Parfait Martinique: coffee mousse, rum on top, a little cream on top of that.

While I did end up liking the poetry reading for Wednesday (it took some getting used to), these quotes strike me as pretty strange. I would infer that the repetition is to accentuate some of his points, but I think there are more effective ways of doing that. Anyway...onto my post:

After reading Wallace Steven's Adagia, it is clear that he has not only found a replacement for religion in poetry--"After one has abandoned a belief in god, poetry is that essence which takes its place as life's redemption"--but holds the belief that his poetry is more important than any individual's religious beliefs--"Intolerance respecting other people's religion is toleration itself in comparison with intolerance respecting other people's art." He goes on to replace the idea of God expressed by many "believers" that God is everywhere and in everything by saying that, "there is no difference between god and his temple" and then asserting that, among many other things, "money is a kind of poetry."

Stevens uses this slow build up to construct the supporting structure for his pending argument; "God is a symbol for something that can as well take other forms, as, for example, the form of high poetry." Stevens is mesmerized by the power of poetry, and how he believes that "Poetry is a purging of the world's poverty and change and evil and death. It is a present perfecting, a satisfaction in the irremediable poverty of life."

(I am actually sitting here thinking: "Yeah... that is what he says Oliver... what is your point?" And I guess I really don't have one except that reading this is extraordinarily frustrating.) Stevens says things like...
"God is a postulate of the ego." and then (withing one page) says that: "God is in my or else is not at all (does not exist)." All this makes me think is that when/if Stevens ever believed in God it was in an attempt to assert his self-importance, and it is ridiculous for him to assume that his perverted motives have any relation to the faith held by over 1/2 the world today. He is the obsessed with his own self-importance and has an insatiable hunger for personal exaltation. At first I agreed with Noel in that I wasn't particularly fond of Steven's poetry, but I suffered through it to try and extract his reasons for writing--if I had to do it again, I would have gone with my gut instinct and pitched it. He believes that poetry is everything good in this world, simply because he is a poet--and he doesn't care if other people have other "callings" (to borrow from Weber). Ok. I think I will stop here. Just to summarize: Wallace Steven's is self-absorbed and ignorant of the value of other aspects of life (outside of poetry), and is so caught up in his own head that he truly believes that his path is the only path worth pursuing. In my opinion he is worse (more intolerant, etc.) than some of the most conservative Christians I know.

Poetry

Well I am unsure how to respond to the reading for today. I guess I'll give it a go (it will probably be really short)...

It seems to me that the central purpose of these poems for Stevens was to express the spenders of humanism. In "Sunday Morning," he writes about a woman who realizes that divinity must live within herself, and in the emotions that make up her existence. Also in "On the Road Home", he continues this theme when describe how the expression of a humanist view of no absolute truth and the need to base all beliefs on visible evidence has lead to a rosier side of life ("grapes seemed fatter", etc.). I think this fits well with the module that we are currently working on --- secular religion, but seem to be at a loss for words right now... lets hope that everyone isn't as I am in class this morning...

Liberal Religion and Modern Art

While reading “Paths to the Absolute” by John Golding I was struck by the points laid out in the June 13, 1943 letter written by Mark Rothko and Adolph Gottlieb. This letter responds in five points to a critic who “expressed bafflement at their work.”

1) To us art is an adventure into an unknown world which can be explored only by those willing to take risks
2) This world of the imagination is fancy-free and violently opposed to reason
3) It is our function as artists to make the spectator see our way, not his…
4) …We favor the simple expression of the complex thought…
5) It is a widely accepted notion among painters that it does not matter what one paints so long as it is well painted.
Pg 155-157

What struck my most about these points is their similarity to what a modern, liberal Christian might argue are the foundations of his belief.

1) While it may take effort, faith is an effort to explore those issues and areas of life which will perpetually remain unknown
2) Religion cannot be based on the limits of human logic, but is founded in faith in the unknown.
3) A religious belief is to be personal, and non-conformist. In order to maintain this, it is crucial that a believer not express the religion that others hope to see in him—and only that to which he truly subscribes.
4) Religion is based on a (“simple devotion” as the Bible calls it, but more accurately a) simple belief in the complex world of religious dogma.
5) It is not a matter of the details that form the belief, but the belief itself that is important

Just Thinking

While reading the Jackson Pollock reading for tomorrow, I started to think. Is religion really a social phenomena? Is one of its major functions to create community? If the answer to these questions is no, then our entire discussion the last few days about the biggest arch in an individual's life would be irrelevant--because religion is not that largest arch.

In this scenario, religion would simply be defined by the set of ideas or practices that an individual believes are "right" in daily life(a previous post argued that just because actions don't mirror "morals" doesn't mean the belief that those morals are correct is nonexistent).

Religious institutions are communities that are formed around similar sets of religious beliefs in individuals. Religion does not exist outside of the individual--and therefore loses all community building rational for its existence. These groups of people are connected in the same way that an avid group of Packer Fans may be connected (weekly rituals and traditions), but it is not what defines religion.

I think that this explanation does do a fairly good job at clearing up some of the difficulties that we have had in the last couple of classes, but, like most ideas, leaves holes. I would argue, however, that these holes are not bigger than the original theory allowed to exist in its logic. While I am not all that certain in this thesis, I think it is definitely an issue worth thinking about. I have really enjoyed going over all of the lessons of this class with this new lens of religion--seeing what has changed and what hasn't. I would also really like to hear what other people think on this... post a response :-)

Comment on JB's Blog

Since comments must have been turned off on this post by J.B., I will have to put my comment here.
In this post you cite another one of your "evident contradictions" in the Bible--Matthew 10:34 where Jesus says, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth. I came not to send peace, but a sword." (NKJV). This, you say, stands in contradiction to the title of Prince of Peace that is attributed to Jesus.

I'll just start with the fact that this is quite a stretch... and second you have pulled a Sam Harris in this quotation (which may be convincing for some, but for people who like to look a little harder before passing judgement it isn't).

The title of Prince of Peace appears in the Old Testament in a prophesy which you choose to read as referring to the Jesus Christ of the BC/AD change over. What you are saying here is the same as saying that Jesus dying on the cross contradicts one of the other titles in the same verse, "Everlasting Father." I also don't remember the government being on Jesus' shoulders (look another contradiction...). There are two conclusions that I would come to after looking at these two verses.... 1) The Bible is absolutely littered with contradictions (heck... I found a whole slew of them in just these two verses) or 2) [which I see as the more logical/reasonable conclusion] that this prophecy is not referring to BC/AD Christ. From reading the verse (in context) my initial guess (I've never really studied this issue) is that this is referring to Jesus 2.0, when he comes and reigns over the earth (government on the shoulders Isaiah 9:6 NKJV) and the lion shall lay next to the lamb (Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this. Isaiah 9:7 NKJV)

Despite this... here is where you messed up on the context--

The chapter in which this verse appears is where Jesus is sending out his apostles (to spread his message). This verse (when read in context) is pointing out the fact that there will be conflict and struggle in the establishment of his church...
35For I am come to `set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.' 36And `a man's foes shall be they of his own household.' 37He that loveth father or mother more than Me, is not worthy of Me. And he that loveth son or daughter more than Me, is not worthy of Me. 38And he that taketh not his cross and followeth after Me, is not worthy of Me. 39He that findeth his life, shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for My sake, shall find it. 40"He that receiveth you, receiveth Me; and he that receiveth Me, receiveth Him that sent Me.
(Matthew 10:35-40 NKJV)

He is letting them know that people are going to hate new Christian converts and it will tear families apart, because some will accept his message as truth and follow him, while others will not. Those who love their families more than they love God will not convert because of this. He is not advocating for war, violence, or anything that would violate the title of Prince of Peace. Reading Jesus' teachings with a metaphorical lens is by no means changing the intent or content of the Bible---he taught using Parables and regularly used everyday imagery to illustrate his points.

A Religious Urban Expierence in Chicago...

This post is going to outline some of my "finds" from tonight's "treasure hunt."

My first find is this picture, which illustrates one of the main components of religious groups--being used as an engine for social change. It is becoming more clear to me that, despite how much many want it to, a religion cannot exist within one individual. It must form some sort of group identity and then propagate its morality in some way, otherwise it will die out.

In the section entitled, "The Spread of Settling"the page opens up with this chunk of text which caught my attention:


Before long there were many settlements in Chicago whose programs and philosophies were reported in articles in newspapers and magazines including New England Magazine, Atlantic Monthly, and Ladies' Home Journal. The settlement movement produced its own periodicals: Commons, Neighborhood, Survey and Survey Graphic. Leaders in the settlement movement gave papers on various themes at national meetings like the National Conference of Charities and Correction. Conference papers also were published. There was a proliferation of information about the programs of social settlements and the movement's connection to education, the labor movement, and charities and correction.


The similarities to a religious organization are uncanny; Publishing group philosophies, leaders meeting at national conferences presenting their ideas (probably expanding upon these "philosophies")--sounds a lot like denominational conferences.


A somewhat amusing, and slightly less applicable find was this short article.


This is another example of how Jane Adams and the Settlement house acted like and were viewed as just another congregation in Chicago (despite their lack of theistic dogma).


Possibly in response to the role that Hull House began to take on, it appears from this article that some of the more institutionalized/mainstream religious groups were threatened by Hull House's success. This paragraph seems to sum up the article well:


But really, is Hull House the chief agency for diffusing culture and teaching civilization in Chicago? We do not so believe. When we reflect upon the tremendous number of German Catholic churches and schools, Irish Catholic churches and schools, French Catholic churches and schools, and Catholic churches and schools for Poles, Bohemians, Italians, Austrians and even Syrians, we feel obliged to enter a protest for the sake of truth. It is a fact most easily proved that nearly three-fourths of our foreign-born population are directly under the rule of the Catholic Church. It is building civilization here after a manner which Hull House does not understand and cannot appreciate. It is a fact visible to God that the Catholic Church in Chicago is doing more to create a snow-white dawn among all the races surging into this great, restless, terrible city than fifty Hull Houses could do, and if one but stop and reflect impartially it will be equally visible to man.


Those are my three finds, and I look forward to reading/hearing about the rest tomorrow.

Atheism or athiesm?

Wednesday's discussion on the merits of Atheism as a Religion really caught my attention. I saw that, in the discussion, most people were willing to accept that not all atheists have the same set of beliefs or believe things to the same extent. This fact was used to assert that not all atheism can be labeled religion (the example of lower-case and upper-case atheism was used to represent the different groups).

Like in several other class discussions, we seem to refuse to allow the same flexibility to more mainstream religions (i.e. Christianity) that we have applied to Atheism. There are Christians who do not use Christianity as their outlet for community belonging, or that don't see Christianity as their primary identity--does this mean that there is an upper and lower case Christianity? Does that even make sense to say that an belief system is no longer a religion once it is rivaled in any individuals mind?

I would argue that, while (using the arch illustration that was used in class) religion may be the largest arch for any given individual, that is not its definition. Religion is a belief system that is meant to be applied to daily living and allows individuals to share in a common bond (of varying strengths). I believe that Atheism in any form is as much a Religion as Christianity, Islam, or any thing else that is viewed as religion in society today.

Just a quick side note: The assertion that was made in class today that all scientific theories are proven--besides the obvious contradiction within the sentence (theories/proven)--is completely ridiculous. While there is more evidence for some than others, there is no way to prove the origin of the universe or the existence/lack of existence of God. The fact that we are wired to believe (as we read in the Why We Believe article), it seems that it would take a greater step of faith the believe that there is no God.

Clarification Through Carissa

This post is in response to Carissa's post on the effects of music/emotions on groups of people.

In this post Carissa concludes that:

"So what does this mean? I'm not really sure, but here are a few possibilities. Humans are naturally group-oriented and therefore feel good when they're in groups. This would explain why so many religions include community as a core element. Or, it might just be that music unites people (like Catrina said). However, this could be because it allows people to find something that they all share so that they have a common goal and can therefore feel united. We all have emotions, and if music produces emotions, then it's something that can be that common ground."

Reading this paragraph really helped me understand how to better articulate the point that I made in class on the community building aspects of Quaker style meditation. I believe that, while music may be a plentiful example, religious community building can be based on nearly any unique, shared experience. While the community bonds are not instantly visible, they are strengthened through repeated occurrences (weekly meetings for example). While our not talking in class for the first 20 minutes was not altogether unique (as was pointed out in our discussion), the fact that we were simply instructed to do whatever we wanted silently while the professor did the same... was unique. And even though we may not all have come out of this experience feeling connected to one another, the beginnings of those bonds were laid down.

Maybe this is just as confusing as the time I tried to explain this in class, but unique experiences are like that strange teeth whitening stuff that people buy at Walgreens, its effect is not visible until it has been repeatedly used. This lack of visible change does not mean that nothing is happening....

Religious Expression

Coming from a very diverse upbringing (religiously speaking), I have developed an unconventional view of religious traditions and ceremonies. Most kids that are brought up in a specific religion (especially Pastor's Kids like me), are taught that it is all or nothing (with their specific denomination's beliefs and traditions). This has led to a great deal of frustration in my life, when dealing with people from a wide variety of religious backgrounds. They seem to be unable to separate their theology and the traditions instituted by their organized religious body.

This frustration was especially visible in my recent Church search throughout the Fox Valley. It is a major turn off when people sincerely believe that because their church follows a specific format, or because their church plays music of a specific style, that it is religiously superior. I would even go as far as to say that religious traditions (when converted into religious belief), are one of the largest inhibitors to an individual churches growth.

While my background has led me to respect various traditions and institutions set up by organized churches, I find that when these institutions become so prominent the initial belief is lost...

Response to J.B.

This post will be responding to J.B.'s post "on" Margaret Fell. I'll take one point at a time.

JB: Her examples of brave women speaking (stories such as Judith's) are in direct contradiction of Paul's statement: "it is a shame for a Woman, to speak in the Church". This proves that a literal interpretation is almost completely impossible because of the inherent contradictions among the multiple authors.

Paul's writings in the New Testament were specifically addressed to specific churches, and therefore any intelligence demands that we read them as such (letters addressing specific problems at specific churches). There is no contradiction if a parent tells one child that he cannot go to a friends house and another that he can (a simple change in circumstances would reconcile your "direct contradiction."

JB:Some other examples of this are Matthew's claim that Joseph's father was named Jacob, which contradicts Luke's claim that Joseph's father was named Eli and the other many contradictions appearing when the synoptic gospels (the gospels belonging to Luke, Matthew and Mark) are compared to the gospel of John.

I am assuming that the verse in which you are referring is this: "And Jesus Himself had become about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli," (Luke 3:23 NKJV). This is simply a case of translators attempting to make reading easier for an English audience changing the meaning. If the parenthesise are removed (because they are not present in the original Greek), it says that Jesus (who people supposed was the son of Joseph) was actually the son of Heli (or Eli). Heli was Mary's father, and since (following Biblical teaching) Jesus had no earthly father, his linage would be followed through his mother's father.

JB:One thing that bothers me about modern religion, especially Christianity, is how everything has to have a rooting in the Bible. For instance, many Christians (in particular 7th Day Adventists) believe the Bible supports a strict vegetarian diet, while many others disagree pointing to many examples of meat being eaten. Which brings up the point: Can't people make decisions based purely on intelligent reasoning, or even prayer if it comes down to that? is it so wrong for someone to say - "yeah, eating meat is unhealthy, bad for animals and the environment, and is wasting resources" and then decide to become vegetarian without looking for biblical justification. Based on reason, it does not make sense for women to be prevented from talking in Church, or prohibiting them from the priesthood.

Lets start with your gross generalization: There are an estimated 10 million Seventh-day Adventists our of 2.1 BILLION Christians world-wide (http://www.adherents.com/). I doubt that any large enough percentage to justify the word "many" don't eat meat based on a belief that it is Biblical.

I will admit that the elevation of religious tradition to Biblical mandate is one point that I have brought up in my "dealings" with several Christian denominations, but I strongly disagree with your belief that a reliance on the Bible or any religious text for that matter for direction in every day life is by no means preposterous. The humanist rejection of allowing anything that doesn't come from an individual's own reasoning to guide ones life is absolutely ridiculous (especially if you were to take your morals from the mind of a violent criminal).

I also agree that based on reason there is no purpose for a woman to not be able to speak in church, but I would argue that the commands and "rules" dictated to Christians are based on reason.

JB:Christians take the Bible to be "divinely inspired" which seems to be a misplaced leap of faith since it was written by humans and there are a plethora of examples of human error. Without reasoning through some of the Bible's philosophies, many dangerous things can easily transpire. It goes back to that saying, "God gave [us] the Bible, but he also gave [us] a brain."

To finish this post off, a belief in the divine inspiration of Scripture would be no more of a "misplaced leap of faith" in the eyes of a secular-humanists than a belief in God. Your quote seems to express this perfectly. The humanist believes that God didn't give us the Bible, and also believes that God didn't give us a brain--in fact he doesn't believe there is a God. I guess what I am asking (in sort of a ranty style) is when is a religious belief not a "misplaced leap of faith?" In other words: If God exists, why could he not inspire humans to write sacred texts?

RastaChristism

I have to admit that I was fairly ignorant of the history/origin of Rastafarianism before I read the Wikipedia and listened to Bob Marley.

The line that I found most interesting in the Wikipedia article on Rastafarianism was that "some Rastafari choose to classify their religion as Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity, Protestant Christianity, or Judaism." I had never really thought of it as an addition to Christianity, but instead I placed it in its own category. I am not necessarily saying that it isn't in its own category, but that is an issue that is definitely worth thinking about.

Rastafarianism (from what I can tell), pulls on three religious traditions: Judaism, Ethiopian Christianity (Kebra Negast), and "traditional" Christianity. It is evident in their primary belief (the deification of an Ethiopian King) that they focus strongly on their connection to the narrative of the Kebra Negast, and relate to the line of Solomonic rulers. While Bob Marley's songs seem to simply expect the listener to have this portion of his religious tradition already under his belt, he leaves clues in his songs which clearly point to the Jewish and Christian origins of his beliefs.

In "Jammin" Marley clearly shows roots in Judaism by pronouncing that Jah is the same God that the Israelites worshiped (he accomplishes this by placing him in the same sacred place that is often associated with the God of Israel),

Yeh! Holy Mount Zion;

Holy Mount Zion:

Jah sitteth in Mount Zion

And rules all creation.

and in "People get Ready," Marley seems to be calling believers to action (to "fight" which I assume means to convert the world so that, upon the "Man's" return, the world is in harmony). This song has a strong Christianesk feel to it, with the discussion of "Armagiddyon" and the illusion throughout the song to the Great Commission of Christ (to bring the Gospel to every corner of the world).

Let's get together to fight this Holy Armagiddyon (One Love!),

So when the Man comes there will be no, no doom (One Song!).

Have pity on those whose chances grows t'inner;

There ain't no hiding place from the Father of Creation.

Overall I found this brief study of Rastafarianism very interesting. It is defiantly a religion that I had very little understanding of before this assignment (not to say I fully understand it now), but now I at least have a general knowledge about the belief. I am fascinated at how this study seems to build off of how the Ethiopians poured in a couple of religions, mixed the pot, and created something new and unique to them.

Feedback on Ellen's Response

This post is intended to clarify my original post, as well as respond to Ellen's post on the possible split in the Catholic church.

My statement that added interpretation and doctrine "slowly chips off sections of the conservative base." Was not meant to imply that the base of every religion is 'conservative' or that the sections that leave are conservative. I simply was stating that, in the case of the Catholic Church, the Vatican's move towards a more liberal stance on several key doctrines (along with a sizable portion of the individual parishes), will lead to splinters off of the base of the conservative Catholic movement.

Each religious split is different, but they primarily have similar causes. Sometimes a liberal move by a group is unable to carry along the base of the religion and therefore, the liberal wing separates from the conservative (and the opposite is also positive).

Ethiopia

I would like to start this post by saying how much I have enjoyed reading the Kebra Negast. It really is a good example of how religion can be used to form a protective shell around a community. I see a great deal of resemblance between the people of Ethiopia and the people of Israel, both examples clearly show how well this shell can protect their community from annihilation.

In the modern world, the Ethiopians and Israelis are in fairly similar geographic situations--surrounded by Muslim countries. This creates tremendous pressure on these groups of people, but somehow they are able to maintain a strong enough union to survive as independent religious groups in a sea of Islam.

When viewing their histories, several more parallels can be drawn between these two people groups. The Ethiopians, while a Christian nation, were isolated from the rest of Christendom, and therefore had to (1) fend for themselves and (2) create doctrine and interpretation of Scripture on an independent track than the rest of Christianity. Similarly, when the Jews were scattered throughout the world following the Roman attack, each small Jewish community was left with the same responsibilities as the Ethiopians. While they were not isolated in the form of doctrine to a great extent, many choose to revert to a more conservative interpretation of Jewish belief to counteract the great distance between the groups.

It is interesting to see the similarities between how the Kebra Negast paints the picture of God's favor being moved with not only the Arc, but also the lineage of divine kings (Adam, Seth, etc.) to Ethiopia, and the commands given to the people of Israel when God's favor was given to them. The perks that come with the favor of God are similar to those given to Abraham, and to his descendants during the exodus from Egypt. The Solomonic Ethiopia was given a sizable territory, from the Nile to India (53). In addition came the command that the new King David must himself follow God, and so must his people--or curses will rain down upon them from heaven--much like the command of the people of Israel (54-55).

The similar histories and similar mandate from God, as well as their ability to maintain cultural independence clearly shows that religion can be a tool for the protection of a community, even when great stress is placed on that community. This example can be related back to one of our first readings, "Why Do We Believe," to show how beneficial a common religious belief can fuse a community together with almost unbreakable bonds.

Response to Myself

Having reexamined my earlier post entitled "Understanding the Bible," I have concluded that it isn't entirely clear what I was getting at. Besides the fact that I (and I presume most people) will see Jesus as a central figure in the Bible, my point that love and lust are the lens with which the Bible is intended to be interpreted goes beyond the fact that he held this position.

Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ, and, despite his lack of leading presence in the Old Testament it was included in the Holy Bible as a reference tool. This tool has proven useful for understanding the development of the religion, and is referenced in the New Testament in both metaphorical and literal instances. In other words, besides the historical context which is provided through the literal passages of the Old Testament, it paints pictures which help us to better understand the New Testament teachings of Christ and his Apostles.

I understand where some (maybe even a lot of Christians) like to look at the two Testaments as equally influential in mainstream Christian doctrine, but they are not. The Old Testament has a very important purpose of not only providing Christians with an ever present reminder of the importance of examining the history of their faith, but, when viewed through the Lens of Christ, can give us greater understanding of how to apply the lessons of Jesus.

Response to a Response

This post will be responding to a post by J.B. as well as similar comments made in class today. J.B. seems to connect the fact that lots of young Christians violate the rule against premarital sex as proof that few actually believe in what the Bible says is right and wrong. I would disagree based on one simple point.

Taking an action in contradiction to a religious command does not necessarily mean that a person does not believe that that command is just or "right." I assume that there is a general conscientious among the people of our class that lying, coveting, stealing, and a whole host of other things that individuals do every day are not "good" things to be doing. One of the fundamental points in the Bible is that everyone has sinned (Romans 3:23a), but this fact does not mean that everyone does not believe in what the Bible says about sin (that it is generally not a good thing).

As I have mentioned several times in class, it is important to make sure that we do not confuse similar concepts when discussing something as complex as modern religious thought. Literalism is not the only form of belief in the Scripture as absolute Truth, as well as Belief can not always be demonstrated by short-term actions.

Sam Harris

I know this is going to be a wildly unpopular post, and that I may never hear an end to criticism for what I am about to write, I will do so anyway.

I would like to first state that I have no problem with Muslims (and really people of any religious persuasion). I simply plan on highlighting some of the most interesting points that Mr. Harris makes in this reading.

I believe that Mr. Harris' overall conclusions show an overall ignorance and contempt for modern religious thought, but in his argument there are several interesting and definitely discussion worthy points.

1) I believe that Harris has hit the nail on the head when he points to the difference between Islam and the other "People of the Book"--the inflammatory tradition that accompanies the Qur'an (the Hadith). I would be hard pressed to find similar commands in any modern written tradition of either Christianity or Judaism. While the Christians definitely had violent tendencies during the period of the Crusades, such egregious flaws in judgement and perversions of the Bible for individual gain have since dissipated into relative non-existence (yes there are still ministers on TV selling holy water and green handkerchiefs, but I think we can all agree these individuals do not compare to the widespread violence and selfishness which permitted what Harris calls "theocratic Christendom". This misconception of the "true" nature of Islam is purely the result of a seemingly widespread tradition that encourages a violent interpretation of the Qur'an.

2) A second point, which fits nicely with the first, can be derived when reading some of Harris' examples. I believe that the following quote from the Qur'an demonstrates that the official text of the religion is not the violent, "kill everyone" reality that Harris is trying to portray.
Avoid the pagans. Had God please, they would not have worshipped idols...they would still not believe, unless god willed otherwise...Therefore leave them to their own inventions...
(6:107-112)
This is reminiscent of Christianity according to John Calvin (an influential, yet relatively unknown, leader in the Protestant reformation), where the doctrine of predestination was the chosen interpretation of the Bible. This idea that God has selected Muslims to be Muslims and that they take a somewhat "hands off approach" to the infidels doesn't jive with the examples that Harris has provided, but it defiantly lends itself to the possibility that this is the predominate message in the Qur'an (which I am lead to believe not only from my contact with Muslim people, but also with my limited reading of the Qur'an). The real danger, as discussed in my first point, is in the tradition that follows the text (the lens through which it is interpreted).

When Christianity got to the point where 100% of the interpretation rested upon one organization (the Roman Catholic Church--this is not meant to be anti-Catholic in any way), a lot of injustices and lies crept into the prevailing doctrine. That is why one of the main tenants of the Protestant Reformation was to give the people a Bible in their own language so that they could balance the Church interpretation.

So to summarize this rather lengthy rant... Sam Harris is a strange character who's conclusions show ignorance, but an examination of his argument demonstrates the importance of interpretation. The lens through which all religions view their Scriptures through can severely alter the lives and actions of those who regard themselves as pious.

The Ever Dividing catholic Church of Christ

I used the under case catholic in the title to emphasize that I am not, in fact, going to be limiting my post to the Roman Catholic Church, but rather the catholic Church in the sense that there is a Universal Christian Church.

Our discussion in class about the ever expanding interpretive rings that are added to a religion as it develops brought to light a very interesting example of what has/is happening in the World-wide Christian Church today.

There are a plethora of examples, but I will just share a few to further illustrate my point.

The Anglican/Episcopal Church is having problems with the adjustment made in America on the issue of homosexuality. Following the first ordination of an openly gay minister in the United States, tensions have been building to the point of almost certain split between the Anglican Church in North America and the World wide Anglican Church. (site) This potential split is a result of exactly the same problem of piling to much onto the truck, except instead of the splinter group getting a new truck to start over, they may be kicked out of the truck with all of their "new" beliefs.

Another, slightly more historic, church split worth looking at is the "Great Schism" which divided the Western Roman Catholic Church from the Eastern Orthodox Church. While there were power politics involved in this split, the primary theological rational was the Catholic's addition of what is known as the filioque clause (which added "and the Son" following the statement that the Holy Spirit... proceeds from the father and the Son.). This is another example of how the addition of more commentary slowly chips off sections of the conservative base of a religion (eventually leading to splits).


These two examples, and our discussion in class lead me to one conclusions. That the Vatican's persistence on bringing together all of the World's religions through compromising actions and beliefs will result in another major split in Catholicism.

Understanding the Bible

After reading St. Augustine, I tend to agree with his analysis that the Bible boils down to love and lust. Love is the greatest gift of creation according to the Bible and the teachings of Christ clearly center around what is in the mind (or what motives are present) when committing a sin, not just the action taking place. Mathew 5:28 seems to support this 'sin is in the mindset' approach to understanding the Bible:

"Bu I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
NKJV

I also think that his decision to choose love and lust are neither arbitrary nor controversial. Any true student of Jesus' teachings would easily see that his central message was love. At least four times in the Gospel of John alone does Jesus command his disciples to love one another. Even without this seemingly important trend, Mark 12:30-31 lays it out:

"'An you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."
NKJV

I think that these ideas expressed by St. Augustine are not as contrary to mainstream Christianity as most would think. While he may be more direct, or even more conscious, of this filtering of information through the lens of Christ's primary message, most denominations that I have come in contact with (which there have been plenty), seem to take a similar approach in determining their doctrine.

Response to Alex

I was just reading over some posts and came across a string of posts by Alex (1,2,3). These posts bring up some specific questions which I think I can help clear up, and also make some points that I would like to (in a respectful fashion) rebut.


1)The book of Lamentations was written by the prophet Jeremiah (or the "weeping prophet"). It tells the story of how the people if Israel turned away from the teachings of God (as they do throughout the Old Testament), and how God turned his back on them--allowing judgement in the form of Babylonian invasion and imprisonment. It contrasts the great city that was Jerusalem and the potential that it had while the people followed God, but as they turned away it has become subject to foreign powers. In the minds of many Christian churches today, Lamentations is meant to express the heart of God as he is forced (in his perfect justice) to allow judgement to come upon them.

2) I don't know if I fully understand this next post on the ascetic lifestyle of Origen, but I will give it my best shot. It is clear throughout the Bible (especially in the New Testament) that a Christian is not called to a materialistic lifestyle. One evidence of this can be found in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 6 verses 19-21 -
"19Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
20But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
21For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." KJV

3) Christianity revolves around a singular Godhead made up of three distinct personalities (the Father, Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit). Each of these "characters" as one might say plays a different role- for instance the Holy Spirit is often referred to as the 'comforter' and works in the hearts and lives of mankind.

I would just like to say that I understand your confusion coming from a non-christian background, but when you express your inability to understand the history and theology behind Christianity as inherent flaws in the religion itself, it is offensive. I apologize if this post has been to pointed, but my real intent is just to answer the questions posed (even if they were rhetorical) and to let you know what I was thinking while I read your posts.

Grizzly Man

While watching the clip of Grizzly Man in class I became fascinated with the story of Tim Treadwell. So interested in fact, that I went out and rented the movie so I could see the entire thing. My comments in this post will not be isolated to the 30 minutes that we saw in class, so I apologize to all of you in the dark-- you should go rent it.

One of the most interesting observations that was made in the movie, in class, and on the blogs is the fact that this was "his religion." Wanting to be a bear has been seen as carrying a spiritual value, which, in my estimation, is seriously lacking some of the fundamental building blocks of what a religion is.

Timothy had a true love for the bears, and this love was created in his ability to overcome his own demons by using his perceptions on the lives of the bears as his inspiration (no matter how accurate his perceptions may have been). I respect his dedication to a cause that he believed in, but this love is no more spiritual than an individual truly dedicated to any other cause or group (whether animal or human --- yes, I put that distinction in there).

Tim's actions seem to indicate that he wanted to, as he himself wrote, "mutate" into a wild animal. This transformation, however was out of necessity to survive the conditions, not out of some delusional desire to be a bear.

One of the more entertaining scenes in the film shows Tim's true human nature (as we learned about in one of our earliest readings), where he, out of desperation, "prays" to God, 'Jesus-boy', Allah, and the "Hindu floaty thing" for rain to come. This reversion to the human nature to believe in something beyond their control, despite his admittance that he understands the scientific nature of weather, is similar to the author of the New York Times Magazine article describing how, whether believer or atheist, we all have these tendencies. What is more interesting is that, when the rain does come, Tim shouts and rejoices how it is a miracle (and attributes this rain to one of the many deities he has just prayed to). As evidence he points to the fact that his radio has announced that it is only raining in his location, not anywhere else nearby.

I do not see Timothy's story as religious in nature. He did have a profound love for the animals, but this love does not justify a religion. He, very interestingly, used the expression of this love to make him feel more comfortable with his place in several mainstream religions- at one point discussing how he believes, if there is a God, that he would be very pleased with him because he is working hard for someone (actually something) else that he sees as in need of his protection.

RLST 100 The Easy Way

Hey Guys,

I know this post has no relevance to the reading (or lack there of ) for Monday's class, but I made an interesting find. Catrina had asked earlier in the term if there was an easier way to find out if there were new posts on the various blogs--well there is! It is Google Reader (https://www.google.com/accounts/ServiceLogin?nui=1&service=reader). Just log in with the same name/address that you log into your blog with and then "subscribe" to all the blogs in our class. It acts as an "inbox" for all the updates on whatever sites you subscribe to...

-Oliver

Wisconsin

While reading the "Indian Mound" assignment for our next class I saw several connections to an observation that were made in Monday's class about the possibility of paleolithic religion being similar to that of Native American nature-based spirituality. While I am not entirely convinced that there is evidence for religion in the drawings on the the walls of the French caves, I can imagine a situation where these drawings show us the very beginning of the evolutionary path that nature-based religion took (and continued to developed largely in a vacuum from the great monotheisms in the "old world") in the Western Hemisphere.

Looking at the images from the caves that many have seen as evidence for a shaman like personality in Paleolithic society, (if this understanding is indeed correct) a similarity can be drawn to those drawings of the mound builders. The expression of a human in either bird form or a bird costume seems to be a theme that ties these two human groups together (albeit through centuries of history and development). Not only has the art become more elaborate, but also the form of the bird is now not solely isolated to the head of the individual, but has encompassed his entire body.

What might have influenced this more visible expression of "religion" in the Native Americans as opposed to the paleolithic people? Besides the parallel development that the ancestors of the Native Americans shares with the ancestors of those who eventually developed the three great monotheisms that have come to dominate modern society, the Native American people (especially in the Midwestern, Great Lakes region) had a much greater connection to the "unknown" in regards to what lies beneath the water.

Not only is Minnesota the land of 10,000 lakes, Wisconsin has approximately 15,000 lakes of its own (this all besides the fact that the Great Lakes are right next door). This may have contributed to the fact that many of the "spirits" or supernatural creatures that were created by these early Native Americans were centered around these overwhelming abundant bodies of water.This picture in particular reminded me of the stories of Nessie (the Loch Ness Monster). Attempts to explain strange objects sticking out of the water can lead to many fantastical stories (even in modern society), which is probably the same reason for the rise of water spirits and monsters in the religion of the mound builders.

While I am not arguing that these links are rock solid, they do provide a continuation of the story that so many "experts" have taken from the Paleolithic cave paintings (despite the fact that our class, as evidenced by our discussion, disputes their conclusions).

Group Identity

While reading over a few of the other blogs I was reminded of an interesting discussion that has taken place in class, on the blogs, and also was mentioned in the reading. It is the idea that this lack of symbolic art in the paleolithic cave paintings does not necessarily indicate a lack of religion.

Religious symbols serve two main purpose in modern society. Those purposes are 1) to identify and separate individual members of that religion from the rest of the world and 2) to provide an object of reflection for the follower.

The latter of the two could, possibly, be explained by the fact that this religion could very well have been based on objects found in nature (providing a greater explanation for the empirical art found in the caves).

The first reason requires a bit more in the way of explanation. These early human beings lived in small bands of roughly 30-40 individuals, and these groups were spread out throughout Africa and Europe. These groups had very limited interaction with one another and, as a result, tended to be very homogeneous in nature.

If we consider the groups relative similarity and isolation along with the first purpose of religious symbols, a very simple conclusion can be reached. If there was a common religion among all members of this band, symbols would lack a practical use as an identification marker. This lack of utility would likely provide more than enough reason for the paleolithic people, who probably spent most of their time working on providing their basic needs, not to expend the energy in their creation.

I know there is no way to know the religious nature of these ancient people, but I am merely arguing that the lack of evidence in this area is not conclusive and could have an alternative explanation that is reasonable other than the assertion that they lacked any form of religious belief.

Fireworks of Religion

During our discussion in class today about the origin of religion I had an interesting thought.

While Professor Smith was being hounded by those who argued that it is ridiculous to take the fragments of a society that existed long ago and try to build a picture of what that society may have had in the way of religious thought and expression, I was reflecting on their statements. In this reflection I analyzed the diagram Professor Smith had drawn on the board of what I would term the axis of religions.

The center of this axis is the fundamental concepts of religion as a whole, and the spokes all lead out to the specific "windows" (religions) that are present in modern human societies. Our exploration of the paleolithic people is in hopes of finding some idea of what this center is composed of, without the interference of the plethora of culturally produced religious variations present in the modern world.

Besides the physical similarity to the image of a firework, this metaphor can be taken one step further. Religion is similar to a firework in that it starts as one ball which contains all of the essentials to forming the rays of burning, colored debris (this stage is in the early stages of human development). Once this ball is launched into the air and explodes we get a great variation of colors and directions that this debris has chosen to take (modern times). An examination of the debris once it has dispersed so greatly will most likely not be effective in distinguishing what had originally made up the ball of fundamentals.

However, if you were able to find a section of the original ball (that had likely been blown into many fragments), you would be able to examine more closely, and infer more accurately as to the original composition of the ball. I am not necessarily saying that we can understand the entire culture of the paleolithic people from the fragment of evidence we have in their cave paintings, but this is probably the best method in our search for the contents of the fundamental firework of religion.

Singing Neanderthals

In the book chapter “Singing Neanderthals,” the author presets a fairly convincing case for a lack of language in Neanderthal society--with several interesting parallels to our discussions of religion and the spiritual nature of humans.

One of the main evidences that the author presents in support of his argument is that Neanderthals lack symbolic objects. If the capacity (language) was available to the Neanderthals for over 200,000 years, the author (and I) find it hard to believe that they would have chosen not to use it throughout their existence.

This also fits in with our discussion about the religious nature of modern man, and what positive effects it may have on our survival. This need for greater accountability (in an authority higher than our own species), a hope for a better tomorrow, and comfort from the fear of death seem to be, if not inevitable, highly desirable characteristics for a species capable of formulating religious traditions and dogma. This desirability seems to provide greater evidence for the fact that, if Neanderthals were capable of modern speech, they would have formulated religious institutions and left behind a large amount of objects which served little utilitarian purposes, but rather were primarily symbolic in nature.

The second evidence cited by the author is the immense cultural stability--referring to the fact that customs and techniques stayed relatively stagnate throughout the existence of Neanderthals. The author states that “language is a force of change” and he is correct in that assertion. Without the ability to communicate complex, new ideas to others within your community, those ideas will inevitably die with the individual--hoping to be rethought in some future generation. With this cycle repeating itself indefinitely, no technological progress is ever made--leaving the same traditions and skills already present in the previous generation as the only transmittable knowledge available to their young.

This combination of lack of symbolic objects and lack of cultural change both seem to indicate that the authors proposition that no assumption should be made of the Neanderthal’s linguistic ability (and in a greater relation to this class--their inability to formulate complex religious systems to follow). As the author discusses in his opening, there might have been a sad Neanderthal, a happy Neanderthal, and even a singing Neanderthal, but, by my estimation, their downfall might have come from the fact that there apparently wasn’t a praying Neanderthal.

Why We Believe?

Just to start with a little bit of background. I am a non-denominational Christian (not that I attend a church which touts its lack of affiliation-which I have in the past), but I attend an Assemblies of God Church here in Appleton. I believe in the basics of Christianity, and see the majority of the extensive variety of Christian denominations as differences in style of implementing those basics. Now on to the reading...

Besides the fact that the style was not the most appealing, the content of the New York Times Magazine article "Why Do We Believe?" (by Robin Marantz Henig) was quite fascinating. I was most intrigued by the author’s apparent surprise with the stance taken by Justin Barrett. Even stating at one point that "Barrett's faith might seem confusing. (78)” I felt that this clearly demonstrated the author's either personal lack of belief, or the perceived audience dominated by non-believers--a situation which seems highly improbable because he cites earlier in the article the overwhelming number of American's who believe in a personal God (39).

As Barret states, a recognition of the innate nature of human beings to believe in a higher power does not erase the plausibility of such a belief, but also can be used to show that God built us to believe. I was quite relieved to see that this point of view was included in the article since it had been lingering in my mind as I read through the arguments by those of varying levels of atheism describing how they believed the nature to believe had developed.

I feel that this article demonstrates the tendency for some atheists to view that those who have sincere religious beliefs follow a blind and scientifically/intellectually ignorant faith. Not only is that assumption wrong and insulting, it demonstrates their own ignorance of the global religious community.

This may sound a bit angry and may not be the intended sentiment in the article, but this section of the article has lent itself to a discussion of a problem I have witnessed over the past few years.

See you all in class!