Being honest and reflecting the commonly held doubts right or wrong is a way people have of getting acclamation. Declining enrollments in college might lead professors to sponsor courses in hair weaving, basic computer skills and coping with two bread winner families. What we are seeing here among the rabbis reaching out to their potential congregation is a more inclusive approach for the modern age. Hey! Moses whether he existed or not, might have tried that. But I guess he figured the burning bush sold better to gyrating people worshipping a calf that couldn't even talk. His Bush had a voice of its own, (Republicans take note) and was into autocarving stone in a precise Hebraic script, not unlike Moses' own. Moses knew that chatty burning bushes that were not consumed and simple rules written in stone that kind of echoed your conscience anyway, beat gods of fecundity that could only deliver sandstorms and hangovers.
Jews have long noted that if man came from some particular place in the good old days, then they have never found it. So they stuck in this vague description of eden. Wondering about chicken egg concepts led them to simplify the whole process to a one shot manifestation complete with language and modern customs, sans dress. It had to be some place that figs grew, that is all we know. And it was west of wherever man ended up when he lost innocence, which is kind of like irony if you try to define it. You have know idea what it is but you can see it, in relative terms. When we don't have a clue how something could have happened we make something up.
Details like who wrote which chapters and how they got the lowdown on all truth you need to know about the Universe to be all you can be and good at the same time, were sloughed over with each passing sermon and lost in the mists of time. Anyway if you didn't believe this version there was always banishment, burning at the stake or conversion.
It's an old, old, technique - echoing doubts to people that everyone knows exists and are eminently reasonable, in order to bring people home to the social club, ("Yes we know golf is a silly game, but it's relaxing and you meet interesting people in business")
I have met several brands of religious people.
1. zealots
2. social refugees
3. conscience stricken
4. hypocrites
5. academic experts
6. social club members
7. liars
8. doubters
9. holier than thou
10. passive agressive includers
11. touchingly naive
12. young and committed
13. interpreters, liberal
14. anything goes but disbelief in the greater concept
15. believe the basics but don't bug me on lifestyle or denomination please
16. afraid not too
17. maybe
18. interpreters, literal
19., we are putting it off for now.
20. catholics - we grew up with it, it works for us
21. are you dissin' anglican, presbyterians, evangelists, boy? see social club
22. forgivers -- we will forgive anything, even you
23. how weird can we get and not get run out of town
24. last ditch stand cults
25. we are holy, except when it comes to people who won't accept our implicit condescension
26. monks
27. habituals - go to crutch
28. seeking acceptance -- see social club
29. going along with the dictatorship -- it makes sense
30. commercials -if I don't make our pledge I will jump --
31. singing is religion
32. we have the silliest story about founding our cult, but never mind we get away with things other religions can't even imagine
33. tax deductible
34. we aren't into a god per se, but have borrowed language and elements of various scriptures.
35. Anything you believe we believe
36. humming is the way you may beat a tambourine, money collection is necessary -- see.
37. prisoners with new religious conscience
38. old religious persons with new prisoner conscience
39. and variations on all above
But I never met anyone who could convince me that they actually knew or could prove that their religion was factually necessary to believe. Kurt Godl said that he could prove the existence of God logically. (If god existed it would be necessary to believe in him) Godl's hypotheses about provability and non provability of true statements or truth, (A statement can be true but not provable) leads to the concept that a virus that affects an operating system has to be detected by suspending the operating system wich we now know to be true. The prime mover theory in psychology or philosophy leads to supposition that accepting certain simple axioms about time and existence, God must have existed to start the Universe.
It is also a universally accepted philosophical truth that a system cannot prove itself, or justify its truth, integrity or existence. Therefore by any accepted thinking, no religion could in itself prove its right to exist or its basic integrity. It's own doctrines could only be interpreted or tested within its framework of reference but not said to be true outside that reference. The viability of those doctrines could not be true unless the religious framework were true and testable. Thus another thought sytem would have to test this and it could not be religion.
Nevertheless Godl said that some things could be true and evidently so, and not provable. He did however say that the existence of god was not one of these things.
The existence of a god is not a statement or a condition that could depend on any axiom or condition that exists, unless the conditions that do exist could not exist or have come into being without a god. This is the basic religious argument anyway. But they have to prove it. And so far no religious person has proved it. They have said it is a matter of faith. But no one would step into a dark room on faith unless he had been there before and had reasonable idea what would happen. It is not a matter of faith. In order for one to have faith they must have a compelling reason to believe. All concept to reasonable query may either be provable or not, true of false. Or the conclusion is we don't have enough information, or understanding to solve it, or prove it and thus must say we don't know.
Godl did prove it. I don't think anyone in religion who had sufficient grey matter was listening. Aquinas was dead. Einstein, Godl's friend made comment, but it was not picked up by the popular press. There was no headline, "Godl Proves God. We see bylines today in the press that Godl proved how future computer operating systems must operate, but, that he proved that certain truths could be evident but not provable is a quaint curiousity to most people.
If religious person said to me, "I don't know if there is a god, but I choose to believe, it because not to may be unsafe", I would say, "go ahead, with my blessing. In the first you have told the truth, - most likely you don't know, and also possiby the most safe way to operate that you have conjured in you value system cannot be argued with, as you would have to argue unarguable points. Do it, if it makes you feel better." He is just hedging his bets. Does this interfere with his present life, to any great degree? If it does, at least it is not mine. It can do no harm, we hope.
I don't have to ask why it is safe to be religious. If he operates unsafely because of religion, as some do, then I can point that out, but I don't think it would do much good.
EC<:-} |
