Reconciling Multiple Faiths

• Posted by The Rt. Rev. Mark Luljak November 1, 2010 - 936 views

  There are a lot of religions out there.  We have thirteen major ones represented in the ULC logo image alone, and those are just a handful of the current major accepted beliefs.  So the question for any (possibly would-be) believer is begged, "How do I know I've picked the right diety/dieties to worship?"

  Many would maintain, and have maintained over the years, that, "[Multiple religions] can't all be right!"  The aetheists don't necessarily believe any of the religions are right.  The agnostics haven't made up their mind.

  I have always found a way to personally reconcile these issues for myself.  I will attempt to share my train of thought, that others might benefit from and adapt my logic to their own use, or that I might be shown where I've gone wrong in my thinking.  I make no claim that I'm right.  I'm a lay person.  While I have faith, I'm not particularly devout compared to others; this may actually lean to my benefit in making the viewpoints I hold work out for me.  My main point in this disclaimer is that, while I believe there is merit to what I am saying, I do not consider myself a heavy theological scholar, nor do I claim I'm right.  I'm simply presenting what logic tells me is a reasonable solution to a complex situation.

  First, before we bring any speciic dieties into the matter, I think any believer (or would-be believer) would have to take into consideration the question of Intelligent Design on scientific merits.  There is a lot of material out there on I.D., and not all of it is accessible.  There is a very accessible piece on I.D. titled "Intelligence Test", in a book titled Catastrophes, Chaos, and Convolutions, by the late James P. Hogan.  I'm actually working towards obtaining the right from the author's widow to reprint that particular section of the book so it might be more widely read and understood.  Amongst the merits of this particular work is a flow-chart representation of the means for mathematically defining the presence of intelligent design.  A fuller explanation and a lot of background are also given.  Suffice it to say that I found the logic to be sound.  For the purposes of this blog entry, let us assume that the universe has, in fact, been designed.  We'll take that as a given for now.

  Assuming design is present, one is next led to the question of, "By whom?"  The concept of Intelligent Design cares nothing of the nature or identity of the designer, and only concerns itself with whether or not there was a designer in the first place.  (This fact is often conveniently overlooked by people trying to keep I.D. from being included in textbooks in the United States, on religious grounds.)  Assuming one cares who did the designing, and who to thank, blame, worship, or simply acknowledge, one moves on to the plethora of belief systems out there, both modern, traditional, and even ancient.

  I believe that the observation that, "Not all the religions can be right," is a fallacy, to put it succinctly.  Actually, I think most of the religions can co-exist harmoniously, given sufficient effort and employment of logic.

  If we start with the Abrahamic religions which share the Old Testament as part of their heritage, it seems to me that we're essentially dealing with the same God.  The parts that come after the O.T. obviously differ, but one might consider that the equivalent of a religious dialect.  Same language, different regional dialect, for all intents and purposes.  It's not really hard to reconcile these.

  However, when you move on to other religions, be they naturalistic, or even polytheistic, people seem to have troubles.  I'm not sure why, but I believe we're still talking about the same god (singular), even when dealing with polytheistic beliefs.

  Essentially, if you take the "Christian" God as depicted in the Bible (and in my case, further depicted through the lens of Catholicism in my childhood) as an example, God is not presented as one unified entity.  Indeed, there are "facets" of God--namely, in Catholicism at least, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit/Ghost.  Additionally, there are numerous resources that point to apparent (I can't independently validate this) pre-translation differences in the name/word for God being used in different contexts within the original texts of the Bible.  There are at least three of which I'm aware, although at the moment I can only remember that one dealt with creation, and another dealt more with the day-to-day running of things.  But there apparently are more names to God than one in the original texts.  This leaves us with a multi-faceted God, even in the Christian/Abrahamic faiths.

  What I see when I look at polytheistic religions, be they Native American, or all the way back to Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Mayan, Aztec, etc., is simply a further subdivision of labour.  Essentially, instead of praying to "one" central figurehead, I believe that people prayed to the part (or facet) of God which dealt most with the subject in question.  Fertility, crops, rainfall, love, war...these were each a facet of the same divine force, which we simply subdivide less in modern Abrahamic faiths.  Even what little I know of naturalistic religions seems to suggest that various natural forces could be considered facets that are simply named individually--or in the case of religions with a central figurehead like "Gaia" as a natural mother, not even subdivided, simply called by a different name.

  It's interesting to note that the Roman and Greek cultures had virtually identical pantheons that dealt with most, if not all, the same facets, and simply (usually) had differing names for these facets.  Likewise, it's very interesting to look at the fact that the ancient religions (Greek, Roman, Egyptian, etc.) seemed to all have similar beliefs in including a facet for control of the afterlife and/or underworld, as well as other numerous similarities.

  Essentially, I don't believe I can prove it--I'm not even sure it's provable--but I believe that if you get past the "trappings" of many of the religions, it comes down to the same thing.  Namely, it comes down to mortals here on earth seeking help, support, comfort, and even sometimes victory in conquests, from a superior other-worldly supreme being--or facet thereof. 

  Whether the messages have to be taken into account when reconciling these different faiths is another thing entirely.  Most of the religions today, be they Abrahamic or naturalistic, preach a message of harmony, peace, and love for one another (and sometimes for the environment/planet as well).  When you get back to the ancient religions, I know something about some of them, but not enough to know what (if any) overall message was conveyed in terms of direction one's life should take.  With one exception...

  It seems to me that most religions, from ancient to modern, share a methodology of rule by fear.  One does as the diety in question wishes, or there are consequences, and often penalties.  If one conforms and obeys, one is often rewarded.  This carrot-and-stick method of rule is not unique to religion, and indeed has been emulated and  adopted overly-well for use by man himself.  But it is another common factor in many religions.

  I don't pretend to know, or even say that I'm right.  I simply believe that, in many cases, the gods that are worshipped in other cultures, past and present, may very well be the same as the God that I choose to worship.  I can think of half a dozen objections, besides knee-jerk xenophobia and adamant dogmatism, that a lot of unthinking people would probably string me up for, for making this kind of statement.  There is much I haven't addressed--for instance, what about the Christian belief that in order to achieve eternal life, you must be born again through the Saviour, Jesus?  There are  parallels in that, if you view things pliably enough, to trials one had to face to get into the Greek and Egyptian versions, from what I've read.  There are some things that seem awfully immutable in some beliefs, such as the "not worship any false gods before me" part of the Ten Commandments in the Bible.  Note, however, the use of the word "false".  That could cut two ways--it may imply that any other diety is a false one, or it may imply that there are other legitimate dieties (or at least names of dieties) that are  acceptable and legitimate, but one shouldn't worship, say, the spiritless golden statue of some purely made-up idol. (e.g., the golden calf) . It really depends on how literally you interpret the passages.  I don't think anyone can say with any authority, one way or another, what is the "right" answer, or which is the "right" path to follow.

  What I do think is important is the overall near-consensus message that the religions have, which focuses on respect, love, peace, and harmony.  It's my belief that, barring absolute evidence of one diety or another's existence, if one tries to do the right thing, live a clean and wholesome life, and by and large tries to do the right thing, one has a reasonable chance of being on the right side of the fence, both morally and spiritually.  I also choose to believe that, should the religion (or lack thereof) of one person turn out to be the "wrong call", any reasonable diety would tend to overlook the finer details for the bigger picture.  In other words, one's deeds probably count more than the finer points of exactly what one believed.  I have to believe that any truly merciful god would overlook the fact that something right wasn't necessarily done in his name, and would focus more on the fact that one lived one's life well and did no harm, to the best of one's ability.  I think intent will count for far more than what trappings one chose to get caught up in, or in whose name the good deeds were carried out.  I think it's a reasonable expectation that as long as the means used were wholesome and not borne of ill-intent, that the ends achieved will speak for themselves, and hopefully count in our favour.

  And I also have to pray, both out of fear and out of respect, that I'm actually right in my beliefs.  I pray that my God understands why I have come to the conclusions I have, and understands and forgives me if I'm wrong in not only my thinking, but my attempts to share my own ability to reconcile these differences, and dare to share these thoughts (which may very well be wrong) with others.  But on the whole, it seems safer to take the approach I have, out of logic and thoughtfulness, than to perpetuate rifts borne of differences, and that ultimately propogate intolerance, hatred, misunderstanding, and even violence.  I pray that the God I've chosen to worship is forgiving enough to understand that, in light of a lack of absolute proof of His existence as the only God, bar none, that my means are a well-intentioned way to achieve a better end.

  Amen.