Rationalizing Religion

[dauer]

Hello everyone.

There was a wonderful article in Zeek magazine which although speaking generally to a Jewish audience I think touches on a much more universal question:

http://www.zeek.net/703jay/

Essentially, the article discusses how, why and to what end we attempt to rationalize and justify our religious beliefs, and a way we might perhaps more honestly speak about the reasons for belief, faith, observance, etc. It also touches upon what is knowable, what us unknowable, and what we project onto the unknown. It pushes for recognition of the role of the heart in religion, and distinguishing it from the intellectual and rational.

For the most part it seems to be pretty in line with a lot of my thinking, as an individual who doesn't find much need for rationalization or justification for something so ambiguous, indefinite, and subjective. Anyway I thought it would be a good springboard for some conversation on the nature and reasons for belief and practice as well as some other issues. What comes up for you? Short quote from the article below:


" What I don't buy is the intellectualizing, the theologizing, and the amateur philosophizing that disguises the more naked stirrings of the heart. Why can't we just admit that we're Jewish because we want to be? If we could do that, and if we could recognize that wanting – and not theology - is the essence of religious life, we might find our religion a lot easier to embrace."

[flowperson]

Dauer:

Thanks for the link. I am struck by the similarities shared by both the younger parts of Jewish religious factions in dealing with theological issues and the parallel activities among Christians, and Muslims who take sides in science and technology debates regarding national policies.

The real reason why there is such an increasing disconnect is that most people simply cannot take the time to learn what's real on their own other than by trial and error, or by being in discussions which are possible in places such as this. It's as if something out there erects barriers in the darkness to hamper our knowledge up to certain levels. I guess that's what you'd call "governance". In the old days of carbuerator driven-engines in vehicles, some owners/companies would put "governors" on engines to keep them from exceeding certain speed/rpm limits.

I believe that's kind of what's going on these days since we can see some things transforming before our eyes, but we cannot know why. When at the same time we are supposed to "adapt" to the changes as they cascade over us. Well, so far so good I guess. But our leaderships in religion and governance seem to only want to "fight" issues instead of beginning to modify things on the planet more in harmony with what's really going on.

Too many secrets I think.
Thanks again... and by the way, did you notice that the, you might say, father of such thinking, Beaudriard, passed away today. The similacrum ( that's either baby formula or I've misspelled ) is really what we are seeing and hearing about each day formally, when there is a hiddden reality unfolding informally and we are never to know how or why. It's just the way I see things.

flow....

[dauer]

Flow,

Thanks for the link. I am struck by the similarities shared by both the younger parts of Jewish religious factions in dealing with theological issues and the parallel activities among Christians, and Muslims who take sides in science and technology debates regarding national policies.

I think Ken Wilber was very correct in his observation (quoted very loosely by me as his fits to his whole level system) that it's easier for two conservatives to speak to each other or two liberals, even of different religions, than a conservative and liberal of the same religion, because the two liberals or the two conservatives really do have very similar approaches to the world, even if applied through a different system.

The same writer actually wrote another very good article, for the same publication, about reconciling Jesus from a contemplative Jewish perspective that follows his thinking from when he was a child to today.

I guess that's what you'd call "governance". In the old days of carbuerator driven-engines in vehicles, some owners/companies would put "governors" on engines to keep them from exceeding certain speed/rpm limits.

Do you think some of that, in liberal communities, has to do with the exclusive claims to authenticity made by the conservative communities? I see this happen in places like Israel especially, where there's the Orthodox asserting their way, and the outcome is that for the most part everything is "orthodox" or "secular." I've spoken to secular israelis who have pretty much become indoctrinated into this way of thinking as well, although it's not true for all.

Thanks again... and by the way, did you notice that the, you might say, father of such thinking, Beaudriard, passed away today. The similacrum ( that's either baby formula or I've misspelled ) is really what we are seeing and hearing about each day formally, when there is a hiddden reality unfolding informally and we are never to know how or why. It's just the way I see things.

I'm actually not familiar with beaudriard. I'll give him a look-up on wikipedia.

Dauer

[flowperson]

Hi Dauer.

I may have spelled his name wrong, but his obit in on the LATimes website today.

Yeah... I began to perceive a bifurcation in society beginning in the 80's. The arguments everywhere seem to get more divisive, rhetorical, and pointless as time goes on, whether from conservatives or liberals. And it's beginning to impinge upon foundations of Western beliefs IMHO.

And of course the "governing " force used for "governance" these days is fear, in all it's hoary forms. What's new ?

Thanks for the comeback.

flow....

[flowperson]

Dauer...the guy's name was Jean Baudrillard. About 30 years ahead of his time, but a leader in original thought.

flow....

[cyberpi]

In terms of rationalizing the heart: I witness that everything requires energy and that information is always transferred via the energy source. Even in the best designed operational amplifier or digital circuit there is a potential transferance from the energy source to the output. A little 'positive' feedback helps demonstrate the nature of the energy source as it struggles to keep up. Sadly, in the world one person tries to control the other by controlling his food source... but it reveals him.

As an example an older family member use to race slot cars in the old days and a technique was to gun it and then release the trigger while someone else was going around the corner. With the uneven and uncontrolled energy the other person would spin out. The point is, there was a hidden way for one person to control the other... through the power source.

This is not just an analogy... all things require energy, and the brain is most definitely effected by the bloodstream. But there is something more special when two people coordinate and drive the same car by the acceptance of one with the other. For example if I drive on my gas to a destination by your advice, then I have made my gas yours... but there is a transfer of information to me. From employer to employee this is always the case and it is an important aspect to understanding the heart. Labor earns its knowledge. Enter with faith and come out enlightened.

Or, maybe I just took one too many fruits from the tree of knowledge... without asking first. I'm not sure I can rationalize that one, but I recognize a sin in taking someone else's knowledge, or their labor.

[wil]

Not intending to oversimplify but it isn't sort of like our favorite pillow, or and old hammer...someone wants to toss it out and provide us with a new one...but we just want to hold onto what is comfortable.

And I'm not saying our belief systems are trivial, it just appears to be an analogy, maybe weak...maybe the real question is what do you care which pillow I use...

I guess it all comes to grips if I tell you I know that I'm more comfortable than you, and your pillow can't be as good as mine...

You or I if we love our pillow, won't care about the science or anything anyone else has to say...we'll justify keeping our pillow...

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by wil

Not intending to oversimplify but it isn't sort of like our favorite pillow, or and old hammer...someone wants to toss it out and provide us with a new one...but we just want to hold onto what is comfortable.

And I'm not saying our belief systems are trivial, it just appears to be an analogy, maybe weak...maybe the real question is what do you care which pillow I use...

I guess it all comes to grips if I tell you I know that I'm more comfortable than you, and your pillow can't be as good as mine...

You or I if we love our pillow, won't care about the science or anything anyone else has to say...we'll justify keeping our pillow...

Kind of like a security blanket... but what is your pillow?

Matthew 8:19 And a certain scribe came, and said unto him, Master, I will follow thee withersoever thou goest.
Matthew 8:20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath no where to lay his head.

[wil]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Kind of like a security blanket... but what is your pillow?

lol one time whilst living in the desert, like Jacob's, my pillow was a rock. I slept on a shelf right next to an arroyo when lying down or sitting I couldn't be seen from the highway not a quarter mile away...even standing one couldn't see me for the brush but I could see 360 degrees...was a wonderful home in the desert. Two steps up off my shelf and it was like I appeared out of nowhere to cars going by... my pillow, my rock had been washed by water and was smooth and concave, it rested my head nicely, and had a little depression perfect for my ear... we were called bums, dirt baggers, desert rats...homeless hadn't been invented yet...

[dauer]

cyber,

I'm not entirely sure I follow. Is your analogy about the relationship between the heart and the head?

wil,

You or I if we love our pillow, won't care about the science or anything anyone else has to say...we'll justify keeping our pillow...

That's generally how I feel. I think even speaking of the heart is a justification. I just think it's more honest than trying to say that what we do is because it's rational or trying to show that it's supported by our sacred text/s of choice, not that working it into the text has no merits in and of itself. I think, rather, that it can be very rewarding and also helpful for maintaining some degree of continuity.

Dauer

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Dauer...the guy's name was Jean Baudrillard. About 30 years ahead of his time, but a leader in original thought.

flow....

Boudrillard wrote Simulacra and Simulation, which is nearly a holy grail in post-modernist philosophy.

Chris

[flowperson]

Hello all:
In my reality heart-driven deeds that help others out is a primary definition of how love works. It comes from the heart, but is accomplished through head work. It's probably where the Greek concept of "agape" comes from, at least in part. As a former minister of mine once said, "anything else is just another business arrangement."

flow....

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by dauer

cyber,
I'm not entirely sure I follow. Is your analogy about the relationship between the heart and the head?

It was not my analogy, but yes. I was just posting what came to mind when I read of a pillow. Overall I am consciously countering a definition of Faith as just a distant belief in something unseen... a belief in darkness that feels good. That may be a good start and it is in the mind, but reading a story and being in the story are two different things. There are real, physical feedback loops that can be had with God.

[dauer]

cyber,

I don't think the article was speaking against being in the story at all, just trying to justify the story by rational means. I know that I for one am very into that, but it does not require me to stop regarding any of it as myth, or to start regarding it as infallible.

dauer

[cyberpi]

Not quite what I mean. The author says this:

Originally Posted by author

Faith, in its purest form, is inchoate. Unlike faith-in-something, which has a cognitive object, it is a disposition of trust toward the universe. It’s an attitude, a way of being, that has no particular object and no theory to which it is beholden. (“Trusting your own deepest experience,” Sharon Salzberg calls it in her book Faith; not letting it be undermined by a corrosive doubt). It’s only when faith is combined with ideas, particularly about how the world should be, or about how it came to be the way it is now, that faith translates into self-deception, or distraction, or even dangerousness.

I view that he is rationalizing or outright defining faith, and that it is not the definition that I rationalize it as. If a person knows nothing of God other than what they read, then I would first try to understand it with people.

As an example of my viewpoint, suppose a friend tells me that they want me to go parachuting for the first time... that he tried it and advises that I do it. I might have some fears to overcome, but I am not going to necessarily ignore any thought that enters my mind. I will probably evaluate the risks, the benefits, the technology, the state of the aircraft. I am going to ask questions. I consider that it is not a lack of Faith to be smart. However, no matter how much knowledge I gain about parachuting, to do it I will have to trust my life into someone's hands. I place Faith in my friend who recommends it, the mechanic who takes care of the aircraft, the quality control of the company that made the parachute, the person who packs the parachute, the pilot who flies the aircraft, and most importantly the jump master who gives me instruction of what to do as he guides me to step onto the wheel and grab the strut of the aircraft on a single engine Cessna. Likewise... that jump master and everyone on the aircraft places Faith in me, because if I were to accidently open the chute in the aircraft it is very dangerous. Their life is also in my hands. Some students freak out.

As an example of what can happen, a pilot forgot to lock the wheel on an aircraft without a step plate. The wheel sticks out the side and provides a place for the person to step onto while reaching out on the strut to eventually hang and let go. With the wheel unlocked, it spun and sent the jumper down in a very dangerous way. The jumper was ok, but he chewed the pilot out on the ground and was unhappy with his response. A little excess adrenalin helps. So then later they go again and in his way to teach the pilot a lesson, the jumper grabs the key to the aircraft before jumping, leaving the pilot forced to make an immediate unpowered landing. Somewhat dangerous. Again, there were words back on the ground. That jumper was deliberately unfaithful. The jumper wanted to teach a lesson, but he purposely betrayed the Faith of the pilot. I would be happy to place Faith in the pilot, but there is no way in hell am I going to place Faith in that unfaithful jumper while he is unclean. I will rebuke him up and down until he will no longer hear of it. But if he repents, hears my rebuke and asks for forgiveness, then we are good to go. I would place Faith then to go jump with him. It is even better to go jump with someone who may have learned the lesson of being faithful to those who place faith in him, than to go jump with someone who has yet to learn the lesson. In my opinion, understanding faith and faithfulness definitely requires the mind. If a person will not hear a rebuke, then I'm out of there. Then it is time to go find another jump school. I submit that a lesson involving Faith is more important than the adrenalin or thrill of jumping out of the aircraft... but the jumper who betrayed faith, allegedly to teach it, listened to the evil in his heart. I submit that if someone will not understand the faith someone places in them, then sometimes you have to just rebuke it and walk away.

So I have told a story now. I believe the whole thing to be true, but I did not witness part of it. For a time I jumped from aircraft, but I did not personally witness any problems. In terms of placing Faith in me as a story-teller, it is not whether someone believes the story that I have told is true... it would be whether or not someone believes that I am an honest person. But maybe part of the story is not true even though I am honest. I would not confuse placing faith in the story versus placing faith in me. But as you pick up on, I tell the story so that someone might place themselves in it and consider how they would react. That is by using the mind to imagine it and to think it through. However, it is no substitute for being in a person's own life. A person does not have to jump from an aircraft to experience and place Faith in others, but just reading a story doesn't do it. It would be like reading about an exercise to lose weight.

So it is actually NOT the universe that I place faith in... I find most things in it that are simply NOT worthy of placing faith in. The aircraft is not going to speak up and tell me when it has a control rod rusting through. The aircraft does not have a soul. A person who knowingly betrays faith is also not worthy of placing faith in. What I do find worthy of faith is in the soul of the person. Even if a person is unfaithful as a result, whether misguided or derainged, it always provides an opportunity for someone to learn from... most especially that person.

I tend to see this world from a controls and information perspective, from science and engineering. This universe is like a giant pad of paper to write on. The soul and God are outside of what can be seen. What is seen is only the result of what God and people do or don't do. So is it a lack of Faith that God is recording everything? I say certainly not... it brings me a sense of relief and joy. I guess it is fair to say that placing faith in the goodness of the universe is like placing faith in the honesty of God. In that sense I agree with the author. However, I refer to Faith as in the interaction of both God and in the soul of anyone or anything that wills to move something inside of this universe. It is in that interaction to which I am ascribing or rationalizing a definition of faith.