OK, I understand from some of you that my last post was a little out there. Lets back it down a bit. The de-wonked version is basically a question of whether religion is an all or nothing game? Can you be a Sunday Catholic, Jew-ish, or a wine, but no pork Muslim?
My thinking has always been that since Il Papa (the Pope) has been pretty clear about who makes the rules for Catholics, the word Islam actually means to "submit" or "surrender" in Arabic, and observant Jews will make you feel guilty for even looking at a lobster or a pork rib, there is not a lot of flexibility. In the prophetic words of Mr. Cleaver (Eldridge, not Ward), you are either part of the solution or you are part of the problem.
This all or nothing approach always seemed to me to be the only intellectually honest way to go. How can you "believe" in something where the adherents are telling you to have "faith" and to trust them that they are right, when you fundamentally disagree with some of the tenets? Why would a gay man or woman want to worship in a Catholic church when the undisputed leader of the faith condemns them for who they are. That is not to say they cannot believe in Christ or build their own faith system that is not in conflict with their sexual orientation. Rather, some gays use the "I'm good with all of it except the part where they say I am broken" argument. Now, I am using gays as an example, but the same logical flaw would apply to pork eating Jews or the one that really confuses me, feminist Muslims. Other than that, how was the play Ms. Lincoln?
So how does this tie back to the Theory of Bulk and my last (apparently incomprehensible) post? What I am trying to explore is, "am I wrong?" I realize the easy answer to that question is usually, "Yes, put down the whiskey bottle and get some sleep." Hence, the reason these posts are usually early in the morning (its Saturday, cut me a break).
So, can you order religion a la carte even if the menu clearly says "no substitutions," and the restaurant is not known for their flexibility? My argument against this approach was that if you took religious leaders at their word, there is no flexibility. The rules are the rules. You can break the rules (in fact, most sects assume you will), but you need to admit it and seek forgiveness (for which they do a brisk business selling). It just sounded like a great business model to me: set unreasonable goals, promise great rewards, assume people will not meet the goals, and then sell them a ride to the finish line.
If you take some and not other parts (without creating your own deal, a la Joseph Smith), are you still getting value? Is there some scientific or logical basis to follow this path? Can you recite the Kaddish and then have a Sausage McMuffin without being a hypocrite?
As always, I look forward to your input (in this space or by email if you prefer to be less public).
Be bulky,
Larry
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am redirecting a comment from Facebook to the blog:
ReplyDeleteManuel Hernandez writes:
I liked the earlier post and your summation of Reductionism. I incline toward the non-linear form: a complex system IS its parts, but it has emergent properties that we don't understand. I think that the better we understand the parts we can understand, and how they fit together, the better our chance of knowing those properties. So quantitative analysis is crucial--but it goes only so far. Then it's on to qualitative thinking about the parts we don't get.
Praerodo Mihi writes:
This is where I get a little more aligned with Lao Tse and Schrödinger. The answer may be we can't know or it may be two apparently opposite conclusions (the cat is both dead and alive at the same time). You mind if I move this discussion over the blog?
Manuel Hernandez writes:
I don't mind, except blogs in general are unfamiliar to me. I'll try to keep up.
Short answer? No.
ReplyDeleteBut you are really on to something with religion making its money off of forgiveness.
I can see the part where worship is a sense of community. I'd rather join a bowling league, myself.
Carol, I would be interested in why you think there is no middle ground.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the business model, the Church showed its cards when it started selling indulgences in the Middle Ages. Martin Luther called them out on this (among many other things) in the Reformation. The Vatican did put an end to the outright sale of them in the mid 16th C, but like many successful businesses, the Church still has a process and fee for most transactions.
I would say that if religion wasn't buffet style, there wouldn't be any followers. There was only one perfect man, Larry, and well, we all know how that ended....
ReplyDeleteHave you seen the Invention of Lying? I think you'd like it.
The point I was trying to make is that most major religions say they are NOT buffet style and if you don't order off the menu, you can't have anything. You don't have to be perfect, but you do have to try (and really mean it since they have ways of knowing if you are a faker). I always took them at their word as I could not imagine a construct whereby you didn't need to deny them to not listen to them. Can things be two opposites at the same time? Physics seems to say, "yes," but there are still some questions in my mind.
ReplyDeleteHave not seen the movie, but you are the second person to suggest it. Will need to see if its still playing on on iTunes yet.