Are all religions equally true?
April 17th, 2009
- Posted by Justin
- Filed under Contemplative Living, Education, Philosophy, Religion, Self-Help, Theology
- 2 Comments »
- Are all religions equally true?
Religions are like languages. I think it was Wittgenstein who said something like: “Langauges are incomplete and ambiguous–but extremely useful–reflections of an incomplete and ambiguous world.” They may not be perfect, but they get the job done. One would never say that a language is “right” or “wrong,” or that it is “good” or “bad.” One might say that a language is difficult, but its relative ease or difficulty only makes it more or less suited to certain tasks. Languages are not right or wrong, they are just different–different pictures of a single non-linguistic reality. They are all equally good and equally flawed. Most everything can be translated from one language to another, and what cannot be translated can be adopted. When we allow it, languages are flexible enough to accomodate a word or a turn of phrase from another language. Sometimes, even grammar as well. Languages are equally valid reflections of all-there-is. Religions are equally valid reflections of All-There-Is. I will let you translate the rest of the analogy.*
*Analogies are not often used as arguments today, because they are not as respected as argumentation as they were in the ancient and medieval worlds. After all, an analogy is only as good an argument as its elements are alike. This limits its usefulness in philosophy. However, when I saw the absolute exactness of the correspondence between language and religion, I thought that the analogy as a form of argument had to be revived, if only for this one case. And if someone still wants to question its logic, that is okay; if nothing else, it is at least thought-provoking.
April 25th, 2009 at 12:51 am
I am a believer of the idea that many major religions take on the same challenges for the same goals (love, joy, compassion), however I don’t know if I agree with the statement “most everything can be translated from one language to another, and what cannot be translated can be adopted.” The eskimos have dozens of words for “snow” but we only have one word. The subtleties are lost in translation. Sure we can adapt it but something is left out. Similarly, some things are lost in translation from religion to religion.
April 25th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
I have to respectfully (very respectfully, since I value your assessments more than anyone’s) disagree. Eskimo’s may have dozens of words for snow, but we also have dozens: fluffy-snow, wet-snow, snow-man-snow, powder, packed-powder, ice, sleet, freezing-rain, etc. I do realize that human beings from different cultures see the world differently because of their culture and their language. However, from my experience, I believe that these different “worldviews” can be transcended. Why? Because all of culture and language is based in human experience. Perhaps the Floridian doesn’t have the experience of snow that the Eskimo does. But the New Englander’s experience is very close. Why do we suppose that a Floridian could become a New Englander, but a New Englander cannot become an Eskimo?
When applied to religion, this analogy means that, yes, it is very difficult for an American Christian to have the same religious experience as a Zen Buddhist. He will always want to interpolate concepts like “God” and “heaven” into the experience, because that is what he grew up with, that is his native worldview. This is obvious from the numerous early mistranslations westerners made of Buddhist scriptures. The concept “awakening” was translated as “enlightenment,” and “nirvana” as “bliss”, and those translations were obviously influenced heavily by the Age of Reason (the “Enlightenment”) out of which they came. But those errors don’t preclude a genuine understanding of Buddhism by an American Christian. More importantly, those errors don’t preclude a genuine Buddhist experience by an American Christian (although perhaps he would have to do much to rid the deepest workings of his mind from the habits of the Western, American, Christian mindset).
We do have good translations now. Sure, they are misinterpreted all the time, by people who have no experience from which to approach those translations. This is the same phenomenon as the early mistranslations. But this does not mean that there is not an American who made the translations accurately, who had the Buddhist experience genuinely, who will someday find an American audience who will correctly understand the experience which he translates into English. If it does, then where does that leave the work of someone like B. Allan Wallace?
Now I do have to reiterate Gadamer’s claim that every translation is a new creation. This is true. Indian Buddhism is different from Chinese Chan Buddhism is different from Japanese Zen Buddhism is different from French Zen Buddhism is different from American Zen Buddhism. However, there must be a core experience that is the same. Otherwise, none of them is same. We cannot claim that Chan and Zen are truly Buddhist, but American Zen is not. Either they are each genuine incarnations of Zen Buddhism, or else none of them is.