On (Ancient) Religions
I had planned on reading the entire The Baroque Cycle this week.
Judging from my notes in the book, I got through about 80% of Quicksilver (The Baroque Cycle, Vol. 1) the first time I attempted to read it.
I don’t recall why I didn’t finish, but I have a good idea — I have book attention deficit.
While I am still making progress on Quicksilver, I read three different books on Greek and Jewish religion this past week:
- Dionysos
: Good survey of Dionysos over the centuries, inclusive of Nietzsche, but it was a little preachy at the end around the potential of the Dionysiac to help with modern consumerism.
- Ancient Greek Religion
: Really enjoyed this overview of the Greek religion (largely from the point of a view of an Athenian). Hit the main mystery-cults I was aware of in reasonable detail.
- The Gnostic Gospels of Jesus
: I have read this before if memory serves (during the development of “Indigo“). The Gospel of Thomas is still my favorite (reminds me of a proto-Jefferson Bible).
Was there anything that bound these books together for me (beyond the obvious category of religion)?
Yes.
It is ignorance that is the cause of our downfall and suffering.
Religions can be (but often are not) a tool to address this ignorance; to remind us of our interconnectedness and reliance on nature/each other.
Nevertheless, religion is often used to separate.
Science fairs no better in this respect, should you think it is the “one true path”.
Science (actually Scientism) often dismisses the utility of ritual, myth, and religion in mediating the relationship of the individual to the greater whole.
That all said, one of these days, I am going to complete the The Baroque Cycle
I think what science dismisses about religion is it’s false claims regarding reality. Every religion in existence has been so horribly discredited regarding most of its core assertions that it’s hard to take any of the rest seriously.
Ritual is only bad when it supplants reason. Myth is only bad when it’s confused with truth. Meditation is only bad when it is coupled with wish-thinking.
Daniel Dennet once said “…when someone puts forward a scientific theory that [religious critics] really don’t like, they just try to discredit it as ’scientism’”.
What truly can result in greater ignorance than being told something is true when it is actually false (or the reverse)? Thus, religion cannot ever result in anything other than ignorance.
Personally I think that science does teach us of our interconnectedness best of all. And it does it with fact, not fiction. What better sense of a relationship between the individual and the greater whole can be had than by one based on truth?
I assume you have heard this but here it is again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M
Justin Chase
12 Jul 10 at 15:40
I am not referring to claims about reality or truth (although the use of that word is something that I tend to avoid as it draws a clear epistemological question — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_hypothesis is a simple example).
I am talking about the power of ritual/myth/religion to provide _meaning_ to reality, the power of ritual/myth to make you _feel_ the interconnectedness.
douglasp
12 Jul 10 at 22:02
I would like, as much as any other thinker, to believe that ignorance is the cause of suffering but the evidence actually seems to be more in favor of the opposite. Animals are more ignorant than humans and don’t seem to suffer or cause suffering as much. Children are more ignorant then adults and are less linked to suffering. We may have reduced the amount of suffering for some individuals in some situations but what form of suffering have we eliminated? I can make a list a mile long of new ways to suffer that we have created.
If suffering must be linked to knowledge (or the lack thereof) then it would seem to me that it is not ignorance but knowledge that must accept the blame for the fall.
Nepotis
13 Jul 10 at 15:05
A couple of points.
I wouldn’t confuse intelligence with knowledge.
I could assert that both animals and children know many things that we have either forgotten or confused about life, thus they suffer less.
Ignorance is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avidyā_(Buddhism) for me, just to calibrate on terms.
Lastly, I am beginning to come around to Nietzsche view of suffering.
It our ignorance of the utility of suffering that is the problem.
douglasp
13 Jul 10 at 16:56
Socrates said “the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” That would mean the greatest ignorance is thinking you know something which you cannot know. Therefore, any individual who would challenge any religion on the basis of his own knowledge would be or must end up an imbecile.
Religion is either the wisdom of a god or gods handed down to people or the collective wisdom of groups of people over time. Therefore no individual or even generation could have the wisdom to challenge even the most basic of religions.
Nietzsche was arrogant and foolish enough to try and he proved the point. He chose to remain ignorant instead of accepting wisdom and humility. I think that gives a clue to what the real evil is, rejecting the Truth.
Nepotis
14 Jul 10 at 14:30
Nietzsche was very much informed by the collective wisdom (and foolishness) of groups of many people over time.
Even a cursory reading of anything he wrote (or a reasonable summary) would show that.
I think claiming that he was some individual just making up random things seriously undermines any conclusions you draw.
Further, Nietzsche understood the importance and need for religion, perhaps not a religion that you would agree with, but a religion nonetheless.
This is actually the same point that I made in the original post — religion serves a real need — but many of the current offerings have too many downsides (which Nietzsche does a great job of outlining in many of his works).
In terms of Truth — I will refer you back to your own quote — “the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing” — claiming that you or anyone else knows what “Truth” is a bold thing.
I am certainly not arrogant or foolish enough to make any claim to Truth.
douglasp
14 Jul 10 at 16:44
You implied that I was confusing intelligence and knowledge but it seems that you are confusing the considerable intelligence and knowledge that Nietzsche possessed with wisdom. You have countered my statement on wisdom with Nietzsche’s knowledge. It appears to have occurred because of the common use of the word ignorance to mean the opposite of all three.
Nietzsche’s knowledge of religion, like yours, is foolish because it is based on observation not experience. To know the truth of something you must experience it not study it. Nietzsche could not gain wisdom from his knowledge because he tried to remain outside of it. He didn’t let it in to his heart where the wisdom of it could be ascertained and he wound up an intelligent fool.
You are quick to label all religions as flawed, without considering that they may be true. If any religion is true than that religion with what you call flaws is far superior to anything anyone can conjure.
I would read Nietzsche but every time I start my head hurts and I am reminded that his story ended in insanity and so I stop.
Nepotis
14 Jul 10 at 18:54
I have a tremendous amount of personal experience with religion.
I spent most of my childhood years swimming in it (and almost drowning).
So did Nietzsche.
Not reading Nietzsche and having such a negative opinion would be like me having an my negative opinion of Christianity (not Christ mind you) without having read the Bible, De Civitate Dei, Summa Theologica or countless other works.
That doesn’t make what I know/believe “true”, it just makes it informed by both personal experience and research.
Claims of “truth” are ultimately epistemology, which in my experience makes any claims of truth very suspect.
douglasp
14 Jul 10 at 21:14
Agree that the Gospel of Thomas is the best. Here’s one of favorite passages.
50. Jesus said, “If they say to you, ‘Where have you come from?’ say to them, ‘We have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established [itself], and appeared in their image.’
If they say to you, ‘Is it you?’ say, ‘We are its children, and we are the chosen of the living Father.’
If they ask you, ‘What is the evidence of your Father in you?’ say to them, ‘It is motion and rest.’”
The Gospel of Thomas
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html
I love the idea that “motion and rest” are evidence of the “Father in you”.
As for religions relationship to interconnectedness, I’ve always loved this quote from Alfred North Whitehead: “Religion is what the individual does with his solitariness.”
Nick Gall
14 Jul 10 at 22:34
It seems you are STILL drowning in religion. Find another hobby.
ME
15 Jul 10 at 02:42
I can relate as I had real trouble with religion as a child as well. I tried to study religion from the outside after that. The problem I had was that I was already on the inside and only pretending I was outside. I carried a bias against religion but couldn’t live with that alone, I needed more. I sought comfort in the study of religion from the outside and by finding reasons for not accepting them. Like Chesterton I created my own heresy and found out it had been discovered before.
I would never discourage anyone from choosing the path I chose if that is their will. It is a harder path then the others but well worth it in the end. The only problem I see with the path you are choosing is it ended in tragedy. It is one of the only paths that everyone can see really ended in damnation.
You don’t like to accept that Nietzsche was mad. My guess is that you console yourself by thinking Nietzsche went mad for some unknown medical reason. It’s a comfort as long as you don’t remember that going mad is a process that takes time even in the most extreme medical conditions. Your real choice is that his philosophy drove him crazy or he was going crazy when he came up with his philosophy. There is no real middle ground and I caution you to consider it.
I make no claims on truth. I won’t even tell you the road you should take I am simply trying to caution you about the road you are on and offer other ways to think about it. I truly recommend that you at least read Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton it is public domain and very good.
You carry a deeper bias then I did and therefore probably a deeper hurt, that I cannot imagine. I beg for your forgiveness. Only then can you be free of your bias to search for your real path.
Nepotis
15 Jul 10 at 14:23
@zaugg@hotmail.com
religion is not a hobby of mine. philosophy is however.
douglasp
15 Jul 10 at 15:32
I have read Orthodoxy. I like Chesterton’s writing, but many of his premises are deeply flawed (and I will add that is he likely one of the most “un-Christ-like” of Christian apologist that I have read).
He views original sin as axiomatic. I have studied both the doctrine of original sin and the biological basis for most behaviors that are considered sinful today (and I say today because what is a sin is has changed over time) — in my opinion, the entire thing is a big put on.
I find his defense of the persecutions the Church launch as a “defense of reason” to be one of the most absurd things I have ever read.
His understanding of Nietzsche’s “Will to Power” seems confused as Nietzsche certainly understand the “Will” included the “will to NOT”.
Further, his many of his attacks on Nietzsche is are ad hominem at their base.
The list goes on and on…
BTW: I know that Nietzsche went mad. I don’t think that undermines his insights in the least (as much as Chesterton uses that against him). Also, I am not so attached to Nietzsche that I don’t see many of the flaws in his outlook. The same goes for Christ, Moses, Buddha, Socrates, Descartes, Voltaire, Dogen, …
douglasp
15 Jul 10 at 16:01
We must question a man’s statements based on the man first. What “interconnectedness” can there be if we don’t evaluate the position and relationship we have to others? Should I listen to anyone smarter than I no matter what they say? How can I tell if they or I are smarter without trusting someone else to decide? Should I trust anybody to decide who is smarter or should that person be trustworthy?
We think in the abstract today which is good in many respects, but it’s easy to get lost in the abstraction if we don’t demand value at some point. It is a difficult thing to do, but without it, we are writing a program consisting only of interfaces and no classes, which I have embarrassingly tried. Sure, it gives an allusion of freedom and can account for every possible situation but in the end it is pointless. Maybe I should write the first book on contract-only development I can call it Nietz-C#. What do you think?
I truly am sorry for what you have experienced and believe it or not I would like to offer you help if I can.
Nepotis
15 Jul 10 at 17:51
I consider the Bible stories about the origin of “sin” and “The Fall” to interpret the human transition from Pleistocene hunter-forager “Garden of Eden” to Holocene agricultural civilization.
Agricultural religions sprung up to deal with the hard travails of the new lifestyle. The concept of Sacrifice is rampant in agricultural societies.
It started out appeasing the gods to make the crops grow and rains come. People sacrificed their children to Moloch.
The Abrahamic religions modified those divine demands into sacrificing animals.
Then Paul re-introduced human sacrifice with the Christ myth.
Paul was a corruptor of Jesus’ teachings, since Jesus was very much an Eastern reformer of angry Bronze Age skygod Judaism.
I like to read the Jefferson Bible, with all the Pauline “dung” (in Jefferson’s parlance) removed. There are a few diamonds of wisdom there.
Brian Bowman
12 Aug 10 at 22:21