An irreverent discourse on religion

 

An irreverent discourse on religion  

#1: The first question is: Is there something beyond our comprehension that relates to the existence and functioning of the universe?

Answer: Yes, Why should we think that humans, limited as they are to comprehending only three dimensions, could not be ignorant of some kind of bigger picture? We don’t know what we cannot know, so we must acknowledge this possibility. We cannot judge it in the light of our logic or experience, because it goes beyond that.

So, I conclude, it is not implausible, but we just don’t know.

#2: The second question: Does this imply anything about the nature of that transcendental power, call it God, that we acknowledge is both possible and about which we can know nothing?

Answer: Absolutely not. It certainly does not imply anything about the nature of some posited (assumed) super powerful being. There is no connection between #1 and claims about the nature of God.

Technically, #1 is necessary, but, in no way, sufficient, for anything specific about God.

#3. What then is the status of religious teachings?

Answer: These are of the nature of social myths – social mythology is incredibly significant in how societies function and are able to cope with difficult things.

But these religious teachings are not matters about which we can have no judgement. They are framed in human terms, relate to human experience, appeal, when it suits their protagonists, to human logic and so on. They are about specifics, not about the vague proposition of a transcendental power as in #1. There is no bridge between #1 and these specifics.

#4: So what are some of the specifics? God is distinguish by three remarkable characteristics.

a.  God is all-good. (omnibenevolent)

b.     God is all-powerful (omnipotent)

c.      God is all-knowing (omniscient)

 Two things can be immediately said about these three attributes.

1.     Where do they come from? I honestly have no idea. They seem to be made up to suit the narrative. The most common answer is that these attributes and many other things, are revealed by God to us, in texts and in oral laws passed down. This proposition will be examined later.

2.     They are contradictory. Not all three of them can be true at the same time; at most two of them can be simultaneously true, using human logic. 

#5. The contradictions (inconsistencies)

b and c are possible. It is possible for God to be all knowing and all powerful. No contradiction. But while there is no contradiction, their joint occurrence is incompatible with the existence of free choice, which is an absolutely necessary condition of individual human responsibility. If we include in “all-knowing” knowledge of the future, which is definitely part of Jewish religious belief, then God knows what each of us will choose at every point in our lives. This means that, in a fundamental sense, our actions are already predetermined, even though we don’t know it. We have only the illusion, but not the reality, of free choice. For true choice, the future must be not only unknown, but undetermined. For choice to be truly free, it must be possible that God can be surprised by it, does not know which of any alternatives we will choose. Only then does it make sense to hold individuals responsible for their actions, for their bad choices. Otherwise, they simply choose what God made them choose by the way he made them. 

a and b cannot occur together unless we mean something very different by the word “good”, something absurd and perverse.  Experience tells us that some very bad things happen. If God is all powerful, he could prevent this. If he were all-good, he would prevent this. The occurrence of bad things, suggests that either a or b can be true, but not both. God may be all-powerful but not all-good in that he allows bad things to happen. Or, more attractively, God may be all-good, but helpless to prevent bad things from happening. 

Some people try to defend against these conclusions by changing the meaning of “good”. Things just appear bad to us limited humans, but, actually “everything happens for the good”. This saves the logic, but perverts its meaning. For many people, it is just not believable and is perverse. Why would a merciful God subject innocent people to suffering for some “greater good” about which they are ignorant? Equally perverse is the idea that this is one of the things that God knows but we cannot know. This is an unsatisfying, all-purpose answer that stifles all further inquiry. It can apply to any question. If God made us in his image and as reasoning beings, why would he present us with such a stark contradiction and not give us any explanation? 

a and c can occur together. It is possible for God to be all knowing and all-good, while being helpless to prevent bad things, as with a and b. 

So, obviously, a,b and c cannot logically occur together, cannot be simultaneously true. 

#6. The origins of religious beliefs. (I will confine myself to Judaism, but the analysis applies to any organized religion.) 

In addition to the three attributes of God discussed above, religious teachings contain a large number of commandments, prohibitions, and historical narratives. These commandments and prohibitions intrude into every aspect of individual life. The historical narratives serve, in large part, as sources and exemplars of the moral commandments and prohibitions.  What is the ultimate source and justification of these narratives, prohibitions and commandments? 

The answer is that all is revealed to us by God himself in holy texts or by oral law passed down over the generations, until they too were written in canonical texts. Note how far this is from #1. 

According to the biblical text, the most important revelation occurred at Mt. Sinai in the presence of hundreds of thousands of witnesses. Previous and later communication between God and other individuals occur in other places. What is the source of this claim? The text itself tells of its revelation by God. So, credibility for the text as divine is supposedly provided by the authority of the text itself, including the existence of the corroborating witnesses. In short, we have an argument supported by its assumptions. 

Apart from this, the divine nature of the various texts considered part of the definitive source of all Jewish law, halacha, is highly implausible given some of its characteristics.

1. 1.Numerous contradictions and inconsistencies in both narrative and reasoning regarding laws. In fact these inconsistencies provide much of the material for extended discussion in commentary by the sages (rabbis) leading to their reconciliation. From the start, since the text is considered to be divine, the inconsistencies must be apparent and not real. We, humans have been misled by our limited understanding and need wise rabbis to provide the reconciliations formed by their superior understanding of the definitive texts.
2. 2.   The historical accuracy of some of the narrative is questionable. Perhaps the most obvious is the assertion that the planet is less than 6,000 years old.
3. 3.   Textual analysis of the various texts suggests they were written over a long period of time by different people. The styles and language structures are different.
4. 4.  At numerous places in the biblical texts supernatural forces are reported, such as the splitting of the sea, the halting of the passage of the sun to allow Joshua to complete his invasion, Jacob wrestling with an angel, etc. Such supernatural occurrences are posited to have ceased at some point and are no longer part of our world. This strains belief. 

The most plausible assumption is that these texts are an impressive combination of moral allegories, historical narratives, and law (the commentaries) drawn from the history and the allegorical stories – one that provides a comprehensive guide to everyday life, but also to religious belief and mandatory ritual.

#7. Considering the details of halacha, the obligations upon each individual – from a moral and common-sense perspective. 

There are too many considerations for a comprehensive analysis. A shorter selection of examples must suffice. 

On the morality of certain precepts and practices, in light of modern western sensibilities.

The role of women. Clearly women are regarded as lesser citizens in the strict canon of the law. They cannot act as witnesses in religious matters. Husbands have the sole right to initiate a divorce, which can create agunot, women trapped against their will in marriages by their husbands. It is true that historically the treatment of women by Jewish law was ahead of its time, but not now. 

The role of non-Jews. Jews are considered to be a special species of humanity, and many practices incorporate this, perhaps the most prominent being the ban against intermarriage. It is based on Jewish birth (or conversion, which is interpreted as the revelation of a hidden “Jewish soul”). As such, there is an unfortunate (but maybe understandable) racial element to it. 

Intrusions into private life – some of it offends morally, some are just a matter of preference. But as commandments that could be enforced if Jewish authorities had the power they are troubling. Some examples, attitudes toward sexual relations – the control of the schedule couples are obliged to follow, the prohibition of masturbation, the uncompromising attitude toward homosexuality (the blind denial that it is a biological fact), essentially condemning gay people to lives of isolation and shame. The prohibition of women singing in public. There are noticeable differences among religious practitioners on some of these, some claiming they are implied by biblical and commentary sources, others considering them as binding customs, and others not accepting them. 

There is much more that can be said, but this is enough to illustrate why many thinking people would struggle to accept the full body of strictures as aspects of the divine revelation of a God that is all-good. 

Matters of common sense. Compulsory rituals from organized prayer to multiple individual blessings to be pronounced for just about everything. For some people, it defies comprehension why an infinitely powerful, knowledgeable, confident God, would require of the humans he created that they continually, repeatedly, affirm his greatness, kindness, and any other possible virtue one can think of; why he would demand magical restrictions on their eating habits, why he would command binding restrictions on their work habits to the point of prescribing stoning and other punishment for their violations. 

#8. The source of morality.

A particularly weak form of argument suggests that, in the absence of this corpus of laws and practices, there would be no moral structure to the social world. If morality is not revealed to us by some superior moral authority, we would be free to make it up. There would be no limits to what we could consider as moral and there could be moral chaos. 

This is an argument that presumes its conclusion. It starts, by implication, with the idea that a moral system is necessary, in other words is moral. One is tempted to ask, what moral system tells you that a moral system is necessary? But, that is only one of its problems. The other, more important, problem is that it is false. It suggests that humans can escape the subjective choice about what is and what is not moral, right and wrong. This choice cannot be escaped. Morality is inescapably, and always, a subjective matter. The “decision” to accept what is claimed to have been revealed is a subjective choice. The religious believer will be repeatedly challenged by any apparent contradiction between what his conscience tells him, and what his religious text tells him is right or wrong. He has to choose. Mostly he chooses to find some compromise that makes it seem as if there is no contradiction. Other times he may choose to accept the religious view and suspend the “ignorant” inclinations of his conscience. But he cannot avoid the choice. 

A modern view is to face up to the fact that all morality ultimately comes from one's conscience (certainly influenced by experience and culture), and act accordingly. 

#9. Other possible approaches to religious teaching -  my own view of the matter. 

Overall, organized religions like Judaism, are the result of millennia of social evolution as humans have striven to deal with their dangerous, uncertain and exciting lives. A child in need of protection and reassurance resides within all of us. So we have invented a perpetual parent, who knows better and helps us make sense of it all. And it works surprisingly well for the majority of humanity. It provides valuable insights through biblical allegories that contain eternal truths about human nature, it embodies great insight in its commentaries, it provides beautiful literature and poetry, grandiose visions, beautiful music. Humanity would be worse off without the sublime teachings of the Jewish tradition on justice, tolerance and love. 

But, equally, it contains unfortunate anachronisms that should be and often are abandoned. And some religions, or versions of religions, like Islamism, should be vigorously combatted. Until modern times, pretty much all major wars were fought in the name of religion. 

Bottom line: religion can be a great source of morality, inspiration, and stability. But it can also be a source of massive intolerance destruction and brutality. The key is this: 

Religion is likely to be a force for good as long as it does not have the power to compel, as long as it remains a lifestyle choice and not a state enforced legal system. Judaism lost it state power with the destruction of the second temple and became a religion without priestly or governmental power. Perhaps that is the secret of its relative tolerance.