I was thinking about the effect of religious education on children (mostly
my own). One of the paradoxical conclusions I reached that was that, as
subject matter, religion has a distinct quality: it doesn't (ultimately)
pretend that it is anything other than a belief system, unlike, say,
economics or any other "scientific" subject matter you care to mention
(this is not to say science is "wrong" or "untrue"; this is merely more
speculation on my part). I know certain "scientific" explanations of
religion try to alleviate some of the need for belief by introducing
scientific and archaeological evidence. Nevertheless, belief is usually the
ultimate prerequisiste for participation.
The paradox is that this is also religion's strength: "you must believe x,
y, z if you want a, b, c, d ...", if you don't believe, you are excluded
from the discipline's benefits (according, of course, to the belief system).
I was brought up in a strict catholic tradition. I found it a very easy
belief system to discard, precisely because it depends on little actual
evidence in relation to the amount of beliefs one must hold to participate
(believe) in it.
This does not seem to be so for the more material sciences, like physics,
maths, and so on. I'm aware of, and have read (from Kuhn onwards in the
west, and various Eastern tracts on the same subject from much earlier)
much of the literature that dismisses these and other disciplines as belief
systems that are no different from religion, so I know I'm not introducing
anything new here.
It just strikes me as paradoxical that the institutions that have held onto
traditional symbolic power in our societies have, as their main strength,
the blatant platform of belief as the basic requirement for their
legitimacy: unabashed, unashamed, belief in x, y or z doctrines. Belief is
posited as a virtue, not a shamefully obfuscated "assumption".
For those of you reading this who have a personal stake in organised
religion, please don't take my message as a criticism or an insult. It's
certainly not meant as such. I make no claim to knowing the "truth" about
anything.
I just find it fascinating that the most adaptive organisations,
historically speaking, overtly rely on belief as the primary virtue for its
constituency and legitimacy. I think it says something important about people.
Phil
Phil Graham
pw.graham who-is-at student.qut.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palms/8314/index.html