In a section entitled, "Revelation versus Reason" the authors state...
Another way of fitting reason and revelation together is to think of them as two different ways of getting to different parts of the truth. Reason gets us to the religious truths that are universal, the truths that are for everyone whether they are a part of the religion or not. Revelation is a way of getting to universal truths, as well as truths that are deeply felt by the followers of a religion. The Mass is true for Catholics, the Hajj is true for Muslims, and Passover is true for Jews in ways that reason cannot describe. For those that think that the only truth is that which applies to all people all the time, a good dose of yoga or Eucharist or matzo (bread) may help them see the truth in a new way through the eyes of revelation.
Considering that the authors are a Catholic and a Jew (Rabbi Marc Gellman and Monsignor Thomas Harman, the "God Squad) I knew they would have to address conflicting religious beliefs in some way. This was it, I guess. Kind of a squishy, "If it's true for you" approach. This is not surprising, as it is a pretty popular viewpoint in our culture. We have taken religious truth and put it in a separate category that doesn't have to play by the same rules as regular truth.
This saddens and angers me on several levels.
First, it's such a cop out. All these competing claims, contradictory to each other, can somehow all be "true" for the believer in each of them. Obviously, the person believing them thinks they're true. Duh. But that doesn't make them true. On Christmas morning kids experience the truth of Santa Claus. For them it is true. But because they believe it is true, and even have an ecstatic experience because of their belief, that does not make it reality-based, or factual, or true. So, equating belief with truth is a cop out. It's mixing up terminologies and definitions.
Second, those of us struggling with our faith are wrestling with just this very dilemma... does what we believe to be true correspond to reality, to truth? Most of us are not going to be satisfied with an "It doesn't matter, as long as it's true for you" kind of response.
Third, this kind of distinction between regular truth and religious truth makes rational people scoff at religion. By definition they see it as something non-rational or even irrational.
Fourth, this kind of distinction between regular truth and religious truth gives religion a pass. Religion gets to make fanciful truth claims with NO responsibility or obligation to back them up with any kind of evidence. Again, rational people just shake their heads.
Fifth, the seeker of religious truth is left afloat on a choppy sea without a compass. Any religious belief system has just as much value as any other one. There is no way to evaluate the relative validity of them. That's just nonsensical.
Sixth, it takes the historical, fact-based religions (such as Christianity) and mixes them in the same pot as Eastern esoteric religions. They are not cut from the same cloth. The God described in the Old and New Testaments, although he is a big promoter of faith, generally speaking encourages faith based on numerous historical events and actions that are supposed to have literally happened... not faith based on what "feels right to you in spite of whether or not there's any evidence." When you take a religion like Christianity and try and change it into this "subjective truth" mentality it quickly loses its character. (Note: This does not mean that Christianity is true. I'm just saying the "genre" of the religion it is doesn't fit well with this mindset.)
Seventh, in most of the areas of our life we rely on truth and facts and evidence in order to base our decisions. Now, when it comes to the MOST important aspect of our lives (whether there is a god, what he is like, what he demands, the ultimate meaning of life and existence), truth and facts and evidence don't matter! Whatever crazy thing you want to believe is fine, as long as it's true for you. It doesn't matter if it lines up with reality or not. It's just such a glaring and ugly dichotomy, which again, makes rational people cringe.
I suppose I need to clarify some of my thought by distinguishing between two types of religious truth claims. For example, was there a man named Jesus that lived in the first century? Did he die on a cross? Was he put in a tomb? Did he resurrect? Was he seen thereafter by hundreds of people? Did he rise bodily into the sky? Did Buhda lie under twin sal trees whereupon the trees burst forth into an abundance of untimely blossoms, which fell upon his body? Did coral tree flowers and divine sandal wood powder fall from the sky, sprinkling his body? Did music and song sound from the sky? These kind of truth claims are physical and material and either did or did not happen. They are NOT subjective to "personal truth." However, was Jesus the incarnate son of the one true god? Was budha's experience an example of what it means to reach the final Nirvana? These truth claims ARE of a different sort. They are interpretations of the data. Reasonable people may differ in how they interpret the same material experience. HOWEVER... that does NOT mean that each person's interpretation is equally true, as long as they believe it enough. Neither does it mean that that particular religion's claims about the meaning of those material events are true.
So, how do we know whether an interpretation of meaning of a particular material event IS the correct meaning or interpretation? Thus begs the question of the difficulty with non-material religious truth claims in general. Can we ever KNOW for sure? One could say that "most reasonable people would say that such and such religious truth claim is true, based on the material events." However, "most reasonable people" can sometimes be wrong. And there will be some individuals who passionately believe it means something else. They KNOW they are right. They know their particular interpretation is "true." And yes, for them it IS "true." But that doesn't mean it is true. Two individuals can have widely different passionate interpretations of the same data.
So, to go back to the original statement by the God Squad... "For Catholics, the Mass is true." By that, I assume they mean that the participants believe that by partaking in the eucharist they are actually eating the flesh and blood of christ and thereby receiving grace to help them live as he wants them to. This is true for them. However, it is a classic example of a non-material truth claim that can neither be proven or dis-proven. It requires an element of "faith" on the part of the believer, which means that they believe it in spite of its unprovability. And even if they are wrong, just for the sake of argument... even if they are in reality NOT eating Jesus' flesh and drinking his blood, even if grace is actually not being mystically imparted to them... because they believe it they will sometimes experience something that feels like it is happening, which will reinforce their belief, and at some point make it unassailable to critique. Thus explains myriad religious beliefs throughout the world throughout time.
No wonder the God Squad felt compelled to say something as stupid as "For those that think that the only truth is that which applies to all people all the time, a good dose of yoga or Eucharist or matzo (bread) may help them see the truth in a new way through the eyes of revelation."
No comments:
Post a Comment