Religion & Religiousness, Being & Believing

Q&A With Fr. Sebastian Athappilly

Q: Over time, as many religions have become institutionalised, they have developed certain unverifiable dogmas about God, their main (or ‘founding’) figures etc. Since each of these institutionalised forms of religion has its own set of unverifiable dogmas, belief in which their adherents may claim is necessary for salvation, they are not only distinct from each other but may also be regarded as antagonistic to each other in some sense. Much rivalry between people who claim to follow different religions owes to this factor. This may also be a reason why many people become disenchanted with religion as such and turn into atheists.

In this regard, it could be argued that religion based on unverifiable dogmas divides people, and that this can promote conflict.

Do you agree? What is your own position regarding the importance or otherwise of belief in unverifiable dogmas about God and key religious figures? Do you think this sort of belief can and should be dispensed with for us to grow spiritually out of exclusive religious enclaves?

A: True, dogmas about God are unverifiable by empirical or scientific means. The different religions with their dogmas are, of course, not only distinct from each other but also at times antagonistic to each other. This can lead, and has led, to rivalry, division and conflict. But ideological differences need not necessarily lead to conflict at the level of living together if the adherents of different religions learn to respect each other’s faith.

At the level of faith, it is natural that dogmas are unverifiable through the senses and the empirical sciences. For instance, there is no such means to verify whether someone was an incarnation of God or a prophet of God. But there can be some reliable and reasonable signs that could indicate the truth or otherwise of that belief. Here I distinguish between signs and proofs. If there is a proof in the empirical sense, then there is no question of faith. There can also be superstitious beliefs with no rational bases behind them. It is hence for each intelligent person to honestly ask for the rationale behind her or his respective faith.

Regarding historical persons and events, a certain degree of verifiability is possible from examining the scriptures and other extra-scriptural records. But verifiability is not the only basis for holding a truth. For instance, one cannot verify that one is mortal before one’s death. Still, all of us hold reasonably that we are all mortal beings. This we do on the grounds of many solid signs and evidences.

Based on the general understanding of God, it is to a certain extent possible to discern if someone who did and taught certain things did indeed come from God or was sent and authorised by Him. In case, for instance, the message or the teaching of a person allows and even demands hatred against fellow human beings and promises eternal reward for lies and injustice, there need not be any hesitation in concluding that the person who propagates this message and the message itself do not come from God. Even if a so-called teacher has said many good things, this one teaching of hatred and brutality will cancel out the whole thing. No true religion will promote this sort of teaching in its dogmas.

The different dogmas concerning certain aspects of life need not be exhaustive statements about the matter. There is, hence, no ground for any war among the religions because of such dogmas. When it comes to exclusivistic statements, such as the claim that salvation is possible only in faith in a certain person and in holding certain dogmas, there is conflict in belief. But if believers respect the faith of each other and try to understand their meaning and reason, peaceful co-existence of adherents of all true religions is possible.

Q. Related to the above question, do you think that instead of religion based on unverifiable dogmas we should move towards religion based on personal experience and universal spiritual laws?

A: Religion is in its very essence based on religious experience. This is what distinguishes it from philosophy, which is primarily based on speculation and reflection. Religion based on personal experience is what is actually needed, and not religion based on dogmas. Universal spiritual laws are helpful to lead a life of faith. The reason behind this is that God is love. My faith in God should lead me to a life of love. The authentic form of true love is gratitude to the Creator, obedience to His will and selfless acts of goodness to one’s fellow creatures. Dogmas can help us in this realm to the extent that they speak of God’s love. Any dogma that has nothing to do with God’s love is worthless.

Q: Some people would say that what is important is being, rather than believing (in unverifiable religious dogmas).

How do you see this view? Maybe it would promote universality.

I think that if religiosity is defined in terms of believing a set of truth-claims, it necessarily divides people because then different religions are thought of as teaching different truth-claims. If, however, religiosity was defined on the basis of the quality of our being—whether or not we are kind, caring and so on—it would bring people closer together.

What do say?

A: What is important is certainly being a person of faith, rather than believing in certain dogmas. But it may be noted that believing in dogmas can be understood in a positive way if we understand belief and dogma in a deeper and truer sense. At a superficial level, belief merely means holding a statement, and dogma merely means a particular doctrinal statement. But if dogma is related to God’s love for us and His will and belief is taken as committed faith, there is no conflict between being a religious person and a believer in dogmas.

Q: Related to the previous question, it might be contended that what is important for salvation is faith in the Creator (Theocentrism) and leading a God-oriented life, rather than belief in unverifiable dogmas.

How do you see this argument?

A: What is important for salvation is definitely lived faith in God and a consequent life of love and morality. Mere belief in a certain set of statements will not be of any avail in this regard. Faith in God has, however, many facets and implications. It presupposes first of all the trust that there is God and the readiness to obey His will. Faith in God means also appreciating what God has done and has been doing and to love, thank, praise and adore Him.

Q: Related to the above question, how do you see the distinction between being religious and believing in religion? They can sometimes be totally different from each other.

A: Being religious would mean that a person feels and accepts a relationship with God and is interested in the transcendent life. A religious person is also a spiritual person, who does not see the purpose of life merely in secular and materialistic terms. Religious persons are persons of prayer, love and silence. These persons can be outside the boundaries of religions.

In this sense I would make a difference between Religion and religion. Religion with a capital ‘R’ is the fundamental relationship with God, while religion and religions with a small ‘r’ are the various expressions of Religion and its institutionalized forms.

Someone believing in a religion can have many things in common with a religious person. But mere belief in a religion does not necessarily make a person a person of prayer, silence and selfless love. A religious person may not be an adherent of a particular religion, and a believer in a religion need not be necessarily a religious person. But real believers in true religions are also religious persons.

Q: What, according to you, is the difference between believing in God and leading a God-oriented life?

A: We can speak of belief at least in three different ways, believing that…; believing someone, believing in someone.

i) Believing that…is statement-centred belief. For instance, one believes that there is God, that there is life after death, etc.

ii) ii) Believing somebody means that one believes in a certain person’s capacity and character. For instance, one believes that a doctor n heal him, or one believes that God has the moral integrity to have said so, etc.

iii) iii) Believing in connotes personal trust in a person. For instance, one fully trusts in God in all situations, come what may.

Belief in God’s existence is not fully the same as faith or belief in God. Belief in God, however, includes all the three aspects. This is a faith marked by personal and intimate trust in God’s love, goodness and power that is personally experienced. This is devotion.

Trust based on verification is not trust. Whatever I can verify I know for certain, I do not believe it. Knowledge and faith are in this sense different. At the same time, certain rational principles are here at work. For instance, coherence demands that if one believes God is love and mercy Himself, one cannot at the same time believe that God demands from us hatred and revenge towards our fellow human beings.

A God-oriented life is a life that has God at its centre, that seeks to attain Him and to be in loving union with Him. This is a life from the perspective of God, seeing the world in the light of faith in God and in obedience to His commandments.

(The author is a Catholic priest from Kerala belonging to the CMI (Carmelites of Mary Immaculate) religious congregation. He has been teaching Systematic Theology from 1985 at DharmaramVidyaKshetram, a leading centre for higher Catholic learning, in Bangalore. He served there as the President, Dean (Faculty of Theology) and Registrar. Since 2009, he has been teaching there as visiting professor and also been serving as hospital chaplain at the State Hospital and University Clinic, Graz, Austria)