  |
 |
| |
|
|
|  A Critique of the New Religious LeftPosted on May 30, 2006
Editor’s note: In the tradition of Sam Harris, Truthdig introduces secularist radio show host and author Barry Seidman, who argues in this essay that the new religious left could prove to be just as dangerous and divisive to the country as the religious right, because the admonitions of Abrahamic religious texts can never be reconciled with democracy.
After nearly 40 years of retreat, the American religious left is once again on the advance. And on the face of it, even secular Americans might have reason to cheer a religious movement focused on alleviating poverty, safeguarding the environment, improving criminal justice and opposition to war—as opposed to the religious right’s obsession with abortion and gay marriage. As the movement’s most prominent leader, Jim Wallis, founder of the leftish Christian evangelical magazine Sojourners, put it in his 2004 book “God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It: A New Vision for Faith and Politics in America”: “Promoting and pursuing a progressive social agenda with a concern for economic security, health care, and educational opportunity [doesn’t] mean you [have] to put faith in God aside....” (1) [See footnotes.] But however much praise Wallis and his followers deserve for joining the good fight against Christo-fascists like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Tim LaHaye and President Bush, the coupling of religion and politics is as dangerous for the left as it is for the right, because absolutism, authoritative supernaturalism and the actual tenets of the Abrahamic religious texts can never be reconciled with democracy and freedom. Central to Wallis’ message is the belief that at the heart of Judaism, Christianity and Islam lays a golden and pristine platonic realm where the ethics of social justice, brotherly love and global peace drive God’s big-brained creation. Wallis points to Martin Luther King Jr. as an example of liberalism and spirituality joining hands to spark major progressive reforms. Wallis argues, “Martin Luther King Jr. ... with his Bible in one hand and the Constitution in the other ... reminded us all of God’s purposes for justice, for peace....” (2) It is difficult to argue against what Dr. King accomplished, just as it can seem difficult to critique the religious right when its members (mis)talk about “family values.” But both arguments are misleading. As we shall see, when those on the right talk about values, they are actually promoting literal biblical dogma—dogma that includes diatribes against women, children, homosexuals, compassion and “the other.” (3) And even if King believed that his courage and strength derived from religion, when it came to actually doing what was necessary, he advocated for secular, humanistic change in our society ... change that would never be made if he stuck to the Bible’s message. What are the actual tenets of the Abrahamic religions, and can Wallis’ progressive vision be found there? In Hector Avalos’ new book, “Fighting Words: The Origin of Religious Violence” (2005), Avalos examines the Abrahamic religions with an eye toward explaining the kinds of behavior we associate with the Christian right in America, the Jewish right in Israel and the Islamic right in the Middle East. What he discovers will be sure to disturb anyone with a liberal impression of God. Avalos’ main argument is that violence stems from real or perceived scarcities of resources. When we look at the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq, we see the very real concern with the dwindling oil reserves on Earth, and how the oil-made members of the administration would risk personal economic disaster if Iraqi oil were to actually serve the Iraqi people. But in addition to real resources, “perceived resources” can also become the focus of violence—and all too often these resources have been created by our religious books. According to Avalos, one of these perceived resources stems from what he calls “group privileging.” For example, the Jewish belief that Israel is the chosen land—and that Jews are a chosen people—necessarily elevates Jews in their own eyes above all other people on Earth. This perceived scarcity—the scarcity of being God’s “favorite”—can be seen in Israel’s current policy toward the Palestinians.
Avalos argues:
Avalos contends that the idea of group privileging also sparked religious violence by inculcating the idea among Jews that God helped them destroy other peoples—peoples the Jews saw as a threat, conveniently: the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites Canaanites, Jebusites and the modern Palestinians. (In an interesting aside, Avalos argues that “shalom” does not mean peace as is commonly misunderstood. Rather, “shalom” means repayment or retaliation. Avalos argues that “shalom” was a word meaning domination or hegemony of Jews over all, and severe retribution for any who go against the Jewish way of life.) Many liberal-minded Christians, I have found, do not advocate for the angry, retributive God of the Hebrews. Jesus, they argue, revealed a new covenant that superceded the Old Testament. Thus the turning point from the Old to New Testament is then is where Wallis and other liberal religionists begin their arguments for the so-called “Prince of Peace.” But Avalos finds plenty of perceived scarcities directly in the New Testament. One such scarcity is the idea of “sacred space.” In John 2:14-17 we find an account where Jesus whips people in a temple for selling animals and then goes on to wreck the place. Christian apologists have argued that this violence was justified because of blasphemy committed in a house of God. Avalos argues then that “since Jesus is a paradigm of Christian conduct, his actions came to influence some of the violence linked to sacred places we see in later Christian history.” (8) Avalos here is referring to the Crusades, among other historical Christian atrocities. But Jesus did much more than this to ensure the cult-like following he would soon receive. Proclaiming himself the voice of God, he prepared the needy and fearful for future battles they were to endure while spreading Christianity. One such method is most probably the same sort used by Islamic fundamentalists when recruiting suicide terrorists. In Luke 14:26-27, Jesus says, “Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brother and sister, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.” Mighty strong words no doubt meant to dedicate his followers to developing an artificial kinship with non-family members who would then fight as blood kin to the death for their perceived resource—God him/her/itself. Even apart from his discussion of religious-created scarcities, Avalos uses a close reading of the Bible to reject the view that Christianity essentially espouses love and peace. He argues that in Romans 12:14 we do not really see an example of Christians loving their enemies at all, though this section is often cited by Christians for this very reason. The section begins, sure enough, “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them.” But what most liberal Christians then ignore is the rest of the section, “If your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads” (Romans 12:20). Heaping burning coals on their heads? Avalos suggests that read as a whole, the commandment to be nice is a way to build up the potential for violence against an enemy. The nicer one is to one’s enemies, the more they will deserve the violence done to them in the end. Avalos understands Christian “love” this way:
So even if the Religious Left has developed a healthier and somewhat more liberal understanding of human society based on compassion, interconnectedness, fairness, and justice, it is just as sure that they did not base these views on actual scripture. They merely attempt to make scripture fit their liberal beliefs, because the Bible is anything but liberal. I call this buffet religiosity--cherry-picking the parts of scripture that conform to their worldview, and discarding the ones that don’t. (How, exactly, one can justify cherry-picking the words of God, is beyond me.) It is my argument, then, that the lure of religion (for both progressives and conservatives) lies in what the humanist philosopher, Dr. Paul Kurtz (12), has referred to as the “transcendental temptation.” Simply put: The marvel of life, the fear of death, and the very real need for spiritual nourishment are perhaps the main reasons people give up or suspend reason for faith. They cannot see the beauty of life, of very existence, as something wonderful unto itself. They instead search for meaning in the universe when there can be meaning only within themselves. They try to eschew a depression rooted in the thought of their own mortality by clinging to thousand-year-old myths of everlasting life. They spend far too much time making believe there really is an afterlife, instead of living their one very real life in the here and now. As I often hear atheists say: This is the one life—here on Earth. This is not a dress rehearsal. Liberal religionists have not been able to mature past the need for a “parent figure” lest they find themselves alone in the universe. Yet they do this while sometimes never enjoying their own relationships with other people—people with whom they share this life. We are indeed not alone. I take for granted—but not lightly—that adherents of the religious right have a very unhealthy and quite primitive understanding of the universe, and a very narrow, narcissistic interpretation of their role in the human diaspora. And because of this, they have followed the ancient teachings found in Judaism, Christianity and Islam to a fault. Or perhaps, as Avalos might argue, they have this unhealthy and false worldview because they believe in their so-called holy books. But members of both the religious right and left subscribe to the same ethics of hegemony and domination as did their ancestors who wrote their unscientific understanding of ethics on papyrus thousands of years ago. Both create just-so stories and impart their beliefs while nurturing insidious territorialism. The ancients did not have the scientific knowledge or the intellectual maturity necessary to live together with all of humanity in mutual respect, free of myths and separatist values. What is our excuse? What we must understand is that while fundamentalists of every shade try to relive the golden years of religious violence here in the 21st century, it is imperative that we do not fail to expose their creation of false scarcities. There is no supernatural realm; there are no gods or angels. Never were. There is no “sacred” land, people or ideas. What there is we can find in the beauty of Earth’s deserts, polar caps, mountain ranges and seas—and inside each one of us. We can enjoy the diversity of life on this planet as the one species capable of contemplating what life actually is. (14) This is the crux of scientific humanism. The left would be making a severe mistake to indulge the “transcendental temptations” of our collective past, for the truly progressive society is the one which has finally put away its childhood toys and vices, and begun to evolve toward a planetary humanism.
(1) http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=about_us.display_staff&staff=wallis (2) http://www.afscme.org/publications/public_employee/2005/pemj0514.htm (3) Bear in mind, by the way, that those traditional conservative values have always been, and are still today, aligned with religious values even when concerning the atheist-right such as Leo Strauss, Joe Stalin, etc. (4) http://www.visionarylead.org/E-Newsletter/Articles/gods_politics.htm (5) Avalos, Hector: “Fighting Words: The Origin of Religious Violence.” Pages 130-131 (6) Ibid., Pages 169-170 (7) Ibid., Pages 164-166 (8) Ibid., Pages 180-181 (9) Ibid., Page 205 (10) Ibid., Page 230 (11) Perhaps the most obvious contradiction in the Bible is between the commandment Thou Shall Not Kill and the plentiful killing that takes place in both testaments (somehow excused by God). (12) http://www.secularhumanism.org (13) Kurtz, Paul: “The Transcendental Temptation: A Critique of Religion and the Paranormal” (Prometheus Books, 1991). (14) As Carl Sagan understood, humanity is the universe’s first successful attempt to understand itself. SHARE THIS TRUTHDIG ARTICLE:
|
Why Obama Can Keep Gates
Email
Print
Share
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Mixx
MySpace
NewsVine
NewsTrust
Reddit
SphereIt
StumbleUpon
TwitThis
YahooBuzz
Jump to Comments
By jan, July 3, 2007 at 3:31 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
its nonsence i just need prominent people from the ot!!!!
Report thisBy Elisa L. Griffin, August 31, 2006 at 10:22 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I want to edit something: (sorry) I don’t want any confussion! in the message below I wrote:
To EVERYONE:
I am a Christian and I myself have to research verses further in order to make sure that they are correct.
I should have wrote:
I am a Christian and I myself have to research verses further in order to make sure that I am correct on the meaning.
and also I wrote:
I can not force nor should I/or anyone else ever try and force beliefs of Christ on anyone!
and I should have wrote:
I can not force nor should I/or anyone else ever try and force beliefs of Christ or any other belief on anyone else!
Sorry about that! I guess that is what happens when you write so late!!!
God Bless you all!!!
Report thisBy Elisa L. Griffin, August 21, 2006 at 2:47 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I would just like to comment on what was written about:
In Luke 14:26-27, Jesus says, Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brother and sister, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.
People who read this and take it so literally are misunderstanding it’s meaning!
Jesus’ comment here is an example of hyperbole a figure of speech that exaggerates for emphasis!!! Jesus was setting up an extreme contrast to make a point: That our passion for Christ (Jesus) should be strong, and committed that we would put him first before all others!
Matt. 10:37-39 says,
37 “Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38 and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
This is the “Youth” version of the message:
34 -37 “Don’t think I’ve come to make life cozy. I’ve come to cutmake a sharp knife-cut between son and father, daughter and mother, bride and mother-in-lawcut through these cozy domestic arrangements and free you for God. Well-meaning family members can be your worst enemies. If you prefer father or mother over me, you don’t deserve me. If you prefer son or daughter over me, you don’t deserve me.
38 -39 “If you don’t go all the way with me, through thick and thin, you don’t deserve me. If your first concern is to look after yourself, you’ll never find yourself. But if you forget about yourself and look to me, you’ll find both yourself and me.
IF you are a Non-Believer (and even some believers) of Christ It is probably hard for you to understand the Bible. There are many Parables and Hyperboles (Hyperbole is overstatement or exaggerated language that distorts facts by making them much bigger than they are if looked at objectively. The media use it a lot to make stories seem more important or interesting than they really are (an apparently unfair boxing decision was described as the ‘crime of the century’ by one newspaper which seems excessive when compared to murder). It may be used to entertain or more seriously.) that can make it a little confusing or misunderstanding! Even many Christians can misunderstand what the true message is!
To EVERYONE:
If you read something in the Bible and are shocked, confused, or just plain don’t get it, Please research the passage before you form an opinion on it or the WHOLE Bible all together! Not only will you be educating yourself on a subject more but you will not be offending believers or misguiding others from the truth!
I am a Christian and I myself have to research verses further in order to make sure that they are correct. It is better to know that I have my facts straight before I go trying to explain something I know nothing about!
FYI- I believe most Christians
(not including cults that say they are Christians (1 Timothy 3:1)[ Leadership in the Church ] If anyone wants to provide leadership in the church, good! But there are preconditions: A leader must be well-thought-of, committed to his wife, cool and collected, accessible, and hospitable. He must know what he’s talking about, not be overfond of wine, not pushy but gentle, not thin-skinned, not money-hungry. He must handle his own affairs well, attentive to his own children and having their respect. For if someone is unable to handle his own affairs, how can he take care of God’s church? He must not be a new believer, lest the position go to his head and the Devil trip him up. Outsiders must think well of him, or else the Devil will figure out a way to lure him into his trap.)
would agree with me when I say that we are not trying to make everyone “Believers”. In the Bible Jesus tells us that there are people that do not believe;
1 Corinthians 7:15
15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.
2 Corinthians 4:4:
3 -4 If our Message is obscure to anyone, it’s not because we’re holding back in any way. No, it’s because these other people are looking or going the wrong way and refuse to give it serious attention. All they have eyes for is the fashionable god of darkness. They think he can give them what they want, and that they won’t have to bother believing a Truth they can’t see. They’re stone-blind to the dayspring brightness of the Message that shines with Christ, who gives us the best picture of God we’ll ever get.
Luke 8:12
Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved.
When Christians talk about Christ in a non argumentative (the way it should always be!) way like an informative speech. It’s because we love Christ and want to share his message! Just like if your Dad where to have built a top notch school for under privileged students and his tuition was free for them you would want to spread the word right? Because your proud of him and because you want to help someone out who may need the assistance. Right? Hey if they don’t want to go then Oh-Well you tried! Well same thing when it comes to God for us!
Report thisI can not force nor should I/or anyone else ever try and force beliefs of Christ on anyone! It needs to be that persons choice! Or how can it be true for sure?
God Bless You All!
Elisa
PS- The Bible needs to be read in entirety to properly be understood. Also if People would learn to communicate effectively and listen effectively we could probably better understand one another’s point of view a little better and respect it!
By Steffie, August 13, 2006 at 1:37 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
an interesting take on the ethical side of revolutionary politics by Fidel Castro, published by Leonardo Boff this past Friday, 8/11/06. apologies in advance for any formatting problems.
Steffie
---------------------------------
Leonardo Boff - Fidel at 80: Confidential Memories
-----------------------------------
(Leonardo Boff is the father of Liberation Theology. Frei Betto’s
booklength interview with the Commander-in-Chief, whose title is
FIDEL AND RELIGION [Ocean Press], is dedicated to Leonardo Boff.)
====================================
Fidel at 80: Confidential Memories
Leonardo Boff
Theologian
Earthcharter Commission
What I am going to reveal here will irritate or scandalize those who
do not like Cuba or Fidel Castro. That does not worry me. If you do
not see the light of the star in the darkest night, it is not the
star’s fault; but yours.
Because of my book, Church: Charisma and Power, in 1985, then
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger subjected me to <obsequious silence>. I
accepted the sentence, and quit teaching, writing and speaking in
public. Months later, I was surprised to receive an invitation from
Commandant Fidel Castro, asking me to spend two weeks with him on the
Island, during his vacation. I accepted immediately, because I saw an
opportunity to resume the critiquing dialogues that we had enjoyed
several times previously, together with Frei Betto.
I headed to Cuba, and reported to the Commandant. In my presence, he
immediately called the Apostolic Nuncio with whom he had cordial
relations, and said to him: <Eminence, here is Brother Boff, who will
be my guest for two weeks. As I am disciplined, I will not allow him
to talk with anyone, nor give interviews, this way he will observe
what the Vatican wants of him: obsequious silence. I will see to it
that that is respected.> And so it was.
During those two weeks, whether by car, airplane or ship, he showed
me the whole Island. Simultaneously, with total freedom, we conversed
about a thousand topics: politics, religion, Marxism, revolution and
also critiques of the deficiencies of democracy.
The nights were devoted to long meals, followed by serious
discussions that often lasted into the early morning. Some times
until 6 a.m. Then, he would stand up, stretch, and say:<now I am
going to swim for some 40 minutes; and after that, I will go to
work.> I would write down what we had talked about and then, go to
sleep.
Some topics of our fellowship seem relevant to me. First of all,
Fidel’s persona. He is larger than the Island. His Marxism is more
ethical than political: how to do justice to the poor? Then, there is
his knowledge of the theology of liberation. He has read a mountain
of books, all of them with notes, lists of terms and of doubts that
he would clarify with me. I once told him: <If Cardinal Ratzinger
understood half of what you understand of the Theology of Liberation,
my personal destiny and the future of this theology would be very
different.> And in that context, he confessed: <I am ever more
convinced that no Latin American revolution will be true, popular and
triumphant, if it does not incorporate the religious element.>
Perhaps due to this conviction, he had practically forced Frei Betto
and myself to give successive lessons on religion and Christianity to
the whole second echelon of Government; some times, with all the
ministers present. Those courses were decisive for the Government in
dialoguing and coming to a sort of <reconciliation> with the Catholic
Church and all the other religions in Cuba.
Finally, there was his confession: I was an intern with the Jesuits
for several years; they gave me discipline but did not teach me how
to think. In jail, reading Marx, I learned to think. Due to the
Northamerican pressure I had to make a rapprochement to the Soviet
Union, but if I had had at that time a theology of liberation, I
would most certainly had embraced it and applied it in Cuba. And he
finished: If one day I return to the faith of my childhood, it will
be by the hands of Brother Betto and Brother Boff We reached moments
of such solidarity that we could have easily prayed the Our Father
together.
I had written 4 thick notebooks about our dialogues, but in Rio de
Janeiro my car was attacked, and they took everything. The book I had
imagined can never be written, but I treasure the memory of the
unforgettable experience of a Head of State, worried about the
dignity and the future of the poor.
Leonardo Boff
08-11-2006
Free translation from the Spanish sent
Report thisby volar_2004 at yahoo dot com dot ar, served by
contacto at servicioskoinonia dot org; done at
REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas
By Tony Wicher, July 24, 2006 at 1:42 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Reply to Comment #14941 by Barry F. Seidman on 7/23 at 9:36 am
If there were some way to incorporate this, what could be called “science of the self” as part of science, in fact as the central scientific discipline, then science and relgion do become one, and I see this as the only way out of the mess the world is currently in.
Report thisBy Tony Wicher, July 24, 2006 at 1:39 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Reply to Comment #14941 by Barry F. Seidman on 7/23 at 9:36 am
I had never heard of Susan Blackmore. I checked out her web site and yes, we seem to have a lot in common. Thanks for the suggestion. I will be getting in touch with her. Like her I have studied Buddhist literature, but do not consider myself a “Buddhist”. Like her I believe that psychedelics such as cannabis and psilocybin used with the proper motivation can be beneficial in the exploration of consciousness. A very important part of my background is my scientific upbringing. My father was a theoretical physicist, a real scientist and a great teacher. He was also an unbending atheist, considering that to be the only viewpoint consistent with science. I learned about science at my daddy’s knee. I myself started college majoring in mathematics. In my junior year I switched to philosophy. Why? Because I did not see how science as my father understood it - physics, mathematics, chemistry - was solving or could solve our human problems. Science could not stop war; it could only increase its destructiveness. About this time (1965) I started taking LSD and it opened up a whole ocean, a whole new dimension right inside my head. I realized then that this extra dimension was completely overlooked by my father and his conception of science. My father considered himself to be completely objective, the very embodiment of reason. Indeed he was one of the most rational people you could ever hope to meet, wonderfully tolerant and open-minded.
Report thisUnfortunately, he also had a lot of repressed anger, an ulcer, and other emotions that his self-image as a rational scientist would not admit. At this time I was also introduced by one of my philosophy professors to the work of J. Krishnamurti, whom I subsequently heard speak on many occasions until his death in 1986. He introduced me to meditation as a discipline of self-awareness in daily life. This discipline was just like the discipline of scientific observation, to see things as they are, dispassionately, without preconceptions, without any axe to grind, without judgement or condemnation or justification. To observe oneself in this way, one’s own behavior, thoughts, feelings, in daily life, in relationship - I saw this as a scientific approach to exploring the “beyond within”, this fifth dimension that psychedelics had opened up -which was nothing other than my own brain, my own mind.
By Barry F. Seidman, July 23, 2006 at 8:36 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Tony:
Interesting. I think there is some truth to that. Have you read the work of Susan Blackmore?
Barry
Report thisBy Tony Wicher, July 22, 2006 at 8:42 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
My hypothesis is that there is a discipline of self-observation that parallels scientific observation of the world. Each of us is conditioned by our past. We are raised to be
Report thisChristians, Muslims, Atheists, or what have you. All our past experience conditions our observation. A Jew sees the world as a Jew, a Muslim as a Muslim. Science says, look without any preconceptions, then you see the world as it actually is. When one is looking at the world as a scientist, one is not looking as a Jew, a Muslim, a Christian, etc. but from the standpoint of humanity, as homo sapiens, organisms with minds capable of reason and understanding. My hypothesis is that it is also possible to observe and understand the working of one’s own mind in the same way, and that in so doing the mind disentangles itself from its past. Moreover, in so doing the mind comes to understand not only itself as an individual, but the human mind in general, why it struggles and suffers, why it cannot find peace, outwardly or inwardly. This transforms our relationships with other people. Out of this emerges a universal compassion.
By Barry F. Seidman, July 21, 2006 at 9:51 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Tony Wicher said:
Science - real science - is not ideology. Science recognizes an objective reality that exists prior to all ideas. Scientific ideas get their meaning and validity from that reality. Therefore science does unite. Of course, there are always different ideas, different theories, but over the course of time, different ideas with respect to this objective truth are resolved and agreement is reached.
My studies indicate that there is something just as objectively real that is at the origin of religion. It is not an idea, any more than the earth and the sky are ideas, but it is within rather than without. To discover this source, this inner reality one must know oneself. This is the ultimate scientific discipline, the ultimate objectivity - the ability to see oneself objectively.
What you call religion is the decay of the discovery of this inward reality into ideology.
======================================
Barry’s reply:
This is very interesting. I agree completely with your understanding of objective reality (as opposed to subjective “reality"), and I also agree that science is the best tool for understanding such reality. And so, science, therefore, can indeed be a uniting “force” as it is non-dogmatic, non-ideological “ism-dry” - a la “Scientific Naturalism” (http://www.naturalism.org).
Atheism can not be an ideology because atheism properly defined is merely non-belief or disbelief (depending on whether or not one is talking about negative or positive atheism), but humanism might be considered an ideology because it is front and foremost a philosphical belief. But as an ideology, humanism - if defined correctly - is the only set of ideas/beliefs I know of based on hard and soft science (a la naturalism, etc); and this perhaps then renders humanism unique to the world of ideas.
If ideology is to be defined as beliefs not necessarily based on science, then humanism should NOT be considered an ideology.. which is why I refer to humanism as I do. I think one day, as people all over come to better understand scientific naturalism, as well as respect good social science (found in anthopology, sociology, psychology, etc), the term humanism may not be needed at all because the securalism, atheism and progressivism of humanism would be inherent in the proper scientific understanding of the human experience - supernaturalism would become extinct and religion would be the same thing as naturalism.
PS: I need further explanation of your “inner self” idea so as to respond to it.
Barry F. Seidman
Report thisBy Tony Wicher, July 21, 2006 at 11:13 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Reply to Comment #10922 by Barry F. Seidman on 6/01 at 10:04 pm
You said:
Thanks Tony for the clarification! I accept your definition of religion as legitimate, of course, and yes once you eliminate superstition, the paranormal, supernaturalism, and god.. what you are left with might indeed be a political philosophy like humanism.. or it might wind up being the misanthropic Randian Objectivism.
But if it is a political (or apolitical, for that matter) philosophy you are talking about, why use the stereotyped word religion in the first place?
Humanism is a philosophy (some may say ideology) based on scientific naturalism (which does away with the dogma).. where other ideologies may be less scientific (neo-conservatism, postmodernism, Christianity, etc).
Is natural religion, the way you think of it, an ideology? Is it a philosophy? If by religion you really mean spirituality, or a binding system of ethics, then youd have to explain where you get that spirituality or ethical system from (naturally).
I am all for uniting humanity - that is the crux of humanism to me. So, Tony, how do you unite humanity in your words? - BFS
My reply:
Religion (re-ligiere) means to bind together, to unite. But ideologies, “religious” or otherwise have divided humanity, not united it - correct? You believe in your ideas and I believe in mine. Ideology and belief are the same thing, whether it is Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Humanist ... ideology is ideology, belief is belief.
Science - real science - is not ideology. Science recognizes an objective reality that exists prior to all ideas. Scientific ideas get their meaning and validity from that reality. Therefore science does unite. Of course, there are always different ideas, different theories, but over the course of time, different ideas with respect to this objective truth are resolved and agreement is reached.
My studies indicate that there is something just as objectively real that is at the origin of religion. It is not an idea, any more than the earth and the sky are ideas, but it is “within” rather than “without”. To discover this source, this inner reality one must know oneself. This is the ultimate scientific discipline, the ultimate objectivity - the ability to see oneself objectively.
What you call “religion” is the decay of the discovery of this inward reality into ideology.
Report thisBy Barry F. Seidman, June 19, 2006 at 10:43 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Barry (OLD): This is more complicated than it may seem. First, I am not attacking anyone based on the false premises you state. This is what I meant by setting up a straw-man to knock down. I never attacked Christians who advocate for love and acceptance. In fact, I said these sort of religious individuals are the secular humanists best friends! I feel much more angst about atheists who advocate for war and aggressive competition.
Andrea: Well, actually you do attack them on false premises - you say,
Liberal religionists have not been able to mature past the need for a parent figure lest they find themselves alone in the universe. Yet they do this while sometimes never enjoying their own relationships with other peoplepeople with whom they share this life.
(I find this statement to be totally unsupportable. The liberal Christians I know not only heartily enjoy their relationships with other people, but are very good at them.)
BARRY(NEW) - I may have been unclear here, and a bit unfair. Not all liberal religionists treat their need for supernaturalism as a “parent figure” a la Freud. And they certainly can enjoy their relationships with other people. What I was trying - unsuccessfully, I admit - to say was that to the degree that liberal religionists turn to supernaturalism, and “forces outside their own lives,” for either explanation or support… is to the degree they will fail to see the answers they seek in their actual relationships and in the wonder of life itself.
Andrea: (And you say) But members of both the religious right and left subscribe to the same ethics of hegemony and domination as did their ancestors who wrote their unscientific understanding of ethics on papyrus thousands of years ago. Both create just-so stories and impart their beliefs while nurturing insidious territorialism. The ancients did not have the scientific knowledge or the intellectual maturity necessary to live together with all of humanity in mutual respect, free of myths and separatist values.
Here you lump together the Christian left and right and ignore the primary difference between them that the left regards that territorialism that disregards human life and seeks to destroy others based on discrimination of any kind as a spiritual crime. This is truly what separates the left and the right real, humanistic compassion. Yet you seem to have no problem us ... Leftist Christians are not fundamentalist or Catholic most do not believe in the Trinity or necessarily that Christ is the only savior of the world. Their primary belief is of Christ as a teacher of peace and compassion.
Barry (NEW): What I mean by hegemony and domination (which includes territorialism), is that the actual texts BOTH liberal and conservative religionists reference in their belief in Christianity (for instance), are based on hegemony, domination (hierarchy) and territorialism. One cannot get around this no matter where they get their “history” of Christianity - including the so-called words of Jesus - from. I showed this in regard to the real meanings of Jesus’ words as opposed to the dubious leftist interpretation of them (the primary idea of “Christ” as teacher of peace and compassion is untrue as such ‘peace and compassion’ is ONLY reserved for fellow Christians).
Again, yes, leftist Christians may not choose to recognize the roots of their proclaimed faith when they advocate for the so-called ‘kinder Christianity’ you are speaking of, but as long as they use the word “Christian,” and proclaim to BE Christians, they cannot escape the meaning of Christianity no matter how they sugar coat it.
Barry (old): The fact is, however, that conservatives have gotten religion correct, because when one studies and understands the non-humanistic connotations and sort of ethical principles - laid out 2-5 thousand years ago, by nomadic tribes we somehow think had any real understanding of human nature whatsoever - one learns that these writings are quite regressive and right-wing.
Andrea: This is a great argument against the right. But really how does it relate at all to the left? Leftist Christians are really not that concerned with the Old Testament. They are essentially New Testament followers who, I would guess, dont even have a strong grip on anything but the four gospels. You could certainly claim this about right-wingers but to be fair youd have to say that what theyve gotten correct is the historically sold concept of religion…
Barry (NEW): Christianity is based on a variety of writings (some still around today, some lost or dismissed), as an attempt of the many writers to show that the prophecies of the older Hebrew Bible came true. In this regard, the New Testament is a sequel and FULFILLMENT of the Old Testament (however fabricated). To ignore the old then is to misunderstand the new.
Also, the authors of the New Testament had very little knowledge about how the world really worked.. not much more than did their Old Testament counterparts.
Andrea: It is real wisdom axioms about how life functions and how human existence can be influenced by very real Universal laws, like cause and effect, duality (which can be described as simply every ounce of matter in the universe being made up of both positive and negative elements), and how energy seeks its own level.
Barry (NEW): This sentence is a mix of science and pseudoscience. Yes, there are universal laws, and all is based on cause and effect (which is why many argue that counter-causal “free will” does not exist), but the notions of duality and energy you talk about are nonscientific, New Age silliness. Humans are not to be understood as energy in this way, and their is no ‘energy’ in the universe from which we feed in the “spiritual” sense.
Barry (old): Honesty and critical thinking does not strip a person of their life, nor their sense of spirituality or interconnectedness with others or with the universe itself - but it SHOULD strip people of the sort of faith(s) based on myth and supernaturalism. If one is honest and really thinking critically, one can no longer accept the supernatural And yes, that means god(s) as well.
Andrea: I guess that is truly what separates some of us in any spiritual tradition. For some of us, it is not reasonable to ignore the supernatural because we have experienced it firsthand for ourselves. Because of that we seek answers ... critical thinking is of no use here. It does not explain what we have experienced or assist us in making sense of it. It is not about whether we believe the experience because we have had it first hand it is about what we can learn of it after it happens and no amount of reason will help you with that. You cannot critically think it away.
Barry (NEW): There is no “for some of us” to be considered here. You are confusing objective reality with subjective opinions. The supernatural does not exist - OBJECTIVELY - no matter who you are. So those who speak of the supernatural as if they have experienced it have indeed experienced something else, and have falsely called it supernatural. There is no confusion regarding this in scientific circles (leftist or rightist).
Thinking critically - scientifically - about this is not ‘thinking it away,’ but explaining what one actually experiences. Science has not “explained away” supernaturalism… it has just shown that supernaturalism is false.. and NEVER existed in the first place.
Barry (old): Liberalism IS about equality and fairness, but one can not have either under Christianity, Judaism or Islam unless they were to make up their own altruistic and democratic meanings for these regressive ideologies.
Andrea: My question would be really whats wrong with rescuing these faiths from their rigidity? Whats wrong with people trying to find the good in them that supports their modern way of living? This is essentially how societies develop over time and there is ultimately nothing wrong with people finding positive models in ANYTHING from the past. I have trouble with the practical aspect of what youre advocating here. Are you really saying that these three faiths cannot exist within democracies? That seems to be a bit of an overstatement to me. Are you saying that people in democracies shouldnt be free to practice these faiths, because if you are youre basically advocating stripping people of their religious freedom. Are you trying to convince members of these faiths that they should abandon them? Because thats not going to happen and it shouldnt, unless you can come up with any greater proof of your own perception of the universe than theirs. So what do you really want, Barry? An atheistic democratic society where everyone believes the same thing (which would essentially be only things that are scientifically provable) and therefore lives the same way and abandons their own history, traditions, and family connections. THAT is about the most extremist view I can think of. And it is an absolutely unnecessary response to the complex issues facing people today.
Barry (NEW): I’ll respond to these questions in order.
1) To “rescue” these ‘faiths’ from rigidity would require us to think critically of what these faiths are advocating for in human society. Its not just a matter of understanding the supernaturalistic tenets of these religions are wrong, but that the underlying moral and ethical reasoning the creators of these myths shared are unethical to a modern humanistic society. When someone tries to find the ethical in the unethical, he or she is really changing the meaning(s) the creaters intended for us to obey. If you delete the supernatural from the Abrahamic religions, and also alter the meanings of the text to suit modern sensibilities, you have not “reformed” the religion in question, but changed it into something so different that you no longer can call it by its given name(s).
2) People can have and practice these faiths in a democracy so as long as they ignore the messages and orders these faiths advocate when interacting with others who do not share their faith, or with the government. The problem is that most people understand that one can not be neutral re our behavior in society when one’s core beliefs call for something which is not central to other’s beliefs. This is when the true-believer comes out in all of us.
3) Humanism, based on scientific naturalism, HAS come up with an understanding of the universe far more realistic and awe-inspiring than the Abrahamic religions have.. and far more ethical. Calling for a uniform society is NOT what humanists advocate for. Because people should believe only that which is reasonable and has evidence to back its basic premises does NOT lead a society to uniformity.
Andrea: ...at some point in human history there was no evidence of our evolutionary history. That didnt mean that it didnt exist. Nor did it mean that people shouldnt have theorized about it.
Barry (NEW): Because many people did not know about the evolutionary history of humanity in the past does not mean the notion was true or false in history any more than considering how many people “believe” in it today. There was no reason humans should have thought of themselves as part of nature before this was proven to be so, but there seemed to be less reason for humans to believe in the supernatural, because at least they could SEE the similarities between all life on earth (especially, regarding us, the other primate), and could NEVER see gods or angels.
Of course, over the last 500 years, there is far less reason to believe in supernaturalism than in any time in human hostory as we better understand the laws of the universe… And there is far more reason to believe in evolution and other such scientific theories. There is very little “excuse” to believe in the supernatural in the 21st century.
Andrea: Now many leftist Christians believe in the complexity of evolution and integrate it into their beliefs about creation.
Barry (NEW): They can only do this by keeping their faith somehow separate from reality… I find this dubious at the best.
Andrea: ...there is really only one reason that Christians put all their eggs in their faith and that is community. It is not so much the fear of being alone after death but being alone in life. And you have to admit that when it comes to taking care of each other, the secularist world does not offer much. Do we, as random strangers seek to help each other - feed the hungry, care for the sick and aged, and help the poor? Not really. Particularly in our current setup of hypersensationalized capitalism this is, and always has been, a very dog-eat-dog existence.
Barry (NEW): Sure Andrea, in this society of modern times, people do seem to live a dog-eat-dog lifestyle… But throughout most of human history (99% of it), we have lived a far more peaceful, egalitarian existence (see the work of scientists Douglas Fry or Judith Hand). The forming of the modern state and indeed capitalism has created an UNNATURAL existence for humanity in which it is difficult to find random acts of kindness, altruism and beneficence - especially in the most successful capitalist society all - America.
To this extent, any kindness stemming from any form of religion (no matter how altered the religion itself must be in order to allow for such kindness), is welcomed. However, charity - which is what the religious Left is about here - is not what humanists should seek. Charity is necessary to give to the poor in a way that is very demeaning to the poor. The poor should not be considered as ‘those who have failed in society and need our help,’ but instead those who have been robbed of the wealth they otherwise would have had had not this society been so capitalistic and competitive in the first place.
We do not need charity, we need a complete change in society.
We need to abolish capitalism and understand the real nature of humanity.
A scientific humanistic philosophy brings this understanding to us where religions (or dogmatic atheism), do not.
I am not advocating only for a “secularist society,” because secularism only means we should keep church and state separate. In fact, I advocate both against church and most types of states. A society based on atheism is not a society at all because atheism is merely the understanding that there is no god or supernatural world. It is not a philosophy of life. Humanism is.
Report thisBy Andrea, June 16, 2006 at 4:31 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Barry,
I appreciate your clarification. I believe I started on the wrong foot in my first response. My responses to your particular points are below:
Barry (NEW): This is more complicated than it may seem. First, I am not attacking anyone based on the false premises you state. This is what I meant by setting up a straw-man to knock down. I never attacked Christians who advocate for love and acceptance. In fact, I said these sort of religious individuals are the secular humanists best friends! I feel much more angst about atheists who advocate for war and aggressive competition.
Andrea: Well, actually you do attack them on false premises - you say,
Liberal religionists have not been able to mature past the need for a parent figure lest they find themselves alone in the universe. Yet they do this while sometimes never enjoying their own relationships with other peoplepeople with whom they share this life.
(I find this statement to be totally unsupportable. The liberal Christians I know not only heartily enjoy their relationships with other people, but are very good at them.)
And
But members of both the religious right and left subscribe to the same ethics of hegemony and domination as did their ancestors who wrote their unscientific understanding of ethics on papyrus thousands of years ago. Both create just-so stories and impart their beliefs while nurturing insidious territorialism. The ancients did not have the scientific knowledge or the intellectual maturity necessary to live together with all of humanity in mutual respect, free of myths and separatist values.
Here you lump together the Christian left and right and ignore the primary difference between them that the left regards that territorialism that disregards human life and seeks to destroy others based on discrimination of any kind as a spiritual crime. This is truly what separates the left and the right real, humanistic compassion. Yet you seem to have no problem using Christianity as a means to eliminate the differences in their real-life views and practice. Furthermore, you assume that they all (again simply because they are Christian) use the parent figure model of Jesus. None of the leftist Christians I know in both the Agape church and the Universalist would support this view. Leftist Christians are not fundamentalist or Catholic most do not believe in the Trinity or necessarily that Christ is the only savior of the world. Their primary belief is of Christ as a teacher of peace and compassion.
Barry: The fact is, however, that conservatives have gotten religion correct, because when one studies and understands the non-humanistic connotations and sort of ethical principles - laid out 2-5 thousand years ago, by nomadic tribes we somehow think had any real understanding of human nature whatsoever - one learns that these writings are quite regressive and right-wing.
Andrea: This is a great argument against the right. But really how does it relate at all to the left? Leftist Christians are really not that concerned with the Old Testament. They are essentially New Testament followers who, I would guess, dont even have a strong grip on anything but the four gospels.
You could certainly claim this about right-wingers but to be fair youd have to say that what theyve gotten correct is the historically sold concept of religion real spiritual knowledge is not something that can be changed by humans throughout history. It is real wisdom axioms about how life functions and how human existence can be influenced by very real Universal laws, like cause and effect, duality (which can be described as simply every ounce of matter in the universe being made up of both positive and negative elements), and how energy seeks its own level. These spiritual tenets are timeless and, though usable by people to manipulate others or history or political and economic situations, just are they are neither positive or negative. I personally believe that all spiritual texts contain some of the nuggets of these axioms that the original reason for writing them down was to try to impart these bits of knowledge that particular avatars (i.e, Jesus, Buddha, Krishna) espoused in their lives where they went from there was certainly like the message in the bottle set adrift on the sea of history and human experience. But throwing out the knowledge to get rid of the history is a baby with the bath water approach. And our leftist friends seem to have at least one thing in their favor they are trying to find the positive elements of their faith and strip away some of the historical coloring.
Barry: Honesty and critical thinking does not strip a person of their life, nor their sense of spirituality or interconnectedness with others or with the universe itself - but it SHOULD strip people of the sort of faith(s) based on myth and supernaturalism. If one is honest and really thinking critically, one can no longer accept the supernatural And yes, that means god(s) as well.
Andrea: I guess that is truly what separates some of us in any spiritual tradition. For some of us, it is not reasonable to ignore the supernatural because we have experienced it firsthand for ourselves. Because of that we seek answers. I believe that most people who write about spirituality somehow fall into this category. So for those who have not had those experience, yes they will need to think critically about it to decide whether they believe in it or not or believe the people talking about it. To others of us, critical thinking is of no use here. It does not explain what we have experienced or assist us in making sense of it. It is not about whether we believe the experience because we have had it first hand it is about what we can learn of it after it happens and no amount of reason will help you with that. You cannot critically think it away. And if you are honest about it, you are often made to feel like a liar, a charlatan, or a lunatic. So then whos honesty is real: yours that denies my experience, or mine that experienced it? And why is it more reasonable to believe in yours?
Barry: Liberalism IS about equality and fairness, but one can not have either under Christianity, Judaism or Islam unless they were to make up their own altruistic and democratic meanings for these regressive ideologies.
Andrea: My question would be really whats wrong with rescuing these faiths from their rigidity? Whats wrong with people trying to find the good in them that supports their modern way of living? This is essentially how societies develop over time and there is ultimately nothing wrong with people finding positive models in ANYTHING from the past. I have trouble with the practical aspect of what youre advocating here. Are you really saying that these three faiths cannot exist within democracies? That seems to be a bit of an overstatement to me. Are you saying that people in democracies shouldnt be free to practice these faiths, because if you are youre basically advocating stripping people of their religious freedom. Are you trying to convince members of these faiths that they should abandon them? Because thats not going to happen and it shouldnt, unless you can come up with any greater proof of your own perception of the universe than theirs. So what do you really want, Barry? An atheistic democratic society where everyone believes the same thing (which would essentially be only things that are scientifically provable) and therefore lives the same way and abandons their own history, traditions, and family connections. THAT is about the most extremist view I can think of. And it is an absolutely unnecessary response to the complex issues facing people today.
Barry: What is the industry you are in?
The music industry, a.k.a. The Last Bastion of American Institutionalized Sexism.
Barry: The New Testament was not written by the Jews or Arabs. None of it was even written until more than 5 decades after Jesus was supposed to have lived, and the parts of the Bible we have now were pieces rewritten and altered decade after decade for centuries. There is NO writing outside the Bible that exists which points to ANY of the so-called history in the Bible as being real history ... not the life of Moses, not the exodus from Egypt, not the life of Jesus, nothing.
Andrea: And at some point in human history there was no evidence of our evolutionary history. That didnt mean that it didnt exist. Nor did it mean that people shouldnt have theorized about it. Now many leftist Christians believe in the complexity of evolution and integrate it into their beliefs about creation. Most of Einsteins model of relativity began as an unproved theory. He had trouble with the mathematics. Some scientists today still refute it, even after it has explained many oddities about our universe. What we know about our physical existence is minute compared to the answers. We figure those out not simply by searching scientifically, but by thinking creatively. It is now scientifically acceptable to theoretically believe (since string theory and M theory have not technically been proven) in 11 curled up dimensions in our universe. Millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of hours of manpower are being used to investigae the theory of invisible dimensions. Not too long ago that would have been considered pure craziness. But someone thought of it first, set out wondering whether there was some proof for it and here we are. I havent heard of any significant archeological source that says because there is only one historical source of something that it proves it didnt happen. If this was the case, most of what we know about ancient kingdoms and people would be disregarded as fairy tales.
Barry: As for Q, they were written by the Cynics who wrote long after the alleged life of Jesus.
Andrea: I believe that the view held by most scholars is that they were written by the Essenes in several dialects of Hebrew. The secondary view held is that they may have been written by the Saducees. Anyone interested in an exhaustive bibliography of the subject might want to visit this page:
http://home.flash.net/~hoselton/deadsea/bibliog.htm
Further regarding this paragraph from your article,
Simply put: The marvel of life, the fear of death, and the very real need for spiritual nourishment are perhaps the main reasons people give up or suspend reason for faith. They cannot see the beauty of life, of very existence, as something wonderful unto itself. They instead search for meaning in the universe when there can be meaning only within themselves. They try to eschew a depression rooted in the thought of their own mortality by clinging to thousand-year-old myths of everlasting life. They spend far too much time making believe there really is an afterlife, instead of living their one very real life in the here and now. As I often hear atheists say: This is the one lifehere on Earth. This is not a dress rehearsal.
Though I do see some of the reasons you listed as part of why people believe in certain spiritual philosophies, having grown up in the Fundentalist Christian tradition, I can tell you that there is really only one reason that Christians put all their eggs in their faith and that is community. It is not so much the fear of being alone after death but being alone in life. And you have to admit that when it comes to taking care of each other, the secularist world does not offer much. Do we, as random strangers seek to help each other - feed the hungry, care for the sick and aged, and help the poor? Not really. Particularly in our current setup of hypersensationalized capitalism this is, and always has been, a very dog-eat-dog existence. And yet survival for most of us depends on relationship and community. Most religious people answer this need in themselves by finding others who believe in that idea many of them are simple in their needs in life and to their credit, this simplicity results in the desire to help other people. I see this even in Fundamentalists who are very rigid in their views. They are strongly committed to the idea of taking care of each other.
I would say (knowing them as intimately as I do) that it is this simplicity that drives them towards faith right and left alike what they do once they get there is a totally different story.
And, since Im a little embarrassed to have gone on so long, I think Ill shut up now. (But then again, there are only 3 of us here, so I dont know whos really going to complain)
Report thisBy Barry F. Seidman, June 15, 2006 at 9:17 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Thanks for doing me the honor of such a thorough attempt to dismiss my blog post. Ive never received the same fair play from Sam Harris, so major props to you. - WH
I did not try to dismiss, but instead respond to your blog post. Also, though I can’t speak for Sam, of course, my thoughts are that as long as these kinds of discussions are kept in the ivory towers and not talked about among all of us, they are useless. - BFS
If one accepts Robert Kegans (of Harvard) developmental model of human psychology, and Jean Gebsers model of cultural development, one has to understand that each stage arises as a correction to the previous one. Authoritarian, structured religions (the Axial Age) arose as a correction to the egocentric power drives of the previous stage. Threat of hell and a strict moral code were effective controls for the ego. Science (the Enlightenment) arose as a correction to the mythic beliefs of religion. Rational thought could effectively do away with sky gods. - WH
Interesting, I do not know the work of Kegan or Gebser.. so of course I can not comment intelligently on their ideas.. but it does seem to make sense that human society is always improving in how it understands itself.. even if this/we backfire at times such as with Hitler, Stalin and the Neo-Cons in America today. - BFS
...these stages cannot be skipped or eliminated. Within this widely accepted framework, religion is a necessary stage in human development. It cannot be skipped or eliminated, and because all people start at the beginning, we all must pass through some variation of it, as must all cultures. The question then becomes: will it be healthy or unhealthy. The religious left is much more healthy than the right, and it should be encouraged to flourish. - WH
I tend to agree. I do think these stages are natural, and religion - in all its forms - is a natural part of human development (individually and culturally). Scott Atran has some interesting things to say about this in his masterful book, “In Gods we Trust.”
And certainly the regressive “movement” of the religious Right - which must be rejected - is not the same thing as the mindset of the religious Left. And re the religious Left, it is clear that humanity has not outgrown supernaturalism yet, and any forced maturity - a la via the old USSR - is not healthy.
But I must add that the reason the religious Right cannot be thoroughly repressed, and why it always seems to be able to power its’ way into to having ever stronger strangle holds on the American imagination, is because of the general willingness of Americans to accept that any reading of the religious texts are relevant to today’s society (nevermind progressive). As long at people continue to entertain a mindset which ignores reality, and accepts supernaturalism, the path to fundamentalism is always nearby. As long as people continue to attempt to find spiritually in the regressive Abrahamic tribal religions, instead of within naturalistic boundaries, they will continue to be mislead into thinking the Abrahamic religions are anything more than dangerous myths based on immoral allegory and metaphor which leaves the door open for the Right. - BFS
They (religious liberals) may reject prohibitions against birth control, or be tolerant of gays and lesbians, and not believe in a literal heaven and hell, but they believe that Jesus taught love and tolerance. - WH.
I understand, but again, no one knows what Jesus who probably never existed anyway), “taught” .. and the Gnostic Gospels offer very little proof that they had anything to do with a historical Jesus either. - BFS
If you accept the Bible alone as the source of Christianity, you do not have in your hands the authentic teachings of Jesus, as I’m sure you know. - WH
Yes, of course, but if one does not look to the Bible (or related non-historic texts), where else are they getting Christianity from? One cannot practice forms of New Age spiritually, Buddhism or religious humanism and CALL it Christianity because they like some of the made-up stuff about a so-called man-god named Jesus. And there seems to be NO SUCH “authentic teachings,” as I have said. Read the trilogy on Jesus by Robert M. Price. - BFS
By the way, nonduality has nothing to do with the Trinity. Nonduality is the absence of division between God and self. Jesus could claim that I and my father are one because he had experience of nondual awareness. Buddhism is more precise on these teachings than Christianity, but it can also be found in the Christian mystics, especially St. Theresa. Until you can accept the higher, post-rational, stages of human development, youll be missing half the picture. This is where we must look to Eastern religionsthey have mapped the post-rational as well as we have mapped the pre-rational and ratrional stages of development (see Ken Wilbers work for more on this idea, first introduced in The Spectrum of Consciousness).- WH
Several thoughts on this…
1) I am not sure I know what YOU mean by “nonduality,” then.
2) I do not know what you mean by the “higher, post-rational, stages of human development”
3) I consider Wilber (and Andrew Cohen) to be nice guys (the latter was on my radio show twice), and certainly more philosophically evolved then traditional religionists, but they are very supernaturalistic in a sadly New Age manor. They reject scientific naturalism and pretend to know something about the brain/mind which they don’t. I do not see them as credible sources on the human condition. - BFS
In my blog post I was attempting to offer an integral view. Most of my readers follow the integral authors, so they knew the shorthand. Clearly, this is not on your radar yet. - WH
I do not know what you mean by “integral,” but I’d agree that in order to understand anything, one must accept the interconnectedness of everything.. including human qualities. - BFS
Report thisBy William Harryman, June 14, 2006 at 1:22 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Hey Barry,
Thanks for doing me the honor of such a thorough attempt to dimiss my blog post. I’ve never received the same fair play from Sam Harris, so major props to you.
If one accepts Robert Kegan’s (of Harvard) developmental model of human psychology, and Jean Gebser’s model of cultural development, one has to understand that each stage arises as a correction to the previous one. Authoritarian, structured religions (the Axial Age) arose as a correction to the egocentric power drives of the previous stage. Threat of hell and a strict moral code were effective controls for the ego. Science (the Enlightenment) arose as a correction to the mythic beliefs of religion. Rational thought could effectively do away with sky gods.
However, these stages cannot be skipped or eliminated. Within this widely accepted framework, religion is a necessary stage in human development. It cannot be skipped or eliminated, and because all people start at the beginning, we all must pass through some variation of it, as must all cultures. The question then becomes: will it be healthy or unhealthy. The religious left is much more healthy than the right, and it should be encouraged to flourish.
Christian religion is about authoritarian control and obedience to rules, as you clearly point out. But as people move out of that stage, they can still be Christian and not be bound by the Church’s dogma. Witness the number of people who in polls claim to be spiritual but not religious. Yet most of these people identify as Christian. They may reject prohibitions against birth control, or be tolerant of gays and lesbians, and not believe in a literal heaven and hell, but they believe that Jesus taught love and tolerance.
If you accept the Bible alone as the source of Christianity, you do not have in your hands the authentic teachings of Jesus, as I’m sure you know. The Bible has repeatedly been edited to support the control of the Church, especially the “burn in hell” part you loathe so much. Jesus taught reincarnation in the Gnostic Gospels, so it’s no wonder those teachings were not included. Many Christians do not take the Bible literally because these alternate teachings have slowly trickled into the public consciousness.
Your thesis contends that we must take the Bible literally—all of it. However, some of it is clearly allegory, especially the teachings of Jesus. Not being able to separate one from the other demonstrates a lack of literary training. But it also damages your argument in serious ways. If you cannot see that Jesus taught in allegory, perhaps it is not clear that Paul did not. And much of the Church’s dogma is based in the teachings of Paul, not Jesus. Failure to delineate between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Paul is a major source of fundamentalist thinking.
By the way, nonduality has nothing to do with the Trinity. Nonduality is the absence of division between God and self. Jesus could claim that “I and my father are one” because he had experience of nondual awareness. Buddhism is more precise on these teachings than Christianity, but it can also be found in the Christian mystics, especially St. Theresa. Until you can accept the higher, post-rational, stages of human development, you’ll be missing half the picture. This is where we must look to Eastern religions—they have mapped the post-rational as well as we have mapped the pre-rational and ratrional stages of development (see Ken Wilber’s work for more on this idea, first introduced in The Spectrum of Consciousness).
It’s an integral world, my friend. If you want to really understand anything—and especially religion—it must be seen within the developmental frameworks of psychology, morality, cultures, spirituality, intellect, emotion, and so on. AND it must be seen in its individual and collective elements, as well as its interior and exterior elements. To do anything less can only offer a partial view.
In my blog post I was attempting to offer an integral view. Most of my readers follow the integral authors, so they knew the shorthand. Clearly, this is not on your radar yet.
Check out Robert Kegan (The Evolving Self), Jean Gebser (The Ever-Present Origin), James Fowler (Stages of Faith), Jean Piaget (The Origins of Intelligence in Children), Lawrence Kohlberg (Essays on Moral Development), and Erik Erikson (Identity and the Life Cycle). From these sources, you’ll begin to see the framework of the integral model.
Finally, thanks for pointing the areas where I was actually wrong. Much appreciated.
Peace,
Report thisWilliam Harryman
By Barry F. Seidman, June 14, 2006 at 12:33 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Barry (OLD): Andrea No need for an apology. But that you found it necessary to make claims about the (biblical) source of my argument - Avalos - without even checking, is not fitting of liberalism, which, it could be argued, is a philosophy that advocates for honesty and critical thinking. Your comments, and those which followed - based on your premise that Avalos is not to be taken seriously - reminded me of the tactics used in Coulters new book, Godless.
Andrea: Somehow, that last paragraph still makes me uneasy. So, my actions STILL remind you of Anne Coulter, even though I have heartily apologized. Wow. You might want to do something about that MASSIVE chip on your shoulder.
Barry (NEW): Let me be more clear. YOU do not remind me of Ann Coulter, but the way you approached the subject in your original letter showed signs of tactics used by Coulter and many others on the Right. You are not on the Right, and are not - it seems thus far - anything like Coulter-the-person. But I have found that the types of arguments I get from apologists for religion - from political conservatives or liberals - follow the same tactics as those arguments I get about politics from the Right (albeit, with some postmodernism tossed in when the religious apologist is a liberal).
Andrea: I dont think rebutting someone who is attacking others on false premises of their own (that Christians who are actually advocating love and acceptance in a world full of hatred and anger are actually an enemy of liberalism) means I am creating false premises. Honesty and critical thinking dont really require one to strip others of their own experience of faith, religion, or life. Leftist Christians advocate change, peace, and non-violent forms of solving societal problems. And your answer to those brave actions is to denigrate the reasons they believe in these things? Funny I thought liberalism meant seeing all people as equal, beyond the constraints of religion, class, gender, or sexual orientation. It seems, however, that fellow liberals are continually proving me wrong on this point as they seem more and more interested in forcing their own beliefs on others than actually working towards real social justice.
Barry (NEW): This is more complicated than it may seem. First, I am not attacking anyone based on the false premises you state. This is what I meant by setting up a straw-man to knock down. I never “attacked” Christians who advocate for love and acceptance. In fact, I said these sort of “religious individuals” are the secular humanists’ best friends! I feel much more angst about atheists who advocate for war and aggressive competition.
What I was addressing was supernaturalistic religion as an institution - the sort Jim Wallis and Michael Lerner advocate for - which attempts to cherry-pick and misrepresent the bible(s) and its actual meaning(s)… so as to “save” Judaism or Christianity from the religious conservatives, whom Wallis and Lerner feel have hijacked religion.
The fact is, however, that conservatives have gotten religion correct, because when one studies and understands the non-humanistic connotations and sort of ethical principles - laid out 2-5 thousand years ago, by nomadic tribes we somehow think had any real understanding of human nature whatsoever - one learns that these writings are quite regressive and “right-wing.”
Sure, some of it was written to sound otherwise, like the Orwellian double-speak of the Bush Administration, but any superficial reading of these texts would miss the point.
Honesty and critical thinking does not strip a person of their life, nor their sense of spirituality or interconnectedness with others or with the universe itself - but it SHOULD strip people of the sort of faith(s) based on myth and supernaturalism. If one is honest and really thinking critically, one can no longer accept the supernatural… And yes, that means god(s) as well.
Liberalism IS about equality and fairness, but one can not have either under Christianity, Judaism or Islam… unless they were to make up their own altruistic and democratic meanings for these regressive ideologies. - BFS
Andrea: Being a lesbian musician living in an