|
Dunlavy, here's the problem I have with the kind of spiritual pluralism that you're advocating. When we talk about spiritual belief (metaphysical principles), there are two modes of thinking about the justification for holding beliefs:
1) Statements about metaphysical principles (existence of God, moral laws, etc.) should be evaluated based on their coherence to reality. If we say that God exists, we should only hold this as a "belief" if we have justified reason to think that our statement corresponds with reality, that God actually exists in a real sense. Any statement that we do not have justified basis for holding should be excluded from the list of things we believe as true. The best analog would be the scientist who believes that the earth rotates around the sun because the best evidence available demonstrates that this is the actual case in reality.
2) Statements about metaphysical principles should be evaluated based on the benefit that is derived from holding those beliefs. If we say that God exists, we should only hold this as a "belief" if doing so causes us to benefit in some way from holding the belief. The correspondence of the statement to reality, whether there is actually a God or not, isn't nearly so important as the beneficial state that accrues to me based on my holding the belief. The best analog is a girl sitting in a cancer ward being told be everyone that she is going to get better, and so derives benefit from holding that belief, whether or not it is actually the case in reality.
You seem to be standing in the second camp, category 2, looking at a multiplicity of belief systems and saying, "We need some way of distilling the good benefit that these people derive from holding these beliefs and shed everything that causes conflict between these beliefs. We are entirely justified in doing this, because the reason for holding a belief has nothing to do with how well it corresponds to reality, and has everything to do with the benefit we derive just from holding the belief." This is, I think, almost always the perspective of people who stand outside of belief systems. The problem is that nearly everyone within a belief system holds it for the first reason - they hold the belief based on their justified (whether or not ...) perception that the thing they believe to be true is true in actual fact, in reality.
The problem is that category 2 people really aren't making any sort of statements about metaphysical principles at all - they are making statements about sociology, about the emotional nature of humanity. People in category 2 have so modified the meaning of the word "knowledge" about metaphysical principles as to make it unrecognizable, and as a result, believe nothing at all.
So here's where the conversation goes from here. You tell me know you mean by "knowledge", "believe", "prove", and "justification (for belief)", and we'll see if any of those things make sense in the context of your new ecumenical creed.
I have no problem with you being new. I have no problem with you being young. I have a very strong negative reaction to sloppy thinking, particularly when your sloppy thinking is standing in critique to the thinking of others (category 1 believers). I think we should have this conversation, but you need to not take it personally when I use satire to convey my point.
-sm
|