Making Sense of the Sacred

The Meaning of World Religions

James L. Rowell

• Publisher: Fortress Press
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN: 9781506468082
• eBook ISBN: 9781506468099
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Comparative Religion

What is the overarching meaning of the world's religions? Textbooks relay what the religions believe and leave it at that. But the more puzzling questions--Which of them is true? How do all viewpoints fit together or challenge one another?--are left unaddressed. Like an unfinished puzzle, the myriad religions present themselves to us as countless pieces, but their relationship to each other and ultimate importance escape us. Can the religions of the world really agree on anything or fit into a common narrative or singular image?

This work argues that despite the disagreements and contradictions among world religions, a universal message can be found by studying them with care. It offers a comprehensive examination of religions and their meaning, uniquely bound by the hope and affirmation that in some way they are universally connected. It affirms a universalism by wisdom, which contends that a moral and spiritual wisdom can be found in many of the world's religions. Understood and interpreted properly, religions can help all people lead good and meaningful lives.

1 Religious Trilemma: The Puzzling Choice

When making a puzzle with family or friends, finding the right piece is a joy, not a nasty competition. Among friends, we don’t swat another’s hand away from a puzzle piece; we delight that they have found it. Finding and putting together the puzzle pieces of life as a civilization is a different thing. Competing, we often claim that only our views and pieces matter in assembling the puzzle. Putting a piece in a puzzle among friends is fun, but putting the pieces together as a civilization can be a fight. Has anyone, however, fully seen the picture on the “box of life,” from which all our puzzle pieces of this world came? No one for certain has seen this picture and knows how to assemble the pieces of life, save perhaps God. Religions and people compete because they have different views and claims of the big picture: the picture on the puzzle box of the world itself. Where did it come from? How was it all put together?

This puzzle is before us, and we have three ways of looking at it: (1) the pieces of the puzzle make sense religiously and can fit together, (2) the pieces of the puzzle do not add up to any true religious picture, (3) we are unsure either way. In the first case, if we claim that the pieces of the puzzle add up religiously, then we are theists, or believers. If, in the second case, they do not add up or are not meaningful, we reject them as atheists. If, in the third case, we are unsure, we are agnostics. There is a “trilemma” before us about whether there is a greater picture of life to resolve into sharper clarity. We need to have that hunch, that picture, to continue our puzzle making.

To elucidate the trilemma simply, let me put forward the following. To claim theism is, on the one hand, a good thing because this view asserts meaning, purpose, and hope for our lives. On the other, to support theism also begs the question, Which religion do you believe? Some religions have one God, some have many, and some do not have any gods, and this plunges us into a confusing world: Which religion is true? One religion? Two or three? Many of the world’s religions or none? How can we “verify” which religions are good or true? Largely, I suspect, it will be in terms of their plausibility as well as the moral good and hope they offer. Also, to a large extent, it will be based on whether we were brought up in that tradition. Being born into a religious tradition, you inherit the puzzle image of your parents or culture and begin to assemble. Perhaps also you acquire a nuanced view of it or reject that view.

One can oppositely conclude that because religions disagree about God, the soul, and the afterlife, this proves that they are human made, stemming from our imagination. Religions emerge from our creative minds and have evolved much as language and culture did. They are shaped by a regional view of spiritual truth, not truth once and for all. Karl Marx (1818–83) and Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) argued that religion was an invention—and one that we are better off without. By taking this choice, however, a scary void seems to open in the human heart. What is our purpose? What has become of our lost loved ones? Is the final end to our lives simply grim death and decay? The choice to espouse atheism is by no means easy or comfortable.

Finally, the choice to remain unconvinced leads to agnosticism. Here, Thomas Huxley (1825–95) offers some compelling points. It can be argued that there is no flaming “signature of god” on any one religion, no final way to credit or discredit them, and a hint of uncertain humility about truth is invaluable. Remember, however, religion involves also a strong emotional pull; it is not pure rational calculus. The philosopher William James (1842–1910) suggested the choice to believe must be living, forced, and momentous, meaning that it was alive and rooted deeply in one’s mind.1 I would add that this choice might be like an emotional gravity not easily resisted or ignored. To remain wholly rationalistic about religion, to remain uncommitted, isn’t easy. Simply put, humans may have an innate want and need to believe something. Putting off the choice or refraining from it is possible but could be difficult.

Nine Perspectives on Religion

This chapter will clarify a few puzzlers’ perspectives on how we assemble the picture of life. If there is a greater truth, the vision of the picture puzzle will lead one to theism. If there is not, one’s vision of the truth of life will lead them to atheism. Both paths are different ways of working out the picture puzzle of life, of assembling meaning in different manners. There is a great freedom and blessing in this possibility: that we can agree to disagree. There is, however, also a danger in becoming alienated from those around us when vastly contrasting images of life imply equally deep gulfs in values and commitments. Again, puzzle making among family and friends is fun, but puzzle making between civilizations and religions has often been a fight. We’d like to avoid that in the future. That is why common understanding is so essential.

Here I will discuss at least nine different views of the puzzle of life. They are the following:

• Theism
  1. 1. Militant theism: the angry puzzle maker
  2. 2. Traditional exclusivism: the conservative puzzle maker
  3. 3. Inclusivism: the moderate puzzle maker
  4. 4. Universalism: the progressive puzzle maker
  5. 5. Deism: the spirited and rational puzzle maker
• Agnosticism
  1. 6. Agnosticism: the cautious puzzle maker
• Atheism
  1. 7. Soft atheism or humanism: the tolerant puzzle maker
  2. 8. Hard atheism: the critical puzzle maker
  3. 9. Militant atheism: oppressor of the religious puzzle maker

This list is not intended to be definitive or final but captures at least some of the great complexity of views on this matter. Each will now in turn be further explained.

In terms of theism, the militant theist is the angry puzzle maker. They are so convinced of the absolute truth found in their religious view that they are willing to use violent force or coercion to promote it. Militant theists are often aggressive toward anyone not representing their own views, including possibly someone of the same religion. Christians have fought Christians, Muslims have fought Muslims, Muslims and Christians have battled each other, and sometimes Jews have also been fighting or suffering in between. In India at partition in 1947, Hindus and Muslims fought one another due to deep fear and mutual mistrust. Gandhi was repulsed, but against his will, religious identity during that time was turned into a tool of violence.2 In many traditions, the militant theist is one possessed by blind zeal: terrorism, crusades, intolerance, and violence always accompany the militant theist. Militants have lost all sight that anyone else might have a meaningful part or puzzle piece of life. The first lesson of religion should be to never yield to this deplorable militancy.

A vast gulf separates militancy from the traditional or exclusive theist. These are the conservative puzzle makers, who think that their religious view is right and preferred to all others but will never use force to promote it. The traditional theist may use argument, preaching, sermons, or other nonviolent means to convince others of their truth but will refrain from coercion. They really see truth as contained in one and only one tradition. The puzzle of life for them is only resolved by one religion. For the exclusive theist, their religion tells them all they need to know, and they are satisfied with it as a guide and spiritual compass. Nothing else can substitute. The traditional view might seem arrogant to others, but this is not necessarily true. The danger of too prideful an exclusive belief is that it disdains others who do not accept it. Many traditionalists simply coexist and agree to disagree.

The inclusive theist may have a slightly broader view. Instead of one tradition having all the pieces, there are a few religions that have the best perspective. These puzzle makers are moderates. For them, perhaps a few religions have it right, such as those that believe in the one God of Abraham (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) or alternately those that affirm reincarnation (such as Hinduism, Jainism, or Buddhism). In any case, the inclusive theist takes a broader view than just one religion and thinks two or a few religious perspectives are best but that certainly all are not equal. The inclusive thinker will think that some religions have a better grasp of the puzzle of life than others; this seems to be natural to many of us. Seeing wisdom in a few religious perspectives, this moderate thinker will just not be persuaded that there is truth in many religions.

The Universalist or progressive theist will think this, however. The Universalist is very well exemplified by Mohandas Gandhi (better known as Mahatma Gandhi). Gandhi believed that all religions were pathways up the same mountain, that it did not matter so much whether we were Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, Muslim, or Jew, but that the purpose of each religion propelled us to a sacred truth and better morality. Gandhi believed “all the principal religions are equal in the sense that they are true. They are supplying a felt want in the spiritual progress of humanity.”3 Gandhi thought that religions pursue a higher truth. He said, “To me God is Truth, and Love, God is ethics and morality, God is fearlessness. . . . He is all things to all men. . . . He is ever forgiving for He always gives us the chance to repent. He is the greatest democrat the world knows for He leaves us ‘unfettered’ to make our own choice between evil and good.”4

This is a wonderful and warming view. It suggests we are all wanted, loved, or saved in the end. All puzzle makers have an equal and good role in assembling a meaningful picture of life. Perhaps our moral commitment and our integrity are most divine. Gandhi seemed to think so. There are of course difficulties with the Universalist view. It tends to sweep under the carpet, or at least set aside as unresolved, some very real differences: Was Christ divine or not? Was Muhammad a prophet? Is there a God? Is there a soul and final afterlife, as Muslims and Christians assert, or is there no God and no permanent soul, as Buddhists believe? World religions state very different things about the final nature of truth and sometimes also about morality. The universal perspective is warm and welcoming but leaves many things unresolved. Universalism succeeds at finding moral common grounds but struggles to reconcile real differences in professed faith.

Deism has much in common with the Universalists. Deists are trying to make the images and pieces of religion fit and accord with rationalism and science. For Deists, the spirit of religion must not contradict the dictates of science and reason. Deism does not look to any tradition for an infallible truth but may see the works of God, sometimes called “Providence” by Deists, as clearly evident in the natural world. Thomas Paine, while scathing and critical of established religious traditions, admitted that the grandeur of creation testified to divine Providence. Critical of any notion of revelation being found in a particular text, Paine wrote, “The word of God is the Creation we behold; and it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaks universally to man.”5 Deists have not wanted to sacrifice the warm hope of religion to the sometimes cold calculus of science and reason. Deists may still see God as evidenced by nature.

Not all Deists were equally critical of conventional religion. Many of the American Founding Fathers were Deists. Thomas Jefferson believed Christianity had been corrupted and misinterpreted but that it contained an important truth. He wrote, “To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which I believe Jesus wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other.”6 Deists believe that there is something divine, that it may not be fully understood in any particular tradition, and that the pursuits of science and reason may help clarify our image of the world. Trying to bring religion in harmony with reason, Deists de-emphasize miracles. For them, miracles violate natural law and are therefore not compatible with a scientific worldview. In Deism, God is often conceived as a watchmaker who created the world but does not intervene in it.

Among religious believers, a split exists between liberals and fundamentalists. A religious liberal takes their religion seriously but more symbolically and less literally than a fundamentalist. The religious liberal takes seriously secular or scientific views but still adheres to religion as a moral and spiritual guide, insisting that religion is good but not infallible. In this respect, religious liberals may be “neo-Deists,” who seek to make religion breathe with the modern spirit of the times rather than a wooden adherence to tradition.

On the other side of the split is the fundamentalist, who considers religious liberalism to be a watered-down version of religion. The fundamentalist insists upon the literal, authentic, and authoritative understanding of text and tradition. Without true belief, faith is dissolute, flabby, and weak. Caving in to the temptations of the modern world would lead to abandoning the true faith. The fundamentalist belongs to the exclusivist school of religious thinking described above.

Agnosticism literally means “without knowledge” of the divine or sacred. Thomas Huxley has been credited with coining the term, as it expressed his belief that neither the theists nor the atheists had a definitive argument to settle the matter. As Huxley wrote, “Why trouble ourselves about matters of which, however important they may be, we do not know and can know nothing? We live in a world which is full of misery and ignorance, and the plain duty of each and all of us is to try to make the little corner he can influence somewhat less miserable and somewhat less ignorant than it was before he entered it.”7 In his view, agnosticism was the most rational position to take regarding the sacred. Agnosticism, he argued, “appears to me to be the only position for people who object to say that they know what they are quite aware they do not know.”8 This really explains why I have called them the “cautious” puzzle maker, for they refuse to affirm what they believe the mind cannot know...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Introduction
• 1. Religious Trilemma: The Puzzling Choice
• 2. Religious Trilemma: Making the Right Choice
• 3. Judaism
• 4. Christianity
• 5. Islam
• 6. Zoroastrianism and the Abrahamic Faiths
• 7. Hinduism
• 8. Buddhism
• 9. Jainism
• 10. Sikhism
• 11. East Asian Religions
• Conclusion: Universalism and the Religious Puzzle
• Bibliography
• Index