1. Meaning, Religion, and our Modern World
Starting from today I will attempt to address a few of the questions that has plagued the philosophy and religion departments for many decades: Does religious belief hold no relevance to the modern world? Are altruistic philosophies outdated? Are we nothing more than selfish egoists who should just give up on the search for meaning? Can all meaningful activity be reduced to how much I can benefit myself? Are personal religious beliefs deluded and dangerous?
To be honest, many before me have answered these questions, and many have answered negatively to the aforementioned questions. Starting from this new post, I will present a series of thoughts that aim to be firstly, entertaining, and hopefully on another level, thought-provoking. I am also going to present both religious and philosophical arguments, from East and West that refute notions of selfishness, moral apathy, and egoism. Finally, I will add my own humble opinion on such refutations, and explain why they are important to us.
I would like to concentrate on religion and philosophy because these are probably the two aspects of human existence that matter most to people. Even atheists, in their denial of a living God, will worship science, elevating it to a monopoly on truth. Another reason why I am concentrating on these two is because they are the only human concepts that can grant true lasting satisfaction. Why? In the First World people are even less satisfied and happy than their predecessors - we can assume, then, that faster cars, hot wet sex, and a huge stock portfolio do not constitute the good life - although they certainly add to it.
No matter what age of history, someone lying on his deathbed will not look back and count proudly the number of lovers he has had, nor will he eagerly ask the doctor if his six-pack abs are still around. He will hope that he was a good child to his parents, a good husband or lover, and a good guardian to those younger and weaker than him. Sometimes, the less time he has devoted himself to helping and protecting those who would need or deserve his attention, the more desperate he will be when he nears death. So more than anything, a firm faith in his achievements and his ability to help others is crucial. All kinds of religions and philosophies come to you promising to give you meaning, lend you strength, and grant you fulfilment. As such powerful agents they cannot be ignored. So the first thing for the individual is to discern what they truly need out of a religion or philosophy. However, as with all endeavours of life, one needs knowledge of the path, and the faith to embark on it. How can one achieve a harmony of these two 'opposites'? Are they irreconcilable?
In the modern world, a growing number of people hold Reason, Logic and Science as the paramount prerequisites to happiness, and ironically in my view, as new objects of worship. It seems to prove the ancient theologian Tertullian's remark: "What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?" By Athens, he meant the bastion of Greek and classical Western civilization, and by Jerusalem, he meant Christianity. At first glance, he is right. During the Middle Ages when the Catholic Church's intellectual grip over Europe was strongest there was almost no opportunity for free thought or scientific discovery. Conversely, nowadays many will say that they would rather flick on an electric switch for light than pray to some invisible God for it.
I argue that one needs to have a balance between Reason and Faith, Logic and Emotion. Some will argue that emotions are unreliable and one should totally rely on logic. I can understand why. Human achievement has relied a lot more on logic than simple emotion. But we still fall in love. We still have children. We still laugh, cry, hate, hurt. Even the most cynical and calculating of men leave behind their descendants. What does that say about the indestructibility of emotion in the human condition? Faith, therefore, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, "falls between knowledge and opinion." By opinion he not only meant the subjective biases every unenlightened individual has, but also that faith cannot be simple fact, or it would simply be knowledge. Faith must appeal to the heart. And such an appeal is far more powerful than a simple appeal to knowledge. A religious hymn sung in exultation is far more inspiring and uplifting than a bland, "3 + 6 = 9".
How can we have faith without becoming deluded, and how can we have knowledge without becoming neutered machines? I will address these questions, and more, in no particular order, in my next posts.
Finally, I would like to point out that the concepts I am using are mostly from Christian theology and Western philosophy. I am not Christian, and I do not believe Western philosophy has contributed more to human flourishing than the philosophies from the Middle East, India, China, Tibet or Japan. However, such common terminology and concepts will be most useful at this early stage. In a few posts I will bring in Buddhist terminology and concepts to help with my arguments. Why? The answer is simple and is probably my greatest incentive for using Buddhist concepts: The West has never experienced anything like Buddhism. It blurs the line between Faith and Reason even more. It is not "scientific" - practices like meditation can only be experienced subjectively - but it is atheistic. While some schools of Buddhism revere divine beings, others do not. So in these ways, the West has had a much harder time understanding Buddhism than Christianity or modern science. As a balance between Faith and Reason, however, Buddhism can be very useful.
Until next time, have faith.
To be honest, many before me have answered these questions, and many have answered negatively to the aforementioned questions. Starting from this new post, I will present a series of thoughts that aim to be firstly, entertaining, and hopefully on another level, thought-provoking. I am also going to present both religious and philosophical arguments, from East and West that refute notions of selfishness, moral apathy, and egoism. Finally, I will add my own humble opinion on such refutations, and explain why they are important to us.
I would like to concentrate on religion and philosophy because these are probably the two aspects of human existence that matter most to people. Even atheists, in their denial of a living God, will worship science, elevating it to a monopoly on truth. Another reason why I am concentrating on these two is because they are the only human concepts that can grant true lasting satisfaction. Why? In the First World people are even less satisfied and happy than their predecessors - we can assume, then, that faster cars, hot wet sex, and a huge stock portfolio do not constitute the good life - although they certainly add to it.
No matter what age of history, someone lying on his deathbed will not look back and count proudly the number of lovers he has had, nor will he eagerly ask the doctor if his six-pack abs are still around. He will hope that he was a good child to his parents, a good husband or lover, and a good guardian to those younger and weaker than him. Sometimes, the less time he has devoted himself to helping and protecting those who would need or deserve his attention, the more desperate he will be when he nears death. So more than anything, a firm faith in his achievements and his ability to help others is crucial. All kinds of religions and philosophies come to you promising to give you meaning, lend you strength, and grant you fulfilment. As such powerful agents they cannot be ignored. So the first thing for the individual is to discern what they truly need out of a religion or philosophy. However, as with all endeavours of life, one needs knowledge of the path, and the faith to embark on it. How can one achieve a harmony of these two 'opposites'? Are they irreconcilable?
In the modern world, a growing number of people hold Reason, Logic and Science as the paramount prerequisites to happiness, and ironically in my view, as new objects of worship. It seems to prove the ancient theologian Tertullian's remark: "What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?" By Athens, he meant the bastion of Greek and classical Western civilization, and by Jerusalem, he meant Christianity. At first glance, he is right. During the Middle Ages when the Catholic Church's intellectual grip over Europe was strongest there was almost no opportunity for free thought or scientific discovery. Conversely, nowadays many will say that they would rather flick on an electric switch for light than pray to some invisible God for it.
I argue that one needs to have a balance between Reason and Faith, Logic and Emotion. Some will argue that emotions are unreliable and one should totally rely on logic. I can understand why. Human achievement has relied a lot more on logic than simple emotion. But we still fall in love. We still have children. We still laugh, cry, hate, hurt. Even the most cynical and calculating of men leave behind their descendants. What does that say about the indestructibility of emotion in the human condition? Faith, therefore, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, "falls between knowledge and opinion." By opinion he not only meant the subjective biases every unenlightened individual has, but also that faith cannot be simple fact, or it would simply be knowledge. Faith must appeal to the heart. And such an appeal is far more powerful than a simple appeal to knowledge. A religious hymn sung in exultation is far more inspiring and uplifting than a bland, "3 + 6 = 9".
How can we have faith without becoming deluded, and how can we have knowledge without becoming neutered machines? I will address these questions, and more, in no particular order, in my next posts.
Finally, I would like to point out that the concepts I am using are mostly from Christian theology and Western philosophy. I am not Christian, and I do not believe Western philosophy has contributed more to human flourishing than the philosophies from the Middle East, India, China, Tibet or Japan. However, such common terminology and concepts will be most useful at this early stage. In a few posts I will bring in Buddhist terminology and concepts to help with my arguments. Why? The answer is simple and is probably my greatest incentive for using Buddhist concepts: The West has never experienced anything like Buddhism. It blurs the line between Faith and Reason even more. It is not "scientific" - practices like meditation can only be experienced subjectively - but it is atheistic. While some schools of Buddhism revere divine beings, others do not. So in these ways, the West has had a much harder time understanding Buddhism than Christianity or modern science. As a balance between Faith and Reason, however, Buddhism can be very useful.
Until next time, have faith.
posted by Raymond at Tuesday, August 01, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home