The One True Religion?

I saw this on Twitter the other day:

"Every religious person has the one true religion. They can't all be right. #atheist"

I agree with this tweet, mostly. But I would amend it slightly as follows:

"Every religious person thinks they have the one true religion. They can't all be right."

Most people do believe they have the "one true religion." If they don't, they have no business belonging to that religion.

If they don't believe that what the religion says is true, why are they a part of it in the first place?

Obviously, every religion can't be right. If you were to take just about any two religions, it is likely they are going to claim contradictory things. No serious person of faith should believe that all religions are right in all they teach. No one who values logic should believe this either.

Various religions can agree on many different things, and they can be correct about many different things, but on some point they will differ in a way that clearly shows they cannot both be correct.

So, I'm not exactly sure what this person is trying to say.

Maybe they are saying that most religions and more religious people are wrong in some way. If so, again, I'd have to agree for reasons noted above.

Maybe they are saying that this is somehow proof that all religions are wrong. However, it does not follow that since many people have different ideas, and that many are wrong, that everybody and every religion is wrong.

When Did We All Start to Hate Each Other?

I don't think it was always this way. I could be wrong, but I feel like there was a time not that long ago where people could have an honest disagreement about something and still be friends.

Recent events have caused me to question that more than ever.

Today, emotions seem to be running higher that I can remember. The year in politics that was 2016 certainly didn't help. But weren't we already heading this way?

In the last several years there have been so many hot-button issues that people feel strongly about. That must be the difference....

But is it really? That has always been the case hasn't it?

Yes. So what is the difference?

Well, as Bishop Robert Barron has said, we've forgotten how to have a good argument.

Not argument in the sense that we clash over something where there is strong disagreement. Rather, argument in the sense that two people will put forth reasons in support of their respective positions and then they will think critically about the other's position.

Now, we see something on social media that connects with what we already believe on an emotional level, we click "Like" and think "BOOM!" Then we continue scrolling.

Or, we see something that we have an adverse emotional reaction to, and become disgusted with the person who posted it. In the most extreme cases, we unfriend, unfollow, or even stop talking to them IRL (IRL = In Real Life for those of us who remember a time before social media). Because.... we assume we are good and they are bad?

Where did we get the idea that people who disagree with us are people we should not associate with? When did this happen?

I have a crazy idea. Is it possible that those who disagree with us on the controversial issues of the day might not be terrible people? Maybe, just maybe, they are advocating for something good. Maybe they are focused on a different good than we are. Or maybe we want the same good, but have different ideas about the best way to achieve that good.

Maybe people who are pro-choice are concerned about pregnant women and want the best for them. Maybe people who are pro-life are concerned about protecting the lives of innocent human beings. In either case, do these any of these people deserve our hatred or scorn?

Maybe people who support same-sex marriage want those who experience same-sex attraction to have fulfilling lives. Maybe people who support traditional marriage want what they believe to be best for society or are concerned about religious freedom. In either case, do these ideas make someone evil?

Maybe people who support refugees coming into the US are concerned about protecting those fleeing violence. Maybe people who want to stop or limit refugees coming into the US are concerned about the safety of their country, their families and neighbors. In either case, do these concerns mean they are irresponsible or bigoted?

Maybe people who voted for Hillary are concerned about the marginalized in society. Maybe people who voted for Trump feel like no one in government stands up for them or we need a change. In either case, do these views mean they are not worth our friendship?

I hope we can answer no to these questions. I hope we can make our arguments civilized again.

Is Faith Just Pretending?

I've often heard the saying “Faith is pretending to know something you don’t know.” I think that’s an interesting way to define faith, however I don't believe this statement aims to define it.

This statement is meant to mock it.

The intended message here is clear: It's irrational. It's intellectually lazy. Faith is silly. Just wishful thinking.

But let's set that aside for a moment, take the definition at face value, and define a few terms. Doing a quick Google search, we find the following:

Pretending: speak and act so as to make it appear that something is the case when in fact it is not.

I don’t have a problem with this definition, however I have a problem with his use of the word in his assertion. His statement assumes both that there is, in fact, no God, and that the person pretending knows there is no God and is speaking/acting otherwise.

First, most atheists would say that we don’t know there is no God (in that we can’t prove that there isn’t). Second, people of faith clearly don’t fit this definition because they are not acting contrary to what they “know.” If they “knew” God didn’t exist, they wouldn’t have faith.

The use of the word “pretending” fails here, as does the claim. Faith is not pretending by the above definition.

What is it then? Let check back with Google.

Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Here’s where the internet might get us into trouble (I know, right?) – unfortunately, this definition uses the phrase “based on spiritual apprehension.” This is incomplete and misleading in that it suggests that we develop faith by NOT thinking critically, that we gain it by some kind of "spiritual intuition."

The above is much more in line with this definition of blind faith:

Blind faith: belief without true understanding, perception, or discrimination

In truth, the statement "faith is pretending to know something you don’t know" treats all faith as blind faith.

Sure, many people do have blind faith. But this is not the history of faith.

Throughout human history, philosophers and theologians have wrestled with the question of the existence of God. They have written about and debated this topic for many thousands of years. They have developed arguments and counter-arguments and have contributed to a great body of work.

Similarly, our faith is not blind if we’ve investigated and tested it and questioned our beliefs - finding sound arguments and good reasons to believe that God exists, or at least that it's a rational belief.

Faith, at its best, does not replace reason, but builds upon it. It's rational and it's intellectually sturdy. It's withstood centuries of challenges.

I think it withstands this one, too.