I've been asking many people this question recently. And I think it has something to do with our topic. The question is really about exclusivism. Why do many religions, and specifically Christianity, require you to believe something to be saved? Require you to believe certain doctrines, at the exclusion of belief in other religions and their doctrines. What's so important about a belief?
It seems that, first of all, belief hasn't been essential for the survival and success of religions historically. To look at it from a cynical perspective (you could even say Nietzschean perspective), religions have survived by commanding assent and not necessarily by unconditional belief. They've sought, gained, and maintained power. Ok. Fine.
But to look at it from a sympathetic perspective, the religious (and I'm always thinking of Christianity when the topic is monotheism) are sincere people who believe that a god has spoken to human beings. And that it is their responsibility to pass on the word. And the word, according to many participants of religion, is exclusive. There's just one god. You can't get to heaven by any other way. That's not what the religious think they created, they didn't make it up but merely received the message. OK. Fine.
But if this is true, if there is a god who is all good and all loving and who wants to reach out to his creatures, why has it made belief a condition of salvation? Why not being a good person? Why is it more important to believe something than be a good person? How can something like a belief be a thing that is so much more important than giving to the poor or defending the helpless?
I absolutely agree that there can be a fetishism of believing the "right" things. And that the kind of life one leads and the kinds of things one does are ultimately more important than the things one professes.
ReplyDeleteI do think that I have an answer to why belief is thought to be important. I think that many Christians would say that some beliefs, e.g. that one is sinful, are important because without admitting that there is a problem, there can be no solution. If there is no admission of sin then there can be no "justification" and thus no "sanctification." So there's a reason why belief is important to many Christians. Its a matter of being saving and living a sanctified life. And one can't do those things (on a common interpretation of Christianity) unless one believes that, e.g. one is sinful. Whether or not this is true is another matter. But it at least explains why belief is thought to be so important.
Isn't belief the very thing that creates religion? I would be intersted in looking at the beginnings of religion and see what presented the necessity for their birth. The birth of Christianity grew out of the belief that the Messiah had come and that what he said was truth and life. Sub-Sub-was their a certain belief that birthed Buddism?
ReplyDeleteThis is a bit off subject but have you read Jesus for President by Shane Claibourne? He deals somewhat with religions (in this case Christianity) surviving by "commanding assent" and how power has corrupted the Christian Faith.
Martilou--
ReplyDeleteI think you're right, beliefs are foundational for religions. There's no getting around it, but that would be more essential for the cynical understanding of religions. If we ask, what needs to be true for a cultural system to exist which would provide the kind of social functions that religions seem to provide, belief in the tenets of that system is helpful. But, we may ask, if there actually is a god out there that created the universe and is good and wants to be in communion with us, how important are the beliefs of human beings to that god? Of course, it would seem the height of arrogance to some of the religious to even be asking this question. My only response would be to question the whole idea of revelation and how that works. If there is communication between god and man, I could only begin to take it seriously by personal experience, not by some holy text or someone's prophesy or theodicy.
As for a foundational belief of Buddhism, I'd have to do some more reading on that. Things are still a bit confusing to me, but from what I understand, Buddhism grew out of Hinduism. Siddhartha Gautama lived and taught within the Hindu tradition (although there may be some disagreement about the existence of anything so unified as "Hindu"--it may be more accurate to say "religions of the Indian sub-continent") and the concepts of nirvana and karma were already there, I think. The unique thing about the Buddha's teaching may have been his idea of the nature of reality. This is sometimes referred to in English as Buddha-nature. And this reality is something that we all share, and in fact all living and non-living things share. What the consequences of this are when it comes to the practice of the religion really depends on the type of Buddhism you're talking about. Again, I may be wrong about this.
I have very little doubt that belief was heavily and heartily involved in the incipience of religion, just as it continues to be integrally involved in most (if not all) varieties of its current forms. But I think that the concept of what it means to believe something has changed significantly, especially in the West, from what it has been throughout the bulk of human history.
ReplyDeleteBelief is so entwined now (in the West) with "believing that something is true", and truth so entwined with "being certain that something is factual". Because of this I think we're missing out on a potentially profound layer of belief that has more to do with imagination and intuition and stubborn hope than it does with certainty and proof.
What if something can be true without being historical? Truth can be found in all of the great myths. And myths, I think, are at the heart of religion even more so than belief.
i.e. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXn5-r8mj-s