I was thinking today about my frustrations over trying to arrive at an internal consensus on where I stand on things. Things being religion, politics, morals, etc. I am beginning to wonder if I should just let go and put on the cruise control or if I should keep up the self-adversarial approach as I analyze my beliefs. For some intuitive reason this approach doesn't sit well with me.
I think I know where I stand on reason and my belief in God, but I don't find that it translates very well to interacting with people or living out life in the real world. The odd thing? I felt the same when I believed in the absolute truth of the Bible Coincidence? Probably not as they are both somewhat fundamental in their nature and approach to life. Honest? Yes, I think these fundamental beliefs are honest ways to approach life but they are by far more incendiary and unsettling. Why unsettling? Because they are mutually exclusive of one another. They are diametrically opposed. By nature they cannot coexist in harmony.
I then thought. What is the other option? How about tolerance. I know what I believe; why should I feel like others should feel the same way about it? I was almost comfortable with this until I related it to religious tolerance. By religious/faith tolerance, I mean having beliefs but being willing to let others have their own beliefs without any sort of cognitive dissonance about the whole thing. I think the bumper sticker I have seen around town that captures this best is the one that says Coexist (using the different religious symbols to spell it out). Sounds cozy doesn't it? Like a couch full of pillows and warm blankets on cold rainy day. So what's the problem? I think implicit in this tolerance is some acknowledgment that you are possibly if not most likely wrong about what you believe which is why you wouldn't stake anything on it, in this case conflict. It seems to me this point has to be conceded since so many religious beliefs are at their core exclusive of one another. As soon as a person embraces tolerance they deny to some degree that exclusive nature of their belief system. What is this then? Is it not simply saying that the core of your faith or religious belief is mistaken? If so are you not redefining your belief? Are you justified in doing this? Are you not just creating your own new religion or faith of convenience? Where do you draw the line then for what is right or wrong about your faith?
Is it possible then that the fundamentalist approach whether religious, secularist, or atheistic may be the most honest attempt at being consistent even to the point of fallacy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I like the point you make that " I think implicit in this tolerance is some acknowledgment that you are possibly if not most likely wrong about what you believe which is why you wouldn't stake anything on it, in this case conflict"- belief that their is no real truth is also in and of itself an exclusive belief- it excludes all those who believe there is truth- the devout jew, muslim, christian hindu etc.
An excellent point (If I understood correctly), there can be a certain kind of intolerance, or intellectual arrogance in declaring "there is no real truth." This can be another form of 'ism albeit fundamentalism, atheism, or something else.
The word "intuitive" is an interesting word choice in this blog. We rightly place high value on intellectual thinking and scientfic method, etc. But could there be other kinds of knowing that transcend mere intellectual ascent? And could these other types of knowing form an intelligible foundation for belief?
I think people often confuse "belief that there is no truth" with belief that an absolute truth does exist but is not absolutely knowable.
If I understand correctly, the comment infers that intuition is a type of thinking or consciousness that stands outside of scientific and intellectual reasoning. This may seem at the surface true since we understand so little about our brain and how it functions to make decisions, analysis, etc; however, as Dr. Pinker an evolutionary psychologist at Harvard suggests intuition may actually be the brains way of taking past experiences and knowledge and collectively creating a type of database which can be tapped into when addressing questions, problems, etc. We may not be able to exactly tap into the details of why we feel the way we do about something, but the brain definitely plays a part without letting you in on all the details. This makes sense really. Think about how difficult life would be if you had to recall all details and arguments about why you take any action or make any claim.
What are the other ways of knowing ? Even if other ways of knowing exist they should not conflict with our current methods of knowing or exploring. I am not sure that one can simply rely on other ways of knowing since the current ways of knowing are simply an inconvenient avenue for justifying a belief or bit of acclaimed knowledge.
An example of an alternative way of knowing might be a person's individual thought experience. Some might even claim the thought experience is spiritual in nature. While you cannot deny a person an experience (feeling,warmth,whatever) they had in their head, you can deny the truth it claims to reveal and the explanation for its source or motivation. One does not have to go far to find the contradicting thought experience. Also, if this way of knowing is valid no person could have accountability for his or her truth claims. I might say the Christian God spoke to me etc. while the meek man on the other side of the plant might claim the Muslim God spoke to him. How does each resolve this? For starters they use faulty, unverifiable, reason of convenience to justify their belief. An example of this type of response might be, well he had a real experience but unfortunately he is confusing his false God with my real God.
So, in a nutshell, although as the sun rises, crosses the sky, and sets the light casts a different way of viewing all that it sheds its light upon, the nature of the revealed object has not changed nor the eyes through which the enlightened object is viewed. You might even call on a different nonexistent sun to rise and shed its light but alas the nature of the object being enlightened will not change in nature. Maybe a nuance or new understanding regarding the nature of that object might be unveiled but surely the newly revealed nature of the object can only resonate with the old object, not contradict it. Of course, this is calling on a purely speculative light that may not even truly exist.
Post a Comment