Let's try to get to the bottom of the Reverend Wright controversy which is probably close to impossible because there are numerous different ways I could take this essay but regardless, let's at least open up some of these different avenues and see where they take us...
First, by way of an introduction, let me say this: We are all philosophers and we are all preachers -- stated more specifically, we all 'philosophize' about what we think is 'true' (epistemology) and 'right' (ethics); and we all 'preach' our epistemological and ethical philosophy relative to what we believe is 'true' and 'right'. Obviously some people are more righteous than other people (or stated differrently, some more tolerant and accepting than others), and also, some people are more openly straightforward with their righteousness, whereas others hide it more...
Relative to righteousness, we all have our private and/or public 'soapboxes' -- some more public than others -- upon which we preach our unique, individual philosophy. Some of these individual philosophies are healthier than others; some are more pathological than others. There is an intimate tie between philosophical and psychological health; indeed, 'mental-emotional' health can just as easily and rightly be referred to as 'philosophical-psychological' health.
President Bush has his soapbox. Reverand Wright has -- or had -- his soapbox. Senator Obama, both the Clintons, and McCain all have their own separate, individual 'soapboxes' on which they preach their own individual -- and/or party -- politics and/or religion.
I have my soapbox. This essay is my soapbox. 'Hegel's Hotel' is my soapbox. With whatever credibility and respect that I have here as a private philosopher and writer, I am here to say what I think is right and wrong about different elements of both Canadian and American poltics as well as in some cases such as this one -- religion, preachers, and the Church. There are those who believe that politics and relgion should not be mixed -- such as many of America's foundational philosopher-politicans, most notably, I believe, Thomas Jefferson -- but increasingly these days it is obvious that there are more and more people who believe that politics and religion can and should be mixed.
From a religious standpoint, the Reverand Wright is obviously one of them.
There is a time to be righteous and there is a time to be tolerant and the best philosopher-preachers have the best sense of timing about when to be which.
I preach a mixture of righteousnes and tolerance and try to get the timing right on both.
Let me begin by giving you this as a backdrop: We are all a mixture of 'epistemologically right' and 'epistemologically wrong' perceptions and beliefs, of 'ethically good' and 'ethically bad' values... We can talk about President Bush the 'right' and President Bush the 'wrong', of President Bush the 'good' and President Bush the 'bad'...and each and everyone of us will have a combination of similar and/or different judgments in this regard...Bush started out strong with America's trust and respect; it is obvious now that he lost most of this trust and respect to most Americans somewhere along the way in his length of time as President. Too many false assertions and assumptions...too many bad value judgments in the minds of most Americans today -- I would say.
We could go throught this same editorial process with Reverend Wright, Obama, both Bill and Hillary Clinton, McCain, myself, you, America, Canada...and so on..
We are all a mixture of right and wrong epistemology, of good and bad ethics, of good and bad tricks...There are no perfect idols or ideals amongst us -- some of us may make better leaders than others -- but we are all walking imperfections of right and wrong, good and bad. There are no Gods amongst us...nor should anyone -- in politics or in religion -- have the audacity and the arrogance to try to quote God... This is blatant man-made projection...man manipulating the use of God to serve his or her own political, religious, economic, philosophical and/or any other form of narcissistic purpose.
I am not a big religious person -- my religious, spritual, and/or anti-religous perspectives are far from fully developed at this point in time. They are still evolving...but at the same time, my religious-spiritual blogsite-section now contains over ten essays I believe...
Regardless, I found myself reaching for a recital of 'The Ten Commandments' on the internet this morning. (Isn't the internet wonderful in this respect as I didn't need to go digging around my townhouse for a bible or inside The Bible to find what I was looking for...just by googling 'The Ten Commandments', I could quickly find what I wanted. Some might equate this with 'fast food' -- lacking in full nutritional value -- but for a writer/philosopher like myself who wants to find something quickly and then get back to my essay, it truly is amazing what an 'enormous liberary resource' I have at my immediate fingertips. I often shake my head at the 'technological and resource advantages' I have today over someone like say Kant, Hegel, and/or Marx who must have ploughed through thousands of pages of books to get the information they needed.)
Here is my favorite commandment incidently (I believe it is the fourth commandment):
...................................................................................
4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
.....................................................................................
This to me is a very 'humanistic-existential' commandment -- trust and respect your own resources, your own perceptions and beliefs, your own value judgments, your own integrtiy, and your own actions. Let no man, woman -- or God -- stand above you on a pedestal.
Unfortunately, there is a problem here -- a big problem. The Ten Commandments are not consistent -- or at least if they are consistent when taken as a whole -- are not 'humanistic-existential'; indeed, taken as a whole they lean much closer to 'authoritarianism', 'dominance-submission', and 'sado-masochism'. Look at the first four commandments when taken together:
.....................................................................................
1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;
2. Do not have any other gods before me.
3. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
4. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,
5. But showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
..................................................................................
Taken alone, Commandment 3 seems 'humanistic-existential'. However, in the context of the first five commandments, it seems that God is saying in effect: 'Don't trust, respect, love, idolize, or idealize any other God -- but me -- for I am a jealous God. You can submit to me all you want because that is the way I like it.'
Gee, that sounds more like man talking rather than any God that I am willing to respect, love, idealize, and/or worship. A God that is into 'egotism, narcissism, authoritarianism, jealousy, dominance, and the type of sadism that can be seen in the 'God, Abraham, and Isaac' parable. In effect, the anti-thesis of 'Jesus Christ'. How do you explain that one? Look at the Ten Commandments, and the God, Abraham, and Isaac parable -- and it certainly does not seem that Jesus Christ was created in God's image. Rather, it seems much more plausable that God was created in man's image. Furthermore, it seems much more plausable that 'God' and 'Jesus Christ' can be viewed as 'projective-identifications' of one of the deepest polarities and conflict-issues in man's psyche, psychology, and philosophy: the polarity between narcissism, selfishness, jealousy, possessiveness and conditional love on the one hand vs. altruism, empathy, social sensitivity, generosity and love on the other hand. Projected: the jealousy, narcissism, dominance, and conditional love of God vs. the generosity and unconditional love of Jesus Christ. One might even say a projection of the 'masculine vs. feminine' side of man or in Eastern tradition the 'yin' vs. 'yang' in man -- and the need for harmonious unity and balance between the two.
I realize that I may be offending some of you who may hold a much more traditional viewpoint towards God and Jesus Christ but I cannot be anyone other than who I am. And right now -- as of this minute, arrived at by argumentative deduction during the course of this essay -- that is exactly how I view God and Jesus Christ. It is totally consistent with all of my other viewpoints in Hegel's Hotel. It is a post-Hegelian-Freudian-Jungian-Gestalt analysis: that God and Jesus Christ reflect opposing projective identifications and arhetypes in man's personality. When man is worshipinng God and Jesus Christ, he is in effect worshipping the 'twin polariities of masculinism and feminism, or 'yin and yang' in man's psyche.
................................................................................
I said that at the beginning that this essay had the potential of taking me in many different directions some of which I might not expect, and, believe me, I am as shocked as you probably are at the direction it just took me...Now let us move on and get back to the Reverend Wright...
.................................................................................
I respect that the Reverend Wright is a fiery speaker, that he says what he believes, and I don't even mind that he mixed 'politics' with 'religion' in his sermons. To hear someone say that 'governments fail' is a refreshing change for me compared to the usual sermon of individual people 'failing through their sins of being human'. Preaching politics in a religious forum in my mind is better than preaching religion in a political forum -- especially when 'God' is being used in a political forum to justify appropriate or inappropriate political actions.
However, it is rather obvious in my mind that the Reverend Wright committed some rather glaring professional and 'humanistic' errors. In this regard, I was thinking of some of the 'ethical transgressions' that the Reverend Wright committed and here was the first one I came up with again as I looked at the Ten Commandments:
....................................................................................
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God.
...................................................................................
Well, for a week or two I was oblivious to what had transpired in this 'Reverend Wright scandal' and then one morning I finally heard a 'fuller version' (courtesy of CNN) of the original much smaller soundbite that had created the substance of this political-religous controversy.
...................................................................................
'God damn America.' -- Reverend Wright
....................................................................................
This was the smallest soundbite-essence of what Reverend Wright said within the fuller context of his more complete sermon. The fuller context of the sermon talked about 'political failings' all through history -- and directly or indirectly about political oppression and killings resulting from political failings.
Well, the fuller context of the sermon does give the American people a better perspective on where the Reverend was coming from in his sermon -- but his first ethical-religous-political violation can be found right in The Ten Commandments...a part of the second commandment if the interpretation I am reading off the internet can be assumed to be an accurate interpretation...
.....................................................................................
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God.
.....................................................................................
I think I have heard it stated in other ways such as; 'Thou shalt not speak the Lord's name in vain.' But either version will do...
Now most of us have heard the Lord's name used in profanity or in a thousand and one different ways but for a preacher to use God's name in profanity and/or as a manipulative tool to further his own political-religous agenda -- is basically inexcusable. Reverend Wright was essentially projecting his own condemnation of America -- inexcusably -- onto God. That was ethical transgression number 1.
...................................................................................
Secondly,
This is my own epistemological and ethical commandment:
'Beware of loose associations and tight, stereotypical distinctions. They are epistemologically prone to error -- and worse -- tend to be ethically divisive, destructive, and self-destructive.'
...................................................................................
This was Reverend Wright's second epistemological error and ethical transgression -- and it was arguably worse than the first.
Which America was the Reverend talking about? Good America or Bad America. Was he referring to White America? And worse, was he loosely associating White America with Bad America?
..................................................................................
Again, there was no excuse for Reverend Wright's 'loose associations' and 'tight, stereotypical distinctions' relative to the history of politics in general -- and particularly, American politics and oppression.
How racial, how anti-white, how anti-America were Reverend Wrights sermons? Was there significant humanism underlying his speeches -- or were they all about anger, rage, and hate...in stereotypical, racial fashion? Loose associations and tight stereotypical distinctions can take you to angy, violent places where it is not humanistically good for you to go.
..................................................................................
America seems to be interested in two things but more so the second than the first:
1. Just how radical, racial, and/or anti-American were Reverend Wright's sermons?; and
2. To what extent are Obama's real personal philosophical views closely or not at all closely associated with what the Reverend Wright was preaching?
I saw Obama interviewed by Larry King a couple of weeks after this controversy broke loose and I thought that Obama handled himself -- and the Wright issue -- quite well. He's getting a reputation as the 'Tefelon Man' -- as he uses his gliding rhetoric to 'smooth' over problems. But once again, the American people are sick and tired of smooth rhetoric -- without substance, character, and integrity giving a strong, solid foundation to this smooth rhetoric. The American people want both an elegant speaker and a man of character, integrity, and substnace that has the willpower, the intellect, and the power to change the way politics is conducted in Washington.
Two issues in particular have left some seeds of doubt in the minds of people listenting to Obama: 1. his Michigan free trade speech in contrast to the contradicting contents of the leaked political letter by someone associated with his campaign; and 2. the Reverennd Wright controversy.
Should these controversies be viewed as possible precursors of more of the same to come?
Or should they be viewed as issues and controversies blown out of context by a Clinton campaign and/or a news media starving to rub something bad onto Obama's character and campaign?
We wait to see.
dgb, March 30th, 2008, revised and updated April 1-2, 2008.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Reverend Wright and Barack -- by Gerald Posner, Posted on the internet, March 15th, 2008
Opening Comments by dgb: 'I like to post the occasional well-written article in 'Hegel's Hotel' that I think deserves further recognition and exposure and which I want to use as a starting point by which to bring a particular issue into focus and express my own viewpoints on the same, or a similar, issue. The article below fits into this category. It is called 'Reverend Wright and Barrack' -- by Gerald Posner, posted on the internet on March 15th, 2008. If the author has any problem with its inclusion here, I will quickly remove it. Until then, I will assume that it is okay to re-post here as it can freely and easily be found on the internet simply by googling 'Reverend Wright'.' -- dgb, March 30th, 2008/
...................................................................................
Reverend Wright and Barack -- by Gerald Posner, March 15th, 2008.
I am a Barack Obama supporter. I liked Senator John Edwards, think Hilary Clinton would make a super president, but have been persuaded ever since the start of the campaign that Barack offers the greatest chance for substantive, and greatly over needed, change.
I'm still in the Barack camp. But, as a vocal supporter, I'd like just a couple of answers about the flap over Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr, the former pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, the Chicago megachurch where the Obamas have been members for 20 years.
The key issue for me, as both a supporter and as a reporter, revolves around what I view as Wright's most incendiary comments, those implying that America -- because of its own actions -- deserved the 9/11 terror attacks.
Wright made his comments on September 16, only 5 days after the deadly strikes in New York and Washington. He said, in part, "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye....We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."
Barack was then serving in the Illinois senate. He had unsuccessfully run for Congress the previous year. Although the Trinity United Church is large (6,000 members), the Obamas were then, and have been since his 1997 election to the State Senate, some of the best known parishioners.
A church, synagogue, mosque, and other places of worship, are like extensions of the local communities they serve. Afro-centric churches like Trinity serve not only as houses of worship but as a backdrop for a wide range of social, personal, and often business, relationships. When a parishioner is away from their house of worship, if the preacher/priest/rabbi/imam says something particularly out of character -- or wildly controversial -- it is almost impossible that members aren't going to talk about it endlessly as gossip.
There was no more traumatic event in our recent history than 9/11. Reverend Wright's comments would have raised a ruckus at most places in America, coming so soon after the the attack itself. Political commentator Bill Maher lost his TV show when he seconded a guest's observation that the hijackers had courage to carry out their attack. The country was emotionally raw.
If the parishioners of Trinity United Church were not buzzing about Reverend Wright's post 9/11 comments, then it could only seem to be because those comments were not out of character with what he preached from the pulpit many times before. In that case, I have to wonder if it is really possible for the Obamas to have been parishioners there -- by 9/11 they were there more than a decade -- and not to have known very clearly how radical Wright's views were. If, on the other hand, parishioners were shocked by Wright's vitriol only days after more than 3,000 Americans had been killed by terrorists, they would have talked about it incessantly. Barack -- a sitting Illinois State Senator -- would have been one of the first to hear about it.
Can't you imagine the call or conversation? "Barack, you aren't going to believe what Revered Wright said yesterday at the church. You should be ready with a comment if someone from the press calls you up."
But Barack now claims he never heard about any of this until after he began his run for the presidency, in February, 20007.
And even if Barack is correct -- and I desperately want to believe him -- then it still does not explain why, when he learned in 2007 of Wright's fringe comments about 9/11 and other subjects, the campaign did not then disassociate itself from the Reverend. Wright was not removed from the campaign's Spiritual Advisory Committee until two days ago, and it appears likely that nothing would have been done had this story not broken nationally.
Come on, Barack. I'm backing you because you are not 'one of them.' You have inspired me and millions of others because you are not a typical politician. You tell it like it is, don't fudge the facts, and don't dodge and weave with clever words to avoid uncomfortable truths.
Tell it straight. Was Reverend Wright so radical that his post 9/11 comments did not cause a stir at the Church, and you never learned about them until 2007, nearly 6 years later? Why, when you did learn about them, did you not ask Revered Wright to step down from his role in your campaign?
Give us the plain truth. You won't lose us by being brutally honest. You only risk shaking our faith in you if you seem like so many other politicians that crowd the field.
.....................................................................................
Gerald Posner is the author of 10 books of investigative non-fiction, seven NYT bestsellers, and a finalist for the Pulitzer in History. His last book was Secrets of the Kingdom: The Inside Story of the Saudi US Connection
John Martin of ABC News says "Gerald Posner is one of the most resourceful investigators I have encountered in thirty years of journalism." Garry Wills calls Posner "a superb investigative reporter," while the Los Angeles Times dubs him "a classic-style investigative journalist." "His work is painstakingly honest journalism" concluded The Washington Post. The New York Times lauded his "exhaustive research techniques" and The Boston Globe determined Posner is "an investigative journalist whose work is marked by his thorough and meticulous research." "A resourceful investigator and skillful writer," says The Dallas Morning News.
Posner was one of the youngest attorneys (23) ever hired by the Wall Street law firm of Cravath, Swaine & Moore. A Phi Beta Kappa and Summa Cum Laude graduate of the University of California at Berkeley (1975), he was an Honors Graduate of Hastings Law School (1978), where he served as the Associate Executive Editor for the Law Review. Of counsel to the law firm he founded, Posner and Ferrara, he is now a full time journalist and author.
He is a freelance writer on investigative issues for several news magazines, and a regular contributor to NBC's TODAY Show as well as other national shows on the History Channel, CNN, FOX News, and CBS. A member of the National Advisory Board of the National Writers Union, Posner is also a member of the Authors Guild, PEN, The Committee to Protect Journalists, and Phi Beta Kappa. He lives in Miami and Manhattan with his wife, author, Trisha Posner, who works on all his projects and writes with him the monthly OceanDrive "Cultural Chatter" column. Read a profile about Gerald's work in Publisher's Weekly.
....................................................................................
...................................................................................
Reverend Wright and Barack -- by Gerald Posner, March 15th, 2008.
I am a Barack Obama supporter. I liked Senator John Edwards, think Hilary Clinton would make a super president, but have been persuaded ever since the start of the campaign that Barack offers the greatest chance for substantive, and greatly over needed, change.
I'm still in the Barack camp. But, as a vocal supporter, I'd like just a couple of answers about the flap over Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr, the former pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, the Chicago megachurch where the Obamas have been members for 20 years.
The key issue for me, as both a supporter and as a reporter, revolves around what I view as Wright's most incendiary comments, those implying that America -- because of its own actions -- deserved the 9/11 terror attacks.
Wright made his comments on September 16, only 5 days after the deadly strikes in New York and Washington. He said, in part, "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye....We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."
Barack was then serving in the Illinois senate. He had unsuccessfully run for Congress the previous year. Although the Trinity United Church is large (6,000 members), the Obamas were then, and have been since his 1997 election to the State Senate, some of the best known parishioners.
A church, synagogue, mosque, and other places of worship, are like extensions of the local communities they serve. Afro-centric churches like Trinity serve not only as houses of worship but as a backdrop for a wide range of social, personal, and often business, relationships. When a parishioner is away from their house of worship, if the preacher/priest/rabbi/imam says something particularly out of character -- or wildly controversial -- it is almost impossible that members aren't going to talk about it endlessly as gossip.
There was no more traumatic event in our recent history than 9/11. Reverend Wright's comments would have raised a ruckus at most places in America, coming so soon after the the attack itself. Political commentator Bill Maher lost his TV show when he seconded a guest's observation that the hijackers had courage to carry out their attack. The country was emotionally raw.
If the parishioners of Trinity United Church were not buzzing about Reverend Wright's post 9/11 comments, then it could only seem to be because those comments were not out of character with what he preached from the pulpit many times before. In that case, I have to wonder if it is really possible for the Obamas to have been parishioners there -- by 9/11 they were there more than a decade -- and not to have known very clearly how radical Wright's views were. If, on the other hand, parishioners were shocked by Wright's vitriol only days after more than 3,000 Americans had been killed by terrorists, they would have talked about it incessantly. Barack -- a sitting Illinois State Senator -- would have been one of the first to hear about it.
Can't you imagine the call or conversation? "Barack, you aren't going to believe what Revered Wright said yesterday at the church. You should be ready with a comment if someone from the press calls you up."
But Barack now claims he never heard about any of this until after he began his run for the presidency, in February, 20007.
And even if Barack is correct -- and I desperately want to believe him -- then it still does not explain why, when he learned in 2007 of Wright's fringe comments about 9/11 and other subjects, the campaign did not then disassociate itself from the Reverend. Wright was not removed from the campaign's Spiritual Advisory Committee until two days ago, and it appears likely that nothing would have been done had this story not broken nationally.
Come on, Barack. I'm backing you because you are not 'one of them.' You have inspired me and millions of others because you are not a typical politician. You tell it like it is, don't fudge the facts, and don't dodge and weave with clever words to avoid uncomfortable truths.
Tell it straight. Was Reverend Wright so radical that his post 9/11 comments did not cause a stir at the Church, and you never learned about them until 2007, nearly 6 years later? Why, when you did learn about them, did you not ask Revered Wright to step down from his role in your campaign?
Give us the plain truth. You won't lose us by being brutally honest. You only risk shaking our faith in you if you seem like so many other politicians that crowd the field.
.....................................................................................
Gerald Posner is the author of 10 books of investigative non-fiction, seven NYT bestsellers, and a finalist for the Pulitzer in History. His last book was Secrets of the Kingdom: The Inside Story of the Saudi US Connection
John Martin of ABC News says "Gerald Posner is one of the most resourceful investigators I have encountered in thirty years of journalism." Garry Wills calls Posner "a superb investigative reporter," while the Los Angeles Times dubs him "a classic-style investigative journalist." "His work is painstakingly honest journalism" concluded The Washington Post. The New York Times lauded his "exhaustive research techniques" and The Boston Globe determined Posner is "an investigative journalist whose work is marked by his thorough and meticulous research." "A resourceful investigator and skillful writer," says The Dallas Morning News.
Posner was one of the youngest attorneys (23) ever hired by the Wall Street law firm of Cravath, Swaine & Moore. A Phi Beta Kappa and Summa Cum Laude graduate of the University of California at Berkeley (1975), he was an Honors Graduate of Hastings Law School (1978), where he served as the Associate Executive Editor for the Law Review. Of counsel to the law firm he founded, Posner and Ferrara, he is now a full time journalist and author.
He is a freelance writer on investigative issues for several news magazines, and a regular contributor to NBC's TODAY Show as well as other national shows on the History Channel, CNN, FOX News, and CBS. A member of the National Advisory Board of the National Writers Union, Posner is also a member of the Authors Guild, PEN, The Committee to Protect Journalists, and Phi Beta Kappa. He lives in Miami and Manhattan with his wife, author, Trisha Posner, who works on all his projects and writes with him the monthly OceanDrive "Cultural Chatter" column. Read a profile about Gerald's work in Publisher's Weekly.
....................................................................................
Monday, February 18, 2008
Email Feedback From My Dad Regarding My Poem, 'God is the Bridge'
Gordon Bain" Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
To: dgbainsky@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: God is the Bridge
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 13:50:31 -0400
I am having some trying days of late, but today is bright and while it
is
cold, it is fun to think.
I go back a little and come to your God is a Bridge thinking, or is Man
the
Bridge?
It occurs to me that without question, God is the Bridge.
There are countless times in life when the load gets heavy, and you
must try
to understand the unthinkable...the questions for which there are no
logical
answers. It is then we can look to the stars and imagine beyond, as
your
mother does most every clear night. She is not crazy with man contrived
theological passions. She simply finds solace and calmness in the
belief of
a greater power ... God...and allows her uncertainties and unanswerable
questions ..indeed all of her hurts and despair .. and we all have
them.. to
ride the stars (read that crossing the bridge) through the vastness of
incalculable space to a place of perfection, serenity and
understanding. It
is a bright and happy place where a person can set their load down, and
find
solace. It allows her to have inner strength that is enviable. In other
words that which she cannot understand she gives to God.
It is said you rarely see an athiest in the heat of battle. In truth,
most
all of the world with its billions of people believe in a greater
power. We
are in a state of self love and me..ness right now. If those less
endowed
could not reach out to their God, how could they bridge the death and
destruction of world savagery, or explain their children dying of
hunger and
disease?
I think your Mom is right. I have thought about it a lot in my time,
tried
to be smart, said clever things to suggest I had an angle on the
religion
thing. I come back to the simple belief in a greater power. As Einstein
remarked in his later life, no matter how many answers are found, there
are
ten thousand times more that are unexplainable except to view and
explain it
as the work of a greater power. Paraphrased and pulled from my memory
of
what he said, but that is the gist of it.
So David, I was quite fascinated with your God is the Bridge poem, for
all
of the reasons given. I hold that the title is suggestive, soothing,
and
meaningful. It is worthy of a scholar's rendering. However, it would be
easy
to crash under the weight of needing to have this God-like state proven
beyond a shadow of doubt. Then it would be a bridge to nothingness,
literally.
Dad
To: dgbainsky@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: God is the Bridge
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 13:50:31 -0400
I am having some trying days of late, but today is bright and while it
is
cold, it is fun to think.
I go back a little and come to your God is a Bridge thinking, or is Man
the
Bridge?
It occurs to me that without question, God is the Bridge.
There are countless times in life when the load gets heavy, and you
must try
to understand the unthinkable...the questions for which there are no
logical
answers. It is then we can look to the stars and imagine beyond, as
your
mother does most every clear night. She is not crazy with man contrived
theological passions. She simply finds solace and calmness in the
belief of
a greater power ... God...and allows her uncertainties and unanswerable
questions ..indeed all of her hurts and despair .. and we all have
them.. to
ride the stars (read that crossing the bridge) through the vastness of
incalculable space to a place of perfection, serenity and
understanding. It
is a bright and happy place where a person can set their load down, and
find
solace. It allows her to have inner strength that is enviable. In other
words that which she cannot understand she gives to God.
It is said you rarely see an athiest in the heat of battle. In truth,
most
all of the world with its billions of people believe in a greater
power. We
are in a state of self love and me..ness right now. If those less
endowed
could not reach out to their God, how could they bridge the death and
destruction of world savagery, or explain their children dying of
hunger and
disease?
I think your Mom is right. I have thought about it a lot in my time,
tried
to be smart, said clever things to suggest I had an angle on the
religion
thing. I come back to the simple belief in a greater power. As Einstein
remarked in his later life, no matter how many answers are found, there
are
ten thousand times more that are unexplainable except to view and
explain it
as the work of a greater power. Paraphrased and pulled from my memory
of
what he said, but that is the gist of it.
So David, I was quite fascinated with your God is the Bridge poem, for
all
of the reasons given. I hold that the title is suggestive, soothing,
and
meaningful. It is worthy of a scholar's rendering. However, it would be
easy
to crash under the weight of needing to have this God-like state proven
beyond a shadow of doubt. Then it would be a bridge to nothingness,
literally.
Dad
Sunday, November 18, 2007
DGB Multi-Dialectic, Humanistic-Existental, Pantheistic-Deism
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)