life. But then, why are the supernatural elements of religion needed at all? If, as Hick says, the only thing that matters is moving from self-centeredness to divine-reality-centeredness, resulting in love and compassion, then why not get rid of the supernatural, “divine reality” altogether and just focus on encouraging loving and compassionate behavior? Why get hung up on divine incarnation and virgin birth when the same amount of Christmas spirit can be promoted by Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo? Why, from the pluralist perspective, is Kyle’s Judaism or Stan’s Christianity any different from honest, compassionate atheism?
The answer is that the
content
of their beliefs is different, even if the actions those beliefs lead to
appear
to be the same. And this has parallels with both miracles and the issue of pluralism. When a religious person and a non-religious person confront a supposed miracle, there is a common observable event but a difference in explanation—the religious person sees a supernatural cause, while the non-religious person sees a merely yet-to-be-known natural cause. In the case of pluralism, different religious practices may result in the same helpful actions and moral character, but there are very different claims about
reality
serving as the motivating force in each case.
The danger of ignoring the content of beliefs while also advocating for pluralism is that religious viewpoints will get watered down. Philosopher of science Karl Popper’s (1902-1994) notion of “falsification” does just this. Popper said that the more a theory presents us its conclusions in terms of what should happen if it’s true, the better we’re able to evaluate it. 4 For Popper, what makes a theory “scientific” is not just that it can be confirmed, but that its claims about reality are testable in such a way that failure to falsify it counts as credit toward its truth. If we dilute the content of incompatible belief systems in a manner like this, then we get pluralism, but the cost is that we’re really unable to put viewpoints to good tests. In “Fantastic Easter Special,” this problem appears in the
Da Vinci Code
-esque battle over the supposed secret history of Christianity between William Anthony Donahue (and his ninjas) and the Hare Club for Men. The Hare Club protects the secret that St. Peter was really a rabbit, and that the intention of Christ was for rabbits in the line of Peter to head the Church. After Jesus saves the day, Snowball the rabbit is elected pope, driving home the point that good religious leaders should humbly and tolerantly lead, but shouldn’t tell people what to do—in this case because they literally can’t speak! As ridiculous and comical as the episode is, it reinforces the challenge of maintaining authentic religious positions, true to their origins and belief content while still fostering pluralism. The question remains: if all religions seem to be practically the same in terms of observable results, how should we deal with their unobservable spiritual claims?
You Gotta Have Faith
Even David Hume agrees that the answer to this last question is
faith
. Seeing an event as a miracle instead of as a strange natural event depends on faith. What separates religion from science and other methods for empirical explanation is that it requires a kind of belief that transcends the limits of reason. This might seem like a cop-out to some, a crutch for people who can’t deal with life in terms of the natural world. But, leaving behind such condescending remarks, there is an important philosophical point here. The way reason functions in our dealings with the natural world doesn’t operate according to cold, hard rules and facts. Life doesn’t always fit into our preconceived notions. It’s possible that risk-taking, transcendent faith might be required to discover some kinds of truth. William James (1842-1910), an American pragmatist, argues this point in his essay “The Will
The answer is that the
content
of their beliefs is different, even if the actions those beliefs lead to
appear
to be the same. And this has parallels with both miracles and the issue of pluralism. When a religious person and a non-religious person confront a supposed miracle, there is a common observable event but a difference in explanation—the religious person sees a supernatural cause, while the non-religious person sees a merely yet-to-be-known natural cause. In the case of pluralism, different religious practices may result in the same helpful actions and moral character, but there are very different claims about
reality
serving as the motivating force in each case.
The danger of ignoring the content of beliefs while also advocating for pluralism is that religious viewpoints will get watered down. Philosopher of science Karl Popper’s (1902-1994) notion of “falsification” does just this. Popper said that the more a theory presents us its conclusions in terms of what should happen if it’s true, the better we’re able to evaluate it. 4 For Popper, what makes a theory “scientific” is not just that it can be confirmed, but that its claims about reality are testable in such a way that failure to falsify it counts as credit toward its truth. If we dilute the content of incompatible belief systems in a manner like this, then we get pluralism, but the cost is that we’re really unable to put viewpoints to good tests. In “Fantastic Easter Special,” this problem appears in the
Da Vinci Code
-esque battle over the supposed secret history of Christianity between William Anthony Donahue (and his ninjas) and the Hare Club for Men. The Hare Club protects the secret that St. Peter was really a rabbit, and that the intention of Christ was for rabbits in the line of Peter to head the Church. After Jesus saves the day, Snowball the rabbit is elected pope, driving home the point that good religious leaders should humbly and tolerantly lead, but shouldn’t tell people what to do—in this case because they literally can’t speak! As ridiculous and comical as the episode is, it reinforces the challenge of maintaining authentic religious positions, true to their origins and belief content while still fostering pluralism. The question remains: if all religions seem to be practically the same in terms of observable results, how should we deal with their unobservable spiritual claims?
You Gotta Have Faith
Even David Hume agrees that the answer to this last question is
faith
. Seeing an event as a miracle instead of as a strange natural event depends on faith. What separates religion from science and other methods for empirical explanation is that it requires a kind of belief that transcends the limits of reason. This might seem like a cop-out to some, a crutch for people who can’t deal with life in terms of the natural world. But, leaving behind such condescending remarks, there is an important philosophical point here. The way reason functions in our dealings with the natural world doesn’t operate according to cold, hard rules and facts. Life doesn’t always fit into our preconceived notions. It’s possible that risk-taking, transcendent faith might be required to discover some kinds of truth. William James (1842-1910), an American pragmatist, argues this point in his essay “The Will
Similar Books
