My brother is a Catholic priest. And every conversation we have ever had about religion goes exactly like this
In short, this is the difference between Religion vs science simplified.
Science = If I say to my brother, "I can fly and you need to believe my claim," my brother only ever demands that I have to "prove it." And because i cannot prove my ability to fly (like a bird, not by getting on a plane or strapping on a jet pack or something), my brother claims he will not accept my claim as valid, let alone ever believe my claim as true.
As such, he is perfectly justified in rejecting my claim. And I completely 100% agree with him!
Religion = On the other hand, when my brother says to me "I can fly" and I respond "prove it," he claims that he hold this "belief" as an article of "faith" and therefore has no need whatsoever to prove it, other than that others have gone to their death professing such a "belief" to be true.
As such, I must OBEY him or be tortured for all eternity for doubting his "beliefs."
When I point out he is NOT using the same standard he used to reject my claim - which was the exact same claim that he now makes and expects me to accept as "infallibly true" - he only EVER responds with "No, your disbelief in my beliefs is simply your "belief," and you must prove that I cannot fly, or be tortured for all eternity."
When I point out I cannot prove he cannot fly, and neither can he, he then asserts "So then your disbelief in my ability to fly is simply YOUR belief. Hence, I win, and you must obey my commands, which are infallible because they come from my Roman Church." Of course, his "belief" that he can fly is just a belief as well.
And, so my brother promises me, "if you can't disprove my claim, then it is right and just, according to my brand of God and religion, that you should, and even MUST, be tortured for all eternity for doubting what I have claimed, for my claim is the result of divine revelation, that my Catholicism assures me is infallible."
And how does he know his Catholicism is infallible? Because he "believes" it is, and I cannot prove it ain't, despite how often his Catholicism has changed its mind about limbo, suicide, slavery, and much else. Nothing can ever disprove his Catholicism, that is, because he "believes" it is infallible. What he sees as "infallible" however is not Catholicism, but his "beliefs" in Catholicism.
My brother is essentially claiming that, while my inability to prove I can fly proves my claim is false, my inability to disprove his claim that he can fly proves his claim is true.
And if I threw him off of a tall building to prove his "belief" was untrue, and he fell to the ground and broke every bone in his body,
he would simply claim that he fell to the ground NOT because he does
not "believe" he can fly, but because he choose NOT to fly, in this
life, but will be able to do so in the next. What he is claiming
to be "true," as such, is not whether he can fly, but whether he is
committed to believing he can, and how much such a "belief" requires him to
convince others to believe the same thing.
And how does he know his beliefs are true? Because he is willing to suffer breaking every bone in his body to prove his beliefs are true, rather than simply fly (which would be too easy).
To most people, this double standard looks like simple hypocrisy, but in truth, something else is actually going on.
From the standpoint of science, the truth being determined, by both myself and my brother, is whether I can actually fly.
From the standpoint of religion, two different "truths" are being determined even as they are being talked about as if they are the exact same thing. For me, the truth being determined is the same one we are both using when I claim I can fly and cannot prove that I can do so. We are talking about my ability to fly like a bird, and we both know I cannot.
For my brother, however, what is "true" has less to do with whether my brother can actually fly like a bird, but whether he "believes" his religion when it tells him he can fly, or will, because that religion claims God promised that he can, or will, even if he has to wait until he dies first to be able to do so.
Why does he believe this? Because first Jesus, then Mary, ascended into the clouds. Hence, if they could fly, then so will he be able to. (Of course, he does not believe he can fly, but he does believe every other claim the Catholic church makes as "infallible," and here I am using "I can fly" as a stand-in for all of the church's other claims.)
Additionally, my brother equally believes his religion when it tells him that I deserve, and will surely be subjected to, eternal torture for daring to doubt whatever it told my brother was "God's truth." This, according to my brother the priest, is exactly what true love is, which means that is the ONLY kind of love he has ever felt - love based on approval or rejection. Tell him that is not love, and he will want you burned alive for all eternity for daring to challenge his sacred "belief" that is it.
Why does my brother feel it is perfectly justified if God tortures me for all eternity for failing to believe his claim that he can fly for the exact same reason he rejects my claim that I can fly?
Simple: his own ego.
His ego feels persecuted and rejected when I fail to "believe" his belief that he can fly, or will, eventually.
How do I know this? Because that's exactly what I realized my ego was feeling whenever he dismissed my lack of belief in his claim as simply my "belief." His high-horse dismissal felt like a slap in the face, a way of him telling me I'm a foolish idiot for daring to doubt him and what he believes.
This is exactly what having a conversation with my brother, a Catholic priest, is like.
Exactly!
Then I realized that his refusal to change was not my problem, nor what made me a fool. What made me a fool was my inability to change from my need for him to do what he was incapable of ever doing - change his perspective, or his mind, on what his religion was telling him was "infallibly" true. But he has no ability, let alone "free will," to ever do so. He just "believes" he has the free will to do so, just like he believes he can fly, even though he has never demonstrated an ability to do either one.
And if I told him I believe him when he says he can fly, he would've simply said "i do not need to show you I can fly, only that you need to believe I can, for showing you is not the point. The point is to "believe" and have faith, not to know for sure, the way we know the sun will come out tomorrow." This is why Jesus and Mary only appear to some people, like Jacob Marley only appearing to Ebeneezer Scrooge, to those who need assurances most of all of their existence, while everyone else is expected to "believe" without such visitations.
So what is happening here that this kind of double standard can operate in plain sight while being so blatantly denied to be the cornerstone of my brother's "faith" at all? In effect, my brother's claim that he can fly but I cannot is based on my brother's denial of the existence of the very double standard he must use to claim his "belief" is true and my belief is false, for his is an objective truth and mine is a subjective true, as far he he cares to see it. Objectively, he has "faith" that he can fly, while subjectively, I know he cannot anymore that I can.
So why can he not see it any other way? What plank is in his eye that prevents him from seeing anything other than HIS WAY only?
His claim gives him firm ground to stand on, as he sees it, for it is built on the solid ground of tradition. If he accepts my claim, he tumbles into chaos, the abyss, where no structure or firm ground can be found.
Such a feeling is a terrifying prospect for some, it feels like falling into an abyss with nothing to grab onto. For my brother, his tradition is like climbing aboard a 747, or even a B-52 Bomber, with his long list of religious thinkers seen as dropping bombs on the ideas of everyone else's ideas and beliefs, often using arguments that are as riddled with this kind of double standards.
This assumes that people's minds are incapable of flying through the open sky of possible ideas and perspectives, lest the winds of opinion drive them crashing into the ground or a mountain side.
On the other hand, those who learn to think for themselves feel confident enough to fly from the nest of such traditions, and feel their minds were indeed designed to do so.
To those born in such airplanes, who are raised to depend on such ideas to carry them through the winds of opinion and ideas that are as open as the sky above, flying looks like an illness or a sin. To those who fly from the nest of tradition and see they were always intended to, is like watching birds buy tickets on an airline.
Welcome to growing up Catholic, where all sanity depends on your ability to escape the -merry-go-round of "my beliefs are better than yours."
Comments
Post a Comment