Let's imagine this: When a person reads 'Lord of the Rings' he/she is able to 'believe' the story and events. Similarly with seeing a Sci-Fi or vampire movie. 'Belief' is sustained while engaged in that particular thought-world (or language game) of the literary or artistic genre in which one is engaged. A work of literature is 'true' if its ideas have a resonance. The distinction of 'fiction or non-fiction' is a genre classification, and has nothing to do with real 'Truth'. Hamlet, and the Iliad are 'true' stories, although may be the never actually happened.
Now, I propose that religion can be approached in the same way. If we read a work of literature, say the Gospel of John, can we appreciate it as a viable work of literature? It is true if it has resonance with the human condition.
Is the most appropriate approach to religious truth (i.e. the truths expressed in literature in the genre known as 'sacred texts') one of literary appreciation? Is the 'Truth' of a religious text not 'it's factual content, but its ability to resonante with the human condition?
It seems anything other than such an aesthetic conception of 'truth' is redundant in a post-modern, post-scientific world.
Now, I propose that religion can be approached in the same way. If we read a work of literature, say the Gospel of John, can we appreciate it as a viable work of literature? It is true if it has resonance with the human condition.
Is the most appropriate approach to religious truth (i.e. the truths expressed in literature in the genre known as 'sacred texts') one of literary appreciation? Is the 'Truth' of a religious text not 'it's factual content, but its ability to resonante with the human condition?
It seems anything other than such an aesthetic conception of 'truth' is redundant in a post-modern, post-scientific world.