Islam is the youngest, and one of the largest, of the major world religions. Beginning with the life of Muhammad in the 6th and 7th centuries, it has expanded into every part of the world. As with the other religions we've studied I will rely on our text (Hopfe/Woodward) to provide the many important dates and events for covering this religion.
Muhammad was born in 570 AD. His father died before he was born, and his mother died before he was six. In his youth he spent time with his uncle on the caravan trade and consequently came into contact with other religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism. At the age of 25 he married an older, wealthy woman named Khadijah. Although they had six children, only one daughter, Fatima, survived Muhammad.
The two prominent cities in Arabia, and between which much of his religious insights occurred, were Mecca and Medina. Mecca was a central city for the polytheistic religion of Arabia, particularly the Ka'ba which is a building containing a black stone believed to have fallen from heaven.
Muhammad was particularly concerned about the idolatry of his people. Unlike the Jews and Christians, the Arabs did not claim to have a special revelation from God the Creator. Muhammad began receiving revelations from the angel Gabriel that he believed filled this void. These revelations were a call to turn from idolatry and worship the only God. This resulted in conflicts with the tribes vying for control of Mecca and the religious worship at the Ka'ba. Muhammad encountered more conflict when he moved to Medina (the Hijra), although he eventually gathered enough of a following to return to Mecca and secure it for Islam.
Islam teaches that there is one God, that Muhammad provides the last special revelation to humans which corrects previous errors in special revelation introduced by Christians and Jews, and that humans will be judged based on their deeds. The correct way of living is summarized in the 5 pillars of Islam.
Because of its focus on the unity of God, and its call away from idolatry, it is especially important to consider how Islam understands God both as creator and redeemer. Whereas Judaism and Christianity both recognize the need for atonement in the work of redemption, this is one of the things that Islam rejects. Indeed, the need for vicarious atonement is central to Biblical Judaism and Christianity. As a central piece of their special revelation, Islam does more than correct errors in their texts but rejects their essence.
Consequently, the question is whether God, as just and merciful, can do the work of redemption without vicarious atonement. This is a question that continues to divide Christianity and Islam. If God is perfectly just, and humans are sinners, the implication is that no work on the part of humans is sufficient. Even if a person were to become perfect from one point in his/her life until death, the failure to seek, understand, and be righteous before this point does not change. It remains a matter for the justice of God. At issue is whether God can simply forgive, or if forgiveness requires atonement (payment). The good deeds of the repentant sinner cannot be this atonement in that they are merely the duty required to avoid further sin. These good deeds simply mean no more sin is added, but they do not erase previous sin.
As I understand it, this question of the nature of God and the need for atonement is the dividing point between the theistic religions that we have studied. Islam takes a very clear stance on this issue: there is no need for atonement, good deeds are sufficient.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Christianity Part 2
This post continues my discussion of Christianity, which will undoubtely require more posts to cover the history of Christianity. In this post I plan to focus on the death and resurrection of Christ. As I noted in my previous post this event will be interpreted by the worldview one brings to understanding it. Therefore, we need to consider the interpretive presuppositions used to think about the resurrection of Jesus.
For the naturalist, the idea of a person rising from the dead does not make sense. The odds of a person coming back to life after death are 0. Therefore, any such story can be dismissed as myth. However, from another perspective the odds are completely open in that the naturalist must admit that we know very little about life in general, and history more specifically. There are insects that can be cut in half, and then each half regrows the other side. For all we know, something strange did happen in the case of Jesus. Nevertheless, even if this is so it doesn't establish the truth of Christianity or give us any meaning to why Jesus needed to die and then be raised from the dead. Our textbook (Hopfe/Woodward) seems to take this approach.
Similar kinds of interpretations can be given for this even by Hinduism (Jesus was an avatar of Krishna), Buddhism (Jesus was a Buddha), someone who looked like Jesus, not Jesus, died on the cross (Islam), polytheism (Jesus was a divine being but not the creator), and any other worldview we might consider. In each case the death and resurrection of Jesus can be granted without giving the meaning to it that Christianity does.
Christian apologists have often relied on "evidences" to prove the truth of Christianity. One of these is that there is a significant amount of historical and textual evidence that Jesus did rise from the dead. Even so, as I've shown above, this does not prove that the Biblical interpretation of this event is the true one, or the Jesus is the Son of God who created all things. It merely shows that something strange happened in the case of Jesus.
In order to understand this event it must be contextualized in the Christian worldview. This is the worldview of creation, fall, and redemption. Christianity affirms that only God is eternal, that God is the creator of all else. It also affirms the reality of sin and the need for redemption. Sin involves the failure to know God and keep the moral law. Other theistic religions might also affirm the reality of creation and sin. Therefore, what sets Christianity apart as different is how it understands God's justice and mercy. Because Christ overcame moral evil, he also overcame natural evil (death).
Christianity argues that the justice of God requires payment for sin. On the other hand, the mercy of God says that sin can be forgiven. For both of these qualities to be reconciled involves both a payment and forgiveness. Christianity claims that Jesus, who existed as the eternal son of God (not a son in the sense of a temporal being that is born to parents, but a son in the sense of the one who makes the father known) became incarnate, and then died as the atonement for sin which then satisfies the justice of God and provides a basis for mercy and forgiveness. The very death of Christ is itself an example of God's mercy in that he provided the means for atonement himself.
I'm using this event as a case in point to remind us how experiences are interpreted in relation to our presuppositions. Within the context of the Christian worldview, the death and resurrection should not be a surprise, but indeed should be what we expect. To argue backwards from these events to Christianity is fallacious.
Hopefully this highlights how many assumptions we bring to the study of religion. In order to successfully study a religion we need to first "know ourselves," know the presuppositions about basic questions which we bring to interpretation.
For the naturalist, the idea of a person rising from the dead does not make sense. The odds of a person coming back to life after death are 0. Therefore, any such story can be dismissed as myth. However, from another perspective the odds are completely open in that the naturalist must admit that we know very little about life in general, and history more specifically. There are insects that can be cut in half, and then each half regrows the other side. For all we know, something strange did happen in the case of Jesus. Nevertheless, even if this is so it doesn't establish the truth of Christianity or give us any meaning to why Jesus needed to die and then be raised from the dead. Our textbook (Hopfe/Woodward) seems to take this approach.
Similar kinds of interpretations can be given for this even by Hinduism (Jesus was an avatar of Krishna), Buddhism (Jesus was a Buddha), someone who looked like Jesus, not Jesus, died on the cross (Islam), polytheism (Jesus was a divine being but not the creator), and any other worldview we might consider. In each case the death and resurrection of Jesus can be granted without giving the meaning to it that Christianity does.
Christian apologists have often relied on "evidences" to prove the truth of Christianity. One of these is that there is a significant amount of historical and textual evidence that Jesus did rise from the dead. Even so, as I've shown above, this does not prove that the Biblical interpretation of this event is the true one, or the Jesus is the Son of God who created all things. It merely shows that something strange happened in the case of Jesus.
In order to understand this event it must be contextualized in the Christian worldview. This is the worldview of creation, fall, and redemption. Christianity affirms that only God is eternal, that God is the creator of all else. It also affirms the reality of sin and the need for redemption. Sin involves the failure to know God and keep the moral law. Other theistic religions might also affirm the reality of creation and sin. Therefore, what sets Christianity apart as different is how it understands God's justice and mercy. Because Christ overcame moral evil, he also overcame natural evil (death).
Christianity argues that the justice of God requires payment for sin. On the other hand, the mercy of God says that sin can be forgiven. For both of these qualities to be reconciled involves both a payment and forgiveness. Christianity claims that Jesus, who existed as the eternal son of God (not a son in the sense of a temporal being that is born to parents, but a son in the sense of the one who makes the father known) became incarnate, and then died as the atonement for sin which then satisfies the justice of God and provides a basis for mercy and forgiveness. The very death of Christ is itself an example of God's mercy in that he provided the means for atonement himself.
I'm using this event as a case in point to remind us how experiences are interpreted in relation to our presuppositions. Within the context of the Christian worldview, the death and resurrection should not be a surprise, but indeed should be what we expect. To argue backwards from these events to Christianity is fallacious.
Hopefully this highlights how many assumptions we bring to the study of religion. In order to successfully study a religion we need to first "know ourselves," know the presuppositions about basic questions which we bring to interpretation.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Christianity Part 1
As our textbook (Hopfe/Woodward) notes, Christianity is the largest religion in the world. Consequently, this is the largest chapter and I'm going to have more than one post about Christianity.
The method used by the textbook is called "higher criticism." This approach assumes that any events in a religion that seem difficult for the contemporary mind to accept are inventions of that religion. This particularly applies to descriptions of miracles, prophecy, and any divine intervention in history. Essentially, higher criticism assumes a naturalistic understanding of reality and applies this to the study of religion.
This method was first used in the study of the origin of the books of the Bible. Higher criticism looks for non-Christian corroboration of the authorship of the Bible. If none is found, the assumption is that the supposed author (say, Matthew or Luke) is not actually the author. Further, higher criticism looks for the earliest manuscripts and says that the oldest manuscripts we can find are actually the oldest manuscripts. Therefore, if the oldest manuscripts we currently have for books like Matthew or Luke date to the second century, then these books must have been written then.
These are questions at the very heart of religion. How should we answer the basic questions that religion asks? If we give the kinds of answers in the worldview of naturalism, then we will arrive at these conclusions (higher criticism) about Christianity and its sources. However, the issue at stake is precisely whether or not there is a God who acts in history, and simply assuming naturalism does not help us in arriving at conclusions.
Perhaps the particular question that must be addressed when approaching religions like Judaism and Christianity, religions that affirm the need for redemptive revelation from God, is why this kind of revelation is needed. If God does not exist then clearly there is no such revelation. Arguing from this revelation to God's existence is equally circular. This is a question that must be settled by philosophy before approaching a religious text.
The textbook makes two claims: there is little known about the life of Jesus apart from New Testament sources, and the Christians accept the Old Testament as authoritative. If the Old Testament is authoritative then there is a bigger picture of what should be expected in the Messiah. The Old Testament gives criterion about who the Messiah will be, and the New Testament makes the claim that Jesus is the Messiah.
As the textbook notes, the central event in the life of Jesus for Christians is his death and resurrection. This event brings the questions considered here into focus. Must the Messiah die? And if the Messiah dies, but was sinless, will the Messiah stay dead? The teaching from Genesis is that death and natural evil entered the world as a call back from sin. It follows that if a person is sinless that person does not need a call back. Consequently, we should expect that the Messiah would not stay dead, rather than being surprised by this.
However, to get this far assumes that we have dealt with the questions that are basic to any worldview. Assuming naturalism will not get us to the same place as we will if we show that God exists, moral evil requires payment, and natural evil is a call back from moral evil. For the purposes of my blog, we are once again at the point of needing to answer the basic questions: what is the highest authority, what is real, and what is the good?
The method used by the textbook is called "higher criticism." This approach assumes that any events in a religion that seem difficult for the contemporary mind to accept are inventions of that religion. This particularly applies to descriptions of miracles, prophecy, and any divine intervention in history. Essentially, higher criticism assumes a naturalistic understanding of reality and applies this to the study of religion.
This method was first used in the study of the origin of the books of the Bible. Higher criticism looks for non-Christian corroboration of the authorship of the Bible. If none is found, the assumption is that the supposed author (say, Matthew or Luke) is not actually the author. Further, higher criticism looks for the earliest manuscripts and says that the oldest manuscripts we can find are actually the oldest manuscripts. Therefore, if the oldest manuscripts we currently have for books like Matthew or Luke date to the second century, then these books must have been written then.
These are questions at the very heart of religion. How should we answer the basic questions that religion asks? If we give the kinds of answers in the worldview of naturalism, then we will arrive at these conclusions (higher criticism) about Christianity and its sources. However, the issue at stake is precisely whether or not there is a God who acts in history, and simply assuming naturalism does not help us in arriving at conclusions.
Perhaps the particular question that must be addressed when approaching religions like Judaism and Christianity, religions that affirm the need for redemptive revelation from God, is why this kind of revelation is needed. If God does not exist then clearly there is no such revelation. Arguing from this revelation to God's existence is equally circular. This is a question that must be settled by philosophy before approaching a religious text.
The textbook makes two claims: there is little known about the life of Jesus apart from New Testament sources, and the Christians accept the Old Testament as authoritative. If the Old Testament is authoritative then there is a bigger picture of what should be expected in the Messiah. The Old Testament gives criterion about who the Messiah will be, and the New Testament makes the claim that Jesus is the Messiah.
As the textbook notes, the central event in the life of Jesus for Christians is his death and resurrection. This event brings the questions considered here into focus. Must the Messiah die? And if the Messiah dies, but was sinless, will the Messiah stay dead? The teaching from Genesis is that death and natural evil entered the world as a call back from sin. It follows that if a person is sinless that person does not need a call back. Consequently, we should expect that the Messiah would not stay dead, rather than being surprised by this.
However, to get this far assumes that we have dealt with the questions that are basic to any worldview. Assuming naturalism will not get us to the same place as we will if we show that God exists, moral evil requires payment, and natural evil is a call back from moral evil. For the purposes of my blog, we are once again at the point of needing to answer the basic questions: what is the highest authority, what is real, and what is the good?
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Judaism
Our textbook indicates some of the difficulties in defining Judaism as a religion. This specifically has to do with the fact that there are those who consider themselves Jewish but not for religions reasons. Because of this the book discusses religious Judaism.
The book brings out distinctives of Judaism: its focus on God the creator, that God acts in history for redemptive purposes, and that God has given a law by which humans are to live to understand his purpose.
The acts of God in history are recorded in scripture, or special revelation. For Judaism these include the 5 books of Moses, the histories, the wisdom literature, and the prophets (all of which Christians refer to as the Old Testament). After the creation account (which includes creation, fall, and redemption), and then two accounts of humanity going into apostasy (the Flood and the Tower of Babel), the book of Genesis focuses on Abraham and his descendants as the chosen people by which God will reveal redemption for humanity.
The book tells us about the promises made to Abraham. These are given in connection with something he is to leave. In leaving the city of Ur, he will be given a promised land. In leaving his people he will be made the father of a great nation. And in leaving his father's family all nations will be blessed.
This blessing is in connection with Ur and that nation not being blessed. In their idolatry these people did not know God. They had gone astray. By way of contrast, through the work that God would do in Abraham and his descendants all people will come to know God.
The way that people come to know God is by keeping his law. At Mount Sinai this law was initially revealed in the ten commandments, which are elsewhere said to be written on men's hearts. That is, these are moral laws that all men can know, but which are summarized in the ten commandments. These commandments are then applied to all other areas of life.
While the book focuses on the law, what is central to Biblical Judaism, and what makes it distinct from other religions, is the role of the atoning sacrifice. While polytheistic groups offer sacrifices, these are given to placate the gods or to win their favor. By contrast, in Biblical Judaism there is a sacrifice to atone for the sins of the people. In this ceremony, the animal stands in the place of the one needing redemption and suffers the consequences of sin.
This was especially brought out in the life of Abraham in the act of offering his son Isaac. God told Abraham to offer Isaac, which could be a puzzling command for any parent. As he and Isaac proceeding to the place for the offering, Isaac asked Abraham where was the animal for the offering. Abraham replied that God would provide the sacrifice. Abraham could know that Isaac, as a sinner who needs redemption, could not himself be the atoning sacrifice. Furthermore, he knew that God had promised a great nation through Isaac. If Isaac were dead, he could not father a great nation. The implication is that even though Isaac was offered as a sacrifice God could raise him from the dead. As Abraham was about to offer Isaac God stopped him and provided a ram for the offering.
The Tabernacle, and then the Temple, were the appointed sites for these offerings. When the Temple in Jerusalem was finally destroyed by the Romans this created a crisis of meaning for Judaism. If the offering can only be given at the Temple, and the Day of Atonement (among other days) is a central focal point for Judaism, what does it mean to be Jewish without a Temple?
This question is important because of what it indicates about the blessing given to Abraham. The blessing of redemption and knowing God is taught about in the atoning sacrifice. How can the justice of God be fulfilled while the mercy of God also be shown? Can an animal be the actual atoning sacrifice or is it a sign? These questions about atonement will be important for the remaining theistic religions we are studying.
The book brings out distinctives of Judaism: its focus on God the creator, that God acts in history for redemptive purposes, and that God has given a law by which humans are to live to understand his purpose.
The acts of God in history are recorded in scripture, or special revelation. For Judaism these include the 5 books of Moses, the histories, the wisdom literature, and the prophets (all of which Christians refer to as the Old Testament). After the creation account (which includes creation, fall, and redemption), and then two accounts of humanity going into apostasy (the Flood and the Tower of Babel), the book of Genesis focuses on Abraham and his descendants as the chosen people by which God will reveal redemption for humanity.
The book tells us about the promises made to Abraham. These are given in connection with something he is to leave. In leaving the city of Ur, he will be given a promised land. In leaving his people he will be made the father of a great nation. And in leaving his father's family all nations will be blessed.
This blessing is in connection with Ur and that nation not being blessed. In their idolatry these people did not know God. They had gone astray. By way of contrast, through the work that God would do in Abraham and his descendants all people will come to know God.
The way that people come to know God is by keeping his law. At Mount Sinai this law was initially revealed in the ten commandments, which are elsewhere said to be written on men's hearts. That is, these are moral laws that all men can know, but which are summarized in the ten commandments. These commandments are then applied to all other areas of life.
While the book focuses on the law, what is central to Biblical Judaism, and what makes it distinct from other religions, is the role of the atoning sacrifice. While polytheistic groups offer sacrifices, these are given to placate the gods or to win their favor. By contrast, in Biblical Judaism there is a sacrifice to atone for the sins of the people. In this ceremony, the animal stands in the place of the one needing redemption and suffers the consequences of sin.
This was especially brought out in the life of Abraham in the act of offering his son Isaac. God told Abraham to offer Isaac, which could be a puzzling command for any parent. As he and Isaac proceeding to the place for the offering, Isaac asked Abraham where was the animal for the offering. Abraham replied that God would provide the sacrifice. Abraham could know that Isaac, as a sinner who needs redemption, could not himself be the atoning sacrifice. Furthermore, he knew that God had promised a great nation through Isaac. If Isaac were dead, he could not father a great nation. The implication is that even though Isaac was offered as a sacrifice God could raise him from the dead. As Abraham was about to offer Isaac God stopped him and provided a ram for the offering.
The Tabernacle, and then the Temple, were the appointed sites for these offerings. When the Temple in Jerusalem was finally destroyed by the Romans this created a crisis of meaning for Judaism. If the offering can only be given at the Temple, and the Day of Atonement (among other days) is a central focal point for Judaism, what does it mean to be Jewish without a Temple?
This question is important because of what it indicates about the blessing given to Abraham. The blessing of redemption and knowing God is taught about in the atoning sacrifice. How can the justice of God be fulfilled while the mercy of God also be shown? Can an animal be the actual atoning sacrifice or is it a sign? These questions about atonement will be important for the remaining theistic religions we are studying.
Monday, June 11, 2012
Zoroasterianism
Zoroastrianism is sometimes taught to be the first theistic religion. This depends on how figures like Abraham and Moses are understood. Nevertheless, Zoroaster did seek to reform the Persian polytheism of his day by teaching that there is only one God.
The particular themes that comes through are an emphasis on good and evil as due to the conflict between two created spirits, one good and one evil, which nevertheless find some kind of unity in God. Humans have free will to choose how to live, and after their death their deeds are judged. If a person has more good than evil deeds they go on to heaven, but if not they are cast into hell.
As a philosopher my interest is in thinking through this idea of free will (see my post on this topic) and the absence of redemption in Zoroastrianism. That is, humans are judged entirely by their works, but for those with more good than evil, there is no redemption needed for what evil they did. Although Zoroastrianism places a strong emphasis on the justice of God and the final judgment, what actually comes out is that God overlooks the evil done by persons who had more good.
However, if God is perfect in justice (a belief that is important to Zoroastrianism) then evil done by anyone, no matter how "small" (as if evil can be measured this way), is an infraction of justice and requires atonement/payment. Zoroastrianism does not have anything to say about redemption and atonement.
Nietzsche used the figure of Zarathustra (either another name for Zoroaster or a later reformer in Zoroastrianism) in his famous "God is dead" proclamation. When Zarathustra proclaims God to villagers, and they don't heed his call, Nietzsche portrays him as concluding that God is dead (no longer relevant for modern man). Nietzsche probably picked this figure because of the belief that he was the oldest theistic teacher, and because he was a reformer of polytheism.
Again, whether or not Zarathustra was the oldest theist depends on how one undersands other figures like Abraham and Moses. Some have claimed that the Jews got monotheism from the Zoroastrians, and that Christians incorporated Zoroastrian beliefs. However, the emphasis of both Judaism and Christianity on the need for redemptive atonement makes this claim false. Its seems possible that it is just the reverse, that influence from Judaism may have been behind Zoroastrianism. It is also possible that theistic belief arose independently in both religions due to some use of natural theology to understand that only God is eternal.
The particular themes that comes through are an emphasis on good and evil as due to the conflict between two created spirits, one good and one evil, which nevertheless find some kind of unity in God. Humans have free will to choose how to live, and after their death their deeds are judged. If a person has more good than evil deeds they go on to heaven, but if not they are cast into hell.
As a philosopher my interest is in thinking through this idea of free will (see my post on this topic) and the absence of redemption in Zoroastrianism. That is, humans are judged entirely by their works, but for those with more good than evil, there is no redemption needed for what evil they did. Although Zoroastrianism places a strong emphasis on the justice of God and the final judgment, what actually comes out is that God overlooks the evil done by persons who had more good.
However, if God is perfect in justice (a belief that is important to Zoroastrianism) then evil done by anyone, no matter how "small" (as if evil can be measured this way), is an infraction of justice and requires atonement/payment. Zoroastrianism does not have anything to say about redemption and atonement.
Nietzsche used the figure of Zarathustra (either another name for Zoroaster or a later reformer in Zoroastrianism) in his famous "God is dead" proclamation. When Zarathustra proclaims God to villagers, and they don't heed his call, Nietzsche portrays him as concluding that God is dead (no longer relevant for modern man). Nietzsche probably picked this figure because of the belief that he was the oldest theistic teacher, and because he was a reformer of polytheism.
Again, whether or not Zarathustra was the oldest theist depends on how one undersands other figures like Abraham and Moses. Some have claimed that the Jews got monotheism from the Zoroastrians, and that Christians incorporated Zoroastrian beliefs. However, the emphasis of both Judaism and Christianity on the need for redemptive atonement makes this claim false. Its seems possible that it is just the reverse, that influence from Judaism may have been behind Zoroastrianism. It is also possible that theistic belief arose independently in both religions due to some use of natural theology to understand that only God is eternal.
Shinto
This week, one of the religions we will be studying is the Japanese indigenous religion named Shinto. This seems to have been a collection of beliefs involving animism, a kind of polytheism, ancestor worship, and nationalism, that solidified into a religious tradition as other religions came to Japan (particularly Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism). It is commonly noted that the Japanese have no problem adhering to many religions and therefore it is hard to statistically explain how many Japanese hold to which religion. More specifically, it is claimed that Shinto teaches what to do in this life, and Buddhism teaches about the afterlife, and therefore both are practiced widely in Japan without any tension.
Shinto, which means "the way of the Kami" is not simply polytheism. The term "kami" is hard to translate, and is sometimes taken to be "gods," but also includes forces in nature, and even forces attached to items that seem to bring blessings. It is sometimes likened to the Polynesian term "mana" which is a life force pervading the natural world.
In the creation stories of Shinto, there doesn't seem to be much interest in the idea of a creator. Rather, two initial gods, a male and female, come into existence and then turn up the already existing sea to create the Japanese islands. This doesn't settle the question about what has existed from eternity, it doesn't even seem to address it.
Furthermore, the purpose of life in relating to the kami, and seeking protection and blessing through appointed rituals, and then the synthesis of this with Buddhist teaching about the afterlife, raises some of the same questions considered in my posts on "basic religions" and "Buddhism."
Shinto developed as it was challenged by religions coming from China and India. This same process of challenge continues in the modern world, notably in relation to science and WWII. At what point are challenges sufficient to require a rethinking of the basic beliefs of a religion and change in these?
Shinto, which means "the way of the Kami" is not simply polytheism. The term "kami" is hard to translate, and is sometimes taken to be "gods," but also includes forces in nature, and even forces attached to items that seem to bring blessings. It is sometimes likened to the Polynesian term "mana" which is a life force pervading the natural world.
In the creation stories of Shinto, there doesn't seem to be much interest in the idea of a creator. Rather, two initial gods, a male and female, come into existence and then turn up the already existing sea to create the Japanese islands. This doesn't settle the question about what has existed from eternity, it doesn't even seem to address it.
Furthermore, the purpose of life in relating to the kami, and seeking protection and blessing through appointed rituals, and then the synthesis of this with Buddhist teaching about the afterlife, raises some of the same questions considered in my posts on "basic religions" and "Buddhism."
Shinto developed as it was challenged by religions coming from China and India. This same process of challenge continues in the modern world, notably in relation to science and WWII. At what point are challenges sufficient to require a rethinking of the basic beliefs of a religion and change in these?
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Chinese Religions
Chinese Religions are one of my favorite areas of study. I focused on them for my history degree, and have done work at the East/West Center at the University of Hawaii. Here I'd like to look at two aspects that our textbook brings out.
The first has to do with the development of Chinese religious thought from ancient times to the present. Ancient records show that the Chinese believed in one God, although also worshiping lesser spirits and powers. By the time of Confucius this had changed to more obvious polytheism and ancestor worship. However, Confucius was important in shifting Chinese thought away from belief in a personal God and instead spoke of "tien," sometimes translated "heaven," as an impersonal force. He also encouraged the Chinese to generally ignore the idea of God or gods and instead focus on moral duty. This has been characteristic of Chinese thinking since his time. It also helps explain the popularity of Buddhism in China in that Buddhism provides bodhisattvas, persons who attained enlightenment, as objects of worship like that found in polytheism.
The second point involves the teaching about yin/yang. Chinese thought is said to be immanent in that it denies there is a transcendent God who created the world, and instead thinks of the world as the totality of being. All that exists is divided into the two forces of yin/yang. Change in the world is explained in terms of the relationship of these two forces. Balance between them is important to keep harmony. When balance is not kept disasters befall humans and the natural world.
This explanatory device is like the ancient Greek materialists who sought to explain all of reality in terms of physical principles like water, or water and fire, or water, earth, wind and fire. It is also like materialists of today in the West who claim to explain all of reality in terms of matter and energy.
By necessity, those who say that there is nothing transcendent, that all is immanent, must claim that the world has existed from eternity. If the world has existed from eternity, and is composed of two basic forces, then the question is how these can ever be out of harmony. Either they have always been in harmony, or they have always been out of harmony. However, to go from having been in harmony to then not being in harmony requires an uncaused event, or a cause from outside the system (meaning not all is immanent). Furthermore, how can humans affect these forces either for harmony or non-harmony? Humans as part of the system are merely responding as parts and have no creative power over the system.
Confucius himself did not address these questions. Nevertheless, his beliefs have been formative for China over the millennia, and forms of them are popular in the West as people grow disenchanted with Western religions and look to the East for enlightenment.
The first has to do with the development of Chinese religious thought from ancient times to the present. Ancient records show that the Chinese believed in one God, although also worshiping lesser spirits and powers. By the time of Confucius this had changed to more obvious polytheism and ancestor worship. However, Confucius was important in shifting Chinese thought away from belief in a personal God and instead spoke of "tien," sometimes translated "heaven," as an impersonal force. He also encouraged the Chinese to generally ignore the idea of God or gods and instead focus on moral duty. This has been characteristic of Chinese thinking since his time. It also helps explain the popularity of Buddhism in China in that Buddhism provides bodhisattvas, persons who attained enlightenment, as objects of worship like that found in polytheism.
The second point involves the teaching about yin/yang. Chinese thought is said to be immanent in that it denies there is a transcendent God who created the world, and instead thinks of the world as the totality of being. All that exists is divided into the two forces of yin/yang. Change in the world is explained in terms of the relationship of these two forces. Balance between them is important to keep harmony. When balance is not kept disasters befall humans and the natural world.
This explanatory device is like the ancient Greek materialists who sought to explain all of reality in terms of physical principles like water, or water and fire, or water, earth, wind and fire. It is also like materialists of today in the West who claim to explain all of reality in terms of matter and energy.
By necessity, those who say that there is nothing transcendent, that all is immanent, must claim that the world has existed from eternity. If the world has existed from eternity, and is composed of two basic forces, then the question is how these can ever be out of harmony. Either they have always been in harmony, or they have always been out of harmony. However, to go from having been in harmony to then not being in harmony requires an uncaused event, or a cause from outside the system (meaning not all is immanent). Furthermore, how can humans affect these forces either for harmony or non-harmony? Humans as part of the system are merely responding as parts and have no creative power over the system.
Confucius himself did not address these questions. Nevertheless, his beliefs have been formative for China over the millennia, and forms of them are popular in the West as people grow disenchanted with Western religions and look to the East for enlightenment.
Monday, June 4, 2012
Sikhism
Sikhism arose as a religion in the Punjab region of India through the teachings of Nanak (1469-1538 A.D.). Nanak sought to synthesize the teachings of Islam and Hinduism. His teachings affirm that there is one God, and also that humans are subject to karma and go through cycles of reincarnation. As a synthesis it does not affirm important aspects of either Islam or Hinduism and so is rejected by both.
What particularly interests me is the idea of theistic reincarnation. Reincarnation is often said to be a positive view of the afterlife because people are given many chances to get it right and this is more fair than only have one life. However, if "getting it right" is so difficult that it requires many lives then it is not fair to be made to suffer to attain what is not possible in this life. On the other hand, if it is not so difficult as to require many lives, then reincarnation is not necessary.
This raises a problem for the idea of a synthesis religion. In such a religion, what is affirmed as the highest goal in life? Why work to synthesize as opposed to simply state that the religion is a new religion? Can God and reincarnation be put together consistently? If God is perfectly fair, then it is not fair to make people suffer through many lives to attain what is not attainable in those lives, nor is it fair to allow many lives when some people have done what is right while other have rejected what is right.
What particularly interests me is the idea of theistic reincarnation. Reincarnation is often said to be a positive view of the afterlife because people are given many chances to get it right and this is more fair than only have one life. However, if "getting it right" is so difficult that it requires many lives then it is not fair to be made to suffer to attain what is not possible in this life. On the other hand, if it is not so difficult as to require many lives, then reincarnation is not necessary.
This raises a problem for the idea of a synthesis religion. In such a religion, what is affirmed as the highest goal in life? Why work to synthesize as opposed to simply state that the religion is a new religion? Can God and reincarnation be put together consistently? If God is perfectly fair, then it is not fair to make people suffer through many lives to attain what is not attainable in those lives, nor is it fair to allow many lives when some people have done what is right while other have rejected what is right.
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Buddhism
As is the case with my other posts about the world religions, I'm relying on my summer school text by Hopfe/Woodward to explain important details about dates, leaders, schools, and texts. Here I want to discuss how the religion answers basic questions that face all humans.
On page 133, the text says: "Among the unique teachings of the Buddha was that the soul did not exist. According to Buddha, people live in a state of anatman the absence of enduring souls). What is called a soul is actually a combination of five mental or physical aggregates: the physical body, feelings, understanding, will, and consciousness. This combination, which makes up the human personality, is bound up in the endless cycle of birth, death, and rebirth that is typical in Indian religions. . . . The person who follows the Eightfold Path will break the bonds that tie one to life and will achieve release from the cycle. The word used to describe this release is Nirvana, which basically means 'extinguished' or 'put out like a candle.' Thus the goal of basic Buddhist practice is not the achievement of a state of bliss in some heaven."
The denial of a soul is related to the first noble truth, which is that all is impermanence. There is no "being," but only moments that arise and then go out of existence. This is consistent with the empiricism at the heart of Buddhism. Buddha relied on an empirical approach to knowledge, which means that sense data is the highest authority. We cannot "sense" being, but only moments of sensation. A western philosopher named David Hume, who was also an empiricist, arrived at a similar conclusion about the soul and said that when he looks inside all he sees are mental images, not a soul or self.
The goal of Buddhism is practical in that the aim is the end of suffering. Suffering will end, according to this view, when all desire is overcome. The real end of desire requires even coming to see that the self who desires is not real.
Buddhism teaches that no being is eternal, although there has been an eternal or beginningless line of moments independently co-arising. My question: if we begin with empiricism can we avoid this conclusion? There are many western intellectual today who claim to hold to materialism and also common sense realism (there is a material world that exists outside of our senses and is basically the same as what we experience). My claim is that Buddhism is more consistent with empiricism than this western amalgam of common sense realism and empiricism.
If we don't accept empiricism and sense data as our highest authority, what other options do we have?
On page 133, the text says: "Among the unique teachings of the Buddha was that the soul did not exist. According to Buddha, people live in a state of anatman the absence of enduring souls). What is called a soul is actually a combination of five mental or physical aggregates: the physical body, feelings, understanding, will, and consciousness. This combination, which makes up the human personality, is bound up in the endless cycle of birth, death, and rebirth that is typical in Indian religions. . . . The person who follows the Eightfold Path will break the bonds that tie one to life and will achieve release from the cycle. The word used to describe this release is Nirvana, which basically means 'extinguished' or 'put out like a candle.' Thus the goal of basic Buddhist practice is not the achievement of a state of bliss in some heaven."
The denial of a soul is related to the first noble truth, which is that all is impermanence. There is no "being," but only moments that arise and then go out of existence. This is consistent with the empiricism at the heart of Buddhism. Buddha relied on an empirical approach to knowledge, which means that sense data is the highest authority. We cannot "sense" being, but only moments of sensation. A western philosopher named David Hume, who was also an empiricist, arrived at a similar conclusion about the soul and said that when he looks inside all he sees are mental images, not a soul or self.
The goal of Buddhism is practical in that the aim is the end of suffering. Suffering will end, according to this view, when all desire is overcome. The real end of desire requires even coming to see that the self who desires is not real.
Buddhism teaches that no being is eternal, although there has been an eternal or beginningless line of moments independently co-arising. My question: if we begin with empiricism can we avoid this conclusion? There are many western intellectual today who claim to hold to materialism and also common sense realism (there is a material world that exists outside of our senses and is basically the same as what we experience). My claim is that Buddhism is more consistent with empiricism than this western amalgam of common sense realism and empiricism.
If we don't accept empiricism and sense data as our highest authority, what other options do we have?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)