Entry 1205, on 2010-07-15 at 19:57:53 (Rating 3, Skepticism)
I've heard the Dalai Lama described as the world's most revered religious leader. And who could possibly say anything bad about him? He's such a nice, genuine person - just the opposite of many other religious leaders (I wouldn't like to pick out any in particular here but the Pope would have to be amongst the most despised).
So sure he's a nice guy, but he does talk a load of crap some times. As a spiritual leader he can hardly escape having to deal with crap because that's what spirituality is all about, but at least he's always positive and yes, nice, when he says this stuff.
One of his most well known catch phrases is this: "Many Faiths One Truth". By this he means that all religions are different manifestations of one underlying spiritual truth but, of course, I totally disagree with this and would like to offer an alternative interpretation. My interpretation is that yes, there are many faiths, but none of them have anything to do with the truth. The real truth comes from science and serious philosophy, not religion and superstition.
So there are many faiths and one truth but what the religious people don't understand is that the one truth has nothing to do with the many faiths.
Sure I agree, there are some interesting ideas and some valuable philosophy in most religions - especially Buddhism - but there's a lot of crap there too and its just too hard to find the good stuff amongst the bad.
The Dalai Lama was just trying to be inclusive (and nice) with the "Many Faiths One Truth" idea and some other more reasonable and tolerant religious leaders have said similar things, but it really doesn't help the credibility of spirituality because by saying all religions are right all they're really saying is that they are also all wrong, and if they represent the same truth in such different ways that sort of negates any unique values they might have.
But there's another way to look at it too. If you accept religion is just fantasy then it all makes sense. One fiction (or fantasy or myth if you prefer) doesn't usually rely on other fictions being untrue. For example, the Lord of the Rings doesn't tell you to ignore The Chronicles of Narnia. But can these be seen as representing some sort of underlying truth? I don't think so. They represent interesting ideas but that doesn't equate to truth.
Maybe the biggest problem with the whole area is the loose meaning which is used for the concept of "truth". Maybe spiritual or religious truth is a bit like the truth in the novel 1984. In that the Ministry of Truth dealt with propaganda (in other words lies). If we look at religious truth in a similar way then it does make more sense: truth is the mythology that a particular belief system wants it's followers to accept - usually on faith.
If a more rigorous definition of truth is applied: maybe something like "a set of well accepted facts which are supported by objective evidence and reasoning" then the claim that all religions represent the same underlying truth just becomes obviously false.
So in summary, I don't want the Dalai Lama to stop doing what he's doing now because the world would be a lesser place if he wasn't here, but I do think he should stop using the word truth in that context or perhaps make it clear that the type of truth he's referring to isn't the same truth we would mean in other circumstances.
Comment 1 by OJB on 2010-07-19 at 10:31:55:
Here's his latest platitude: "Despite philosophical differences, all major world religions have the same potential to create good human beings."
I would counter this with: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion." (Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate)
Comment 2 by INRI on 2010-07-25 at 22:44:20:
You give quote #26814 from Michael Moncur's (cynical) quotations.
Logically, consider that there are NO good people, then evil occurs with or without a religion as stated. In William Golding's Lord of the Flies he considers this evil inside of humans. Point being that, left to their own devices, children will turn feral without a restraining influence. No one has to be taught to be evil, it comes naturally. So what would it take for evil people to do good? Winberg's quote is silent on the matter, which makes it cynical.
I like quote #58. "To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a computer.", which Moncur credits to The Farmers Almanac 1978.
It is neither the religion nor the computer that causes evil/error. It is the work of the human being.
Comment 3 by OJB on 2010-07-26 at 08:30:15:
I wasn't intending that the quote be taken too literally. I don't think there are "evil" and "good" people, for example. Rather all people have some good and some evil elements in their personality. It is almost undeniable that religion can use that element of evil for it's own purposes but, as you point out, it can also use the good elements as well.
The question then becomes: on balance, does religion achieve more good or evil? That is a difficult thing to measure but many commentators would say the balance is towards evil. I wrote a blog entry on a similar topic recently where I suggested the Catholic church is the most evil institution of all time.
I can't think of a real empirical mechanism to test this idea because good and evil are hard to define and what influence religion has on people is also uncertain. I do think though, that the quote is true: religion is the most effective way to make good people do evil things.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE