ULYSSES HAS NO USE FOR PLATO
“The man with a method good for purposes of his dominant interests is a pathological case in respect to his wider judgment on the coordination of this method with a more complete experience. Priests and scientist, statesmen and men of business, philosophers and mathematicians are all alike in this respect. We all start by being empiricists. But our empiricism is confined within our immediate interests. The more clearly we grasp the intellectual analysis of a way regulating procedure for the sake of those interest, the more decidedly we reject the inclusion of evidence which refuses to be immediately harmonized with the method before us. Some of the major disasters of mankind have been produced by the narrowness of men with good methodology. Ulysses has no use for Plato, and the bones of his companions are strewn on many a reef and many and isle.”
Alfred North Whitehead. The Function of Reason. 1929.
COMMENT
The post-Enlightenment program calling for destruction of the wall between physics and metaphysics represents, I believe, a collective example of the pathology Whitehead identifies. Religionists presume to dictate content of science textbooks without bothering to master the basic language of science or to grasp the fundamentals of the scientific method. When you hear the ostensibly damning phrase “just a theory,” you know you are dealing with an idiot or a demagogue. On the other side and in reaction to the religionists’ brayings, we find prominent members of the scientific fraternity holding forth on matters theological. Their wit amuses the intelligentsia—the few, the proud—while their glib arrogance infuriates the masses and frustrates the thoughtful theists and agnostics who have remained true to Enlightenment principles.
All the great thinkers have expressed awe in the face of their own ignorance. To begin to grasp the depth of one’s ignorance is the beginning of wisdom. Those damaged souls who would impose their wills upon all through various forms of coercion are the least wise among us. Yet, they are the very ones whose self-assuredness often attracts a following sufficient to ensure that some form of oppression will follow. The framers of the US Constitution sought through establishment of a government of laws (not of men) to limit damage done by these attractive hazards in human form.
CS
Friday, May 4, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Sounds Familiar
EPICURUS ON THE GODS
“For the gods exist; of them we have distinct knowledge. But they are not such as the majority think them to be. For they do not maintain a consistent view of what they think the gods are. The impious man is not he who confutes the gods of the majority, but he who applies to the gods the majority’s opinions. For the assertions of the many concerning the gods are conceptions grounded not in experience but in false assumptions, according to which the greatest misfortunes are brought upon the evil by the gods and the greatest benefits upon the good. Men being always at home with their own virtues, they embrace those like themselves and regard everything unlike themselves as alien.”
Epicurus. Letter to Menoeceus. Circa 300 BCE.
COMMENT
Epicurus presents us with the conclusion to an ontological argument for the existence of god and then moves on to a critique of the multifarious creeds, each of which uniquely defines with metaphysical certitude the essence and attributes of that god. In observing the contemporary scene, we might be tempted to ascribe the gift of prescience to this great and much-slandered philosopher. We observe today the consequences of blind belief in fundamentalist systems whose lines are so vividly drawn that tolerance is out of the question. And then we stumble upon this ancient critique of the idea of the alien other. Apparently—and comfortingly, in a perverse way—it must have been thus throughout human history since Epicurus no doubt drew upon his own empirical observations in coming to this unflattering assessment of the rabble. Small wonder he preferred his garden to the marketplace.
CS
“For the gods exist; of them we have distinct knowledge. But they are not such as the majority think them to be. For they do not maintain a consistent view of what they think the gods are. The impious man is not he who confutes the gods of the majority, but he who applies to the gods the majority’s opinions. For the assertions of the many concerning the gods are conceptions grounded not in experience but in false assumptions, according to which the greatest misfortunes are brought upon the evil by the gods and the greatest benefits upon the good. Men being always at home with their own virtues, they embrace those like themselves and regard everything unlike themselves as alien.”
Epicurus. Letter to Menoeceus. Circa 300 BCE.
COMMENT
Epicurus presents us with the conclusion to an ontological argument for the existence of god and then moves on to a critique of the multifarious creeds, each of which uniquely defines with metaphysical certitude the essence and attributes of that god. In observing the contemporary scene, we might be tempted to ascribe the gift of prescience to this great and much-slandered philosopher. We observe today the consequences of blind belief in fundamentalist systems whose lines are so vividly drawn that tolerance is out of the question. And then we stumble upon this ancient critique of the idea of the alien other. Apparently—and comfortingly, in a perverse way—it must have been thus throughout human history since Epicurus no doubt drew upon his own empirical observations in coming to this unflattering assessment of the rabble. Small wonder he preferred his garden to the marketplace.
CS
Monday, April 9, 2007
More on the Benefits of Freedom
A LIBERTARIAN’S VIEW
“Members of the religions right today insist that American is—or at least was—a Christian nation with a Christian government. . . . Some Americans opposed ratification of the Constitution because it was ‘coldly indifferent towards religion’ and would leave ‘religion to shift wholly for itself.’ Nevertheless, the revolutionary Constitution was adopted, and most of us believe that the experience with the separation of church and state has been a happy one.”
David Boaz. Libertarianism. 1998.
COMMENTARY
A few definitions, short and incomplete, are in order. In the United States, we acknowledge, through the programs of our two major political parties, that two distinct species of freedom exist: social freedom and economic freedom. Republicans, at least the traditional Republicans, stress the importance of economic freedom and the Democrats favor with their policies the social freedoms. Hence, we witness, for example, battles featuring deregulation (Republican) versus the safety-net (Democratic), tort reform (Republican) versus plaintiff rights (Democratic), and nutritional laissez faire (Republican) versus mandatory canola cooking oil (Democratic). Libertarianism represents a third alternative (there is another as well, totalitarianism). Libertarian theory, which has its roots in the Classical Liberalism that grew from the Scottish Enlightenment, restricts neither economic nor personal social freedom. Because small government has been the watchword of the Republican Party, most libertarians have found association with the so-called conservative appealing. Nevertheless, the NeoCon/Religious Right takeover of the Republican Party, which began benignly enough with the rise of Ronald Reagan and reached a toxic climate with the current occupant of the White House, has dislodged the party’s libertarian wing. Witnessing encroachments on personal freedoms unthinkable under previous Republican administrations, this freethinking bunch has begun to make common cause with the left on issues relating to personal freedom, including matters of separation of church and state. The Republicans continue their courtship of the Religious Right at the cost of alienating libertarians and thus becoming a minority party for the foreseeable future.
CS
“Members of the religions right today insist that American is—or at least was—a Christian nation with a Christian government. . . . Some Americans opposed ratification of the Constitution because it was ‘coldly indifferent towards religion’ and would leave ‘religion to shift wholly for itself.’ Nevertheless, the revolutionary Constitution was adopted, and most of us believe that the experience with the separation of church and state has been a happy one.”
David Boaz. Libertarianism. 1998.
COMMENTARY
A few definitions, short and incomplete, are in order. In the United States, we acknowledge, through the programs of our two major political parties, that two distinct species of freedom exist: social freedom and economic freedom. Republicans, at least the traditional Republicans, stress the importance of economic freedom and the Democrats favor with their policies the social freedoms. Hence, we witness, for example, battles featuring deregulation (Republican) versus the safety-net (Democratic), tort reform (Republican) versus plaintiff rights (Democratic), and nutritional laissez faire (Republican) versus mandatory canola cooking oil (Democratic). Libertarianism represents a third alternative (there is another as well, totalitarianism). Libertarian theory, which has its roots in the Classical Liberalism that grew from the Scottish Enlightenment, restricts neither economic nor personal social freedom. Because small government has been the watchword of the Republican Party, most libertarians have found association with the so-called conservative appealing. Nevertheless, the NeoCon/Religious Right takeover of the Republican Party, which began benignly enough with the rise of Ronald Reagan and reached a toxic climate with the current occupant of the White House, has dislodged the party’s libertarian wing. Witnessing encroachments on personal freedoms unthinkable under previous Republican administrations, this freethinking bunch has begun to make common cause with the left on issues relating to personal freedom, including matters of separation of church and state. The Republicans continue their courtship of the Religious Right at the cost of alienating libertarians and thus becoming a minority party for the foreseeable future.
CS
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Hope in Others
ON NOT LOSING HEART
“Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the sake of the joy that was set before him endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God.
Consider him who endured such hostility against himself from sinners, so that you may not grow weary or lose heart.”
Hebrews 12:1-3. A Lectionary Reading for Wednesday of Holy Week
REFLECTION
The onslaught verbal treachery affects all who take seriously their obligations. Politicians distort their opponents’ words. Good people find their lives crushed under the wheel of political or economic expediency. Sneering pundants mischaracterize and thereby marginalize ideas otherwise worthy of consideration. Leaders sanction violence in the name of God. Despair begins to seem like the only response. In the face of this horror, we are tempted to give up and watch American Idol. The author of Hebrews reminds us, however, that while the pressures may grind us down, we must not lose heart. We are indeed surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses.
CS
As always, comments are welcomed.
“Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the sake of the joy that was set before him endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God.
Consider him who endured such hostility against himself from sinners, so that you may not grow weary or lose heart.”
Hebrews 12:1-3. A Lectionary Reading for Wednesday of Holy Week
REFLECTION
The onslaught verbal treachery affects all who take seriously their obligations. Politicians distort their opponents’ words. Good people find their lives crushed under the wheel of political or economic expediency. Sneering pundants mischaracterize and thereby marginalize ideas otherwise worthy of consideration. Leaders sanction violence in the name of God. Despair begins to seem like the only response. In the face of this horror, we are tempted to give up and watch American Idol. The author of Hebrews reminds us, however, that while the pressures may grind us down, we must not lose heart. We are indeed surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses.
CS
As always, comments are welcomed.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Intolerant of Intolerance
A MATTER OF DEGREES
“The main reason I’d been glad to leave America was Protestant fundamentalism. But Europe, I eventually saw, was falling prey to an even more alarming fundamentalism whose leaders made their American Protestant counterparts look like amateurs. Falwell was an unsavory creep, but he didn’t issue fatwas. James Dobson’s parenting advice was appalling, but he wasn’t telling people to murder their daughters. American liberals had been fighting the Religious Right for decades; Western Europeans had yet to even acknowledge that they had a Religious Right.”
Bruce Bawer. While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within. 2006.
COMMENT
For those who have detected dreams of a coming Levitical society in the words and actions of Christian Dominionists, Brewer’s account of Islamist inroads in a pathologically tolerant Europe sounds a call to stand firm in defense of a secular society. Close readings of both the Torah and the Koran will reveal that the application of literalist thinking must logically lead to violence. The relatively benign face of the American Religious Right gives cover to the Dominionists’ more malign intent. If a sullen gathering of right-thinking men stones my neighbor for an expression of religious doubt, it matters little which sacred text provides legal sanction for the punishment.
CS
“The main reason I’d been glad to leave America was Protestant fundamentalism. But Europe, I eventually saw, was falling prey to an even more alarming fundamentalism whose leaders made their American Protestant counterparts look like amateurs. Falwell was an unsavory creep, but he didn’t issue fatwas. James Dobson’s parenting advice was appalling, but he wasn’t telling people to murder their daughters. American liberals had been fighting the Religious Right for decades; Western Europeans had yet to even acknowledge that they had a Religious Right.”
Bruce Bawer. While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within. 2006.
COMMENT
For those who have detected dreams of a coming Levitical society in the words and actions of Christian Dominionists, Brewer’s account of Islamist inroads in a pathologically tolerant Europe sounds a call to stand firm in defense of a secular society. Close readings of both the Torah and the Koran will reveal that the application of literalist thinking must logically lead to violence. The relatively benign face of the American Religious Right gives cover to the Dominionists’ more malign intent. If a sullen gathering of right-thinking men stones my neighbor for an expression of religious doubt, it matters little which sacred text provides legal sanction for the punishment.
CS
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
The Human Element
COPIES OF COPIES OF COPIES
“What if God didn’t say it? What if the book you take as giving you God’s words instead contain human words? What if the Bible doesn’t give a foolproof answer to the question of the modern age—abortion, women’s rights, gay rights, religious supremacy, Western-style democracy, and the like? What if we have to figure out how to live and what to believe on our own, without setting up the bible as a false idol—or an oracle that gives us a direct line of communication with the Almighty? There are clear reasons for thinking that, in fact, the Bible is not this kind of inerrant guide to our lives: among other things, . . . in many places we (as scholars, or just regular readers) don’t even know what the original words of the Bible actually were.”
Bart Ehrman. Misquoting Jesus. 2005
A RECOMMENDATION
Because these posts are not intended as book reviews, the reader may frequently feel more teased than edified. In quoting from Ehrman’s work, I run a particular risk of leaving my vast audience feeling unsatisfied, if not dissatisfied. So, here’s a straightforward recommendation: read Misquoting Jesus if you are serious about biblical interpretation. And keep in mind a theme that recurs throughout the scriptures: the symbol is not the holy thing.
CS
“What if God didn’t say it? What if the book you take as giving you God’s words instead contain human words? What if the Bible doesn’t give a foolproof answer to the question of the modern age—abortion, women’s rights, gay rights, religious supremacy, Western-style democracy, and the like? What if we have to figure out how to live and what to believe on our own, without setting up the bible as a false idol—or an oracle that gives us a direct line of communication with the Almighty? There are clear reasons for thinking that, in fact, the Bible is not this kind of inerrant guide to our lives: among other things, . . . in many places we (as scholars, or just regular readers) don’t even know what the original words of the Bible actually were.”
Bart Ehrman. Misquoting Jesus. 2005
A RECOMMENDATION
Because these posts are not intended as book reviews, the reader may frequently feel more teased than edified. In quoting from Ehrman’s work, I run a particular risk of leaving my vast audience feeling unsatisfied, if not dissatisfied. So, here’s a straightforward recommendation: read Misquoting Jesus if you are serious about biblical interpretation. And keep in mind a theme that recurs throughout the scriptures: the symbol is not the holy thing.
CS
Monday, February 26, 2007
Jung and Impressionable
BIBLICAL AUTHORITY
“Protestantism has . . . intensified the authority of the Bible as a substitute for the lost authority of the church. But as history has shown, one can interpret certain biblical texts in many ways. . . . . [U]nder the influence of a so-called scientific enlightenment great masses of educated people have either left the church or have become profoundly indifferent to it. . . . But many of them are religious people, only incapable of agreeing with the actually existing forms of the creed. . . . The Catholic who has turned his back on the church usually develops a secret or manifest inclination toward atheism, whereas the Protestant follows, if possible, a sectarian movement. The absolutism of the Catholic church seems to demand an equally absolute negation, while Protestant relativism permits variations.”
Carl Jung. Psychology and Religion. 1938.
A REFLECTION
Of course the sects Jung had in mind were what Americans now characterize as Mainline Protestant, a breed whose numbers continue to decline. Eighty years on in America the authoritarian face is less that of the Pope than that of the non-denominational “Bible Church” minister who leads large, semi-autonomous congregations made up of the theological illiterati. That the manipulative and unbiblical apocalyptic visions expressed in sermons and popular fiction, e.g., the Left Behind series, could be taken seriously might be held to demonstrate the depths of biblical and historical ignorance to which a large majority have sunk. The religious perversion that is the Dominionist movement exploits this ignorance and, furthermore, countenances none of the relativism to which Jung refers. What might he say about today’s atheist/Muslim Europe and secularist/Christianist America?
CS
“Protestantism has . . . intensified the authority of the Bible as a substitute for the lost authority of the church. But as history has shown, one can interpret certain biblical texts in many ways. . . . . [U]nder the influence of a so-called scientific enlightenment great masses of educated people have either left the church or have become profoundly indifferent to it. . . . But many of them are religious people, only incapable of agreeing with the actually existing forms of the creed. . . . The Catholic who has turned his back on the church usually develops a secret or manifest inclination toward atheism, whereas the Protestant follows, if possible, a sectarian movement. The absolutism of the Catholic church seems to demand an equally absolute negation, while Protestant relativism permits variations.”
Carl Jung. Psychology and Religion. 1938.
A REFLECTION
Of course the sects Jung had in mind were what Americans now characterize as Mainline Protestant, a breed whose numbers continue to decline. Eighty years on in America the authoritarian face is less that of the Pope than that of the non-denominational “Bible Church” minister who leads large, semi-autonomous congregations made up of the theological illiterati. That the manipulative and unbiblical apocalyptic visions expressed in sermons and popular fiction, e.g., the Left Behind series, could be taken seriously might be held to demonstrate the depths of biblical and historical ignorance to which a large majority have sunk. The religious perversion that is the Dominionist movement exploits this ignorance and, furthermore, countenances none of the relativism to which Jung refers. What might he say about today’s atheist/Muslim Europe and secularist/Christianist America?
CS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)