I recently had coffee with a Christian friend, and the subject was religion. I was all geared up for battle, but he had to go and spoil it all by being a non-fundamentalist non-loony liberal Christian, and a good guy whose conversation I quite enjoyed! ¿What fun is that?, I ask you.
Not being a fundamentalist means that he avoided making strong claims, and he didn’t have to defend so many indefensible things. He doesn’t hate gay people, thinks that not every part of the Bible is meant as history, and recognises the difficulty in discerning the intentions of biblical authors. Wouldn’t it be somewhat better if more Christians were like this?
The one thing he kept saying, though, in response to my questions was: “I don’t know.” Was the flood literal? Will people get resurrected in some form after death? He didn’t know. And he seemed rather relaxed about that.
It’s good to say when you don’t know, if you don’t. People should do that in the sciences, too. But if there’s something you don’t know and it’s a scientific question, you can find out by experimentation and observation. If it’s a religious or metaphysical question, what do you do? Interpret inconsistent texts? Try to have a revelation? Those approaches have only ever yielded contradictory results. Metaphysical questions can’t be resolved by observing physical reality, which is why every religion has a different answer to metaphysical questions. There’s no court of appeal. Notice the difference between religion and science. Scientists eventually reach consensus; religions come to schism.
My Christian friend was honest about not knowing. What I wanted to communicate was that religions don’t provide a reliable way to know. And they really should, if they’re going to claim that they have the answers to life big questions.
27 January 2012 at 8:28 am
Interesting. Conversation I keep having with a Christian friend–more of a fundamentalist than your friend–leads me to believe he is motivated primarily by a complete lack of tolerance for uncertainty. He Knows. He would be uncomfortable not knowing.
8 February 2012 at 8:16 am
Your former religion might not have had a valid way to enquire about metaphysical truths, but what about the mystical branches of religions? They use various forms of meditation for this purpose.
Can metaphysical truth really be got to by exoteric religious teachings? Doesn't it make more sense for the mode of enquiry to be esoteric in nature? And if the "results" of revelations appear contradictory to you, maybe that's because from the outside one can only read words about an experience and already the unity has been cut up into various dualities. And if you didn't have the experience, how can you hope to know how the paradox resolved into the Truth?
27 February 2012 at 10:05 am
I simply do not understand how anyone can call themselves Christian but then state they don't agree with parts of the Bible. It's a take it or leave it issue. If any of it is demonstrably wrong, and we certainly know it is, then it is all in doubt. If there is any doubt at all why spend your life concerned about some aspects of something you don't understand or wholly agree with. These people are just too lazy to find a religion whose dogma they agree with or actually use their brain's ability to reason to show none of them are real. It is intellectual dishonesty.