My Bible Study group watched a video last night of an interview with John Dominic Crossan who made a comment about belief that made me think.KarelVanCanegem wrote:I believe in God. It is natural to believe in a higher being.
He asked, what would it have meant if someone in the ancient world had said "I believe in the Roman Empire"?
Crossan said it would not have meant that they literally believed the Roman Empire was a political entity that stretched from Spain to Palestine. Rather, this statement is a statement of value, not a statement of fact. It means that the person has 'got with the program' of the Roman Empire and believes it is the best thing for the world.
We see this today with political candidates making the statement 'I believe in America'. Again, it is a statement of commitment, of faith, and not a statement of fact. They are saying that America embodies good values, and encouraging others to 'get with the program' of patriotism.
What does this mean about God and Jesus?
It shows that the statement Karel made in the opening post, "I believe in God", is not necessarily a statement about a matter of fact, but rather a statement of what Karel considers his highest value. It is an assertion that belief in God is a good thing, with transformative capacity for cultural identity.
It makes me wonder, how deep does the confusion go within the meaning of belief?
Are believers primarily expressing a sense of commitment or a factual claim? With Karel's second statement, about belief in a higher being, it literally reads as a statement of fact. And yet, if we think of this 'higher being' as just an imaginary vision that unites people, then this religious statement can be entirely compatible with a scientific atheism. We can believe in God in the sense that it is a good thing for people to cooperate on ethical ideals. We can even believe in Jesus in the sense that Jesus is a dream of the ideal person, just as for some people 'America' is a dream of an ideal country.