Monotheism

The three great religions that are centered in what we call the Middle East have at least one thing in common. They all posit One God. Since they are all related geographically and historically, one might expect them to see one another in a favorable light. But, that is hardly the case, at least in the case of people in the streets. Why is it that these three great religions has such a hard time getting along? The old notion of no war being bloodier than a civil war may have some currency in this case. There is a sense of betrayal in civil wars between the different sides that is less likely to exist in wars pitting two countries separated by an ocean. It's like a member of the family has turned on the rest and tried to destroy them. Betrayal indeed. There could be some of that operating in the case of the great monotheisms.

However, I am slowly coming to the conclusion that it's not their family origins so much as their foundation. The belief in one god. The fact that only one god rules the universe means that there is only one way to believe. When people believe that only one way works, then they naturally want to share that one way with everyone else. There are probably two reasons (at least) for that desire. One is that being compassionate characterises human nature in general. Whenever we find out something good we want to share it with others. We want others to have the same good things that we enjoy. That may sound polly-annish, but I think there's pretty good evidence that human nature includes a lot of compassion for others.

So far so good. But, now we come to the second reason. We are also an anxious and fearful species. We fear that others might have some advantage over us that could threaten us or even kill us. We fear we won't be able to keep the good things we have. In short, we live very insecure lives. Now, if there is only one God, and by extension only one way to correctly do things, that means that I'm right and anyone else who believes differently is wrong. The opposite of that is also true, if the different believer is right, then I'm wrong. Thus, we have the problem. By the very fact that there exists a different belief, I run the risk of being wrong. Therefore, I must either convince you of your error, or destroy your belief. Since we find security in our rightness, we won't be convinced by simple conversation. That leaves us with the task of destroying your belief. How better to do that than to destroy you? I'm coming to the conclusion that it's the nature of the "mono" belief that's the problem, not the "theism."

Are we therefore doomed to slowly but surely kill each other off so that one side remains standing? I'm hoping not, but I'm not confident that we'll refrain from it. That's why I see promise in the postmodern phenomena of multi-polar societies. Relativism is not the problem, it's the solution. No, the process isn't pretty, but it's worth a try. As a species we've been trying the other way for millenia. It's probably time to try something new. Relativity rules! Blessed be.
- posted by Marcos @ 7:57 PM (1) comments