to Believe.” 5 Establishing a friendship, for example, requires us to take risks that don’t have clearly predictable results. But we’re justified in taking those risks because of the good that can be achieved as a result. Or imagine a situation where you are lost while hiking and you have to choose which way you’ll proceed to find the way home. Is it rational to just stay put, to avoid making
any
decision because the evidence isn’t clear? Shouldn’t you make your best educated guess, commit to your plan and hope for the best?
Parker and Stone want to maintain the importance of religious belief in people’s lives even as they mock some of what religious faith is about in episodes like the ones we’ve discussed. Their mockery urges us to separate closed-minded fervor from genuine religious expressions. While, as we saw, practices of love and compassion can be developed without religious faith, it may be justifiable to honestly follow such a faith in dealing with experiences that are genuinely, religiously compelling. When it comes to our sense of the divine—whether we have none, whether it’s ingrained from childhood or discovered in a heightened moment of illumination—faith is a justifiable response, given the limits of logical, empirical reasoning.
This is to say that while standards of empirical evidence should be maintained in our search for religious truth, they might not be our only concerns. Stan has every right to be suspicious of South Park Jesus telling him to look away while he turns water into wine. But questions about the miracles of the historical Jesus can’t be confronted so directly. And for most religiously minded people, belief in miracles doesn’t “appear from nowhere.” Rather, a whole religious way of life is usually in place for them. Interactions with God, with other people in communities of faith, and other life experiences shape and confirm their beliefs about doctrines, historical events, and miracles.
None of this says we should reject rational or empirical standards, but instead it presents an enlarged scope within which a person’s beliefs can operate. Under certain rationally and socially justifiable conditions, we should advocate for the right of people to find meaning and purpose in religious ways of life.
Waiting for God (Oh!)
All this brings us full circle. If it is possible that God exists, and if faith enables a person to experience such a supernatural force, then perhaps that person is rationally justified in moving past merely empirical evidence in hopes of finding supernatural confirmation. And if this is true for religious belief in general, then why can’t a person who’s attached to a particular religion be within their rights to believe their religion’s exclusive claim to truth? Certainly tolerance should be advocated, to the extent that anyone who lives by general ethical and social standards in practicing their beliefs should be allowed to do so. But as Mr. Garrison found out in “The Death Camp of Tolerance,” there are limits to what should be tolerated. As we saw earlier, it may be impossible to avoid committing to exclusivist positions (as the camp master says, “Intolerance will not be tolerated”). Even religious pluralists must hold that some views about religion are better than others—namely, that pluralistic views are better than exclusivist or inclusivist views. As contemporary philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued, the person who holds their beliefs to be exclusively correct is not necessarily guilty of any wrongdoing. 6 If we’re compelled by evidence, doctrines, and by experiences outside the natural while acting morally and rationally considerate of others, we’re within our rights to believe as we will. 7 It’s good to beware the Blainetologists of our world, but we should also be careful about surrendering rationally justifiable ways of life that may help to define us.
Notes
1 . See John Hick,
God Has Many
any
decision because the evidence isn’t clear? Shouldn’t you make your best educated guess, commit to your plan and hope for the best?
Parker and Stone want to maintain the importance of religious belief in people’s lives even as they mock some of what religious faith is about in episodes like the ones we’ve discussed. Their mockery urges us to separate closed-minded fervor from genuine religious expressions. While, as we saw, practices of love and compassion can be developed without religious faith, it may be justifiable to honestly follow such a faith in dealing with experiences that are genuinely, religiously compelling. When it comes to our sense of the divine—whether we have none, whether it’s ingrained from childhood or discovered in a heightened moment of illumination—faith is a justifiable response, given the limits of logical, empirical reasoning.
This is to say that while standards of empirical evidence should be maintained in our search for religious truth, they might not be our only concerns. Stan has every right to be suspicious of South Park Jesus telling him to look away while he turns water into wine. But questions about the miracles of the historical Jesus can’t be confronted so directly. And for most religiously minded people, belief in miracles doesn’t “appear from nowhere.” Rather, a whole religious way of life is usually in place for them. Interactions with God, with other people in communities of faith, and other life experiences shape and confirm their beliefs about doctrines, historical events, and miracles.
None of this says we should reject rational or empirical standards, but instead it presents an enlarged scope within which a person’s beliefs can operate. Under certain rationally and socially justifiable conditions, we should advocate for the right of people to find meaning and purpose in religious ways of life.
Waiting for God (Oh!)
All this brings us full circle. If it is possible that God exists, and if faith enables a person to experience such a supernatural force, then perhaps that person is rationally justified in moving past merely empirical evidence in hopes of finding supernatural confirmation. And if this is true for religious belief in general, then why can’t a person who’s attached to a particular religion be within their rights to believe their religion’s exclusive claim to truth? Certainly tolerance should be advocated, to the extent that anyone who lives by general ethical and social standards in practicing their beliefs should be allowed to do so. But as Mr. Garrison found out in “The Death Camp of Tolerance,” there are limits to what should be tolerated. As we saw earlier, it may be impossible to avoid committing to exclusivist positions (as the camp master says, “Intolerance will not be tolerated”). Even religious pluralists must hold that some views about religion are better than others—namely, that pluralistic views are better than exclusivist or inclusivist views. As contemporary philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued, the person who holds their beliefs to be exclusively correct is not necessarily guilty of any wrongdoing. 6 If we’re compelled by evidence, doctrines, and by experiences outside the natural while acting morally and rationally considerate of others, we’re within our rights to believe as we will. 7 It’s good to beware the Blainetologists of our world, but we should also be careful about surrendering rationally justifiable ways of life that may help to define us.
Notes
1 . See John Hick,
God Has Many
Similar Books
