Religion: Alternate Realities

As I considered the religious oriented topic for this issue of the Periodic Perspective, my mind began toying with the implications of alternate realities and how pervasive they tend to be in the lives of those with a religious orientation. Over a period of decades, I believe that I have managed to restructure my own religious beliefs in such a way that they are not dependent on or threatened by realizations that may diverge from traditionally held historical accounts of events that some may call myths or fairy tales.

#I think what most people, especially what my former law partner used to call “true believers,” miss is that religion is a whole lot more than just an amalgamation of supernatural phenomena and is not contingent or dependent upon the veracity of seemingly outlandish accounts of events that we have no way of verifying. I expect to get into this much more in future articles. But for the purposes of this one, I merely point out that what I’m about to say does not in any way challenge my “faith,” nor does it make me an atheist or non-believer.

But, for many, questioning historic accounts contained in the scriptures is heretical. That’s why we had the Scopes Monkey Trial (State of Tennessee vs. John Scopes: 1925), for example. I would like to help liberate people from what I consider to be overly simplistic views, while not challenging the ultimate legitimacy of their religious beliefs.

For this issue, I am intending to focus upon the phenomenon that I call “creating an alternate reality,” and look at how pervasive it is in the lives of many, and what a destructive influence it can be.

I’ll start with a personal example without mentioning names. My dad, irrespective of his role as an enabler in my abusive childhood (see domestic violence section articles for more detail) was very dear to me. He met the test of always meaning well. He was one of the inherently kindest and gentlest people I’ve ever met.

At the time he died, there was a new member in my extended family who had a bad reputation. However, I had not met him, had any interactions with him, and decided to follow what I think is a good rule in life, “Reserve your opinions about new acquaintances until you’ve had some firsthand experience with them.”

That lasted about a week. The person agreed to be a pallbearer at my Dad’s funeral, then got to partying the night before and/or day of and never showed up. This was after his lodging was paid for at a local hotel by another family member, so he could attend this out of town event. He got to Zanesville, Ohio, the location of the funeral, just not the funeral home or church.

For me, that was strikes one, two and three (I usually allow three offenses before “branding” someone) and the person has thereafter been in my hall of shame, since earned in other ways at other times.

Now, twenty-five years later, this point came up again in conversation. The person I was speaking to became so defensive about the implications of this offense that he or she decided it was time (emotionally, I would guess) to expunge this disgrace by rewriting history and changing the factual account.

A few days later, I received a call, saying, “Joe (fictitious name to protect the guilty) did show up at the funeral. I checked with A, B, & C and they all remember him and his wife being there. They all saw him. And, they remember seeing him carrying the casket.”

No chance. I remember the empty handle on the casket all too well and I remember looking around wondering whether or not he would show his face elsewhere that day. He didn’t.

Whether or not A, B, or C would corroborate the story, if I asked them myself, and thereby join in the charade is something I cannot say. I can speculate that, even if they did, they’d be humoring the person whose story they were being asked to corroborate, or in error. This eventuality may not have been as important to them as it was to me.

I am confident, however, that the person who has been busy reshaping reality, probably to ease the pain, knew better when the conversation first came up. But, by repeating a different set of facts, over and over again, then getting others to agree with him or her, I’m sure the alternate reality is taking on a stature in the person’s own mind that makes it different from a simple lie, because the larger lie, if you want to call it that, is within the person’s own mind. My sense is that in a month, this person will totally believe the alternate set of facts.

Why? To feel better, I speculate, and ease the pain. Other times, in other contexts, and by other people, I suspect the motives are more diabolical.

Can you remember any of these assertions from a recent political campaign?

Barack Obama is a secret Muslim. Barack Obama pals around with terrorists. [Therefore, he IS a terrorist, or a terrorist sympathizer.] Barack Obama wasn’t born in the United States [and is therefore NOT a valid president.]

So, what’s going on here? In my view, it’s an attempt to distort reality in an effort to gain political advantage, whether it’s during a campaign, or after an election. Consider this internal dialogue on the part of the public, who hears these words of wit.

[Not to mention the point raised by Gen. Colin Powell, i.e., "What if Barack Obama were a Muslim? Why should there be anything wrong with that?"]

Proposition: Barack Obama proposes legislation to stimulate the economy.

Internal refrain: Barack Obama is a secret Muslim. Barack Obama pals around with terrorists. [Therefore, he IS a terrorist, or a terrorist sympathizer.] Barack Obama wasn’t born in the United States [and is therefore NOT a valid president.]

Proposition: Barack Obama wants to implement health care reform.

For those who eat these balls of sh**, what is the mindset? Probably to keep from having to think through the merits of the propositions, or to vote for someone else without having to weigh the decision with care. It also plays into their inherent prejudices and gives them a wide birth to enjoy and promote those.

These attempts at distorting reality seem pretty shallow and, perhaps preposterous, to most. But, for many, I’m sure they are true, because their minds are trained and honed for entertaining, growing and harvesting alternate realities.

The more troubling aspect are the apparent motives of those with hidden agendae for these Rush-Limbaugh-style assertions and distortions of fact. I believe their motives to be much more selfish and nefarious, but again, that’s a point to be developed on another day.

Now let’s get back religion. If there is this much discord regarding contemporary matters, then what chance is there to reconcile religious views and doctrinal beliefs, derived from events that allegedly took place tens, hundreds and thousands of years ago, or more?

Having worked with a wide variety of faith leaders over this past year, including but not limited to Muslim, Hindu, Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, Christian Scientist, Jewish, Mormon and so on and so forth, I have said to myself, more than once, “They can’t all be right about everything.”

By that I mean that if we were to list the dogma of each onto a giant spreadsheet with precision as to the topics covered, there would be hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of incongruities. Even if we were to erase from this spreadsheet matters that one wouldn’t consider religious dogma, or articles of faith, there would still be millions of inconsistent permutations and combinations, found in cross referencing.

If there’s truth in all these religions (my belief), then how is this the case? Answer: There’s been human reflection, distortion and modification of the facts, sometimes for benevolent or altruistic purposes, other times for self-serving reasons, such as marshalling power or influence. Other times, the historic accounts may have only been intended as poetic or metaphorical, when written.

Let’s look at one example.

I don’t believe in the virgin birth of Jesus by Mary. It seems preposterous to me and is not reinforced by other virgin births of other individuals over time. If God is infinitely fair, as has been a tenet of every religion I’ve been affiliated with, or whose “details,” I am familiar with, then would He really give one set of individuals an advantage over others by giving them verifiable miracles to scrutinize, while leaving the rest of us to rely on pure faith?

Besides, there have been countless stories of virgin births for centuries, millennia even. Some examples would be Dionysos. The Greek god was said to be the son of Zeus by Semcle, a mortal woman, and in another version, Persephone. The Egyptian god, Ra (AKA the sun) was said to be the child of a virgin mother, Net, and to not have had a father. Plato was said to have been the virgin son of Periction, sired by the god, Apollo.

These and countless other similar stories were told of virgin births, long before the birth of Christ.

My point is not to challenge the account of a virgin birth by Mary, but to share some of the basis for my own skepticism.

Yet, this doesn’t threaten my belief structure, as I find immense truth and wisdom contained within the Bible, mostly in terms of the philosophies espoused and the resonance in my own being of its guides for living. I greet the formulae we are presented for conducting our lives, e.g., the ten commandments, with profound awe and respect. Each principle seems to fit perfectly onto the better judgment side of how we can be in harmony with others and thereby maximize our own happiness. This is truth of a different sort.

By the way, it seems ironic to me that while people so often greet challenges to the apparently mythological aspects of their religions with anger and hostility, those same individuals appear to have little or no compunction about rationalizing their own behavior, when it doesn’t square with the tenets of the principles they profess to live by.

And, what is God, but truth? Ever hear the following? “Know the Truth and the Truth shall make you free.” John 8:32. I have had much occasion to contemplate the implications of this passage. It was etched in stone over the door of my law school at The Ohio State University. So, I was reminded to consider it every day for three years.

To me, religion is much more than a collection of stories, myths, poetic descriptions, metaphors, or whatever you may wish to call them. First and foremost, it’s a chance to “get right with God,” i.e., live in harmony with the Master of the universe, however He, She or It is best described and understood. And, it’s a chance to communicate with our Maker through prayer, chanting, ritual and meditation, alongside our fellow men and women. To me, it’s the fact of, and the spirit with which it is offered, not the content of, the ritual that matters most.

I believe that all sincere efforts at learning to know, love and serve our Creator will be rewarded.

To me, religion is much more than the stories and, perhaps, mythologies within which they are embedded. These are not essential to the veracity of their teachings. Religious denominations also involve community, alms, synergy, brotherhood, and kindness to name a few of their magnificent features.

So, what if Mary did (or did not) experience a virgin birth? While I see this as extremely unlikely to the point where I frankly don’t believe it at all, the underpinnings of my religious convictions do not turn on the truth or falsity of this—or any other--historical representation.

And, so I ask you, who has built the firmer foundation—one who’s faith turns on the number of angels he or she believes can fit onto on the head of a pin (according to verse and dogma), or one who finds faith first and foremost by sensing its resonance and symmetry within his heart?