking. Their claim is logically self-refuting and cannot be true or of value.
In addition, often those who claim that sincere religious believers are intolerant “fundamentalists” because these fundamentalists think other religions are wrong, are the same people who use the elephant story to say everyone is wrong and they happen to see the truth.
They are exhibiting self-refuting intolerance that they vociferously condemn in others. (Many people believe that good thinking is using the wittiest clichés quickly. All that is really happening is a rapid fire tossing of valueless clichés! Take just about any non-science college course.)
I realized that not everyone can be right about religion. Either there is a God, or there isn’t. Hence either atheists or theists are right. There is no middle ground. They cannot both be right. If there is a God, there is either one God, or more than one God. Hence monotheists are right, or polytheists are right. They cannot both be right. God is either personal, or not. Hence either Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc. are right, or Hindus, Taoists, etc. are right. They cannot both be. God is either separate from man, or not. God is either transcendent, or not. God is either triune, or not. Jesus is either God, or he was not.
It is possible for everyone to be wrong, but with all the mutually exclusive religious views around, it is not possible for everyone to be right.
I wanted to know what the truth was, not what made me feel good. I realized that there are times when the truth is the most important thing, and what makes you feel good can be fatal. Metaphorically speaking, if I had cancer and was fighting it with chemotherapy drugs, I would be a fool to walk into my doctor’s office and tell her, “You know, this chemo stuff makes me sick and I don’t feel so good. So I am going to substitute chocolate syrup and fight the cancer that way.” (Notice I sensitively used a female authority figure … no sexist here!)
This was not a dispassionate exercise of logical reasoning, I was actually pretty worried. Just like when I look both ways before crossing the street, I figured I better know what is going on rather than blithely walk into spiritual traffic. Jeez, what if the Muslims are right? Allah might be upset and I don’t want to get blind-sided by that.
This line of thinking started me down the path to wondering two things, (1) Is there a God?, and (2) Does it matter?
In any event, I will stop here for now. If you want more, let me know. Please feel free to ask questions. Remember, I want to persuade you to my point of view and I can hardly do that if you are not asking questions. (Once again, being transparent here.)
No comments:
Post a Comment