When I mentioned in class that every religion has its paradoxes, I noticed that some people (hi mary!) seemed to disagree. In an institution that is so heavily reliant on faith, isn't the reality of practical everyday matters eventually going to conflict with religious ideals? Whether you believe that religion itself is a human creation or religion as an institution is a human creation, both are prone to error. We as humans often contradict ourselves and it follows that the aforementioned contradictions manifest themselves in our creations.
On to my question. In order for a religion to survive, it needs to adapt to the changing world. Usually, the more something deviates from the original, the more contradictions and paradoxes are likely to crop up. So, do all religions have an expiration date?
-Grace Yuan
6 comments:
I'm kind of confused by what you are defining "religion" as, Grace. Do you mean the institution, the people, the belief system itself, or a combination thereof? Because, I think there is a difference.
I do think that belief systems constantly contradict society. Whether they are paradoxes in and of themselves is another matter. I think that's why religions tend to adapt to changing social standards. A question regarding that, though: when religions adapt to a changing society, is it the belief system, or the way in which it is presented? I think it's different in each case.
Emily T.
Well, to us, it may seem as though religion contains many inherent paradoxes. After all, even if we view the Bible solely as literature and nothing more, there are numerous symbols and motifs in it that can be interpreted in different ways. It wouldn't be unusual for conflicts to arise.
However, religion is still essentially based on faith. Some people might argue that there are actually no paradoxes in a particular religion, and that we merely are incapable of seeing the whole picture. To them, our attempts to logically understand religion and look for paradoxes is like an ant attempting to understand a television set: we simply can't.
I'd say that it really depends: will you believe religion on faith, or subject it to logical, rational examination?
In response to Emily's question, I see religion as a combination of the institution and the belief system. Obviously, the ratio of the former two differs from religion to religion, but both are usually inseparable. Without the institution, we usually end up with agnosticism and without the belief system, we end up with atheism.
So how long can religion as a combination last? If you cannot feasibly hold a large amount of believers together without an institution, wouldn't a religion die out via lack of organization and cohesiveness? Without the institution, you open the floor to individual interpretations which invariably, without standardization, would turn into a lack of religion or another religion entirely.
Additionally, I really don't know whether to view religion as a faith-based "anything goes" thing or from a logical standpoint. That in itself is a contradiction--how can you logically reason the existence of God (Aquinas) and maintain the belief in the 7 Sacraments based on faith alone?
Grace Yuan
Hi, Grace!
I agree that human nature does tend to contradict itself. However, I just can't see how certain religions are as paradoxical as Puritanism. I think a lot of it has to do with all the different rules in the myriad types of religions. For example, you may say that Christianity is paradoxical because the followers don't follow the beliefs (as was the case in Puritanism). However, there are so many different types of Christianity, so many different variations of rules. It's like how Mr. Lazarow said in class about you can't really grasp the definition of English because of all its variation. You can't really grasp the definition of religions today. However, Puritanism, at least to me, seems very precise about their beliefs and excludes those you don't follow such beliefs. They had certain beliefs engraved in stone.
To answer your question, I think that all religions do have an expiration date. In order for a religion to 'survive' it has to adapt with society. At the point, however, it really isn't that religion anymore. To that point, I think that we can say that religion can never 'survive' if it tries to survive throughout time.
Although I agree with all of your speculations, I can't help but think of Unitarian Universalism. The group of people that follow this belief do not share a certain Creed, nor do they outline specifications for other members. They take and combine different theological aspects from a wide array of sources. They keep open minds and evolve with society so that their diverse congregation remains satisfied. Unitarian Universalism is a religion that thrives in times of change (cohesiveness vs. separation, peace vs. conflict, etc..). So no, I can't exactly say that religions expire.
If anything, I feel that more religions will result as time passes. When a certain institution is doubted or seen as corrupt, it is not necessarily deleted. Rather, defiant members break away and form their own sect of that religious that varies slightly in doctrine. Protestant Reformation, anyone?
(Sam Maliha)
You make a point of the adaptability of Unitarian Universalism, which only claims 340,000 members in the US, making it one of the very small circles that Emily mentioned in her blog post. Or are they a circle (a religion) at all? I don't mean to offend any Unitarian Universalists, but they seem to be united as more of a social organization rather than as a religious organization. If they lack a creed and lack the presence of a unifying theme besides their rejection of standardized religion, is this anti-religion as an institution signify the presence of a religion?
Is the adaptability factor the death knell of religion? I would argue that by adapting and changing, if it does not die by becoming too much of a contradiction, it is further along the path to destruction. The more complex--the vast number of religions that you expressed the possibility of the world having--the weaker each one becomes. If anything, there will not be enough people in the end to sustain religion as each sect keeps getting split up further and further.
Grace Yuan
Post a Comment