About two years ago now, a friend who is really quite clever in other ways opined on faith in my home.
"I think religion is great," said he. "I just don't know why you would pick one over another."
His statement combined a patronizing attitude with such ignorance that I was initially at a loss. I repeated the question first.
"You don't know why you would pick one over another??"
He nodded to this, adding: "Yeah, like I don't understand why you could think one is right and the others were wrong."
Generally, with drinks and company, I try to cultivate a cordial atmosphere. No one else present seemed particularly moved by this comment. And I confess I became more heated and less articulate than was likely helpful in debating the point, at least with someone in their early twenties.
"What a stupid question!" I retorted. "Why would you choose one way of life over another? Only from the most insulated, haughty point of view does that even make sense...."
I tend to favor frankness, but I might have responded with something like the following. "Why choose one woman over another?" Or,
Have you ever eaten at a restaurant? Why would you choose one over another? Presumably, you have preferences at any given time for what you would like to eat. How much more important, then, is choosing the food for your soul?
There are in fact many amplifications to be made to the metaphor. Quantitatively, because a choice of restaurant is for an hour or so whereas faith is for years or sometimes generations. Qualitatively, because the substance of a restaurant answers a bodily need (though, taken alone, this reductionism is a little unfair) rather than a spiritual need. Socially, because participation in religious belief implicates not only a community but each person with whom you interact. And in terms of impact, because food is tasted and then forgotten whereas faith is first felt and then perpetrated on the world through our lives.
It's also worth noting that, while it is not proper to bring outside food into a given restaurant, it's of no concern whatever to one dining that people are dining in other restaurants elsewhere.
In truth, I struggle all over again to treat the scope of the question because it seems to me to ask, 'what is the point of trying to be one type of person as opposed to another?' The most thoroughgoing answer might be: 'if it didn't matter, then nothing would matter anyway.' The believer marching to the tune of her ideal stands to gain if there is any meaning to life whatever, and if there isn't, then what difference would it make?
The perplexity of the comment also stems from a magnanimous attempt at equivocation, one very common to our period. The root disconnect seems on reflection that religion might be an integral part of life in society rather than a source of pointless division. Unless you know everything and act in perfect accordance with that, it seems to me that belief (through religion or otherwise) will have an impact on how your life and the life of your community proceeds. If ideology lacks any influence on how people behave, then it wouldn't be very relevant to distinguish religions.
Or maybe I might have better reached my audience by returning, "Why attend one law school over another--isn't the law the same no matter what?" Or, "I think family is great; I just don't understand why you would keep to one rather than another."
This friend is going to be working at one of the top five law firms in terms of both revenue and reputation. About a year after our discussion, he won a prestigious competition at our school. We were in the same class then, and he was visibly embarrassed at the attention he was suddenly getting. I decided to help him out.
"It's all right, X," I told him. "I still know you're an idiot."
It takes all types, I suppose.
"I think religion is great," said he. "I just don't know why you would pick one over another."
His statement combined a patronizing attitude with such ignorance that I was initially at a loss. I repeated the question first.
"You don't know why you would pick one over another??"
He nodded to this, adding: "Yeah, like I don't understand why you could think one is right and the others were wrong."
Generally, with drinks and company, I try to cultivate a cordial atmosphere. No one else present seemed particularly moved by this comment. And I confess I became more heated and less articulate than was likely helpful in debating the point, at least with someone in their early twenties.
"What a stupid question!" I retorted. "Why would you choose one way of life over another? Only from the most insulated, haughty point of view does that even make sense...."
I tend to favor frankness, but I might have responded with something like the following. "Why choose one woman over another?" Or,
Have you ever eaten at a restaurant? Why would you choose one over another? Presumably, you have preferences at any given time for what you would like to eat. How much more important, then, is choosing the food for your soul?
There are in fact many amplifications to be made to the metaphor. Quantitatively, because a choice of restaurant is for an hour or so whereas faith is for years or sometimes generations. Qualitatively, because the substance of a restaurant answers a bodily need (though, taken alone, this reductionism is a little unfair) rather than a spiritual need. Socially, because participation in religious belief implicates not only a community but each person with whom you interact. And in terms of impact, because food is tasted and then forgotten whereas faith is first felt and then perpetrated on the world through our lives.
It's also worth noting that, while it is not proper to bring outside food into a given restaurant, it's of no concern whatever to one dining that people are dining in other restaurants elsewhere.
In truth, I struggle all over again to treat the scope of the question because it seems to me to ask, 'what is the point of trying to be one type of person as opposed to another?' The most thoroughgoing answer might be: 'if it didn't matter, then nothing would matter anyway.' The believer marching to the tune of her ideal stands to gain if there is any meaning to life whatever, and if there isn't, then what difference would it make?
The perplexity of the comment also stems from a magnanimous attempt at equivocation, one very common to our period. The root disconnect seems on reflection that religion might be an integral part of life in society rather than a source of pointless division. Unless you know everything and act in perfect accordance with that, it seems to me that belief (through religion or otherwise) will have an impact on how your life and the life of your community proceeds. If ideology lacks any influence on how people behave, then it wouldn't be very relevant to distinguish religions.
Or maybe I might have better reached my audience by returning, "Why attend one law school over another--isn't the law the same no matter what?" Or, "I think family is great; I just don't understand why you would keep to one rather than another."
This friend is going to be working at one of the top five law firms in terms of both revenue and reputation. About a year after our discussion, he won a prestigious competition at our school. We were in the same class then, and he was visibly embarrassed at the attention he was suddenly getting. I decided to help him out.
"It's all right, X," I told him. "I still know you're an idiot."
It takes all types, I suppose.