Introduction: Religious Truth Claims and Their Justification
The history of religious claims is long and complicated, much like the concept of pain in different religions, from Christianity to Krishna worship. As a result, a number of religious claims regarding pain have emerged over the years of the evolution of religion. There are statements saying that pain “at its most destructive, disintegrates the human life-world as it disintegrates language” (Stull 16); however, these claims exist on par with the concept of pain and suffering as the means of purification (Stull 104).
The lack of consensus regarding the nature and effect of pain in religious context has produced a number of arguments, which, in their turn, can be tracked down to the famous truth claim of Jesus as the ultimate Savior of the human race (Stull 104) as shown in the Bible vs. Joseph Smith movie: “So, we aren’t talking about a letter here, of difference. We’re not talking about a few words. We’re talking some major differences in how much text is in Joseph Smith’s Isaiah and our modern Bibles” (Bible vs. Joseph Smith 00:02:17).
Thesis statement: Despite the fact that religious pluralism allows for a number of controversies, including religious clashes regarding specific controversies, such as the differences between various confessions, e.g., Catholic and Protestant, the religious viewpoint on such issues as homosexuality, etc., and, particularly, the concept of pain in religion, it still seems the most reasonable standpoint at present, seeing how the existing alternatives presuppose the breach of people’s rights and freedoms.
Analyzing the Plausibility of Religious Claims: Where the Line Is Drawn
As a rule, there are clear distinctions between plausible and implausible religious claims; their plausibility is determined with the help a variety of tools, starting with mere logics and common sense, and up to long theological discussions. However, certain patterns in determining the plausibility of religious claims can be tracked down which can be traced in the religious definition of pain and the related claims.
Plausible religious claims: the truth shines through
Among the plausible claims on the nature of pain and its endurance, the humanist interpretation of its effects on human mind and body as the Christian religion suggests it should be mentioned. According to the common concept of pain as a synonym for suffering, it is merely another mean to cognize the “good”; as Steinkraus puts it, if there were no pain, there would be no chance to experience relief: “If no suffering and pain existed, we would not appreciate the good and pleasant” (Steinkraus 127). Therefore, Steinkraus does not exactly state that pain and evil have little in common, but clearly shows that pain can be of a positive effect.
Implausible religious claims: reconsidering dubious issues
Implausible claims concerning pain might seem reasonable at first yet, after being given a second thought, they reveal their absurdity. For instance, the claim of pain as the expiatory punishment that will ultimately lead to one’s sins being forgiven can be considered rather barbaric by the present-day standards.
An Alternative to Philosophical Pluralism: In Search for Solutions
It should be noted, though, that religious relativism as the representation of non-confrontational moods among the representatives of different religious confessions is not the only possible scenario that can take place within the realm of the present-day world.
Apart from the aforementioned suggestion, there are other alternatives; some of them predispose absolute moral freedom, others, quite on the contrary, restrict the freedoms of their adepts in a very obvious way. Each of them deserves a separate evaluation; still, it will be most appropriate to start with the definition of the subject matter, i.e., religious relativism.
Tolerance and religious relativism: same difference?
Derived from the concept of philosophical relativism, religious relativism, if simplified, presupposes that each religion has the right to exist and must be analyzed on its own terms and premises.
Religious relativism, however, should not be confused with the principle of religious acceptance. Weirdly enough, though religious relativism is the synonym of religious tolerance, in popular culture, the concept of tolerance is often mixed with acceptance which gives vent to a number of conflicts and has sparked numerous debates regarding the limits of religious acceptance: “You can believe in the Jesus, Joseph Smith’s Jesus of John 1:1 or you can believe in the John 1:1 of the New Testament, but you can’t believe in both, can you?” (Bible vs. Joseph Smith 00:15:44).
Moral nihilism: the pointlessness of moral principles
Another extreme, which is opposed to religious acceptance, moral nihilism presupposes that the concept of moral should be wiped off the minds of its adepts. It would be wrong to claim that moral nihilism is the destruction of moral fabric of society; rather, it is the lack thereof. Though clearly being very uncommon in the present-day world, it still exists and affects the definition of pain and suffering (Hazlitt 223).
Religious intolerance and the related issues
On the opposite side of religious acceptance, religious intolerance is located. Unfortunately, it still remains one of the realities of the XXI century. With a range of conflicts leading to murders being started in the Middle East and a range of other states, where Christianity comes into a clash with Islam, unwillingness to at least consider the opponent’s point of view plausible has become the scourge of the modern era.
Conclusion: Adjudication Criteria and Their Significance
Judging by the analysis provided above, there are no adequate alternatives to religious pluralism at present. The opposite of religious pluralism does not hold any water in terms of democratic principles that are accepted in the modern society. In its turn, the acceptance of religious principles belonging to a different culture, which may be relatively harmless regarding other issues, is especially dangerous when it comes to discussing such issues as pain and suffering.
Since the concept of pain is viewed in several religions as the means of purification and the following path to sanctity, introducing the principles of religious acceptance, as well as the dominance of a particular religion, will most likely have deplorable effects on the representatives of other religions. Therefore, it must be admitted that, in the context of religious pluralism, the idea of adjudication criteria not only retains its significance, but also gains a completely new sense.
It is crucial that different religious concepts of pain should not shape either behavioral or emotional patterns of believers towards accepting pain as he means to a particular end. More to the point, pain does not necessarily equal suffering. As Lysne and Wachholtz put it, “Meaning making, either positive or negative, may influence whether pain is experienced as suffering” (Lysne and Wachholtz 3).
Religious adjudications in terms of pain, therefore, should not go further than defining pain as the necessary component of becoming worthy of the Creator’s love, but, instead, interpret pain as the inevitable effect of living and the phenomenon that is contrary to bliss, which Bible vs. Joseph Smith is a graphic example of.
Works Cited
Bible vs. Joseph Smith. Ex. Prod. Joel P. Kramer. Apopka, FL: Exploration Films, 2009. DVD.
Hazlitt, Henry. The Foundations of Morality. Auburn, AL: Ludvig von Mises Institute, 2012. Print.
Lysne, Carol J. and Amy B. Wachholtz. Pain, Spirituality, and Meaning Making: What Can We Learn from the Literature? Religions 2.1 (2011), 1–16. Print.
Steinkraus, Warren E. Taking Religious Claims Seriously: A Philosophy of Religion. Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, 1998. Print.
Stull, Bradford T. Religious Dialectics of Pain and Imagination: Purity, Abortion, and Euthanasia. Albany. NY: SUNY Press, 1994. Print.