Donald Clegg: Religious differences block agreement on meaning
I‘d like to continue a discussion of belief systems.
This includes working toward a common understanding of just what various belief systems mean – no mean feat, itself.
It might even open some closed doors on understanding why the Right and Left, in both politics and religion, just can’t seem to get along all that well.
Not to diminish the vast array of ways in which we do get along.
Some folks like to point out to me that a humanistic stance toward the world, based on “rationality,” is no less a matter of faith than is a belief in God.
I don’t disagree; “faith” certainly has many meanings, and my overall worldview certainly can be considered faith-based, dependent on what definition you choose.
I’d like to make it perfectly clear that I have faith in “truth,” defined in this sort of manner: that it is contingent upon fact, and that as, if and when facts change – that is, our knowledge of reality is modified – so, too, can truth change.
I think science offers the best method to acquire knowledge of material facts, though it in no way offers a complete understanding of the nature of reality; there is much outside its reach – morality, for instance.
Science deals specifically with empirical knowledge; the rational world, with mathematics and logic; and then there’s that tough nut, gnosis, or spiritual knowledge. This is a simple description of the old Great Chain of Being, which modern science pretty much rejects.
And that schism has created a very sorry state of affairs, as the conflict between modernity and pre-modernity – which plays out between religions, as well as science and religion – would appear to be sufficient to result in possible global holocaust.
Religion still sees itself as the main avenue to meaning, though the schism between followers of different religions, or even sects within religions, makes agreement on that meaning virtually impossible.
This is a whole fruit tree, though, not just a nut, and I’ll take a crack at it in another column.
Returning to the Great Chain, actual agreement depends partly on not confusing these various realms of knowledge, what is called “category error.”
Take these statements: All centaurs are blue. Bill is a centaur. Therefore Bill is blue.
Science proclaims, “There are no centaurs!” Logic says, “So what?”
(The theologian might say Bill needs to get Jesus. Then he won’t be so blue.)
Once there’s agreement that the “truth” of the statement is not dependent on the actual existence of centaurs, the argument ceases to exist. I wish all conflicts were as easily solved.
It’s been an eye-opening experience, in many ways, writing this column, as my detractors tell me regularly what a bonehead I am and that my beliefs are about as far from the truth as the Earth to the moon.
I often am a bonehead, of course, but seldom for the reasons named. Differences in opinion are natural, and if one wants to argue, for instance, that the U.S. should be engaged in torture, that’s fine with me. Argue away.
Saying we aren’t doing it, though, is a whole other kettle of worms.
The most common criticisms I hear are of three basic types: that I’m a “Godless liberal” (as if that’s a bad thing); that I’m ignorant of the threat of the “Islamo-fascists”; and that I have no business whatsoever of bringing politics into this space.
Oh, and this, very clearly: We have to get “them,” wherever and whoever they are, before they get us, and the suspension of liberties at home is just dandy if it makes us “safe.”
Now we’re getting into some serious differences in belief systems, when some are willing to go along with illegal wiretapping; suspension of centuries-old law, dating back to the Magna Carta, regarding habeas corpus rights; and torture, in the name of promoting freedom.
Or, as our Great Leader says, “Freedom’s on the march.” Yes, it is, marching straight away from America.
Why are some people inclined to follow authority figures, no matter what, marching lockstep toward their own doom?
Germany’s the model, but as Lewis Lapham from Harper’s Magazine put it not that long ago, “It does no good to ask the weakling’s pointless question, ‘Is America a fascist state?’ We must ask instead, in a major rather than a minor key, ‘Can we make America the best damned fascist state the world has ever seen?’ “
The answer, seems to me, is leaning toward “You betcha,” though democracy might still have at least one or two toes twitching.
The question, though, of why people go along with heinous crimes, while singing “God Bless America,” just bugs the you-know-what out of me.
As it turns out, there’s a reason, which I’ll begin to explore in my next column.