The purpose of religion -- at least from this vantage point -- is multi-dialectic, humanistic-existential integration.
This view of religion is totally post-Hegelian. That I would trumpet such a view of religion should not be at all surprising if you look into my academic background and the background-context of my other essays that are showing a continuing evolution in this direction. The ideas that I will begin to put forward are not for the faint of heart. They demand an open mind and an open heart. They may not be for those of you who carry a very 'anal-retentive, orthodox, conservative' view towards religion and God. My views could - indeed, definitely will - take us into some very unorthodox places as I move to integrate history, philosophy, mythology, science, and religion into one rather strange integrative package.
It all starts with an integration of three very Hegelian idealistic ideas: the 'dialectic', 'The Absolute', and 'God - but in a much more radical way than Hegel ever presented these ideas. I use Hegel's concept of The Absolute in a different way than Hegel. Hegel's philosophy was geared more toward Epistemological Idealism although he laid down the groundwork for what was soon to become Humanistic-Existentialism. Hegel wrote about The Absolute in the sense of seeking Absolute or Perfect Knowledge Through The Dialectic Process.
In doing this according to Hegel, we become closer to God. Not so for me because knowledge by itself is an empty shell. It has to have the emotional, ethical, and behavioral substance of Applied Action tied into Knowledge in order to impact both the individual and society. Thus, DGB Philosophy talks about Existence, Being, and Becoming on a higher and more important plain of existence than Epistemological Truth in and by itself. Knowledge means nothing if you are alienated from yourself, your friends, your family and loved ones, society, and your environment...Without the six being congruently and closely tied together -- knowledge, impulse-spirit, ethics, action, being, and becoming -- knowledge is empty, empty, empty, empty...
Thus, it is not only knowledge that needs to be learned dialectically but existence, being, and becoming as well. This does not contradict Hegel; it merely expands on some of Hegel's ideas that were less fully extrapolated on than his idea of Absolute Knowledge. Hegel opened the door for others like Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Freud, Jung, Sartre, Foucault, and Derrida to come. Last of all -- is little old me.
Let me say this again but in an expanded way: The purpose of life, the evolution of life, the history of life, the process of life and evolution - are all dialectically integrative through either 'friendly, peaceful negotiations' and/or 'hostile power plays and takeovers'. I endorse friendly, peaceful negotiations over hostile power plays and takeovers. And so too should politics and religion.
Dialectical integration equals 'thesis' vs. 'anti-thesis' coming together into a 'synthesis'. Again, this is classic Hegelian philosophy.
Here is where it starts to get spiritual and religious. You can even add a little Plato and Spinoza here both of who influenced Hegel. We are all 'pieces of a Divine Whole'. We all carry 'pieces of God within us' (Spinoza's Pantheism). But in order to reach for more of God - to incorporate more of God within us - we must not only look inward to find our own 'God-like parts' but we also have to look outwards too; we have to look outside of ourselves and 'walk in someone else's shoes' to find the 'God-like parts' of others and other plants and animals as well. And then we need to integrate this within side of us in order to reach for, to strive for, more and more of God's 'Divine Pantheistic Wholism'. The spiritual-dialectic process is one of: 1. Inside of Ourselves (Thesis); 2. Outside of Ourselves (Anti-Thesis); and 3. Inside-Outside of Ourselves (Integration or Synthesis).
In this way, the purpose of religion from this DGB Post-Spinozian, Post-Hegelian perspective is one of integrating our God-like qualities within ourselves with the 'Pantheistic Divinity of Others and Other Things into The Multi-Dialectic Integration of the Spiritual Whole'.
In this way, we can all become more God-like - we all can reach closer to The Absolute, closer to God's Spiritual Wholism.
Ask me how I got here and I shake my head. I was not here an hour ago but now I am here. Up until very recently, I would not have even called myself a spiritual, religious person. But somehow, 35 years of psychological and philosophical study have drawn me to religion and an hour of creative writing. And now I am here. What to do about it?
I contemplate my alienation from my sister, my brother, my daughter, and now most recently, my girlfriend of 10 years over a heart-breaking argument concerning my son - and I start to cry.
Philosophy does not always blossom out of strength, or completely out of strength. Partly, there is a strength of creativity and intellectual/emotional/spiritual vision out of good philosophy. However, often if not always too, philosophy -- like psychology -- is a projection of the author's own personality in both strength and weakness. On the weakness side of things, often a man's (or a woman's) idealistic philosophy is aimed at compensating for his/her own personal weakness(es). Look at Schopenhauer's philosophy -- from all accounts a very nasty, selfish, arrogant man --and you can see that. His philosophy is about Blind Irrationality, Selfishness, and Nastiness Ruling The World From A Unitary, Driving, Unconscious Source. This is what Schopenhauer called 'Blind Will' and it isn't too much of a stretch to say that Schopenhauer 'universalized' his own human 'narcissism' -- his greed, selfishness, irrationality, and nastiness -- so that it became the 'underlying, unconscious, driving will or force of the universe'. His own idealistic 'compensatory remedy' to this rather sad state of universal, and particularly human, affairs -- was a combination of Idealistic Eastern Philosophy, mainly Buddhism, and 'emotional catharsis' (emotional release) of pent up human emotions through creativity in the various arts. (This proposed 'idealistic solution' to man's sad state of affairs didn't stop Schopenhauer from being nasty and selfish in the rest of his life when he wasn't busy writing about the virtues of Eastern philosophy and the creative arts.)
Schopenhauer's philosophy went on to have a huge impact on Freud's creation of Psychoanalysis -- specifically, his theory of the 'irrational, unconscious foundation of man's psyche' (which Freud called 'the id'. You might call this Schopenhauer's philosophical influence in the building of Psychoanalysis, although others have speculated that Freud's close friend, Fliess, at the time also had a significant influence in this area. Nevertheless, Freud verbally recognized Schopenhauer's influence on the building of Psychoanalysis -- along with others he may or may not have officially recognized such as: Hegel, Nietzsche, the scientific materialists, the Enlightenment Philosophers, the hypnotists -- Mesmir, Charcot, Janet, and others that are not coming to my mind at this exact moment.
But here, we are talking about religion. What I have written here is a quickly evolving theory of religion. Does it have any substance to it? Can I live the religion I just formulated? Can I turn this theory of religion that I just created seemingly out of nowhere - but with the fully recognized help of Heraclitus, Plato, Spinoza, Schelling, Hegel, Jung, Perls and more - into an applied 'Multi-Dialectic-Humanistic-Existential Pantheistic Religion'?
Religion -- or spirituality -- for me, is a three step Hegelian, dialectical process: 1. looking inside yourself to become more aware of both your strengths and your weaknesses; looking outwards and contacting others in a process of learning more about your 'not self' -- and the particular strengths and weaknesses of your 'not self' -- whether this be in relation to a friend, a lover, a family member, a co-worker, an enemy, your environment, nature...
This second part can be particularly hard for many as we all tend to seem to have an inherent 'human bias towards self-centredness, selfishness, and/or narcissism' (this is the Hobbes and Schopenhauer influence among others, although others may argue that this bias is not 'inherent' but perhaps a symptom of materialistic, Capitalistic society. I say that human narcissism arrived long before materialism and Capitalism -- in fact, can be argued as being the conscious and/or unconscious philosophical foundation of materialism and Capitalism).
The third part of this dialectical, spiritual process is an integration or synthesis of our 'self' with our 'not self'. In an extrapolation of Classic Hegelian Dialectial Theory (Hegel's Classic Dialectic Theory was directed more towards the human evolution and 'perfecting' of knowledge through the dialectic process whereas I am extending this idea more into the domain of existence, being, becoming, spirtuality, and religion. Thus, in this latter DGB, post-Hegelian sense, we all can become more 'God-like', or 'closer to God', by existentially and spiritually evolving through a continual, life-long process of expanding our self-boundaries -- of incorporating more and more of our 'not self' -- integratively -- into our own personal self. We do this by showing a continual interest, compassion, empathy, and/or social sensitivity, towards other people, animals, plants, and life in general as we aim to move more and more closely towards a Divine Dialectical Wholism -- which in a Hegelian sense, and/or in this post-Hegelian DGB sense, is either God (in a pantheistic, Spinozian sense), or alternatively, God's Creation in a more 'Deist' sense).
God is the bridge between you and I. By accepting, respecting, and ideally, integrating our philosophical, religious, political, personal, cultural differences...we both become more God-like; we both become closer to God. By alienating ourselves from others through personal narcissism and/or righteous pride at its worst, we also alienate ourselves from ourselves -- or at least our potential expanded and more spiritual selves. In the process, we also alienate ourselves from God. To be sure, we need to establish and assert self-identity. However, we also need to establish and assert a creative, always changing, self-social identity and a working self-social balance. This is not easy as people generally through personal weakness and/or overcompensatory measures, end up with a philosophy and a lifestyle that is either too narcissistic and/or righteous on the one side, or too suppressive, pliable, selfless, and submissive on the other side.
God can be found in the creative negotiation, balance, and integration between 'too much' and 'not enough'. (See Heraclitus, the Han Philosophers -- integrating 'yin' and 'yang' or 'male and female energy', and W.F. Cannon -- 'The Wisdom of The Body')
Human pathology resides in too much self influence and not enough social influence. Or too much social influence and not enough self influence.
God is the bridge between you and I, between self and others, between self and society, and between man and nature. I call this a number of different but related things such as: 'Dialectial Wholism', 'Divine Wholism', 'Dialectical Evolution', 'Dialectical Negotiation and Integration', 'Dialectical Politics, Spirituality, Religion, Pantheism, and Deism'...
DGBN (David Gordon Bain, Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations)
Nov. 18-20th, 2007.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Friday, November 16, 2007
A Caveat Emptor For Those Reading This Relgion Section
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.
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.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Introduction: Religion, Atheism, and Humanistic-Existentialism
There is nothing in religion per se that can be directly and indiscrimately linked with either human health or human pathology. No swooping generalization can be made in this capacity.
What is fair to say however, is that both the best and the worst in human behavior can be linked in many cases to the influence, directly or indirectly, of religion.
When I think of the best leaders of religion -- and I confess that my knowledge of religous history is very short here -- I think of Mother Teresa, Gandhi, and His Holiness, The 14th Daai Lama. Many more could easily be added to this list.
What this means is a number of things such as:
1. A religion is only as good as its ethical contents, which in turn must be:
2. Ethically interpreted and practised by the leaders of the religion, and;
3. Ethically interpreted and practised by the individual followers of the religion.
In general, it can probably be assumed, that if the leaders of a particular religion are preaching suppression, oppression, unabated either/or rigtheousness, anger, hatred, exclusionism, and violence, then they are preaching human pathology.
In contrast, in general again, if the leaders of a particular religion are teaching/preaching tolerance, acceptance, love, peace, caring, generosity, altruism, alleviating human misery, helping those who are struggling, etc. then we are more likely talking about a healthy religion. This is assuming that there are not other pathological characteristics that may be 'poisoning the religous brew' such as sexual abuse.
Similarily, there is nothing that can be directly and indiscriminatively linked between atheism and human health or pathology. Here too, no sweeping generalizations can be made.
The issue of atheism relative to human health and/or pathology may not even be a factor. Or it may be. Here again, we need to dig underneath the surface of a man or a woman's atheism and get to the roots of his or her applied ethical system. Again, there may be no connection that can be easily and/or rightly made linking a person's atheism with his or her ethical system -- or lack of it. There are plenty of religous people who lack ethics and morality -- in fact, 'hypocrites' is a good word to describe many of these people. And similarily, there are plenty -- perhaps even more (although this is pure speculation) -- unethical, immoral, greedy, selfish people out there who do not believe in God -- regardless of whether they choose to go by the name of 'atheist' or not. But alternatively, I imagine (and again I am purely speculating) that there are plenty of 'humanistic atheists' out there as well.
This brings me to the essence of my argument here.
Firstly, there needs to be a level of tolerance, acceptance, and respect between both religious and atheist opinions and values. Because the epistemological truth is that none of us know individually or collectively, whether God exists or not. That is an 'agnosic' philosophical opinion on my behalf, and I believe that it is the most epistemologically truthful one. Anything else is either 'specualtion' or 'faith' based on reasonable or unreasonable, rational or irrational, argumentation.
Now having said this, not all values should be treated equally. If someone believes in 'killing people' as a value -- regardless or whether he or she is religous or atheist -- this is not a value that should be condoned, accepted, respected, and/or tolerated. This can be viewed as a 'socio-pathological' value whether you want to quote the Bible -- 'Thou shalt not kill.' -- or not. The same goes with 'stealing' which again you can quote the Bible -- or not.
Thus, in order to get to the roots of the health or pathology of a particular religous/atheist system, you need to get to the underlying ethical values that the religion teaches/preahes -- and how this system is both interpreted and applied.
The common bond between all healthy religous and/or non-religous (atheis) systems is their underlying 'humanistic-existential' values. Similarily, all pathological systems -- whether relgious or atheist -- can be connected to a lack of underlying humanistic-existential values.
This brings us to the question of: What exactly are 'humanistic-existential' values?; Can we all agree on what exactly humanistic-values are? (Almost undoubtedly not likely -- where there is human opinion, there is always going to be at least a certain level of disagreement -- which can be one of the most frustrating elements of democracy.)
For me, the qualities of 'humanism' and 'existentialism' partly overlap with each other -- and partly complement each other. With 'humanism', I associate such values as: caring, loving, altruism, helping others, generosity, compassion, empathy, social sensitivity...With 'existentialism', I associate such values as freedom, democracy, identity, individuality, aloneness, reason, passion, impulse, spontaneity, romance, spirituality, responsibility, accountability...Together, I see the combination of humanistic and existential values leading us to a balanced life of 'self-assertiveness' and 'social-sensitivity. This balance can also be called 'fairness' and/or 'civil justice' between the will of the individual and the social harmony of people living in contact with each other.
Whether you -- or I -- choose to be 'religious', 'spiritual', 'agnostic', 'deist', 'pantheist', 'Buddhist', 'mythological, 'mystic', or 'non-religous' (atheist) is secondary in my opinion to the humaistic-existential values that you hold and practice -- or not.
This is the mission statement of this secion on religion and spirituality.
For me the purpose of religion is, and/or should be: To add a level of substance, depth, spirituality, humanism, existentialism -- and wonderous appreciation -- to living life on earth in harmony with ourselves, and with a compassion, tolerance, and respect for other people, animals, and our enriornment.
db, Nov. 10th, 2007.
What is fair to say however, is that both the best and the worst in human behavior can be linked in many cases to the influence, directly or indirectly, of religion.
When I think of the best leaders of religion -- and I confess that my knowledge of religous history is very short here -- I think of Mother Teresa, Gandhi, and His Holiness, The 14th Daai Lama. Many more could easily be added to this list.
What this means is a number of things such as:
1. A religion is only as good as its ethical contents, which in turn must be:
2. Ethically interpreted and practised by the leaders of the religion, and;
3. Ethically interpreted and practised by the individual followers of the religion.
In general, it can probably be assumed, that if the leaders of a particular religion are preaching suppression, oppression, unabated either/or rigtheousness, anger, hatred, exclusionism, and violence, then they are preaching human pathology.
In contrast, in general again, if the leaders of a particular religion are teaching/preaching tolerance, acceptance, love, peace, caring, generosity, altruism, alleviating human misery, helping those who are struggling, etc. then we are more likely talking about a healthy religion. This is assuming that there are not other pathological characteristics that may be 'poisoning the religous brew' such as sexual abuse.
Similarily, there is nothing that can be directly and indiscriminatively linked between atheism and human health or pathology. Here too, no sweeping generalizations can be made.
The issue of atheism relative to human health and/or pathology may not even be a factor. Or it may be. Here again, we need to dig underneath the surface of a man or a woman's atheism and get to the roots of his or her applied ethical system. Again, there may be no connection that can be easily and/or rightly made linking a person's atheism with his or her ethical system -- or lack of it. There are plenty of religous people who lack ethics and morality -- in fact, 'hypocrites' is a good word to describe many of these people. And similarily, there are plenty -- perhaps even more (although this is pure speculation) -- unethical, immoral, greedy, selfish people out there who do not believe in God -- regardless of whether they choose to go by the name of 'atheist' or not. But alternatively, I imagine (and again I am purely speculating) that there are plenty of 'humanistic atheists' out there as well.
This brings me to the essence of my argument here.
Firstly, there needs to be a level of tolerance, acceptance, and respect between both religious and atheist opinions and values. Because the epistemological truth is that none of us know individually or collectively, whether God exists or not. That is an 'agnosic' philosophical opinion on my behalf, and I believe that it is the most epistemologically truthful one. Anything else is either 'specualtion' or 'faith' based on reasonable or unreasonable, rational or irrational, argumentation.
Now having said this, not all values should be treated equally. If someone believes in 'killing people' as a value -- regardless or whether he or she is religous or atheist -- this is not a value that should be condoned, accepted, respected, and/or tolerated. This can be viewed as a 'socio-pathological' value whether you want to quote the Bible -- 'Thou shalt not kill.' -- or not. The same goes with 'stealing' which again you can quote the Bible -- or not.
Thus, in order to get to the roots of the health or pathology of a particular religous/atheist system, you need to get to the underlying ethical values that the religion teaches/preahes -- and how this system is both interpreted and applied.
The common bond between all healthy religous and/or non-religous (atheis) systems is their underlying 'humanistic-existential' values. Similarily, all pathological systems -- whether relgious or atheist -- can be connected to a lack of underlying humanistic-existential values.
This brings us to the question of: What exactly are 'humanistic-existential' values?; Can we all agree on what exactly humanistic-values are? (Almost undoubtedly not likely -- where there is human opinion, there is always going to be at least a certain level of disagreement -- which can be one of the most frustrating elements of democracy.)
For me, the qualities of 'humanism' and 'existentialism' partly overlap with each other -- and partly complement each other. With 'humanism', I associate such values as: caring, loving, altruism, helping others, generosity, compassion, empathy, social sensitivity...With 'existentialism', I associate such values as freedom, democracy, identity, individuality, aloneness, reason, passion, impulse, spontaneity, romance, spirituality, responsibility, accountability...Together, I see the combination of humanistic and existential values leading us to a balanced life of 'self-assertiveness' and 'social-sensitivity. This balance can also be called 'fairness' and/or 'civil justice' between the will of the individual and the social harmony of people living in contact with each other.
Whether you -- or I -- choose to be 'religious', 'spiritual', 'agnostic', 'deist', 'pantheist', 'Buddhist', 'mythological, 'mystic', or 'non-religous' (atheist) is secondary in my opinion to the humaistic-existential values that you hold and practice -- or not.
This is the mission statement of this secion on religion and spirituality.
For me the purpose of religion is, and/or should be: To add a level of substance, depth, spirituality, humanism, existentialism -- and wonderous appreciation -- to living life on earth in harmony with ourselves, and with a compassion, tolerance, and respect for other people, animals, and our enriornment.
db, Nov. 10th, 2007.
A Short Tribute To His Holiness, The 14th Dalai Lama
'It is not possible to find peace in the soul without security and harmony between peoples.' -- His Holiness, The 14th Dalai Lama.
"I always believe that it is much better to have a variety of religions, a variety of philosophies, rather than one single religion or philosophy. This is necessary because of the different mental dispositions of each human being. Each religion has certain unique ideas or techniques, and learning about them can only enrich one's own faith."
His Holiness, The 14th Dalai Lama
"His Holiness the Dalai Lama's courageous struggle has distinguished him as a leading proponent of human rights and world peace. His ongoing efforts to end the suffering of the Tibetan people through peaceful negotiations and reconciliation have required enormous courage and sacrifice." Tom Lantos, U.S. Congressman, 1989
"The Committee wants to emphasize the fact that the Dalai Lama in his struggle for the liberation of Tibet consistently has opposed the use of violence. He has instead advocated peaceful solutions based upon tolerance and mutual respect in order to preserve the historical and cultural heritage of his people." -- The Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee, 1989
"The prize reaffirms our conviction that with truth, courage and determination as our weapons, Tibet will be liberated. Our struggle must remain nonviolent and free of hatred." -- His Holiness, The 14th Dalai Lama, Dec. 10th, 1989, in accepting The Nobel Peace Prize on the behalf of oppressed everywhere and all those who struggle for freedom and work for world peace and the people of Tibet.
"In China the popular movement for democracy was crushed by brutal force in June this year. But I do not believe the demonstrations were in vain, because the spirit of freedom was rekindled among the Chinese people and China cannot escape the impact of this spirit of freedom sweeping in many parts of the world. The brave students and their supporters showed the Chinese leadership and the world the human face of that great nations."
For as long as space endures
And for as long as living beings remain,
Until then may I too abide
To dispel the misery of the world.
-- The eighth century Buddhist saint, Shantideva
These quotes on The Dalai Lama are courtesy of the internet. See: The Government of Tibet in Exile.
This site is maintained and updated by The Office of Tibet, the official agency of His Holiness the Dalai Lama in London. This Web page may be linked to any other Web sites. Contents may not be altered.
Last updated: 9-Sept-97
"I always believe that it is much better to have a variety of religions, a variety of philosophies, rather than one single religion or philosophy. This is necessary because of the different mental dispositions of each human being. Each religion has certain unique ideas or techniques, and learning about them can only enrich one's own faith."
His Holiness, The 14th Dalai Lama
"His Holiness the Dalai Lama's courageous struggle has distinguished him as a leading proponent of human rights and world peace. His ongoing efforts to end the suffering of the Tibetan people through peaceful negotiations and reconciliation have required enormous courage and sacrifice." Tom Lantos, U.S. Congressman, 1989
"The Committee wants to emphasize the fact that the Dalai Lama in his struggle for the liberation of Tibet consistently has opposed the use of violence. He has instead advocated peaceful solutions based upon tolerance and mutual respect in order to preserve the historical and cultural heritage of his people." -- The Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee, 1989
"The prize reaffirms our conviction that with truth, courage and determination as our weapons, Tibet will be liberated. Our struggle must remain nonviolent and free of hatred." -- His Holiness, The 14th Dalai Lama, Dec. 10th, 1989, in accepting The Nobel Peace Prize on the behalf of oppressed everywhere and all those who struggle for freedom and work for world peace and the people of Tibet.
"In China the popular movement for democracy was crushed by brutal force in June this year. But I do not believe the demonstrations were in vain, because the spirit of freedom was rekindled among the Chinese people and China cannot escape the impact of this spirit of freedom sweeping in many parts of the world. The brave students and their supporters showed the Chinese leadership and the world the human face of that great nations."
For as long as space endures
And for as long as living beings remain,
Until then may I too abide
To dispel the misery of the world.
-- The eighth century Buddhist saint, Shantideva
These quotes on The Dalai Lama are courtesy of the internet. See: The Government of Tibet in Exile.
This site is maintained and updated by The Office of Tibet, the official agency of His Holiness the Dalai Lama in London. This Web page may be linked to any other Web sites. Contents may not be altered.
Last updated: 9-Sept-97
Sunday, October 28, 2007
And God Tested Abraham: What Was The Test? A DGB Editorial
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'.
.....................................................................................
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'.
.....................................................................................
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.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Email Exchange Between David Neil Bain (California, no relation) and David Gordon Bain (Newmarket, Ontario): On Various Religious Perspectives
Hi. My name is David Bain too. I just submitted an article on the
subject: Do we have a soul? under religion & spirituality>spritual theories
(not sure of the linkage.) I come from the USA, originally Nashville,
now California. I've read some of your articles and your ideas seem
similar to mine (though much deeper). To minimize confusion I think I'll
use my full name here: David Neil Bain.
I wonder if we are related? I am a descendant of William Bean who was
in this country about 1600.
.....................................................................................
First Email Response from David Gordon Bain (Newmarket, Ontario) to David Neil Bain (California, USA)
Hi David,
I do not think we are related. It sound like your
ancestors arrived in America much before mine arrived
in Canada from Aberdeen, Scotland. I have no knowledge
of a William Bean in our lineage. Interesting, though.
I have no problem with both of us using our middle
names and/or initials. I will use either David Gordon
Bain or dgb. That should provide enough
differentation.
I haven't written an essay on the topic of 'Do We Have
A Soul?' yet. It is within the reach of my subject
matter to one day try it -- maybe sooner rather than
later. I am doing a lot of papers on religion these
days so it wouldn't be much of a reach. Next time I go
into Helium I will see if I can find some of your
essays including this one.
Cheers, dave
.....................................................................................
Second Email From David Neil Bain to David Gordon Bain,
I really wanted to comment on your article about
Rational Thought and Proofs of God (or words to that effect). You seemed to
hold that the idea that we were created by intelligent design, in the
person of space aliens, was tenable, though the speculation that that
creator was God was not.
I got the idea that you were not seriously speculating, as some have
done, that we were created by space aliens because that would lead to an
infinite regression (who created the space aliens?). I think you are
too smart not to admit that at some point life would have to have evolved
without help and if on the aliens' planet, why not our own?
Of course using God as the creative designer leads to the same infinite
regression plus additional baggage. It can only be exited by drawing
the precise conclusion religious people do not want to make.
I openly refer to myself as an atheist, knowing that in some
intellectual circles it is fashionable to dismiss atheism as naive; agnosticims
being the favored alternative. I'll probably take up my atheism, along
with my seemingly contradictory agosticism, in another article.
Of course I am on this blog not only to satisfy my own vast vanity but
to try to make a little money. My article reaching first place in its
category has only netted me one cent so far. What do I have to do to get
to $25 so I can get an actual check? Or am I just going to have to
think of this as another excercise in vanity publishing?
...................................................................................
Second Email Response From David Gordon Bain to David Neil Bain,
Hi David,
I have thrown around a lot of different ideas about religion over the last couple of months. Some -- if not all -- of these ideas are very unorthodox. I was raised Protestant but that does not have too much to say about where I stand now religiously except that I respect my parents values in this regard and it has given me a partial underlying religious background that can be viewed as a starting-point for these other ideas. At this point in time, it is philosophers like Heraclitus, Spinoza, Hegel, Jung, Einstein, and Fromm that are having a lot stronger influence on where I stand religiously. Let me not forget the influence of empiricists like John Locke and David Hume.
As far as epistemology goes, I would have to say -- at least technically -- I am an agnostic. Information that I cannot verify with my senses is exactly that -- unverifiable. Unknown. So it is with God. One very big unknown.
In some respects, I could say I am an atheist in that basically I believe that God is a 'projective myth' -- created at least partly by man to ease his anxiety, loneliness, fear of death, etc. Which is not to say that religion cannot and has not had some very benefical (as well as toxic) influences on the evolution of man. One cannot look at the wonders of the world without speculating how it was created and who created it.
But that does not suffice with me. In my opinion, a person can believe that God is a projective myth -- and still say that that is 'not a bad thing', that it can be a good thing.
If you hold this position, then you are not going to be duped by people who try to tell you crazy epistemological things that defy good, sound reason and common sense. But you can still pursue God as a mythological, spiritual entity that may help to bring a greater sense of depth, wonder, appreciation, and urgency to your life. This is the direction I am going.
I find myself linked to the pantheists and deists in Western history and philosophy -- from Heraclitus to Spinoza to many of the Enlightenment philosophers to Albert Einstein...This is the spiritual place where I find myself most comfortable with the addition of a 'dialectical' presence -- Hegel, Schelling, Nietzsche, Freud, Jung, Perls, and the like. I even like working with ancient Greek and Roman mythology in the spirit of psychologists like Carl Jung and Erich Fromm... This is a path that I still need to develop more fully.
The essay that best exemplifies my present position on things is the one that follows this email. I just finished it. It is called: DGB Multi-Dialectic, Humanistic-Existential Deism and Pantheism. A wordy, technical name but one that I am happy with at this point in time as respresenting where I stand religiously.
Cheers,
Talk to you soon, I hope, and thank your for your feedback and comments.
david gordon bain
dgb, Nov. 19th, 2007.
...............................................................................
Third Email From David Neil Bain to David Gordon Bain,
Reading your multiple references to great philosophers leaves we with the same feeling I used to have playing chess against players who knew the classic moves. I am intelligent but ignorant. Nevertheless my fundamental ideas about religion come from great philosophers. Bertrand Russell's Why I am Not a Christian gave me permission to embrace atheism. Descartes's proof of the existence of God made an agnostic of me without dislodging my atheism. I am an atheist with regard to belief. I believe that God does not exist just as I believe I exist. But Descartes's introduced the question "What if a demon is making me believe that I am here writing this essay?" That I don't believe in demons is irrelevant since if demons existed they could deceive me into believing that they did not. Also I could be immersed in a virtual reality; I could be a sophisticated artificial intelligence in a false world, or I could simply be insane. I can't prove any of those things is not true. I believe that Descartes was very intelligent but there were fallacies in his "proof" of the existence of God. I could be mistaken even if I am not insane because of unrecognized fallacies in my own thinking.
Now to the deeper question. Is there really any money to be made on helium? I'm up to one cent and counting.
.............................................................................
Third Email Response From David Gordon Bain to David Neil Bain
Hi again David,
Firstly, you are one up on me relative to the Bertrand
Russell book. I've heard about it but not read it. I
expect that it is a good read and that there would be
lots of ideas in there that I would embrace.
Regarding all the philosophers that I cite, 5 to 10
years ago I didn't know most of them either. I am
almost 100 per cent self-taught in philosophy.
Academically, my background is in psychology which is
what led me eventually to philosophy. I worked
backwards from Freud, Jung, and Perls (Gestalt
Therapy) to Hegel because I eventually realized that
Hegel was the main root philosophical influence of all
of them. Hegel and Nietzsche.
So when i cite off all those philosophers, my intent
is not to 'name drop' or to go over anyone's head but
rather to simply point out my line of influence. I
would wish nothing better than to introduce all of my
'lay' readers to all of the philosophers that I cite.
But I can't do it in every essay. So yes, I tend to
forget that not all of my readers are academic and/or
heavily taught/learned philosophical readers. Sometime
I have problems connecting the 'gaps' between 'lay' or
introductory philosophical reader and heavily educated
philosophical reader.
Secondly, interestingly enough, Descartes has always
been a philosopher who I have mainly avoided. I seem
to avoid most of the 'heavy rationalists' including
for most of Plato and Kant. The lone
exception would be Spinoza who's wholism and pantheism
I have embraced in my work -- integrated with Hegel's 'dialectic' influence -- which turns Spinoza's ideas into my own (DGB) ideas of 'multi-dialectic wholism', 'multi-dialectic evolution', and 'multi-dialectic pantheism'. Please don't get intimidated by these ideas because they have not been properly introduced yet. I will introduce them -- hopefully with simplicity and clarity -- shortly. I can't even take full credit for these ideas because Heraclitus, probably many ancient Chinese philosophers -- most specifically the 'Han Philosophers', also the German Romantic Idealist -- Schelling, and indeed, Hegel himself all have developed the idea of 'dialectic wholism' even if they didn't use the same term that I have to label it. In Chinese philosophy the idea of 'dialectic wholism' is expressed by the idea of 'integrating and balancing yin and yang'.
For me, there has to be a 'multi-dialectical'
connection in philosophy between thought, emotion, and action, and
any philosopher who tends to go too heavy into the
'thought' or 'rationalism' -- devoid of emotion and
action -- I tend to turn away from. I am not the type
of philosopher who likes to engage in what might be
called 'mind games' -- like, as you cited, Descartes
'demon specualtion'. To me, if one goes too deeply
into 'massive abstractions' and the 'heaviest of
rationalist philosophizing' -- in effect, to leave
earth and travel into philosophical 'outer space' --
one might never come back. And what will one have
gained from all this philosophical 'space travel'
except perhaps a massive headache? I have neither the
motivation nor likely the necessary intellect to
follow Kant, Hegel, Spinoza, Wittgenstein, Descartes
or others along this outer space path.
I prefer to stay grounded on earth, even as I
sometimes fly fairly high myself in some of my
abstractions, and get told this by some of my readers
who can't be expected to have read the same books that
i have, and/or be expected to understand all of my
terminology until they get properly introduced to it.
The issues of 'groundedness', 'application',
'pragmatism', 'passion', 'impulse', 'conflict',
'opposition', 'synthesis' or 'integration' and 'action' are why I favor Hegel and
Nietzsche over any two other philosophers. These are my main philosophical mentors (aside from the 'psychological' ones who introduced me to Hegel and Nietzsche: specifically, Freud, Adler, Jung, and Perls).
Even Bertrand Russell -- as much as I enjoy his 'common
sense' approach to philosophy, to the extent that I
have read small snippets of his work -- at times
becomes too much of a rationalist for me, and I start
to turn away. Wittgenstein is ten times worse and if
you read the 'Introducing Bertrand Russell' book, you
might become amused like I did, that Wittgenstein
almost literally drove Russell into insanity trying to
follow Wittgenstein's wicked logic and abstractions. I
would prefer not to become insane going the 'mind
games' route. Applied practicality is important to me.
Which brings me to your last point. Money. If you have
made 1 cent at Helium, then that is 1 cent more than I
have made.
First and foremost, you have to write because it is in
your blood -- because that is what you need to do in
order to creatively express yourself.
There may be many 'money pragmatists' out there -- and
certainly, I would love to be one of them -- who are
making a decent or even a good amount of money on the
internet. Maybe even at Helium. But I am not one of
them.
So the long and the short of the answer to your
question is -- 'I don't know.' If there is, then you
need to follow someone who can show you that route.
And that person, at this point in time, is not me.
For me right now, the motivation for writing is in the
writing itself. I would like to lay out the full range
and depth of my philosophy before I die. That might
take one year. It might take five years. Hopefully, it
won't take more than five years, assuming I live that
long. The older you get, the shorter life gets. I am
52 right now and the husband of a friend of mine very
abruptly died of a heart attack last January at 49. The sister of another friend of mine died of drug complications around the age of 30. So
-- life is fleeting; you never know when your time is
going to expire. You can never say that 'I have all
the time in the world' because anything and everything
can change at a moment's notice. I was lucky I didn't
get killed in a car crash last winter. And I had some
liver problems this summer. So -- you never know.
I've become rather long-winded and 'preachy'. Follow
your heart. Or follow the money. As Kierkegaard would
say in the title of one of his books -- 'Either/Or'.
Or you can take a 'Hegelian' or a 'Post-Hegelian'
(DGB) approach and 'work the dialectic'. Passion vs.
money. How can I integrate them into the same package?
This, of course, would be the ideal Hegelian
synthesis. If you can put together that integrative
package to your ideal satisfaction, then you are much
more than one cent ahead of me.
Right now, I'm just in it for the passion and the
creativity. Maybe tomorrow there will be money. But I
am not counting on it.
Cheers again,
dave (david gordon bain)
From David Gordon Bain (Newmarket, Ontario) to David Neil Bain (California, USA)
Hi David,
I have thrown around a lot of different ideas about religion over the last couple of months. Some -- if not all -- of these ideas are very unorthodox. I was raised Protestant but that does not have too much to say about where I stand now religiously except that I respect my parents values in this regard and it has given me a partial underlying religious background that can be viewed as a starting-point for these other ideas. At this point in time, it is philosophers like Heraclitus, Spinoza, Hegel, Jung, Einstein, and Fromm that are having a lot stronger influence on where I stand religiously. Let me not forget the indluence of empiricists like John Locke and David Hume.
As far as epistemology goes, I would have to say -- at least technically -- I am an agnostic. Information that I cannot verify with my senses is exactly that -- unverifiable. Unknown. So it is with God. One very big unknown.
In some respects, I could say I am an atheist in that basically I believe that God is a 'projective myth' -- created at least partly by man to ease his anxiety, loneliness, fear of death, etc. Which is not to say that religion cannot and has not had some very benefical (as well as toxic) influences on the evolution of man. One cannot look at the wonders of the world without speculating how it was created and who created it.
But that does not suffice with me. In my opinion, a person can believe that God is a projective myth -- and still say that that is 'not a bad thing', that it can be a good thing.
If you hold this position, then you are not going to be duped by people who try to tell you crazy epistemological things that defy good, sound reason and common sense. But you can still pursue God as a mythological, spiritual entity that may help to bring a greater sense of depth, wonder, appreciation, and urgency to your life. This is the direction I am going.
I find myself linked to the pantheists and deists in Western history and philosophy -- from Heraclitus to Spinoza to many of the Enlightenment philosophers to Albert Einstein...This is the spiritual place where I find myself most comfortable with the addition of a 'dialectical' presence -- Hegel, Schelling, Nietzsche, Freud, Jung, Perls, and the like. I even like working with ancient Greek and Roman mythology in the spirit of psychologists like Carl Jung and Erich Fromm... This is a path that I still need to develop more fully.
The essay that best exemplifies my present position on things is the one that follows this email. I just finished it. It is called: DGB Multi-Dialectic, Humanistic-Existential Deism and Pantheism. A wordy, technical name but one that I am happy with at this point in time as respresenting where I stand religiously.
Cheers,
Talk to you soon, I hope, and thank your for your feedback and comments.
david gordon bain
dgb, Nov. 19th, 2007.
subject: Do we have a soul? under religion & spirituality>spritual theories
(not sure of the linkage.) I come from the USA, originally Nashville,
now California. I've read some of your articles and your ideas seem
similar to mine (though much deeper). To minimize confusion I think I'll
use my full name here: David Neil Bain.
I wonder if we are related? I am a descendant of William Bean who was
in this country about 1600.
.....................................................................................
First Email Response from David Gordon Bain (Newmarket, Ontario) to David Neil Bain (California, USA)
Hi David,
I do not think we are related. It sound like your
ancestors arrived in America much before mine arrived
in Canada from Aberdeen, Scotland. I have no knowledge
of a William Bean in our lineage. Interesting, though.
I have no problem with both of us using our middle
names and/or initials. I will use either David Gordon
Bain or dgb. That should provide enough
differentation.
I haven't written an essay on the topic of 'Do We Have
A Soul?' yet. It is within the reach of my subject
matter to one day try it -- maybe sooner rather than
later. I am doing a lot of papers on religion these
days so it wouldn't be much of a reach. Next time I go
into Helium I will see if I can find some of your
essays including this one.
Cheers, dave
.....................................................................................
Second Email From David Neil Bain to David Gordon Bain,
I really wanted to comment on your article about
Rational Thought and Proofs of God (or words to that effect). You seemed to
hold that the idea that we were created by intelligent design, in the
person of space aliens, was tenable, though the speculation that that
creator was God was not.
I got the idea that you were not seriously speculating, as some have
done, that we were created by space aliens because that would lead to an
infinite regression (who created the space aliens?). I think you are
too smart not to admit that at some point life would have to have evolved
without help and if on the aliens' planet, why not our own?
Of course using God as the creative designer leads to the same infinite
regression plus additional baggage. It can only be exited by drawing
the precise conclusion religious people do not want to make.
I openly refer to myself as an atheist, knowing that in some
intellectual circles it is fashionable to dismiss atheism as naive; agnosticims
being the favored alternative. I'll probably take up my atheism, along
with my seemingly contradictory agosticism, in another article.
Of course I am on this blog not only to satisfy my own vast vanity but
to try to make a little money. My article reaching first place in its
category has only netted me one cent so far. What do I have to do to get
to $25 so I can get an actual check? Or am I just going to have to
think of this as another excercise in vanity publishing?
...................................................................................
Second Email Response From David Gordon Bain to David Neil Bain,
Hi David,
I have thrown around a lot of different ideas about religion over the last couple of months. Some -- if not all -- of these ideas are very unorthodox. I was raised Protestant but that does not have too much to say about where I stand now religiously except that I respect my parents values in this regard and it has given me a partial underlying religious background that can be viewed as a starting-point for these other ideas. At this point in time, it is philosophers like Heraclitus, Spinoza, Hegel, Jung, Einstein, and Fromm that are having a lot stronger influence on where I stand religiously. Let me not forget the influence of empiricists like John Locke and David Hume.
As far as epistemology goes, I would have to say -- at least technically -- I am an agnostic. Information that I cannot verify with my senses is exactly that -- unverifiable. Unknown. So it is with God. One very big unknown.
In some respects, I could say I am an atheist in that basically I believe that God is a 'projective myth' -- created at least partly by man to ease his anxiety, loneliness, fear of death, etc. Which is not to say that religion cannot and has not had some very benefical (as well as toxic) influences on the evolution of man. One cannot look at the wonders of the world without speculating how it was created and who created it.
But that does not suffice with me. In my opinion, a person can believe that God is a projective myth -- and still say that that is 'not a bad thing', that it can be a good thing.
If you hold this position, then you are not going to be duped by people who try to tell you crazy epistemological things that defy good, sound reason and common sense. But you can still pursue God as a mythological, spiritual entity that may help to bring a greater sense of depth, wonder, appreciation, and urgency to your life. This is the direction I am going.
I find myself linked to the pantheists and deists in Western history and philosophy -- from Heraclitus to Spinoza to many of the Enlightenment philosophers to Albert Einstein...This is the spiritual place where I find myself most comfortable with the addition of a 'dialectical' presence -- Hegel, Schelling, Nietzsche, Freud, Jung, Perls, and the like. I even like working with ancient Greek and Roman mythology in the spirit of psychologists like Carl Jung and Erich Fromm... This is a path that I still need to develop more fully.
The essay that best exemplifies my present position on things is the one that follows this email. I just finished it. It is called: DGB Multi-Dialectic, Humanistic-Existential Deism and Pantheism. A wordy, technical name but one that I am happy with at this point in time as respresenting where I stand religiously.
Cheers,
Talk to you soon, I hope, and thank your for your feedback and comments.
david gordon bain
dgb, Nov. 19th, 2007.
...............................................................................
Third Email From David Neil Bain to David Gordon Bain,
Reading your multiple references to great philosophers leaves we with the same feeling I used to have playing chess against players who knew the classic moves. I am intelligent but ignorant. Nevertheless my fundamental ideas about religion come from great philosophers. Bertrand Russell's Why I am Not a Christian gave me permission to embrace atheism. Descartes's proof of the existence of God made an agnostic of me without dislodging my atheism. I am an atheist with regard to belief. I believe that God does not exist just as I believe I exist. But Descartes's introduced the question "What if a demon is making me believe that I am here writing this essay?" That I don't believe in demons is irrelevant since if demons existed they could deceive me into believing that they did not. Also I could be immersed in a virtual reality; I could be a sophisticated artificial intelligence in a false world, or I could simply be insane. I can't prove any of those things is not true. I believe that Descartes was very intelligent but there were fallacies in his "proof" of the existence of God. I could be mistaken even if I am not insane because of unrecognized fallacies in my own thinking.
Now to the deeper question. Is there really any money to be made on helium? I'm up to one cent and counting.
.............................................................................
Third Email Response From David Gordon Bain to David Neil Bain
Hi again David,
Firstly, you are one up on me relative to the Bertrand
Russell book. I've heard about it but not read it. I
expect that it is a good read and that there would be
lots of ideas in there that I would embrace.
Regarding all the philosophers that I cite, 5 to 10
years ago I didn't know most of them either. I am
almost 100 per cent self-taught in philosophy.
Academically, my background is in psychology which is
what led me eventually to philosophy. I worked
backwards from Freud, Jung, and Perls (Gestalt
Therapy) to Hegel because I eventually realized that
Hegel was the main root philosophical influence of all
of them. Hegel and Nietzsche.
So when i cite off all those philosophers, my intent
is not to 'name drop' or to go over anyone's head but
rather to simply point out my line of influence. I
would wish nothing better than to introduce all of my
'lay' readers to all of the philosophers that I cite.
But I can't do it in every essay. So yes, I tend to
forget that not all of my readers are academic and/or
heavily taught/learned philosophical readers. Sometime
I have problems connecting the 'gaps' between 'lay' or
introductory philosophical reader and heavily educated
philosophical reader.
Secondly, interestingly enough, Descartes has always
been a philosopher who I have mainly avoided. I seem
to avoid most of the 'heavy rationalists' including
for most of Plato and Kant. The lone
exception would be Spinoza who's wholism and pantheism
I have embraced in my work -- integrated with Hegel's 'dialectic' influence -- which turns Spinoza's ideas into my own (DGB) ideas of 'multi-dialectic wholism', 'multi-dialectic evolution', and 'multi-dialectic pantheism'. Please don't get intimidated by these ideas because they have not been properly introduced yet. I will introduce them -- hopefully with simplicity and clarity -- shortly. I can't even take full credit for these ideas because Heraclitus, probably many ancient Chinese philosophers -- most specifically the 'Han Philosophers', also the German Romantic Idealist -- Schelling, and indeed, Hegel himself all have developed the idea of 'dialectic wholism' even if they didn't use the same term that I have to label it. In Chinese philosophy the idea of 'dialectic wholism' is expressed by the idea of 'integrating and balancing yin and yang'.
For me, there has to be a 'multi-dialectical'
connection in philosophy between thought, emotion, and action, and
any philosopher who tends to go too heavy into the
'thought' or 'rationalism' -- devoid of emotion and
action -- I tend to turn away from. I am not the type
of philosopher who likes to engage in what might be
called 'mind games' -- like, as you cited, Descartes
'demon specualtion'. To me, if one goes too deeply
into 'massive abstractions' and the 'heaviest of
rationalist philosophizing' -- in effect, to leave
earth and travel into philosophical 'outer space' --
one might never come back. And what will one have
gained from all this philosophical 'space travel'
except perhaps a massive headache? I have neither the
motivation nor likely the necessary intellect to
follow Kant, Hegel, Spinoza, Wittgenstein, Descartes
or others along this outer space path.
I prefer to stay grounded on earth, even as I
sometimes fly fairly high myself in some of my
abstractions, and get told this by some of my readers
who can't be expected to have read the same books that
i have, and/or be expected to understand all of my
terminology until they get properly introduced to it.
The issues of 'groundedness', 'application',
'pragmatism', 'passion', 'impulse', 'conflict',
'opposition', 'synthesis' or 'integration' and 'action' are why I favor Hegel and
Nietzsche over any two other philosophers. These are my main philosophical mentors (aside from the 'psychological' ones who introduced me to Hegel and Nietzsche: specifically, Freud, Adler, Jung, and Perls).
Even Bertrand Russell -- as much as I enjoy his 'common
sense' approach to philosophy, to the extent that I
have read small snippets of his work -- at times
becomes too much of a rationalist for me, and I start
to turn away. Wittgenstein is ten times worse and if
you read the 'Introducing Bertrand Russell' book, you
might become amused like I did, that Wittgenstein
almost literally drove Russell into insanity trying to
follow Wittgenstein's wicked logic and abstractions. I
would prefer not to become insane going the 'mind
games' route. Applied practicality is important to me.
Which brings me to your last point. Money. If you have
made 1 cent at Helium, then that is 1 cent more than I
have made.
First and foremost, you have to write because it is in
your blood -- because that is what you need to do in
order to creatively express yourself.
There may be many 'money pragmatists' out there -- and
certainly, I would love to be one of them -- who are
making a decent or even a good amount of money on the
internet. Maybe even at Helium. But I am not one of
them.
So the long and the short of the answer to your
question is -- 'I don't know.' If there is, then you
need to follow someone who can show you that route.
And that person, at this point in time, is not me.
For me right now, the motivation for writing is in the
writing itself. I would like to lay out the full range
and depth of my philosophy before I die. That might
take one year. It might take five years. Hopefully, it
won't take more than five years, assuming I live that
long. The older you get, the shorter life gets. I am
52 right now and the husband of a friend of mine very
abruptly died of a heart attack last January at 49. The sister of another friend of mine died of drug complications around the age of 30. So
-- life is fleeting; you never know when your time is
going to expire. You can never say that 'I have all
the time in the world' because anything and everything
can change at a moment's notice. I was lucky I didn't
get killed in a car crash last winter. And I had some
liver problems this summer. So -- you never know.
I've become rather long-winded and 'preachy'. Follow
your heart. Or follow the money. As Kierkegaard would
say in the title of one of his books -- 'Either/Or'.
Or you can take a 'Hegelian' or a 'Post-Hegelian'
(DGB) approach and 'work the dialectic'. Passion vs.
money. How can I integrate them into the same package?
This, of course, would be the ideal Hegelian
synthesis. If you can put together that integrative
package to your ideal satisfaction, then you are much
more than one cent ahead of me.
Right now, I'm just in it for the passion and the
creativity. Maybe tomorrow there will be money. But I
am not counting on it.
Cheers again,
dave (david gordon bain)
From David Gordon Bain (Newmarket, Ontario) to David Neil Bain (California, USA)
Hi David,
I have thrown around a lot of different ideas about religion over the last couple of months. Some -- if not all -- of these ideas are very unorthodox. I was raised Protestant but that does not have too much to say about where I stand now religiously except that I respect my parents values in this regard and it has given me a partial underlying religious background that can be viewed as a starting-point for these other ideas. At this point in time, it is philosophers like Heraclitus, Spinoza, Hegel, Jung, Einstein, and Fromm that are having a lot stronger influence on where I stand religiously. Let me not forget the indluence of empiricists like John Locke and David Hume.
As far as epistemology goes, I would have to say -- at least technically -- I am an agnostic. Information that I cannot verify with my senses is exactly that -- unverifiable. Unknown. So it is with God. One very big unknown.
In some respects, I could say I am an atheist in that basically I believe that God is a 'projective myth' -- created at least partly by man to ease his anxiety, loneliness, fear of death, etc. Which is not to say that religion cannot and has not had some very benefical (as well as toxic) influences on the evolution of man. One cannot look at the wonders of the world without speculating how it was created and who created it.
But that does not suffice with me. In my opinion, a person can believe that God is a projective myth -- and still say that that is 'not a bad thing', that it can be a good thing.
If you hold this position, then you are not going to be duped by people who try to tell you crazy epistemological things that defy good, sound reason and common sense. But you can still pursue God as a mythological, spiritual entity that may help to bring a greater sense of depth, wonder, appreciation, and urgency to your life. This is the direction I am going.
I find myself linked to the pantheists and deists in Western history and philosophy -- from Heraclitus to Spinoza to many of the Enlightenment philosophers to Albert Einstein...This is the spiritual place where I find myself most comfortable with the addition of a 'dialectical' presence -- Hegel, Schelling, Nietzsche, Freud, Jung, Perls, and the like. I even like working with ancient Greek and Roman mythology in the spirit of psychologists like Carl Jung and Erich Fromm... This is a path that I still need to develop more fully.
The essay that best exemplifies my present position on things is the one that follows this email. I just finished it. It is called: DGB Multi-Dialectic, Humanistic-Existential Deism and Pantheism. A wordy, technical name but one that I am happy with at this point in time as respresenting where I stand religiously.
Cheers,
Talk to you soon, I hope, and thank your for your feedback and comments.
david gordon bain
dgb, Nov. 19th, 2007.
Saturday, September 01, 2007
God, Religion, Faith, Epistemology, and Ethics
God, religion, faith, and epistemology -- which one does not fit? The answer is epistemology -- the study and analysis of 'knowledge', and particularly 'good knowledge'.
Since the beginning of science, and then the Enlightenment period of philosophy, epistemology -- and the quest for good, solid, credible, reliable knowledge -- has generally been equated with what we will call here 'rational-empiricism', or alternatively, 'empirical-rationalism'.
What is rational-empiricism? Rational-empiricism, or alternatively, empirical-rationalism is not a term that you are likely to find in the philosophical literature. At least I have not bumped into it and I have been studying philosophy for a while now. ...
I just made a major rational-empiricist blunder and at the risk of looking foolish hee, I am willing to confess up to it in the name of teaching, and what I am attempting to accomplish here. I didn't check and verify my assumption regarding the non-existence of the term rational empricism -- or rather I did -- but after I had already started to write this essay and committed myself to a particular line of thought. (Always check and verify before you declare something to be true or not true and then look silly for not have checked.) Now my previous line of thought will have to be modified to take into account already existing philosophy -- which is no big deal. Modification is a critically important part of evolution. We do not need to re-invent the wheel here; just perhaps build a better one through modification. This is '(multi-)dialectical evolution' in process.
The term 'rational empiricism' (without the hyphen) does indeed exist in the philosophy literature, and furthermore, it has exactly the meaning -- at least on the internet where I found it -- that I wanted it to have. So rather than create the definition and description myself, I will defer to an already existing definition and description that I found very easily on the internet and will repeat right here:
.....................................................................................
Rational Empiricism
and the Scientific Method
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rational Empiricism
Even though historically it appears to have other meanings, I (Paul Antonik Wakfer) will use the term rational empiricism for the name of the epistemological method which is the foundation of all current knowledge and continuing knowledge advances in science, technology and philosophy. The methods of rational empiricism have been honed over millenia to their current state of refinement, yet these methods are not a finished product; they continue to evolve, and to be further refined in order to achieve greater efficacy as an aid to human understanding of reality and to the security that such understanding is really valid. However in spite of millenia of refinement, the methods of rational empiricism are still not too complex for most humans to understand, for they are, in fact, nothing more than the rational processing by the human brain of the data of experience (the sensory input to the body) for the purpose of understanding the organization, order and predictability of reality. Both the sensory input and the rational processing have been aided increasingly by the machines which have been created for that purpose. Formally, rational empiricism is a subset of rational thought (the logical integration of the evidence of one's senses into the mind's model of reality and the resulting evaluations, conclusions and decisions) of which the ultimate purpose is to maximize one's lifetime happiness.
.....................................................................................
Thus, the three main ideas connected with rational empiricism here are: 1. reason supported by; 2. our senses with the purpose of; 3. maximizing our personal lifetime happiness. Point 3. technically does not, or should not, belong to the definition of rational empiricism because it brings in an assumption that arguably lies outside of the strict realm of rational empiricism -- and that is the realm of ethics and the 'is-ought' gap. However, I have no problem connecting rational empiricism to humanism - 'the pursuit of happiness' -- and our founding Enlightenment fathers (Jefferson, Tom Paine, et al...) because I have found no better ethical alternative.
You will see a lot of hyphenated words in the type of philosophy that I am trumpeting here -- 'rational-empiricism', 'humanistic-existentialism', 'humanistic-capitalism', 'liberal-conservatism' or 'conservative-liberalism' -- becaue these are all outcomes of 'dialectical integration process'.
Two polar concepts, perspectives, philosophies, lifestyles...facing off against each other, assertively and competively, then empathetically and compatibly, resulting in mutual harmony rather than mutual rejection, a place reached integratively through creative imagination and negotiation, a place of better 'homeostatic balance' than either of the two polar concepts, perspectives, philosophies and/or lifestyles could achieve in and by themselves. This is dialectical negotiation, integration, evolution, and harmony or homeostatic balance. The more hyphenated words that you have, the more you are delving into 'multi-dialectics.
Who integrated God and Nature? Spinoza. However, Spinoza's religion, which we now call 'pantheism', is no more 'rationally empirical' than any form of orthodox religion. Why? Because an epistemological belief in God and religion require 'faith' and faith -- at least in any extended degree -- is not compatible with rational-empiricism.
Science is built on rational-empiricism. Our police enforcement and courts are built on rational empiricism -- at least when they are working well. Same with politics when it is working well. There is no room for extended amounts of faith in rational empiricism (except perhaps for faith in rational empiricism). Religion requires extended amounts of faith -- 'epistemological faith' relative to things that most people would not normally believe, or believe strongly without questioning. Thus, religion and rational empirical epistemology, are for the most part, incompatible, and at odds with each other. This is why I view all relgions and all views of God -- as 'myths'. Not necessarily bad because some myths can have good consequences on people's lives. But epistemologically bad because too much (religious) epistemological faith generally results in bad -- or wrong -- epistemology. Thus, all religions and all views of God should be viewed as myths and not as 'epistemological truths'. Treating religions as epistemological truths, and then worse, bringing these alleged religious epistemological truths into politics or a court of law is downright dangerous.
Politics and law should be run by 'good rational-empirical epistemology' and 'humanistic(compassionate)-existential(accountable) ethics'. A religion should be judged by its ethics; not the reverse. To bring unscrutinized religious epistemology and/or ethics into a court of law or into politics is a disaster waiting to happen. This is why our founding Enlightenment fathers clearly separated these totally different realms of human activity. American politics -- particularly among Republican factions -- seems intent of re-uniting what shouldn't be re-united. Religious epistemology (and for that matter, ethics too) -- based on a high degree of faith, trust, authority, and 'suspension of disbelief' -- is prone to pathology because it is not sufficiently scrutinzed on rational-empirical and humanistic-existential grounds. Keep religion out of politics and see all religions for what they are -- different breands of 'better' and 'worse' myths.
db, Sept. 2nd, 2007.
Since the beginning of science, and then the Enlightenment period of philosophy, epistemology -- and the quest for good, solid, credible, reliable knowledge -- has generally been equated with what we will call here 'rational-empiricism', or alternatively, 'empirical-rationalism'.
What is rational-empiricism? Rational-empiricism, or alternatively, empirical-rationalism is not a term that you are likely to find in the philosophical literature. At least I have not bumped into it and I have been studying philosophy for a while now. ...
I just made a major rational-empiricist blunder and at the risk of looking foolish hee, I am willing to confess up to it in the name of teaching, and what I am attempting to accomplish here. I didn't check and verify my assumption regarding the non-existence of the term rational empricism -- or rather I did -- but after I had already started to write this essay and committed myself to a particular line of thought. (Always check and verify before you declare something to be true or not true and then look silly for not have checked.) Now my previous line of thought will have to be modified to take into account already existing philosophy -- which is no big deal. Modification is a critically important part of evolution. We do not need to re-invent the wheel here; just perhaps build a better one through modification. This is '(multi-)dialectical evolution' in process.
The term 'rational empiricism' (without the hyphen) does indeed exist in the philosophy literature, and furthermore, it has exactly the meaning -- at least on the internet where I found it -- that I wanted it to have. So rather than create the definition and description myself, I will defer to an already existing definition and description that I found very easily on the internet and will repeat right here:
.....................................................................................
Rational Empiricism
and the Scientific Method
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rational Empiricism
Even though historically it appears to have other meanings, I (Paul Antonik Wakfer) will use the term rational empiricism for the name of the epistemological method which is the foundation of all current knowledge and continuing knowledge advances in science, technology and philosophy. The methods of rational empiricism have been honed over millenia to their current state of refinement, yet these methods are not a finished product; they continue to evolve, and to be further refined in order to achieve greater efficacy as an aid to human understanding of reality and to the security that such understanding is really valid. However in spite of millenia of refinement, the methods of rational empiricism are still not too complex for most humans to understand, for they are, in fact, nothing more than the rational processing by the human brain of the data of experience (the sensory input to the body) for the purpose of understanding the organization, order and predictability of reality. Both the sensory input and the rational processing have been aided increasingly by the machines which have been created for that purpose. Formally, rational empiricism is a subset of rational thought (the logical integration of the evidence of one's senses into the mind's model of reality and the resulting evaluations, conclusions and decisions) of which the ultimate purpose is to maximize one's lifetime happiness.
.....................................................................................
Thus, the three main ideas connected with rational empiricism here are: 1. reason supported by; 2. our senses with the purpose of; 3. maximizing our personal lifetime happiness. Point 3. technically does not, or should not, belong to the definition of rational empiricism because it brings in an assumption that arguably lies outside of the strict realm of rational empiricism -- and that is the realm of ethics and the 'is-ought' gap. However, I have no problem connecting rational empiricism to humanism - 'the pursuit of happiness' -- and our founding Enlightenment fathers (Jefferson, Tom Paine, et al...) because I have found no better ethical alternative.
You will see a lot of hyphenated words in the type of philosophy that I am trumpeting here -- 'rational-empiricism', 'humanistic-existentialism', 'humanistic-capitalism', 'liberal-conservatism' or 'conservative-liberalism' -- becaue these are all outcomes of 'dialectical integration process'.
Two polar concepts, perspectives, philosophies, lifestyles...facing off against each other, assertively and competively, then empathetically and compatibly, resulting in mutual harmony rather than mutual rejection, a place reached integratively through creative imagination and negotiation, a place of better 'homeostatic balance' than either of the two polar concepts, perspectives, philosophies and/or lifestyles could achieve in and by themselves. This is dialectical negotiation, integration, evolution, and harmony or homeostatic balance. The more hyphenated words that you have, the more you are delving into 'multi-dialectics.
Who integrated God and Nature? Spinoza. However, Spinoza's religion, which we now call 'pantheism', is no more 'rationally empirical' than any form of orthodox religion. Why? Because an epistemological belief in God and religion require 'faith' and faith -- at least in any extended degree -- is not compatible with rational-empiricism.
Science is built on rational-empiricism. Our police enforcement and courts are built on rational empiricism -- at least when they are working well. Same with politics when it is working well. There is no room for extended amounts of faith in rational empiricism (except perhaps for faith in rational empiricism). Religion requires extended amounts of faith -- 'epistemological faith' relative to things that most people would not normally believe, or believe strongly without questioning. Thus, religion and rational empirical epistemology, are for the most part, incompatible, and at odds with each other. This is why I view all relgions and all views of God -- as 'myths'. Not necessarily bad because some myths can have good consequences on people's lives. But epistemologically bad because too much (religious) epistemological faith generally results in bad -- or wrong -- epistemology. Thus, all religions and all views of God should be viewed as myths and not as 'epistemological truths'. Treating religions as epistemological truths, and then worse, bringing these alleged religious epistemological truths into politics or a court of law is downright dangerous.
Politics and law should be run by 'good rational-empirical epistemology' and 'humanistic(compassionate)-existential(accountable) ethics'. A religion should be judged by its ethics; not the reverse. To bring unscrutinized religious epistemology and/or ethics into a court of law or into politics is a disaster waiting to happen. This is why our founding Enlightenment fathers clearly separated these totally different realms of human activity. American politics -- particularly among Republican factions -- seems intent of re-uniting what shouldn't be re-united. Religious epistemology (and for that matter, ethics too) -- based on a high degree of faith, trust, authority, and 'suspension of disbelief' -- is prone to pathology because it is not sufficiently scrutinzed on rational-empirical and humanistic-existential grounds. Keep religion out of politics and see all religions for what they are -- different breands of 'better' and 'worse' myths.
db, Sept. 2nd, 2007.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)