The terror of absolutism

An article in the latest New York Times online prompted this posting:
"For Muslim Who Says Violence Destroys Islam, Violent Threats"

One of the darkest elements of the human condition is seated in the folly of absolutism. No other conceptual premise holds more ultimate fatality for humankind than absolutism. And religion has always been the cohort of choice for absolutism. We know it all too well: My God is the true God.

Religion has always been a key element of culture and ethnic identity. Religion is both a combining influence and a personal conviction. Cultural leaders can play on religion to combine individuals into a clan, exploiting religion as a strong element of group identity. Religion can also be very divisive as in the Middle East, Northern Ireland and Indonesia for example. Beyond greed, religion has been the fire that burnt many a civilization to ashes. Religion is power and power feeds greed. Why humans are so susceptible to religious manipulation is a matter for another discussion.

But a religion that is not absolutely true is open to opinion and opinion leads to dissidence and dissidence dilutes power, which alas, limits the exploits of greed. So, those most hungry for power need absolute truths more than they need air.

When the German tribes first got their eyes on a German Bible, courtesy of the brave and single-minded Martin Luther, it changed everything for them and ultimately broke the stronghold of Rome on the German society. But then, sadly, Protestantism descended into absolutism again with the Heidelberg Catechism.

It was the great Christian evangelical theologist, Karl Barth, that very clearly and eloquently explained how our insight and knowledge are only partial and only our interpretation of a deeper truth that may lie beneath our understanding. Quoting the Wikipedia, "Barth argued that the God who is revealed in the cross of Jesus challenges and overthrows any attempt to ally God with human cultures, achievements, or possessions. "

The essence of Barth's theology is in direct opposition to absolutism. Since we cannot rightfully tie God to our culture, we have to leave room for God to be also applicable in another cultural interpretation of God. No single culture can lay claim to absolute knowledge of God. Of course, the atheist might have excluded himself from this argument by virtue of the null hypothesis - there is no God.

Once absolutism has been negated, opinion becomes the basis for consensus on a believe structure. But the believe structure is only a partial understanding based upon premises that are only interpretations of a deeper conviction. We cannot sensibly prove or disprove God at this point in time, let alone go to war over our interpretation of God and God's guidance to Mankind. Who can rightfully claim that God is on "our" side. Why should he be not on the "other's" side? Because "our" interpretation of him is better?

The article referenced at the top speaks of a deep truth: We are dealing in the world today with a conflict between civilization and barbarism. But, it is not necessarily a Western civilization against a barbaric Middle East. Rather it is a civilization of universal freedoms and respect, as first demonstrated by the Greek and the Persians of 2000 years ago and affirmed in some modern democratic establishments, against a barbarism of manipulation; nepotism; lies; distortions; exploitation; corruption and oppression of opinion as demonstrated in the West; Middle East and Far East alike.

We need to seriously revisit our value systems in every culture of the world lest our homegrown versions of absolutism overcome us before daybreak.