The diversity of religious worldviews presents us with a genuine, “real world” challenge: how do we adjudicate the many divergent, often mutually exclusive claims that people from different religious traditions make? As a political and/or ethical stance, we might be prone to tolerance of difference. Surely we can all get along, right? As long as everyone respects each other’s right to worship and practice as he or she will, everything should be fine…
But this stance does by-pass some rather glaring differences between religious traditions. If one is committed to monotheism, that seems to deny the truth of polytheism, and vice versa. If someone thinks that Jesus is the only way to salvation, then other teachings must be mistaken. And so on. It seems that someone, in these debates, must always be wrong.
Or maybe not. Philosophers of religion have posited a range of theories to account for religious difference, ranging from the exclusivist, who does in fact defend the practice of claiming that one religion is right and all the others wrong, to the relativist, who suggests that all religious worldviews are in fact different, and all equally true. And there’s of course a range of positions in between, which we’ll discuss and explore.
There’s also the suggestion that all religious claims are unfounded. All religion is illusory, so trying to theorize about the differences between various religious positions is kind of like trying to figure out who’s right in an insane asylum. Who’s right: the crazy guy who thinks that wombats are about to take over the world, and the other guy who thinks its gecko lizards. Gosh, how do we deal with this diversity of belief? Um, recognize that both of these dudes are crazy and call it a day.
But we have to recognize that making the argument that all religion is deluded is just as ambitious as claiming that all religions point to the same truth, or just one religion is the true one. All these options are on the table…but perhaps the right approach is more nuanced.
For example: claims about “ultimate reality” diverge significantly (i.e., the ultimate truth is Allah, Jesus, Tao, Brahman, nirvana, etc.), but maybe the real issue is conflicts about where authoritative knowledge comes from. Last week we noticed a number of different possibilities, and I’ll simply catalog them here. Does authoritative knowledge come from:
Feeling?
Scriptures?
Testimony of others?
Direct observation?
Direct intuition?
Rational argument?
Or somewhere else?
Authoritative knowledge should come from direct observation. For one, if this is not true, then we have no use of science which is based entirely on the superiority of direct observation as a means to discovering truths. The real reason, however, that direct observation corresponds most to authoritative knowledge is defined by the very word used to describe God or his effective equivalents: innefability. That is, most (if not all) religions claim that in some way their god or God or what-have-you is unknowable, as is the realm of the Real. How can one authoritatively know about the unknowable? Yet, knowledge is not the end-goal of religion as I see it. Knowledge is the end goal of science, but religion has more to do with belief. That is, it is the belief in something, based on faith over evidence, that redeems one in a religion. I am a big fan of the Kierkegaardian leap-of-faith as explaining religion on a personal level. In this instance, not authoritative knowledge but rather self-actualization is a result of direct intuition more than anything. That is why the knight-of-faith, according to Kierkegaard, is silent: direct intuition of the Divine cannot be expressed, but merely the path towards reaching it shown.
ReplyDeleteOn the readings, I am most sympathetic with exclusivism. However, a caveat I might add: I do think that every religion is valid from an outsider-perspective. In this sense, I might seem a pluralist. Yet part of truly reaching that direct intuition, that leap-of-faith, is accepting the principles one has as being absolute; that is, one must believe that what one believes is true. Otherwise, one cannot attain whatever his religious goal is.
Of course, these are all just rambling musings and not sophisticated arguments as presented in the book.
I think as we discussed in class my view on this topic was definitely solidified. In regards to religious belief I think the only way I'd probably respect someone's justification for their belief was if it were based on feeling / direct intuition - basically pure faith. As far as rational arguments are concerned I think we've seen with the proofs for the existence of god that there is no real rational grounds for religious belief. As far as other people's testimony and scriptures are concerned - that's almost laugh worthy as far as credibility and justification are concerned. At least in my eyes.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do tend to think that religion is illusory, I have a hard time leaving it at that. I think that any atheist worth their salt would still have to deal with why there are so many religions and why so many of the people practicing them are not obviously insane.
ReplyDeleteThe answer to why there are so many religions and why so many sane people practice them is because religion is a vice and/or driving force. People need a purpose, so they turn to some sort of deity to tell them how to live. In times of crisis, people turn to God. An example of this would be people who participate in AA. Before enrolling in the program, their vice is the substance. Most of them become extremely religious during their recovery. There's even that mantra, or I guess it's technical name is the Serenity Prayer.
ReplyDelete"God grant me the serenity
To accept the things I cannot change;
Courage to change the things I can;
And wisdom to know the difference."
Well i see what you mean when you say that people need to believe in something and therefore they turn to religion/God. In this faith they feel more secure and one might say liberated. However we can look at our best friend Meursault who on the contrary finds liberation in the acknowledgment of the absurdity. We become free when we realize that the only thing we can know is that we know nothing.
ReplyDeleteTo Gabby: I like the idea of equating faith with vice.
ReplyDeleteEvery one of us have certain foundational beliefs, it is inescapable. Even doubt and skepticism are beliefs. The question then isn't why are there religions, but how do these really differ from secular belief systems?
My grandmother is an 80-year-old reform Jew who calls herself a "political junkie". She doesn't really observe Judaism, but she is intensely political. And she can't stand that my brother and I don't vote. Her belief is that democracy is good for such-and-such reasons. Yet underlying this belief is a value. I don't share this value, so I don't have this belief. Therefore, I wonder if there's all that much difference between one's political ideology and one's religious ideology, other than what these ideologies have as their subject matter.
I think it is very important for us to have something we believe in. It doesn't have to be something viewed as concrete as long as we get what we need from it, and it doesn't harm others but only brings good.
ReplyDeleteMarie, I love you!
ReplyDelete"However we can look at our best friend Meursault who on the contrary finds liberation in the acknowledgment of the absurdity. We become free when we realize that the only thing we can know is that we know nothing."
I agree! I agree! Maybe if we stop worrying and plaguing ourselves with the search for a higher being or purpose and just accept the fact that we will never know we can actually enjoy our lives and the short time we have here on earth! - 'cause that's something we do know, our mortality!
To Alanna and Marie...
ReplyDeletePerhaps we have limits on our knowledge, but I would say it's a stretch to say we don't know anything. And if this were the case, that nothing is truly truly certain, then perhaps we simply need to abridge our standard of certainty. That is, if we say that nothing can be known absolutely, then at least relative knowledge should be given weight. Granted, I tend to think that 2+2 will always equal 4 but thats an argument for another day. For now, I would suggest that, viewed properly, search for meaning and purpose can be very rewarding. After all, that's why we're all Phil/RS majors right? This stuff's fun. However, I do agree that its nothing worth getting one's panties in a bunch. In the words of Van Wilder, "Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive."
"While I do tend to think that religion is illusory, I have a hard time leaving it at that. I think that any atheist worth their salt would still have to deal with why there are so many religions and why so many of the people practicing them are not obviously insane."
ReplyDeleteI agree, obviously the atheist must be taken aback at how greatly outnumbered they are. But it is no mystery as to why religion is so popular, and why people who some would call "greatly intelligent" still invest in religion: Religion posts no integral problems: it only works in the favor of the individual (as it disguises itself). Men and Woman, no matter what their stature, are only human, and if humans are are indeed inherently selfish, it does not seem far-fetched that so many people would "buy" into religion . Especially with the history behind it and its massive following: but an atheist atheist must not ask "well if i am outnumbered, then i must be wrong," for the influence of the masses is strong (Holocaust) an is not always "right."