Divorcing religion and knowledge

There is a pervasive ignorance in our intelligentsia that I find so deeply troubling and insulting. We have divorced, in mind and heart, religion from knowledge. In doing so, we are denying our own simple common sense – that Christianity has to do with the Enlightenment, that Islam has to do with terrorism, that Daoism has to do with Chinese farming. We have ignored the very essence and foundation of so many human beings in the world, turning a blind eye to that which troubles and challenges us.

To anyone who claims to know American politics and has never opened a Bible: you do not know American politics.

To anyone who claims to know Middle Eastern history and has never opened a Qur’an: you do not know the Middle East.

To anyone who claims to know Chinese culture and has never opened a Dao De Jing: you do not know Chinese culture.

 

Many in intellectual circles in the West, frightfully, know more about Grendel then about Goliath, or about Candide more then the Bible. Too, they know more Egyptian, Roman, Greek, or Babylonian mythology then about Hinduism, Islam, or Sikhism. And then they claim to not be ignorant. They claim to stand for pluralism. They claim to stand for liberalism. They claim to be knowledgeable about the world. Too, they claim to not discriminate against Islam and to stand “with the Muslims” on this subject or that. Too, they claim to be enlightened for the knowledge Hinduism isn’t exactly polytheistic.

This is not about proselytizing or engaging in mysticism (or worse yet, spirituality!). This is about the common human decency to understand your fellow man and the world around you.

 

Learn about the world, since you’re already stuck living in it.

 

——————————————————————-

Here’s what I said to a friend of mine once:

I have emotional trouble with people who have no desire to learn who I am and where I come from, and then claim to be friends.

That would be almost all of them. And it keeps me up at night.

 

Mulling over Relativism (Part 2)

Part 1

Relativism, in itself, in its truest form,  can be called rational. Relativism, in itself, can be called a reasonable conclusion. Yet relativism, in itself, is an inescapable hole. It is a dogma – a dogma that shrugs off questioning and free thought. It is a bottomless pit that can only be dug into, but not exited from…once the shovel breaks ground. 

Last post, we explained relativism as the belief that “nobody is objectively right or wrong.” The premise of mainstream relativism, although no one likes to say it, is that morals really aren’t that existent in the first place. That was clear and explained in Part 1.

And from that premise, we can draw inferences on the implications. When there is no real right and wrong, no true right and wrong, the question is raised on how one goes about deciding right and wrong. It would have to fall into, I think, a hedonistic or nihilistic attitude – the first being “be good because it feels good” and the second being “be good because human nature is a bull you can’t fight”. And whether it’s admitted or not, those are the only two bases to which someone could have relativist morality. Arguably, the nihilist one is hedonistic in its essence, too, which is similar to what I discussed on altruism.

And from the basis of hedonism, one would only question their values if it appealed to them to do so. For nihilism, it would never. And it is fair to say that those who like to question are few in numbers – the rest are dogmatic, and have no reason to care to not be. So where is the dogma, now? When a philosophy doesn’t bother with questioning, where is the intellectual endeavor, the desire to learn?  No where found.

In religious philosophies, and I won’t be so arbitrary as to say all, but in many, questioning is imperative. Learning is necessary. Inquiry is a way to the Divine. And there is no hole digging – there is stair climbing. Sure, one may question themselves out of faith. One may start to believe something just isn’t right about X or Y religion. And when they do so, they may fall to an agnosticism – possibly, then, leading to a relativism. The entire process was reasonable. To travel from faith to doubt, from absolute to relative, is normal and fine and in many cases the smartest move there is. Yet at the beginning of the relativist road is a trap. A hole, that when entered, may never be left again. For one when is led to believe questioning is unnecessary, why try? 

It is a sad loop that there isn’t much to stop from happening. Sure, X relativist can say that everyone should ponder, and continue to gain knowledge, and continue to question themselves. But X relativist has no right to tell Y relativist what to do”because nobody is right or wrong, [so] we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree” (that’s a contradiction in itself, but that’s for another day). And when it comes down to the masses, I’ll bet, most would be Y’s – living in mental comfort and contentment. “Philosophy is dead“, to some, and it would be a darn nice world if it was.

So relativism, to recap, so far, in its pragmatic and general form, is:

1) dogmatic

2) appealing – the easy way out

3) hedonism

And I thought religion was all that?

Evil Temptation

Shalom,

I am just a slightly arrogant, anonymous member of the internet who will be posting on to this pseudo-blog occasionally. I am interested in a great many of things, and my posts will vary greatly, I enjoy technology and have a soft spot for Asimov. I’m going to shy away from religion mostly, as I do not know a great deal about it, but an occasional post about Judaism will probably not  be rare, nor one on gender or social issues, in truth I have no idea what I will post about, but I guess we will see. I’ll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Asimov, “Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful. It’s the transition that’s troublesome.”

Yetzer Ra

November 2013

“We have just a…

“We have just as much religion to hate one another but not enough to love another.” — Jonathan Swift

Jonathan Swift was an Anglo-Irish satirist and author.

“Fix your mind …

“Fix your mind on Me, be devoted to Me, offer service to Me, bow down to Me, and you shall certainly reach Me. ” – Bhagavad Gita (18.64)

The Reason for God

Timothy Keller’s book is a remarkable, easy read that masterfully explains difficult concepts to people who aren’t all that good at difficult concepts. His book is written, organized, and crafted beautifully. Anyone with a high school level education could easily read this book and understand the complex philosophical arguments he discusses in defense of what we call “God.” It is important however to note that this book is not just his reasoning for God, but as well his reasoning for Christianity. Put simply, it’s a Christian apologist book about Christianity in an Age of Skepticism. There’s nothing wrong about that, but you should know what you’re reading.

Onto his arguments. Keller summarizes the basic arguments for God we love and adore: Aristotle’s First Cause Argument, the Islamic Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Watchmaker Argument, etc. He then attempts to refute the traditional anti-God arguments such as the problem of evil argument. I myself am placed in a difficult situation when it comes to these God arguments: for one, I find all the classical arguments for God (the ones that Keller uses) to be weak and insufficient, and at the same time, I find all the classical arguments against God (the ones that Keller refutes) to be equally weak and insufficient. As a Muslim, my faith requires me to believe that the idea of God is rationally deductible, and I struggle with finding a sure-fire way to philosophically prove God (I haven’t looked too much into it though, but I’ll write more on this later). Most Christians, notably Catholics, do not need to prove God rationally as a principle of their faith, but it certainly helps. They need only to prove Christianity rationally, and the concept of God naturally follows through

Thus he argues his Christian apologist views. These stem from his belief in a “historical record” of the Ressurection of Christ, amongst other things. Now I am not Christian, so I’m obviously disagree with his views for a number of reasons. I won’t delve too much into what these arguments of his are, but he does wonderfully in presenting them and explaining why he feels Christianity is the way to go.

To summarize, Keller wrote a masterful book on the argument for God and Christianity. Whether you agree with his conclusions or not, he certainly explains himself thoroughly. He writes simple enough for any audience as well, without sounding unintelligent. If you are interesting in reading about Christian apology or about the philosophy of God, there is no better book to read than this one.

Like Crazy

This movie was one of the first independent films I have ever seen – and it is much better than Hollywood. It’s basically a love story between an American and a British student in some university in LA. The British chick, after school, violated her visa and after returning to England she couldn’t come back. The romance in this film was surprisingly realistic, and had none of the stupid Hollywood banter (you hang up….no you hang up!). Their relationship was ever changing, and sometimes even boring, because since when were people interesting 24/7? They are in Hollywood apparently. Somehow Jennifer Lawrence found herself playing a minor role in a low budget film like this, but the film for whatever reason hardly ever had the camera on her in the light (she was always filmed in a dark room or outside at night or in a club with little light), something I couldn’t help but notice. The reasoning behind that baffles me. Another thing that I couldn’t help but notice was the lack of religion in the movie. We find utter secularism in about 99% of films these days, but this one seemed appropriate to bring religion into it. The British chick’s parents were quite “sophisticated” (except, for once, in a good portrayal), and I would think a bit of religion would come hand in hand with that. The amount of pin and suffering by the lovers, I would think, would also demand some sort of anger or seeking out of faith, but there was none of that.  Anyway, the film was incredible for being an atypical love story by the movie industry’s standards, and I wish we had more of that.