One of the most common objections to organized religion that I hear goes something like this, "Religion may be true for you, but it's just not for me." This view seems to think that belief in God is a simple matter of feeling, a set of guidelines that may be used for an individual to live a happy life. For those that adopt this theory, religion has no concrete statements of fact asserting, for example, that an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving God actually does exist. Rather, religion is simply a loose set of values or ideals to lead a successful life. Under this interpretation, it is easy to see how someone can claim religion is only for certain people. After all, if religion is only a guide, some guides are more useful for certain people than for others.
For religion to be applicable to a broader population than those who openly seek it, it must contain some element of objective truth. The subjective values asserted above can easily be removed from consideration by an individual simply because such a value is entirely dependent on the individual's own mental, emotional, and spiritual state. However, objective truth is by its very nature independent of the individual, and thus applicable to all, regardless of personal differences.
Contrary to the subjectivist's belief, religion does make objective assertions and not just subjective values. Much of this confusion is derived from society's use of the word "values" as opposed to "laws". Clichés such as "don't be judgmental," "different strokes for different folks," and "alternative lifestyles" simply reinforces the confusion. "Laws" seem unmovingly objective, and so they are. However, "values" seem to be entirely dependent on the individual. We each have different traits that we admire and so it seems that you have "your values" while I have "my values". However, the Church does not simply make claims about values. These claims are simply implied by the objective teachings of the Church. For example, the objective teaching of the Annunciation implies what appears to be a subjective claim about the ideal example of accepting God's will for our lives.
With these distinctions understood, we can now examine the argument of the religious subjectivist. Essentially, the argument claims religion is subjective, or dependent on the believer. In other words, religion is invented by the believer and for the believer. In this instance, God can be likened to Santa Claus for the religious individuals who don't wish to grow up, but instead live in self-delusion. In order to discuss the objectivity of religion, it can be broken down into three categories: theology, morality, and liturgy. These three categories address the various parts of human nature, intellect, will, and emotion respectively. Together, they address the whole of human nature.
The objectivity of theology, or the creeds and beliefs of religion, can be compared to the objectivity of a science such as physics. Just as physicists develop and change theories throughout time, each with varying degrees of truth, so too do theological formulations. No, there is not complete truth in theology because our knowledge as humans is limited. But this same argument can be made against the partial truth of physics, many aspects of which remain complete mysteries to the brightest scientific minds. However, the partial truths of theology, like physics, are objective.
In the category of morality, the values and works emphasized by religion, it can be argued that subjectivity exists, for morality is greatly dependent on the individual. However, once again when compared with an "objective science" this argument is weak. For this comparison I will use the field of medicine. Just as medicine best directs individuals toward physical health, so too does morality direct an individual toward spiritual health. Furthermore, health practices vary between individuals due to states in life and physical abilities. Yet, medicine is considered to have objective truth. Therefore, it is not valid to deem morality subjective simply because it can vary between individuals. Every person is at a different point along their spiritual journey and as such morality applies differently in different situations. Yet, there is objective truth in morality just as there is objective truth in medicine. There are universal rules for holiness just as there are universal rules to maintain good health.
Finally, with respect to liturgy objective truth can also be seen. The main purpose of liturgy is not simply to have a beautiful service (although beauty is a part of it), but to properly express the theological and moral aspects of religion and properly honor them. The truth and goodness of these earlier aspects are at their pinnacle during liturgy. For example, the theological truths about Jesus Christ and the moral obligations of his teachings are most properly and fully expressed through the sacrament of the Eucharist and through participation in the Holy Mass. Since the truth and goodness of these aspects are objective, so too is there objective truth found within the liturgy aspect of religion.
Thus, it can be concluded that rather than a subjective ideal for life, religion is far more powerful. It contains objective laws, which are not in any way dependent upon those who are religious. The Catholic Church was not dreamt up by naïve and idealistic humans but was divinely instituted.
No comments:
Post a Comment