Quiet whilst Crossing
Imagine a country which had, amongst its many laws, two capital offences: murder, and talking whilst crossing the road. In other words, if you kill somebody, or if you talk whilst crossing the road, you will pay with your own life. Putting the reasonableness of these laws aside for a moment, I would say that one is self-evident, and the other is not. Wouldn't you? I think there is a difference, in the TRUTH value of each of these laws, even though they may be made to carry the same penalty. I think that if a truth is evident (or evidential) everyone knows it, or can come to know it, without recourse to anything other than reason.
If religious truth were of this nature there would be ONE religion (like the one, even if unwritten, law against murder in all countries and languages) - for who could argue successfully against evident truth? Who could argue against the law forbidding Murder, or against a heavenly voice validating one religion above another?
Because religion is not like this, there can be no morally just punishment for not following a non-evidential law such as talking whilst crossing the road, as one man's law is another man's non-evident law. If we would not punish a good Muslim for not accepting Jesus (talking whilst crossing the road), then neither would a just God (if he exists, and exists as a punishing entity). How was that Muslim to know that he had to accept Jesus as his personal savior, how could this be an indisputable truth (and I mean indisputable as in "it's wrong to kill people" indisputable)? And according to the Bible, such a person does indeed face Death for his crime.
Because religion is not of this nature, because it holds faith up as a higher thing than even truth, all religions stand on level footing, building invisible bridges to an invisible God (or idea), only those of "Faith" being able to see the bridges, or the God (or idea). Yet there is no argument that truly supersedes evident truth, and therefore religious division (and multiplication!) speaks to the falsehood in every religion.
"Faith is the path of least resistance" according to Woody Allen, speaking through a character in Match Point. It's EASY to believe, oh so nice to believe, that "everything will turn out alright in the end", to paraphrase Sam Harris*. It's hard to admit that we don't know, but this is the simplest answer (and therefore best bet for the right answer), one built on the evidence, and it has a substance, a greater substance than Faith, despite its seeming lack of substance. It is a choice beyond the type of least resistance that casts us at odds with - forces us to actually resist in person or in ideology - millions of fellow human beings, and one which opens our eyes to the similarities we share with everybody, not the differences. It is the open mind, the open eyes, as opposed to the closed mind and eyes of praying, hoping, quiet whilst crossing, faith.
*Even if Faith comes hard to a person, as it did to me, I still hold that it is the path of least resistance for the above reasons, as it was the path of least resistance for Winston Smith in his society to accept that 2+2=5.
If religious truth were of this nature there would be ONE religion (like the one, even if unwritten, law against murder in all countries and languages) - for who could argue successfully against evident truth? Who could argue against the law forbidding Murder, or against a heavenly voice validating one religion above another?
Because religion is not like this, there can be no morally just punishment for not following a non-evidential law such as talking whilst crossing the road, as one man's law is another man's non-evident law. If we would not punish a good Muslim for not accepting Jesus (talking whilst crossing the road), then neither would a just God (if he exists, and exists as a punishing entity). How was that Muslim to know that he had to accept Jesus as his personal savior, how could this be an indisputable truth (and I mean indisputable as in "it's wrong to kill people" indisputable)? And according to the Bible, such a person does indeed face Death for his crime.
Because religion is not of this nature, because it holds faith up as a higher thing than even truth, all religions stand on level footing, building invisible bridges to an invisible God (or idea), only those of "Faith" being able to see the bridges, or the God (or idea). Yet there is no argument that truly supersedes evident truth, and therefore religious division (and multiplication!) speaks to the falsehood in every religion.
"Faith is the path of least resistance" according to Woody Allen, speaking through a character in Match Point. It's EASY to believe, oh so nice to believe, that "everything will turn out alright in the end", to paraphrase Sam Harris*. It's hard to admit that we don't know, but this is the simplest answer (and therefore best bet for the right answer), one built on the evidence, and it has a substance, a greater substance than Faith, despite its seeming lack of substance. It is a choice beyond the type of least resistance that casts us at odds with - forces us to actually resist in person or in ideology - millions of fellow human beings, and one which opens our eyes to the similarities we share with everybody, not the differences. It is the open mind, the open eyes, as opposed to the closed mind and eyes of praying, hoping, quiet whilst crossing, faith.
*Even if Faith comes hard to a person, as it did to me, I still hold that it is the path of least resistance for the above reasons, as it was the path of least resistance for Winston Smith in his society to accept that 2+2=5.
2 Comments:
It must be noted that some people have absolutely no problem with taking a life. As in, it does not affect their conscience.
I think such people are the minority Jeff, if they exist at all. Refusing to listen to your conscience is not the same thing as not having one. I guess if you refuse long enough, it's voice may become very quiet...
Post a Comment
<< Home