Why has religion become so literal?

Question

I know this is not the case for all people, but there is a special brand of religion where people seem to believe scriptures, tradition and so forth, have everything to do with how things are in the world, and little to do with contact with a higher reality.
In the Middle Ages and Renaissance, the ideas of the Church were permeated with mystery, mysticism, prayer, personal connexions to the divine and medieval theologians understood much of religion depended on symbolism to be understood.
Today, people seem to worry about things like how many years has the world existed? How long was the Ark? They also seem to expect very concrete things to happen, like the rapture and read religious texts extremelly literarly, with apparently no care or heed for metaphors and symbols. Has something been lost in our culture that we can no longer approach spiritual ideas with any depth? Are we stuck, as a culture, in a child's spirituality? Why?

Answer 1

A “separate brand of religion”, or rather an absolute interpretation of adopting “the word” wholesale molded to fit into a community’s context, appear more likely mimicry of a consumerist society that demands instant solutions and interpretations to current problems from a higher authority, taken for granted from ancient text and interpretations that are deemed but not necessarily and sufficiently, explored beyond the confines of educated ecclesiastical practitioners and academicians alike.

Personal Answerer’s opinion on symbols to be interpreted with any understanding and accuracy, require the context in the fullest sense: community, traditions, practicalities of the time. To assume a mode of understanding based on assumed patterns of thought conferred by philosophy and other disciplines would exude an arrogance whose results may end up extremely convoluted, perhaps paralleled in equal vehemence when it comes to repudiating orthodox text interpreted in the sanctioned manner by church, mosque and temples.

Frequently, established sources of authority impose their interpretation of sacred text through ritualistic practices, peer pressure within the community, regulated by legislature and familial authority enforced through force of arms, coercion disguised as persuasion by denying right to education, marriage and other forms of education required to make a living.

Linguistics or rather its expression thereof in a society whose personal status is elevated not through literature, has promoted literal use of syntax in language to the forefront for ease of communication as a way to expedite everyday trade and commerce, relegating literature’s lateral use as being not only obtrusive to the flow of instructions, but also obtuse to the average sensibility of most communities.

Acronyms have crept up everywhere in the work place from salutations, job titles to procedures, to shortening phrases in short message systems (SMS), whose meaning and conveyance of empathy, remain the exclusive language of the users. Materialism the old watch word, has become effortlessly measurable of Joe Bloggs having a one up of a larger car or house to their neighbours. Blessings demand a quick fix "God wants us to be rich and hence the car or house."

Arguably, advertising through easily assimilated information made possible by technological advances of mass media has reinforced popular culture to upsize the Big Mac, promoting emaciated runway models not dissimilar to concentration war camps, and single handedly diminishing exposure by under exposing religion and more serious texts.

Technological advances in a climate that fears political aggravation and retribution from parties whose religion is under scrutiny, from those who belief in the right that all communities should be given a voice, complexities of issues that free speech and anti-discriminatory values bring to the way ideas are formulated allow certain freedoms whilst prohibiting others.

A symbolism of physical expression through explicit rapture, frowned on by polite and reserved society is deemed as failure to exercise personal control as observed to the bewilderment to both religious uninitiated and initiated. The validity and range of symbolism is stretched to encompass physical expression, on one level prompted by tribal introduction of customs and biblical interpretations, on another as proof of the Holy Spirit or equivalent.

Mystery and mysticism as the Asker is probably familiar, was severed to allow “modern” philosophy to flourish throughout the various texts well read throughout universities; successful application is a different ball game. Expounding the theoretical model of ground clearing may end up a larks joke, viewed as a misnomer in the failure to suspend mythical doubt. How much pride at stake is up for speculation. As the intricacies of severing philosophy from religion alone warrants many questions, one shall refrain from delving deeper.

Questions of material proof, “How long was the Ark?”, “When was the bible written” seek restitution in concrete physical manifestations as a means to resolve authenticity of claims through empirical observations. Similarly, abstract patterns of thinking require empirical proof to be of any value.

To resolve issues of faith alone is an uphill climb, let alone proof of life. A perpetual series of conundrums might be said to exist to ensure that present approaches to human learning and development alone is not without cracks and fissures. Despite all the scientific advances of the past century, contemporary approach with ancient modes of developing issues further has conceivably hit a brick wall, grounded in material proof.

The strength of proof is also its weakness as shown when simple deduction illustrates that the next event does not necessarily confirm a literal expression or form to be true. At the end of the day, archaic may be the apt expression of prevailing ways of thinking and opens the possibility of looking else where. Pursuing using the same old tools without any further innovation could be viewed as an act of insanity. This is the Answerer’s convoluted abridged waffle on the conundrum of literal interpretation on religion and proof of life.

Answer 2

Many Christians who do not agree that there will be a pre-tribulation rapture of the Church point out that it is a relatively new doctrine, first popularized in the 1800s and elaborated on subsequently. There are whole denominations that reject it for this reason. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox do not accept it either, as such a thing as "rapture" was never taught by any of their bishops, from the beginning. Instead of "being taken up into Heaven", these churches follow the scriptures (such as Isaiah) clearly describing a physical Kingdom of Heaven that will be on a renewed Earth, following the Great Tribulation, the Resurrection of the Dead, and Judgment Day. For all practical purposes no Christians held to the pre-tribulation rapture theory before Darby in the 1820s.

Answer 3

An excellent question. My sense is that the answer is complicated. I think that some people yearn for simple answers, a precise way to know with absolute certainty what is right and what is wrong. Reading the Bible "literally" seems to provide this sense of moral clarity (at least so long as you ignore the parts that would seem to contradict each other).

As you point out, this movement is actually quite modern in historical terms. People often falsely assume that this is how Christians have "always" looked at the books of scripture.

I also think that some religious traditions see themselves as threatened by external influences (the "world" is seen as a negative, even sinful influence). This can lead people to cling to what they view as "fundamental" beliefs (this is actually where the term "fundamentalism" stems from). For some, the inerrancy of the Bible is one of these beliefs.

Answer 4

Okay- If one is a person who has joined a religious order such as a priest, nun, monk or the like they would devote their entire being to their faith, under these conditions NO. I think they have a mission or they believe they do. I don't think it would apply- HOWEVER when, like most of us that have to walk both sides of the fence the answer is more difficult. Those who try to live according to their faith and it goes so far to an extreme that it interferes with providing for themselves and their families, or starts to step all over everyone elses rights or puts those around them at risk, that would be an obsession. It is hard to judge what is proper religious practice from the extreme sometimes and most of us do not understand every religion. But that is why our Government and our society while faithful is also secular as well. I believe in a HEALTHY balance. I just hope that when we get to heaven someday God doesn't let those "know it all obsessive religious fanatics run around and say "I Told You So"

Answer 5

It is the rise of fundamentalism - the belief that the ancient myths are literally true. It's hard to speculate on why this has been a recent trend in history. Fundamentalism is certainly an easier belief system - one simply defers to an unchanging written document as their guide for everything. Still, one would think that the opposite trend would prevail in an increasingly educated world.

For christianity, especially in the US, fundamentalism really started in the early 1900's and then became popular in the 1970's and 1980's.

Answer 6

This is one of the best questions I've seen on here. Thanks for asking it.

I'm looking forward to seeing others thoughts on this. I'm a little stuck myself. The best I can come up with is, since this literalism has been around since the Industrial Revolution, perhaps it has something to do with how cultures mindset has changed with the enlightenment and science. That once we got used to quantifying things, we started trying to apply that to our gods too.

Do non "civilized" cultures take this approach to gods or is it just a "blessing" that happens with modern societies?

Answer 7

God is still beyond human reason and there are many mysteries which will not be unveiled till we meet Him.
That's why we are told to live by faith and not by sight. I don't know how anyone can be a Christian and not have their lives rest on faith rather than opinions of the mind or traditions.

Even the Bible has to be taken on faith:

Rom 1:16-17

16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17 For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."
(from New International Version)


Rom 3:22-25
22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood.
(from New International Version)


Gal 3:8-12
8 The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." 9 So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

10 All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." 11 Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." 12 The law is not based on faith;
(from New International Version)

Answer 8

Actually, most believers do not take the Bible 100% literally. It's just that the fundmentalist Christians are in control of the country right now, so it just seems that way.

Answer 9

I appreciate that every faith has its share of literalists. Christians have their Evangelicals. Jews have the ultra-Orthodox. For God's sake, even Buddhists have fundamentalists.

But what this book hammers home is that only in Islam is literalism mainstream. http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/233/trouble-islam.html

Answer 10

its not religioun that has become literal but men who wont every thing explained so they can see. only by opening up your mind and heart can you find God to many will not.

Answer 11

Evangelicals (shudders)