Now, all of the above deals with truth in the context of facts, and in spirituality the scientific facts are rarely the most important part of truth. People's belief in the stories makes for a different kind of truth, a truth that's only possible in the context of religion and spirituality. If a person fully believes in a religious teaching, then it becomes true for them in the way it affects their spiritual (and through that their "real") life. For a non-believing other person, such a teaching would be utterly false. The subjective nature of spiritual/religious truth would make both people equally right. Therefore, each creation story holds the same amount of truth and meaning (remember, this meaning could be metaphorical, not literal) for the people that believe in them, and for this truth both stories deserve equal consideration.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Creation Stories
The Navajo creation story and Genesis are both equally false and equally true. They are false in that the two stories tell of events that science and reason prove (for now) are "impossible", therefore they are equally likely to have not happened. Or, on the other side of the coin, they have the same chance of being literally true. People in our society who were not raised on the Navajo teachings would almost always find them implausible, at best. However, Navajos who were not raised on Genesis would probably have the same reaction to Genesis's teachings that those raised on the Bible would have to the Navajo story: It could never have happened.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Everything's Subjective!"
ReplyDeleteMaking everybody right makes for a pretty boring response, Scy.
In all seriousness, I thought this was an interesting post. The approach to define and present literal and "greater spiritual" truth was a revealing idea. I do agree that these stories have a few levels of truth in them.
However, it's missing something: a point of view. Which, in your opinion, is most likely to literally being true? Why is that?
I found this post very interesting. I thought it was interesting how you said that whether or not one of the stories is believable really depends on how you grew up and what you were taught. I completely agree with this. I also like your idea that truth is subjective and it's a person's belief in the story that makes it true. I do; however, agree with Bhenn that you did not actually give your opinion as to which is more believable to you. We get that it is all subjective but from your point of view which is most believable?
ReplyDeleteScy, Interesting that you equate "What story is likely to be true" with historical possibility. Are those really the same thing?
ReplyDeleteJust like in the film, The Little Buddha, when the boy's dad calls the story of the Buddha an interesting "myth," the monk replies (I'm paraphrasing here), "It is one way to get at the truth." It’s likely these stories have probably been embellished over time, but the fanciful details are not necessarily where their truth rests. The truth of these stories is in their basic premises.
Looking at them this way, the stories shouldn't come across as equally true because some of their root assumptions aren't the same. For instance, they don't explain the existence of evil and suffering in the world the same way. Which account rings "true" to you? There is no scientific or realistic answer to this, is there? It’s just a matter of what makes sense to you.