In modern society, we seem captivated by celebrity. The news is punctuated with the exploits and actions of socialites, movie stars and recording artists. We watch their every move and, many times, their activities and dramas drown out the important issues of the day.
Religion falls prey to this same spectacle. Most of the major religions have invested their authenticity in one specific individual. If it could be shown that this founding personage had never lived or was a grand fraud, the religion itself would fall like a house of paper-thin cards.
For Jews, that singular person is Moses. In Christianity, it's Jesus. For the Muslims, it's Mohammed. In Buddhism, it's Buddha. And for the Mormons, it's Joseph Smith. (I'm not very familiar with Hinduism, so I don't know if this point applies.)
If it could be shown definitively that each of these individuals was, in fact, a fictional character, the foundation of each religion would be shaken to its very core. Even if each had walked upon the earth, but it could be shown definitively that the words and deeds ascribed to each were greatly embellished and exaggerated, once again, each religion would find themselves in utter crisis.
Adherents would no longer know what to believe or who to believe or what words in their holy documents to trust. In essence, the deeply devout of each belief system would become lost sheep in desperate search of a new shepherd.
In Taoism, it's really immaterial whether or not someone like Lao Tzu ever existed. My guess is that either he didn't exist at all or someone of that name did exist, but he didn't singularly write the book ascribed to him. In the end, it really doesn't matter one way or the other.
The belief system of Taoism isn't built upon the back of one person. The insights of the Tao Te Ching are just that -- insights. They carry no more weight than your insights or mine. The insights in this book may help you or I as we walk down the path -- then again, they may not.
While the falling star of religion will burn up the religion itself, a falling star for a Taoist is merely a beautiful sight to behold.
Religion falls prey to this same spectacle. Most of the major religions have invested their authenticity in one specific individual. If it could be shown that this founding personage had never lived or was a grand fraud, the religion itself would fall like a house of paper-thin cards.
For Jews, that singular person is Moses. In Christianity, it's Jesus. For the Muslims, it's Mohammed. In Buddhism, it's Buddha. And for the Mormons, it's Joseph Smith. (I'm not very familiar with Hinduism, so I don't know if this point applies.)
If it could be shown definitively that each of these individuals was, in fact, a fictional character, the foundation of each religion would be shaken to its very core. Even if each had walked upon the earth, but it could be shown definitively that the words and deeds ascribed to each were greatly embellished and exaggerated, once again, each religion would find themselves in utter crisis.
Adherents would no longer know what to believe or who to believe or what words in their holy documents to trust. In essence, the deeply devout of each belief system would become lost sheep in desperate search of a new shepherd.
In Taoism, it's really immaterial whether or not someone like Lao Tzu ever existed. My guess is that either he didn't exist at all or someone of that name did exist, but he didn't singularly write the book ascribed to him. In the end, it really doesn't matter one way or the other.
The belief system of Taoism isn't built upon the back of one person. The insights of the Tao Te Ching are just that -- insights. They carry no more weight than your insights or mine. The insights in this book may help you or I as we walk down the path -- then again, they may not.
While the falling star of religion will burn up the religion itself, a falling star for a Taoist is merely a beautiful sight to behold.
If it could be shown definitively that each of these individuals was, in fact, a fictional character, the foundation of each religion would be shaken to its very core. Even if each had walked upon the earth, but it could be shown definitively that the words and deeds ascribed to each were greatly embellished and exaggerated, once again, each religion would find themselves in utter crisis.
ReplyDeleteAdherents would no longer know what to believe or who to believe or what words in their holy documents to trust. In essence, the deeply devout of each belief system would become lost sheep in desperate search of a new shepherd.
RT,
In some cases, I think something pretty close to fiction, and certainly embellishment and exaggeration, has in fact been shown.... This is certainly the case with Christianity.
But it doesn't matter. Foundations are not in fact shaken to their cores. Oh, the foundations of a few individuals may be, but not the foundations of a religion as a whole. Adherents do not in fact feel themselves to be thrown into utter crisis. The "deeply devout," as you call them, still know exactly what to believe, still believe that they know what their holy documents actually say, and I see few frantic searches for "new shepherds."
Why is this so?
Because out of fear and (willful?) ignorance (which always bread and feed upon each other in a vicious cycle), they continue to choose to believe in, and are comforted by...many fictions and fabrications.
To think that the masses of various faiths will ever stop doing so is, I am afraid, wishful thinking....
But then, I confess to being quite cynical generally.
While I would agree with your supposition in relation to those who study at seminary and/or are Christian scholars, I have not seen much evidence from the rank-and-file believers that THEY believe that Christianity is built upon fiction. I have conversed with many such folks over the years and the mere suggestion that the Jesus of the Bible may be even a tad bit embellished leads many to shake their heads and call one a heretic. The pure and divine authenticity of their "christ" is something few of them ever venture to question and most of them don't appreciate anyone else questioning it either.
ReplyDeleteRT, you're saying exactly what I was talking about, and that's why I think that a wholesale "shaking of foundations" will never happen. Because the "rank-and-file" believers will never consent to even entertain the notion that they don't have the truth.
ReplyDeleteNow you see, this is one of my common problems. I didn't understand that point from your first comment at all. I thought you were saying something altogether different. :-)
ReplyDeleteSo, now that I understand what you're saying, I basically agree. My point was that, if incontrovertible truth was shoved in their faces and we could somehow keep them from shutting their eyes, then (and only then) would their foundations be shaken to the core.
I've seen this kind of thing brought up in the mainstream media from time to time, and those adherents to the conventional religions who are able to string complete sentences together (that is, the thoughtful ones who have considered their beliefs) have pointed out the very important difference between religion and faith. They've noted that the tenets of their religion, their holy books, their hierarchy could be called deeply into question, but their faith would sustain them. I happen to think this is just as false as the rest of it, but the distinction is there, and faith is more important to them than religion.
ReplyDeletePaul,
ReplyDeleteGreat comment, but allow me to ask...Isn't the distinction largely a semantic one? Ok so someone tells me that their religion might be flawed (so maybe even they don't like to be called "religious," I know such people, in fact) but they have faith.... I ask faith in what? The answer, whether they wish to admit it or not is...faith in their religion despite its "flaws".
That to me is a disconnect. That is why I left faith. I could not live in a disconect...and I could not have faith in what is ultimately fiction and fabrication.
FW, you beat me to the line. I was going to ask basically the same question!
ReplyDeleteFaith must be based on something. If not, then what determines what you do believe from what you don't believe?
I could certainly accept an adherent stating something like this: I know my religion is flawed. I understand that a lot of what I've been taught as fact over the years genuinely is based on fiction. However, the basic tenants and underlying principles of the religion still speak to me and that is what I base my faith on.
Sadly, that will never happen. People cling on to their religions with all their might. They shut their eyes and claim they are open.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was in my early 20's I came across a paper that debunked all of the supposed "miracles" of Jesus. I was fascinated with the work because it took away a certain fairy tale quality that had been annoying me about Christianity. Jesus became just another human being who may or may not have lived in history.
ReplyDeleteI am challenged by your writing about the removing the celebrity from religion, to see if it can be sustained ... and not to be an apologist for Christianity, but I think that, like Taoism, the insight of Christianity does NOT rest on the historicity of Jesus, but rather on the nature of God (or Eternity, Allness) and the relationship between Reality (or, humanity, if you like) and that allness.
"the basic tenants and underlying principles of the religion still speak to me and that is what I base my faith on."
ReplyDeleteWell, that's Taoism isn't it? Christianity minus Jesus minus the church, minus the Bible equals the prinicples of Taoism, or at least some of them.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could just believe what we believe without all the annoying religions interfering?