When you get something false (because it is false) asserted as often as that "all religions are fundamentally the same" - it is usually because of an unexamined, perhaps unnoticed, assumption.
Disagreement arises among those who do not share this assumption - yet the root of the disagreement is too seldom unearthed in the heat of argument.
I think that people started saying all religions were (at root) "the same" when people started focusing (almost exclusively) on this-worldly aspects of religion and began ignoring (or simply not thinking about) what happens to us after death.
In essence: The disagreement over whether religions are "the same" hinges around whether we assume a religion is defined by what it says and does about this mortal human life on earth; or whether we assume a religion is rooted in what it says about the life of our soul/ spirit after we have died.
For atheists (and therefore the mainstream of public discourse in the modern world), of course, death is The End; so it is unsurprising that their comparisons of religions focus entirely on the psychology and social behaviour of various kinds of religious people.
Since there are many broad similarities in the behaviour of people of various religions, then - by these assumptions - it seems reasonable to assert that all religions are fundamentally the same, and that differences are superficial and contingent.
The other group who assert religions are fundamentally the same are those Westerners who advocate The Perennial Philosophy: some "oneness" spirituality that draws upon mystical (often "Eastern") religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Sufism or the like; and upon the tradition of Neo-Platonism or Gnosticism (for example) either with a pagan or Christian vocabulary.
Such people do believe in existence beyond death; but this existence is impersonal. Survival is without ego, without personality; perhaps pure passive contemplation, perhaps by assimilation into The One (from which all originated). Oneness spirituality regards this mortal life as secondary, temporary, superficial; indeed an illusion ("maya") - the only real-reality is in the permanence and changeless stillness of oneness.
Therefore, from the Perennialist/ Oneness perspective; all specific religions are this-worldly, ego-focused, and delusional: therefore all religions are fundamentally The Same - i.e. wrong!
But if instead we assume (as I personally do) that the fundamental nature of a religion is defined by its account of what happens after this mortal life: that is after death - then we get a very different understanding.
If the main thing about a religion is supposed to relate to this mortal life and world; then we may well conclude that the similarities are more important than the differences; and that all religions are - near enough - "the same".
But if instead we focus on the nature of life after death - as I believe that we should - then we discover that there are many, qualitatively distinct and mutually incompatible differences between religions - and differences between any religion and other types of world-view and ideology.
For instance; if we expect or desire to reincarnate after death there are several very different models of how reincarnation works (re-cycling of souls, spiritual evolution, operations of karma etc).
If one of these reincarnations happens to our soul, then the others don't happen! And therefore the religions are different.
Like wise with other possible outcomes. If like the ancient Greeks or Hebrews, every soul is assumed to become a demented ghost dwelling forever in an underworld; then this post-death outcome is absolutely distinct-from and incompatible-with the Christian belief in resurrection of the body to eternal Heavenly life.
In sum; all religions came be regarded as very broadly "the same" if we focus wholly on our bodies, on human psychology and sociology, during this mortal life on earth; but there are many distinct religions (and non-religions) if, instead, we define a religion primarily by its assertions concerning the nature or absence of existence of the soul or spirit after death.
7 comments:
Great post.
John 18:36: "Jesus answered: My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would certainly strive that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now my kingdom is not from hence."
John 6: "Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you. ... I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert: and are dead. ... I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day."
Just a couple of examples of Jesus reminding us that his priorities are not of this world, but even most of his putative followers keep mistaking him for a social worker. They can focus only on the meat that perisheth.
As in so many ways, our culture is weird about death! It's clear from archaeology that through thousands of years of prehistory and until a few generations ago, there was great concern with death and what happened after.
Then "suddenly" it's a non-subject - and the whole thing is either ignored (as much as possible), treated as if an avoidable catastrophe, or the focus is on the process of dying - as if that was the end-point.
‘If like the ancient Greeks or Hebrews, every soul is assumed to become a demented ghost dwelling forever in an underworld’
You make it seem as though such a belief was common amongst Ancient Greeks. If Homer did believe so, to take him as representative of the common beliefs of Ancient Greeks is as silly as taking Shakespeare or Goethe as representative of the common beliefs of Englishmen or Germans. So far as we can tell, Ancient Greeks by and large (including philosophers) believed in a lively afterlife. So traditionally do most Hindus (who are mostly not Advaita-Vedantists).
If Christianity depends upon the repetition of falsehoods against rivals, it does not recommend itself to those in search of the godly.
@D - Don't be silly! My argument does not depend upon any assertions about how common specific beliefs were; only that different people (now and throughout history) have different expectations and desires concerning life after death.
You must be projecting onto me the notion that I am trying to misrepresent "rivals" by falsehoods and thereby convert people to Christianity.
My actual attitude is that there are people who genuinely want something other than what Jesus Christ offers. But there are also people who are (very understandably!) confused by the complex distractions of religions, so they do not properly grasp what is at issue - which (for Christians, I believe) is what happens after death.
If you personally want the kind of afterlife described in the paper you link, then probably you do Not want the kind of resurrected Heavenly life that is attained by following Jesus - and you will thereby willingly exclude yourself from any such possibility.
My point here is that the two possibilities are mutually exclusive.
(Although perhaps it is possible to change one's mind and transfer to another post-mortal state and place, in *some* directions at least.)
My specific point was to counter the falsehood you keep repeating about the Ancient Greeks. (And, from your reply, I presume you are not keen to correct it!) If likewise I stated, in the context of any argument, that modern Spaniards assume that every soul is predetermined to heaven or hell (deliberately giving the impression that predetermination is the common view of Spaniards), would you consider it silly of anyone to point out my falsehood? It is false whether or not any argument depends upon it. Simple question: is it true (or not misleading) to say that the Ancient Greeks assumed every soul to become a demented ghost dwelling forever in an underworld? It is not a question about your argument; it is a question about a particular claim you made. (To be frank, I don’t expect you to answer it.) My broader point (or rather, insinuation) was that there is at least one traditional aspect of Christianity that you uphold: falsification—wilful misrepresentation, often unto demonisation—against rivals.
@D - "Simple question: is it true (or not misleading) to say that the Ancient Greeks assumed every soul to become a demented ghost dwelling forever in an underworld?"
Simple answer: Of course not! - and it's bizarre that you think I would say so!
I am describing, in shorthand, the condition of souls in Hades; and am therefore describing the beliefs of those Ancient Greeks who believed that their souls would go to Hades. How many of the Ancient Greeks these Hades-believers were, I don't know; but I presume there were some.
I am impressed that this belief seems strikingly similar to what the Ancient Hebrews (apparently) believed - calling their Hades, Sheol. Both "underworlds" seem very similar, despite being such different peoples.
I'm at a loss to understand why all this is 1. Non-obvious to you; and 2. why you should regard it as "wilful misrepresentation". Your continued manic tone shrieks paranoia, and the wild imputation of my untrue motives suggest projection.
You should be aware that only our former cordial relations, and my great respect and admiration for your blogs, has induced me to break my rules and publish such intemperate comments (which seem so untypical of your old good manners as to make me wonder about identity theft).
At any rate; I shall in future apply my usual practice here, and will not print any further comments expressed thus, and will block your URL.
In other words, this is your last chance.
I'm no less baffled than I was before!
Post a Comment