Truth with a capital T

[qatarperegrine]

The phrase "All roads lead to the same place" came up in conversation yesterday, and I've been thinking more about it.

I don't, in fact, believe that all roads lead to the same place. The analogy is usually, I think, that the religions of the world are all paths leading up the same mountain, which is to say that they all converge on the same end goal. But is the goal the same in every religion? I don't think even the major religions share a vision of what it means to attain spiritual fulfillment -- becoming a boddhisatva is not quite the same as becoming a saint, or a tirthankara, or a Muslim prophet. I suppose one could say (to use Christian language) that the goal they converge upon is God, but I don't find God-as-object-of-quest to be a satisfying metaphor for religion. And this is ignoring the even further question of whether all religious beliefs and practices even lead towards and not away from what I consider to be holy.

I really don't think you have to believe that all religions are interchangable in order to have a profound respect for other religious traditions. I'm not sure you even have to see them as equal, to use the contested word of the week.

My central image of the relationships of the religions is more like a story I heard from Rev. Ben Silva-Netto at a training for Methodist lay speakers in California. He asked us to imagine a room full of art students circled around a model in the middle of the room. Because they all see the model from a unique perspective, and because they come to the assignment with their own personal background and skills, each of them portrays the model differently. One paints a portrait, one draws a silhouette in charcoal, one sketches the model's hands. At the end of the assignment, when the model has left the room and they start looking at each other's work, they are sure to find areas of disagreement in their portrayals. People sitting in very differerent places are likely not even to be able to recognize that each other's pictures are of the same model. (This was certainly true when I took an art class in college!)

Rev. Silva-Netto used this as an analogy for the theological task. When we start trying to explain how we understand "Truth with a capital T" we are likely to disagree with each other. And if I see my own painting rather than the model itself as the Truth, I am likely to see my neighbors' portrayal of the Truth as wrongheaded. But this is only because my own perspective is limited, and I am failing to recognize that the model itself exists in one more dimension than my version of it. So I see my version and my neighbor's as mutually exclusive, not realizing that our disagreements and contradictions don't have to be resolved, that our observations may both be valid even when they conflict. And, in fact, if I were to try to make the draw-er of the silhouette buy into my vision of the model's hands, I would be asking that person to go against the Truth that was disclosed to her.

Anyway, this metaphor is not entirely a satisfying metaphor for religion either, because I think God/The Truth/The Tao/Whatever is a lot more than a passive model. But for me it IS a more helpful metaphor for the intellectual, theological aspect of faith, because it explains how we can acknowledge and even learn from other people's visions of the Truth even when they disagree with ours, whereas (in my mind, at least) the paths-up-a-mountain metaphor requires that we ignore the very real differences between the religions.

So I hear a question like "Is Jesus divine?" and I wonder if yes/no is the right approach. I think there is truth in the Christian assertion that God is ultimately revealed through the life and death of Jesus. I think there is also truth in the Muslim assertion that the whole Trinity idea is a little weird. And I don't think it's violating the Christian tradition to see the perspective that might be gained from both sides of an issue; the Bible is, after all, full of different and contradictory perspectives. Was Abraham saved by faith or by works? The Bible includes (at least) two contradictory statements on the matter. I think things like that are an acknowledgement that different intellectualizations of an experience can be useful even when they completely contradict one another.

In Buddhist logic, a and not-a are not the only logical alternatives. Both a and not-a and neither a nor not-a are also logical perspectives. I see value in a both a and not-a approach to Truth: Jesus is God, Jesus is not God, there are spiritual insights we can gain from both positions. Or to be more apophatic, the divine mystery cannot be reduced to either "Jesus is God" or "Jesus is not God." Neti, neti, the Hindus would say: Ultimate Reality is neither simply this nor simply that, but always transcends any formulations we use to describe it. The Tao that can be described in words is not the real Tao.

I wanted to talk more about Christian particularism and the question of whether "Jesus is God" even is the central truth claim of Christianity. (Not to mention whether truth claims are the heart of religion in the first place.) But I think I'll have to leave that for another day....

Comments

[seetarkrun.livejournal.com]

Leland sent me to this post, and I thought it was really interesting.

Have you read Life of Pi? It's fantastic, though the complete opposite of the thesis of your argument.
I loved the painting metaphor.

And my compliments on a religious essay that included more than just Christian denominations with an Islam reference thrown in.


Luke 6:46- "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?"

[qatar.livejournal.com]

Hi, Sarah! I'm glad you liked it.

I have read Life of Pi; I really liked it, but you're right that I disagreed with the central point about religion. Or at least, I think there's more to the religions of the world than "Let's paint as happy picture as we can of the universe, even if it's delusional." :-)

What I've been trying to work out is where a religious tradition like Unitarian Universalism fits in here. It seems like syncretist faiths try to synthesize all the other pictures (or at least the ones they agree with) and use them to reconstruct the model using, I don't know, stereoscopy or photo-stitching or something; I'm sure there's a good metaphor in here. What I don't know is how well that works -- can you gain a larger perspective by having a syncretist view of multiple religions, or whether you just lose the depth of each individual tradition?

The Luke quote is a good one for where I was going to go with the central claim of Christianity thing. I don't think the central claim of Christianity is necessarily the same as the central teachings of Jesus, and I haven't decided whether I think that's OK or not. :-)

[qatar.livejournal.com]

Note to self: reread your sentences after you change their structure significantly!

Should be: can you gain a larger perspective by having a syncretist view of multiple religions, or do you just lose the depth of each individual tradition?

[seetarkrun.livejournal.com]

Speak of the devil (no pun intended)! I'm a Unitarian Universalist.

I like to think of UUism as something like Jefferson's Bible. Thomas Jefferson (a Deist, who we therefore claim to be UU) cut out his favorite Bible passages to create his own Bible. In the same way, UUs look for the good in every religion and disregard the bad.

Realizing that religion, while inspired by God, was ultimately created by Man, it's easy to account for most discrepancies. Saint Matthew's dire warnings of hell for nonbelievers, a concept I abhor, can easily be explained by a desire to recruit more followers for example.

In a way, I think religions inform each other- we gain a broader perspective on what we do believe by understanding what we don't.


And in the end, I don't think a patchwork faith is bad, even if you're the only one in the world who believes exactly as you do. Statistically, any belief system has an equal probability of being true, no matter how many people believe in it. We just as likely should be worshipping ants as our ancestors or cows or a 2000-year-old carpenter. Whatever belief brings you comfort, I've decided, is the best one.

[qatar.livejournal.com]

I thought you were a UU, or at least raised UU. (You mentioned it in a xanga entry back when your xanga was linked to from Leland's wiki.)

The "looking for the good in every religion" is something I've been thinking about lately. I very much do the same thing: I think that learning about all the major world religions teaches me more about God than just learning about one. What I start to wonder sometimes is where one's concept of "the good" comes from, though. If I am using some principle extrinsic to religions to evaluate them, what exactly is that principle and how did I decide on it?

So normally I'd have no problem saying that the extrinsic principle is my personal sense of discernment, since I have "that of God" in me (to use the Quaker term) that allows me to evaluate good from bad. But in some sense that is a cop-out. I think that hell is an abhorrent idea; I think that Kali is a scary goddess, I think that no war is holy... but is that real discernment, or is that just me being what my pagan friends would call a "fluffy bunny"? The Qur'an says, "Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not." I sure don't like that idea, but it's hard to argue against. And, in a larger view, I think having a totally individualistic faith can also get us into trouble: I think of a woman who heard voices in her head and believed them to be demons taunting her, and I think it's good to be able to say, Our personal experience is not necessarily more reliable than the weight of religious tradition.

In the end I keep coming back to the Wesleyan quadrilateral, which says that a trustworthy theological position must take into account scripture, tradition, reason and experience. And still, Methodists of all stripes are using the quadrilateral to explain diametrically opposed viewpoints on, e.g., homosexuality, so that's hardly infallible either.

I'm not sure why I'm hoping for infallibility today. :-) I must be channeling my Catholic roots!

[qatar.livejournal.com]

I think you added value. I have to say that, as a progressive Christian who believes that questions have more value than answers. :-)

"But my exposure to Islam has not made me more convinced that Christianity is correct; at least, not yet. Nor do I find myself convicted that Islam is closer to the big T than Christianity."

This has been my experience of pretty much every religion I've been exposed to. Every time I start learning about a new faith tradition, part of me wonders if I'm going to end up being convinced that this one is The Truth. Instead, in every case I find things in the tradition that make me think, "How cool is that!" and things that make me think (at best), "Well... that's kinda weird...."

"Agnosticism sounds attractive, but then where does Pascal's wager fit in?"

I'm not, as you know, a fan of Pascal's wager. For one thing, "wagering for" the Christian god (as he presupposed) necessitates "wagering against" the Muslim god, so by his logic you are (literally!) damned if you do and damned if you don't. His logic would presumably lead you to opt for the religion that promises the worst torture for those who get it wrong, which is hardly a fantastic reason for adopting a faith tradition. But more importantly, his assumption is that the heart of religion is holding a particular opinion about the existence or nonexistence of a particular supernatural entity, which is, I think, a false premise. And anyway, what kind of god would reward someone for being that mercenary? (Not to mention that, if you're Muslim, betting in the first place is haram.)

I think this is getting back towards the topic I was going to talk about, namely whether religions are about truth claims. Certainly religions embody worldviews, which bear some kind of relation to capital-T Truth, but is affiliating with a a religion really about creating a Pascalian decision table?

[nicodemusrat.livejournal.com]

Hear hear.

I don't have much of substance to add to your wonderful piece, but I shall try.

Is "Jesus is God" the central claim? How about "There is a God"? I suspect the atheists would like to start there. :)

I also lend some credence to the view that atheism is not necessarily at odds with all religious viewpoints. My atheist side appreciates the beauty of nature and the wonder of the universe itself. Can that not also be God? It is not the God-as-commanding-figure view of Christianity but the God-manifested-in-everything view. Though there's disagreement about whether we term it "God" or "nature", we can both regard existence with wonder.

[qatar.livejournal.com]

I think "There is a God" is very much NOT the central truth claim of Christianity. It is, perhaps, an axiom on which the central truth claim of Christianity rests. Christianity didn't arise to convince people there is a God, because at that point pretty much everyone in Judea believed in a god already. It had a lot to say about what God is like and what God wants of us, but I don't think the disciples would have found the statement "There is a God" to be particularly interesting at all. It's like saying that the central truth claim of Marxism is "There are means of production." Sure, Marxists definitely think that there are means of production, but that's hardly the interesting part of the philosophy!

Of course, "there is a God" is no longer an axiom, so you're right that that's where atheists would like to start. :-) But that's not the same as saying that "there is a God" is the central claim.

And I don't believe in God as commanding figure either, you know! I'm more a panentheist than anything else. Most of the language I like to use for God -- the Numinous, Ultimate Reality, Ground of Being, can I get any more Tillichian here? -- is perhaps not language you would disagree with. And, getting back to my essay, even if we do disagree with each other on how to describe the nature of that-which-invites-wonder, the language is really not what's important. Or, better, the language is only important insofar as it helps or hinders our sense of awe, and our sense of relationship to the rest of creation.

[nicodemusrat.livejournal.com]

I think "There is a God" is very much NOT the central truth claim of Christianity. It is, perhaps, an axiom on which the central truth claim of Christianity rests.

You are, of course, correct in this distinction. In the olden days, during the rise of Christianity, it would've been widely believed that there was a god or gods and this assumption would've been less apparent. From our modern view, rightly or wrongly, I think it is more likely to be questioned.

But even if it isn't the central claim of Christianity, it must still be seen as a fundamental precept upon which everything is based.

I don't believe in God as commanding figure either, you know!

I actually wasn't thinking of you specifically. I was thinking more of common characterizations of God in organized religion, at least that I've seen, where we hear about "the will of God", "the voice of God", etc.

the language is really not what's important. Or, better, the language is only important insofar as it helps or hinders our sense of awe, and our sense of relationship to the rest of creation.

Indeed.

It seems odd for the thread, but I'd like to offer a quote from Dogma: "I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier."

Re: Dogmas

[nicodemusrat.livejournal.com]

That works too!

[qatar.livejournal.com]

I think having some sort of conception of the Divine is probably a precursor to Christian faith, but even that is not an entirely unanimous perspective. Bishop Spong of the Anglican Church is notably vociferious in claiming that "theism is dead."

Personally, I think Spong is as closed-minded as the conservatives he decries, but I do agree that there are alternatives to traditional theism.

View of a Model as a metaphor

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

I have two major issues with this metaphor:

1. It assumes that all religions are "created" by the "viewer", and thus reflect on who and what the viewer is. I do not find this an acceptable assessment of Jewish tradition, which IMHO contains too many "counter-intuitive" elements to be [even mostly] "human based".


2. It assumes that all "viewers" are actually looking at the same "model". It is pretty clear to me that this is NOT the case, as you yourself pointed out in the beginning of this essay. If they aren't looking at the same thing, then there is absolutely no way to reconcile the differences, or even relate to their "paintings" at all, as there is no common ground. I think, in fact, that this is the case, between MOST world religions.

But I do strongly agree that the post-Roman tendency towards clear-cut "logic" is not generally applicable to anything but computer-science (which is why I can't wait for Yes/Maybe/No Quantum computing).

Re: View of a Model as a metaphor

[qatar.livejournal.com]

#2 is very easy to answer; I don't think everyone is looking at the same model. I actually had a paragraph in my post about how sometimes in my art class someone would NOT draw the model at all, but would draw something out the window, or something elsewhere in the room. So indeed, it is not necessarily the case that someone else's portrait is actually a representation of the model. (And it's also not necessarily the case, even if they did try to draw the model, that their piece of art is a good one!)

#1 is harder to answer. On the one hand I agree with you that the main downfall of the analogy is that it assumes that G-d is just passively sitting around waiting to be understood, which is of course not my tradition's understanding of G-d. So I don't know that this is a less acceptable assessment of Judaism than of any other major world religion.

What "counter-intuitive elements" are you thinking of?

counter-intuitive elements

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

Well the most classic example would be the Red Heifer (Numbers 19), which purifies the "unclean", while at the same time, makes unclean the "pure" that come in contact with it, either in preparation or in actual usage. But there are numerous other examples, that from a strictly human POV, don't "make sense" (now or ever).

Re: counter-intuitive elements

[qatar.livejournal.com]

So... the less sense a religion makes, the more divine it is? That's a hard viewpoint to argue against. ;-)

Personally

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

I'm much more partial to Frisbeetarianism.

Hardly, LOL

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

My point was NOT that this makes anything more "Divine", but against those that argue that "religion" is something entirely created from mankind's overly fertile imagination. Those people that argue, that much of the Laws laid out, in the Torah (or most any other Coda), are intrinsic the a decent humane society - that any group of humans that wanted to create a lasting and safe culture, would eventually create these same rules, and that the whole "G-d business" is just psychodrama mumbo-jumbo added on top, to get [primitive] societies to follow these rules, that are often inconvenient to the [strong-willed] individual (like theft - it's so much easier than actually working for one's possessions).

Many scholars like to show the similarities between the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi and those laid out in the Torah, using this to "prove" that the Torah is not Divine in origin at all, but rather a later redaction/adaptation of these Babylonian Laws, which of course is an unacceptable claim to us. It is laws like the Red Heifer, that lacking in any internal-logic that we can perceive, that I feel most threaten this type of "scholarship".

Re: Hardly, LOL

[seetarkrun.livejournal.com]

The red heifer example sounds more like a priest with OCD than Divine Inspiration to me, though I do believe religion was created by man, so perhaps I'm biased.


On the one hand I agree with you that the main downfall of the analogy is that it assumes that G-d is just passively sitting around waiting to be understood, which is of course not my tradition's understanding of G-d.

I say if God wants us to understand him, he should eliminate all the sects that aren't preaching the Truth. He's got his lightning bolts. He could do it.

Thunder and Lightning! Very very Frightening

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

I say if God wants us to understand him, he should eliminate all the sects that aren't preaching the Truth. He's got his lightning bolts. He could do it.

This would only work if you accept the ancient-European Pagan idea that G-d "benefits" from human "worship", in that then of course G-d, wants to "get the word out" to gain more from his increased number of supplicants.

But this is rather far from the Jewish perception of the relationship between G-d and Creation. In that we believe G-d to be immutable, and that G-d made Creation for our benefit. We believe that Reality [Tm] was specifically designed, in such a way that G-d is "hidden", and that it is through our Free-Will chosing to fulfill G-d's expressed will, by observing the Torah, that G-d is revealed in the World. Also if you check, you will find that most of the commandments in the Jewish Torah, relate to interactions between humans on the personal and national level. There are very few, that can be thought of as relating to "worship of G-d".

It is our position that the racial human consciousness is constantly evolving. In Biblical times, big pyrotechnic miracles abounded. But even then this was mostly for a rather short period (60 years around the Exodus), with decreasing frequency the later in time you get. But we have since moved beyond that stage in our collective development. Back then, when people were much more simple-minded, miracles were required to counter the rampant idol worship, to show that indeed, while the idols did nothing, there WAS in fact a real Living G-d, that was part of the world. But today, if the world was exposed to a manifest miracle (especially of the "Smiting type" you refer to), then our mission-critical Free-Will would be seriously compromised, in that we would be cowered into following G-d's Wishes, not from our Free Will, but out of fear of Divine Retribution! It is very sad that throughout the ages the Christian Church has consistently used Fear of G-d and Hell-Fire Retribution, as a weapon to control their believers. This has only harmed mankind, and interfered with the Divine Plan.

You might also notice that with one or two rather extreme exceptions (like the overturning of Sodom, and the Exodus), G-d only uses the lightning bolts type of retribution (I don't think actual lightning is ever used, that would be the damn Greeks), against the Jews. This is because the Jews already know that G-d is manifest, and their Free-Will would not be as strongly effected, considering that, already knowing, they had Chutzpah enough to go against G-d's Will.

Re: Hardly, LOL

[qatar.livejournal.com]

"...against those that argue that 'religion' is something entirely created from mankind's overly fertile imagination..."

OK, as long as you know I'm not one of those. I don't think religion is a result of an overly fertile imagination but a response to real experiences with the Divine. (And anyway, our overly fertile imaginations are God-given in the first place.) I think my only disagreement with you here is that I'm unwilling to say that this is true for Judaism and not for other religions. :-)

But of course, dear friend

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

Another crucial and Fundamental ;-) disagreement we have, that to me is inherent in the one you mention, is the extent and accuracy of "transmission" and recording of those "real experiences with the Divine". Obviously I believe, that the Torah is a word-for-word record of these, with G-d being the actual author of the Torah (with Moshe "merely" as Scribe), and the Bible being accurate as well. You, obviously to me, can NOT accept this POV, considering your inclusive attitudes and synthesism.

This disagreement derives from the fatc that the Torah is explicitly exclusive of these other "religious traditions". [ insert recurring "Judaism is not a religion" reference ;-) ] So if you accept the Torah as an accurate record, and accept the Torah's inclusiveness and applicability to non-Jews (e.g. the Noahide Laws) then there is no room, or even any actual need for any other "religion".