I recently became aware of a religion called Frugianism, whose followers are called Frugians. All Frugians share a core belief that the earth was created by a supreme being, named Frugi, but they are split into two groups. One group of Frugians believes that Frugi directly controls everything that happens, and that free will does not exist: the other group of Frugians believes that Frugi has no involvement in day-to-day events and that free will is the supreme truth; and each group criticises the other for its false beliefs, believing themselves the true Frugians.
I was immediately struck by this conflict, and became very confused. How was it possible for me – an outsider – to work out which group was right in its beliefs? When I asked individual Frugians about this they presented three linked explanations. First, they pointed out that Frugi is above mere descriptions, so Frugi can be all things to all people. Second, they pointed out that humans are imperfect creatures, so their comprehension of Frugi will always be flawed. Finally they conclude that my observations have no bearing on the truth or falsity of their personal beliefs, which they hold to be true regardless of anybody else’s beliefs about Frugi.
However my confusion is not about what the true nature of Frugi is, nor about whether it is possible to know the true nature of Frugi, or even about whether their beliefs are true. No matter what the answers to any of these questions are, the beliefs of each group concerning Frugi are mutually exclusive. Either Frugi controls everything directly or Frugi does not – there is no way that both beliefs can be true at the same time. Of course the Frugians themselves recognise this – which is why each group asserts that their belief about Frugi is true, and the other groups false. When an outsider criticises Frugi or Frugianism in any way, however, the two groups present a united front – they are all Frugians together, and any criticism of Frugi or Frugianism is a criticism of them all.
Although both groups refer to their supreme being as Frugi, the only possible conclusion for an outsider is that the two groups are describing two different entities. It is only historical accident that leads them to use the same name for both entities, without recognising that they are talking about different things. There is no point in asking which group’s beliefs are correct – the only way to decide would be to join one of the two and subscribe wholeheartedly to their version of Frugi, condemning all other versions as mighty errors in thinking.
(HT: Stephen Law and his vastly superior God of Eth.)