religion’s paradigm shifts (small scale/big scale)

Recently I read a post that I wrote back in December 2007 on a different blog. This particular post was titled "Shifting Paradigms" and went like this:

"For the past 33 months, I’ve been replacing or putting aside some foundational paradigms that have defined “my religion” for many years. Why? Because when I needed my religion to work, it didn’t. Having experienced extremely hurtful personal problems and reaching out to God with no recognizable response, I was left with an impression that God didn't care and was far off. Expecting the church people to help my husband and me through our difficult valley I was met with disappointment and a feeling of being shunned… at least that was my perception. After many months of disillusionment and finally leaving the church our family had been a part of for 12 years, I came to realize that my expectations and beliefs about God and his followers were both misappropriated and wrong. I plan to define some of these changes in future writings.

The Random House Dictionary defines “paradigm” as “the generally accepted perspective of a particular discipline at a given time”. “Shift” means “to put (something) aside and replace it by another or others; change or exchange: to shift ideas.” This is what I am doing. The process has brought great freedom to my spirit."

Almost word for word I would write the same thing today, except for the part about my spirit being free. (Don't really know what the entity, "my spirit", would be today apart from who I am. I am as free as I allow myself to be.) Since that time my expectations of God seem to have been proven correct. They were misappropriated and wrong.

My expectations of God's "followers" were also fundamentally wrong. However, since I was sitting in the same boat as other followers for so many years, any criticisms I might have apply to me first. I was doing the best I knew to do just as the majority of those around me were and are doing.

The primary criticism I give to myself today in reference to the past is that I was not thinking critically about life. This lack proved to be the catalyst to everything going upside down. Or perhaps I should say downside up. It depends on perspective. Believing that God would take care of me proved to be almost fatal to my marriage and definitely fatal to my religion. Blind faith is not something I recommend to anyone in any sort of relationship, certainly not in earthly relationships, much less with a God that is illusive and demands blind faith, love, trust, obedience, suffering, worship, and martyrdom. (If God doesn't require these actions in our earthly relationships, and I don't believe that he would if he existed, why would he require it in our relationship with him? Old Testament God or New Testament God, doesn't make a difference to me.)

Today I see religion as a control and manipulation mechanism of man over man. All you have to do is study church history and you'll see why it's not difficult to come up with that idea. If you belong to a church, unless you're totally disconnected, you've seen the "politics" of religion first hand and shook your head in dismay or disgust. Some people walk away while others maintain the same course. I maintained the same course for a long time. Why?

Religion wouldn't have stayed around for so many millennia if there wasn't something good to be gleaned from it. Religion gives comfort to people. Believing that we will see our loved ones after death is comforting. Believing that we experience life after death and won't just disappear forever is also comforting. The social scene proves to be quite beneficial in meeting peoples' core needs to belong and be appreciated by others. (My one caveat to that would be... The social scene is beneficial as long as you conform, participate, don't ask tough questions, and don't tell anyone of your personal struggles.)

Religion has evolved over many years. Individual religions endure over time due to the built-in survival mechanisms they develop. Some mechanisms are good. Some are not good. Over time the bad gets weeded out. But it takes a long time. What is today thought of as mythology once was someone's religion. It may take thousands of years for things to change significantly. We humans have always wanted someone to watch over us. I think it's natural... kind of like never growing up and wanting to be cared for by Mom and Dad. Why wouldn't we want to believe that there was a father and mother god looking out for us and planning and directing our lives? This would keep us safe.

But alas, such is not so. People are not safe. One look at Haiti would indicate that. One of religion's built-in mechanism kicks in at this point... "of course they're not safe because they aren't obeying God... or loving God... or sacrificing enough... or" (you name it, there are many options). Pat Robertson told us how these work.

The evils of this world (natural or man-made disasters) cannot be explained to my imperfect, more and more tolerant mind. The tolerance of God, if it exists, has to be greater than mine. It doesn't seem to be. This is a dilemma that cries resolution.

ideology

After several months of reading books on evolution, I’d like to say that “I am an ideologue no more.” Whether it’s possible to entirely eliminate a previous ideology remains to be seen. It’s easier to talk and write about, for sure.

What do I mean by ideology? Daniel Dennett in Breaking The Spell identifies ideology as “not just any mistaken thinking, but thinking that is pathological or bad for us in some way.” (p.374--the complete title of this book is Breaking The Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon) In this same book, J.M Balkin is quoted as identifying ideology as “ways of thinking that help maintain unjust social conditions.” (p.374) These definitions will do for now.

Balkin, in his book Cultural Software, identifies something which he calls imperialist universalism: “…the view that there are universal concrete standards of justice and human rights that apply to every society, whether pre- or post-industrial, whether secular or religious, and that it is the duty of right-minded people to change the positive norms and institutions of all societies so that they conform with these universal norms of justice and universal human rights.” (p.150) I don't think that he is saying this as a positive thing. In times past I would have agreed with this idea.

Dennett also notes that many people in the United States hold the belief that the American way is the right way and we should spread it to all the world. Anything less is moral relativism. Tolerance of other cultures’ norms such as polygamy, slavery, and infanticide (to name a few) must not be granted. Imperialist Universalism sees “right” or “wrong” as the only accepted possibilities in any moral decision.

Many Muslims, Christians, and Hindus would seem to fall into this imperialist universalism category. They would agree that moral relativism is unacceptable. Where does this leave the unbeliever? Does it automatically push the unbeliever into the morally relativistic camp? I don’t think so, but the “I’m right and you’re wrong” stance won't work either. There has to be some middle ground. Scientists (many of whom admit to being unbelievers) also should not be granted final say. Science doesn’t possess moral answers to life exclusively. At best, science may provide clarity or confirmation of factual presuppositions of any moral discussion, but not the values that our ethical judgments and arguments are based on. Putting faith in science alone is no different than putting faith in one religion or another exclusively. (paraphrased from Dennett)

“Everybody should consider adopting the stable middle ground: an open mind stance that permit’s a rational dialogue to engage the issues between people, no matter how radically different their cultural backgrounds. We can engage in this conversation with some reasonable hope of resolution that isn‘t simply a matter of one culture overwhelming the other by brute force. We cannot expect, Balkin argues, to persuade others if we leave no room and opportunity for them to persuade us. Success does depend on the participants‘ truth and justice. What this means is only that both parties accept that these values are inescapably presupposed by human projects that we all participate in, simply by being alive: the projects of staying alive, and staying secure. Nothing more parochial need be assumed, and even ‘Martians‘ should be able to agree on this.” (Dennett, p.376, Breaking The Spell)

What am I saying? I think that whether we’re talking about science or religion, neither are benefited by claiming an imperialist universalism stance. Dialogue is necessary when it comes to differences. We all share the need to stay alive and stay secure. Pushing or simply holding an ideology causes separation. It causes us to devalue others. We judge others and develop feelings of entitlement, superiority, and pride. Isn’t this how wars start and continue?

Holding strongly to one ideology over another leads to irrationality. My truth is no truer than your truth and vice versa if we‘ve failed to present our cases in open dialogue with each other. Winning arguments by strong arming the other out of the dialogue is not winning. And if one thinks his ideology should rule, he needs to study his tactics and learn peaceable approaches to dialogue. If we rely on the respect for truth and the tools of truth-finding, “we can work together toward mutually comprehended and accepted visions of what is good and what is just”(Dennett).

For many years my religious views cut me off from ideas that I was taught to ostracize and deem as untruth. I'm no longer in agreement with this ideology. Learning and growing in new ways it what I require of myself today. My need to stay alive and stay secure are more important than any ideology's promise.