It happened again. I'm on the email list of some of my old high school friends, one of whom is fond of sending along inspirational poems, pictures, whatever. As I have mentioned on this blog before, I consider such stuff little more than spam. At least it lets me know that this particular classmate still has my email address.
What burns me though, is when she sends "inspirational" claptrap. In this case it was the one about the ACLU supposedly trying to prevent soldiers from praying on government property or government time. Besides being totally false, it is a gratuitous dig against the ACLU - an organization that in its own way is just as important to American freedoms as the US military. While the military guards against external threats, the ACLU guards against internal threats that are often more insidious. And I don't know whether I'm more upset at the people who put together such messages as I received or the thoughtless propogation of that message by people who don't take the time to think about it.
I recently stumbled across a quote from that great justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. who once said, “Certitude is not the test of certainty. We have been cocksure of many things that were not so.” Do we fall into the trap of assuming that certitude, or sincere belief, is the best evidence of the truth? Whether it's political positions, civil rights, or religion, what do you use to evaluate the truth.
If you read my review of “Reality Check” you have heard that there are over 10,000 organized religions in the world and over 270 of them have more than 500,000 adherents. 270 religions with more than half a million believers! We’re not talking about small sects here. And they’re all positive, sincerely positive, that they have the most truth. For all of these religions, the only proof of the truth of the religion is the sincerity of belief of their members. There are no objective measurements, no testable facts that can rationally “prove” the truth. Even attempting to use the maxim “by their fruits shall ye know them” gets us into trouble because of the human frailties of the believers. There is no church with perfect believers.
Does this mean that we should abandon all hope of reaching the truth? Or does it mean that we should be more careful about claiming that we have the full truth or even the most truth? Maybe, like the parable of the blind men investigating an elephant, some truths are different for each of us. My truth will never be your truth in this area. And no amount of sincere belief or certitude on my part will make it true for you.
Do they ALL really believe they have the "most", "complete", or "only" truth. That seems characteristic of the monotheistic religions, but not so much so of such religions as Hinduism, Confusism, or Budhism.
ReplyDeleteYou're probably correct. Although I think even these religions, if they become state religions, tend to assume a positions of "our way or the highway". Does it have more to do with power and the fact that power tends to corrupt?
ReplyDeleteI have run across a lot of Baptists, Lutherens, etc. who have believe there is no one 'true' religion (e.g. as long as you are Christian, you are good to go).
ReplyDeleteDon't know if that is their own opinion, what they have been taught by parents, pastors, etc. or the official view of the religion.