Religion as a point of view
I'm noticing more and more essays, articles, etc. that analyze various religions as equivalent points of view. For example, there's a forthcoming book entitled FAITH AND LAW; HOW RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS FROM CALVINISM TO ISLAM VIEW AMERICAN LAW (Robert Cochran, ed., NYU Press, 2007) which includes an essay on "Reform Judaism, B'tzelem Ehlohim, and Gay Rights" by Prof. Ellen Aprill of Loyola Law School (Los Angeles). (Her paper is available on SSRN). The paper discusses the reaction of Reformed Judaism to the Boy Scouts v. Dale decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that the Boy Scouts' associational freedom trumped New Jersey's attempt to force the Scouts to accept gay scoutmasters.
It's sort of interesting to examine how different faiths respond to various legal events. But there seems to me to be an increasing trend to make claims of roughly this sort (and I'm not suggesting Prof. Aprill does so, as I haven't read her paper - just that the title of the book in which it will appear sparked this reflection): Religion is just a point of view, all points of view are equally valid as none can be proved/disproved by the scientific method (which is not a point of view), and they all express some deeper wisdom which can be discovered by comparing their (often quaint) views on various topics.
The central claim of most religions (perhaps even all) is, however, that they embody the ultimate truth and that their truth claim is stronger than the scientific method. That is, each religion makes a truth claim that is incompatible with the rest - either Jesus is the Messiah or He isn't. If He is, Christianity is true and other religions are not. If He isn't, Christianity is not true and (perhaps) some other religion is.
This seems to me to put a limit on what we can learn from playing anthropologist and comparing and contrasting religions. If, for instance, Christianity is true, then "how Muslims react to American law" is a much less interesting question in religious terms. Similarly, if Islam is true, then how Christians react to American law is less interesting.
Western academic study of religion seems to me to be often premised on a neutral disbelief of all religions (save science). Once the idea that a religion might be true and the others false enters the picture, the typical academic approach seems less useful.
It's sort of interesting to examine how different faiths respond to various legal events. But there seems to me to be an increasing trend to make claims of roughly this sort (and I'm not suggesting Prof. Aprill does so, as I haven't read her paper - just that the title of the book in which it will appear sparked this reflection): Religion is just a point of view, all points of view are equally valid as none can be proved/disproved by the scientific method (which is not a point of view), and they all express some deeper wisdom which can be discovered by comparing their (often quaint) views on various topics.
The central claim of most religions (perhaps even all) is, however, that they embody the ultimate truth and that their truth claim is stronger than the scientific method. That is, each religion makes a truth claim that is incompatible with the rest - either Jesus is the Messiah or He isn't. If He is, Christianity is true and other religions are not. If He isn't, Christianity is not true and (perhaps) some other religion is.
This seems to me to put a limit on what we can learn from playing anthropologist and comparing and contrasting religions. If, for instance, Christianity is true, then "how Muslims react to American law" is a much less interesting question in religious terms. Similarly, if Islam is true, then how Christians react to American law is less interesting.
Western academic study of religion seems to me to be often premised on a neutral disbelief of all religions (save science). Once the idea that a religion might be true and the others false enters the picture, the typical academic approach seems less useful.
Posted by Andy Morriss on
Wednesday August 23, 2006 at 8:58am
his seems to me to put a limit on what we can learn from playing anthropologist and comparing and contrasting religions. If, for instance, Christianity is true, then "how Muslims react to American law" is a much less interesting question in religious terms. Similarly, if Islam is true, then how Christians react to American law is less interesting.
Perhaps it would be less interesting as a religious matter, but in anthropology, sociology, political theory, or just plain practical politics, it would still be interesting and important. What's important here is not the truth of the beliefs, but the ways the beliefs encourage people to act. Theology is where the truth of the beliefs matter.
- Josh