Non-religious perspectives on religion

_db

Whitehead once said that Christianity was a religion looking for a metaphysics. I interpret this as meaning Christianity has various basic beliefs - monotheistic God, the divinity and resurrection of Jesus, the Covenant, Original Sin, heaven/Hell, etc - that believers hold on faith but are not satisfied with faith so they turn to a metaphysics to help support the belief structure. In other words, the religious belief does not stem from the metaphysics, but the other way around.

I am not personally religious; although I sometimes wish I could immerse myself in the spiritual culture as it seems quite nice at times. My agnosticism (but for all practical purposes, atheism) is not affirmative or exuberant, but rather melancholic as if I am mourning the loss of God.

Being non-religious, therefore, means that I don't accept any sort of "religious" doctrines.

But what I have been wondering about recently is how non-religious people such as myself are to view religious claims.

When I was much younger I went through that cringey adolescent new-atheist transitional phase - fuck religion! fuck God! Jesus was a zombie! Religion is mind-control! If the universe was created by God, then who created God?!?1whoaneverthoughtaboutthatbeforedidjya SCIENCE BITCHES, etc etc etc. The shit that made a thirteen-year-old feel as if they are the perfect Form of the Rational incarnate.

Although I have long departed from this childish crap (as I started studying philosophy more), the new atheist culture left a residual taint towards religion in my memory. Religion is, for me, something to be suspicious of - which I think was the real motivation behind the new atheist movement: a secularization movement against dogma and religious power as opposed to a legitimate philosophical movement.

Unfortunately, in the process of pursuing the otherwise-respectable movement for secularization, the new atheist movement became similar to a hate group, demonizing religions as being oppressive and totalitarian, leaders as shifty con-men, and religious believers as irrational nuts who were living under a rock. In the process of identifying legitimate controversies in modern religion, the new atheist movement ended up clumping every single religious belief together into a single category: dangerously idiotic. And despite what they claim, the new atheists supplemented the lack of religion with an overt dependency on science as a guide to truth: those who dare question the hegemony of science are thrown out as stupid nutjobs.

Anyway, like I said, this left a bruise in my perspective of religion. Yet when I get the chance to study religious philosophy (perhaps not the religious texts themselves, though), I am struck by how rigorous the argumentation is. It is on-par with any other sort of philosophizing.

Furthermore, smart, capable, and intelligent religious thinkers are most definitely familiar with the criticisms of non-religious thinkers. They are familiar with the criticisms that religion is dogmatic, oppressive, or irrational, and are familiar with the philosophical arguments against their own religion. Yet they continue to believe.

How can this be the case? There are three options I see here:

1.) Religious thinkers know they are wrong and continue to advocate religion as a means to maintain power (the misanthropic view)

2.) Religious thinkers are actually just idiots and continue to believe out of ignorance or pure blind faith; religion is incompatible with rational inquiry by its very nature (the cynical view)

3.) Religious thinkers understand the counterarguments presented to them, yet continue to believe, because they aren't convinced by the these counterarguments (the charitable view)

I think all three options instantiate themselves in the world, yet the third one is probably the one most prevalent in philosophical circles. Indeed, it seems to me at least that to hold that every single religious person is either manipulative or idiotic is extraordinarily far-fetched and begs the question. Maybe it's just me, but there has to be good reasons why religion persists. Certainly in many cases it persists because people need an emotional support group - but it's also certain that religious philosophers probably aren't religious just because they need an emotional support group, but because they have good reasons to be religious.

Yet here I arrive back at the residual new atheist characterization of religion - I have no other perspective of religion other than the view that it is dangerous, irrational, and dogmatic, not to mention just flat out wrong. I find it hard to believe that something as organized as the Catholic Church can be so irrevocably wrong in everything it says. I find it hard to believe that all of theology is bullshit. Like, is it really rational to claim that the entire thing is just a farce, a hoax, a conspiracy of manipulators and sheep?

So in conclusion, I wish to hear alternative characterizations of religion, both from the religious and the non-religious, that doesn't mash it all together in one rejectionist clump, but instead takes into account the existence of religious disagreement. In other words, I want to see if it is possible to reject religion and yet accept it as a legitimate avenue in itself, or if non-religious belief is entirely incompatible with religious tolerance on the philosophical and practical levels. I currently see religion as dogmatic and irrational and thus worthy of suspicion and not a candidate for rational inquiry - yet this goes against the many philosophers who are religious. And I'm not that arrogant to claim that they're all idiots.

Wosret

I used to hang around Richard Dawkins website, even under my real name, made lots and lots of posts. Originally it actually was free, and people could say whatever they wanted, I made a 2 minute long gif of the lucky star dance for my avatar, and took it down because I was asked to, rather than made to.

Later though they started to highly regulate the place, and shared dogmas and visions began to emerge as people came and left finding that they did and didn't fit in.

I replied to a comment by Richard Dawkins, he had begun to say whatever the fuck he wanted at this point, and was railing against all kinds of fantasy whatsoever, and said in the comment that it was because si-fi makes you smart, and fantasy dumb because it just magically transforms frogs into princes. So I said couldn't the infinite improbability drive achieve a frog to prince conversion? And also talked about anime giant magic robots, and other mixtures, to which I got no reply. Personally I think because pwned.

_db

↪Wosret

Fuck Richard Dawkins, the intolerant dumbass.

Entertaining story.

Wayfarer

smart, capable, and intelligent religious thinkers are most definitely familiar with the criticisms of non-religious thinkers. They are familiar with the criticisms that religion is dogmatic, oppressive, or irrational, and are familiar with the philosophical arguments against their own religion. Yet they continue to believe. — Darthbarracuda

They continue to believe because of what they believe is at stake. And what is at stake, they would say, is literally as dramatic as 'dying vs not dying' - a stark choice between a 'true good' and the complete lack of one. It's like the difference between making it to the emergency ward on time for the dying patient - or not making it.

The asymmetry is because the unbeliever sees religious belief as a delusion or fantasy, so there's nothing at stake; they think that all the believer is giving up is a delusion, and having done so, they'll be better off for it. Whereas, for the believer, what is at stake is an eternity of suffering or joy. There's no way around that.

I find it hard to believe that something as organized as the Catholic Church can be so irrevocably wrong in everything it says. — DarthBarracuda

Well, trust your instincts.

I am not Catholic, but I have high regard for many Catholic philosophers - far more so than their New Atheist (or even old atheist) antagonists. I think scholastic and neo-scholastic philosophies at the very least provide a firm foundation for true ethical principles (and much else besides), which is more than can be said for any (or almost any) purely secular philosophy.

I had a minor epiphany six years back, when I attended the funeral of a family friend, who was a staunch Catholic (and very prominent citizen.) I was able to be truly moved by, and also to really understand the spiritual symbolism of, the liturgy of the funeral service, without feeling the need to either be converted by it, or to reject it. (That, I regarded as a sign of spiritual maturity, not that I wish to brag.)

Anyway I approached the subject of religion through an intuitive belief in the reality of enlightenment, which is something that has always seemed of paramount importance to me (yet, strangely, few seem to know about). And I studied it through the formal study of comparative religion, to try and understand more about it - I did an undergrad degree in that discipline (with a thesis on Emerson and the NE Transcendentalists).

That attitude is different to a fideistic approach ('fideism' being emphasis on faith or belief). For me, the key thing was the notion of religious experience - the epiphany, the ultimate 'aha' moment, where everything just clicks, where you really see how it is, not just 'believe the words'.

I always thought, at the time, that mainstream Christianity was just 'believing what you're told', pie in the sky when you die; whereas the 'real thing' was that moment of supreme insight (which was the gist of many of the books on popular eastern mysticism that I read).

But now, decades later, through studying those sources and pursuing such experiences, I actually have a new-found appreciation of Catholicism (and Christianity) generally.

But I would like to think it is not based on belief, as such. There are other ways of understanding faith - 'To have faith is to trust yourself to the water. When you swim you don't grab hold of the water, because if you do you will sink and drown. Instead you relax, and float' - Alan Watts (although regrettably, he tended to float on vodka.)

But in any case, there is a lot of material in 'the varieties of religious experience' approach which confounds both dogmatic religion and scientific materialism (although they're rather like flip sides of a coin.) Have a look at the Wiki article on religious naturalism.

But the takeaway is, 'higher states' are definitely for real. When you read the accounts of the mystics and sages, or are lucky enough to encounter one - what they actually said and did and saw, you are obliged to acknowledge that they're not simply delusional schizo's (although there is such a thing as 'holy madness'). Our little 'Western worldview' is, against that background, an inlet, a small creek, sorrounded by mighty rivers. (Sorry for waxing poetic.) 'There is more in heaven and earth, Horatio' - that kind of thing.

I too joined the Dawkins forum, in fact it was the publication of The God Delusion that got me into forums. I thought, how could anyone accept this crap? (Still think so. You have to read Terry Eagleton's review if you haven't already, and also Leon Wieseltier's take-down of Daniel Dennett). On the Dawkins forum, I found many of the contributors had an hysterical fear of the spiritual. (They've migrated en masse to Jerry Coyne's blog now.)

But the 'vibe' was like what Sigmund Freud said to Carl Jung - dread of the 'black mud tide' of occultism, that only the Bulwark of Science can defend us against. (Take up arms! Fight!) But I think, it is actually a fear of the unconscious - it is a form of cultural pathology. That's my take.

Wosret

You know, Hegel drank a bottle of wine a day.

Wayfarer

↪Wosret

Nothing the matter with that. Bottle of scotch, you might have a problem ;-)

Barry Etheridge

You know, Hegel drank a bottle of wine a day. — Wosret

Sounds like a cue for a song! >:)

_db

So what is religion according to the OP? Is it a set of beliefs and/or practices? Is it a benevolent social institution (which uses particular sets of beliefs and practices)? A harmful social institution (which uses particular sets of beliefs and practices)? Something in between? A form of self therapy? Are these categories mutually exclusive or some of them can contain others? Is it a social phenomenon which may include some -or all- of the previous? More importantly, can there be a definition of religion which is value free? That is to say, a definition which is not an expression of power relations? — Πετροκότσυφας

I try to make a distinction between religion as a cultural and social phenomenon and religious philosophy, like theology, eschatology, soterieology, etc. Religion in this case is a social group that attempts to ascertain transcendental truths by revelation, ritual, devotion, dogma and spiritual hierarchy.

However, theology and its subdisciplines fundamentally depend on religion to exist. Even atheistic theologians study the concept of God - and only to argue against theistic claims. There wouldn't be a point to study the concept of God if we knew there was no God, outside of anthropology.

So if we take away religion, then theology and its subdisciplines disappear, as does general philosophy of religion.

By being skeptical of religion, I am being an error theorist in regards to religion. To me, theistic theology, eschatology, soterieology, all of that is pretty much bunk. It's a study of something which does not exist. It comes across as almost ridiculous to even have a specific field that studies these things, as if it's a legitimate source of information. (I have a similar mistrust of people who claim they are metaphysicians, "mereologists", "axiologists", etc. It's just a whole lot of verbage for a discipline that ends up being rather trivial. I can see how we ought to have a name for a certain area of study - but to actually name yourself as a member of this "discipline" is kinda over the top in my opinion. Just call yourself a philosopher specializing in metaphysics and be done with it.)

Do you think it is plausible that an entire field (that exists in academia no doubt) could be this way? Does theology deserve to be respected outside of the religious community itself?

Because there has been a lot of criticism of theology in the past. Hume thought it was bunk. Schopenhauer thought theologians were idiots. Carnap criticized the meaning of metaphysical and theological terms. And Dennett today asks us how we are to tell a theologian that they wasted their entire lives pursuing a bunk field.

Wayfarer

And Dennett today asks us how we are to tell a theologian that they wasted their entire lives pursuing a bunk field. — DarthBarracuda

Well, many people ask the same of Daniel Dennett. After all, he has devoted his career to arguing that humans are moist robots and that there is no essential difference between the human mind and computer software. That is why critics say his book 'Consciousness Explained' really should have been called 'Consciousness Explained Away'.

While it is true that materialism tells us a human being is nothing more than a “moist robot”—a phrase Dennett took from a Dilbert comic—we run a risk when we let this cat, or robot, out of the bag. If we repeatedly tell folks that their sense of free will or belief in objective morality is essentially an illusion, such knowledge has the potential to undermine civilization itself, Dennett believes. Civil order requires the general acceptance of personal responsibility, which is closely linked to the notion of free will. Better, said Dennett, if the public were told that “for general purposes” the self and free will and objective morality do indeed exist—that colors and sounds exist, too—“just not in the way they think.” They “exist in a special way" - which is to say, ultimately, not at all.

So - is it trivial that existence is the essentially meaningless phenomona that Daniel Dennett, and others, say it is? Do you think Hume and Carnap have a solution? Hume, as I recall, devoted most of the rest of his life to card games.

BC

↪darthbarracuda

Religion is philosophy, theology, eschatology, soterieology, a social group, revelation, ritual, talk, devotion, music, imagination, dogma, and more.

What seems to make religion 'work' is experience. Experience of the ritual, the reading, the preaching, the sacraments, the singing, the prayers, and last but not least, the social group. Within the weekly reading and preaching (and in the hymns) are found instruction in faith,

Different religions (Buddhism vs. Christianity) utilize the elements of religion in different proportions, and the theology is often quite different. But there is still experience of whatever the religion offers.

Ordinary people with the richest, deepest religious experience work at it. They don't just pray in church. They don't think about their religion only for 1 hour, once a week. The reach out for more (through practice -- experience). They don't settle for the 3 year cycle of readings in the standard lectionary. They strive to experience more of [whatever chief treasures their religion offers]. They pray, they read, they engage in service labor, they give generously, and so on.

Of course, people being people, most of us coast through life. It isn't that we do nothing -- quite often we are very very busy -- but we are generally not assiduously pursuing any grand schemes. (I suppose successful professional middle class people are, but that's not in my experience.)

If accused, most believers could not be convicted of being religious. Some believers are almost not believers at all, and a lot of people are vaguely "spiritual" -- and nobody knows quite what that means.

BC

a secularization movement against dogma and religious power as opposed to a legitimate philosophical movement. — darthbarracuda

Secularization has been sweeping the world like a seismic wave for... a century, more or less. I'm not sure it had an agenda of any sort. It isn't against dogma or religious power: those things are too immaterial for secularism to care about. It's like an earthquake. The earthquake isn't against brick buildings or water mains; the built world is just irrelevant to the earthquake.

The thinking religious community has been trying to come up with responses to secularism -- occasionally with success, often without. Religious language falls flat for a lot of people with whom religious people would like to engage. I don't know whether a new language that does connect can be invented.

What seems to work best, when it works at all, is offering to people experience--either benevolent services or the experience of a welcoming community that openly displays its range of faith. (Belief, like everything else, is distributed on a continuum.)

Terrapin Station

Anyway, like I said, this left a bruise in my perspective of religion. Yet when I get the chance to study religious philosophy (perhaps not the religious texts themselves, though), I am struck by how rigorous the argumentation is. It is on-par with any other sort of philosophizing. — darthbarracuda

I kind of agree with this, but from a perspective of thinking that a significant percentage of non-religious-oriented philosophical conclusions are just as absurd as the religious stuff.

I went through something like your transition, although I started out from more of a dumbfounded position on religious views--since I wasn't even really aware of religious views in any detail until I was about 14-15 years old--rather than a rebellious reaction to them, which seems to be what you went through.

BUT, with both religious and non-religious philosophical views, I'm far less patient with stuff that seems like nonsense--and a LOT of it seems like nonsense--then I was when I was a philosophy student.

Probably some of that has come with age and the simple fact that I'm now far removed from/I'm in a position where I don't have to at all worry about "being taken seriously" by people enveloped in the academic tradition who are all concerned with other folks in that milieu "taking them seriously." I can just say what I really think, and I really think that a lot of people are incredibly full of $h|t if not peacocking their mental illnesses or simply delighting in being (often snobby) a$$holes with some of the nonsense they spout.

I explored religious views from a philosophical perspective in some depth when I was in my later teens and through my time as a philosophy student. That was enough for me to come to the conclusion that "there's nothing worthwhile there to bother with."

On the other hand I'm not fond of the "new atheists" either, but in some respects--especially insofar as religion can affect laws and cultural mores, I tend to side with them more than with religious sympathizers. However, I do like a lot of religious-rooted artworks, including gospel music, religious visual art, church architecture, etc.

I kind of get frustrated that so many people on philosophy message boards seem to have religious agendas, too.

mcdoodle

I want to see if it is possible to reject religion and yet accept it as a legitimate avenue in itself, or if non-religious belief is entirely incompatible with religious tolerance on the philosophical and practical levels — darthbarracuda

I was born a lapsed Catholic, my Dad a former devout believer who had lost his faith in the (2nd) war, my Mum a vague Anglican. So in my childhood I got some Jesuitical training and a complete absence of the sense of a single God. Now I'm nearing old age these basics remain with me.

I think the Richard Dawkins of the 1970's had terrific insights, 'The Selfish gene' and 'The Blind Watchmaker' were both excellent books in their way, so I don't like to denigrate the man; in his later years he's become crusty with self-importance, just when the world of ideas has moved on past and around him. Even 'genes' aren't what they were in his day. But that happens, look at the self-important novels that writers get prizes for when they're past their primes.

What I don't like about the Dennett/Dawkins view of God is the undisguised contempt they have for the intellects of most other people. Something at the heart of me rejects their arrogance, a sneering view that people in general don't understand who or what they are. It seems the converse of wisdom, and links itself in my mind to a kind of Scholasticism among some academics, actually post-modernists and analytics alike, a whirl of circular-seeming debate using terms they have conjured up to debate arcane matters among themselves.

I'm an empiricist by nature, I see that plainly. I like empirical science that investigates what's going on with all sorts of clever ideas and tools, and that doesn't worry all that much about What We Are Made Of. I like art, making stuff work, engineers solving problems. I like most people, I'm curious about them, we are after all fellows of one kind or another. And I like (some) people who have a lifetime of religious experience, and reflect on it, and plough steadily on. Why or how would I 'reject' them? They seem deeply honest to me and to themselves. They have something to show and tell me that pompous people don't. They feel they have touched something profound, and I experience that otherwise mostly in the greatest art, from Euripides to Cindy Sherman. I feel some strong relationship between what's called aesthetic and what's called religious experience.

You can certainly be begotten of the Wittgenstein of the P I and feel this way. But I think it involves you being doubtful of most systems, even the appealing ones, and building a philosophy for yourself brick by brick, mostly sans isms.

_db

↪Πετροκότσυφας

What I am primarily concerned about is the context religion provides a person. Religion has rituals, dogma, and scripture that inherently limits discussion and thus flies in the face of rational inquiry. I don't see how spiritual magic, like prayer, can possibly be reconciled with any rational attitude towards the world, or how any ordinarily rational person can actually believe that prayer works, or not be skeptical of scriptures (when they would be skeptical of any other unverifiable text).

The reason religion is a distinct entity in itself is because it operates differently than philosophy in general. The motivation for accepting religion seems entirely different from the motivation for accepting more open-ended philosophical ideas.

_db

You can certainly be begotten of the Wittgenstein of the P I and feel this way. But I think it involves you being doubtful of most systems, even the appealing ones, and building a philosophy for yourself brick by brick, mostly sans isms. — mcdoodle

Exactly, I completely agree. Philosophical systems are inherently disposable and volatile.

Wayfarer

I feel some strong relationship between what's called aesthetic and what's called religious experience. — MacDoodle

The connection between aesthetics and religious experience is a strong element in Schopenhauer's writing; Schopenhauer evokes the experience of great art, along with asceticism, as two ways of escaping the tyranny of will. Schopenhauer is an interesting case, because whilst he was bitterly critical of religion and described himself as atheist, he also seemed to have a religious sensibility of a kind. Some of his passages on asceticism and his life-long appreciation of Buddhism and 'Brahmanism' indicates a type of religious attitude. Sometimes I think, if Schopenhauer is an atheist, then maybe I am too!

In respect of the 'new' atheists, I am sure their contempt for religion is pathological, in the true sense: that is, motivated by unconscious fear. Dawkins verges on the hysterical at times - when the Astronomer General Lloyd Rees received an award from the well-known Templeton Foundation, Dawkins compared him to Quisling. I suppose, if you have absolutely no sense of what religion is about and why passages from the Bible are read at weddings and funerals, then it does appear to be a grotesque medieval costume drama, the sinister aim of which is to trap people into believing nonsense.That's what Dawkins makes of it, anyway.

I think underneath it, is the belief that religion belongs to an earlier age and it has been put in a box and sealed; we believe we have disposed of it, and don't want to hear otherwise.

My own spirit recoils from a (personal) God in the same way my heart sinks when I see a lion pacing neurotically back and forth in a small zoo cage. I know, I know the lion is beautiful but dangerous; if you let the lion roam free, it would kill me. Safety demands that it be put in a cage. Safety demands that religions be put in cages, too... — Daniel Dennett

from Darwin's Dangerous Idea.

wuliheron

One of the more controversial aspects of Taoism in particular is that it implies the secular and religious, metaphysical and mystical, are indivisible complimentary-opposites constantly at war with one another, yet, depending upon one another for their ability to thrive and survive. They form what many today might describe as a dysfunctional relationship with both totalitarian religious and atheist communist countries now largely relegated to the third, while the US with its strong traditions of rugged individualism and separation of church and state has become a world empire by pitting their own secular institutions against religious ones.

Note this can also explain why Islam has thrived largely in the third world using the argument that neither laze fare capitalism nor atheist communism can provide any real sense of community without something like Sharia law being imposed. Its Three Stooges slapstick based on a chicken flock memory centric hierarchy which also happens to describe how our neurons organize. The behavior of a chicken is not significantly different from any one of its own neurons because its a scalar or analog architecture and it reflects the fact they are relying heavily on their collective memories.

Yin will always transform into yang in extreme contexts explaining why today in China long avowed atheists are converting to Christianity in record numbers, often complaining they can no longer rely upon their increasingly capitalistic government to instill values in their children. The majority of thriving democracies in the developed world are increasingly secular, however, they are neither especially atheist either. Their agnostic populations tend to double within a generation to roughly 30% and the majority either describe themselves as merely spiritual or agnostic. It seems the minute their governments start providing a comprehensive safety net they abandon organized religion like a dead weight and, in the US, the poor have largely abandoned church services and have become famous for watching televangelists in their social security offices. Meanwhile, the embattled middle class has been attending services in record numbers with the young abandoning fundamentalist churches en mass complaining the pulpit has become a political stump.

Dawkins is an idiot like so many atheists I've come across and the New Atheists have been called "A Betrayal of the Enlightenment". In extreme situations yin will transform into yang explaining why the atheists rely upon essentially the same tactics as their fundamentalist competition of re-interpreting the common dictionary to suit their agenda and becoming notorious as online trolls arguing for argument's sake. Next I expect them to start going door to door just like the fundamentalists. Psychologists have repeatedly complained that fundamentalism meets all their criteria for a mental disease, but so does militant atheism if you ask me.

Thorongil

I want to see if it is possible to reject religion and yet accept it as a legitimate avenue in itself — darthbarracuda

One could easily advance a Straussian or Schopenhauerian interpretation of religion to answer this question. To them, religion serves as the metaphysics of the masses. Not everyone has the ability to become a philosopher, and yet everyone has a need, bordering on the natural, to have a coherent metaphysico-ethical picture of the world. Religion provides this picture, which is prepackaged and ready to be believed in without the need for strenuous argument, and so perfect for the common man. Religion could not survive if it did not contain certain truths, but these truths are clothed in the garments of myth and allegory. The religious plebeian may not realize this, but the religious sophisticate often does. The former doesn't have to realize it, whereas the latter, if he does, is thereby able to maintain his integrity in a society that would not permit him to be openly skeptical. In sum, it would be monumentally absurd to say that religion has been able to exist and endure for millennia without containing the slightest kernel of truth, goodness, or beauty. For one thing, one would have to credit the clergy of every religion, in maintaining what would have to be a rather complicated and nefarious conspiracy, with a level of genius and craft which they quite plainly do not possess. Human beings are enormously credulous, but not so credulous, in general, as to accept belief systems devoid of all truth, goodness, and beauty.

_db

↪Thorongil

Interesting perspective, I can't say I disagree.

You said religion is metaphysics for the common man. What about the metaphysics of Aquinas, or Augustine, or the nominalists? Scholasticism set the structure for future inquiry.

Thorongil

↪darthbarracuda

I indicated people like them when I mentioned the religious sophisticate.

Religion is by and large for the common man. Those who are philosophically inclined but who find themselves living in a society in which freedom of speech and religion do not exist often realize the allegorical nature of much of religion and so couch their ideas in the language of religious doctrine. Augustine's The Literal Meaning of Genesis is, despite the title, an allegorical reading of Genesis. But the average man on the street in Hippo, North Africa, where Augustine was bishop, might hold to what today we would call a literal interpretation of the text. This gets closer to what Strauss calls esoteric, or hidden, writing that one can find in many texts during the medieval and early modern periods. When, starting in the Enlightenment, freedom of speech and religion slowly began to be inaugurated throughout much of Western society, esoteric writing all but disappeared, for at that point, philosophers could write more or less freely without fear of persecution from religious or state authorities.

That being said, it is possible to take this idea too far. I am not suggesting that Augustine or Aquinas were closet atheists or secular humanists. One could never know for certain, and I think to suggest that they were, merely on account of their more sophisticated form of religion, is slightly patronizing and unfair. For it is possible to believe all the dogmas that the common man does and yet have or seek a greater understanding of them, as the aforementioned figures did.

Wayfarer

↪Thorongil

There's a passage in the text of Augustine's which is often quoted in debates about intelligent design, showing how Augustine would likely never have endorsed such a philosophy:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.

Likewise, Origen was scornful of any literalistic reading of scriptural texts:

The root and foundation of Origen’s exegetical method was his belief in the divine inspiration of both Old and New Testament scripture, interpreted within the context of the church and in harmony with the faith as it was handed down by apostolic succession. The fundamental reason why scripture is misunderstood is because it is interpreted exclusively on the literal level without taking into account its spiritual or non-literal meaning. However, even when its potential for meaning beyond the literal level is recognized, it is still necessary to interpret scripture according to divine intentionality. In other words, without proper exegetical method, the interpreter may discover levels of meaning not intended by the Spirit….

Origen believed that scripture should be interpreted according to three levels of meaning. Origen claims to derive this principle from Proverbs 22:20-21, which in the Septuagint says, “Moreover, you shall write these things down for yourself in a threefold way on the breadth of your heart, for counsel and knowledge…so that you may answer those who question you with true words.” These three levels of meaning correspond in broad terms to the needs Christians have on the various stages of their spiritual journey: the literal level is for the simple Christian, the moral level is for those who have made some spiritual progress, and the spiritual level is for those whom Paul refers to as the perfect (2 Cor. 2:6-7), that is, spiritually mature Christians who are capable of receiving solid food and understanding the deeper things of God (Heb. 5:13-14; cf. 2 Cor. 2:10)

Source

Both would give short shrift to today's biblical fundamentalists, on the grounds of their 'reckless and incompetent exegesis' (personified in the likes of Ken 'Saddles on Dinosaurs' Ham. An Australian, he had to go to the Deep South to find an audience).

When, starting in the Enlightenment, freedom of speech and religion slowly began to be inaugurated throughout much of Western society, esoteric writing all but disappeared — Thorongil

I don't know about that. I think a lot of it went underground, and a lot of it was simply ignored by the secular intelligentsia. Newton devoted far more of his life to esoterica than to physics; Descartes was according to some sources a Rosicrucian. There are actually some interesting studies around of the influence of esoteric spirituality on the development of science (an influence which is suitably hard to discern, of course).

But I think where the capacity for the distinction between levels of interpretation was lost was because of the abandonment of the underlying idea of the 'chain of being' which accommodated a hierarchical ontology which permitted 'higher' and 'lower' levels of reality. This goes back to the influence of nominalism and the idea of the 'univocity of God's being' that is found in Duns Scotus. The loss of the hierarchical ontology is the cause of the 'one dimensionality' of the Western cultural worldview.

Hanover

Religious people, those of deep unwavering faith, are happier. The lot in life set aside for the non believer and the non conformist (as they are one in the same) is harder for so many reasons. The problem is that recognition of the benefits of faith will not result in your having faith. Faith requires a leap, a temporary abandonment of reason, or, as the faithful say, humility that the answers of life cannot be found by normal means.

Non-religious perspectives on religion

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions