This post on The Daily Dish, on religion as theater, has got me thinking: All the talk these days of faith versus reason, of religion versus science, seem to me to be misplaced. A lot of this stems from what I think is a misplaced emphasis on religion as “blind faith”. Perhaps we would do better to think of religion as “shared stories” (or better yet, “shared experiences”), for every religious community has a particular narrative about the human condition.
To the “non-believers”, the “outsiders”, it is the “story” that matters—whether the content is “true” or “false”, “historical” or “mythological”, “revealed” or “constructed”. Hence arguments about whether Genesis can literally be true or whether Rāma actually had a bridge built to Laṅkā.
To the “believers”, the “faithful”, the “insiders”, it is the “shared” part that matters—the fact that these stories resonate not just with one person but with an entire community; the fact that this resonance has held true for this community over time (even if, and possible especially if, it has resonated with different concerns at different times); and the fact that these stories will continue to be shared with the community to come, if the current generation does its job right. In fact, I think that this “shared” aspect is so important that the “stories” themselves gradually change over time, emphasizing certain things and downplaying others—but always in a way that allows them to be shared and accepted by the majority of the community.
To the “Truthseeker”, both aspects matter equally—if it is false, then it is not worth pursuing; if it cannot be shared, in at least some dilute form, then it cannot be a goal towards which one can guide others, around which a community can be built.
Hey Gokul, I liked that blurb on The Book of Mormon too (I also really loved the show when I saw it a few months ago), and I am on board with your desire to shift the narrative towards, well, narrative and the shared aspect of belief. I think this is an excellent expansion of the discussion. I wonder a couple of things, though.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, to start with the end of your post, who is the truthseeker of whom you speak? The truth or falsity of the story, as seems clear from your post, may or may not be relevant (it seems to me, considering the expressed beliefs of some believers, unsatisfying to simply dismiss the concern for the scientific or historical truth of certain claims and stories; but so too is it equally unsatisfying to merely consider the question of religion closed at the scientific proof that a literal Adam and Eve did not exist) - and in the same way, exactly what the meaning and experience of the sharedness of shared stories may differ. What is the truthseeker seeking in terms of the overlap of these aspects of shared religious stories and experiences?
Secondly, you say the "shared" part is what matters to believers. Nevertheless, even if the historical accuracy of this or that story is not relevant to the believer (though I would argue that sometimes it is), you seem to say that the historical accuracy of the sense of shared experience IS relevant. That is to say, if the stories shift according to the evolution of the community sharing them, is it not the case that the community claiming continuity with the storytellers who came before them sometimes BELIEVE IN a strict continuity? Isn't this partly what secularists and critics of religion find troubling about religion - that believers carve identities out of experiences that, real though they are, are nevertheless founded on, or in reference to, historical falsehoods? The historical truth or falsity could be argued to be irrelevant - but what if the identities in question result in exclusivist tendencies...?
I apologize for the jumbled lack of clarity of this comment... I'd try to clean it up and make it clearer, but I'm not sure my brain is functioning quite well enough. Let me know if you can make anything of it! :)
A bit offtopic, but touching on the role of "reason" in "religion", have you read John Clayton's book Religions, Reasons and Gods? I found it very interesting.
ReplyDelete