“Behind this vague tendency to treat religion as a side issue in modern life, there exists a strong body of opinion that is actively hostile to Christianity and that regards the destruction of positive religion as absolutely necessary to the advance of modern culture.”
— Christopher Dawson
My Comment:
As I’ve written, I am an agnostic and a skeptic….not so much about God, as about language. Which means, I read Dawson or Voegelin, with as much attention (or inattention) as I read Marx. The latter does not seem any more “scientific” than the former to me. Indeed, the only thing that makes something a religion is the hostility to opposition that adheres to it. [correction: this is an overstatement. It should read “one of the things that make something a religion.”] From that point of view, most of those who believe themselves to be actively hostile to “god” and “religion” are actually devout believers – their temperament is exactly like the rabid fundamentalists they denounce.
I, on the other hand, believe myself to be a Christian agnostic and a Christian skeptic.
How can I subscribe to such a contradiction in terms? [For those unfamiliar with theology, there are many leading theologians who are quite skeptical or even unbelieving in “god”].
For me, it is not a question of lacking faith in God. That is quite a simple-minded kind of contrarianism.
My heresy is a little deeper. I lack faith in language. I have no faith in words as a fixed repository of meaning.
As for “god” – the conventions and symbols one grows up with can never really be uprooted and it seems wiser and truer to accept them as equally the outgrowth of the mind as logic or empiricism. If I must confess disbelief in “god,” then I must confess it equally in “man,” “truth,” “justice” or “logic,” “you” or “me.”
What naive empiricists never realize is that what endows facts with their “factuality” is the “mind.” There is no escaping that.
Not do we have to go from naive empiricism to naive idealism, i.e., we don’t have to leap from “just the facts, ma’am” to “Just my opinion.”
Instead, we continually adjust our thoughts and subjective experience to the hard edges of facts so-called, to the limitations of objective experience. We do that through the refinement of our language. We continually reflect the tension of existence in a conditional, fractured, and fluctuating reality through language that expresses the contradiction and paradoxes inherent in our existence as mind-body.
In that spirit, I have no problem with affirming:
Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium…..
Count me as a member of that strong body of opinion :b. Truth and science and logic and empiricism are simply incompatible (read: mortal enemies) with fantasy and blind belief.
I’m sorry for the long response but I’m not quite sure I follow. I agree that language is often ambiguous. Hopefully everyone who reads the blog knows that the meaning of “truth” (and many other words/concepts) is far from a universally agreed upon thing. Moreover, even if people can agree on simple “dictionary definitions” words may have different invocations to different people. That is to say that although we both know what a hamburger is, due to our experiences with hamburgers and other things/ideas, my hamburgers may remain irreconcilably different from yours.
Where I run into trouble is in so much as I’m not sure that the ambiguity of language is the issue in this case. The issue here is an issue of what kind of information is permissible when one makes assertions about the nature of the world. We might wonder why it is useful for there to be certain kinds of permissible information and certain kinds of information that is not. After all, aren’t we prone to miss something if we start narrowing the focus? This is a valid point. Still, if we are concerned with answering a question or creating a policy then we must be able to speak about what exists and what does not exist. For example, in a court that is trying to determine who embezzled money, one won’t win by arguing that “god did it”. That is because, as far as the court is concerned, god is neither in the picture materially nor ideologically. But, for a moment imagine if god were in the courtroom. Imagine if god could do things or do things through people or make people do certain things. Anything could happen and anything could be argued. I wouldn’t want to live in a society with those sorts of courts. This is important because the mind is much like a court. It hears the evidence that it allows itself to hear (often involuntarily) and makes rulings about all sorts of things. It even develops its own common law tendencies, referring to its prior decisions (precedent) before action and only overturning them with hesitance.
Of course, it is true that when choosing what sort of information can pass as evidence, people tend to choose whatever suits them. They do this for a variety of reasons. Some do it out of obligation. Some do it under threat of harm (obey god or go to hell). Some do it out of habit. Similarly, some do it out of a desire to feel comfortable or safe. We’ve all come across the argument that says “religion is good if it makes people feel good” or “those with nothing else at least still have religion.” Despite his flaws, Barack Obama hit the nail on the head when he said during his campaign that many people “cling to guns and religion” instead of being proactive in a competitive world labor market. But religion or faith as a band-aid often only exacerbates very real economic hardships and creates perverse incentives.
If religion fails to create good economic incentives then it surely must create something more intangible. Morals/values perhaps? When talking with a vicar who exhaled religion as the enforcer of a moral code and as a reason not to commit heinous crimes such as murder, Richard Dawkins replied that there are much better reasons not to act like a murderous fool than because the vicar told you (or told you to read a book in which someone else says that) that god said so.
This brings me back to the Christopher Dawson quote. He refers to “positive religion” as though there is a “negative religion”. If it is true that any valuable social functions that religion preforms can be had by appealing to much simpler and more easily understood explanations, then why should we continue the charade? Why bother sorting out the “negative religion” or the parts of it that tend to legitimize the very heinous crimes that the “positive religion” often seems to forbid? Or are they one and the same? Can they even be separated so surgically? Or once we believe that god/gods/miracles etc. should be evidence in our own minds do we begin to act in absurd ways (justifying the invasion of Iraq as George Bush did — by claiming divine guidance)? It is difficult enough making heads and tails of anything without all of it. And if we need an example of that then we need only look as far as the courts.
Apparently the Dawkins video “The Virus of Faith” has been put on youtube. Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4FpdYCLWFs
Hi Andrew –
Just briefly. I agree with many of your points.
But using religion to justify an invasion, was just cover…
Bush did not unilaterally decide to invade Iraq on his own. He was not even the motive force. He had his beliefs and he was a useful figure head as a president for the people who invaded, some of whom are not driven by religions motives at all, but by economic motives or the desire for more power.
Religion is not primarily or solely about ethics. If it were, one could appeal to other forms of argument.
Religion supplies meaning of a kind that is not supplied (for many people) by other forms of inquiry or engagement with the world. In that sense, religion is art.
Like art, religion has its orthodoxy and its church (artists have academies and schools) that can make it conformist – but true religion, or spirituality, is the greatest threat to the conformity of the state.
I would argue that it was the “religion” of statism behind the attack on Iraq. Bush’s fundamentalist beliefs just played into that.
Besides which, countless people opposed the war from religious belief too.
And Hitchens, an atheist, supported the war…
By and large, the largest and murderous wars in recent history were driven by statist ideologies (communism, state-capitalism, fascism) and not religion.
It is also not true that religion is inherently opposed to science. Recall the Carolingian Renaissance in the Middle Ages..
The gospel asks to “test all things” and to draw conclusions from the results we observe (“the fruits”)
That is good solid empiricism, of the kind atheists are supposed to have the handle on.
Religion is closer to a kind psychology rather than some kind of blind irrationality.
(which isn’t to say there aren’t blind fundamentalists…but I’d caution you against believing that “believers” are behind a lot of the troubles and unrest you see in politics…mostly that is driven by political grievances, which are then given the color of religion. And intelligence (CIA) has been involved in strengthening fundamentalist versions of belief at the expense of rationalist, skeptical or humanist versions..
Bush is NOT more of a Christian than someone like me…
He just gets to speak for all Christians because the media focuses on that element.
Why doesn’t the media also show that Christians have been at the forefront of giving money to the poor, exposing political abuses by the state, humanitarian efforts, the abolition of slavery, and many other civic advances…
recall that science was kept alive by church men…
recall that Mendel was a monk..
recall that the church’s opposition to Galileo was not because it disputed what he said, but because it thought the masses were not competent to receive that knowledge…
That’s shocking to us today but you know, I’m not that sure the masses are qualified to handle all knowledge…don’t universities today discourage some lines of research or thought because of how it might be used in society at large?
That said – my intention here is to shake up received wisdom – no to assert any of my own..
I get a malicious pleasure from poking fun at militant atheists who believe themselves to be different from fundamentalists…on many things, they are quite alike…
Good ideas — especially on statism-as-religion. When I think of all the flag salutes, ceremonies, and national holidays and hymns that I had to endure as a child. My 6th grade class even made what can only be described as a pilgrimage to Washington DC to see all of the holy sites.
My quick reaction to a couple other points:
It was obvious that Bush invaded Iraq for nonreligious reasons and that most “religious” conflicts can boil down to competition for resources etc. Still, the fact that many people in United States would have been okay with the Iraq experiment had it been conducted on religious grounds is indicative of the larger problem. Believers didn’t start the ball rolling, but they certainly pushed it along. As you so often point out, it is never the belief of one person that becomes a problem so much as the sorts of things that people do when they start to believe things in groups. And in any case, conflict resolution would be much simpler if we just discussed resources and conquest. George Bush knows that. That’s why religion made such a good cover.
It is a refreshing idea that religion could be like art. I wish people thought of religion as art. This is because art usually claims neither universality nor truth. This is something which art shares with science. Both are very good at doing exactly what they are intended to do and neither can make credible promises to do anything more (for example, to posit the meaning of life — which can be incidentally be found hereLhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBArMmngVH4)
As far as the masses are concerned, you may be right that they are unprepared to handle knowledge. But this does not mean that they should be lead instead to believe simple (but impossible) stories. There seems to be something strange about this drive to make sure people have “meaning”. It is almost as though people have become accustomed to being able to demand meaning like spoiled children. In this way, religion acts often as a “meaning industry”. The scientologists even take out television advertisements to promote their meaning-rich product.
If universities are discouraging research for these same reasons then shame on them. After all, the masses aren’t in universities and if the universities exist for one purpose, it is to allow people to escape the politics and pressures of society and to focus on inquiry. What happens with the product of that inquiry is for the policy makers to decide, but to stifle it out-of-hand is ridiculous.
Hi Andrew –
quickly
* I don’t think people are “demanding” meaning…I think that’s the nature of human beings that they seek or put meaning into things. Even if the meaning is – there’s no meaning. Krishnamurthi goes in that direction when he wants to undo the imposition of meaning on reality
But undoing is also as forceful as doing. Just let what is be.
If you think in certain ways, why undo it?
*Religion is not about “simple myths” – that’s the idea that’s cultivated about it. Religion (I am talking about the mythology, the language, the rituals – not just doctrine and church) is a repository – a profound one – of non logical intuitions and perceptions – a depth which psychoanalysis can’t reach.
*to treat religion as art is in my estimate to place it equal to science – in another realm – not to dismiss it
* art is not “just” art.nor is it a commodity to be placed on the shelf and canonized..
art is a kind of magic – less formal than religion..and magic is a precursor to science…it’s the “pseudoscientific” precursor..
although the pseudo part may be because we’re looking for the wrong things in it..
Lila, you’re just as agnostic as me and my pal Andrew :). And we’re just as “Christian” as you. (I’m actually not /really/ an atheist… I just like poking fun at theists.) All the confusion that you stir up is due to your ambiguous use of the word religion–which I would seriously advise you not to use :b–rather than redefine. MOST people consider (at least nominally) religion to be truth and fact, that hell really and truly exists and is slightly under 100 degrees celcius, etc. And it’s this extremely dangerous transition area between fantasy and reality, in particular the blind belief that un-tested un-seen (un-believable) fantasy actualy IS reality. Science acknowledges this danger, and it tries really hard never to attach itself to any particular “belief”. Which is the exact opposite of what the institution of religion does. (When most people use the word “religion”, they refer to the *institution*.)
(Also, to the extent that “the Carolingian Renaissance in the Middle Ages” knew nothing about subatomic particles and black holes, I suppose a softer heart may forgive them to resorting to pink fairy things to explain the origin of the species and such. Today there is (close to) no excuse. At best it may serve a personal artsy psychoanalitical role, as you suggest.)
Hi Dennis –
Sorry, I am much different in my beliefs from you.
In the first place, the Renaissance didn’t get subatomic particles right either.
If you want to talk about subatomic particles, try
Sanskrit texts..
We are talking about entirely different worlds of experience.
The fact that you keep on talking about pink fairies and so on, tells me so..
or this word, “artsy”
Your idea of art is very superficial.
Do you think Bach is “artsy”?
Bach inscribed everyone of his pieces with a dedication to Jesus Christ. I am not arguing anything from that – just don’t confuse what you (and possibly Andrew, although he seems more aware of possibilities outside his world view) are saying with what I am saying, which has been learned and burned into me by empirical observation much harder and closer to the ground than anything I’ve heard from you.
I am not trying to make converts, believe me…
don’t want ’em. don’t need reinforcement or ego support..
I belong to the school of thought – let him who has ears hear..
Subject: comment
From: “mario l”
Date: Mon, June 15, 2009 12:22 pm
To: lilarajiva@mindbodypolitic.com
Priority: Normal
Options: View Full Header | View Printable Version | Download this as a file
Don’t let anyone tell you to stay here and fight. These people
can not be dealt with. All these “fighters” are thumbsucking bedwetters as are
most phony “conservatives” and are scared of their own shadow which is why they like
a police state and bombing people to protect them against an illusion. As far as
going overseas I don’t think it as good as you think but like you say the best thing
to do is to go there. I have read that Panama is one of the best. I still think that Colorado or N mexico or Montana would be better. it is so beautiful there and they
could never get to you. You have really changed your thinking in a short while. I
wonder what made you see the light.
Lila,
Having no religious experience outside of the glossalalia-laden Assembly of God church, I’m severely limited when it comes to understanding the emotional motives (sorry, I have as hard a time using the term Spiritual as you do the words Hate Speech) behind, say, Taoism or Sufism. But, regardless of their origins and their “true” metaphorical meanings, once a person or group or society elevates a faith-based (theoretical) concept above ALL evidence to the contrary, therein lies the root which sets about its slow strangulation of common sense, critical thinking and natural skepticism–through rote programming (Sunday School, Madrasa, name your poison). The end result being millions (if not hundreds of millions) of human beings manifestly capable of killing their neighbors out of a skewed sense of moral outrage and a myopic cosmic perspective, which is, alas, played like a murderous fiddle in the hands of the powerhungry Big Men (and their Big Goverments and Big Corporations) of the world.
On a personal, completely subjective, anecdotal level, I’m incredibly happy to report that it’s a rare day that passes when I don’t feel like I dodged a horribly mindnumbing bullet when I politely told Yahweh that I really believed it was time we took a break frome each other, and that if he ever wanted to talk, well, he knew where to find me. I’m even happier to report that he hasn’t once even so much as sent an e-mail or waved at me in traffic. 23 years have passed since then, and it’s even rarer day that passes when I don’t feel like I’ve been born again…again.
Nevertheless, eradicating religion isn’t a goal of mine, nor even a desire. That’ll take hundreds, probably thousands, of years…that is, if it’s not hardwired too deeply. Even if I could, who’s to say I’m right? Not me, that’s for sure. I’m just happy to be here and have this one chance to live…and to KNOW that I’m alive!
Thanks for sharing your wisdom,
Jeff
PS: I do kinda like the Zen thing. I haven’t got it all figured out yet….but I think that’s the whole point of Zen.
Hi Jeff –
Thanks..
Do you see my point that I am not “elevating faith based theory” over anything?
Or that millions of people were not killed in Iraq because of religion but from jingoism and conformism, most likely?
I do believe that people brought up in overly strict religious homes (Dennis) or with very anti-intellectual religious communities (charismatic low churches) have an idea about religion that people exposed to highly rational and skeptical openness to religious language don
‘t….
And Zen is religion…so is Krishnamurthi…
Buddhism…Jung..Boehme…Swedenborg…Coleridge..Kant
so is mythology
You can’t understand something by reducing it to one peculiar and unpalatable variety…
Well, my home wasn’t /that/ strict. I constantly see my dad being intellectually torn between all the alternative theories, yet not able to really explore them for fear of being ostracized from his life-long community/mob. At the heart of the perversion of Institutional Religion (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, anything with an actual official building), is not so much the absurd story which too many of it’s adherents take literally (try finding me a muslim person who doesn’t think Mohammed was some special man who REALLY SPOKE TO AN ULTRA-DEITY.. or a christian who doesn’t think that Jesus was somehow an offspring of a similar deity.. or a Jew that doesn’t think this super-deity has in some way DIRECTLY communicated and chose them, etc), but it’s brutal barbaric and intellectually-deadening central purpose of unifying MOBS, and distinguishing one mob/gang from another. And it’s not just my dad! How many atheist presidents can you think of? How many atheist politicians do you suppose are forced to “swear to god” and other such childish nonsense simply for the sake of conformity?
To this extent, your extremely personal and poetic exploration of life (even though you hijack a lot of the official historic jargon), is indeed diametrically in opposition to Institutional Religion. Institutional Religion IS conformity. Your “Religion” is the exact opposite of conformity. You see the confusion?
Hi Dennis –
I understand where you are coming from better.
But you know, every group or even crowd is not a mob..
a group of people that believes something is a mob –
A mob must be driven at the emotional level, must have an in-group bias that makes them demonize outsiders, must be subject to panic movements..
A church, or a community, or a reading group is not a mob…although each might turn into one.
But religious groups have no more predisposition to turn into mobs than non-religious groups driven by racial feeling or political feeling or theories (say, communism), or grievance..
Not all conformity is bad, no?
If I want to drive on the road, I need to conform, don’t I? There are many things institutional religion requires that are conformist in a good way…institutional religion tells us to subject our intuitive moral judgments to external critique when they go against conventional morality i.e. when my nonconformist intuition tells me I should blow someone’s head off, institutionalized, conventional religion would suggest that I think twice about something that goes against an external religious dictate (as in, thou shalt not kill) as well as a rational ethical requirement (the categorical imperative) as well as convention….
Again, we have to be careful not to reduce everything to good-bad, black-white categories..
conformism is good in some ways…bad in others
Lila,
Guilty as charged: I do tend to generalize and lump together, as we all do. But I do see the kernel of something VERY different in Zen. And that’s the here-and-now mindset. Notice I omitted the Buddhism part from Zen…which, of course, is poor form when dealing with religions. But I can’t help but wonder what Zen might have looked like if the (seemingly ubiquitous) hat-wearers and scarlet-robed monks hadn’t twisted the Buddha’s gorgeous concept into Buddhism, with all its standard religious icons and paraphernalia and heroes and villians.
Nevertheless…it’s the here-and-now aspect of pure unadulterated Zen, sans the Buddhism trappings, which I believe is the tiny little vole amongst the brontosauruses and megalodons of modern religion. Someday there’ll be a cataclysmic paradigm-changing event that will signal the end of the reign of religion-as-we-know-it, and it’ll be the little vole that crawls out of its nest to carry on the evolution of religio-philosophical thought….as the dinosaurs perish one by one.
Am I invested in any way at all in this hopeful theory? No. It’s WAY too far off in the future, geo-religiously speaking. But Zen-without-the-Buddhism thing seems to be working just fine for me…right here and right now.
Hopefully,
Jeff
???????????? ?????? ???? ???? ? ???? ?????, ??? ?? ??? ? ? ????? ?????. ??????????? ?????