Of all the peculiarities of English translations of the Bible, none is, in my option, as irreverent as the consistent and purposeful omission of the Divine Name. In fact, the casual reader could be forgiven for thinking it has no biblical basis at all, supposing perhaps that it is a later creation of the Jewish mystics. Quite the opposite in fact - it occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures over 6000 times - and yet in the King James version, and most other translations since, it appears in only four places.
Why this is so is the subject of some speculation. One theory is that the Hebrew word for "blaspheme" is also a word in Aramaic, which was the language used in Babylon during the time of the captivity. However, in Aramaic, it doesn't mean "blaspheme", it means "pronounce". Others contend that the priesthood explicitly forbid the use of the divine name in public during this period for fear that the heathens might learn it and subject it to abuse, although the name was still uttered by the high priest during temple services until the 2nd century AD. There was also a medieval superstition that if anyone pronounced the "true name" of something they would be able to control it - and that if anyone pronounced God's true name, the resulting paradox would destroy the Universe. Whatever the reasons behind the fear, many Jews today not only substitute "Adonai" (meaning, simply, "lord") for the divine name, but have in turn come to fear pronouncing "Adonai" as well, replacing it with something else. Sometimes they even write the English words "God" and "Lord" without the vowels, as "G-d" and "L-rd", just in case.
There are actually several words used for God in the old testament:
El Elyon "God Most High". The word "El" sometimes also takes a variety of other adjectives that describe the divine nature. Used on its own, "el" simply means "god" in the general sense, and is also used when speaking of the gods of other religions. "El" was also the proper name of the father god of the Canaanite pantheon - the very same bearded chap I mentioned before. Despite the name, it is not the same God, as much as some would like to think so.
Elohim literally "Powers" or "Strengths", usually translated in English simply as "God". This word often takes the definite article, which means it's not a proper name as such, although it is used to mean God with a capital G. Interestingly, although the word is grammatically singular, it is morphologically plural, which leads some to conclude that it is proof that Judaism was originally polytheistic. In fact, the only thing it proves is that some people don't know a lot about Hebrew grammar (it's about as sequitur as concluding that "vice" is the plural of "vouse"), although to add confusion to confusion, it is sometimes used as a plural (cf. "sheep", "fish") and also has a singular form "eloah". Eloah is grammatically masculine, yes even though it ends in "h". Some New Age types just want any excuse to believe in a Goddess. Its plural is Elohim. If the H was a feminine ending it would pluralise to Elowoth, silly. (Also consider "Behemoth", which is morphologically feminine plural and yet is most definitely masculine and single.)
YHVH is the proper name of God, also known as the Tetragrammaton (because it's got four letters), and rendered in most English translations simply as "the LORD". The thing about ancient Hebrew is that it was written without any vowels in it. The Hebrew alphabet consists entirely out of consonants (although it contains a couple of "silent" letters for when you want to start a syllable with a vowel, and the semi-vowels Y and W(V)), vowel points not being introduced until the middle ages - and people had long since stopped saying the name by then. Scribes of the time added the vowel points of the word "Adonai", indicating you were actually meant to say "Adonai" whenever you saw "YHVH", which lead early English translators to conclude the pronunciation was "Jehovah". Modern scholars now typically agree that "Yahweh" is more likely, but there's no real way to be sure. Etymology would shed some light on it, but nobody is entirely sure of that either. It looks like the Hebrew verb "to be" (hayah), 3rd person (hoveh), imperfective aspect (yehoveh)... but it might not be, although a lot of Hebrew names are verbs in the 3rd person. (English doesn't have the imperfective aspect, so a literal translation is impossible, but it indicates that an action is ongoing or continuous, so an approximate translation could be "He is [continually] existing" or "The Existing One").
It is therefore quite easy to see how things can get lost in translation. But why am I going on about all this? You might well ask. And it's because I wish to trace the worship of the god of the Christians, the god of the Jews, and the God of the Muslims ("Allah" is from the same root as "El") right back as far as it will go. I hope to show that that is really quite far.
As far as biblical evidence goes, YHVH is the name used in the oldest parts of Genesis (according to the documentary hypothesis) written sometime between 950 B.C. and 750 B.C. The Mesha Stele, a record of a Moabite victory over Israel from 850 B.C., not only confirms the existence of the nation of Israel at that time, but also contains the Tetragrammaton. The Merneptah Stele is the earliest written record of Israel, dating from 1208 B.C., although it indicates that Isreal was not actually a nation at that time, but was nevertheless a social entity worth mentioning. The oldest inscription of the divine name as we would recognise it appears on a 15th century B.C. record of peoples of the Transjordan, in the line "Yhw in the land of the Shasu". "Shasu" was an egyptian word for "wanderers" or "nomads". Some have suggested that the Shasu mentioned here were actually the Israelites, although according to their depiction that seems unlikely. However, the Shasu could possibly be identified with the Edomites, as another egyptian source mentions "shasu-tribes of Edom". According to the Bible, the Edomites were descended from Esau, the brother of Jacob/Israel, son of Isaac. Whether these were real individuals or not, a common origin might account for the two peoples sharing a common name of God. (Muslim and Jewish tradition also maintains that the Arab people were descended from Ishmael, brother of Isaac, son of Abraham.)
Going back any further than that requires a bit of a leap, with analysis from this point being centred around the short form of the divine name, Yah or Yahu, which appears in many Hebrew names (e.g. Isaiah, Elijah). Traditionally, Yah is thought to derive from a shortening of Yahweh, although it might very well be the other way round. Semitic peoples originated in 4th millenium B.C. mesopotamia, and continued there for some time - in fact the semitic Akkadian language became the dominant language of the region, gradually replacing Sumerian during the 2nd millenium (although Sumerian continued as an official and ceremonial language even into the first century AD). There are also clear cultural parallels between Jewish mythology and tradition and that of ancient mesopotamia. I've already mentioned the flood story, but that's just the start of it. I've also mentioned the fact that the Hebrew word for "God" was also the name of the head god of the Ugaritic pantheon. Ugarit, which was in modern-day Syria, went into decline after 1200 B.C. while the Hebrews left Mesopotamia for Egypt sometime between 2000 B.C. and 1700 B.C., and didn't get back until about 1300B.C.. Some have drawn a comparison between Yah and the Ugaritic sea god Yam/Yaw - although there is no evidence for any etymological connection, and the roles of the two gods are very different in the two mythologies, making such an identification difficult to support. However, Yam's pet dragon Lotan appears to have entered Jewish tradition in the form of Leviathan, possibly owing to the phonetic confusion. Another suggested candidate is the Egyptian moon god Iah, although in this case the original pronunciation is thought to be rather different, and Yahweh has never been portrayed as a moon god.
This leaves us with Ea, the Akkadian God of the underground fresh water. Ea is pronounced as two syllables - eyah. Etymologically, it may be derived from a West Semitic root meaning "life" in this case used for "spring", "running water". Temples to Enki typically featured a pool in front, symbolising the freshwater "Abzu" (or Abyss), a feature which remains today as the baptismal font in churches. Baptism is by no means of Christian origin either - remember Jesus himself was baptised in water - it's an old Jewish purity ritual. (The Sikh scripture also frequently compares God to a pool or river, and see also the Zoroastrian Ab-Zohr) And compare how the prophet Jeremiah describes his god:
Jeremiah 17:13 "O YHVH, the hope of Israel, all who forsake you shall be put to shame; those who turn away from you shall be written in the earth, for they have forsaken YHVH, the fountain of living water."
(See also Revelation 22, Ezekiel 47)
And here we see that the mythology does, in fact, line up. Ea, or under his sumerian name Enki, was the one who warned the hero of the flood story of the flood to come, telling him to build a boat and to "save that which lives". And for what reason did Enki choose to save this particular person, over anyone else?
According to this somewhat fragmentary tablet:
"In those days Zi-ud-sura the king, the gudug priest, ....... He fashioned ....... The humble, committed, reverent ....... Day by day, standing constantly at ......."
The Atrahasis Epic sheds a bit more light on things:
[i.c45] "Since I have always reverenced Enki, he told me this. I can not live in ... Nor can I set my feet on the earth of Enlil. I will dwell with my god in the depths."
Because Enki was the only god he worshipped!
Ea/Enki is also the creator of mankind, the champion of mankind, a kind and noble god who never breaks his promises. He was one of the best-loved gods out of all the Sumerian pantheon, owing to the somewhat unique property of actually giving a monkeys about anyone. Enki, along with Enlil ("Lord of the Command") and An ("High One" - El Elyon?), are the earliest and most important Sumerian gods in the pantheon. His original cult was based at Eridug, the oldest city in the world (~5000 B.C.), which means Enki was possibly the first cult ever, shortly followed by Enlil's Nippur and An's Uruk. Even though An was thought to be Enki's father, it seems he was made up later for the specific reason of being the father to the other two, and doesn't possess a great deal of character in the mythology, neither does he have any particularly exciting roles. What is also interesting is that Enlil is thought by some to have been originally pronounced Ellil. Elohim? In the flood story it was Enlil who decided to send the flood, whereas in Genesis these two parts are rolled into one - the judgmental and the merciful. So it seems as if the God if the Israelites may well be a syncretism of the earliest known divine Triad. Consider also this passage from the Midrash Exodus Rabba:
"Moses wanted to know God's name, and God tells him, 'I am that I am'; that is to say, 'I am called--or to be called-in accordance with my work in this world.' When I judge mankind I am אלהים Elohim, that being the title or designation for judgment. When I war with the wicked I am known as צבאות Zevooth. When I execute judgment for the sins of man I am known as אלשדי El Shadai, and when I am visiting the world with mercy I am אבני or יהוה Adonoi, the Eternal.--Exod. Rabba 3."
YHVH. The first, and the last.
Tuesday, 18 March 2008
Wednesday, 12 March 2008
Requirements
There are three criteria that must be satisfied for any rational religion to attract any serious consideration.
Firstly, it must be believable. That does not rule out myths completely, in fact I would argue stories of a mythical nature are a necessary feature of religion. As I've said already, stories are a very useful way to express certain sorts of ideas - in particular, moral ideas. A philosophy textbook on the subject of ethics just doesn't inspire people's imagination in the same way, and may be a bit too intellectual for some. But it is vitally important that none of the stories blatantly contradict known facts, even when they are presented as fiction. The same goes for any of the more philosophical content. It's more important that it isn't definitely false, than for it to be definitely true.
Secondly, it has to be appealing. It's one thing being believable, but there also has to be some kind of reason why people would want to believe it. A religion of doom and gloom might attract some members, but I'm not sure they would be the sort of people I want to attract. We have to be careful here though, to avoid claims of brainwashing. It's a common technique - "Imagine a future where we're all happy and free to lie in the sun drinking fruit cocktails all day while the lambs just about in the fields! Only Capitalism/Socialism/Humanism/Religion can provide this future!" I'm sure we've all seen it.
Quite often, the appealing aspect is "Heaven" - if we only obey everything the religion says, we get to become immortals in paradise! Appealing an idea as it may be, how much sense does it really make? People frequently associate such things as life after death and reward and punishment within it as almost a defining feature of religion. I have even heard it said "what is the point of doing what God wants if you don't go to Heaven afterwards?" Now, that is exactly the sort of self-centred world-view I wish to avoid, and it was a view quite unknown to the early Jews. To the Old Testament prophets, the reason to do what God wills was very simply because God created all things, and you with it, and that makes him the ultimate authority in the Universe. Just as a child must obey his parents, and a man must obey his king, one and all must obey God, children and kings alike; one does not do what is right for one's own sake - for a reward - but, very simply, because it is right. Not that the early Jews had no concept of reward at all; when being led out of Egypt they were striving towards the "promised land" - but this would not be a reward for themselves in Heaven, but a reward on Earth, for their descendants. This is the sort of world view I would like to emphasize - that mankind has a glorious future on the Earth, and even to the furthest reaches of space, if we don't blow ourselves up first or return to the state of animals; and not for ourselves, but for humanity to come. We may never live to see the day, but if we only take God's Will into our heart, the day will come, because God did not create the world for man to perish.
Thirdly, it has to have authority. The first consequence of that is that it must have a well-defined canon. The content of the canon does not need to be strictly fixed, but there must be a well-defined procedure for changing it, much like a nation's constitution. Also, the status of the canon will not be a set of dogma, but rather, a set of literary works which are considered a useful basis for understanding ethics, the nature of the Universe and of God, and God's relationship with mankind. It is important that any narrative work in the canon is not presented as necessarily literally true, although it may be; indeed some of it is intended as lessons from history.
Another important aspect of authority is antiquity. People have a natural respect for that which is long-standing, if it still holds true to this day. Now this is a difficult one for a new religion, and yet I hope to show that the fundamental ideas within are not new at all, but rather, collated from some very ancient sources. The exact details may be subject to change, of course, but I hope the core principles will remain good. To this end, I will be drawing heavily upon the Judeo-Christian tradition, as well as any other monotheistic religion that comes to mind. I've started reading the Qur'an, and also the Sikh scriptures (and if that's not the same God as the God of the Israelites then call me Dutch and slap me silly). I'll get onto the origins of the God of Israel in my next post, but here's your starter for ten - there is one set of moral principles that runs right through the entire Old Testament:
Psalms (before 400 B.C.)
10:18 "to do justice to the fatherless and the oppressed, so that man who is of the earth may strike terror no more.
82:3 "Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute."
Malachi (486-464 B.C.)
3:5 "Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says YHVH of hosts."
Zechariah (~520 B.C.)
7:9-10 "Thus says YHVH of hosts, Render true judgments, show kindness and mercy to one another, do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor, and let none of you devise evil against another in your heart."
Ezekiel (~590 B.C.)
22:6-7 "Behold, the princes of Israel in you, every one according to his power, have been bent on shedding blood. Father and mother are treated with contempt in you; the sojourner suffers extortion in your midst; the fatherless and the widow are wronged in you."
22:29 "The people of the land have practiced extortion and committed robbery. They have oppressed the poor and needy, and have extorted from the sojourner without justice."
Jeremiah (~600 B.C.)
22:3 "Thus says YHVH: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place."
Deuteronomy (~622 B.C.)
10:18 "He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing."
Isaiah (~735 B.C.)
1:17 "learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause."
(English Standard Version, with Tetragrammaton restored)
Now, here we go...
The building of Ninĝirsu's temple (Gudea, cylinders A and B ~2100 B.C.)
1224-1231. "He paid attention to the justice of Nanše and Ninĝirsu. He provided protection for the orphan against the rich, and provided protection for the widow against the powerful. He had the daughter become the heir in the families without a son. A day of justice dawned for him. He set his foot on the neck of evil ones and malcontents."
Code of Ur-Nammu (~2100 B.C.)
"The orphan was not delivered up to the rich man; the widow was not delivered up to the mighty man; the man of one shekel was not delivered up to the man of one mina."
Firstly, it must be believable. That does not rule out myths completely, in fact I would argue stories of a mythical nature are a necessary feature of religion. As I've said already, stories are a very useful way to express certain sorts of ideas - in particular, moral ideas. A philosophy textbook on the subject of ethics just doesn't inspire people's imagination in the same way, and may be a bit too intellectual for some. But it is vitally important that none of the stories blatantly contradict known facts, even when they are presented as fiction. The same goes for any of the more philosophical content. It's more important that it isn't definitely false, than for it to be definitely true.
Secondly, it has to be appealing. It's one thing being believable, but there also has to be some kind of reason why people would want to believe it. A religion of doom and gloom might attract some members, but I'm not sure they would be the sort of people I want to attract. We have to be careful here though, to avoid claims of brainwashing. It's a common technique - "Imagine a future where we're all happy and free to lie in the sun drinking fruit cocktails all day while the lambs just about in the fields! Only Capitalism/Socialism/Humanism/Religion can provide this future!" I'm sure we've all seen it.
Quite often, the appealing aspect is "Heaven" - if we only obey everything the religion says, we get to become immortals in paradise! Appealing an idea as it may be, how much sense does it really make? People frequently associate such things as life after death and reward and punishment within it as almost a defining feature of religion. I have even heard it said "what is the point of doing what God wants if you don't go to Heaven afterwards?" Now, that is exactly the sort of self-centred world-view I wish to avoid, and it was a view quite unknown to the early Jews. To the Old Testament prophets, the reason to do what God wills was very simply because God created all things, and you with it, and that makes him the ultimate authority in the Universe. Just as a child must obey his parents, and a man must obey his king, one and all must obey God, children and kings alike; one does not do what is right for one's own sake - for a reward - but, very simply, because it is right. Not that the early Jews had no concept of reward at all; when being led out of Egypt they were striving towards the "promised land" - but this would not be a reward for themselves in Heaven, but a reward on Earth, for their descendants. This is the sort of world view I would like to emphasize - that mankind has a glorious future on the Earth, and even to the furthest reaches of space, if we don't blow ourselves up first or return to the state of animals; and not for ourselves, but for humanity to come. We may never live to see the day, but if we only take God's Will into our heart, the day will come, because God did not create the world for man to perish.
Thirdly, it has to have authority. The first consequence of that is that it must have a well-defined canon. The content of the canon does not need to be strictly fixed, but there must be a well-defined procedure for changing it, much like a nation's constitution. Also, the status of the canon will not be a set of dogma, but rather, a set of literary works which are considered a useful basis for understanding ethics, the nature of the Universe and of God, and God's relationship with mankind. It is important that any narrative work in the canon is not presented as necessarily literally true, although it may be; indeed some of it is intended as lessons from history.
Another important aspect of authority is antiquity. People have a natural respect for that which is long-standing, if it still holds true to this day. Now this is a difficult one for a new religion, and yet I hope to show that the fundamental ideas within are not new at all, but rather, collated from some very ancient sources. The exact details may be subject to change, of course, but I hope the core principles will remain good. To this end, I will be drawing heavily upon the Judeo-Christian tradition, as well as any other monotheistic religion that comes to mind. I've started reading the Qur'an, and also the Sikh scriptures (and if that's not the same God as the God of the Israelites then call me Dutch and slap me silly). I'll get onto the origins of the God of Israel in my next post, but here's your starter for ten - there is one set of moral principles that runs right through the entire Old Testament:
Psalms (before 400 B.C.)
10:18 "to do justice to the fatherless and the oppressed, so that man who is of the earth may strike terror no more.
82:3 "Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute."
Malachi (486-464 B.C.)
3:5 "Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says YHVH of hosts."
Zechariah (~520 B.C.)
7:9-10 "Thus says YHVH of hosts, Render true judgments, show kindness and mercy to one another, do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor, and let none of you devise evil against another in your heart."
Ezekiel (~590 B.C.)
22:6-7 "Behold, the princes of Israel in you, every one according to his power, have been bent on shedding blood. Father and mother are treated with contempt in you; the sojourner suffers extortion in your midst; the fatherless and the widow are wronged in you."
22:29 "The people of the land have practiced extortion and committed robbery. They have oppressed the poor and needy, and have extorted from the sojourner without justice."
Jeremiah (~600 B.C.)
22:3 "Thus says YHVH: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place."
Deuteronomy (~622 B.C.)
10:18 "He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing."
Isaiah (~735 B.C.)
1:17 "learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause."
(English Standard Version, with Tetragrammaton restored)
Now, here we go...
The building of Ninĝirsu's temple (Gudea, cylinders A and B ~2100 B.C.)
1224-1231. "He paid attention to the justice of Nanše and Ninĝirsu. He provided protection for the orphan against the rich, and provided protection for the widow against the powerful. He had the daughter become the heir in the families without a son. A day of justice dawned for him. He set his foot on the neck of evil ones and malcontents."
Code of Ur-Nammu (~2100 B.C.)
"The orphan was not delivered up to the rich man; the widow was not delivered up to the mighty man; the man of one shekel was not delivered up to the man of one mina."
Saturday, 8 March 2008
Criticisms Part 2
Yesterday I said a few things about common criticisms of organised religion, and you may be wondering why I am so keen to defend those that already exist considering my motivation to construct a new one. And the reason is, despite the antics of specific organisations and individuals throughout history, the actual scripture of the old religions is in many ways very good and I feel they are often unfairly criticised on account of those who have corrupted their message. That is not to say that everything about them is good, but I will be picking all the best bits for inclusion in the new faith. I will now address a few of the most popular religions more specifically.
Judaism
Judaism is the oldest monotheistic religion still practiced today (possibly the oldest of all religions, although the Vedic scriptures predate the Torah, the actual practice of Judaism goes back a lot further), and as such commands a certain amount of respect. The mistake most people make, however, is that when they start reading the Bible, they start with Genesis. Strange as it may seem, this is absolutely the worst place to start. At the time and place it was written, a lot of things would have been common knowledge - things that the stories don't make a lot of sense without. Understanding Genesis is difficult. And anyone who manages to get through the dry legalistic sections of Leviticus is doing very well indeed.
The other thing about Genesis is that it contains a lot of what seem today as rather fantastic stories. We're all taught about Noah's Ark at primary school, and anyone could be forgiven for putting it in the same basket as Santa Claus as soon as they develop critical awareness. There are a number of subtleties surrounding the story that would go straight over children's heads, and without any background knowledge, it goes over most adult's heads as well. The bit about the Nephilim, for instance, is particularly brief but is actually quite important. But the biggest mistake that people make is in assuming it has to be literally true, and if it can't be, it's "rubbish". It's exaggerated, for sure. The Jews were no different from any ancient people in that they loved a good story. It's just that by modern standards it's more difficult to suspend one's disbelief. But let us consider the actual origins of the story.
The story of Noah's Ark is actually only the fourth in a long line of near-identical stories dating back to ancient mesopotamia. The oldest is found in the Epic of Ziusudra, followed by the Epic of Atrahasis, followed by the Epic of Gilgamesh (in which the flood hero is Utnapishtim). All these stories bear more than just a superficial resemblance - even many of the exact details in Noah's story are carried right through. The flood is also mentioned in the decidedly non-fictional Sumerian King List, and there is archeological evidence of a large-scale flood in around 2900BC. With the Epic of Gilgamesh, a river flood became a world flood. Atrahasis took on board his own animals, and when the Genesis story was written they presumably felt the need to explain how there were still any animals in existence at all.
As for how the Torah itself came to be - the Jews have a strong oral tradition, so the stories were probably well known long before they were finally written down, but according to the Documentary Hypothesis it was actually compiled from at least four different main sources between 950BC and 450BC, with various other circulating legal codes added in for good measure, such that it actually seems to have been very much a "living", rather than a stagnant, religion. However, towards the end it seems to have fallen into the hands of an increasingly megalomaniacal priesthood, about which the prophet Jeremiah expressed some concern.
Christianity
This is usually the most popular religion to criticise. Despite the fact that, scripturally speaking, it is the most gentle, humble and rational religion to date, for some reason it has been designated to take the brunt of all atheist fury - possibly because it's so close to home, and that criticising any other religion seems almost akin to racism. I don't hear anyone going on continuously about how stupid it is to believe in a goddess with an elephant's head and eight arms, but apparently a book that says people ought to be nice to each other is utterly preposterous. Although atheists, when pushed, will often admit that the actual philosophy and ethics of christianity isn't that bad at all, it's Christians that are the problem. Often, the single point of contention is that of homophobia - an issue which the Bible rarely mentions at all, and yet the way some fundamentalists go on you'd think it was entirely about it.
But there are still those who will criticise the New Teastament itself on the grounds of contradiction. What you need to bear in mind is that the New Testament, like the old, isn't just one book. Most of it is actually letters from one person to another, in a time when Christianity was still forming, and as you'd expect, the various writers have differing opinions on various matters. To me, this actually makes it more valid not less, that the early Church was willing to include rival correspondence into their canon so that people can think and discuss the issues and make their own minds up (although for a really complete view, you'll also want to look at some of the stuff they didn't put in). What you certainly can't conclude is that because two opposing views are expressed, that BOTH must be wrong, and the entire rest of the collection with them.
There are, however, other apparent contradictions that happen even within one book. Possibly the most difficult of these is the contrast between the old testament sentiment of "an eye for an eye" and the Christian sentiment of "turn the other cheek", especially when Jesus says "I came not to destroy the Law but to fulfil". This is something you have to think about a bit. At that time, Christians were a tiny minority. The Jews were a well-established people a long before the Torah was written, but one thing emergent Christianity couldn't afford to do was antagonise people. Secondly, Jesus absolutely did not destroy the law, he advocated obeying the laws of the land and even paying taxes to Caesar. It is quite clear that Christians are to obey the law - but what they are not there to do is to enact it themselves. The way I see it is as the first instance of the principle of the separation of Church and State.
There are some people who even doubt that Jesus existed at all (as if any of the points he made would be invalidated by his non-existence, in some sort of surreal ad hominem attack). This idea became popular in the mid-19th century, but no-one really takes it seriously anymore. If the existence of a simple carpenter of no social status isn't adequately demonstrated by a vast body of literature written about him within a few decades after his death, you might like to explain how the first physical evidence of Pontius Pilate didn't turn up until 1961 - and he was the Governor of Judea. Jesus was a real person. Stop being silly.
Islam
I've yet to actually read the Qur'an, but the problem with it is, it's in Arabic. And Classical Arabic at that. There are English translations, but, as far as I gather, translating Classical Arabic is even more problematic than translating ancient Hebrew, and they're also generally quite adamant that only the Arabic one is the "proper" one. What I do know they say, however, is that the Jews have corrupted their Torah (oh ho, I already said that!), the Christians have likewise corrupted their message (yes, yes, keep going), and that the Qur'an is God's Final Word on the matter. In Arabic. To their credit, the Qur'an we have now is, as far as is known, more-or-less exactly the same as the original. They have always been as careful to make sure of that as the Jews were after the Priesthood added all the obnoxious bits into Leviticus.
What the Qur'an also says is this:
"And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides God, if your (doubts) are true. But if ye cannot- and of a surety ye cannot- then fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones,- which is prepared for those who reject Faith."
In other words - if you don't think the Qur'an is the word of God, you try writing something better. Ok, I'm game. How about, for starters, "not stoning people to death for trying to improve the world".
The most common criticism of Islam is that, compared to Christianity and even Judaism before it, ethically speaking, it's a bit of a backwards step. But then, if you take it in context, it was a massive improvement over the old Arab ways. Unfortunately, people these days get a bit confused over what is Islamic the pre-Islamic Arabian tradition Mohammad arguably wanted to get rid of. I'm looking at you, Burqas. Veils worn by Arab women are even mentioned in the Talmud, which predates Islam by a couple of hundred years. In the early days, Islam actually massively improved the position and status of women in society. The proportion of female Islamic scholars peaked in the 1500s, and "there has not been a significant female jurist in over 200 years."
What was it they were saying about the message being corrupted?
Sikhism
I've only briefly looked into Sikhism so far, but what I've read seems quite good. It's almost an "Abrahamic religion apart from Abraham", in that it's monotheistic and opposed to idolatry, which is pretty much the defining character. It is almost to Hinduism as Judaism was to the proto-semitic pantheons, or Christianity was to the Greek and Roman pantheons, or as Islam was to the ancient Arabic pantheons, although they do have a few customs that don't really make a lot of sense outside of their native culture that make it difficult for Westerners to identify with it.
Hinduism
It's polytheistic - ugh! There seems to be a slow shift towards Brahmanism though.
Judaism
Judaism is the oldest monotheistic religion still practiced today (possibly the oldest of all religions, although the Vedic scriptures predate the Torah, the actual practice of Judaism goes back a lot further), and as such commands a certain amount of respect. The mistake most people make, however, is that when they start reading the Bible, they start with Genesis. Strange as it may seem, this is absolutely the worst place to start. At the time and place it was written, a lot of things would have been common knowledge - things that the stories don't make a lot of sense without. Understanding Genesis is difficult. And anyone who manages to get through the dry legalistic sections of Leviticus is doing very well indeed.
The other thing about Genesis is that it contains a lot of what seem today as rather fantastic stories. We're all taught about Noah's Ark at primary school, and anyone could be forgiven for putting it in the same basket as Santa Claus as soon as they develop critical awareness. There are a number of subtleties surrounding the story that would go straight over children's heads, and without any background knowledge, it goes over most adult's heads as well. The bit about the Nephilim, for instance, is particularly brief but is actually quite important. But the biggest mistake that people make is in assuming it has to be literally true, and if it can't be, it's "rubbish". It's exaggerated, for sure. The Jews were no different from any ancient people in that they loved a good story. It's just that by modern standards it's more difficult to suspend one's disbelief. But let us consider the actual origins of the story.
The story of Noah's Ark is actually only the fourth in a long line of near-identical stories dating back to ancient mesopotamia. The oldest is found in the Epic of Ziusudra, followed by the Epic of Atrahasis, followed by the Epic of Gilgamesh (in which the flood hero is Utnapishtim). All these stories bear more than just a superficial resemblance - even many of the exact details in Noah's story are carried right through. The flood is also mentioned in the decidedly non-fictional Sumerian King List, and there is archeological evidence of a large-scale flood in around 2900BC. With the Epic of Gilgamesh, a river flood became a world flood. Atrahasis took on board his own animals, and when the Genesis story was written they presumably felt the need to explain how there were still any animals in existence at all.
As for how the Torah itself came to be - the Jews have a strong oral tradition, so the stories were probably well known long before they were finally written down, but according to the Documentary Hypothesis it was actually compiled from at least four different main sources between 950BC and 450BC, with various other circulating legal codes added in for good measure, such that it actually seems to have been very much a "living", rather than a stagnant, religion. However, towards the end it seems to have fallen into the hands of an increasingly megalomaniacal priesthood, about which the prophet Jeremiah expressed some concern.
Christianity
This is usually the most popular religion to criticise. Despite the fact that, scripturally speaking, it is the most gentle, humble and rational religion to date, for some reason it has been designated to take the brunt of all atheist fury - possibly because it's so close to home, and that criticising any other religion seems almost akin to racism. I don't hear anyone going on continuously about how stupid it is to believe in a goddess with an elephant's head and eight arms, but apparently a book that says people ought to be nice to each other is utterly preposterous. Although atheists, when pushed, will often admit that the actual philosophy and ethics of christianity isn't that bad at all, it's Christians that are the problem. Often, the single point of contention is that of homophobia - an issue which the Bible rarely mentions at all, and yet the way some fundamentalists go on you'd think it was entirely about it.
But there are still those who will criticise the New Teastament itself on the grounds of contradiction. What you need to bear in mind is that the New Testament, like the old, isn't just one book. Most of it is actually letters from one person to another, in a time when Christianity was still forming, and as you'd expect, the various writers have differing opinions on various matters. To me, this actually makes it more valid not less, that the early Church was willing to include rival correspondence into their canon so that people can think and discuss the issues and make their own minds up (although for a really complete view, you'll also want to look at some of the stuff they didn't put in). What you certainly can't conclude is that because two opposing views are expressed, that BOTH must be wrong, and the entire rest of the collection with them.
There are, however, other apparent contradictions that happen even within one book. Possibly the most difficult of these is the contrast between the old testament sentiment of "an eye for an eye" and the Christian sentiment of "turn the other cheek", especially when Jesus says "I came not to destroy the Law but to fulfil". This is something you have to think about a bit. At that time, Christians were a tiny minority. The Jews were a well-established people a long before the Torah was written, but one thing emergent Christianity couldn't afford to do was antagonise people. Secondly, Jesus absolutely did not destroy the law, he advocated obeying the laws of the land and even paying taxes to Caesar. It is quite clear that Christians are to obey the law - but what they are not there to do is to enact it themselves. The way I see it is as the first instance of the principle of the separation of Church and State.
There are some people who even doubt that Jesus existed at all (as if any of the points he made would be invalidated by his non-existence, in some sort of surreal ad hominem attack). This idea became popular in the mid-19th century, but no-one really takes it seriously anymore. If the existence of a simple carpenter of no social status isn't adequately demonstrated by a vast body of literature written about him within a few decades after his death, you might like to explain how the first physical evidence of Pontius Pilate didn't turn up until 1961 - and he was the Governor of Judea. Jesus was a real person. Stop being silly.
Islam
I've yet to actually read the Qur'an, but the problem with it is, it's in Arabic. And Classical Arabic at that. There are English translations, but, as far as I gather, translating Classical Arabic is even more problematic than translating ancient Hebrew, and they're also generally quite adamant that only the Arabic one is the "proper" one. What I do know they say, however, is that the Jews have corrupted their Torah (oh ho, I already said that!), the Christians have likewise corrupted their message (yes, yes, keep going), and that the Qur'an is God's Final Word on the matter. In Arabic. To their credit, the Qur'an we have now is, as far as is known, more-or-less exactly the same as the original. They have always been as careful to make sure of that as the Jews were after the Priesthood added all the obnoxious bits into Leviticus.
What the Qur'an also says is this:
"And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides God, if your (doubts) are true. But if ye cannot- and of a surety ye cannot- then fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones,- which is prepared for those who reject Faith."
In other words - if you don't think the Qur'an is the word of God, you try writing something better. Ok, I'm game. How about, for starters, "not stoning people to death for trying to improve the world".
The most common criticism of Islam is that, compared to Christianity and even Judaism before it, ethically speaking, it's a bit of a backwards step. But then, if you take it in context, it was a massive improvement over the old Arab ways. Unfortunately, people these days get a bit confused over what is Islamic the pre-Islamic Arabian tradition Mohammad arguably wanted to get rid of. I'm looking at you, Burqas. Veils worn by Arab women are even mentioned in the Talmud, which predates Islam by a couple of hundred years. In the early days, Islam actually massively improved the position and status of women in society. The proportion of female Islamic scholars peaked in the 1500s, and "there has not been a significant female jurist in over 200 years."
What was it they were saying about the message being corrupted?
Sikhism
I've only briefly looked into Sikhism so far, but what I've read seems quite good. It's almost an "Abrahamic religion apart from Abraham", in that it's monotheistic and opposed to idolatry, which is pretty much the defining character. It is almost to Hinduism as Judaism was to the proto-semitic pantheons, or Christianity was to the Greek and Roman pantheons, or as Islam was to the ancient Arabic pantheons, although they do have a few customs that don't really make a lot of sense outside of their native culture that make it difficult for Westerners to identify with it.
Hinduism
It's polytheistic - ugh! There seems to be a slow shift towards Brahmanism though.
Friday, 7 March 2008
Criticisms
There are a number of common criticisms that people will often come out with. I will attempt to address a few of the most common objections here.
Religion was just made up to control people
Well it's not "just" that, but yes, in part, it was. But is that really a criticism? It is hard to imagine how any civilised society could exist without at least some measure of social control (anarchists may argue with that, but I'd argue back). In fact China, the only officially atheist nation in the world, has rather a lot of it. It seems that some people have an irrational fear of being controlled, but it has a curious choice of target. A religion can't control you; it may tell you what is bad and what is a duty, and it's down to you whether you agree with it or not, but only the state-sanctioned judiciary can throw you in prison. Church and State have not always been separate (indeed, in certain Islamic countries they are still not separate to this day). This is because religions formed the first governments, which eventually gave way to monarchies, which eventually led to democracy. We have religion to thank for modern civilisation. They invented justice. And they have powers for good that the government does not. The government is limited in its ability to tackle crime at its source. The law relies on people avoiding punishments out of self-interest, and social reforms can only address negative social forces - what they can't do is actually give you any real reason to care about others. Only a personal ideological conviction can do that.
Religion is just a set of fairy tales
This is a massive oversimplification of the issue. The Bible, for instance, which is "just a work of fiction" according to some, isn't a single book by a single author but is a large collection of works of various different kinds, and spanning over a thousand years of authorship. It contains historical accounts (of varying accuracy), songs, philosophical works about ethics, and yes - stories (the book of Job, for instance). It comprised people's best understanding of the world at that time. Is it the word of God? No, but neither is a peer-reviewed science journal. What it definitely isn't is "made up to entertain children", despite how they present it in primary school. And then some atheist only goes and tells me I ought to read some Philip Pullman. Guess what? That's fiction as well, but that by no means makes it meaningless, useless or trivial in any way. In fact fiction is often the best way of getting certain sorts of truths across.
Religion is just a crutch for the weak
If you met a man who was on real crutches to assist his mobility, would you try to kick them out from beneath him? Would you laugh in his face and demand he stand back up on his own? I hope not. Religious belief is a tool that some people use to get them through the hard times, and if it does that, why is it so bad? Why is it somehow acceptable to get prescribed antidepressants because you can't cope with life on your own, but it isn't acceptable to cultivate an inner strength through a greater sense of purpose? And it works. An article I read on the BBC News website lately stated that statistics show that regular church-goers actually lived longer on average [citation needed, I know] and that scientists put it down to lower levels of stress hormones - because they are able to cope with life's ups and downs without ever getting to the stage where the doctor would have to put them on expensive and potentially dangerous medicine.
Religion contradicts itself
Well, maybe it does. But you can't say that any specific thing is a contradiction just because you don't immediately understand it. What I often observe is a reluctance to actually think about the problem, and look into it further. When you come across something that appears to be an obvious contradiction - do you honestly think the person who wrote it wouldn't have noticed? People in ancient times may not have known the things we do now, but that doesn't mean they were stupid. Especially not the ones who could write. It is more likely that it has been disconnected from its cultural context by a few thousand years of progress. Neither are the world's religious leaders stupid. You'd be flattering yourself if you thought you'd spotted something the entire religious community had managed to miss all this time. Look into it properly, then decide whether it makes sense to you or not. Far too many people start reading religious works for no other reason than to give themselves an excuse to dismiss it. Although I must admit, there are far too many believers who don't look into it either.
You believe in an invisible old man with a long white beard sitting on a cloud
Well this is just silly rhetoric, and only demonstrates that whoever said it was forced to go to Sunday School as a child. Sometimes metaphorical imagery is used to convey a point, but nobody seriously believes that. At least, nobody worth listening to.
Interestingly, the image of God as "old man with a beard" originates from the ancient semitic religion of Ugarit (c.1500-1200BC), and even the old testament prophets had a hard time trying to talk people out of such ideas.
Religion was just made up to control people
Well it's not "just" that, but yes, in part, it was. But is that really a criticism? It is hard to imagine how any civilised society could exist without at least some measure of social control (anarchists may argue with that, but I'd argue back). In fact China, the only officially atheist nation in the world, has rather a lot of it. It seems that some people have an irrational fear of being controlled, but it has a curious choice of target. A religion can't control you; it may tell you what is bad and what is a duty, and it's down to you whether you agree with it or not, but only the state-sanctioned judiciary can throw you in prison. Church and State have not always been separate (indeed, in certain Islamic countries they are still not separate to this day). This is because religions formed the first governments, which eventually gave way to monarchies, which eventually led to democracy. We have religion to thank for modern civilisation. They invented justice. And they have powers for good that the government does not. The government is limited in its ability to tackle crime at its source. The law relies on people avoiding punishments out of self-interest, and social reforms can only address negative social forces - what they can't do is actually give you any real reason to care about others. Only a personal ideological conviction can do that.
Religion is just a set of fairy tales
This is a massive oversimplification of the issue. The Bible, for instance, which is "just a work of fiction" according to some, isn't a single book by a single author but is a large collection of works of various different kinds, and spanning over a thousand years of authorship. It contains historical accounts (of varying accuracy), songs, philosophical works about ethics, and yes - stories (the book of Job, for instance). It comprised people's best understanding of the world at that time. Is it the word of God? No, but neither is a peer-reviewed science journal. What it definitely isn't is "made up to entertain children", despite how they present it in primary school. And then some atheist only goes and tells me I ought to read some Philip Pullman. Guess what? That's fiction as well, but that by no means makes it meaningless, useless or trivial in any way. In fact fiction is often the best way of getting certain sorts of truths across.
Religion is just a crutch for the weak
If you met a man who was on real crutches to assist his mobility, would you try to kick them out from beneath him? Would you laugh in his face and demand he stand back up on his own? I hope not. Religious belief is a tool that some people use to get them through the hard times, and if it does that, why is it so bad? Why is it somehow acceptable to get prescribed antidepressants because you can't cope with life on your own, but it isn't acceptable to cultivate an inner strength through a greater sense of purpose? And it works. An article I read on the BBC News website lately stated that statistics show that regular church-goers actually lived longer on average [citation needed, I know] and that scientists put it down to lower levels of stress hormones - because they are able to cope with life's ups and downs without ever getting to the stage where the doctor would have to put them on expensive and potentially dangerous medicine.
Religion contradicts itself
Well, maybe it does. But you can't say that any specific thing is a contradiction just because you don't immediately understand it. What I often observe is a reluctance to actually think about the problem, and look into it further. When you come across something that appears to be an obvious contradiction - do you honestly think the person who wrote it wouldn't have noticed? People in ancient times may not have known the things we do now, but that doesn't mean they were stupid. Especially not the ones who could write. It is more likely that it has been disconnected from its cultural context by a few thousand years of progress. Neither are the world's religious leaders stupid. You'd be flattering yourself if you thought you'd spotted something the entire religious community had managed to miss all this time. Look into it properly, then decide whether it makes sense to you or not. Far too many people start reading religious works for no other reason than to give themselves an excuse to dismiss it. Although I must admit, there are far too many believers who don't look into it either.
You believe in an invisible old man with a long white beard sitting on a cloud
Well this is just silly rhetoric, and only demonstrates that whoever said it was forced to go to Sunday School as a child. Sometimes metaphorical imagery is used to convey a point, but nobody seriously believes that. At least, nobody worth listening to.
Interestingly, the image of God as "old man with a beard" originates from the ancient semitic religion of Ugarit (c.1500-1200BC), and even the old testament prophets had a hard time trying to talk people out of such ideas.
Thursday, 6 March 2008
Motivation
Aren't there enough religions in the world already? It would probably be more correct to say there are far too many. So why invent another one?
As much as there are plenty of religions to choose from, there clearly isn't "something for everybody". The old faiths are beginning to flounder, and are failing to attract new members. It isn't the done thing to indoctrinate one's children anymore in Western society (and I would never claim it would be right), and they just aren't appealing to young people on their own merits. After centuries of theological development, they have begun to stagnate and lapse into traditionalism. Even current practitioners quite often only engage in it on a cultural basis, such that the religion is rendered little more than a set of obscure rituals.
But the need for religion hasn't gone away. When religions fade away, the spiritual needs of people still remain. Belief does not disappear, it merely becomes deregulated. People instead resort to mysticism and superstition, which manifests itself in the growing trend of the New Age movement. Many people who, however rightly, have rejected organised religion for its stubborn absolutism instead accept an ecclectic mix of often nonsensical beliefs for no more reason than that they'd like them to be true, on the basis that people are entitled to believe anything they like. Less spiritually-minded people may become agnostic or atheist instead and, finding it difficult to empathise with the sort of spiritual feelings they don't have themselves, tar New Age beliefs and organised religions with the same brush. In fact, one common feature of the old religions is that they actually discourage superstition - they do at least attempt an internal rationalism even if their founding principles are questionable.
The aim is to contruct a religion that has a principle of continuous development and self-improvement, and which appeals to people both on spiritual and rational grounds. It should be organised in much the same way that the scientific community is organised, such that religion becomes a method rather than a set of conclusions or doctrines. In a way, it could be described as a sort of applied social psychology.
As much as there are plenty of religions to choose from, there clearly isn't "something for everybody". The old faiths are beginning to flounder, and are failing to attract new members. It isn't the done thing to indoctrinate one's children anymore in Western society (and I would never claim it would be right), and they just aren't appealing to young people on their own merits. After centuries of theological development, they have begun to stagnate and lapse into traditionalism. Even current practitioners quite often only engage in it on a cultural basis, such that the religion is rendered little more than a set of obscure rituals.
But the need for religion hasn't gone away. When religions fade away, the spiritual needs of people still remain. Belief does not disappear, it merely becomes deregulated. People instead resort to mysticism and superstition, which manifests itself in the growing trend of the New Age movement. Many people who, however rightly, have rejected organised religion for its stubborn absolutism instead accept an ecclectic mix of often nonsensical beliefs for no more reason than that they'd like them to be true, on the basis that people are entitled to believe anything they like. Less spiritually-minded people may become agnostic or atheist instead and, finding it difficult to empathise with the sort of spiritual feelings they don't have themselves, tar New Age beliefs and organised religions with the same brush. In fact, one common feature of the old religions is that they actually discourage superstition - they do at least attempt an internal rationalism even if their founding principles are questionable.
The aim is to contruct a religion that has a principle of continuous development and self-improvement, and which appeals to people both on spiritual and rational grounds. It should be organised in much the same way that the scientific community is organised, such that religion becomes a method rather than a set of conclusions or doctrines. In a way, it could be described as a sort of applied social psychology.
Wednesday, 5 March 2008
Introduction
This blog and the companion website that I am going to set up is intended for the exploration of the idea of an analytical religion based around modern mathematical understanding and the scientific method.
The primary purposes of religion, as I see it, are to provide a community where people can discuss philosophical ideas; to make ethics accessible to ordinary people; to provide good feeling from a sense of purpose and encourage a more altruistic outlook; and to emphasise the value of truth over dogma, traditionalism, magical thinking, and cognitive bias.
From a theological point of view, the religion has its roots in the Abrahamic tradition of non-idolatrous monotheism, where the one and only existing God is transcendent, invisible, omniscient, omnipotent and the creator and maintainer of all material reality. Philosophically, I come under the banner of "objective idealism". But no doctrine is beyond question. If any principle of religion turns out to cause more harm than good, commit it to the flames, for it is neither use nor ornament. As Jesus said, one judges a tree by its fruit.
The primary purposes of religion, as I see it, are to provide a community where people can discuss philosophical ideas; to make ethics accessible to ordinary people; to provide good feeling from a sense of purpose and encourage a more altruistic outlook; and to emphasise the value of truth over dogma, traditionalism, magical thinking, and cognitive bias.
From a theological point of view, the religion has its roots in the Abrahamic tradition of non-idolatrous monotheism, where the one and only existing God is transcendent, invisible, omniscient, omnipotent and the creator and maintainer of all material reality. Philosophically, I come under the banner of "objective idealism". But no doctrine is beyond question. If any principle of religion turns out to cause more harm than good, commit it to the flames, for it is neither use nor ornament. As Jesus said, one judges a tree by its fruit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)