An Ancient Debate
I posted this bit of writing on Facebook a few months ago. It is the culmination of an ongoing debate with a Catholic woman named Kelly Ann who I got into a discussion with via my friend Cressida's Facebook page. I haven't been posting much on my blog because facebook has been where I've been posting most of my writing, but if there are any readers out there left I have decided to start posting my facebook writing here too.
You know what has struck me in our debate Kelly Ann? I’m I'm struck by the fact that we are both skeptics. Now stay with me here, all I mean by this is that you and I are skeptical about what we *think* each other's opinion is. You assume I believe that reason and intellect can solve the problems of life; which is an opinion you are very skeptical about and with good reason. I, on the other hand, assume you believe organized religion can provide humanity with the insight it needs, which is a belief I am highly skeptical of. However, I think that while this is true to a point, it is also misleading in some ways.
First of all, while I definitely am skeptical of organized religion, I also know that, historically, attempts at a purely rational and scientific approach to human existence have proven to be disasterous. So I'm with you in so far as I don’t have any ultimate faith in reason either. It’s just a tool, good for some things and not for others. So I have to object when you claim that mine is an “intellectual path.”
I don’t know what you call my path. Arguably, I’m even worse than a materialist intellectual, at least the intellectual can put their faith in science and inquiry, but me, I have nothing. I’m a double skeptic; I don't trust reason or religion and I honestly do not know what to do about this. (Though in the interest of total honesty I cannot claim that this position has made my life more difficult, on the contrary It has made me happier than I have ever been. But I can't tell you why. It is less stressful, that much I can tell you.)
You, on the other hand, are a believer and (I’m guessing) though you are skeptical of reason, you are not a total irrationalist. You’re faith is not baseless. You do not simply accept your religion on the strength of authority alone, because you (I’m guessing) are not a person of blind faith. I get the impression that you have had deep personal experiences that are the basis of your beliefs. You claim to have come to know real live full-on Truth in a way that is beyond reason and words, but just because it cannot be proven in a labratory or courtroom dosen’t make it any less true for you. You know what you do because you’ve simply *come to see the truth of it.* Full Stop. And that *really* is perfectly fair as far as I’m concerned, and I mean that. I have no expectation that I could ever convince you otherwise. I’ve just seen too much of this kind of disagreement to think it can be solved by pursuasion.
In a way you have the advantage; you at least *Know* something. Like I said before, I have no wisdom on the subject of god, I simply couldn’t pronounce on the subject yea or nay. And that is why talking to people who do genuinely *Know* stuff is interesting to me. You have some apparently solid stuff to stand on, and all I have is a bunch of reservations.
Up to here we have no problems. The the real difficulties all stem from the fact that your innner vision, personal gnosis, spiritual conviction (however, we want to characterize it) can’t be the basis of *my* (or anyone else’s) belief. Each individual’s belief is their own problem, and some of us just haven’t seen the same vision you have. But, I’ll tell you this much, I’ll joyfull believe whatever turns out to be The Truth, but I can’t do that until I *Know* The Truth, which I don't.
However, not knowing the absolute Truth doesn’t make me a sociopath or a nihilist. As it turns out, my reservations are the source of many of my biggest moral concerns. One of them goes something like this: “You, George, are just a human, and real Knowledge seems to so often be uncertain and provisional, therefore you ought to be careful about judging and condeming others.” (Note that I do not say “don’t condem or judge” just “be careful” about it. And I’d add that I also believe that when I do judge or condemn, I should take full responsibility for it. If my judgement goes wrong I can’t blame any faulty teaching or bad institution, in the end it was me that took the risk of decision, and decision, for me, is always a risk - at least until I come to know the real Truth of existence, should I be so lucky.)
People who believe in revealed (traditional, institutional, organized, biblical) religions, on the other hand, say something similar about their moral concerns, but with one important difference, and that goes (hypothetically) something like this: “You, Abdul, are just a human, and knowledge is always uncertain and provisional, so you must submit yourself to the Truth of the Koran and the Imam. And because homosexuality is an abomination to Allah it is your duty slaughter your brother because he is gay. You must do this regardless of how you feel about it or whether or not it seems right to you. The moral thing for you to do is to obey Allah, now get out there and clean up the streets. The command to do so is, after all, the absolute truth.” (Actual story, New York Times Wed. April, 8, On the massacre of 20 gay men in Sadr City, Iraq.)
In this context, religious belief seems pure nihilism. It may not be relativism, but it is just as bad as the nihilism any relativist can be accused of: Relativists never think about right or wrong because they don’t believe right and wrong exists, while millitant religionists on the other hand never think about right or wrong, because they are trained not to think or question. They are trained only to take orders.
Now, I believe, no, strike that, I *Know* that, you, Kelly Ann, find the massacre of homosexual men in Sadr City as horrible as I do. You wouldn’t be friends with Cress if you did not.
But, what I really truly need to understand is how *you* draw the line between right and wrong. That is, if the Catholic Church ordered a huge burning of withches, or gays or Jews or Protestants (and they have done this in the past and the Bible is also full of stories of massacres carried out in the name of moral obedience to God’s Truth too, so it isn’t out of the question that you might face such a choice.) by what standard would you decide it is time to ignore the institution and the holy book and say, “No this is one of those times in history when the Church has become utterly corrupted. The institution is wrong in this case and I dissent!”
Your dissent cannot be based on Church authority. In such a case it can only be based on your own personal judgment. Even if you decide to come up with your own interpretation of scripture to support your moral position, it is still *your* moral position and not the truth of your religion, proper. So my question is how do you know when to dissent from religious authority?
In your reply to me you said:
“And, of course, for me there is ultimate truth, none of the relative 'your truth is as good as mine'. Truth is not a matter of opinion, it's truth. Ya know?”
Believe it or not, I agree that Truth is not a matter of opinion and I also agree Truth can’t be relative; the very word ‘Truth’ by definition means something that is not relative. But what good is that truism if I have no means of truly Knowing the capital T Truth?
And this is the reason I’m very interested in all those people who seem to have a means of *Knowing* and do get *Big Ultimate Truth* from their religion: maybe they actually do Know something. Maybe I should take their claims seriously. But, to summarize my above observations, I’ll point out that religious people claiming True Knowledge seem to break down into two types: 1. true believers who do what their religion tells them whether it looks right to them or not. (They do not trust their own reason and judgment, they trust bibles, prophets and priests.) And 2. People who take their religion as a loose guideline, but feel free to disagree with it when and where they feel it is being too extreme or orthodox or liberal or conservative and so on. Both types have probably had religious experiences that have convinced them of their beliefs, but they have interpreted those experiences in very different ways. The first type of religionist can't even discuss the matter. Communication ends there. God said it, they believe it, that settles it. However, you *can* talk with the second type, but their position confuses me. They consider their ‘religion’ sufficient moral authority for most things, but on some things they consider *themselves* the moral authority. And I have to ask where they derive derive *that* authority from?
I’m asssuming they derive that authority from the same place I get mine. That is to say, their best guess about what is Truly Right. So, of the loose guideline religionist I must ask the following question: If, when push comes to shove, we are doing all the difficult decision making and having to take responsibility for the failures, why not cut out the middle man? Why can’t we think and talk and work it out without the priests and sacraments and strange dietary prohibitions and heresies and weird obsessions with human sexual activity and so on?
In short, if we already consider our own judgment more authoritative than religion, why do we need to resort to organized political religion at all? There are other religious options, you know, ones that encourage us to take personal responsibility for the state of humanity and not foist it off on god. You can still pray, but why not make the informed discernment and careful judgment program an explicit part of our religious commitments as well?
This seems important because we humans do seem to be F’ing it up royally, and all the conflicting accounts of GOD appear to be doing more harm than good. And there is no search and rescue squad to come airlift us out of this woods. _*We ARE the search and rescue team.*_. If god were the authority he claims he is, shouldn’t he get in there and use those miracle powers to destroy or at least provide sudden enlightenment, (like he did for St. Paul,) to all the people who follow the "false" religions so we don’t destroy ourselves and the planet arguing about it?
Whew, I didn’t think that would get that involved. If you read this far I thank you.
Recent Comments