Something I've been pondering a bit recently is the concept of fate/destiny/foreordination: that which is "meant to be." This leads me to ask the question: without a belief in some sort of power, force, or being that ascribes meaning, how can a person believe events and relationships in life are anything but random chaotic happenstance?
RSG Reply:
Who says with any authority that events and relationships are not random and chaotic? Look at any chaotic event, and a pattern begins to emerge. Patterns emerge in chaos and we call it coincidence as often as fate. Ever notice how people come in waves to a line? At one point there is no one in line, then all of a sudden, there are a bunch of people who come at once. Ebbs and flows. Maybe we seek a deeper meaning where we want to find one, almost as if seeking approval from parent. We don't think about the relationships we have formed with the clerk, the neighbor, the coworker as particularly meaningful until they cross some line that makes them "us" and no longer "them". Maybe the "cosmic drawn" is simply a matter of like attracting like, that the meaningful, cosmic "connection" is simply similarity of character, thought or demeanor which we recognize as familiar at a deep and unconscious level? Maybe the reason you are so heavily drawn to a particular person is because that person reminds you of another person you know and connect with?
Friday, August 20, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Is Truth Unequivocal, Unalterable, Constant?
First, what is truth? I like this definition: Truth is what corresponds in the mind to what is outside it. In that sense, what is true for me, may not be true for you, but that does not necessarily mean it is not true. But I doubt you are asking me for my ontological interpretation of "truth".
Since we are speaking in heavy religious terms, I'm guessing you wanted a sort of religious based reply, my thoughts as to whether the construct created by a "higher power" is unwavering, even when so many different people have so many different ideas about what this construct is? In essence, are the lessons the same even if the teacher varies? Is an apple still an apple, even if, when you look at it, it is a MacIntosh, when a Christian looks at it, it is a pear-apple, when a shintoist looks at it, it tries to walk away, and when I look at it I see nothing at all? Could it still be just a Granny Smith apple despite our inability to see it as such? and a tasty one at that?
I think, yes. The Granny Smith always exists, but we cannot comprehend it without conforming it to something we can use and digest. And yet it still hangs there, ripe for the picking, tantalizingly out of reach, yet its scent even I can smell.
Since we are speaking in heavy religious terms, I'm guessing you wanted a sort of religious based reply, my thoughts as to whether the construct created by a "higher power" is unwavering, even when so many different people have so many different ideas about what this construct is? In essence, are the lessons the same even if the teacher varies? Is an apple still an apple, even if, when you look at it, it is a MacIntosh, when a Christian looks at it, it is a pear-apple, when a shintoist looks at it, it tries to walk away, and when I look at it I see nothing at all? Could it still be just a Granny Smith apple despite our inability to see it as such? and a tasty one at that?
I think, yes. The Granny Smith always exists, but we cannot comprehend it without conforming it to something we can use and digest. And yet it still hangs there, ripe for the picking, tantalizingly out of reach, yet its scent even I can smell.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
What Is Religion?
As I pondered the question "what is religion?" a hive of thoughts buzzed actively around my mind: Is it a dogma? Is it a sect? What does Webster or OED say religion is? What do I think it is? And then a thought calmed the buzzing with an almost musical quality contrasting with the atonal buzzing of unfocused ideas. My answer to this difficult question is sweet to me because it was literally a life-saving answer for some of my ancestors.
In 1856 some of my forbears joined a large number of immigrant Mormon pioneers in the trek west across the American plains. Because most of these immigrant travelers had very few possessions and even less money the Church leaders organized handcart companies rather than prohibitively expensive wagon trains. Two of these companies, the Willie and Martin companies, named for their respective captains, arrived in Ft. Laramie in Wyoming in early September expecting to resupply for the remaining slog into the Salt Lake Valley. No supplies greeted them when they arrived and a stricter rationing of the beleaguered pilgrims' already scanty provisions was mandated. The leaders determined to forward the companies as quickly as possible as it was clear their supplies would not sustain them through the remainder of the trek. Winter came early for those suffering souls. Cold mingled with exhaustion and hunger. Death began taking first the old and infirm and then soon the formerly hardy and strong. It was unusual if at least one grave was not dug before breaking camp each day. When snow finally came so many had been taken by cold or dysentery or exhaustion that none remained strong enough to raise the tent poles to erect shelter from the elements. The privation and suffering of these poor souls surpasses imagination!
On October 5, 1856 the President of the Church, Brigham Young, was addressing a congregation assembled for a semi-annual conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. He had just been given word of the plight of the suffering handcart pioneers stranded near the Sweetwater River in Wyoming. And it was then that he gave, in front of the assembled body of the Church, the answer—my answer—to the question: What Is Religion? He said,
"I will now give this people the subject and the text for [this] Conference, it is this, on the 5th day of October, 1856, many of our brethren and sisters are on the Plains with hand-carts, and probably many are now seven hundred miles from this place, and they must be brought here, we must send assistance to them. The text will be—to get them here! I want the brethren who may speak to understand that their text is the people on the Plains, and the subject matter for this community is to send for them and bring them in... That is my religion... it is to save the people." Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, p.113 (emphasis added)
Later, as the refugees got closer to arriving in Salt Lake City, President Young said,
"I would give more for a dish of pudding and milk, or a baked potato and salt, were I in the situation of those persons who have just come in, than I would for all your prayers, though you were to stay here all the afternoon and pray. Prayer is good, but when baked potatoes and pudding and milk are needed, prayer will not supply their place on this occasion." As quoted in LeRoy R. Hafen and Ann W. Hafen, Handcarts to Zion (1960), p. 139
And so, the answer that Brigham Young gave, the answer that saved the lives of my own ancestors, the answer that James gave anciently (James 1:27), is my answer, too.
D.R.
R.S.G. REPLY:
I assume from your reply that you are suggesting that religion helps people in both individual and communal capacities, i.e., it helps each person become a better person/ascend, and it provides guidance, much like a parent, to the community, as well as a supportive social network ostensibly sharing the same set of beliefs and morals. To some extent, if this is what you are saying, I agree.
It appears that religion fills a deep social need to belong and that this is the most beneficial aspect of religion as I see it exists today. This sense of belonging seems to be the most prominent, and sometimes only link between a group of devouts purporting to practice the same religion. Being together with a like-minded group of people is helpful, providing a dedicated, centralized group of people to support other members as you pointed out in the parable above. Early religions codified health and social codes of a now bygone time when eating pork could kill you, and alcohol was both expensive and unregulated. Religion has throughout history provided a set of rules, to which people have gladly adhered for guidance, wisdom, historical connections, and a sense of belonging. Some have not so gladly adhered to these rules but did so out of fear of social stigma, of ostrasization, of being wrong about it all and going to hell.
In the early days of Catholicism, people would flock dutifully to mass on Sunday, where they were expected to stand for hours and listen to a sermon in a language they did not understand. The religion itself was impenetrable to most loyal "Catholics" and subject to broad re-interpretation by the few learned individuals who could actually read Latin. Clearly, religious conviction could not have joined people at a deeper level of understanding where none, in fact, existed. Even today, if you get two individuals of the same faith in a room, from the same church even, the personal religious beliefs of those two people will differ, sometimes wildly. And yet, when called upon by an authority figure/priest/spiritual leader/etc. these two people MAY be more likely to help each other, say, raise the barn, than the guy down the street who is not of the same faith.
It is this individual re-interpretation that bothers me most about "religion", and perhaps begins to answer your question, below. If religion exists to help an individual, both socially and spiritually, then the help I need from that set of fixed beliefs will necessarily be different than what you need. And most religious texts are purposefully obscure enough that one person can interpret a passage one way, while the next person interprets and practices the teachings of that passage in another. These different interpretations are a natural occurrence from such obscure reference material. Is this actually the blood of Christ? Is this actually the body? Who exactly are these meek people, anyway? Are these differing interpretations helpful if the purpose of religion at one level is to help an individual ascend? Should an individual be punished for believing the words of their pastor/guru/lama/llama if that person teaches the wrong principals to their flock? According to some religions, yes.
D.R.
R.S.G. REPLY:
I assume from your reply that you are suggesting that religion helps people in both individual and communal capacities, i.e., it helps each person become a better person/ascend, and it provides guidance, much like a parent, to the community, as well as a supportive social network ostensibly sharing the same set of beliefs and morals. To some extent, if this is what you are saying, I agree.
It appears that religion fills a deep social need to belong and that this is the most beneficial aspect of religion as I see it exists today. This sense of belonging seems to be the most prominent, and sometimes only link between a group of devouts purporting to practice the same religion. Being together with a like-minded group of people is helpful, providing a dedicated, centralized group of people to support other members as you pointed out in the parable above. Early religions codified health and social codes of a now bygone time when eating pork could kill you, and alcohol was both expensive and unregulated. Religion has throughout history provided a set of rules, to which people have gladly adhered for guidance, wisdom, historical connections, and a sense of belonging. Some have not so gladly adhered to these rules but did so out of fear of social stigma, of ostrasization, of being wrong about it all and going to hell.
In the early days of Catholicism, people would flock dutifully to mass on Sunday, where they were expected to stand for hours and listen to a sermon in a language they did not understand. The religion itself was impenetrable to most loyal "Catholics" and subject to broad re-interpretation by the few learned individuals who could actually read Latin. Clearly, religious conviction could not have joined people at a deeper level of understanding where none, in fact, existed. Even today, if you get two individuals of the same faith in a room, from the same church even, the personal religious beliefs of those two people will differ, sometimes wildly. And yet, when called upon by an authority figure/priest/spiritual leader/etc. these two people MAY be more likely to help each other, say, raise the barn, than the guy down the street who is not of the same faith.
It is this individual re-interpretation that bothers me most about "religion", and perhaps begins to answer your question, below. If religion exists to help an individual, both socially and spiritually, then the help I need from that set of fixed beliefs will necessarily be different than what you need. And most religious texts are purposefully obscure enough that one person can interpret a passage one way, while the next person interprets and practices the teachings of that passage in another. These different interpretations are a natural occurrence from such obscure reference material. Is this actually the blood of Christ? Is this actually the body? Who exactly are these meek people, anyway? Are these differing interpretations helpful if the purpose of religion at one level is to help an individual ascend? Should an individual be punished for believing the words of their pastor/guru/lama/llama if that person teaches the wrong principals to their flock? According to some religions, yes.
To the extent that religion is a construct to provide guidance and support in one’s difficult journey through life, so that person can reach their, what did you call it, highest self? I forget the term you used, but it is a good one. But you don’t need an organized religion to help people become their best self (most authentic self?). Some people, like Maslow, in developing his hierarchy of needs, seems to think that seeking higher meaning/the self-actualization principal is a natural state to which many people aspire. Religion, like a well marked trail, may just provide an organized means to get there.
Is Truth Unequivocal, Unalterable, Constant?
Establish operative framework
If but some vengeful god would call to me
From up the sky, and laugh: "Thou suffering thing,
Know that thy sorrow is my ecstasy,
That thy love's loss is my hate's profiting!"
Then would I bear it, clench myself, and die,
Steeled by the sense of ire unmerited;
Half-eased in that a Powerfuller than I
Had willed and meted me the tears I shed.
But not so. How arrives it joy lies slain,
And why unblooms the best hope ever sown?
Crass Casualty obstructs the sun and rain,
And dicing Time for gladness casts a moan. . . .
These purblind Doomsters had as readily strown
Blisses about my pilgrimage as pain.
Q: What is Religion?
From up the sky, and laugh: "Thou suffering thing,
Know that thy sorrow is my ecstasy,
That thy love's loss is my hate's profiting!"
Then would I bear it, clench myself, and die,
Steeled by the sense of ire unmerited;
Half-eased in that a Powerfuller than I
Had willed and meted me the tears I shed.
But not so. How arrives it joy lies slain,
And why unblooms the best hope ever sown?
Crass Casualty obstructs the sun and rain,
And dicing Time for gladness casts a moan. . . .
These purblind Doomsters had as readily strown
Blisses about my pilgrimage as pain.
Q: What is Religion?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)