From Feuerbach to Freud: an argument of musts
August 18, 2009
When one endeavors on the journey toward understanding the essence of God one of the first questions that rises to the surface, once the constraints of religious tradition are loosed, is the question of necessity. Must God exist? This is the question that one grapples with when confronted apologetically by purveyors of any faith. Presuppositions that were once so easily upheld hang ever so teeteringly on the precipice of this question. Before one can answer if God exists, much less what God is, the question of necessity must be grappled with. The first man to really step to the plate and question the necessity of meta-physicality was Ludwig Feuerbach.As Feuerbach put it
“My first thought was God, reason my second, man my third and last.”
What Feuerbach wrestled with, and ultimately concluded was false, was the argument that the universe is dependant on God. Holistically speaking Feuerbach refuted the aplogetic claim that somehow history was wrapped in God. Why must God be sequestered off to the side slowly to lose ground to the ever growing possession of mans intellectual reason? Would it not be better to accept that God was simply unnecessary, rather than to slowly mitigate his role into irrelevance? The dawn of Darwinism had removed the argument of necessity from the perspective of natural order. It only seemed inevitable that human history would surrender its claims of divine necessity. Feuerbach, free from the burden of reserving ground for God, was able to articulate a truly atheistic worldview in light of human history. God became archaically unnecessary for the continued progression of humanity.
While Feuerbach refuted the apologetic claims of necessity in terms of human history, he did not see the annihilation of religious apologetics that he had predicted. While Feuerbach may have gained ground in the field human history, apologists continued dispersing their energy behind the field of human interaction. If God was not necessary for natural human history, he was most definitely necessary for human social history. How could man hope to be ethical, broadly understood to mean acting socially correct, if God is not the informer and sustainer of mans social interaction? Was not our need for ethical social interaction enough proof for the necessity of God’s existence? To this question Sigmund Freud answered equivocally, no. By pushing the boundaries of nuero psychology, Freud argued that honest psychoanalytic investigation revealed neurosis, not God, as the informer of human social interaction. Indeed, Freud would argue that the neurotic projection of human perfection in the form of God, though not dangerous of necessity, was able to be overcome. More importantly he argued that productive, rather than ethical, social behavior was possible without yielding to neurotic illusory projections.
What does this mean for ones pursuit of God?
I think it must be understood that neither Feuerbach’s nor Freud’s hypothesis disprove the existence of God. Rather they simply removed his necessity from the current equation. If one wants to honestly seek out God’s essence, by first understanding his existence, he is going to have to remove from the equation the presupposition of God’s necessity. Thus the question, must God exist, can only be answered “no” within the confines of our current understanding.
As I continue on my journey toward understanding God, I must always remember that my presuppositions of necessity only serve as hindrances to honest evaluation of the evidence. The question of God’s existence must remain unanswered for me, at this point. Feuerbach and Freud have done nothing to bring me closer to the answers I seek. They have, however, served as warnings of my own inclinations to give into the presuppositions of the necessity of God.
Praying to Particles
July 30, 2009
In my last article I pondered some of the issues surrounding Deepak Chopra’s quantum theory of divinity. This post will jump further into the world of quantum physics. As before, I must preface with my own naivety when it comes to this field of discipline. The writing that inspired this post was an article in National Geographic entitled ” The God Particle”. The focus of this article is on the massive Hadron collider that is set to launch its most extensive tests later this year. In case you haven’t heard of this massive machine, let me give you a quick run down. The Hadron collider is a vortex of tubes and magnets which pulses high level particle beams through it at a high rate causing them to collide at its center. The purpose of this machine is multi-faceted. However, its overarching purpose is to see what happens when particles collide. 
Now in case you failed science class like I did, let me give a quick rundown of our current understanding of physical reality. Our material world is made up of tiny molecules. These tiny molecules can be broken down into Atoms. Beyond Atoms lies a world of particles which are classified as protons, neutrons, and electrons. Protons and neutrons can be broken down into quirks and gluon’s. As far as electrons, physicists think that these are foundational. Protons and neutrons are classified as hadrons, which give the collider its name. While there are many things that happen when particles collide, the one that fascinates me the most is the possible discovery of what has been coined “the god particle” (or the Higgs Boson particle as it is properly referred).
Broken down as simply as possible, the god particle is the carrier of what physicists theorize is a Higgs field. This field is what gives particles their mass. Borrowing from the physicist John Ellis, the Higgs field is like mud on a rainy day. As particles, like shoes, pass through the field, or mud, they collect varying amounts of mass dependant on their sub-atomic structure. Thus some bigger particles collect large quantities of mass, while some are so small that they simply float right over the surface without any growth. Put another way, the Higgs particle can be said to be the creator of life or mass in particles. So when particles collide and explode in a mess of energy it is theorized that the Higgs particle goes to work giving new mass to the ball of particles. This unseen creator is as close as one comes to the God of physicists. As of now, the god particle is the theorized core of all existence.
All of this is fascinating to me, but the real question is, so what? What does some underground particle collider have to with my personal understanding of God? The answer to this question is much simpler than quantum physics. Put colloquially, I want to know if I am praying to a bunch of particles. My spiritual journey to this point, has been about finding God. This is why I study and pray and worship. For most of my life I attempted this search under the constraints of a specific tradition of Christianity. Now I don’t mean to put down Christian tradition. All I am saying is that I have recently felt like the boundaries of Christianity were too limiting for me to find all I wanted of God. Thus I have undertaken the task of broadening my scope to include other religious traditions as well as secular ones. After all, I just want to find God, I don’t care who helps me get there. So when a group of physicists say they have found God and “he” is something called a Higgs field I listen to what they are saying. Now I understand many of the inherent weaknesses in this perspective of God. First of all, the Higgs field is a scientific theory ( which as many will point out is not much different than theology). Furthermore, even if God is a Higgs field, this doesn’t prove whether or not this field has a conscience or some form of intention in its creative design. Its quite possible that during the process of smashing particles together a white bearded man will emerge from the particle mayhem and declare himself Higgs God of the universe. Its also just as possible that no discernible field will come through. This experiment may end up proving only that the Higgs theory is incorrect. Whatever the result I will be watching just in case it turns out I’ve been praying to particles.
Me Myself and God?
July 20, 2009
I have been reading a lot of books on the existence of God lately. It seems that the usual theological minutia just don’t stimulate like they once did. It started a few months back when I came upon the stunningly simple revelation that the existence of God was absolutely vital to the value of any theological endeavor.
Simple right?
Well as simple as this may be, it seems I have, by and large, taken God’s existence for granted. This should be no surprise as I have also taken my own existence for granted for most of my…life?
Anyways, as I have endeavored to understand the context for the multifaceted arguments for and against the existence of a transcendent figure, I have found that most of my theological presuppositions have been challenged. I don’t want to surmise my journey, as I am still on it. I feel far from adequate to speak authoritatively on the subject of God’s existence. None the less, theophiliacs and those who join with us in our ongoing discussions have been crucial in bringing clarity to my personal quest to find my own truth about God and the world. With this in mind, I have devised a way for everyone to join me on my journey.
The way that I will do this is by posting some of what I am reading and how it is affecting my thought life. I don’t plan on doing book summaries, though that might happen sometimes. I simply want to keep this community informed as I progress. At this point I do not know how often I will post. However, when I do your thoughts are most graciously appreciated.
With that said, I would like to make my first post on this journey toward knowledge of God. The book that this is coming from is “How to know God” by the well known Dr. Deepak Chopra. I can hear the cringes from this pseudo scholarly community now. Please refrain from stabbing blunt objects in your eyes.
While Dr. Chopra’s merits on this subject may be of question this post is not about him, but rather about what affect his book has had on me. Before I get into Dr. Chopra’s theory I should preface by saying I know nothing about the subject of physics. I barely past my physical science class in college. Thus, I will try to accurately summarize Dr. Chopra’s thesis, and then I will share my thoughts.
Dr. Chopra argues that reality can be split into three domains. These three domains are material, quantum, and virtual. This is basic metaphysics. Our material world is based on, for the sake of simplification, the illusion of light. Atoms, following basic physical laws, react to each other causing the illusion of materiality. Our five senses are ill equipped to detect these separations. Thus, for all intents and purposes, the illusion of materiality is objective reality. However, on a sub atomic level exists a different reality.
This sub atomic reality is what quantum physicists are always trying to understand. This is the world of black holes and particle accelerators. Here light is no longer perceived as such and thus reality is no longer sensory. Put simply, this is where energy turns into matter. In this domain atoms are constantly moving and transferring in space. So when your hand picks up a glass,in the quantum domain, the atoms that make up your hand transfer over to the atomic structure of the glass and vice versa. As transcendent as this domain seems, many physicists have conjectured that there lies another domain beyond the quantum world of energy conversion.
This domain of pure energy is coined virtual, as it is completly hypothetical at this point. This is the domain of God according to Chopra. The virtual domain exists outside of time and space. Because pure energy is all that exists there is no static space for movement which means passage of time is indistinguishable.
Chopra argues that God, being pure energy, is the essence of all reality. Energy passes through the quantum domain into the material domain constantly. Thus, in a very panantheistic way, God illumines all existence in the material world. Materiality is energy at its core. Thus, as the Hebrew poet put it, we are truly made in the image of God.
With this in mind my question is simple. If reality is God, what is consciousness? If the world is illusory based on perception, who is perceiving? Furthermore, if there is indeed a separation between cognisance and essence is this conscience singular and universal or multiple and unique? Like I said, simple.
I have always assumed that I am me based on a unique consciousness. Be it spiritual or more broadly metaphysical, I have always worked from the presumption that there existed a distinction between I and they. However,if we are all energy then that eliminates the material distinction. With that removed the only distinction left is spiritual. The problem is that all of the signs of individuality in this realm can be easily explained. Is my personal consciousness anything more than neuron firing patterns? In other words, is my conscious distinction simply another illusion? Even if there is a separate level of consciousness, how do I know that it is not universal? Maybe the divine mind is the only real mind after all.
I don’t have any answers to these questions. Most of them seem too big for me to fully grasp. That said, I have realized that the simple presuppositions that I have always held about myself and God can no longer remain unquestioned. I can no longer take for granted these ultimate questions while I argue the minutia of theology. I am not saying theology is irrelavent, but its value is a bit diminished when it is debated autonomously from these existential questions. I think I have rambled enough for today. I look forward to your thoughts.
The Evolution of Religion: Toward Religious Pluralism: Part 3
February 16, 2009
|
Part 3: A Way Forward
In the first two posts of this series, I attempted to lay out a broad history and nuanced position toward the issues surrounding religious pluralism today. As has been pointed out many times before, such work is inherently arbitrary in that it seeks to limit such a broad position. None the less, I attempted this feat with one purpose in mind. My goal has been to show, as the title of my series relays, the evolution of religion. At this point, however, I feel the need, for humility’s sake, to take a step back.
In this final post of the series, I want to lay out a pragmatic approach for mankind in relation to the plurality of religion in our world today. This approach will be centered around the fostering of humility and relationship. This post will not be so focused on definitions or broad generalizations, as my first two. Concurrently, this post will be shorter than my previous two. I would like the reader to see my first two posts, as simply a doorway to step into the topic which I will attempt to breach in this post. For sure, there are many doorways one could travel through to reach this position. Some of which may be more effective than the one I have presented. I simply laid forth, as best I could, the path for which I took.
To say that religion is an ever evolving entity is by nature quite abstract and convoluted. The very term “evolution” carries with it much baggage that is inapplicable to the intent of my thesis. When one speaks of the evolution of religion, it must be understood what can and cannot be inferred in any authoritative way. First it must be fleshed out that the evolution for which I speak is in revelation of the uncontainable, not in any cultural or institutional sense. My goal is not to speak to the evolving of religious institutions, as such a task would be far beyond my abilities. Rather, it is to acknowledge the evolution of personal revelation within those who seek to understand and relate to transcendence. To be more clear, my goal is to acknowledge that mankind has always sought to better understand and relate to a God that is far beyond his reach. As such that God has continually given mankind glimpses of himself through divine sparks of revelation. It is only obvious then, that as the sum of those revelations grows, so too does the understanding man.
At this point I would like to dwell for a moment on our understanding of God. It is agreed on, in some form, by every religious tradition, that the divine experiences for which man has touched have originated from a source far above the grasp of mans conception. To put it more bluntly, every religious tradition affirms that we know very little of the infinitude that is God. In fact, I would go as far as to say that an inherent aspect of religious experience is an understanding of how minute the picture or revelation received really is. It has been said that an experience of the divine is like a drop of water in the desert. It is only meant to stir ones thirst for more. Concurrently, an experience of such, from such an undefinable source, can only itself remain undefinable. None the less, it is man’s nature to try.
This is where religion, in its institutional form, comes into play. The institution of religion places a linguistic framework around the experience to help man to define what has happened. It must be noted that this is not a negative function, but rather a necessity. Without a definition, in linguistic terms, it is quite impossible for man to form a relationship to the source of the experience. It must also be noted that religious experience is not an ever present reality. Each drop of experience relates more “truth” and must sustain the individual whom experienced it. It is the time between these experiences that one is compelled to plumb the depths of the revelation given.
The linguistic traditions, supplied by the religious institutions of man, aid the individual in their search for understanding and relationship. This distinction between religious experience and religious institutions is important. It is quite possible to make value judgments of the language for which the various religious institutions construct. Each linguistic tradition is formulated from the combined experiences of a localized group. As such, there are inherent strengths and weaknesses to each tradition. This is not to say that it is a simple task to evaluate the linguistic constructs of any religious institution. Any attempt to do so would require an in depth understanding of the people and culture for which each tradition is grounded. This is why, in my opinion, evaluation of these traditions is best left to be done from within, though there is certainly value in outside perspective.
This evaluation, however, must stop at the institutional level. To attempt to evaluate the personal religious experience of another is quite a different task. Such a task is dangerous, arrogant, and highly unproductive. It must always be remembered that the source of these experiences is far beyond the grasp of our intellectual understanding. What does this mean in a practical sense? It means that one can evaluate, for instance, the religious tradition that interpreted a divine experience as a call to violence. Via the constructs of human reasoning one can determine that such an interpretation must be an inferior linguistic traditional construct. One cannot, however, presume that the human beings that followed such a construct have received an inferior religious experience.
One might argue that this is only a semantic difference. This, however, is not the case. The pragmatic value in making this distinction is the continued realization of the inherent human vulnerability of ones own religious linguistic tradition. This is vital in the pluralistic world for which we live. It is only through humility that one can truly grasp the most of the divine.
This leads me to my final point. Religious scholar Diana Eck has said,
“Whoever knows only one religion is unlikely to understand what religion is about”
While I cannot speak to the entirety of her point, I do feel that she has tapped into an important practical aspect of religious pluralism. If the source of all human religious experience is far greater than the comprehension of mankind, then it only follows that the combined revelations of mankind holistically, paints a fuller picture than when seen through a dichotomy. In other words, we can only gain in our quest to understand and relate to the divine by seeking out and learning from the experiences of others who have touched its essence (I apologize for the constant vacillation of terms in relation to God. It is often difficult when speaking on this matter to confidently choose only one term.). If it is truly ones desire to understand and relate more fully to God, then it seems only natural to seek out others who are like-minded. I understand that this can sometimes be a tricky proposition. Each experience is couched in a religious linguistic tradition, and often those traditions are mutually exclusive. There is, however, a way to sort through the peculiars of each tradition and find the essence of revelation.
The way for this clarity to be found is through relationship. It is only when we commune with others, and our hearts become one, that we can find the essence of the revelation for which they have received. We will of course interpret that revelation through our own tradition, but we will have gained in our understanding of the one who is beyond comprehension.
This post, in many ways, has taken a step back from the ambitious generalizations of my previous ones. As I laid out previously, this was intentional. I have tried to avoid making value judgements on religious traditions. This is not to say that there is no value in doing so. I feel, however, that this is best left to others far more qualified than myself.
As I have taken this journey, being enriched by the experiences of others both within and outside of my tradition, I have often reevaluated the linguistic tradition that I have used to define experiences of God. This I believe is a natural outcome of gaining a further understanding of the God in whom I seek. Sometimes I have found it more difficult than others to understand the heart of religious experience. Specifically, a Buddhist friend comes to mind. It seems the linguistic mountain between us was larger than most. However, I have never been disappointed by the outcome no matter how difficult the journey. Each and every relationship has added a drop to my now ever growing lake of understanding of God. With each drop I am encouraged by the level of intimacy gained, while also humbled at the sheer depth of the impending ocean. My hope is that in sharing the journey that has brought me to where I am today I have better illuminated a path for others who wish to follow. I truly believe in the relevancy of my position for today. At no other time in history has such a great wealth of opportunity for cross religious investigation been prevelant. Because of the modern tools of information sharing, it is easier than ever to gain perspective from other’s experiences. This is not to dismiss the potential risk involved in such excursions, but rather to highlight the possibilities of growth.
The Evolution of Religion: Toward Religious Pluralism: Part 2
January 29, 2009
|
Part 2: Definitions
In my last post I laid out a brief history of religious thought. The purpose of doing so was to show that religious thought is an ever evolving process. I also wanted to show that there can be seen broad trends in the way that religious thought evolves. More specifically, I wanted to show that the evolution of religious thought is reactionary to the culture at large. I believe it is best to see religion as an aspect of culture rather than transcendent of culture.
In this second post I would like to expound on the argument by giving shape to the definition of religion. Furthermore, I would like to discuss the terms “pluralism” and “exclusivism” in a more detailed and nuanced way. Before, one can move to the discussion of religious pluralism vs. religious exclusivism, there must be a consensus as to what definition of religion will be used. It is a common mistake to assume that ones working definition of religion is universal. There are, however, many different ways from which to approach a definition of religion. Most broadly, religion can be categorized as anything which is a wisdom tradition. In other words, anything which seeks to instruct mankind on how to live while simultaneously attempting to give a purpose to life. By this definition any philosophical perspective can be seen as religious. This, of course, would include anti-religious movements such as atheism and agnosticism.
The Definition of Religion
While there is no doubt that being a wisdom tradition is vital to every religion, there seems to me far more to religion than simply wise instruction. Thus, I believe, it is necessary to define more narrowly what one means when they speak of religion. The definition of religion which I will use for the premise of this discussion is one given by my favorite author Marcus Borg. Borg argues for a six fold definition of religion. Each of the six aspects are broadly accepted by experts in the field of religious studies. In this post I will list each of the six aspects of religion and discuss each briefly.
1. Ancient Wisdom
The first aspect, which I have already mentioned, is wisdom. Every religion seeks to impart wisdom of how to live and why the way we live is important. Each religious tradition has nuanced aspects of wisdom for life. None the less many of them teach very similar things. The often pointed to aspect of moral teaching applies here. While every religion has a somewhat different definition of what exactly it is to be moral, all of them agree that morality is important.2. The Intersection of Culture and Language
The second aspect of religion that Borg points out is that religions are cultural-linguistic traditions. Put more simply, every religion is a product of a culture and a language. Islam is a shining example of this in the sense that much of the tradition is linked to the Arab culture and language. It is, however, important to point out that any religion which lasts for an extended period of time will eventually become its own cultural-linguistic tradition. This, of course, is prevalent in the culture and language of Christianity which cannot be ascribed to a single ethnic culture or language.3. A Human Creation
The third aspect of religion is that it is a human product or creation. This self explanatory point is quite controversial. As is seen by the responses to my last post, most religions cannot agree on this. In fact it is also a common trait of religions to deny human authorship and ground their tradition in divine creation. This fact, however, seems to disprove that notion if for no other reason than every religion, at some point, has claimed to be divinely produced. Many see this point as somehow degrading to religion. After all, if religion is a human construction then how can it have authority? The reality, however, is that authority is something which is given by humanity. Also, it is important to understand that accepting the human production of religion does not remove the role of God from the equation.4. A Response to the Experience of God
The third aspect of human production must also be understood in light of the fourth aspect which is that religion is a response to the experience of God. It is not enough to simply say that religions are human creations. It is obvious that religion is an inherent aspect of humanity. The very fact that the majority of mankind affirms some form of religion means that it must be in response to something. Religious scholar William James put it this way, “religion says that there is an unseen order, and that our supreme good lies in rightful relations to it”. It is in the response to “the more”, as William James coined it, that the language of religion finds its meaning. Thus it is in the experience of the unfathomable God that humans find the need to create some form of response.5. Means of Transformation
The fifth aspect of religion is that it is a means of ultimate transformation. There are two aspects to this which must be understood. The first is that religion affirms the need to be transformed. No religion desires for people to remain the way they are. If this were the case there would be no need for religion. Rather, every religion affirms that there is a correct response to the experience of God and that response requires a form of ultimate transformation. The second aspect is that religion is a means not an end. Religion is the tool that is used to bring about the end desired, which is transformation. Interestingly, most religions affirm that compassion is one of the core fruits of transformation.6. The Mediator between God and man
The sixth and final aspect of religion is that it is a sacrament of God. In other words, religion serves as a mediator between God and man. This again affirms the divine authority which religion holds. God is mediated to man through the sacrament of religion. Again, another interesting comparison is that most religions incorporate the sacraments of prayer and meditation, in some form, as aspects of mediating God.
Using this six fold definition of religion, I now move onto the discussion fo pluralism and exclusivism. Before I do, however, I would like to make one quick point about God that will be expounded upon in my last post. One thing that people often get hung up on, when discussing the comparison of religions, is that there is no universal definition of God. In fact, some religions like Buddhism refuse to even speak of God. I offer that the reason for this ambiguity about God, the transcendent, the sacred, the divine, or whatever you want to call it, is that the experience of this reality is beyond human conception.
The Nuances of Pluralism and Exclusivism
Moving onto the discussion of pluralism, it is important to understand, when speaking of the divide between pluralists and exclusivists, that there are many definitions that can be applied to both. Speaking of pluralism, there are two aspects for which it is vital to understand the distinction. Broadly, pluralism is simply a fact of the modern world. To say that we live in a world in which there are a plurality of religions is not a theory but a fact. More importantly, as the world has become smaller, because of human innovation, these religions have been forced to interact with each other. This interaction has created a multiplicity of responses. However, all of these responses can be divided into two ideologies. Those ideologies are “pluralism” and “exclusivism”. Thus in one sense both “pluralism” and “exclusivism” are ideologies which can be directly attributed to culture, be it modern or post-modern. Broadly, of course, the reality of pluralism and exclusivism have coexisted for much longer. For thousands of years there have been a plurality of religious expressions. Likewise, for much of that time religious ideologies have been seen in an exclusive light.
This distinction is important in moving forward. It must be understood that when one is dealing with the specific ideologies of “pluralism” and “exclusivism” that they are dealing with religious reactions to the circumstances of culture. More importantly it is necessary to understand that neither position argues from a place of normativity. This is a mistake that is often made on both sides of the aisle. While broadly it is obvious that each religion is founded in the heart of one of these ideologies, that is not to say that any religion is inherently “exclusivist” or “pluralist” by modern definition.
The Onset of the Enlightenment
Having clarified the inherent nuances of this debate between “pluralism” and “exclusivism”, it is now possible to move onto an understanding of the value that each of these ideologies has had for religious thought. As was previously expressed, the innovations of modernity removed the distances, both geographically and informationally, between the religions of the world. This removal of barriers caused each religion to evaluate itself in a new light. Previous to the enlightenment, religious diversity was seen as simply an ethnic issue. The Chinese had their religions, and the French had theirs (sort of), and the Germans theirs, etc. While there was still an egocentric aspect to religious life, it was seen very differently. One might affirm that their own religion was better than another, but this was seen as a comparisons of culture.
However, with the enlightenment came the creation of the terms scientific method and empirical data. Suddenly, religion was forced to prove its validity in the arena of empirical proof. This new attack, from culture, created the need for religion to answer to the questions of science. The inherent mythological truth of religion was seen as invalid. Because of this shift in the language of truth, religion began to change its definition of God. God could no longer simply be mystically experienced. Those experiences must be proven to be true. This created the language of absolute truth. If religious experience must be proven to be true, then counter experiences must be proven to be false. This dynamic completely changed the way religions saw each other. They were now competing for one truth and this left no room for variances. A side note, it is no coincidence that during the modern period there was more splintering from within each of the religions than any other time in history.
Under this new attack came the need for religions to defend their exclusive claim to truth. Thus, the modern ideology of exclusivism was born. It was no longer a question of superiority but one of exclusivity. Exclusivism allowed for each religion to remain valid in a time when culture was determined to move them to the periphery. It also allowed them to incorporate some of the critiques of modernism without losing validity. Things like racism and bigotry, which were normative when religion was seen as an ethnic locality, were now seen in a more logical light. Things like black skin were no longer seen in the mythological light of a divine curse, but rather seen in light of the scientific explanation of melatonin. This cleansing, in many ways, allowed each religion to remove the mythological hurdles which had hindered them from expressing their core values such as compassion.
Much the same way that modernism created the ideology of exclusivism, post-modernity has begun to create the ideology of pluralism. Post-modernism has reintroduced the value of mythical truth to the world of religion. With this introduction came the removal of the logical imperative of faith. Religions have begun to be freed from the competition for truth. This has created, yet another way for religions to understand each other. No longer are they hindered by the need for superiority that pre-modern culture required. Nor are they hindered by the need for exclusivity that modern culture required. Instead, they are free to validate the unique experiences of other religions while still holding to the value of their own. Thus;
the debate between pluralism and exclusivism is not one of validity. Rather, the debate is one of relevancy.
I believe that the push for religious dialogue has shown that a pluralistic approach to religion is far more valid in today’s culture than an exclusivistic one.
In my final post, for this series, I will look to better define a way forward. There are many hurdles which modernism has left in its wake. While culture has been moving in a post-modern direction for some time, the religious world is lagging behind in many ways. In fact some of the worlds religions are still dealing with the issues surrounding modernity. I will attempt to show that there remains value in both factual truth and mythological truth. Furthermore, it is only in the merging of both that religion will find its relevant voice in today’s culture.
Continue on to Part III
The Evolution of Religion: Toward Religious Pluralism: Part 1
January 20, 2009
|
Part I: Brief History of Religions
The subject of Pluralism is inherently convoluted and voluminous. On one hand, pluralistic theories deal simply with the interplay of religious entities. On the other, they deal with the complex web of theological nuances that exist within each great faith tradition. None the less I have decided to tackle the issue of pluralism in this series.
Before I begin I would like to lay some groundwork for my positions. More pointedly I would like to clarify what I am not saying. I am not going to argue for some form of monism nor from a position that all great faiths are essentially the same. Both of these betrays the unique beauty that each faith holds and ultimately destroys the value that each faith brings to the table. Also I am not arguing that religious exclusivism is invalid or that it is based solely in ignorance. We have moved passed a stage in which religious intolerance was simply the outcome of religions having misinformed positions of each other, although this is still the culprit of some of the religious bigotry that we experience.
Having laid some groundwork I believe it most beneficial to begin this series of posts on pluralism with a brief history of religion. This will not and cannot be comprehensive. It is simply a cursory review of how religious thought has evolved over time. While there are surely exceptions to every trend the basic flow of religious thought is largely agreed upon by historians. The topic of this post has been heavily influenced by the works of Karen Armstrong and John Hick to a lesser degree. That said this will not be a review of their positions. George, that is for you (just because I said his name doesn’t mean I am spouting his positions).
To lay out a history of religious thought is by nature quite difficult. Any good history has a fixed point from which it begins. Unfortunately, religious thought has been part of human experience since seemingly the beginning of time. Because of this ambiguity at the onset there is much dissent as to the earliest forms of religious expression. Historians and theologians alike cannot agree on whether early or natural religion was monotheistic or polytheistic in nature.
Wilhelm Schmidt popularized the theory that early religious thought emphasized the transcendence of God or the Gods to explain the unexplainable mysteries and tragedies of life.This early religious belief of the divine seemed to inherently create distance between humanity and the transcendent that it worshipped. Eventually, this divine status rendered the transcendent too unrelateable for humanity and was replaced by more human Gods.Whether this theory is accurate or not is still being debated. However, there are three aspects of this theory that align with our understanding of the ancient period.The first is that the emphasis of transcendence to fill the voids of human knowledge fits well with the pre-modern mindset of the time. The second is that religious thought is incredibly resilient and adaptable to the needs of mankind in every age.
There is a third, and even more interesting, correlation between Schmidt’s theory and our understanding of religious thought. This third aspect is the emergence of what Karl Jasper’s called the axial age. Schmidt’s understanding of the personalization and personification of divinity aligns itself with this religious age in which many of the religions of the modern world found the source of their religious thought.
The axial age roughly spanned between 800 BCE and 200 BCE. Like any other great shift in religious thought, the axial religions sprung up out of a shift in the culture. The rise of a middle class greatly strengthened the influence of the lesser in society. As a result, religious thought was forced to become valuable not only to the leaders. During this time period new ways of speaking of God began to take hold across the globe. In China a great religious thinker named Confucius burst onto the scene. From his writings would come the great religions of Taoism and Confucianism.
In India Mahavira and Siddhartha Gautama both lived. From their teachings would spring the religions of Jainism and Buddhism. Also Hinduism moved from the cold teachings of the Vedas by way of a new revelation known as the Vedanta or end of the Vedas. The Vendatas, composed of two works the Upanishads and Aranyakas, emphasized the cultivation of the relationship between ones self and the transcendent which presides within.
In the Middle East two new religions were taking off, both from the same monotheistic perspective. First in Iran a new teacher known only as Zoroaster began to teach the value of a singular, personal, transcendent entity. The second was the rising of the Hebrew prophets in Israel. They too emphasized the intimacy of God. Finally, in Greece came the rise of philosophical rationalism via the teachings of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.
In every region of the globe new religious thought was being cultivated. Each revelation was uniquely fashioned for the culture to which it spoke. None the less there was a common theme that emerged. The emphasis of intimacy with the transcendent. They spoke about this relationship in different ways, and saw it manifest with varied perspectives. However, from this intimacy came a universal emphasis on the value of compassion within religious life.
This new perspective on God would continue to shape the theology of the great faiths through the rest of the pre-modern period. In the far East Confucianism would develop into a complex ethical doctrine of compassion. Likewise Taoism focused on a pacifistic approach to life. In the Middle East the teachings of Zoroaster, though not in an official capacity, would strongly influence the teachings of the Hebrew monotheists. From them would spring the three great monotheistic faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Each would use the emphasis on compassion to bring new ways to understand God. Judaism would focus on God’s compassion for the world via the illumination of the path to God through the life emphasized by their religious piety. Christianity would emphasize compassion through the spiritual act of reconciliation. Finally, Islam would focus on compassion by emphasizing the unity of God as a moral mandate to care for others. In the West, philosophical rationalism continued to work out this emphasis on compassion via morally mandated complex political structures.
These religions would continue to formulate new doctrines and dogmas based on their earlier understandings right through to the enlightenment of the 17th century. With the enlightenment came a new movement that would again change the religious landscape. This new movement was modernism. While in many ways modernism shared the common value of compassion with the world’s religions, it had one major departure which would send the religious world spinning. Modernism’s emphasis on human intuition as the answer to the problems of the world flew right in the face of every religions understanding of divine empowerment. While the pre-modern age had seen the unknown as the place where the transcendent dwelt, modernists saw it simply as the next frontier. This led to an emphasis on human progress conquering the ills of society instead of spiritual connection lifting individuals above.
As each great religion began to face this new modern spirit it gave rise to new religious movements unique to each religion but commonly categorized as fundamentalism. A new conservative spirit was formed. This conservative spirit would see modernism as a personal affront to the great faiths. In each religion fundamentalist sects would form, each with unique ways of dealing with the attacks of modernism. Yet in spite of their attempts modernisms influence was far too pervasive. As modernism has systematically run its course through each sector of the globe, it has left its imprint on conservative and liberal alike. Even the conservative movements in each faith, which were based in a desire to hold fast to what once was, have changed the way they understand their own faiths. The history of each faith tradition is viewed through a lens of modernism. Many of the ideals and pragmatics that have been established in every faith, in response to modernism, are seen as normative.
This brings us to the emergence of yet another great shift in the religious landscape. As the influence of modernism has begun to fade on culture, a new counter movement has begun to take hold. With the creation of a new post-modern cultural mindset comes a new set of challenges and opportunities for all the great faiths. In my next post in this series I will look at some of the religious responses to modernism and how they will once again be forced to change with the onset of a post-modern culture. Specifically I will focus on exclusivism and why I believe that its relevancy is based in the modern culture for which it was a response to.
In closing I leave you with this picture. Modernism is a wave which has slowly washed over every culture and thus every religion. With that wave came the opportunity for the worlds great religions to wash themselves clean of some of the dogmas of pre-modernism that were holding them back. Things like racism, bigotry, and ethnocentrism were seen in a new more informed light. Yet behind every wave is a wake. The wake provides time to reassess what has been lost and to determine a new way forward. Post-modernism is that wake. I believe that every great religion has or is going through the process of washing that the wave of modernism brought. Soon we will be in a global wake of reassessment. The questions that each religion will bring to the table will be unique. None the less, let us hope that they all come.
Continue on to Part II
The Plight of Adam and Steve Continued…
December 19, 2008
In my last post on homosexuality I put forth an argument against using the Bible as a barometer for determining the validity of same sex marriage in today’s society. In this, my second post on the subject, I would like to address some of the non-biblical arguments against homosexual marriages. In response to my last post Dr. Wood suggested the book “The future of marriage” by David Blakenhorn. It is this work that I will be addressing in this post.
The basis of Blakenhorn’s argument is that the primary function of marriage in society is generative. As such he believes it vital for the health of society to put the growth needs of children over the rights of individual adults. He argues that there exist two universal ethics in regards to marriage. Those two ethics are the rule of opposites and the rule of sex. He then argues that the rule of sex is inherently procreative. He thus concludes that marriage is primarily about socially approved sexual intercourse, and the protection and nurturing of the fruit of that relationship. Given this premise of the intimate link between marriage and parenting, Blakenhorn argues that changing the definition of marriage will change the definition of parenting. He argues that research has shown that children raised in homes that have a different formula for parenting other than a mother and a father are detrimental to the health and well being of the child. As he eloquently states it:
“every child has the right to a name, a nationality, and a mother and father”.
By deinstitutionalizing marriage, society is forced to deny the double origin of the child. This he contends would cause serious repercussions not only for the individual child but society as a whole.
Blakenhorn is well thought out in his approach. He tries to honestly grapple with the huge ramifications of legalizing homosexual marriages. That said, I see one inherent flaw in his reasoning. That flaw is his fundamental premise that marriage is primarily generative.He presumes a universal sexual ethic in regards to marriage. However, this stance is no longer valid in society today. While it is true that procreation has historically been the primary purpose of marriage, this is not the case today. Previous societies saw the need for reproduction as primary due to the fact that without this emphasis mankind would suffer extinction. However, in today’s world which is over populated to the brink, reproduction is no longer the primary concern of modern society. In fact many sociologists have argued for some form of population control due to the detereoration of resources in the world.
This is why in today’s modern societies there exist no generative stipulations on the social union of marriage. Blakenhorn does not see any inherent risk in straight couples who remain childless. Similarly he seems to allow for sterile couples to reach out of their sexual union to adopt children. Both of these situations stand against the universality of the sexual ethic he proposes.
In fact Blakenhorn has produced six purposes of marriage in society as part of his “Statement of Principles” in 2000. These six purposes of marriage are in order:
1. a legal contract
2. a financial partnership
3. a sacred promise of commitment
4. a sexual union
5. a personal bond of collaborative love
6. and a family-making bond of obligation to care for any kin.
Reading these six purposes it seems hard to find an argument that procreation is the central purpose of a marriage. In fact according to Blakenhorn it is not even in the top five.
Blakenhorn, has stated that these multi-purposes are meant only to describe marriage in a private context. He still asserts that procreation is the primary public purpose of marriage. This, however, is still a position which does not hold with current societal definitions. By seperating a public and private purpose of marriage blakenhorn is left with the position that homosexual marriage has no societal value. This would, however, exclude sterile and childless marriages from having a public purpose as well. Likewise, any arguments for the natural state of sterility could be argued for homosexuality.
In my view, this requires that all six purposes be seen not only as privately valuable, but also valuable to society as a whole.With that in mind, one would be hard pressed to argue that a homosexual marriage can not fulfill the six purposes for marriage that have been presented by Blakenhorn.
A homosexual marriage can benefit the couple with legal advantages which also serve to create a permanent bond; it can create a sense of financial interdependance;it can help the couple to find values; it can elevate sexual cravings into a permanent sign of love; and it can create a deep personal bond between the two people. Homosexual marriages can also serve in the sixth purpose of child rearing in much the same way as a sterile straight couple could. It can also reinforce the role of the family unit much like any straight family that chooses to adopt.
It seems that homosexual marriages serve as no greater a threat to society than many straight sterile couples do. In fact in today’s wildly overpopulated world, homosexual couples can serve a unique purpose in revitalizing society by caring for the uncared for children and providing atmospheres to raise the many children that have already been produced. If Blakenhorn truly wants to affirm the “equal dignity of homosexual love” than it seems that these distinctions must be removed. Hopefully, Blakenhorn and others will see that marriage offers the homosexual community, at no cost to the rest of society, the opportunity to escape a hopeless life of drifting in and out of shifting relationships, much like it has for heterosexual individuals.
Marriage offers permanence and stability, enhanced by the opportunity to share it with children, to all who are allowed to partake in it. This is the value of marriage, and to deny it to the homosexual community is to deny their equality as human beings.
Tony Hunt
jstambaugh
Shawn Wamsley
