Oh God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe says, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God says, "No." Abe says, "What?"
God says, "You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin' you better run"
Well Abe says, "Where do you want this killin' done?"
God says, "Out on Highway 61."
-- Bob Dylan, Highway 61, Copyright © 1965; renewed 1993 Special Rider Music
....................................................................................
Introduction
I wanted to write two essays on 'The God Testing Abraham Story' from the Bible. One was going to be an 'epistemological' analysis of the story (it's likely truth value), the second, an 'ethical' analysis (Abraham's ethical crisis and how he should have behaved). However, when bringing up the story on the internet, I found the essay below, written by Dan Clendenin, that addressed many of the issues that I was going to write about, including both the epistemological and the ethical issues inherent in the story, and including also a discussion of Kierkgaard's book, 'Fear and Trembling', which was dedicated to a discussion and an analysis of the same subject matter. This, I also wanted to discuss.
I liked much of the Clendenin essay but was not satisfied with his ending -- was not even satisfied with Kierkegaard's analysis and playout of 4 possible scenarios in The God Testing Abraham Story.
So what I have decided to do instead is to add both my own pre-script and post-script editorials to Dan Clendenan's very comprehensive -- but in my eyes, partly incomplete -- essay on the God and Abraham Story. Let's start with the pre-script.
A DGB Pre-Script Editorial to Dan Clendenin's Essay On 'The God Testing Abraham Story'
Today, if a criminal act is comitted, we lock up people (either in jail or in a psychciatric institution) who say, 'God made me do it.'
And yet in 'The God Testing Abraham Story', some people -- many, many religous people look upon Abraham's apparent willingness to commit the most loathful, unethical and illegal of crimes as a supreme act of relgious faith to God. The ultimate sacrifice to God -- or at least a willingness to carry it out.
It is this type of unconditional, authoritative religous faith -- the type that defies logic, reason, and most of all, humanistic ethics -- that is the challenge of this essay. Perhaps even God can be wrong. Or perhaps there is another possible analytic interpretation to this story that is not mentioned in either Kierkegaard's famous book, 'Fear and Trembling', or Dan Clendenin's essay as included below.
My thesis is simply this: humanistic ethics should always over-rule authoritative religion, or worded differently, humanistic ethics and religion should always walk hand in hand with each other; co-operating with each other, not colliding with each other. This is the primary difference between what I call 'humanistic-existential' religion and 'authoritative, faith-and-fear-based' religion. Humanistic-existential religion does not defy common-sense epistemology, logic, reason, science, and ethics whereas authoritative, unconditional faith-based religion often does.
This is why I view all humanistic based religions -- and there can be many different types or denominations of them -- as bridging the gap, the chasm, between science and religion, between politics and religion, and between law and religion whereas authoritative, faith-and-fear-based religions often don't. Authoritative, faith-and-fear-based religions often expect us to believe the unbelievable, and to do the unethical, even commit horrific, unethical and illegal acts (suicide bombers being the perfect example, and worse, their pathological leaders).
We need to draw a line in the sand where athoritative-and-fear-base religion should never negatively trespass and transgress into the area of humanistic rights, laws, and politics. This distinction is critically important in a time of religion-turning-politics-into-war. I am talking about armed 'Jihad' missions -- and/or any other form of religious statement that instigates war and/or violence regardless of the particular religious denomination that seeks to justify it. Religion should never be about war nor should any statements about war ever be connected to the name of God. War is a man-made commodity -- the product of human righteousness, greed, selfishness, and narcissism -- it is not about God or religion, at least any 'humanistic' type that I subscribe to. Religion is about minimimizing if not eliminating war and violence; not exasperating it. War is about politics and economics -- and religion should at all times be aimed at reducing the human tragedy of war and violence; again not adding more fuel to the fire. Religions that seek to justify and/or instigate war in my opinion are pathological religions; not humanistic ones.
Humanistic religions are healthy forms of religion in that they subsribe to humanisti ethics -- regardless of their particular denomination or whether they are institutionalized or not, whereas authoritarian, faith-and-fear-based religions can at their worst -- be very sociologically, psychologically, ethically, and legally pathological. They often will exasperate war, violence, either/or righteousness, narcissism, and or the reverse -- self-suppression and self-denial to a point that is not humanistically healthy.
Now, these statements obviously beg the debate: 'What is humanistic ethics, and what are the particular ingredients of it?' On this, there wiil never be any clear agreement, any clear definition. It is beyond the scope of this paper to get into any discussion of this type...see my section on ethics when I write it if you will...However, a good place to start might be any democratic bill of rights such as laid down by the United Nations, the American Constituion, and Canada's Constitution although Trudeau's patriation (1982) of it which is official Canadian law now has some serious interpretive problems with it relative to promoting reverse-preferentialism and reverse-discrimination. These need to be confronted and addressed at a future date.
In a sentence, nobody has the right to speak for God -- no priest, no minister, not even the Pope -- everyone speaks for himself or herself, everyone is responsible for his or her own actions, his or her own ethics, and his or her own religious or non-religious sentiment including his or her own interpretation of God (or the absence of God).
In the words, of The York Regional Police around here: 'Deeds Speak' (Louder Than God) -- my brackets -- and saying that 'God told you to do it' just does not cut it in the name of the law and in the name of humanistic ethics.
Again, everyone has the right to interpret his or her own particular meaning of God and religion -- but this is quite different than proclaiming that you are speaking in the name of God -- which unless it is done with humor and non-seriousness -- can be epistemologically and ethically pathological. Speak for yourself, don't speak for God!
Words of philosophicla wisdom over top of a bathroom urinal:
'God is dead!' -- Nietzsche
'Nietzsche is dead! -- God
That is what I mean by using God's name with humor.
Everything stated religously must be analyzed and judged based on its ethical content. Religious statements that involve epistemological assertions, in my opinion should usually be not taken seriously unless they affect ethics. In my opinion, the Bible should be treated mythologically -- no different than if it was 'The Iliad' written by Homer. We look at the ancient Greek and Roman gods as representing 'myths' -- Zeus, Apollo, Dionysius, Aphrodite, and the like. Well, why should we view today's 'God' or 'Gods' as being any different?
Enough of the pre-script. Let us move on to Dan Clendenin's essay about The Testing of Abraham by God.
DGB, Nov. 16-20th, 2007.
.....................................................................................
The Journey with Jesus: Notes to Myself
Reflections By Dan Clendenin
Essay posted 20 June 2005
When God Tested Abraham
For Sunday June 26, 2005
Lectionary Readings (Revised Common Lectionary, Year A)
Genesis 22:1–14 or Jeremiah 28:5–9
Psalm 13 or Psalm 89:1–4, 15–18
Romans 6:12–23
Matthew 10:40–42
Abraham sacrifices Isaac,
marble statue by
Donatello (1418).
The lectionary for this week takes us to one of the most important, most famous, and most famously disturbing passages in the entire Bible, the gist of which resides in just two verses. "Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, 'Abraham!' 'Here I am,' he replied. Then God said, 'Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about'" (Genesis 22:1–2). Few Scriptures, Jewish or Christian, have provoked more art and anguish, more controversy and commentary, than Abraham's radical obedience to God's command to sacrifice his son Isaac.
Abraham lied when he told the Egyptians that Sarah was his sister (Genesis 12:10ff). He fathered a proxy progeny (Ishmael) with his slave girl Hagar (Genesis 16). He laughed with Sarah in disbelief when God promised them a son in their old age (Genesis 17:17; 18:12ff). This nomadic believer who had left the known of Haran for the unknown of Canaan because he believed that God had commanded him to do so that He might bless all people on earth through him—this same Abraham now faced a preposterous, twofold test of faith. First, he had to believe that God really had commanded him to slit the throat of his son, his only son and the son of promise (Genesis 21:12), and then burn him in an act of child sacrifice. Further, he had to act upon that conviction and perform the hideous act.
Abraham sacrifices Isaac,
Catholic German Bible (1534).
In Fear and Trembling (1843), one of the most provocative treatments of this passage, the Danish writer Soren Kierkegaard (1813–1855) devoted an entire book to this story. He recalls how he heard this Bible story as a child, and how the older he got the more his admiration and enthusiasm for the story grew, while the less and less he understood it. He puts himself in Abraham's shoes, as it were, and shudders as he contemplates what Abraham might have thought and felt. He imagines four different scenarios.
In version 1.0 Isaac lunges at Abraham's legs and begs for his life. When he looks at his father face, his "gaze was wild, his whole being was sheer terror." Abraham rebukes Isaac and screams, "Do you think it is God's command? No it is my desire." Abraham then prays softly, "Lord God in heaven, I thank you; it is better that he believes me a monster than that he should lose faith in you." Here Abraham tries to "protect" God by blaming himself for the atrocious command. At least this way Isaac will not construe God as a monster.
Abraham and Isaac by
Marc Chagall (1931).
In version 2.0 Abraham and Isaac journey in total silence. At Moriah Abraham builds the altar and wields the knife, then at the last minute God provides a ram in Isaac's place. In fact, this is how the Genesis narrative unfolds, but then Kierkegaard ads a twist by imagining the consequences. Abraham obeyed and Isaac was preserved, but the father is deeply traumatized and psychologically scarred for the remainder of his life. "He could not forget that God had ordered him to do this...His eyes were darkened and he saw joy no more." In this scenario we wonder about the lifelong consequences to Abraham's faith, not to mention his very humanity. In his act of faith did he lose his faith?
If in version 2.0 human memory haunts Abraham, in version 3.0 Kierkegaard highlights his tragic regret, agony and incomprehension at having committed an unthinkable murder. What could he have been thinking to kill his own son?! Abraham "threw himself down on his face, he prayed to God to forgive him his sin, that he had been willing to sacrifice Isaac, that the father had forgotten his duty to his son." Surely it is the universal, ethical duty for parents to love their children and not to murder them?! Here Kierkegaard imagines that Abraham concludes that he wrongly believed that God told him to murder Isaac.
Icon of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac,
Monastery of Stavroniketa
(Greek Orthodox, 16th century).
Version 4.0 concocts an entirely different scenario, in which Abraham suffers a failure of nerve, an explicit act of disobedience, or conversely a return to his senses and sensibility. At any rate, in this rendition, Abraham fails to act. He cannot bring himself to slay Isaac, and as a consequence Isaac loses his faith. "Not a word of this is ever said in the world, and Isaac never talked to anyone about what he had seen, and Abraham did not suspect that anyone had seen." I love how Kierkegaard then concludes his four imaginary scenarios: "Thus and in many similar ways did the man of whom we speak ponder this event." That must stand as the Bible's greatest understatement.
In sum, Abraham faced at least four inter-related challenges to believing the command of God and then acting upon that belief. First, he would have been entirely reasonable to conclude that he was being deceived by malign influences—sickness, demons, hallucinations, infirmities of his old age, etc., and that the visions and voices that he heard originated not with a loving God but from a temptation of the worst, evil sort. If that was the case, he would have "obeyed" by dismissing the voices as delusions. Similarly, we can imagine praising Abraham if he concluded that he somehow deceived himself through religious zealotry couched in pious platitudes. Today we invoke this rationale to condemn in the harshest terms suicide bombers in Israel and Iraq, or Christians who bomb abortion clinics, all who claim that God told them to commit some atrocity. Third, at a simple, rational level, the command of God challenged Abraham to embrace the absurd, the irrational, or the unintelligible. What sense does it make to murder the son of promise through whom God had promised to bless all the earth? Fourth, Abraham had to transcend normal ethical expectations. Good parents love and nourish their children, they do not murder them in religiously-inspired violence and claim that "God told me to do it."
Abraham sacrifices Isaac,
by Rembrandt (1635).
Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac is one of those passages in Scripture that will always remain opaque; I doubt that any interpretation will fully satisfy us. It provokes so many questions. What are we to make of a God who commands child sacrifice? Might God ask me to do something similar today? How would we respond to a believer who invoked this passage to abort her baby as an act of obedience to what she heard as God's command? Does the Bible sanction religious violence? Should we listen to our community when they advise us that we are deceived and deceiving, or trump them by invoking the argument that "God told me so?" What about the divine bait-and-switch in this passage, where God asks Abraham to do the incomprehensible, and then at the last minute provides an alternative? This is Kierkegaard's version 2.0 that smacks of psychic torture (recall Dostoyevsky's last minute reprieve from the firing squad). How could Abraham possibly have known whether Isaac would be spared (as it so happened), whether he might kill Isaac only to have God raise him from the dead (the interpretation of Hebrews 11:17–19), or whether God might have him murder Isaac only to provide him with yet a third son of promise after Ishmael and Isaac?
He could not have known the answers to these questions in advance, and I take that simple observation as an important theme of the story. Abraham had to act as a solitary individual, with no guarantees or clarity, knowing that he might be horribly wrong and deeply deceived by himself or others, knowing that his actions would merit the opprobrium of his family and community, knowing that his act would be irreversible, and contrary to everyday standards of ethics and rationality. In his radical obedience, Abraham "worked out his salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12–13), with palpable dread and humility, before a God who asks everything, absolutely everything, of us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A DGB Post-Script
The God testing Abraham story is a 'pathological' story. This is the type of story that one might expect to read in 'The Iliad' or 'The Odyssey'. In these two 'mythological' books the Greek gods acted more like people -- running the whole gamut of emotions and behavior that we have come to expect from people both at their best and at their worst.
In contrast, religions today -- and I would view these as no less 'mythologically oriented' than the religions of two and three thousand years ago --- tend to idealize one God -- and associate Him (it is usually viewed as a 'Him') with Absolute Perfection and Goodness -- as opposed to 'Something Else' such as 'Satan' representing 'all bad Godly or anti-Godly behavior'. Thus, God and Satan taken together, represent the twin polarities -- or bi-polarities -- of 'Good' and 'Evil', and give us back some of the 'Godly drama' that the ancient Greeks 'projected' into their religion and which can be read in such mythological books as 'The Iliad' and 'The Odyssey'.
So what are we to make of 'The God Testing Abraham' story? To repeat, it is a 'pathological' story that requires 'accountability' because many, many religious people take this story very seriously. Who are we to make accountable for the pathology in this story? The person who wrote the story? God? Satan? Abraham?
I put my money on the person who wrote the story. Personally, I don't think it reflected a true conversation between God and Abraham. Who on earth would have privy to such a conversation -- including Abraham?
In my opinion, it can be -- indeed is -- very dangerous to treat the stories in The Bible as being 'epsistemologically true and accurate stories' because this allows people to take 'pathological stories' -- like 'The God Testing Abraham' story -- and make 'pathological interpretations and judgments' from them that can then be applied pathologically by present-day people in present-day real, live situations. And we don't need this kind of 'extra pathology' in an already very pathological, present-day world.
Now, if we treated The Bible like we do The Illiad -- i.e. 'mythologically' and/or like an 'interesting fictional story' -- then we would have none of the nonsense of people making pathological interpretations and judgments from The Bible based on pathological stories such as The God and Abraham story which then might -- and do -- result in pathological present-day behaviors.
If The Bible is treated like a historical work of fiction or a mythological-symbolical piece of work, like The Illiad, and like The Odyssey -- and not interpreted literally -- particularly relative to some of the Bible's more pathological stories, then we would not need to worry so much about 'crazy Biblical interpreatations' leading to 'crazy present day behaviors'. People would not take The Bible so literally and so seriously -- and therefore would not behave 'crazily' based on 'crazy stories' leading to 'crazy interpretations, judgments, and actions'.
At worst, people would view the stories of The Bible as having mythological, metaphorical, and/or symbolic signifance -- but not the type of significance that would 'direct a person to go out in the world and kill somebody'. Pathological behaviors based on 'crazy biblical interpretations' would be reduced if not eliminated altogether. And the author of 'The God Testing Abraham Story' could not be held accountable -- either directly or indirectly -- for any crazy present-day 'Isaac tragedies' where some crazy, misled person sacrifices/slaughters a live child/person -- or even an animal -- in the name of God.
Which brings us to the next point. Let us say, for argument sake, that 'The God Testing Abraham Story' reflected a real state of events -- a real encounter between Abraham and God. What would that make God? Satan in disguise? It certainly would not make God an all-loving, all 'good' God. Because what God was demanding from Abraham was nothing short of murdering his own son. This is the type of behavior that we would be more likely to associate with Satan, not with God.
However, let us assume for a brief and fleeting moment that God did actually demand of Abraham what the story said God demanded of him -- the killing of his own son. Why are we so quick to assume that this was designed by God as the ultimate test of Abraham's 'faith in God' -- and it might be added -- Abraham's ultimate 'submission' to God? Why are we -- or at least many, many relgious people -- to automatically assume that Abraham's willingness to 'sacrifice/slaughter his son' was somehow a 'good quality' in him. That it showed his absolute faith in, and submission to -- God. This was not a 'good quality' at all. It was a deplorable quality. A combination of gullibility, submission, and sado-masochism. It was psycho- and socio-pathology at its worst. It was not an attitude nor a behavior that should be admired at all.
Perhaps -- and I do not really buy into this interpretation but it is a better one than the classic religious one based on a 'test of faith in God' -- God's real test of man was a test of his 'accountability' and 'independence from God'. Perhaps God was testing man to see if he had any 'onions'. To see if God's arguably greatest creation had any independence of thought, ethics, conscience, love, and courage to stand up for himself and what was most important and closest to his heart -- not in heaven -- but on earth. To see if man had any humanity in him -- any humanistic-existentialism in him -- that would stop him from obeying authoritative orders that had no moral conscience or compassion attached to them.
Perhaps this was man's final test of 'authoritative and ethical independence and accountability'. If it was, then man failed miserably. And he is still failing miserably...The issue at stake here between God and man might not be a test of his 'unconditonal faith' at all -- because this can lead man down a blindly destructive and self-destructive path -- but rather the bi-polar pathological human characteristics of: 1. narcissistic abuse of power; and 2. 'unconditional submission to pathological, abusive authority'. Perhaps God's real test in the Abraham and Isaac Story was a test at overcoming this double-sided human weakness which still plagues us today...Man still hasn't passed his final test of 'humanism'.
.....................................................................................
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Recital of A Bob Dylan Classic: With God On Our Side
It needs to be clearly stated here before we start that a 'philosophy of religion' section is not at all the same as section on 'religion'. What do I mean?
What I mean is that a 'philosophy' section has one clear mission in mind: to get to the bottom of the subject it is studying -- in this case 'religion' -- in order to examine the nature and rationality of the underlying assumptions that are at work and play in the study of the subject under investigation. This is true of any subject area -- not just religion. It is true of the philosophy of science, the philosophy of economics, the philosophy of business, the philosophy of law, the philosophy of politics, the philosophy of sports, the philosophy of art, epistemology, ethics, and so on...Philosophers tread -- or at least they should tread if they have sufficient courage -- where other people may fear to go, feel uncomfortable going, feel threatened to go, etc.
For example, one often hears an expression today that goes something like this; 'Don't go there. Its politically incorrect.' Well, that is exactly where a philosopher has to go to find out why it is politically incorrect -- and who's 'gaining' by this political correctness as well as who's 'losing'. In other words, what are the 'narcissistic', 'power', and 'manipulative' dynamics that are work. Who's being 'played'? What's being 'suppressed' and who's being 'oppressed'?
Well, religion works sometimes the same as politics, and sometimes a little differently. But one things is common. Strong emotional biases are often at work -- and some of these biases are beyond reason. In the case of politics, there may be 'money' matters at work. This may be the same with religion. Or with religion, there may be other strong types of emotional biases at work -- issues of 'faith', strong beliefs that have been taught in childhood, or from childhood on, beliefs that often defy 'reason', 'rationality', and 'empiricism'. These are the only legitimate tools that a philosopher has to work with. Without these tools, a philosopher has nothing. He is going into a potential dialogue -- a debate, a dialectic -- with no rhetorical weapons. He or she is like an unarmed soldier going into war.
Now, one might argue that a philosopher should stay out of religion altogether. However, I would counter-argue that when there are hundreds, thousands, millions of people over the course of human history that are being adversely affected by religion -- suppressed, oppressed, ex-communicated, tortured, killed -- somebody has to go into the philosophy of religion, into the potential 'pathology' of religion, to fully analyse the nature, causes, and symptoms of this type of pathology.
This is not to say that there are not many potential 'healthy' components and benefits of religion. Certainly, there are -- or at least they can be. Altruism, love, caring, empathy, generosity, community help, a sense of belonging, a sense of self-security and self-groundedness, help against poverty, alienation, loneliness, addiction, selfishness, self-destruction, serious illness, fear of death...to name a number of potential benefits. I'm sure there are more that I have missed.
A distintion can be made between the 'epistemology' (knowledge) of religion vs. the 'ethics' (values and anti-values) of religion. This is an important distinction because each breeds a different type of potential argument.
The question: 'Does God exist or not exist?' is an epistemological question. It is a question about our state of knowledge in this regard which from a 'rational-empirical' point of view -- is 'insufficient'. (This is the 'agnostic's' position -- that we do not, and cannot, know whether God exists or not because such speculation is beyond the realm of the 'physical evidence' of our 'senses'.) However, if you are a philosopher and start to get into an argument with a 'religious person' on this question, you are probably best to back off and abstain from this type of argument. It could take you into a heated argument with little to no potential gain. Strong emotional bias based on elements of 'faith' usually supersede any type of appeal to reason, logic, and empiricism (knowledge based on our senses).
This is not to say that an argument in favor of the existence of God can't be based on decent to strong reason, logic, and empiricism. The theory of 'intelligent design' is very popular today and with good reason. (I may or may not be right in suggesting that the 'intelligent design' theory arose out of 'deism' -- the belief in God for reasons of logic and rational-empiricism; not for reasons of 'authority' and 'blind faith'.)
The argument for 'intelligent design' theory is very simple; the world is obviously very intelligently designed -- amazingly complicated and sophisticated in its design -- many 'part-functions' coming together in 'differential unity' to serve the goals of the whole organism, the species, and the balance of nature, the world, and the universe. An 'intelligent design' theory implies an 'intelligent designer' the 'Prime Mover', 'the cause behind all causes'. To this some people, many people, are willing to apply the name 'God'.
However, this is more than a bit of an 'epistemolgical, if not mythological leap'. I feed my Beta fish each day. I am much bigger than my Beta fish. Whose to say that if my Beta fish had enough intelligence to 'think like a person' (and whose to say that they don't), then they might be viewing me as 'The Prime Mover', 'the cause behind all causes' -- in short, their 'God'. A Greek God. A Roman God. A Canadian God. Any kind of God. (It sounds pretty good, actually. I like it.) The point here is that perhaps it was simply a 'superior race or species' that created Man; this doesn't necessarily have to entail all of the 'idealistic features' that many people bestow on the (mythological?) figure or figures of 'God' (like 'all knowing' and 'all powerful' and 'never dying'. Maybe my fish think that I am all knowing, all powerfull, and will never die. As Einstein said, 'Everything is relative'.).
Who's to say that some superior race of people are not having a highly sophisticated 'chess game' or 'video game' on their particular planet -- and that game is 'Earth'?
I said I wouldn't get into an epistemological debate about God -- and I still did. This may not have been a well-received argument for the 'strong-willed, religously inclined'.
Religiously inclined politicians should not bring their religous epistemology into their political work, plain and simple. Locke knew that. Jefferson knew that. Any Enlightenment philosopher and/or politician knew that. It's too 'faith-based', 'authority-based', and epistemologically weak, unstable and contentious in this regard. Something is generally (but not always) epistemologically strong if many people can and did see it with their 'eyes'. That is what we call an 'eye-witness'. There is no 'eyewitness to God'. Nor is there any 'ear-witness' to anything God may or may not have said. Preachers keep saying, 'God said this', and 'God says this'. Balderdash. The preacher said or says that -- no more, no less.
Let's get our facts straight and our head on straight.
People love to project -- and in particular, to project all of their self-fantasized ideals onto God. Oftentimes, we do this to new girlfriends or new boyfriends, to new politicians, new sports heros, new music or movie heros...We turn them all into 'fantasy heros' -- until they disappoint us and/or betray us. Then we turn on them like Lady Macbeth turned on her husband. Reality meets idealism. Sometimes but rarely do we confront God with realism -- our family member dying in a tragic accident -- usually we label 'all bad' on the deeds of men; 'all good' on the deeds of God. But not always. Extreme politicians and religous leaders often justify and ratioalize their bad acts, indeed their evil acts, 'in the name of God'...Here 'bad acts' are whitewashed into 'good acts'...
What is important here relative to the health and/or pathology of religion, is 'human rights and values'. As long as these rights and values are not violated, not trangressed, then, hey, believe what you want to believe. Tolerance and flexibility of religion are good things -- not righteously trying to 'kill' your next door neighbor -- or next door religion, or next door ethnic race, or next door country -- because he or she or they does/do not share the same religious beliefs as you.
The rest is perhaps just philosophy being philosophy -- trying to bring reason and empiricism to a ballpark where there often is none.
But finding the 'pathology' in religion and distinguishing this from the 'ethical, humanistic values' in religion -- this analysis and summary report is important. That is the main goal of this section...along with some of the other less important philosophical stuff...philosophy being philosophy for the sake of philosophy.
dgb, Oct. 25th, 2007.
With God On Our Side -- By Bob Dylan
Oh my name it is nothin'
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I's taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And that land that I live in
Has God on its side.
Oh the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side.
Oh the Spanish-American
War had its day
And the Civil War too
Was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes
I's made to memorize
With guns in their hands
And God on their side.
Oh the First World War, boys
It closed out its fate
The reason for fighting
I never got straight
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead
When God's on your side.
When the Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now too
Have God on their side.
I've learned to hate Russians
All through my whole life
If another war starts
It's them we must fight
To hate them and fear them
To run and to hide
And accept it all bravely
With God on my side.
But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side.
In a many dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.
So now as I'm leavin'
I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin'
Ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If God's on our side
He'll stop the next war.
Copyright © 1963; renewed 1991 Special Rider Music
.....................................................................................
What I mean is that a 'philosophy' section has one clear mission in mind: to get to the bottom of the subject it is studying -- in this case 'religion' -- in order to examine the nature and rationality of the underlying assumptions that are at work and play in the study of the subject under investigation. This is true of any subject area -- not just religion. It is true of the philosophy of science, the philosophy of economics, the philosophy of business, the philosophy of law, the philosophy of politics, the philosophy of sports, the philosophy of art, epistemology, ethics, and so on...Philosophers tread -- or at least they should tread if they have sufficient courage -- where other people may fear to go, feel uncomfortable going, feel threatened to go, etc.
For example, one often hears an expression today that goes something like this; 'Don't go there. Its politically incorrect.' Well, that is exactly where a philosopher has to go to find out why it is politically incorrect -- and who's 'gaining' by this political correctness as well as who's 'losing'. In other words, what are the 'narcissistic', 'power', and 'manipulative' dynamics that are work. Who's being 'played'? What's being 'suppressed' and who's being 'oppressed'?
Well, religion works sometimes the same as politics, and sometimes a little differently. But one things is common. Strong emotional biases are often at work -- and some of these biases are beyond reason. In the case of politics, there may be 'money' matters at work. This may be the same with religion. Or with religion, there may be other strong types of emotional biases at work -- issues of 'faith', strong beliefs that have been taught in childhood, or from childhood on, beliefs that often defy 'reason', 'rationality', and 'empiricism'. These are the only legitimate tools that a philosopher has to work with. Without these tools, a philosopher has nothing. He is going into a potential dialogue -- a debate, a dialectic -- with no rhetorical weapons. He or she is like an unarmed soldier going into war.
Now, one might argue that a philosopher should stay out of religion altogether. However, I would counter-argue that when there are hundreds, thousands, millions of people over the course of human history that are being adversely affected by religion -- suppressed, oppressed, ex-communicated, tortured, killed -- somebody has to go into the philosophy of religion, into the potential 'pathology' of religion, to fully analyse the nature, causes, and symptoms of this type of pathology.
This is not to say that there are not many potential 'healthy' components and benefits of religion. Certainly, there are -- or at least they can be. Altruism, love, caring, empathy, generosity, community help, a sense of belonging, a sense of self-security and self-groundedness, help against poverty, alienation, loneliness, addiction, selfishness, self-destruction, serious illness, fear of death...to name a number of potential benefits. I'm sure there are more that I have missed.
A distintion can be made between the 'epistemology' (knowledge) of religion vs. the 'ethics' (values and anti-values) of religion. This is an important distinction because each breeds a different type of potential argument.
The question: 'Does God exist or not exist?' is an epistemological question. It is a question about our state of knowledge in this regard which from a 'rational-empirical' point of view -- is 'insufficient'. (This is the 'agnostic's' position -- that we do not, and cannot, know whether God exists or not because such speculation is beyond the realm of the 'physical evidence' of our 'senses'.) However, if you are a philosopher and start to get into an argument with a 'religious person' on this question, you are probably best to back off and abstain from this type of argument. It could take you into a heated argument with little to no potential gain. Strong emotional bias based on elements of 'faith' usually supersede any type of appeal to reason, logic, and empiricism (knowledge based on our senses).
This is not to say that an argument in favor of the existence of God can't be based on decent to strong reason, logic, and empiricism. The theory of 'intelligent design' is very popular today and with good reason. (I may or may not be right in suggesting that the 'intelligent design' theory arose out of 'deism' -- the belief in God for reasons of logic and rational-empiricism; not for reasons of 'authority' and 'blind faith'.)
The argument for 'intelligent design' theory is very simple; the world is obviously very intelligently designed -- amazingly complicated and sophisticated in its design -- many 'part-functions' coming together in 'differential unity' to serve the goals of the whole organism, the species, and the balance of nature, the world, and the universe. An 'intelligent design' theory implies an 'intelligent designer' the 'Prime Mover', 'the cause behind all causes'. To this some people, many people, are willing to apply the name 'God'.
However, this is more than a bit of an 'epistemolgical, if not mythological leap'. I feed my Beta fish each day. I am much bigger than my Beta fish. Whose to say that if my Beta fish had enough intelligence to 'think like a person' (and whose to say that they don't), then they might be viewing me as 'The Prime Mover', 'the cause behind all causes' -- in short, their 'God'. A Greek God. A Roman God. A Canadian God. Any kind of God. (It sounds pretty good, actually. I like it.) The point here is that perhaps it was simply a 'superior race or species' that created Man; this doesn't necessarily have to entail all of the 'idealistic features' that many people bestow on the (mythological?) figure or figures of 'God' (like 'all knowing' and 'all powerful' and 'never dying'. Maybe my fish think that I am all knowing, all powerfull, and will never die. As Einstein said, 'Everything is relative'.).
Who's to say that some superior race of people are not having a highly sophisticated 'chess game' or 'video game' on their particular planet -- and that game is 'Earth'?
I said I wouldn't get into an epistemological debate about God -- and I still did. This may not have been a well-received argument for the 'strong-willed, religously inclined'.
Religiously inclined politicians should not bring their religous epistemology into their political work, plain and simple. Locke knew that. Jefferson knew that. Any Enlightenment philosopher and/or politician knew that. It's too 'faith-based', 'authority-based', and epistemologically weak, unstable and contentious in this regard. Something is generally (but not always) epistemologically strong if many people can and did see it with their 'eyes'. That is what we call an 'eye-witness'. There is no 'eyewitness to God'. Nor is there any 'ear-witness' to anything God may or may not have said. Preachers keep saying, 'God said this', and 'God says this'. Balderdash. The preacher said or says that -- no more, no less.
Let's get our facts straight and our head on straight.
People love to project -- and in particular, to project all of their self-fantasized ideals onto God. Oftentimes, we do this to new girlfriends or new boyfriends, to new politicians, new sports heros, new music or movie heros...We turn them all into 'fantasy heros' -- until they disappoint us and/or betray us. Then we turn on them like Lady Macbeth turned on her husband. Reality meets idealism. Sometimes but rarely do we confront God with realism -- our family member dying in a tragic accident -- usually we label 'all bad' on the deeds of men; 'all good' on the deeds of God. But not always. Extreme politicians and religous leaders often justify and ratioalize their bad acts, indeed their evil acts, 'in the name of God'...Here 'bad acts' are whitewashed into 'good acts'...
What is important here relative to the health and/or pathology of religion, is 'human rights and values'. As long as these rights and values are not violated, not trangressed, then, hey, believe what you want to believe. Tolerance and flexibility of religion are good things -- not righteously trying to 'kill' your next door neighbor -- or next door religion, or next door ethnic race, or next door country -- because he or she or they does/do not share the same religious beliefs as you.
The rest is perhaps just philosophy being philosophy -- trying to bring reason and empiricism to a ballpark where there often is none.
But finding the 'pathology' in religion and distinguishing this from the 'ethical, humanistic values' in religion -- this analysis and summary report is important. That is the main goal of this section...along with some of the other less important philosophical stuff...philosophy being philosophy for the sake of philosophy.
dgb, Oct. 25th, 2007.
With God On Our Side -- By Bob Dylan
Oh my name it is nothin'
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I's taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And that land that I live in
Has God on its side.
Oh the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side.
Oh the Spanish-American
War had its day
And the Civil War too
Was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes
I's made to memorize
With guns in their hands
And God on their side.
Oh the First World War, boys
It closed out its fate
The reason for fighting
I never got straight
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead
When God's on your side.
When the Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now too
Have God on their side.
I've learned to hate Russians
All through my whole life
If another war starts
It's them we must fight
To hate them and fear them
To run and to hide
And accept it all bravely
With God on my side.
But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side.
In a many dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.
So now as I'm leavin'
I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin'
Ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If God's on our side
He'll stop the next war.
Copyright © 1963; renewed 1991 Special Rider Music
.....................................................................................
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Authoritarian Religion vs. Humanistic-Existential Religion
Religion can be the life-blood for many; the death-blood for many others. It all depends on individual and group context. When I think of the 'lifeblood' of religion, I think of Mother Teresa and the incredible humanistic work she did under the umbrella of 'God and religion' in the poorest regions of India. I think of anyone and everyone who has taken a similar path -- even in a much lesser role because who else can live up to Mother Teresa's 'one of a kind' standards of human love and compassion. In this sense, I think of all the wonderful things that religion has accomplished, and can accomplish, through particular individuals and groups of people, in the name of humanity, peace, compassion, caring, altruism, and love.
However, at the same time, one also has to look at both sides of the equation. Religion has also been responsible for some of the greatest atrocities and numbers of tortures and deaths in the history of mankind. Almost all groups of religions have been affected at some point in human history: the Christians (being thrown to the lions, the Armenian Holocaust); the Jews (victims of the Spanish Inquisition and the Nazi Holocaust to name only two of the worst).
Religion is literally a life and death matter when it comes to talking about all of human history and evolution, including the present and the future. How do we sort out this crazy mixture of human religion, altruism, love, ethics, narcissism, righteous extremism, violence, torture, and religously/racially motivated murder, even genocide?
When trying to sort out the relative 'health' or 'pathology' of a religion, many questions need to be asked such as: What religion? What are the ethics of the particular religion? Who's teaching it? Who's learning it? How is it being interpreted? How is it being practised? How balanced is it? Is the leader compassionate towards people? Is he or she congruent in his or her teachings? Or ideologically hypocritical? Is the leader's lifestlye congruent with his or her teachings? Or is it all a fascade? A sham? A smoke and mirrors, dog and pony show?
Religion can help to make us happy, healthy, and balanced in our approach to life -- relative to both our philosophy and our lifestyle. Or it can have the opposite effect. Everything depends on individual and group context -- and in particular, the ethics of the religion, how this ethics is being taught, how it is being interpreted, and how it is being practised.
Just because you are a very religious person does not mean that you are necessarily happy and healthy. And similarly, neither does being an atheist (a person who doesn't believe in God) necessarily guarantee good health either. Nor being a pantheist (believes in the equivalence of God and Nature). Nor being a deist (believes in God but for more secular and empirical reasons than 'scripture', 'revelation', 'miracles' and 'authoritarianism'). Nor being an agnostic (proclaims -- with sound logic in my opinion -- not to have enough verifiable knowledge to believe in either the existence or non-existence of God).
The key to understanding a person's relative health or pathology, which includes integrity vs. non-integrity -- all else being equal (economics, freedom, and other external factors not withstanding) -- is his or her ethical system and the degree to which he or she is actually practising it as opposed to making a mockery out of it.
A case also can be made for the content of a person's 'epistemology' (knowledge). Good epistemology is also imperative to a person's good health.
Thus, we can isolate three factors that are all imperative to a person's good health: 1. good epistemology; 2. good ethics; and 3. good executive and congruent action based on good epistemology and good ethics.
If these three factors are present in a person's life -- good epistemology, good ethics, and good action -- then it fundamentally is irrelevant whether the person is religious or non-religious, or what type of God or Gods they worship or don't worship -- whether they be a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Judist, or a Hinduist, or a Budhist, or a pantheist, or a deist, or an agnostic, or an atheist...
Let's summarize what we've learned so far.
1. Context (both group and individual) is imperative for understanding the relative health and/or pathology of any religion -- regardless of what it calls itself and how much credibility and/or non-credibility it may have. There can be no proper understanding of meaning without a proper understanding of context. (I learned that from General Semantics -- Alfred Korzybski and S.I. Hayakawa).
2. All else being equal, good mental health equals good epistemology, good ethics, and good (congruent) action, regardless of a person's religious or non-religous status.
Unfortunately, this does not allow for environmental-social-economic-political factors and what Erich Fromm called a 'pathology of normalcy'. The issue here becomes 'How much does a person perceive that he or she needs to bend and/or break his or her good epistemology, good ethics, and/or good action in order to 'fit into' the context of a pathological society and/or subset of society (for example, a righteously extremist religion, a narcissisticaly corrupt government and/or business corporation, and/or any narcissistically unethical sub-group of society such as a 'street gang')?
Thus, the same three factors that can be used to judge whether an individual person is healthy or not can and should be used to determine the relative health of any social/cultural institution: religious, political, legal, economic, business, etc.
Now I have put together a list of 6 factors that are totally relevant to 'ethical health'. Epistemological factors will have to be discussed at a later date.
These six factors make up the core essence of DGB Philosophy -- particularly, its ethical component. They are:
1, Congruence: What you say is what you mean, and what you mean is what you say.
2. Dialectical Negotiation and Integration: You work with people in areas of conflict to either accept each other's differences and/or to work to resolve the conflict in a way that is democratically fair to both.
3. Democracy: Based on principles of ethical and legal fairness, reciprocal relations, equal rights, congruence, homeostatic balance, a mixture of narcissism and altruism, self-assertiveness and social sensitivity, freedom of speech and belief, and humanistic-existential values.
4. Homeostatic Balance: This is the key to understanding all health and all ethics in Nature -- whether it be philosophical, biological, psychological, cultural, social, legal, economic, political...The fleeting homeostatic goal is to find a healthy, happy 'medium' or 'middle ground' between 'not enough' and 'too much'...
5. Humanistic: Compassionate, socially sensitive, caring, loving, generous, kind...
6. Existential: Pertaining to freedom, self-assertiveness, 'freedom of philosophy and lifestyle within a parameter of social senstivity, responsibility, and accountability...
These are the core ethical factors that make up DGB Philosophy -- with or without religion.
Now, as pertains to religion, and the application and priority of these ethical values -- some critical choices and decisions need to be made that separate the healthy religion from the unhealthy religion, and the healthy religious person from the unhealthy one.
Spefically, the choice needs to be made: Which is of higher priority -- 'scripture', 'revelation' and 'miracles'? Or the ethical values listed above?
I say the ethical values listed above. That is what makes me a humanistic-existentialist first and foremost. Religion has the choice of either making its values consistent and congruent with humanistic-existential values. Or not.
Thus, an important distinction needs to be made here. We need to judge the qualtiy of a religion by the qualtiy of the ethical values it subscribes too; not the other way around. In other words, an ethical value should be judged by its relevance to 'harmonious human relations' or 'homeostatic humanistic-existentialism'; not by its etiology in the religion it comes from, including any type of 'scripture' and/or alleged 'revelation' that it is purported to come from without any type of skepticism pertaining to the legitimacy of this so called 'revelation'. Revelation and humanistic-existentialism epistemologically do not get along. Humanistic-existentialism is highly suspect of any type of so-called 'revelation'.
Let us say that again. The strength of a religion is the ethical system it teaches -- and practices; not the reverse -- that the strength of an ethical system should be based on the religion, the scripture, and the alleged revelation that it comes from.
This then, is where religion and humanistic-existentialism can part company. They don't have to but they can and often do part company on the double issue of: 1. authoritarian epistemology vs. rational-empirical epistemology; and 2. authoritarian ethics vs. rational-empirical ethics. Thus, at this point, a critical distinction needs to be made 'authoriatarian' religion and 'humanistic-existential' religion.
The first can take us into serious human pathology -- issues of 'dominance/submission' and 'sado-masochism'; whereas the second can lead us to, and/or keep us in, good health. The first demands that we give up our mind in order to practise our faith; the second demands that we keep our mind, our independence, our freedom, our skepticism, our rational empiricism -- in short, our humanistic-existentialism -- and that this is our faith, nothing more, nothing less. The first can be the death-blood of both religion and man; the second is the life-blood of both religion and man.
In the remainder of this section, we will examine: 1. the 'epistemology' of religion; 2. the 'ethics' of religion; 3. the 'mythology' of religion; 4. the 'pragmatism' of religion; 5. the 'humanistic-existentialism' and particularly the 'altruism' in religion; and 6. the potential for pathology in religion.
An example is needed right now for some of the ideas I have written about.
In the next two essays, I will 'deconstruct' and 'reconstruct' the 'God, Abraham, and The Binding of Isaac' parable in the Bible in order to illustrate the difference between an authoritarian perspective in religion and my DGB humanistic-existential perspective.
Please join me there.
dgb, October 21st-22nd, 2007.
However, at the same time, one also has to look at both sides of the equation. Religion has also been responsible for some of the greatest atrocities and numbers of tortures and deaths in the history of mankind. Almost all groups of religions have been affected at some point in human history: the Christians (being thrown to the lions, the Armenian Holocaust); the Jews (victims of the Spanish Inquisition and the Nazi Holocaust to name only two of the worst).
Religion is literally a life and death matter when it comes to talking about all of human history and evolution, including the present and the future. How do we sort out this crazy mixture of human religion, altruism, love, ethics, narcissism, righteous extremism, violence, torture, and religously/racially motivated murder, even genocide?
When trying to sort out the relative 'health' or 'pathology' of a religion, many questions need to be asked such as: What religion? What are the ethics of the particular religion? Who's teaching it? Who's learning it? How is it being interpreted? How is it being practised? How balanced is it? Is the leader compassionate towards people? Is he or she congruent in his or her teachings? Or ideologically hypocritical? Is the leader's lifestlye congruent with his or her teachings? Or is it all a fascade? A sham? A smoke and mirrors, dog and pony show?
Religion can help to make us happy, healthy, and balanced in our approach to life -- relative to both our philosophy and our lifestyle. Or it can have the opposite effect. Everything depends on individual and group context -- and in particular, the ethics of the religion, how this ethics is being taught, how it is being interpreted, and how it is being practised.
Just because you are a very religious person does not mean that you are necessarily happy and healthy. And similarly, neither does being an atheist (a person who doesn't believe in God) necessarily guarantee good health either. Nor being a pantheist (believes in the equivalence of God and Nature). Nor being a deist (believes in God but for more secular and empirical reasons than 'scripture', 'revelation', 'miracles' and 'authoritarianism'). Nor being an agnostic (proclaims -- with sound logic in my opinion -- not to have enough verifiable knowledge to believe in either the existence or non-existence of God).
The key to understanding a person's relative health or pathology, which includes integrity vs. non-integrity -- all else being equal (economics, freedom, and other external factors not withstanding) -- is his or her ethical system and the degree to which he or she is actually practising it as opposed to making a mockery out of it.
A case also can be made for the content of a person's 'epistemology' (knowledge). Good epistemology is also imperative to a person's good health.
Thus, we can isolate three factors that are all imperative to a person's good health: 1. good epistemology; 2. good ethics; and 3. good executive and congruent action based on good epistemology and good ethics.
If these three factors are present in a person's life -- good epistemology, good ethics, and good action -- then it fundamentally is irrelevant whether the person is religious or non-religious, or what type of God or Gods they worship or don't worship -- whether they be a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Judist, or a Hinduist, or a Budhist, or a pantheist, or a deist, or an agnostic, or an atheist...
Let's summarize what we've learned so far.
1. Context (both group and individual) is imperative for understanding the relative health and/or pathology of any religion -- regardless of what it calls itself and how much credibility and/or non-credibility it may have. There can be no proper understanding of meaning without a proper understanding of context. (I learned that from General Semantics -- Alfred Korzybski and S.I. Hayakawa).
2. All else being equal, good mental health equals good epistemology, good ethics, and good (congruent) action, regardless of a person's religious or non-religous status.
Unfortunately, this does not allow for environmental-social-economic-political factors and what Erich Fromm called a 'pathology of normalcy'. The issue here becomes 'How much does a person perceive that he or she needs to bend and/or break his or her good epistemology, good ethics, and/or good action in order to 'fit into' the context of a pathological society and/or subset of society (for example, a righteously extremist religion, a narcissisticaly corrupt government and/or business corporation, and/or any narcissistically unethical sub-group of society such as a 'street gang')?
Thus, the same three factors that can be used to judge whether an individual person is healthy or not can and should be used to determine the relative health of any social/cultural institution: religious, political, legal, economic, business, etc.
Now I have put together a list of 6 factors that are totally relevant to 'ethical health'. Epistemological factors will have to be discussed at a later date.
These six factors make up the core essence of DGB Philosophy -- particularly, its ethical component. They are:
1, Congruence: What you say is what you mean, and what you mean is what you say.
2. Dialectical Negotiation and Integration: You work with people in areas of conflict to either accept each other's differences and/or to work to resolve the conflict in a way that is democratically fair to both.
3. Democracy: Based on principles of ethical and legal fairness, reciprocal relations, equal rights, congruence, homeostatic balance, a mixture of narcissism and altruism, self-assertiveness and social sensitivity, freedom of speech and belief, and humanistic-existential values.
4. Homeostatic Balance: This is the key to understanding all health and all ethics in Nature -- whether it be philosophical, biological, psychological, cultural, social, legal, economic, political...The fleeting homeostatic goal is to find a healthy, happy 'medium' or 'middle ground' between 'not enough' and 'too much'...
5. Humanistic: Compassionate, socially sensitive, caring, loving, generous, kind...
6. Existential: Pertaining to freedom, self-assertiveness, 'freedom of philosophy and lifestyle within a parameter of social senstivity, responsibility, and accountability...
These are the core ethical factors that make up DGB Philosophy -- with or without religion.
Now, as pertains to religion, and the application and priority of these ethical values -- some critical choices and decisions need to be made that separate the healthy religion from the unhealthy religion, and the healthy religious person from the unhealthy one.
Spefically, the choice needs to be made: Which is of higher priority -- 'scripture', 'revelation' and 'miracles'? Or the ethical values listed above?
I say the ethical values listed above. That is what makes me a humanistic-existentialist first and foremost. Religion has the choice of either making its values consistent and congruent with humanistic-existential values. Or not.
Thus, an important distinction needs to be made here. We need to judge the qualtiy of a religion by the qualtiy of the ethical values it subscribes too; not the other way around. In other words, an ethical value should be judged by its relevance to 'harmonious human relations' or 'homeostatic humanistic-existentialism'; not by its etiology in the religion it comes from, including any type of 'scripture' and/or alleged 'revelation' that it is purported to come from without any type of skepticism pertaining to the legitimacy of this so called 'revelation'. Revelation and humanistic-existentialism epistemologically do not get along. Humanistic-existentialism is highly suspect of any type of so-called 'revelation'.
Let us say that again. The strength of a religion is the ethical system it teaches -- and practices; not the reverse -- that the strength of an ethical system should be based on the religion, the scripture, and the alleged revelation that it comes from.
This then, is where religion and humanistic-existentialism can part company. They don't have to but they can and often do part company on the double issue of: 1. authoritarian epistemology vs. rational-empirical epistemology; and 2. authoritarian ethics vs. rational-empirical ethics. Thus, at this point, a critical distinction needs to be made 'authoriatarian' religion and 'humanistic-existential' religion.
The first can take us into serious human pathology -- issues of 'dominance/submission' and 'sado-masochism'; whereas the second can lead us to, and/or keep us in, good health. The first demands that we give up our mind in order to practise our faith; the second demands that we keep our mind, our independence, our freedom, our skepticism, our rational empiricism -- in short, our humanistic-existentialism -- and that this is our faith, nothing more, nothing less. The first can be the death-blood of both religion and man; the second is the life-blood of both religion and man.
In the remainder of this section, we will examine: 1. the 'epistemology' of religion; 2. the 'ethics' of religion; 3. the 'mythology' of religion; 4. the 'pragmatism' of religion; 5. the 'humanistic-existentialism' and particularly the 'altruism' in religion; and 6. the potential for pathology in religion.
An example is needed right now for some of the ideas I have written about.
In the next two essays, I will 'deconstruct' and 'reconstruct' the 'God, Abraham, and The Binding of Isaac' parable in the Bible in order to illustrate the difference between an authoritarian perspective in religion and my DGB humanistic-existential perspective.
Please join me there.
dgb, October 21st-22nd, 2007.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)