Truth, Belief and the Absolute

Today was Easter. After a slow early morning we went to church (Unitarian Universalist). The minister, Lora, gave a sermon about resurrection saying that it didn’t matter what was true, it was a story and what mattered was the interpretation we took from the story. Our interpretation was the important truth in it for us.

I am not so sure that is the whole truth. Certainly the ‘truth’ we take from the stories for ourselves is a part of what is important. But I cannot forget the fact that many believe in the absolute truth of the bible and its stories. As Billy Graham’s son said, he believes in the absolute truth of every word of the bible. He had a strange demeanor when he said it. He wanted to convey that he was holy and good because he believed it, but also that he had power, creditability and authority because of his belief. What nags at my awareness is that literal belief and the demands for authority and power that go with it. That is that mentality that causes men to kill non-believers, to believe absolutely but to be absolutely intolerant of those who would not agree.

It is the absolute believers who would not tolerate a different meaning others might take from a story. They would subjugate women, those with a different sexual preference, even those with a different political philosophy. The rigidity of belief of many who belief in the literal truth of their stories is what makes it hard for me to have an easy tolerance of the true believers. The truth I would take from a bible story is one thing, but knowing what some others take from it and impose on others makes it hard for me to rest with the easy belief that my interpretation is the only important thing.

Even David Brooks, in the NY Times, in critiquing the play “The Book of Mormon”, runs true to his conservative view of things by saying that the message of the play is wrong because absolute belief is an important and positive thing for civilization. He claims that individuals cannot develop for themselves rules and values needed to govern their lives and the life of the community. We need, he believes, the absolutist beliefs that are refined over time to guide us in a consistent way. I think he is wrong for several reasons. One is that the young are quick to learn to get along in our society because of a genetic predisposition to do so. We have a natural capacity for empathy and consideration for others. While that does not always play out with breathtaking consistency, still it does serve as bedrock for civil behavior. Additionally we have laws that are developed and refined over time that do not require belief in the supernatural. Our ever changing mores and folkways are really what keep us on track in a civilized society. Certainly any one religion is not indispensable, and I do not see that the absence of a religion is a detriment.

No, I do not think we need religion or absolutist beliefs. However I do recognize that there is a “faith instinct” as Nicholas Wade terms it. Many people have an urge to believe in religion, and even for those who don’t there is sometimes an urge to see things in spiritual terms. For example Emerson would talk of the divinity in living things. We will sometimes spiritualize the human race, or all life, or even the entire universe. I don’t object to holding such things in reverence even though I’m not sure it does any good. Still, it seems to fulfill a human need. We also have a driving need for a sense of purpose and meaning and the notion of reverence gives balm to need.

I’ll continue to be as tolerant as I can be—I have a reverence for tolerance. But I’ll believe that the stories of the bible are important not only for my interpretation but also for the effect on the world of the interpretation of others.