Sunday, November 16, 2008
Sunday Reflection: Faith and the Made-Up Religion
This week we all had fun reading about the goofball religion of "Summum," and their services held in a licensed winery/pyramid in Utah. Their religion is based on the "Seven Aphorisms," and their website explains their genesis:
When Moses received stone tablets on Mount Sinai inscribed with writings made by a divine being, he actually received two separate sets of tablets. 1
The first set of stone tablets was not inscribed with the Ten Commandments. Rather, they contained aphorisms of a Higher Law that held very profound and deep meanings. During his life, Moses had been initiated into an understanding of the inner, esoteric source of these aphorisms -- aphorisms that outlined principles underlying Creation and all of nature. 2
When Moses returned from Mount Sinai with the first set of tablets containing the aphorisms, he observed the immature behavior and attitude of the Israelites. Moses realized they were incapable of understanding the principles of Creation and were in no way ready for them. So Moses destroyed the stone tablets and revealed the aphorisms to a select few. 3
I read that and think, "this is silly. These people just made this stuff up."
And seriously, I'm pretty sure they did.
However, it would be dishonest not to recognize that people say the same thing about my own faith, Christianity. They contend that Jesus' life cannot be historically verified, that objectively it seems bizarre to ritually drink symbolic (or, for Catholics, what is perceived as actual) blood, and that Christianity has led the world to war and oppression.
I'm not quite sure how to answer that. It doesn't make sense to thrust a Bible at them and say "read this!" any more than it would be affective for a follower of Summum to show me their pyramid. Out of context, it does seem odd to symbolically drink blood. I can't pull out some independent verification of Jesus' life that would be acceptable to such skeptics, either (though I think there is a historical record).
I suppose that recognizing that I can't prove the truth of my faith to others in an objective manner might lead to doubts in my own mind, but it doesn't. For me, it starts with the gospel message, the teachings of Christ. That is what matters most to me, what feels truer than true to me, and it is those teachings that challenge me every day. I really don't need miracles or proofs to know how much I need those constant lessons to live a life of humility, benevolence, and freedom from hypocrisy, and how well-formed they are for me and my society.
Can I convince others that way- by telling them that those counter-cultural teachings ring with truth to me? Probably not. But, it does make me immune from the lure of Summum, and also from the loss of faith that might come from the realization that an objective view might not reveal the truths that I feel.
Comments:
<< Home
Under the Sloan regime, Baylor began targeting young people at wealthy nondenominational, very conservative megachurches in the Texas suburbs (along with home-schooled kids). A significant percentage of the promotional budget went to attract these kids (and their parents).
Consequently, this is the most religiously (and politically) conservative bunch I can remember -- and I've been here since 1972!
How that has played out in the classroom is that, for the first time, regardless of the topic, I'm getting students citing Bible verses in their essays and research papers as "proof" of just about anything you can imagine.
RFDIII
Consequently, this is the most religiously (and politically) conservative bunch I can remember -- and I've been here since 1972!
How that has played out in the classroom is that, for the first time, regardless of the topic, I'm getting students citing Bible verses in their essays and research papers as "proof" of just about anything you can imagine.
RFDIII
# posted by 
: 8:17 AM
: 8:17 AM
Sir, you know my view on religion. I doubt you could convince me otherwise, I was raised in religion and then abandoned it on my own. Although I don't believe, I in no way think that you shouldn't. I still am open to occasionally visiting churches because I don't think that necessarily right. I won't change my belief probably. The bible could very will be true; however, it just isn't for me at this time and never really was before.
It doesn't matter if you can convince others of the validity of your eye, it only matters that you can convince yourself that it is right for you. The real test isn't if you can persuade others to believe, it is only if you yourself can believe it. There are various religions that we reject as foolish like scientology; however, there is something that appeals to someone in that religion so it doesn't matter what we think of the religion.
It doesn't matter if you can convince others of the validity of your eye, it only matters that you can convince yourself that it is right for you. The real test isn't if you can persuade others to believe, it is only if you yourself can believe it. There are various religions that we reject as foolish like scientology; however, there is something that appeals to someone in that religion so it doesn't matter what we think of the religion.
I am sure the Summum followers believe what they believe as much as you believe in the message of Christianity and the Scientologist believe in whatever it is they believe. Although I find many stories of the old testament a little out there, for me (the agnostic), they are stories/folklore and there are lessons that can be learned from reading the Bible.
I was having this discussion with some friends the other day. I've been on a crusade lately against the sort of "skeptical" reaction to religion, including Christianity, because I think it's disingenuous. Anyone asking for historical verification of the life of Jesus is really saying one thing while wanting another -- it's easy to accept that the man Jesus lived. He's mentioned by historians, and there are (canonically!) four books that chronicle his life that were assembled by that nice council at Nicea.
But it's another thing altogether for people to swallow his divinity (again, pun fully intended). These are people that have grown up with the wonder of science and technology being demonstrated to them, and most of them assume a sort of default, naive empiricism/scientism about the world.
It's strange, because I bet none of them have even seen a particle accelerator, let alone know how it works, but all of them probably believe in quarks and gluons. They take the word of the priests of physics at face value, but not the word of people who claim to have had direct spiritual experiences.
Now, I'm not saying there is a doxastic equivalent between believing in subatomic particles and divinity, but there is an epistemic equivalent. They're functionally indistinguishable from an external perspective.
So, what distinguishes them has to be the meaning. Science is meaningless if it's not literally true. Religion, on the other hand, still works even if it's not true. The story of Jesus has transformative power even if he didn't die and rise three days later, as long as it is figuratively true that belief provides salvation.
I think the problem I have with modern American evangelical Christianity (as RFDIII helpfully points out) is that it assumes that religion must be literally true, that there is a doxastic equivalent between secular ways of understanding and spiritual ones... that one must have authority over the other in order to be meaningful.
So does Summum seem "weirder" to me than established religions? Yes, it fails the "smell" test. But perhaps it only does so because so much of my formation as a person is within the canonical Western tradition. Maybe to a Hindu or Buddhist Summum doesn't seem so strange.
Maybe in 150 years, when the Church of Summum holds weekly Sunday televised broadcasts, kids will think differently about it.
Post a Comment
But it's another thing altogether for people to swallow his divinity (again, pun fully intended). These are people that have grown up with the wonder of science and technology being demonstrated to them, and most of them assume a sort of default, naive empiricism/scientism about the world.
It's strange, because I bet none of them have even seen a particle accelerator, let alone know how it works, but all of them probably believe in quarks and gluons. They take the word of the priests of physics at face value, but not the word of people who claim to have had direct spiritual experiences.
Now, I'm not saying there is a doxastic equivalent between believing in subatomic particles and divinity, but there is an epistemic equivalent. They're functionally indistinguishable from an external perspective.
So, what distinguishes them has to be the meaning. Science is meaningless if it's not literally true. Religion, on the other hand, still works even if it's not true. The story of Jesus has transformative power even if he didn't die and rise three days later, as long as it is figuratively true that belief provides salvation.
I think the problem I have with modern American evangelical Christianity (as RFDIII helpfully points out) is that it assumes that religion must be literally true, that there is a doxastic equivalent between secular ways of understanding and spiritual ones... that one must have authority over the other in order to be meaningful.
So does Summum seem "weirder" to me than established religions? Yes, it fails the "smell" test. But perhaps it only does so because so much of my formation as a person is within the canonical Western tradition. Maybe to a Hindu or Buddhist Summum doesn't seem so strange.
Maybe in 150 years, when the Church of Summum holds weekly Sunday televised broadcasts, kids will think differently about it.
<< Home
