No one knows how close I am to applying to theology-and it’s not just because “Master of Divinity” is a wicked name for a degree. I think it’s because I want to find out if I’m justified in not being religious; if I knew more about the subject, I could make a better case for myself. As I see it, organized religion fills some basic needs and that’s why it’s been popular for so long:
1. It provides an explanation for how (and to a varying extent why) we came to be; an end to uncertainty regarding all sorts of existential questions.
2. It appeases fears of mortality and the process of death; I think death is harder on atheists than on those who believe they’re going to hell.
3. It appeals to humanity’s sense of community and belonging; religious fuctions are usually either fun, awe-inspiring, cathartic... with a group of people with whom you can identify because you have identical beliefs (and usually similar sociological backgrounds).
4. It’s part of a grand, longstanding tradition... stretching back through the ages with satisfaction guaranteed or your money back, est. The Beginning of Time (according to [blank]).
5. Perhaps most of all, religion is a moral guideline (interpreted à volonté) which provides a unified concept of right and wrong to the entire group. Before state superceded church, it was The Law... with its own courts and some very physical (rather than spiritual) punishments.
One thing that bothers me about all the slightly different branches of the same spiritual saplings is that each one (more or less) claims exclusivity on their own version of the afterlife. This is not a new thing, every society is based on exclusivity-because of an underlying fear of being itself undermined of abused (example: the mother of all examples, Nazi Germany, WWII). The christian idea of the conversion of the jews before the apocalypse is a good example, so are most basic remarks regarding the afterlife ("I guess we'll see who's right"), and it seems to me to be some kind of childish notion of "Absolute[ly] Right", as in "You'll see it my way sooner or later". The reason for this is pretty obvious-if someone cares what others believe, they're not sure themselves and are just looking for a little confirmation. If they don't get that, then they look for someone smaller than themselves to bully into backing them up. Schoolyard logic should not have a place in religion.
The problem with the metaphor of religion as a tree is that religion is not a growing, constantly budding thing...it’s more like a shrub-a dead one, but that still has some foliage. There are a lot of roots, a lot of branches, but no trunk. Looking from across the street, I can’t even tell whether all those branches connect into each other somewhere in the leafy middle, or if they just intertwine but stay separate. Time and chronology can only be applied in a historical sense; the closer to the ground or sky your paticular place on the shrub happens to be doesn’t mean you’re any closer or farther to (“truth”/”god”/etc.) than anyone else.
Sorry to all of our little philosophers, but I don’t think that anyone young (unless they’ve had quite an extraordinary life) has the knowledge or perspective to understand what is implied by the Big questions, let alone answer them. Their answers will be uninformed and frivolous. This definitely includes me; I can’t even salute others’ efforts to make sense of life through original or combo-meal thought because I’m too preoccupied by living, doing what I feel like, and deciding what professional direction to take. The idea of exposing myself to any of that heavy existential angst that’ll make me have an brooding, pensive look on my face all day long is distasteful. I can’t do that to myself, and this probably means I can’t be a master of divinity either. Whatever. It may be superficial and typical, but for now I’m happy with happiness and no more.
2 comments:
What I think, I say.
You are absolutely right - schoolyard logic should have no place in religion.
If you're as brilliant as you seem to be, you'll spend some time researching the SCIENCE behind it all. You'll find out that Darwin's Evolution has yet to have an ounce of proof or possibility, and that there is something to this world that
we simply
cannot
understand.
Ay, "Religion"...it has such a dirty connotation. Unfortunately the Church of older times, as you said, was all about the RULES.
BLEH.
I hate how they took something so beautiful, something so passionate, and made it a system of rules and regulations.
Greg, look INTO this stuff. Look into the unexplainable passion and into the undeniable science. I think you'll be suprised.
Hey, if these Christians are right, and this God thing has eternal circumstances...maybe we should take a deeper look into what's going on here.
The ignorance of the beautiful birdy is bliss...until it discovers nanoseconds too late about the transparency of an all-solid being we know as "glass."
Don't wait to hear the "THUNK-SPLAT."
Anonymous, Signing off.
p.s.-Here's some..."light" reading for you. If you want. Well you probably don't. Enjoy not enjoying it!
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06.Defense_of_ID.pdf
What I say I think.
What I think I say.
What I say, I think.
What I think, I say.
Your agreeing with me was so inspiring, I read the article. Paper. Whatever you call those things.
He cited himself enough times to make me suspicious, but he's at least partially right; we can't look at anything as a complete solution, and every good theory should incite more thought and discussion.
That "nature of nature" phrase seems as out of place as "the meaning of meaning" on Captain Kendrick's Memorial Hot Dog Wildlife Preserve sign. (<-obscure reference)
And you can't yell "methodological materialism" with an irish accent.
But, on the whole, it was a good little introduction to something I've never heard of before, and was accesible and interesting. Wow, this is a long way back here...way to dig, anonymous!
Post a Comment