One problem which the phenomena of religion poses is best illustrated by the following thought-experiment:
Imagine, for a moment, that you are a Christian. You witness a discussion between two people, each of whom claims to be a Moslem. These two people, however, propound slightly different doctrines, and live slightly different life-styles. Each of them claims to represent "true Islam" and implies thereby that the other represents a less than full understanding of Islam. How will you decide which of them has a more accurate understanding of Islam? Or are they both "truly" Islamic? Or perhaps neither of them is.The situation outlined above is one in which an "outsider" must make a "judgment call" about another religion. Such situations do actually arise in daily life, and one must be willing to wrestle with them. Certainly, disagreements will abound, but one must finally make some decision. More examples are easy to generate:
Imagine, for a moment, that you are a Jew. You witness a discussion between two people, each of whom claims to be a Hindu. These two people, however, propound slightly different doctrines, and live slightly different life-styles. Each of them claims to represent "true Hinduism" and implies thereby that the other represents a less than full understanding of Hinduism. How will you decide which of them has a more accurate understanding of Hinduism? Or are they both "truly" Hindu? Or perhaps neither of them is.One might try to handle the situation by saying that one shouldn't judge in such a situation. But intellectual integrity demands that one gather all available knowledge, analyze and reflect on it in the most thorough fashion, and arrive at the most accurate possible conclusion. Yes, one does run the risk of being wrong; that does not excuse one from the obligation to know as much as possible and to make the best possible analysis.
Some vague and idealistic notions of various world religions would have us believe that such religions abandon the notion of "truth" and allow infinite variations. While it is true that the world's great religions do allow a certain amount of variation, it is also true that they all draw clear boundaries beyond which they do not allow their adherents to go.
There are two essentially different situations: one in which I am required to make a judgment about my own religion, and one in which I make a judgment about another religion. If I am a Jew, and I ponder who is and who isn't truly Jewish, that is different than if I am a Jew and ponder who is and who isn't truly Buddhist. A different type of analysis is needed in these two situations. Both types of judgment are necessary and inescapable, if I am to honestly face the phenomenal world, but they are distinct type of analysis.
In a word, I need to have working definitions of the various religions, and then apply those definitions. In the process of applying those definitions they will be sharpened, because the actual situations facing me will be more complex than simple textbook cases on which definitions are usually based.
I once got myself into an interesting debate when I posted the following statement:
It's interesting to me how people who haven't read history make great generalizations about it, and how people who haven't carefully studied the Bible make pronouncements about religion! Each religion is defined by a text: Judaism has the Tanakh, Christianity has the Bible, Islam has the Koran. You may call yourself a Jew, but if you don't live according to the Tanakh, then aren't a Jew. You may call yourself a Christian, but if you don't live according to the Bible, then you aren't a Christian. You may call yourself a follower of Islam, but if you don't live according to the Koran, then you are no follower of Islam.I received numerous replies in disagreement, for example, the following from S. Barret Dolph, the Headmaster of White Horse School, in Taipei, Taiwan:Although I cheerfully recognize the importance of both systematic and dogmatic theology, I am more interested in close textual reading and narrative theology. Close textual reading is the foundation of not only theology, but also of any proper academic discipline. Text is the basis for spirituality.
The text is not the focus of the Russian Orthodox Church. Similiarly, if one claims that the "text is the basis for spirituality" explanations of Chinese Zen Buddhism and Daoism are inexplicible. The text as basis for spirituality is most closely held to by Protestant thought. Those of us who are outside that tradition can certainly benefit from the insights into textual analysis but this does not entail basing spirituality on texts.Headmaster Dolph and I might agree more than he suspects; our apparent disagreement is perhaps due to my poor way of expressing myself. I would suggest that one read my statement with a very broad definition of "text" in mind. For example, the icons used by the various branches of the Orthodox Church form a text of sorts; so do the ceremonial rituals and liturgies. "Text" can further be stretched to include the rock gardens of Buddhist monasteries, and postures of the Buddha in Buddhist sculpture. For certain American Indian or African Animist religions, the "text" might even be nature itself (i.e., birds, trees, mountains, etc.).
To crystalize my point, in religion, "text" is simply a different name for the "other" - that which is not me. Religion is an attempt to escape my subjective prison and learn about reality. Hence, all religion must include some contemplation of, or appeal to, an "other" - and that "other" becomes the "text" for that religion.
Get your own Free Home Page