Rieff, Freud and us
Saturday December 30, 2006
This will be my last post for a day or so. I'm still down in Louisiana, but there are terrible thunderstorms, and a tornado warning has been issued for a nearby town. Probably time to shut down the laptop until...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
I'm not sure I understand your quoting Yeats to shore up an observation that our culture is going to hell in a handbasket.
In my understanding, "The best lack all conviction..." is an observation about the long-haul maturation of one's faith in light of God's mysterious and drawn-out ways. It is coming to terms with the knowlege that God is awake and at work in spite of observably dire circumstances.
Or, as another wise person put it: "The older I get the less I know.">
"Freud grasped that the power of religion and tradition to bind human behavior had fatally weakened..."
Fatally. That may be the key word. I'm lately almost persuaded that even the traditionally religious are fatally demoralized in precisely this same way. Though one wants to assert that a traditional way of seeing still has comprehensive power and moral authority, it's ultimately just one among many views, and the traditionalist mind is continually haunted by subliminal despair, because it is no longer possible to see anything in a genuinely traditional way--where a genuinely traditional view involves taking for granted the transcendent, absolute, and all-encompassing nature of one's beliefs. The most resolutely traditional and conservative among us just aren't that metaphysically secure.
Even the use of the word 'values' concedes this--it's Nietzsche's term, if I'm not mistaken, or at least one which he introduces into the discussion. Its use implies that it is through assertion, rather than recognition, that we find our moral bearings.
So I guess I'm asking, does the traditionalist position actually believe in its own absoluteness? Or is it simply a congenial position, for certain temperaments?
I don't ask this mockingly--I'm genuinely puzzled about this.
Or, another way to put it: does the effort to recover or sustain tradition partake of precisely the modern spirit it attempts to escape?
Obviously, I presuppose a certain despair in even raising this concern. And it's the nature of this despair, to wonder whether others are similarly infected, knowingly or not.>
That is a thoughtful comment, Anonymous, and one that I hope garners some good, careful thinking.>
That which binds humanity: compassion.>
Anon: does the effort to recover or sustain tradition partake of precisely the modern spirit it attempts to escape?
Yes. Because ultimately traditionalism becomes just another self-consciously adapted "lifestyle.">
Sorry, Anon - I meant to say, "self-consciously adopted lifestyle.">
stefanie -
The point about how traditionalism has become just another lifestyle is certainly an important one. I liked the analogy Rod drew a while ago, saying that we're like people living in the wreckage of a carpet bombing, trying to find whatever we can. This means that, whatever long-term solution we find, it won't be exactly the same as the old one. We can't just give in and let the bombing continue, though. We need to learn from the experience, take the good out of the modern world (modernity certainly isn't all bad), and move forward. What I always like to point out to fellow traditional Christians is that there was a day when the Church consisted of a dozen guys & a few women sitting in a room in Jerusalem, hiding for fear of being killed by the authorities. We're not nearly that bad off now, nor will we be for a very long time. It's not too late, I don't think.>
But the traditionalists I've been hanging out with don't see what they're doing as a piecing together of scraps of the old together with scraps of the new--they see what they're doing as a faithful & complete continuation of the old. I'm increasingly skeptical of that claim--seems to me that something like what rjak134 describes is what nearly everyone is doing, whether they admit it or not. Which means we're all in the same boat. The traditionalists sometimes seem to say they're in a different and superior boat, or that they alone possess a boat. I once saw things this way, though perhaps I was more extreme than most. I may have taken the claims of my group too literally--what I'm suggesting here, what I'm beginning to suspect, is that I was never really expected to take things so literally. I just wasn't clued in. ;-) There was a kind of theater going on, and I didn't know it.
I guess much of this is obvious. It's just new to me, because I'm emerging myself from a traditionalism that sees itself as changeless, and basically impervious to modernity, even opposed to it. But I now see modernity as (largely) an honest, hard-fought and necessary way of achieving an accommodation about very difficult matters. Religious tolerance, individualism, an allegiance to personal experience, these are, at this point, indispensable, and are, even when unacknowledged or despised, part of the bedrock thinking of the most ardent traditionalists. These were not, though, part of their tradition as it stood a thousand years ago. (When traditionalism becomes strident, I suspect it's out of a terrified reaction to the fact that modernity has already triumphed, even in the soul of the one speaking stridently.)
I myself have been bad-mouthing modernity for years, and suddenly realize that I'm a modern, and that I like it, even with its spells of moral vertigo. Now the task, at least for me, is to see what it might mean to be religious (in the good sense) in this newly recognized context, having spent a long time as a denouncer and moralist.>
We all search for truth and meaning. Some of us put truth and meaning on such a high pedestal that it becomes godly instead of all around us in a natural state.
One thing missing from Rod's assertions is examples of what he envisions as the best traditions for raising a generation.
I believe the reason Rod won't first and can't second provide us with examples of his ideal philosophy in the real world is there is none.
That's right. There are no examples of Christian or any other faith community that offer self determinism and morality. They might pretend to offer value but when examined closely every one of those examples will provide evidence of a control mechanism reflecting doubt and distrust of the individual and not faith and hope for the individual and group.
Rod looks around and sees impending disaster in modernity. This disaster is predicted because he feels a lack of and fails to see a method of control of others.
If Rod really felt faith was the answer then he'd find a place and time where faith worked and he'd try to duplicate that for his life. He can't because no such place ever existed except in the minds of the powers that were and the children who lived there secure in the fraud.
Let me give you an example of the fallacy of Rod's perspective. Rod like the Orthodox in Serbia see Islam as something that has to be destroyed before it destroys. So what did the Orthodox in Serbia do when they had the political power? They slaughtered Muslims. It was Biblical in it's ferocity and purpose. It was genocide.
Now Rod wants to talk about the security and stability Orthodox can give a family and how he wants to raise his family in their traditions. Yet he conveniently ignores the example given in the last twenty years of what can happen when his ideal is given the power to govern. Evidence of the ignorance is they started a war they would never win and it would destroy generations on both sides.
He looks at Orthodoxy through the eyes of emotion as everyone does when evaluating faith. Faith is the evidence of things hoped for after all. Reason would look beyond the feel good and feel bad to see what happens when that version of faith has absolute control.
That's when we see the truth of the idealogy or faith. Everytime, every time, without exception we see corruption and inequity of power with more victims or losers than winners followed by collapse and failure.
I guess it's a difference in philosophy when we get down to it. If Rod and me were standing at the head of a large canyon that was impassable but by using the roaring river he would search for the materials to build the ultimate ship for the journey.
I on the other hand would look for stuff to build kayaks for everyone.>
Harvey said, Faith is the evidence of things hoped for after all.
You mangled that verse. It correctly reads, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Jesus asked (in Luke 18, verse 8, if He would find faith on the earth when He returns. Luke 18:1-8 is a poignant reminder to Christians to not lose heart. He exhorts us to always pray and not lose heart, even though the King tarries.
We may well be in a new dark age, but the Irish monks got us through one of them and there will be the same types who will get us through this one. There is nothing new under the sun; these 'modern' philosophies, systems and theories are only the old systems with different names, but the results are the same, aren't they? What is marxism but the elevation of man (as arbiter of the state) to god? What is Freud's spin but the same--idolatry of man, his desires, etc. This is old, old stuff (Caesar's divine status, etc), and Christians ought not to be fooled by the clothing the emperor has gotten himself up in.
A holy faith has moved mountains, and raised the dead, and won battles, and turned infidels into saints. But to the 'natural man' these things are incomprehensible, hence his unbelief and his mockery of the faithful.>
Compassion, folks. That is the human mechanism that binds us together and pulls toward the humane and away from the inhuman.
Religious belief, religiosity, and even reason cannot bind us together without compassion: to feel with others -- using what only the human biology seems to have: empathy.
Indeed, compassion is the essential underpinning of the great religious traditions. (Cf. the golden rule) (That goes without saying, but this seemed a good time to say it anyway.)
But we humans seem to prefer expending more energy debating filioque's rather than promoting compassion for its own sake. Which is the better investment?>
"But we humans seem to prefer expending more energy debating filioque's rather than promoting compassion for its own sake. Which is the better investment?"
I think this is a very false dichotomy. If the twentieth century has shown anything, it is that creeds matter. What you believe really does impact how you behave. Furthermore, religious influences can only have an impact insofar as you actually believe their basis to be true (as amply demonstrated by liberal religion's failure to even wake people up one morning a week). People who actually believe that their creed is true will debate, indeed die over, its particulars. They will also sell all that they have and give it to the poor.>
People who actually believe that their creed is true will debate, indeed die over, its particulars.
They'll kill other people for them too, as history shows over and over again.
Just sayin'.>
Eric, now Eric B, not Eric W.
A lot of the posts miss the point about tradition, which I think was mentioned only once or twice in the entire article. One can believe in tradition without insisting that the world remain static and unchangeable in every facet of life. In other words, it is a tension between the radical individualistic impulse and looking outside one's personal desires for truth and happiness (in the metaphysical sense of the word).
This tension does not mean that tradition or the collective instinct should always be obeyed--just that it should not be discarded on a whim.
When individualistic desire is set up as the ultimate goal and right in a society (via advertisement, mass marketing, free market etc...), I think some people often automatically assume that this is nothing more than the gripes of the "social conservative" agenda. That is partially true--but such an individualistic/hedonistic mentality can also in the long run foster economic oppression (or worse).>
"People who actually believe that their creed is true will debate, indeed die over, its particulars.
They'll kill other people for them too, as history shows over and over again."
Jaybird,
I certainly hope you use "they" in the broad sense of the word when refering to a creed. The French Revolution wasn't exactly a pretty site--common citizens were executed in scores for complaining about bread prices when the governance of the revolutionaries became inadequate. We could get into further details, but I'm sure this reminder will be sufficient.
The belief in individualism and utilitarianism, which seems to be a common default position once the concept of "creed" is denied, won't produce any better results. Law school discussions have taught me that much.>
A holy faith has moved mountains, and raised the dead, and won battles, and turned infidels into saints. But to the 'natural man' these things are incomprehensible, hence his unbelief and his mockery of the faithful.
Gretchen
Gretchen it sounds good. But keep in mind that you're dealing with skeptics. So it would be helpfull to everyone if you offered something besides hearsay for evidence to support your position.
One of the things that needs to be kept in mind is skeptics are really believers asking for a reason to share your enthusiasm. Help us if you can.>
ChuckDFW do you listen to NPR?
Yesterday or the day before there was a blip about a scientist that has a lot of evidence suggesting compassion or empathy is a genetic trait common to all hominids.
I found that really interesting to say the least.>
I think this is a very false dichotomy. If the twentieth century has shown anything, it is that creeds matter. What you believe really does impact how you behave. Furthermore, religious influences can only have an impact insofar as you actually believe their basis to be true (as amply demonstrated by liberal religion's failure to even wake people up one morning a week). People who actually believe that their creed is true will debate, indeed die over, its particulars. They will also sell all that they have and give it to the poor.
rjak134
It would be nice if you could give us an example of a specific instance so we can discuss the accuracy of your speculation.
The problem with faith or creed based societal success isn't that it hasn't happened. But it's only happened under specific and limited circumstances that were if you will, not unlike the occurence of a perfect storm.
Another interesting fact about these events is the faith isn't the critical element, but the fact that there is faith involved. In other words, it isn't what you believe so much as it is the fact that you just believe.
Another critical component of these successes is the naivete of the believers. General knowledge and education of the populace seems to be the number one saboteur defeating these incidents of faith based societal success.
One only has to look at inerrant Biblical interpretation to see where exposure to information sabotages blind faith. Of course the same is true about bigotry. ; > )>
I certainly hope you use "they" in the broad sense of the word when refering to a creed. The French Revolution wasn't exactly a pretty site--common citizens were executed in scores for complaining about bread prices when the governance of the revolutionaries became inadequate. We could get into further details, but I'm sure this reminder will be sufficient. Eric B
Are you suggesting that France would be better off today without the French Revolution?
If so how about us? Do you believe the chaos and heartbreak that followed the Revolutionary War was too high a price to pay for democracy?>
This tension does not mean that tradition or the collective instinct should always be obeyed--just that it should not be discarded on a whim.
Eric B
Hmmmmm, I guess since you've made this discovery you've also decided on some criteria for deciding when a tradition should be kept or discarded in the name of progress.
Care to share?>
Hi, Anon and Rjak. Anon wrote: But the traditionalists I've been hanging out with don't see what they're doing as a piecing together of scraps of the old together with scraps of the new--they see what they're doing as a faithful & complete continuation of the old. I'm increasingly skeptical of that claim--seems to me that something like what rjak134 describes is what nearly everyone is doing, whether they admit it or not. Which means we're all in the same boat. The traditionalists sometimes seem to say they're in a different and superior boat, or that they alone possess a boat. I once saw things this way...
I think that *is* what everyone is doing, whether they call it that or not. We have the ability to freely pick and choose our culture, our community, our friends, our churches.
"Traditionalists" do this all the time - handpicking friends for their kids; neighborhoods; churches or parishes; kinds of clothes (like "modest" swimsuits or head coverings); how much or how little self-imposed isolation to maintain. It is basically a matter of "lifestyle choice."
Rjak, who is the "we" here? Because not everyone is guaranteed that he or she is going to make this journey as part of a "we." For instance, this article by Phil Lancaster called Preserving the Harvest describes the problems this certain group of "traditionalist" homeschooling families is having in retaining their grown children. Apparently some at least are rejecting the life that has been elaborately crafted for them by their parents.
This is the consequence of living in a free society.
Anon, those are good points about people denying they're in the same boat - or that there even *is* a boat. From your comments, it sounds like you and I were in similar situations.>
I'm a homeschooling father, but wouldn't measure up too well as a Phil Lancaster "Patriarch." A chief principle for me has been that one is bound by the things that clearly are for all Christians according to the apostolic tradition, but on the other hand we should not convey to our children an unspoken "thus saith the Lord" about things that really are not binding, especially as the children grow older. Mr. Lancaster's daughter, I would say, should probably be able to make her own decisions about her hair unless there is some unusual circumstance here. When parents give their preferences that unspoken "thus saith the Lord," they are setting their children up to rebel not only against their preferences but against things that really are binding on the Faithful.>
My my, so much to answer. Apologies if I don't get to everything, I'll try to hit the highlights.
"They'll kill other people for them too, as history shows over and over again.
Just sayin'.
jaybird"
As I've said in these comboxes before, religion is a very deep-going motivator. It can be used for great good or for unspeakable evil. However, I would rather run that risk than live in a society of people who's greatest good deed of their life was giving a buck to a hobo & thereby having to get a vente instead of a grande or whatever the Starbucks sizes are these days. Anything that moves the soul as deeply as religion can become dangerous, I freely admit this. I just say that I'm willing to risk it, because if we don't, we'll never get anywhere and just slide ever-deeper into the Brave New World of self-indulgence.
harvey -
You've got several interesting points, I hope you won't mind a bit of salami-slicing.
"It would be nice if you could give us an example of a specific instance so we can discuss the accuracy of your speculation.
The problem with faith or creed based societal success isn't that it hasn't happened. But it's only happened under specific and limited circumstances that were if you will, not unlike the occurence of a perfect storm."
I think, on the contrary, it would be difficult to find many examples that went against this grain. Slavery was overthrown because of a creed, and a hundred years after slavery fell in America, Jim Crow was torn down by the same power. The brutal Roman Empire was converted by the fearless faith of the unarmed Church, which stood without compromise against the horrific practices of the day. Even the great evils have been successful because they held to a creed, albeit a devilish one. To make deliberate progress in any given directions, one needs a unshakeable creed, for when you don't know your creed, you don't know where you're going, and then you no longer know if you're making progress at all. (borrowing heavily from Chesterton, but no quote in particular)
"Another interesting fact about these events is the faith isn't the critical element, but the fact that there is faith involved. In other words, it isn't what you believe so much as it is the fact that you just believe."
To an extent at least, I would agree. I'd rather have a staunch Muslim than a John Shelby Spong any day. Indeed, even the horrific creed of the Thugees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee) was, in its way, better than the abortionist. The Thugees killed because they thought it was their goddess' will. The abortionist kills because his "patient" would be inconvenienced.
"Another critical component of these successes is the naivete of the believers. General knowledge and education of the populace seems to be the number one saboteur defeating these incidents of faith based societal success."
I strongly doubt how true this is, even though it is a standard truism. Today, there are a great many things that people "know" that simply are not the case. I have known very intelligent and well-informed people who "know" that Catholicism teaches that all homosexuals will go to Hell, or that the Pope cannot do any wrong. As an undergrad student of early Christianity, I am constantly horrified and the number of "facts" that the Jesus Seminar's excellent media work over the past 20 years has convinced millions of Americans of, or things that even the Jesus Seminar would find absurd. I remember reading John Dom Crossan & Darrel bock on Beliefnet a while ago both arguing that Jesus almost certainly wasn't married - a hypothesis now seriously entertained by millions of Americans. Now if Bock & Crossan agree on something to do with Jesus, you can count it pretty well certain. :)
Therefore, I humbly submit that people think that they know a great deal more than they really do, and that ordinary laymen often speak with much more confidence on technical matters than the relevant experts would be comfortable doing themselves.
"One only has to look at inerrant Biblical interpretation to see where exposure to information sabotages blind faith. Of course the same is true about bigotry. ; > )"
As a Roman Catholic, I don't feel much need to defend the literal reading of the Bible, and I addressed the exposure to info point above. I'd just like to briefly address the issue of "blind faith." I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who's faith is relatively blind and who don't know the details of what they believe and why. I have been fortunate not to have encountered too terribly many of them. More interesting than that, though, is that I routinely find that the most well-informed Christians I find are also the most orthodox. People who really think through their faith at every turn, in my experience, tend to return to one of the great Christians traditions, Catholicism & Orthodoxy or one of the classical Protestant streams.
stefanie -
"Rjak, who is the "we" here?"
If I rightly interpret your question, the "we" is those who see the deterioration of the cultural mores that have held us firm over the past millenia and are trying to swim against the current. Things look gloomy for this "we" right now, true, but as the hymn goes, God is "our help in ages past / our hope for years to come.">
rjak thank you for a great reply.
A little story for you. One of my most favoritest people on the face of the earth and in the ether is a staunch Roman Catholic in St Louis. We've lost touch because for whatever reason he's stopped interneting.
In the late nineties and early this century we used to burn up the bandwidth in faith discussions. After his wife passed away he dropped out of sight for awhile. Then one day I got a phone call. It was from a lady in Austin. She'd married my friend and they were coming through North Texas moving her to St Louis. He wanted to meet me face to face.
It was one of best days of our lives. I say "our" because my wife enjoyed him and his new bride as I did. I haven't heard from him much since and I hope he's still doing well.
But back in the day we did have some great conversations. He showed great patience with me as I honed my faith against his and vice versa.
Anything that moves the soul as deeply as religion can become dangerous, I freely admit this. I just say that I'm willing to risk it, because if we don't, we'll never get anywhere and just slide ever-deeper into the Brave New World of self-indulgence.
I'd like you to consider something. What if we looked at religion or personal faith and observed that it is the ultimate self indulgence?
When we accept, say your faith, aren't we indulging in the ultimate conceit? After all, you're assuming that you're of divine nature and so special as to have been created by God for a purpose, right?
Now isn't the true power that you refer to as having opportunity for evil little more than escaping responsibility for one's actions?
I look forward to your replies.>
rjak134
I think this is a very false dichotomy. If the twentieth century has shown anything, it is that creeds matter.
Of course it is and of course they do. But creeds are a matter of choice (and learning). They also can -- but often don't -- lead to a spirituality open to growth including a possible reevaluation of creed.
Personally, I think compassion is a more universal basis for living than is any creed. One's creed is so much an accident of birth. Compassion trancends creed.>
harvey l
Yesterday or the day before there was a blip about a scientist that has a lot of evidence suggesting compassion or empathy is a genetic trait common to all hominids.
Interesting. Do you happen to remember anything more to help find the item?
Isn't the cosmos wondrous! I'm almost 60, but if I were starting a career out of college today, I'd focus on learing more about humanity and who we are. I'm fascinated by cognitive science.>
I'll see if I can do a search and find something online Chuck.
I'll be fifty nine this year and wouldn't change places with anyone. My life isn't perfect. But I feel I've found that perfect combination of curiosity and appreciation that allows one to age with enthusiasm.
One of the examples the author used of genetic compassion was the story eight to ten years ago of where the three year old tumbled into the ape display at the zoo. An older female picked up the child and moved it to where it could be rescued.
Everyone thought it was an aberration. But the author pointed out that in fact it's more of the norm for homids to have compassion for infants.>
Harvey,
The problem with skeptics is that they usually don't want to believe. It is much more comforting to them to disbelieve, therefore they cling to every materialist argument against faith and its outcomes. They automatically discredit sources (no matter how highly educated and placed) that rely on faith as an element of their world view. A history book written by a scholar that attributes some events to divine intervention is immediately rejected, etc. A healing of someone at death's door is attributed to a vague 'scientific' term called 'spontaneous remission' instead of someone's faith-filled prayer to God. There are countless books and articles at your fingertips that speak to what faith can accomplish, not least of which is the Bible, which you reject out of hand. As a Christian it is my privilege and command to witness about Jesus Christ, but I do not have the obligation or directive from God to make anyone believe or satisfy their skepticism. That is the job of the Holy Spirit, who convicts us of sin, righteousness, judgment and truth (John 16: 8 to 11). Chapter two of I Corinthians gives you the answer to why a skeptic does not believe--he has the spirit of the world and not the Spirit of God.>
Technical question: can someone direct me to piece(s) on Rieff on the Mars Hill site? I can't find precisely what Rod is talking about, but I did find two peices from Vol. 82, "Elisabeth Lasch-Quinn, on Tom Wolfe and Philip Rieff's diagnosis of cultural disorder"
and "Wilfred McClay, on how Philip Rieff's brilliant critique of modern disorder kept him from realizing a way out of our dilemma." Are these the pieces Rod is speaking about? Thanks!>
Gretchen,
The first thing you have to accept when visiting these kinds of discussions is everyone here is a searcher.
It's not unlike the old saying about testing spagetti by tossing it at the wall. When it sticks it's done.
We're all throwing stuff at the wall and asking for comments. Another analogy would be accepting that honing a blade involves contact with a surface as hard or harder than that of the blade.
Surely you can give us examples of why you believe what you believe besides relying upon scriptures. We know your life is more than that.
You see we all face the same quandries. You feel the same emotions when you hold a child as I do. You have the same dreams and fears that I experience. You have to rationalize good and bad behaviors and what's your proper reaction to them, just like me.
If you have a system that works for you then it's only fair for you to share it with us. We might find it works for us too.
I'm a creative person. Not the kind of creative person that can duplicate something like an artist can do. My talent is I'm able to assemble an idea that on it's surface appears unique. But when you look at it closely you understand quickly that it's just another facet of a technology usually not associated with the issue at hand.
I'm not only able to do this in the physical world like I did here on a staircase. But I'm inclined to also look at faith the same way. I step back and look at it from different angles to see how it works and where it works best.
Evidently you're the same way. Explain yourself.>
Harvey,
Like I said before, the world is full of books and articles and stories and personal anecdotes about what faith has accomplished. You do not need me to tell you of them, for they are easily available from many sources. You no doubt have examples from your own life. Hence, I question your insistence that I supply you with yet more anecdotal evidence to support my faith. You see, faith is indeed the 'evidence of things not seen.' I believe in the things not seen; skeptics do not.
Simply because we have the same human emotions does not automatically make us kindred searchers. Some seek to believe, some seek to disbelieve. My faith is not in a system, it is in a Person, the Son of God. Since you reject the Christian Scriptures as having validity (as you have freely shared in past posts) why are you so insistent that I must personally enumerate instances of a faith that is wholly based on what you already reject?>
I guess I was just hoping against hope that you could offer something new or more interesting to the discussion.
Think of it like this. We all see a stone. Everyone agrees it's just a stone. Then some fool suggests there's a star hidden in that stone that wants to come out.
Discussions are just like that, especially ones about faith and religion. Sometimes it takes someone stepping back and using a fresh analogy or a different metaphor for the points to become clear enough for the less enlightened amongst us to see.>
I like your star in the stone, Harvey. That's what faith is like, sometimes you have to chisel away thine unbelief in order to find it.>
Again, can anyone point me to the proper Rieff piece?>
Gretchen, how do you like the patina on the finished stone?
Sometimes even a blind hog will find an acorn in the leaves.
When I was finished with the carving I wasn't happy with the finish. What I've traditionally done was use a sand blaster to take off the rough spots.
For some reason I can't explain I decided to use my oxygen/acetylene cutting torch to see what effect it would have.
Afterwards when I thought about it I understood it was a logical move. What I'd literally done was weather the surface of the stone and oxidized it. I'd just accelerated what time and weather does in it's own sweet way.
My pride in that project wasn't the stone. But the process. That's a whole nother philosophy about making things. Some go for product, some go for process. It's a variety of the journey versus destination discussion.
Faith can be defined by the same concept. For some it's all about product-destination. Others see it all about the process-journey.
How do you see it?>
">http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/air/air_vol16no4_2002.html>
Harvey,
Since Christians believe in eternity and atheists do not, the debate about the journey and the destination is going to be significantly different.
It is quite logical for an atheist to be mainly concerned about the journey, and logical for a Christian to also be concerned about the ultimate destination. The atheist is all about the NOW, for it is the end all and be all of existence. The Christian sees the NOW as a prelude to eternity. That is why it is not uncommon for Christian martyrs to go to their death forgiving their enemies as did their Savior. A recent example of that is a nun who was killed by Islamists and who forgave them on her deathbed.>
The Christian sees the NOW as a prelude to eternity. That is why it is not uncommon for Christian martyrs to go to their death forgiving their enemies as did their Savior. A recent example of that is a nun who was killed by Islamists and who forgave them on her deathbed.
Well, I really fail to understand why a belief in an afterlife would cause this nun to forgive. Much more likely is that she had compassion for those who killed her. (Actually, it seems to me that a belief in an afterlife would make her more likely to affirm that she would see them burn in hell.)
Instead, I'd say she had compassion. But others may think she only acted selfishly: to gain divine approval and thus eternal life(?)
I personally believe that when religious belief focuses our actions not on this life but on a life 'after', an 'after' that is nebulous at best, we're taken way out on a limb, so to speak. Yet so many bet everything on their own mental pictures of a heaven or hell.
Most Christians agree on the 'life more abundant' concept, but people seem to differ greatly on which life is meant. (Yes, both are often meant, but you get my point.)>
Let us not forget Saddam's last letter to his fellow Iraqis was to not hate.
Keep in mind the Indians in Peru who would sacrifice a loved daughter for the benefit of the people. It was done out of love and faith. When I think of religious faith in action the Incas and their sacrifices of little girls, daughters if you will seems to me the ultimate expression of faith.
It is interesting how much power faith can have over a psyche. I mean how much faith does it take to believe that being a suicide bomber is preferable to the obvious alternatives?
One of the more interesting things about atheists is they do look long term. Their now as you call it usually includes a deeper past and the vision of a longer future than that of the deists, especially Christians.
Of course the difference is the perspective of being incidental to time and place versus the perspective of being the reason for time and place.
I hope you've had a wonderful New Years weekend.>
A couple of points for you to consider Chuck. If there is a heaven and part of the Christian legacy is our compassion then wouldn't Hell be out of sight and therefore out of mind? Or to put it another way, what Christian could feel joy at the sight of others in Hell?
In another thread there's a discussion about the chances or odds of Saddam going to Heaven if he repented and accepted Christ. One has to view his last letter as a first step towards redemption and therefore he might make it if one stretches the evelope just a touch.
That alone would be reason enough to believe that those in Heaven would have no memories of life on earth. Can you imagine the ruckus God would have on His hands if John Brown walked into Robert E Lee? How about Martin Luther bumping into a couple of Popes at the bowling green?
I personally believe Heaven has to be a helluva place. Logic is simple. We get the warm fuzzies when we achieve. You can't achieve without a challenge. The greater the challenge the bigger and better the warm fuzzies when we overcome the challenge.
Therefore, Heaven must be a helluva place. To be that wonderful a place it must have the toughest challenges imaginable.>
Chuck said: I really fail to understand why a belief in an afterlife would cause this nun to forgive...Actually, it seems to me that a belief in an afterlife would make her more likely to affirm that she would see them burn in hell.
Well, that is one opinion about it.
Also, just because Christians are concerned about the hereafter, it does not negate their concern about the here and now. Christians do much for the poor, downtrodden, sick, etc., which does indicate a present concern about this world and those in it.>
Gretchen, Christians do a lot of wonderful things for a lot of people. Some of the most giving and loving people that I know are Christians.
But, Christians don't hold title to goodness and charity. A lot of atheists are also charitable and loving. Islam suggests charity as good for the soul as do a lot of other faiths. Judaism suggests between ten and twenty percent of income should be shared with charitable causes.
It would be nice if we could look at Christians and see they're the only good people on the face of the earth.
But we can't. All we can see is Christians are human beings first and foremost. That means they're a package of good and bad just like everyone else.>
harvey,
Thank you for your prompt reply. I was busy watching bowl games all day, so I just got to reading through the posts from today. Several things I wanted to address.
"But back in the day we did have some great conversations. He showed great patience with me as I honed my faith against his and vice versa."
I like what you say here about "honing your faith" together. I've learned more about my Catholic faith from a Bible study which I used to help lead that was almost exclusively populated by Calvinists (and one Oneness Pentecostal) than I have from almost any other source. I find I grow most in faith through conflict (Marquess of Queensberry rules and all that of course) with intelligent people who disagree.
"When we accept, say your faith, aren't we indulging in the ultimate conceit? After all, you're assuming that you're of divine nature and so special as to have been created by God for a purpose, right?"
I'm willing to entertain the motion, though I doubt it will go through. If faith were as you here suggest, I'd be a lot better at it than I am. I would rather suggest that faith is the most humbling thing that there is. Without a God, I exist without any special purpose, which means I may give myself any purpose I like. Even if I elect to give myself a noble purpose, it is still essentially my own, and not something to which I am obliged.
Christianity, by contrast, speaks to me in terms of "must" and "ought." God has a will for me, and I must follow it, deviating at my own peril. For me, I didn't truly embrace this (indeed, in truth I haven't fully embraced it even yet, but even St. Paul called himself "chief of sinners") until I was brought into submission to the Catholic Church. To accept that authority and bow my proud head before truth proclaimed infallibly was the most humbling experience of my life and I still sting from the blow.
"Now isn't the true power that you refer to as having opportunity for evil little more than escaping responsibility for one's actions?"
I don't think it is. It's about realizing that there's something above and beyond you, yet at the same time deep, deep inside you. It's about the humility that conquers continents. It's really indescribable, frankly. Perhaps the best I can say in terms of why religion has such strong motivating power is to speak from my own life.
From as long as I can recall, I've always been a supremely emotional person - not in the negative sense of "boy, he's getting really emotional" (at least I don't think so), but just that I have very strong feelings about almost everything, unless I just don't care about it at all. Over the years, I've been committed to various ideas, groups, causes, etc. It may (or may not) surprise you to know that in high school I was an avid anarchist, and I still own almost all of the works of Prince Peter Kropotkin (whose autobiography "Memoirs of a Revolutionist" I highly recommend). I have been variously committed to the labour movement, gay rights, anarchism, and an assortment of sports teams - those I still am committed to at a likely-unhealthy level. For all of these I feel very strongly and have gotten into heated discussions, even with close friends, over them all. Nothing has ever moved me deeper or more powerfully, though, than Jesus Christ. I can't describe it, it's just like a new level of feeling is opened up. This, I hasten to add, hardly proves the truth of my faith, only its power. I hope this is somewhat helpful in explaining what I mean.
Chuck -
"Personally, I think compassion is a more universal basis for living than is any creed. One's creed is so much an accident of birth. Compassion trancends creed."
I will hardly object to extolling the virtues of compassion - agape in the Greek scriptures. However, compassion can hardly transcend creed. It simply isn't possible. Compassion needs creed to tell it what to do.
For example, give a Catholic and an abortionist a pregnant and frightened young woman. The (ideal) Catholic would seek to sooth her fears, work to provide her with a way out, either through adoption or by helping her be in a situation where she would be able to have the child safely and raise it decently. Above all, out of deep compassion for the child, the (ideal) Catholic would do all that was legitimately in his/her power to prevent an abortionist.
The abortionist, meanwhile, would, seeking only to help the woman with a problem and calm her fears, abort the child.
Now both of these people acted out of deep and profound compassion, but their conflicting creeds produce irreconciliable outcomes. The same could be said of a thousand matters. Compassion can only act once it has a sense of what the situation is.
So, as I said to begin, I will be the last to object to the lauding of compassion. But let us not give compassion more than its due.>
Rjak, we could become friends. I was glad to see USC win, almost as glad as I was last year to see UT take the Rose Bowl and National Championship. And even though one of my grandchildren went to OU for awhile and another is destined for glory there I was pulling for the little guy last night.
When you referred to the Oneness Christian I had to smile. Few Christians and even fewer people know about them. For the unknowing the Oneness Christians believe that the only ones going to Heaven have been baptized in Jesus name only. That's emersed in water and no mention of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Jesus' name only because Jesus said so. Everyone else is Hell bound no matter how good of a person or Christian they might have been.
Without a God, I exist without any special purpose, which means I may give myself any purpose I like. Even if I elect to give myself a noble purpose, it is still essentially my own, and not something to which I am obliged.
Rjak, what is the difference between you as a Christian and your neighbor who isn't? Isn't it knowledge?
Your behavior is based upon your knowledge about your faith. Your faith-knowledge is the regulator of your behavior.
I'm no different. That's why people assume I'm a Christian all the time. I share their enthusiasm for life and I'd like to think I'm a good person and my demeanor reflects it. So Christians automatically assume I'm a Christian because they see the same morality and feel the kindred spirit.
Like you my behavior is regulated by knowledge-faith. This is true of everyone btw. Knowledge is the force that regulates our emotional impulses.
Christianity, by contrast, speaks to me in terms of "must" and "ought." God has a will for me, and I must follow it, deviating at my own peril. For me, I didn't truly embrace this (indeed, in truth I haven't fully embraced it even yet, but even St. Paul called himself "chief of sinners") until I was brought into submission to the Catholic Church. To accept that authority and bow my proud head before truth proclaimed infallibly was the most humbling experience of my life and I still sting from the blow.
Knowledge is the great humbler. I'm sure you've heard more than once, "the more I learn, the less I know." That's a paraphrase but a reality for all of us. Just like you I too become smaller as I become larger.
It's about realizing that there's something above and beyond you, yet at the same time deep, deep inside you. It's about the humility that conquers continents. It's really indescribable, frankly. Perhaps the best I can say in terms of why religion has such strong motivating power is to speak from my own life.
Now you're talking. It's what I've been trying to get Gretchen to say instead of falling back on quotes.
I'd like you to consider something. Look at others who are where you're at and they've arrived there without the benefit of the Catholic Church or even a belief in Christ.
The Dali LLama shares the peace and confidence of purpose that we see in the Pope and other holy men. Sages of all stripes reflect that same peace that comes with acceptance of place and purpose.
The big commonality is the acceptance of place and purpose. Look at people who reflect peace and happiness and you will see if you focus that they're happy because they accept their place and it has purpose.
Isn't that what your faith in Christ gives you?
Could it be possible that I'm there also?
Thanks again for the great replies. I especially appreciate your responses because they bring out the best in me. I like that.>
Compassion needs creed to tell it what to do.
You are correct that compassion (feel-with) does not dictate one's reaction -- only the attempt to understand/feel-with another person or group. And there are two ways to conceive of another's feelings and reasoning: one is projection; the other is empathy. But that's another discussion.
Compassion needs creed...
I'd expand/secularize that from creed to philosophy or virtue.>
Obsess much?>
Harvey,
"Rjak, we could become friends. I was glad to see USC win, almost as glad as I was last year to see UT take the Rose Bowl and National Championship. And even though one of my grandchildren went to OU for awhile and another is destined for glory there I was pulling for the little guy last night."
We certainly could, though cheering against my school in the Rose Bowl won't help. :) I was happy to see Boise State pull it out, though, that was a classic game indeed.
"When you referred to the Oneness Christian I had to smile. Few Christians and even fewer people know about them. For the unknowing the Oneness Christians believe that the only ones going to Heaven have been baptized in Jesus name only. That's emersed in water and no mention of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Jesus' name only because Jesus said so. Everyone else is Hell bound no matter how good of a person or Christian they might have been."
Oneness Pentecostalism definitely is a phenomenon that seems to me to be largely under the radar. If you (or anyone else still reading this combox) are interested in learning more about it, there are some interesting debates between Oneness & Trinitarian folks at http://www.goodpreaching.com/media/index.php?q=f&f=%2FDebates .
"Rjak, what is the difference between you as a Christian and your neighbor who isn't? Isn't it knowledge?"
To a certain extent, yes. Knowledge is important. However, it's more than that. There are things I know in my mind are wrong that I still do. There's also the Spirit and the power of prayer. Without those, I can know my moral theology as well as anyone and burn, and many of the most pious saints who are now at their rest knew little enough intellectually, but lived a holy life of faith to God. Knowledge is certainly important and needed, but even the demons believe - and tremble.
"Knowledge is the great humbler. I'm sure you've heard more than once, "the more I learn, the less I know." That's a paraphrase but a reality for all of us. Just like you I too become smaller as I become larger."
Certainly true. Right now, I'm starting to look into grad schools to attend in the area of early Christian studies, and the breadth of the field and depth of knowledge and research that is required to make a name for oneself really frightens me at times. I'm starting to learn (both in terms of scholarship and of faith) that I don't need to speak with a magisterial voice myself. For scholarship, there will always be a better expert than I, and for faith, that's what Holy Mother Church is for.
"The big commonality is the acceptance of place and purpose. Look at people who reflect peace and happiness and you will see if you focus that they're happy because they accept their place and it has purpose."
I'm not sure that's the only major commonality, but it certainly is one of them. Remember, though, in terms of what I'm saying about the power of religion to motivate, I am not neccessarily arguing for its truth. That's why I say any creed, even the demonic creed of the Thugees, can motivate more deeply than post-modern relativism. That's why I fear a showdown with Islam. I don't know enough politics to say whether or not its likely, but in a head-on conflict, the ones with the creed will usually win.
"Isn't that what your faith in Christ gives you?"
As I often find myself saying to you, yes, but. Yes, I certainly do find peace and purpose with the Christian faith. However, that's not all. I also find hope that, through the love of God, I may one day enter the company of the saints and, in the words of Julian of Norwich, "all will be well, and all will be well, and all manner of things will be well."
Beyond that, I would find neither peace, nor purpose, nor hope in the Catholic faith if I did not believe it to be objectively true.>
Remember, though, in terms of what I'm saying about the power of religion to motivate, I am not neccessarily arguing for its truth. That's why I say any creed, even the demonic creed of the Thugees, can motivate more deeply than post-modern relativism. That's why I fear a showdown with Islam.
I'd like you to think about something rjak. Isn't the failure of creeds their lack of relativism?
What you refer to as creeds work only in situations where simple black and white answers are acceptable. These situations are always situational and temporary.
Relativism works because it empowers the individual. It's about personal responsibility. It's about empowering the individual for life and all of it's challenges. Creeds don't do this, they're single focused and fail when the pressure isn't against that point of focus.
A classic example of this is Biblical teachings on child rearing. The Biblical answer to child rearing issues is "spare the rod and spoil the child" or as in Leviticus, "stone the little brat".
We know that violence begats violence and that beating the bejeezus out of the kids is counterproductive. The best and most successful forms of child rearing involve catering to the needs and personality of the individual. Every parent learns that from the get go. One child might react to a positive gesture and another might not. That's relativism in action, up close and personal, working.
You can extrapolate that to your relationships at work or even out to world affairs. Creeds fail because they're not designed to compromise, compromise is relativism.
Rod advocates creed for child rearing.
But he concedes to relativism at work and in his relationships with friends and family.
Why is that? Could it because he's forced to do so because he's dealing with equals? Isn't that relativism? Isn't it about negotiating because that's the only option available?
Now what is the best lesson Rod could give his children about life in the real world? Is it creed or would it be better to initiate them as early as possible to the rules and advantages of negotiating? Relativism?
Or even better, what would Rod want those nasty Iranian kids to be taught? Would he want them to be taught creed or relativism?
Good for the goose works for the gander and is especially benficial to the goslings alive and well.>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.