Religious Case Against "Belief"?

Image via WikipediaThe Religious Case Against "Belief": I recently came across a new book by that title (but without the italics and quotation marks). Here's the link at Amazon. The author is James Carse; he's a professor emeritus, of religion, from NYU. I found the title (and the idea it reflects) intriguing, so I picked it up and glanced through it, and later I looked it up on Amazon to see what the reviewers were saying. Here's an excerpt from the (unnamed) Amazon reviewer:

The Religious Case Against Belief introduces three kinds of ignorance: ordinary ignorance (a mundane lack of knowledge, such as ignorance of tomorrow’s weather or the reason why your stove is malfunctioning), willful ignorance (an intentional avoidance of accessible knowledge), and finally higher ignorance (a learned understanding that no matter how many truths we may accumulate, our knowledge falls infinitely short of the truth)...

Carse associates the strongest manifestation of willful ignorance with the most fervent (and dangerous) of believers... Believers construct identity by erecting boundaries and by fostering aggression between the believer and the other. This is why belief systems choose—at great cost—to remain locked in bloody conflict rather than to engage in dialogue, recognizing the great deal they have in common. This is willful ignorance.

In fierce contrast to willful ignorance, higher ignorance is an acquired state enhanced by religion. Those traveling the path to higher ignorance recognize faith teachings... as poetry intended to promote contemplation, interpretation, and a sense of wonder... [Carse argues that, when] uncontaminated by belief systems, religion rejects the imagined boundaries that falsely divide people and ideas, working to expand horizons.

The Religious Case Against Belief exposes a world in which religion and belief have become erroneously (and terrifyingly) conflated. In strengthening their association with powerful belief systems, religions have departed from their essential purpose as agencies of higher ignorance.

I haven't read the book, so as yet I have no conclusions of my own as to whether Carse presents a strong argument that a credal religion such as Christianity (for example) can exist without some kind of need for, or requirement of, specific beliefs. The well-respected religious scholar, Jaroslov Pelikan, spoke and wrote about what he called the "Need For Creeds" in a talk (transcript of this talk is here) in which he insists that creeds, with specific beliefs set out in detail, are necessary to religion. When asked by the interviewer to explain "what is it about Christianity that has needed creeds?," He responded as follows:

Dr. Pelikan: Well, what it is about religious faith that needs creed is that religious faith in general, prayer addressed "To Whom It May Concern," sentiment about some transcendent dimension otherwise undefined, does not have any staying power. It's OK to have that at 10:00 on a Sunday morning when you're out with your friends somewhere, but, in the darkest hours of life, you've got to believe something specific, and that specification is the task of the creed, because, much as some people may not like it, to believe one thing is also to disbelieve another. To say yes is also to say no.

I think that most people would agree with Dr. Pelikan. After all, we seem to be thoroughly steeped in the idea that "religion" and "belief" are inextricably intertwined. When we hear about a religion that is new to us, the first question we ask is usually: "What do they believe?" And an adherent of any given religion is likely to ridicule the beliefs of other religions... regardless of how outlandish the dogma of his own religion might be. Recently, the business of Scientology (which seems much more like a cult than like any of the mainstream religions) has suffered endless ridicule because its followers are taught to believe some very odd things about aliens from outer space who take control of human bodies and minds... Mormonism has recently suffered similar attacks from other Christians, about some of their beliefs. What comes to mind quickly, of course, is the caution about living in glass houses, and the throwing of stones.

I am quite sympathetic to some aspect of the argument that is presented by Dr. Carse in his new book. Most of my readers know that my own religious background includes Catholicism, and that I am also a student of Buddhist thought. I have, throughout my adult life, struggled (mostly in vain) with the dogmas of Christianity; and so I approach Buddhist thought and teachings with the feeling of one who is finally getting a breath of fresh air.

There is an important teaching in Buddhism known as "don't-know mind." I suspect that Dr. Carse is familiar with it... It comes quickly to mind when I read about his discussion of "higher ignorance," or the need to admit that we just don't know anything concrete or definitive about what might be called ultimate reality, or about the ineffable yearnings that so many of us have for whatever might correspond to the ideas and ideals that we pursue in the realm of meaning, spirituality, purpose, and deep connection. It seems downright silly, and also arrogant and dangerous, to issue and enforce declarations of required belief about such matters, and we have long seen the damage that results from religious "beliefs."

Carse seems to be arguing that the truly "religious" impulse is one of questioning, not so much of answering. Along with the Buddhists, he might approach life, and all that can be perceived and experienced, by asking: "What is this?" and realizing that the real answer is: "Don't know." Yet I am not at all sure that "higher ignorance," or "don't-know mind" are really compatible with religion as we know it in Western society today... and they would seem to be an especially hard squeeze for Christianity... although I suspect that Jesus himself embodied something that resembles "don't-know mind" (he apparently wasn't big on preaching or enforcing dogmas), I don't think that his followers have much picked up on that aspect of the man they dogmatically proclaim to be one "person" within a Holy Trinity.