Authority outside ourselves

Tolerance is often defined as letting everyone decide truth for themselves and respecting that truth no matter what it is. Who becomes the true authority when this definition of tolerance is held too? Is it not the person themselves then who ultimately decided there own moral code- what is right? What is wrong? This is a role that in most societies is left up to the society itself, in others up to God himself and still others to some ruler or authority. However, tolerance I think fits American culture which stresses the individual because it invites that individual to become their own God- make up all the rules and their is nothing with any authority that can then contradict you. Nothing outside of yourself can tell you something is right or wrong. The problem with this is that we are finite, limited creatures who do not and cannot ever know all details, circumstances, knowledge of a particular situation- heck we do not even understand ourselves and thus the need for counselors and psychotherapist- and so therefore cannot make wise decisions in and of ourselves without guidance. The Christian God on the other hand as an omniscient and omnipresent being does know every thing and if this is true can make a decision with all the information in mind both past, present and future. That is probably why the book of wisdom Proverbs states close to the very beginning - Trust not in our own understanding... . Therefore tolerance and the biblical approach are opposed to each other. Tolerance invites one to have faith in oneself- you and your wisdom are the supreme guide. Biblical wisdom would say the opposite. Thus Christianity sees a need for scripture to have something outside yourself that can contradict you. Robb

Religious Tolerance

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.

Chris Hedges on Sam Harris' view of Religion

This full "debate" can be be seen on You Tube in 9 parts. This footage is of part 3, I believe. The debate represents someone not of Faith (Sam Harris) defending the idea that religion (i.e. Faith) really plays no beneficial role and its extinctions would do no harm. The other person (Hedges) a man of Faith and Religion (but in the vaguest sense possible, I would say) defends the existence of Faith in our world. I personally found it nice to see an intelligent person like Hedges trying to ground Harris in the real world (an impossible task). I don't know he was given ample time to argue his points or perhaps he was just more succinct in his choice of words. I do understand Harris' frustration with Faith. I don't know, though, that he can reconcile it with what is happening on the ground in our world. I sense a cognitive dissonance about his beliefs especially when he claims that these topics keep him awake at night. I personally feel his dissonance is related to the fact that as much as he hates dogma, he is, in a way, promoting a potentially harmful dogma himself. I will add that these debates because of the vastness of the topic have a very difficult time staying on topic.