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.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. 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. 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. 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.
