Why Religion Necessitates the Condemnation of Others
I am not a religious person. While I have often flirted with atheism, I have I have not completely rejected the abstract concept of a higher being (or beings if that may be the case). Rather, my lack of religious conviction is more of a result of a belief that many of today’s religions are full of inconsistencies and illogical conclusions in both theory and practice. That is not the main subject of this writing, however. An essay that fully explained my struggles with religion would require more time than I have available at the moment. What concerns me today is more of a personal annoyance.
In talking with many religious people, I have often asked how one could adhere to a particular religion with so many possibilities available. Personally, I have been disinclined to commit myself to a religion like Christianity because I find many truths in the teachings of other religions as well. The answers most frequently offered in response to my question are usually unsatisfactory. Many simply state that they have “faith” in their religion, that they were raised under their religion, that they believe it to be morally sound for raising a family, and other similar answers. These are answers simply do not follow a logical pattern of reasoning. There is no calculated rationale that religion X is the religion that a person ought to be practicing. It’s the follow-up question, however, that usually gives rise to the most irksome responses. I often ask what followers of a particular religion believe about people practicing alternative religions. There are two main responses this question: 1) They are damned to hell/suffering/non-salvation, or 2) “I don’t necessarily think they are wrong, people believe different things and there may be many ways to get to God/salvation/paradise/etc.”
For a long time it was the first answer that angered me. I didn’t understand how some people could so adamantly insist that all people who practiced a religion different then their own were damned. However, I have come to see this as the only logical response a religious person can give. Claiming that all religions have their merits and that their may be multiple ways to salvation is simply a religiously-inconsistent response for a person adhering to a religion of salvation. In order to be a true adherent of a religion, one must necessarily believe that all other religions are wrong, and, by extension, that all practitioners of other religions are condemned to damnation/punishment/suffering/etc. To be as lucid as possible, I have decided not to articulate this argument in essay-format, but to articulate it in a standard outline form. The argument is quite brief and runs as follows:
- Primary Assumption: A religion concerns salvation or some other related concept
- To reach salvation, one must adhere to a set of religious principles by professing “faith” to that religion
- Faith, a complete trust or confidence in something, necessitates the rejection of principles and ideas contrary to the doctrine of one’s religion.
- No two religions are completely identical
- Therefore, one committed to a religion must always find fault with another religion
- Therefore, since one believes that all other religions have faults, practitioners of other religions are not committed to the principles that one believes represents the path of salvation.
- Thus, one must either believe that they have erred in their faith or that practitioners of all other (i.e. “wrong”) religions cannot reach salvation.
I understand that this reasoning may anger some people, but I believe that this argument is sound with respect to religions of salvation. It is for this reason that I am against organized religion in all forms, for I am not bold enough to proclaim my own church, and I am not foolish to believe that I can “pick and choose” selectively from the doctrines of any existing religions. If one wishes to believe that other forms of religion may have their merits, one must do away with the concept of organized religion all together. The only “religion” that can exist in accordance with this principle must be one of subjectivity, where the only unifying factor among practitioners is a belief that people can reach salvation through their own reason and experience. However, such a perspective seems contrary to human nature to “live and live,” and thus we seem condemned to condemn others.
Keith, it is my belief that the possibility of separation from God is an unavoidable corollary of Christian doctrine, and thus I suppose I to an extent agree with you. (For my own reasoning, these two posts may be of some interest.
http://rericsawyer.wordpress.com/2008/02/24/how-can-a-loving-god-damn-people-to-hell-a-response/
and
http://rericsawyer.wordpress.com/2008/12/13/more-on-damnation-v-universal-salvation/)
I also agree that, of the two responses you quote, the second is particularly maddening, as it implies to me that the real religion is often not involved in truth so much as conflict avoidance.
Now, to make no false pretences, I am a pretty traditional Christian, holding all the traditional understandings of the Christian faith, and from a protestant viewpoint. But I thoroughly accept a live and let live standpoint, perhaps over-so. I of course have noticed those on my side of the road who have taken it upon themselves to be God’s enforcers, as if He can’t deal with that sort of thing himself. I reject that.
But the ditch on the other side of the road from being God’s enforcer is to proclaim that truth is not truth, or that there is no truth, or that truth is variable. I think this is what disturbs me most in the second group.
I have a friend who writes a blog called The Questioning Christian
( http://www.questioningchristian.com/ )
He, being firmly on the liberal edge of the church, and I disagree over almost everything in religion, except for this on point: The truth is what it is, and it matters.
On that point hangs my understanding of damnation. Not good work, not right doctrine, not anything else but this one thing; Given that there is a God, and that our existence does not end at death, given that God’s aim is our unification with Him (BTW, I think there is some value in the male personal pronoun, but I would not insist on it. I would be reasonably content with a non-gender specific personal pronoun, but never with “it” ! ), then the stage is set for at least the possibility of damnation, or separation.
If God incorporates the idea of “all truth” or “the way things really are”, and remember the story of Moses at the burning bush, where God announced to Moses that His name is “I AM” – that is , I am fact, reality, truth; then union with God can be translated to mean in part, union with truth, with the way things really are, no deceptions allowed. God could I suppose force me to accept the truth, but that sounds more like brainwashing than heaven. And if I am more committed to my own ideas, my own image of who I am, my own religion, my own theology, my own… my own… my own…, well, that goes where it goes. Even now, I find I am not always committed to truth, I sometimes enter into argument not so much to discover truth, and be corrected, as to “prove” my ideas right, and win the argument. I am sometimes more committed to my thought than to the abstract Truth. If I choose my own ideas about me or anything else, in the face of the truth being visible, how then am I to be united to all truth while at the same time rejecting truth? I am free, but I am free to drink, or to not drink. I am not free to both drink and be dry.
Anyway, that is my own nutshell once over about damnation, and I think it defensible in either classic Christian or secular terms. It also includes a pretty sharp warning to people like me, who are pretty convinced about own religion. My formula is this
In another matter, I think you realize that your outline of the argument comes predominately from a Christian viewpoint, particularly points 1,2 and 3. Not all religions are concerned with such things (I believe the Taoists would be an example). And even within that group of Christians, there are many who do not reject all religious thought. I am one, even though quite conservative in my faith. My personal view is that mankind has often tried to peer through the mist towards God, and has sometimes gotten a glimpse of truth. From these glimpses we fill in the blanks, and then twist the vision because of our own inner twisted nature. Many faiths have many good visions.
What we claim in Christianity, and what I understand, is that God himself made an entry, and showed us the truth “I am the way, the truth and the life” said Jesus.
Certainly doesn’t mean that other good and thoughtful people do not have worthy things to add.
-Blessings!
Try reading “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis. It’s a little dry but very clear. You say that no two religions agree, but that is not exactly true. While no two religions believe the same exact thing most have the same beginning. If two religions believed the same thing, then they would be the same religion. Christianity, Judaism, Catholicism and the Muslim faith all have the same first five books of the Bible and all claim to believe in the same God. According to mosts faiths Christians will still go to heaven, even if Christians don’t follow that religion. I strongly suggest not following the atheist way. It is proved through studies that people who pray and follow a religion are happier. If you are wrong and there is no God at least you lived a happier life. There is no harm in following God if the athiest belief is true, however, there is harm in not believing God if their belief is wrong.