Storytime Tapestry Newsletter

The newsletter devoted to spreading love and cultural awareness around the world.

Beyond The Mirror – A Bill Allin Column

January 19, 2007

What Is The Truth? (Part 3)
by Bill Allin

[Caution: What follows may be offensive to some people because it is based on fact, reason and probability, not on an established belief set (religion). If you are offended by anything that does not support your belief set, you should choose to not read this article.]

In Part 1 we dealt with the origins of modern religions in our tribal past. In Part 2 we discussed how some characteristics of tribes have been carried forward into our modern megasocieties, while others have been lost or dropped as inappropriate. In this part we discuss what happened to religions as they made the same transition from being the social focus of tribal societies to belief sets in today’s megasocieties.

Our current belief systems are primitive (as noted in Part 2) in that they try to explain events of the past in ways that are not consistent with the facts that have been established and proven by science. When religions claim the inconsistencies of their belief set as truths despite the contradiction of facts, they ask their followers to "have faith." A great deal of dust asks to be hidden under the carpet of "faith."

This is not to say that faith has no place in modern society. It certainly does. There are many matters for which science has no answers and for which science will never have answers because the questions are not within the purview of physical science.

Many of us seek answers to the unknowable because we want to feel that we have a significant place in the grand scheme of the universe. Faith plays a role in our lives because it provides us answers to what is unknowable to science.

Serious conflict arises when the matters of faith of one group come into conflict with those of another. Science may debate the significance of facts, knowing that further research will reveal one truth. Religion, by definition, can never prove matters of faith. Religious debate is between unknowables (or at least those matters which cannot be proven).

Different flavours of religions may differ on even lesser matters. Sunni and Shia Muslims, who are killing each other daily in Iraq for example, have different rituals but hold similar principles as truths. The most contentious issue between them is who was the rightful leader of Islam after their founder Mohammed died.

Orthodox Anglicans and Roman Catholics have few differences in matters of faith, but have different leaders mostly because England’s King Henry VIII wanted to divorce one of his wives and the pope would not allow it. Henry broke from Rome, the Anglican church began and Henry (himself the nominal leader of the new faith) got his divorce. Anglicans and Roman Catholics have not wanted to face each other since in a debate over religion.

Another continuation of our distant tribal past into the present is the tendency of political leaders to threaten citizens with charges of treason if they do not adhere to the wishes of the commander. Cohesiveness and unity of purpose is critical for the success of a tribe. However, allowance for differences of opinion is one of the hallmarks of democracy in today’s world.

As well, political leaders today, like tribal leaders of the past, decide whether their country should go to war rather than consulting their public. In nominally democratic nations, the right of citizens to voice their opinions about going to war is often stifled when the leader decides they the nation must go to war. A compulsory draft makes conscientious objectors into criminals.

Many of today’s social problems began when unified tribal systems fell apart as societies became enormous in size, thus unrulable by a single military style leader. Some tribal conventions were kept, while others fell by the wayside. The latter were not replaced by rules or practices more in keeping with the needs of a giant society.

In other words, today’s megasocieties fail badly in some measures of social demeanor because they have not replaced tribal rules and practices with those befitting a larger society. For example, whereas every adult in a tribe teaches a child that killing members of their own tribe is wrong, megasocieties have no accepted universal means to teach the same lesson to every child. Thus we have neighbour killing neighbour and family members killing each other and the majority of citizens have no idea why this happens.

The countries that today are considered to be the most successful, no matter what their size, are those with a unified purpose and goals to which all (or almost all) citizens agree, honest leaders of integrity who want what is best for their country rather than what is best for themselves and those whose people believe they are consulted in matters that affect the future of their nation.

Running through those three criteria is the need for a certain level of cohesiveness of the people of a nation. If almost all the people of a country believe in the same principles and want to be together, they will find a way to succeed and to be together as a nation. Kurds, whether in Turkey or Iraq, think of themselves as Kurds first, for example.

When we look at the subject of peace in the Middle East through independence of Palestine, we must wonder if this is possible so long as the two militant factions, Fatah and Hamas, continue their war with each other over which will dominate in the new governments of their future. Without cohesiveness of purpose in Palestine among the Palestinians, peace will not hold for long.

Both factions use hate for Israel and the USA (from which they receive aid and purchase arms) as their focus, though the real impediment to peace is the lack of cohesiveness, the lack of singleness of purpose, of the people of Palestine.

No group can all progress together if different factions in the group want to go in different directions. This applies in religions as well as in politics.