A man in a radio discussion of religious beliefs objected to the placing of emphasis on "traditions." He claimed that what mattered was that he believed something, not that his tradition taught it. I disagree. Tradition is central. He believes as he does either because he has been brought up in a particular tradition or because he has adopted a belief that has been transmitted to him by a tradition. Either way, there would be no belief without tradition.
We are familiar with a spiritual tradition either because we have been brought up in it or because we have come to it. Some of us do it both ways. Thus, I was educated in one tradition but now participate in a different one.
Coincidentally:
both traditions involve images, incense and offerings made on an altar - although the differences are greater than the similarities;
Poul Anderson's two Wodenite converts to Terrestrial traditions, Axor and Adzel, represent the two traditions in question.
Thus, if I were able to time travel along the Technic History timeline and to meet these characters, then I would want to:
discuss theology with Axor;
argue that his idea of the Universal Incarnation is similar to the Hindu idea of avatars;
suggest that his idea of the Ancients going beyond is similar to Buddhism;
meditate with Adzel.
Both these guys are converts. Once I asked an adult convert to Catholicism why she had converted. All that she said was, "The first time I went into a Catholic church, I felt as if I had come home, so I made inquiries about the Catholic Faith and realized that there was no turning back." I thought that this answer was inadequate but did not pursue the matter. The coming home feeling might be explained by reincarnation or rebirth, not that I accept either.
Any two babies could have been swapped at birth. Thus, someone who is now a Methodist would have been brought up as a Maoist and vice versa. The list is endless. Thus, everyone needs to ask:
Why am I so sure that the belief in which I happen to have been educated is the one true belief among so many errors?
Can I see that I would have converted to this belief if I had not been brought up in it?
If the answer to the second question above is "No," then why continue to accept the belief?
Science fiction shows us many beliefs in many periods in many worlds, thus emphasizing the relativity of belief. The immortals in Poul Anderson's The Boat Of A Million Years convert to Christianity when it is expedient but then outlive the gods.
1 comment:
Kaor, Paul!
I can agree that a "tradition" existed previously to a man coming to believe in it. Albeit, at least when applied to Christianity, I thought the word "tradition" too vague.
Briefly, I believe Christianity to be literally true because I believe Christ literally rose from the dead. An argument we see Poul Anderson using in "A Chapter of Revelation." The Resurrection is CRITICAL because if Our Lord did not in fact rise from the dead, then vain is our faith, and vain the faith of all Christians who have lived before us.
I disagree that Fr. Axor's quest for evidence of Christ becoming incarnate on other worlds is similar to Hindu ideas about "avatars." Because there can be no avatars or any need for them with the Incarnation of Christ. I'm more skeptical of his suggestion about the "Ancients," as I think anyone should be if familiar with the events recorded in THE DAY OF THEIR RETURN and A KNIGHT OF GHOSTS AND SHADOWS. These "ancients" were simply an older race which had become extinct.
I agree, as regards reincarnation and rebirth. No such things.
I don't agree that science fiction shows us beliefs are merely "relative." First, I would argue that SF is the branch of literature which arose in the 19th century in response to the rise of modern science. A response striving to make sense of the consequences of taht science, good and bad. It would be better to say good SF shows us many peoples with different beliefs.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment