Religious Literalism and Fundamentalism:
I sense much figurative truth in the Bible to commend, but little of literal truth, especially in this age of logic and empiricism. It seems tragic that the immense store of figurative truth is hardly considered, since intelligent people are put off by the “door” that is guarded by childlike literalists. I say childlike because they think they are taking the Bible literally and thus empirically, even though it communicates little that can make empirical sense to human experience. Indeed, to the extent adherents try to force literal sense out of that which is necessarily figurative, the Bible rapidly slips to a means for twisting minds into depravities.
What, in practical terms, is “heaven?” How can any sane person believe the Bible conveys a literal understanding or description of heaven in sufficient detail for any human being to envision it in material representation? What does it mean to say Jesus was both spirit and flesh? What does it mean to say salvation unto heaven is availed by believing in one’s heart that Jesus is at once God and son of God? Insofar as “believing” is apart from empirically “knowing,” how does one scale any measure of belief? Can some empirical method weigh whether one believes enough to believe in one’s heart? If no empirical measure is available, then in what sense can the formula for “believing in one’s heart” be taken literally? How could any human concept of a just God imagine that, to be saved, one must have heard of and accepted the Son of God? Does that mean son in a carnal sense or in a created sense? Precisely what is the substance that must be believed in order to pass the test? What if the only story one heard was that Juxom was created of God, turned water into beer, fed 200 people at a funeral 1000 years before one were born, was hung from a tree, on the 20th day was resurrected, and therefore paved the way for believers to be saved? If the story one heard had somehow missed one or more traditional details, would one’s “belief” be insufficient?
What I propose is that there is a God, there are grounds to believe in something like Judeo-Christian values, regardless of whether one had ever been exposed to the Bible, and those eternal grounds may well be what Jesus, in His day, was explicating. Those grounds are rooted in intuition, empathy, and reason. Admittedly, this is not a proposal than can be proven. But I don’t believe there is sufficient reason in empiricism or logic (bivalent or otherwise) to believe contrary to such grounds. Nor do I believe the proposal is trivial.
Regardless, until caretakers of religion make their doctrine more logically palatable and meaningful to adult thinkers, I expect doorkeepers will be appealing more to the unenlightened and easily gulled than to those who can and will undertake honestly to lead society and preserve decent civilization.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Well, anyone can see that religious and zealous beliefs most certainly do have effect. Just look at Islam, Communism, and Progressivism. Problem is, true believers tend also to be easily misdirected by pretenders. Look at Obama. No doubt, that which we idealize affects our behavior. It's just that some idealize how to take advantage of others.
If there is a true or reliable religious or moral outlook, it should be one we can embrace and communicate intellectually. Is there an embraceable truth value at the core of Christianity? I think there is, but I think it is metaphorical, not literal. This is probably because I doubt that even "matter" has the kind of literal basis that we may often confuse ourselves to believe in. Until caretakers of religion make their doctrines more logically palatable and meaningful to thinkers, I expect doorkeepers will be appealing more to the unenlightened and easily gulled than to those who can and will undertake honestly to lead society to preserve decent civilization.
I suspect there is a God, and there are grounds to believe in something like Judeo-Christian values, regardless of whether one had ever been exposed to the Bible. Those eternal grounds may well be what Jesus, in His day, was explicating. Those grounds are rooted in intuition, empathy, and reason. Admittedly, this is not a proposal than can be proven. But I don’t believe there is sufficient reason in empiricism or logic to believe contrary to such grounds.
Given contextual truths stored in the Bible, it seems tragic that many intellectuals hardly consider the figurative aspects, put off as they are by incoherent literalism that guards the door. Apart from metaphorical truths, the Bible communicates little by way of ultimate facts that can make empirical sense to human experience. To the extent adherents try to force consistent literal sense out of that which is necessarily figurative, the Bible, like all such devices, rapidly slips to the use of cynics as a means for twisting gullible minds needing direction into depravities.
What does it mean to say salvation unto heaven is availed by believing in one’s heart that Jesus is at once God and son of God? Insofar as “believing” is apart from empirically “knowing,” how does one "literally" scale any measure of belief? Can some empirical method weigh whether one believes enough to "believe in one’s heart?" If no empirical measure is available, then in what sense can the formula for “believing in one’s heart” be taken literally? How could any human concept of a just God imagine that, to be saved, one must have heard of and accepted the Son of God? Does that mean "son" in a carnal sense or in a created sense? Precisely what is the substance that must be believed in order to pass the test? What if the only story one heard was that Juxom was created of God, turned water into beer, fed 200 people at a funeral 1000 years before one were born, was hung from a tree, on the 20th day was resurrected, and therefore paved the way for believers to be saved?
In other words, if the story one heard had somehow missed one or more traditional details, would one’s “belief” be insufficient? There is immense moral, socializing, and contextual value in the Bible. But it is primarily figurative, as were Jesus' parables. America's founding values were assimilated out of Judeo-Christian traditions. Those values are real, but the stories by which they are inspired are figurative. As we lose respect for the values under which we were assimilated, America will unravel, and we will not like that which replaces her. IMHO.
REGARDING PROSELYTIZING:
I'm not sure what should be considered to be proselytizing. To me, proselytizing is more in the vein of insisting that others should accept metaphysical slogans ("Christ died for our sins so we are saved by His grace” -- whatever that means), even though there is no way in logic, science, or even intuition to draw reasoned connections from such “feel good” slogans. That said, don’t get me wrong: I do think there is much validity to Judeo-Christian values. So, insofar as religious movements and notions do tend often to impact politics, I think drawing connections between politics and religion would not be “proselytizing” … at least, so long as one is only advocating a general system of social or political values, based on reason.
Indeed, I don't think we can get away from big government without assimilating the kinds of “spiritually based” social values that can sustain a civilization. I don't think we can assimilate values if we cannot somehow derive them in common, via some kind of convincing logic, science, or intuition. While I think natural selection occurs, I don’t think natural selection, in and of itself, makes intuitive or moral sense ... unless it is somehow guided. But that kind of guidance would implicate a kind of truth potential that is not limited to objective “true false” categorization. I think it may help decent civilization to prevail if it can reasonably be shown that morality is more than mere pretense, and that what really runs things, even behind the veneer of talk, is more than an indifferent or indecent law of the jungle.
In any event, I don't think intellectuals tend to be convinced merely because someone says some old time religion says so and so. I think intellectuals may prefer to consider something like Gene Man’s (or Carl Jung’s) notion of “God,” as a field of consciousness that is inherent to existence -- something that would make more sense than mere regurgitation of mantras.
The crux is this: Gullibles tend to be comfortable being ruled, and rulers tend to be happy to rule with the kind of slogans that have made most folks comfortable. People who are happy with their religious services don’t like to see their familiar content being monkeyed with by too much intellectualism. But intellectuals don’t tend to buy metaphysical slogans that have no intuitive or inherently testable truth value. So, when believers don’t want to submit to intellectual analysis, what are we left with? Well, priests, prosylytizers, and gullibles -- sort of like surrender to the elite rule of those who know best … kind of like asking middle class thinkers to leave their thinking capacities at the door, because they may upset prevailing mind diversions.
The problem is this: Old time religion --challenged as it is with science, anarchy, and Islam (not to mention incoherent logic) -- is not, by itself, absent more intelligent thought, up to leading decent civilization to prevail. IMO.
COMMON, ASSIMILATING VALUES:
There are values that are securely based in reality. They can be intuited or apprehended upon reasoned, good faith consideration of a suitable, traditional, common book of reflection – such as the Bible, which is the common reference upon which America was founded. There is a world (universe) we share in common, which defines as well as limits us. It is metaphysically alien to our sense and logic to comprehend anything outside it. It existentially reminds us, constantly and continuously, that our logic and empirical measurements are inadequate, in themselves, to adduce or appreciate the limits of its transitional existentiality or purposes, if any. Although our universe is beyond the un-fuzzy fathom of our logic and measurable empiricism, it is not beyond our direct, conscious apprehension and continuing, immeasurable intuition. Whatever purposes we, in our consciousness, happen to choose, such choices will be in respect of the metaphysical background that comprises our world and all its potentiality. There is no reason to suppose that the collective potentiality of our universe does not in some form of meta or collective consciousness take a participatory interest in mortal affairs. Assuming it does, an outline of an assimilating, civilizing, moral philosophy is discernible, which calls for us, in respect of such collective potentiality or meta-consciousness, to communicate decent empathy for one another’s pursuits – in the character not of manmade law, but spiritual empathy. Insofar as spiritual reality is beyond confinement to manmade measurements or limits, it is hopeless to try to circumscribe it in detailed provisions of insufferable, manmade laws.
Regarding Hayak and God --
Well, I did look at this: http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46: “In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.[7] Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people. »
…
« What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. »
I agree with much of the above. But I do not agree with the following (which seems silly, upon considering the need to protect minors):
« … to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion. »
I’m not confident Hayek gave full consideration to just how corrosive tolerating libertine behavior has become to Western Civilization. For goodness sakes, look at California, Los Angeles County, and NYC (before Giuliani and his “broken windows” law enforcement philosophy).
Then there was this: “Connected with the conservative distrust if the new and the strange is its hostility to internationalism and its proneness to a strident nationalism. »
You know, the more I read of this article by Hayak, the more I think he was not that much of a fortune teller. For the life of me, I see no sane reason why we should not be hostile to deceptive, violent, and undermining intrusions from the Islamic and Communist parts of the world ! Why we « should » trade with and enrich corrupt societies to such an extent that they can eventually corrupt and bribe our politicians with our own tax money boggles my mind. While I admire Hayak’s prescience in The Road to Serfdom, his article about why he was not a conservative begins to seem not as prescient.
IMO, the rub comes when Libertines try to tax state power and regulation in ways that severely constrict individual freedom of speech to communicate about spiritual values based on philosophical intuitions that support decent regard for sustainable, family-friendly values in respect of God.
Regarding Hayak and God --
Well, I did look at this: http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46: “In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.[7] Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people. »
…
« What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. »
I agree with much of the above. But I do not agree with the following (which seems silly, upon considering the need to protect minors):
« … to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion. »
I’m not confident Hayek gave full consideration to just how corrosive tolerating libertine behavior has become to Western Civilization. For goodness sakes, look at California, Los Angeles County, and NYC (before Giuliani and his “broken windows” law enforcement philosophy).
Then there was this: “Connected with the conservative distrust if the new and the strange is its hostility to internationalism and its proneness to a strident nationalism. »
You know, the more I read of this article by Hayak, the more I think he was not that much of a fortune teller. For the life of me, I see no sane reason why we should not be hostile to deceptive, violent, and undermining intrusions from the Islamic and Communist parts of the world ! Why we « should » trade with and enrich corrupt societies to such an extent that they can eventually corrupt and bribe our politicians with our own tax money boggles my mind. While I admire Hayak’s prescience in The Road to Serfdom, his article about why he was not a conservative begins to seem not as prescient.
IMO, the rub comes when Libertines try to tax state power and regulation in ways that severely constrict individual freedom of speech to communicate about spiritual values based on philosophical intuitions that support decent regard for sustainable, family-friendly values in respect of God.
The “marketplace of economic forces” is not entirely “natural.” Rather, its direction is also affected subjectively, by conceptualizations of trend leaders (“raising consciousness”). Sometimes the conceptualizations are wisely designed; sometimes they are fired blindly. Indeed, even to idealize and communicate a name for a new thing within the marketplace is already to give it a kind of self-promoting value. That is, the marketplace of the physically desired evolves in synchronicity with the marketplace of the spiritually idealized.
An American Conservative tends to favor the kind of decent change that comes with unleashing individual initiative, but to disfavor the kind of stifling change that comes from corralling people into regulated collectives. A “Social Conservative” will be an “American Conservative” only to the extent he/she prefers that opportunity for inspiring social values is availed in respect of social mores as opposed to governmental regulations.
IMO, the rub comes when Libertines try to tax state power and regulation in ways that severely constrict individual freedom of speech to communicate about spiritual values based on philosophical intuitions that support decent regard for sustainable, family-friendly values in respect of God.
For my money, judges should apply the common sense definition of marriage. Feds should not interfere. If the people of a particular State want to recognize same sex marriage, so be it. Constitutional Conservatives should be conservers of (small gov) freedom. Let the Liberals defend liberal spreading of (big gov) collectivism (i.e., servitude to international elites who run governments).
Problem is, how do farmers live with thieves and bums who believe they are entitled to take the produce? A society either believes that what a family produces is its own, or it doesn't. A society cannot stand and hold pervasive attitudes of both liberty and entitlement at the same time. One must prevail and one must fall. We must decide between the visions of Whittaker Chambers (freedom) versus Alger Hiss (enforced collectivism). We cannot make both liberty and communalism paramount; one must serve the other. We cannot submit to a world federation among codependent collectivists and entitlement mongers and still preserve freedom of thought and conscience.
By whose wisdom must we assume that the proper role of government is to force us to pay taxes to fund the indoctrination of the next generation with a one-sided view about the need to tolerate any value, even sexual values? Who died and made the Left king to decide which set of one-sided family values must not only be tolerated, but forcibly tolerated? Does the Left imagine there is some kind of settled scientific consensus or indisputable basis for teaching that we must be tolerant of only the values du jour that the Left dreams up? Must we abide our children being taught that they must tolerate values that do not tolerate a sustainable representative republic? What about teaching kids a wider context, so they can learn to think and advocate for themselves about the sort of general principles that are needed in order to sustain a symbiotic, defensible, replenishing, thought-respecting civilization? If it is a violation of the "separation" of church and state to teach biblically supported traditions against the encouragement of homosexuality, then why is it not a violation of such separation to teach that any biblically supported basis is "scientifically" or rationally wrong? Insofar as the Leftist agenda is NOT based in science, what is it, if not religious like faith? Why is it permissible to feign science in order to promote anti-faith? If there is a wall of separation, why is that not a violation? Why are Leftist values more rational or "more equal" than Conservative values? I don't care what adults do in privacy! I do care when they usurp my tax money to force an environment of "education" that is calculated to lead kids to believe that certain values are more equal than others, with no wider context.
Post a Comment