Who speaks for religion?

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-david-dubois/who-speaks-for-religion_b_1386736.html

Thomas David DuBoisAssociate Professor of Chinese history, author of "Religion and the Making of Modern East Asia"

Posted: 04/ 3/2012 11:17 am


Usually we know where to look for answers. You know where to go for the weather forecast, and who to call when your car won't start. If you need to find something more esoteric--who fought the War of the Spanish Succession, or what is the main export of Bangladesh--there's always Wikipedia.

What about religion? How do we get answers?

I am not talking about the unknowables--like where we go when we die. I mean more straightforward matters of doctrine or interpretation. There is no shortage of important questions about religion: what exactly is jihad, is yoga a Hindu practice, does Jesus really hate liberals, and so on. Lots of people will weigh in on these questions--but who should we actually believe?

-snip-

So the answer is that there are many types of religious authority, and that no single authority trumps all others. This may be disappointing, but should not be surprising, since religion is itself such a remarkably diverse phenomenon. Even within the Western traditions, we can find all forms of religious community, knowledge, belief and authority. Look outside these traditions, and the complexity increases a hundredfold. The sheer immensity and diversity of religion is why I can't take seriously blanket statements about religion always being good or bad, liberating or oppressive, delusional or logical. As a historian, I do see a great deal to dislike about religion. We don't have to look far to see self-appointed spokesmen showing religion in its most hateful, ignorant and bigoted forms. But whatever authority these people claim for themselves, they should not blind us to the beauty, meaning and joy that religion has brought to countless lives. You don't have to believe, but if you look at religion and only see one thing, I'm afraid that you're missing most of the picture.

more at link

[immoderate]

1. Religion shows us the breadth of human imagination.

Consider the scripture, the stories, the poetry and art. The ritual, costume and pageantry. The mythology, the music and the plays on emotion. It's a lot of work -- and calls on the gamut of human creativity.

--imm

[dmallind]

2. Sure - but who speaks most credibly and with most awarded authority

Religion could very easily be seen as 1000 answers for 1000 believers, but the origin of the word and the vast vast majority of its practice tells us that there are certain constraining limits on what the answers can be. Nobody who says Islam has 3 million gods and preaches a cycle of reincarnation is likely to be taken seriously, whereas from one point of view that's a usable shorthand for variants of Hinduism.

But as for who can speak to more arguable things such as faith vs. works or the currency of Leviticus in today's world (or yes, the Christian view on the DP or abortion) we can surely look at who has the greatest following of believers in that faith. We can surely look at the number of people who willingly accept the proxy status of the spokesperson's opinion. Now normally of course that falls into the ad populum or ad baculum fallacy. Just because a lot of people buy McDonalds does not mean their burgers are the best. But McDonalds buyers aren't saying the chain speaks for them in matters of culinary taste, and even the most ardent burger fan doesn't believe his choice of patty determines eternal verities or the destination of his immortal soul. Alternatively when one allies oneself with a faith at least in the far more common religions, one does devolve that level of investment to it. Nobody is a religious Hasidic Jew who also ardently believes that emulating Krishna will result in a superior reincarnation. No fanatical Christian thinks Mohammed gave us the last and only genuine revelation from God. By assigning themselves as Jew or Christian they have limited their possible responses, and by choosing to be a member of a specific temple or church or group they have limited their possible options still more. You lose credibility if you claim to be GLBT friendly yet tithe to Don Wildmon. You can't say you are for racial harmony and equality and belong to Christian Identity groups.

So we certainly CAN say that those with the greatest number of followers speak for more of that religion than those with fewer. A religion after all is those who follow those constraints willingly. So when two people tell me differently what real Christianity is, and one of them has hundreds of thousands of donors and members of his group, and the other struggles to keep a dozen people on the pews every Sunday, I certainly believe the former speaks for mpre Christians with more credibility, because more support him in his shepherding of their faith. Now sure if 100,000 12-person pastors say one thing and one 500,000 person pastor says another, we must trust the former to speak for the greater number, but when it comes to voluntarily following one spokesman for the almighty lord of all creation over another, and entrusting he will lead your eternal soul to paradise, numbers really do tell the story, and really do award the credibility.

[rrneck]

3. I don't think there is anything

I could add beyond the first two posts.