Language is interesting. In Don't Sleep, There Are Snakes, Daniel Everett recounts his experiences as a missionary living among the Pirahã, a small tribe in Brazil. Everett eventually realizes that it would be impossible to translate the Bible into Pirahã because the language lacks the words to describe anything that was not personally witnessed or told to the speaker by a witness. This is consistent with their culture; the Pirahãs place importance on immediate experience. Claims necessitate evidence. There is no story of the earth's creation, and no sense of sin. As we say in one of my languages, "no day but today." Religion is incompatible with their culture and, consequently, their language.
Let's take a look at some other language that is incompatible with religion. Taken from my own comment on my own blog: I get my values "from progressive thinking rather than ancient, dogmatic works of fiction." I guess you could say I have strong feelings about this. I use these words to get my point across, which is important, but so is productive discourse. So perhaps I can use some more neutral words (as a side note--is "dogmatic" not a neutral word? It's a simple fact that many religions contain dogmas--principles that are not to be disputed--but the word is used disparagingly these days): I don't consider the Bible to be an authoritative source due to its unverifiable claims. I view science as a reliable source of information because it provides evidence and makes its methods known. So, what about morality? Thanks to innate characteristics and personal experience, I have a general desire to be nice and not kill people. Science doesn't tell us how we should act, but it can shed light on why we tend to act certain ways. For an example, see the Veritas Forum's discussion on altruism from last year.
It gets interesting at the end of that discussion when someone asks what happens when science and religion conflict. In my opinion, Sussman's answer--basically, that they don't conflict--is a cop-out. Of course they conflict. Now, is conflict inevitable? I have long been inclined to think so. However, the fact remains that in our society, both science and religion exist. In order for them to coexist peacefully, we have to find a common language. True, there are plenty of scientists who are also religious, and have attempted to bridge the gap, but belief is complicated, and there are always people who remain dissatisfied with some detail. So, are people's various beliefs so fundamentally different that they must conflict? Maybe, but it's still fun to look for that common ground. Philip Clayton does a pretty good job, I think, in this Assembly Series talk from 2008. Sure, I yelled at the computer a few times while listening to it, but it was better than anything I'd heard on the topic before. My main issue was with his use of the word "spirituality." He seems to imply that spirituality is a requirement for being human. But guess what? I don't need to be spiritual in order to enjoy life or appreciate nature. I have emotions. I just don't believe in anything supernatural. Can we expand the definition of spirituality or find another word that is more inclusive in describing the human experience?
Sometimes when I think about it too much, I become convinced that we are all saying the same thing, just in different words.
Sometimes, I think not.
And other times, I wonder how pushy I should be in advancing my cause. And then my dad sends me an article about a conference at which that very question was addressed.
Also, sometimes I have lots to say but can't figure out how to tie it in with everything else, but if you're like me and just can't enough of this stuff, check out this article, then follow the link to the author's blog and read the comments. That should keep you busy for a while.
So, in conclusion, language is interesting, I'm not sure if sanity was restored but I tried, and I like to write about religion.
No comments:
Post a Comment