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....