Saturday, November 29, 2008

Inspired Theist vs. Uninspired Atheist

Consider the following from Richard Rorty’s “Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature” (pg. 88):

….the problem is that one side thinks there are too many meanings around and the other side too few. In this respect the closest analogy one can find is the conflict between inspired theists and uninspired atheists. An inspired theist, let us say, is one who “just knows” that there are supernatural beings which play certain explanatory roles in accounting for natural phenomenon. (They are not to be confused with natural theologians – who offer the supernatural as the best explanation of these phenomenon.) Inspired theists have inherited their picture of the universe as divided into two great ontological realms – the supernatural and the natural - along with their language. The way they talk about things is inextricably tied up with - or at least strikes them as inextricably tied up with – references to the divine. The notion of the supernatural does not strike then as a “theory” any more than the notion of the mental strikes us as a theory. When they encounter atheists they view then as people who don’t know what’s going on, although they admit that the atheists seem able to predict and control natural phenomena very nicely indeed. (“Thank heaven” they say, “that we are not as those natural theologians are, or we too might loose touch with the real.”) The atheists view these theists as having too many words in their language and too many meanings to bother about. Enthusiastic atheists explain to inspired theists that, “all there REALLY is is…,” and the theists reply that one should realize that there are more things in heaven and earth… And so it goes. The philosophers on both sides may analyze meanings until they are blue in the face, but al such analyses are either, “directional” and “reductive” (e.g., “noncognitive” analyses of religious discourse, which are the analogue of “expressive” theories of pain reports) or else simply describe alternative “forms of life”, culminating in nothing more helpful than the announcement: “This language-game is played.” The theists’ game is essential to their self image, just as the image of man’s Glassy Essence is essential to the Western intellectual’s, but neither has a larger context available in which to evaluate this image. Where, after all, would such a context come from?

Rorty brings up some interesting points here that I think need to be dealt with, at least from the perspective of my own thinking. When I read this I thought, “CRAP! He’s talking about theists like me, ones who reduce it to a ‘Language-game’.” The main point here (and I think Rorty supports it as he see’s no use for religious language) is that the inspired theists simply have too many words in their language.

In defense of myself then, I’m going to go after a couple things; first this statement:
“An inspired theist, let us say, is one who “just knows” that there are supernatural beings which play certain explanatory roles in accounting for natural phenomenon.”

This seems like a hasty generalization from Rorty, and somewhat reduces the nature of theistic belief to the belief in fairies; it reminds me of a typical Dawkins move. After all, what does he mean by supernatural beings, and what natural phenomenon would he suggest those beings account for – relative to what he believes the theist thinks of course? Sure it’s a handy explanation that on the outside seems to make perfect sense, but it’s obvious he assumes his own shallow meanings. Perhaps though, by supernatural he simply means “transcendental” and by beings he means something like, some undefined ontology (at least that seems somewhat honest), however the rest seems like talk about miracle work and renders my “perhaps though” as nothing more then wishful thinking. Next he describes the natural theologians as a comparison, but again he says “these phenomenon” which is packed full of all sorts of meanings and he never gets into what he means by it. Most of my suspicion centers around his saying “…certain explanatory roles…” From this I could infer that he’s reducing theistic belief to the “God of the Gaps” argument; in other words the natural phenomenon which he refers to is simply that which has no scientific explanation, yet.

I see this statement as saying something along the lines of the following: “An inspired theist, let us say, is one who “just knows” that there is a Pie in the Sky who created everything.” That would have been more to the point I think….

That being what it is, my attack of that statement from Rorty is fruitless and is really meant to overshadow my inability to currently deal with this statement:
“… but all such analyses are either, “directional” and “reductive” (e.g., “noncognitive” analyses of religious discourse, which are the analogue of “expressive” theories of pain reports) or else simply describe alternative “forms of life”, culminating in nothing more helpful than the announcement: “This language-game is played.”

My current mantra is most certainly that “A certain language-game is being played,” however, it’s not without validity or purpose. I think the key is here, what are those “alternative forms of life”, and do the too many words of religious language lead to an alternative form of life that would promote a better world for our great-great-great-great-grand children? One might suggest, “Why do we need the antiquated words of Christ and the belief in the divine in order to understand what those things are?” I would simply answer, “well, we don’t.” As someone who follows Buddhism, I may well agree that Christianity along with Buddhism has far too many words, however these languages do not stand as descriptions of an underlying reality per se’, but serve as a path to a particular state of mind which leads to the “alternative form of life”. Although, we can do without the word “alternative” in that statement and simply say something like, “Good”.

None of this rhetoric on my part will really do though, so I’d like to call attention to the post I put up earlier from Rorty and point out a few things.

Rorty said in this post:
“The idea that the aim of inquiry is correspondence to reality, or seeing the face of God, or substituting facts for interpretation is one that we just can’t make any use of.”
“The reaction against this Greek/Christian pursuit of blessedness through union with a natural order is to say, there isn’t any natural order, but there is a possibility of a better life for our great-great-great grandchildren. That’s enough to give you all the meaning and inspiration that you could use. "

This statement is true enough, but that assumes that the goal of theism (at least in modern society) is to “see the face of God”, or to “substitute facts for interpretation”. Theism, at least from my perspective, does not have within it the goal of escaping the world and seeing God, it does not substitute facts for interpretation in any way – unless of course we’re talking to a biblical literalist, but I’m defending myself here, not them. Again, the goal of theism is along the lines of a certain disposition to live, to behave, to interact, to come into contact with ones self thereby paving the way to come into contact with others. (Now don’t take me here as reducing theism to behaviorism, as I’m not talking necessarily about physical dispositions). No matter the medium you choose, the religion or governmental system, there is always a set of normative behaviors one should abide by; the question I would pose is, “is one going to follow blindly those normative laws, or is one going to come to an understanding of them?” What philosophy or system of law proliferates understanding? That’s a bit like asking what military spreads peace?

The bottom line is that it’s simply a mistake to assume that the theist is in the pursuit of the divine outside of life, or that he’s trying to get in touch with God, so on and so forth. I think it would be more accurate to suggest that one is trying to bring the divine into himself, whether that divine is the Buddha nature, or the Christ nature (I see no difference between the two). Religious language, where-as it is a form of creating understanding, is a personal journey that one takes; when he understands that journey, those too many words of religious language become no longer necessary. One must understand that (once again) religion is not a description of anything, any more then a road is a description of the ground, it is merely something we follow. Further more, (with regard to myself) these words are not something that I simply believe as they are, as there is nothing to believe in; when one has love, there is no belief in that love, you are merely consumed with it, and love is what we call it. Belief merely exists where an understanding isn’t self evident, so to follow Biblical words is to follow a belief in a dogma and this often takes on the appearance of one having too many words in his vocabulary. The key then, is to do exactly as the inspired atheist would suggest, “get rid of those too many words”, not by discarding them, but by following them to the end.

Let me try an example:
Let’s suppose that language, or rather a particular word in itself, represent a road somewhere. So the sentence, “I’m hungry”, represents two roads (“I’M” and “HUNGRY”), both of which a listener has to travel in order to gain an understanding of what you’re saying, or better put, in order to reach the destination of understanding. Every time one is reading from a page or listening to speech, one is taking a journey which is paved by all the individual roads made up by all the individual words. By itself, “I’m”, is a lone road that doesn’t necessarily lead to anywhere except perhaps the end of the block, which of course has many branching roads that lead to many other possible destinations; so you’re left stranded. Mate that word with hungry and suddenly you’ve arrived somewhere familiar.

To understand the roads of everyday speech, you must see them as traveling through yourself. In other words, when someone says “I’m hungry”, you immediately recognize these roads as existing in you, and it is through this understanding that you realize not just that this person has the same roads, but that he’s directing you towards a destination and realization of his disposition.

The issue at hand is that the uninspired atheist likes to maintain that the theist has too many roads. However this assumes one of two things, either that; A.) The roads lead to similar destinations and thus can be discarded with more direct roads / routes. Or B.) The roads simply don’t lead anywhere.
Now again, in Rorty’s case he’s simply saying (I’m going to put words in his mouth here) “Look, there is a possibility for a better life right here and right now, there is no need to talk about this relative to a belief in some divine power.” And of course this assumes “A”. Rorty’s language, or the path his language takes, is of course a pragmatic one and always refers to humanity and the expansion of the liberal bourgeoisie; in other words it’s always directed outwards, the road is always leaving you without any return.

Religious language, where-as it certainly takes into account the betterment of society, is not directed in such ways, it doesn’t say we’re going to better society by paving roads out to it and building fancy houses on it. It betters society by paving roads which all lead back to the self; which gets me to assumption “B”, “the roads simply don’t lead anywhere”. Let me give an example, in contemporary society we may say that it is not the proper behavior to commit adultery, that you shouldn’t cheat with another man’s wife – and this of course is a statement whose roads point outside the self. In other words the reasons for not behaving in a certain way are not reasons which exist in you, but in society, as of course we ruin people’s lives, break up marriages and families, so on and so forth. Compare this to Matthew 5:27-30:
27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[e] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Notice that this sentiment has nothing at all to say about the woman or society, it points directly to the self, it is a language which doesn’t speak to humanity, is not some meaningless babble that points to the divine, but it points directly at YOU. All the roads of religious language (where-as they may lead out) always turn back in. The uninspired atheist, who says that the inspired theist has too many words, is simply making the mistake of not following the road to its’ destination, but rather leaving it out in objective space somewhere and thus mistaking it for talk about the world.

An after thought:
Religious language always points back to the self because the self is the source of the divine light. As a result the object of religious discourse, if it can be said that there is one, is always within the individual. The source of the divine is never in the world itself as what’s in the world can never be revealed through itself, but only through ones self. In this way when the uninspired atheist talks about the world, he talks about it in a way that seems to suggest that things in themselves poses a nature all their own, and that this nature is somehow uninspired by our own nature. However, there can never be an understanding of the world without first having an understanding of self as it is through the self that the world is revealed. As it was said, “I and the Father are one.”

10 comments:

  1. Perhaps language is what clouds everything. Your reference to "gut" makes more sense to me. Perhaps we should look at "spirituality" or "faith" in a more primative way. Personally, I feel that there is a great interconnectedness between all living things and that we are more than a chemical reaction of the brain and body's physiology. Religion, regardless of it's inspiration, is a man-made entity. For me Buddhism makes sense and assists me in making a connection to that deeper sense of self and spirit that I've been exploring seriously for the past decade or so. That being said, there are many parts of Buddhism with which I am at odds to some degree. I also feel a personal draw to the teachings of Hinduism and Wicca. Ultimately, my beliefs remain undefined by any formal structure, but I feel like I am getting closer to the sense of being at one with the universe and gaining perspective into my role therein.

    Have we perhaps lost faith if we rely on semantics and ritual to define it? Is a spiritual epiphany simply feeling in harmony with the world? In the end, we need to read and talk about things, but in the end, the peace we find is internal and more of a knowing than a rationalisation.

    We long for a black and white existence, but that is not attainable. Sometimes what we feel is irrational, but perhaps that's part of faith as well. For example, a Chritian accepts much on faith and I salute them for being able to. I could never do that, because, for me, it does not feel right, and in fact sound terrifying. This could be my spiritual flaw, I don't know. It's just what I feel...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Most definitely I believe that language clouds everything.

    Well, for what it’s worth me opinion on your statements would roll out as follows:
    “Personally, I feel that there is a great interconnectedness between all living things and that we are more than a chemical reaction of the brain and body's physiology.”

    I would suggest that to describe things in terms of chemical reactions and brain states is nothing more then a manner of speaking which belongs to science. Reducing the human in such ways has its benefits of course, but it doesn’t explain or reduce ones sense of self. For example; does a flower raise its head and peddles to the morning sun because of a process known as photosynthesis, or because it simply likes to?

    “Religion, regardless of it's inspiration, is a man-made entity.”

    I’m wondering what you’re suggesting by this? Certainly the institution of religion is a man made entity…

    It’s always been my position that different religions are the merely different manifestations of the same underlying principles, as a result the differences we see can be chalked up to mere language and cultural difference. For example, (you mentioned Buddhism and Hinduism), Chinese Buddhism is nothing more then an offshoot of Hinduism; the Chinese, as they are a more dry folk, say no need for the extravagant metaphors and Gods that you find in Hinduism – so they dropped them – however the underlying principles of the religion are the same.

    “Have we perhaps lost faith if we rely on semantics and ritual to define it? Is a spiritual epiphany simply feeling in harmony with the world?”

    (I realize you’re being somewhat rhetorical here, but)
    I would say to the first, no; but with the contingency that we replace the word define with communicate. That’s a key paradigm shift that I think needs to be made with religion in general (particularly western Christianity), and that is the recognition that our religious language (the Bible) does not exist to define something, but to communicate something – I say this because, there is nothing to define. Define (to me) suggest a mode of “Differentiation”, of setting up one against the other which simply isn’t possible in the world of religious language.
    To the second I would say that one can only answer that question for oneself.

    “For example, a Chritian accepts much on faith and I salute them for being able to.”

    This statement assumes we’re talking about the run of the mill Christian who generally has a dogmatic view of they’re religion; so it seems you’re using that view of Christianity to say no to it? It seems that perhaps, what you don’t like about religion are the linguistic anomalies that somehow don’t make rational sense in the big picture; but what framework are you using in making that judgement?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Regarding "I would suggest that to describe things in terms of chemical reactions and brain states is nothing more then a manner of speaking which belongs to science.", could we not say the same thing about the descriptions (many of which are allegorical) found in religion? Both Science and Religion are communicated via a common lexicon. One might argue that we have more evidence of scientific findings than we do of religious claims. The two need not be at odds, but when one proclaims its absoluteness we quickly delve into a trickier matter.

    You are correct in your understanding of my statement: “Religion, regardless of it's inspiration, is a man-made entity.”. I am speaking directly in regards to religious orders or systems of belief. That being said, as the various orders also control the teachings and texts of their faith, then those two become man-made. This is not to say that there is no validity in spirituality, but, rather to say that the former does not necessarily beget the latter.

    I concurr entirely with your "position that different religions are the merely different manifestations of the same underlying principles, as a result the differences we see can be chalked up to mere language and cultural difference." The problem is that many of these cultures have changed drastically and, with globalisation, religion has become distorted through culture, politics and so forth. The commonalities do suggest a greater spiritual unity, and this is what I feel, personally, that people need to pursue on their spiritual journeys. If one finds it in a Church, Mosque or Temple, that is fine. The concern is when that Mosque, Church or Temple begins to proport itself as being the only true faith or path. This is my central criticism of many of the world's modern day religions. For example, my wife attends church every Sunday. The people in her congregation are very nice. However, some of them have made it clear to me that they believe it's either the way of Jesus or the highway. Further, they can not grasp how my wife can go to church while I don't. In the end, I respect my wife and the path that she's taking. In the end, we hold the same values. I don't see the issue. Perhaps these people feel this way out of fear...

    I don't quite get you when you ask "This statement assumes we’re talking about the run of the mill Christian who generally has a dogmatic view of they’re religion; so it seems you’re using that view of Christianity to say no to it? It seems that perhaps, what you don’t like about religion are the linguistic anomalies that somehow don’t make rational sense in the big picture; but what framework are you using in making that judgement?" I guess what I am speaking of is the general mass of Christians who go to church each Sunday. And, as for the anomalities, the Bible is riddled with them. The whole central belief of the crucifixion and ressurection just are difficult to accept in my mind - but hey, that's just me (and I believe in daft concepts such as karma).

    How does one ultimately select the faith to follow? Especially here in North America where we can shop around to see what each faith is representing. So much of religion is carried on by cutlural tradition - is this perhaps part of the problem? Does one stay Catholic because his/her family has been Catholic since the 10th century?

    ...you should check out the Belief-o-Matic site (it's on my blog somewhere).

    Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
  4. “One might argue that we have more evidence of scientific findings than we do of religious claims.”

    I would suggest that you’re making the mistake of thinking that religion makes scientific claims. Again, religion doesn’t talk about “what’s out there”.

    On the religious institution:
    Where-as I’m not a big fan of institutions (I haven’t gone to church in over 10 years), and I’m also not a fan of how the word of God is delivered in the sates, the institution serves as a means of spreading that word and preserving those traditions. This is a huge topic just by itself, so I’ll leave it at that. I’d suggest checking out Sam Norton’s blog (“Elizaphanian”, on the side-bar).

    “The concern is when that Mosque, Church or Temple begins to proport itself as being the only true faith or path.”

    I can’t disagree with that, I’d be a hypocrite otherwise.

    “The whole central belief of the crucifixion and resurrection just are difficult to accept in my mind”

    I would suggest that this is because you’re trying to put the supposed objective reality of it in a modern day scientific perspective; which again is mixing science and religion, muddying the waters of the religions point. The question should not be whether or not that event has objective validity outside you, but what does it mean as directed back towards you. Again, reference to my analogy that religious language is always directed back towards the self. All that remains of that reality is an idea, a mode of thinking, and it’s that that sets you free. Believing in Christ has nothing to do with believing in flesh and bone, or crosses for that matter; if I die and tell my family to believe in me, am I telling them to believe in me as a man (flesh and bone), or to believe in the ideas I represented as a man?

    The story of Christ could be completely bogus, and so could the Buddha, but for me, none of that destroys the validity of the language any more then finding out if there wasn’t any Samarians, that somehow negates the validity of Sanskrit – of course it doesn’t.

    Religious language does not talk about “what’s out there”.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In the end, all history is somewhat bogus, is it not? Differing perspectives, etc. This is why I'd believe more in the central messages offered by religions which is homogeneous, instead of the secular aspects.

    I disagree in that I believe several religions do try to tell us what is "out there". Hence the conflict between creationism and the Big Bang theory.

    In the end, it is the passed down teachings of people like Jesus, Mohammed, Gandhi, Patanjali, Lao-Tzu, etc. that we need to study and follow in principle as opposed to ritualistically and dogmatically.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I see we're simply on different pages.

    By religion, you mean the institution of religion, where-as I'm mean to suggest the language of religion.

    Yes, I'd tend to agree with you.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't think that I could separate the language from the institution as the institution has created much of the language. I guess my mind separates it along the lines of dogmatic v. essence. The universal message exists within all religions, but all religions do not necessariily exist within the message.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sure,
    but the essence (however you'd choose to define that) is communicated via whatever religious language game you happen to be playing. Language is by IT'S essence dogmatic, so you have a bit of a catch 22 here.

    For example, one could say (by your chosen language) that gravity has a certain essence, however the principle we have to define it (Newtons Laws) are the given dogma and don't speak to it's essence. So what you're saying then is, "Well, gravity really isn't what we say it is, so I'm not going to believe it or follow it's principles." That would be rediculous wouldn't it?

    But we know that, we use it because "IT WORKS", for now. Does religion WORK?

    Again, I understand you problems with the institution as I have the same problems myself. All we're really saying is, we're unhappy with the way the institution currently interprets the dogma.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think that essence is beyond language (as is the spirit) - it's a matter of knowing - the gut check kind of stuff. It's like love; we attempt to articulate it in words, poetry, music, art, etc., but, while coming close, it can never truly comminicate the sentiment, though it might inspire others to become more in touch with their personal connection. I suppose this is, ironically, faith to some extent.

    My best example of this is explaining how much I love my daughter. I can try to put it into words, but it can never come close to a true expression of what I feel. Am I making any sense here?

    ReplyDelete