Traditional religion has never quite worked for me. Something was still always missing. Yet in the past, I’ve settled into the status quo because it seemed like “the right thing to do.” But
I cannot and will not continue to denounce my questions and concerns simply because it may offend, or is not a majority’s consensus. Do we believe whatever it is we believe because of an obligation to what we’ve been taught? An appeal to tradition? Or do we believe what we believe because of the fear that our ignorance of the alternative produces? A fear of the unknown?
If the mere questioning of theology that some hold indisputable causes separation, the validity of the questioning then proves justified and necessary.
We have every right, and dare I say a duty, to seek spiritual wisdom and truth without personal prejudice or social patronization. It seems that claimed absolutes and goals of “conversion” defeat the purpose and undermine the process and promise of genuine spirituality.
By definition, truth has to be discovered… not created or coerced.
What do you call it when you have strong beliefs and you want something to be true (for you)… so during your ensuing research and investigation (if any), you either consciously or subconsciously filter and interpret the information you find to support your preconceived notions?
From a sociological and psychological perspective, this phenomenon is called social constructionism. All it means is that some thing or concept which may appear to be natural and obvious to those who accept it, is in reality, merely an invention of a some particular group or culture.
The idea is that social constructs are human choices or preferences rather than universal laws. People form beliefs based on their socialization, experiences, preferences, and assumptions, and then institutionalize them as traditions; eventually declaring them as facts – and possibly even laws.
This socially constructed reality is said to be a “re-produced reality” usually carried out, and passed on, by good-intentioned people acting on their human interpretations of their experiences. Technically, social constructionism is actually a form of ethnocentrism or bias.
So how would the actual scientific validity of these viewpoints and findings fare? And if these findings and views were actually skewed or prejudiced in some way, does that mean then that they are not, or cannot be true?
But if they are true (for you)… should they be true for everyone?
For no one?
Can faith (in anything) be measured and/or proven? Some say so.
What say you?
“Miracles don’t prove faith, they’re invitations to faith.” – Unknown