I recently read a Time Article that I found very interesting. It can be found
When Not Seeing is Believing. It is about the danger of fundamentalism (whether it's Jewish, Christian, or Muslim) and the benefits of moderate belief or "spiritual doubt" as the antecdote.
The author says that the rise of fundamentalism stems basically from a human need to be certain in uncertain times. He talked about how even the Catholic Church under Benedict is moving more toward certainty and fundamentalism. In a recent address people did not focus on this.
Quote:
|
What was remarkable about [the pope's] recent address on Islam is what most critics missed. The bulk of his message was directed at the West, at its disvowal of religious authority and its embrace of what Benedict called "the subjective 'conscience.'" For Benedict, if your conscience tells you something that differs from his teaching, it is a false conscience, a sign not of personal integrity but of sin. And so he has silenced conscientious dissent within the church and insisted on absolutism in matters like abortion, end-of-life decisions, priestly celibacy, the role of women, homosexuality, and interfaith dialogue.
|
Actually this moves the catholic church closer to the mormon church, of which I used to be a part. In the mormon church, members are encourage to seek personal revelation but if the revelation you recieve is different than something the church has spoken on then it is a false revelation.
The article also talks about protestant christianity, those who believe in inerrant Scripture and the certainty that has even entered the political agenda in the States. George Bush is quoted as saying, "My faith fress me. Frees me to do the right thing, even though it may not poll well. Frees me to enjoy life and not worry about what comes next."
The article talks about how religious certainty deepens cultural divisions. And so our political discourse gets more polarized, and our global discouse gets close to impossible.
Quote:
|
How, after all, can you engage in a rational dialogue with a man like Ahmadinejad, who believes that Armageddon is near and that it is his duty to accelerate it? How can Israel negotiate with people who are certain their instructions come from hearen and so decree that Israel must not exist in Muslim lands? Equally, of course, how can one negotiate with fandamentalist Jews who claim that the West Bank is theirs forever by God's mandate? Or with Fundamentalist Christians who beliee that Israel's expansion is a biblical necessity rather than a strategic judgement.
|
Now we come to my favourite parts of the article.
Quote:
|
The alternative to the secular-fundamentalist death spiral is something called spiritual humility and sincere religious doubt. Fundamentalism is not the only valid form of faith, and to say it is, is the great lie of our time.
|
Quote:
There is the faith that treats the Bible as a moral fable as well as history and tries to live its truths in the light of contemporary knowledge, history, science and insight. There is the faith that draws important distinctions between core beliefs and less vital ones - that picks and chooses between doctrines under the guidance of individual conscience.
There is the faith that sees the message of Jesus or Muhammad as a broad indicator of how we should treat others, of what profound holiness requires, and not as an account literally true in all respects that includes an elaborate theology that explains everything.
|
Quote:
|
Those kinds of faith recognize one thing, first of all, about the nature of God and humankind, and it is this: If God really is God, then God must, by definition, surpass our human understanding...WE cannot know with the kind of surety that allows us to proclaim truth with a capital T. there will always be something that eludes us.
|
It goes on to say that humans are fallable, and if we are fallable and make mistakes then perhaps we must admit that we make mistakes about what we believe about God - and we need to allow that although we do not agree with others, we need to allow that they may be right and at least have the right to their opinions. As long as they allow us those same freedoms. I think remembering this allows us to agree to disagree.
Anyway, it was a great article and reminded me of those of a simplier, less sure faith. It reminded me that the loudest voices aren't representative of all those who have faith. The moderate faith discussed in this article is the kind of faith I hope become the norm. I hope you all get the chance to read the article, and share your own ideas and comments here.