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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
There's a lot here to comment on, so I'll try and keep it short and ordered:
1) Christianity is a big target because it's still the biggest world religion, it's had the most effect on shaping our culture, and it is (Daily Mail shariaphobia notwithstanding) the biggest non-rational/supernatural influence on modern life.
2) As far as I know, none of the NT-based criticisms are of Christ's teachings, so much as Paul's or the hangover of OT morality. See also the death penalty, no masturbation, slavery, etc.
3) Wait, there is "no-one gets to heaven but through me", which puts a single act of repentance above all the works of a lifetime, which some people see as unjust. Insofar as you can argue justice with an alleged god.
4) *if* Islam is the truth, you can't really count "ethically backward" as a criterion, as it's you that is morally dissolute. I'd say the militantism and explicit condoning of religious oppression (which you don't see in Christianity) is more objectionable. As far as the sexual inequality, I have no idea how much is Mohammedan teaching, but comparing Iran with Afghanistan or Saudi, it would seem to be more a cultural thing.
5) (out of order) - I seem to recall that much of the extremer parts of Leviticus only applied to the Levites, who had extra religious responsibilities. I'm not sure, though.
6) Sikhism is non-anthropomorphic and pro-equality... but it is also quite militant about it.
7) What's wrong with polytheism? If you're keeping an open mind, why is a committee less appealing than a dictator?
1) There's also the fact that a lot of people still hold the crusades against them, although seeing as at the time no-one was even allowed to own a Bible except for Catholic priests, and even then it had to be in Latin, it's difficult to really blame the Scripture for any of it. Really the Catholic Church is something of an extension of the Roman Empire. Did you know it was Mussolini who gave independent status to the Vatican City?
2) Even OT morality isn't as black as it's painted. The word most commonly translated as "abomination" is perhaps better translated as "taboo", and as for "Sodomite"... that one's getting a thread of its own at some point. I'm not entirely sure where the masturbation thing comes from, to be honest. I'd kind of got the impression the Catholics made it up.
3) I think proper repentance does actually also require acts of some kind to go with it, since what it really means is to change your ways. As for the faithless doer of good works, by what standard do they judge their own works good? If not by God's, then it's only by coincidence if they get it right.
4) I've actually started reading the Qur'an. If it condones religious oppression, I haven't got up to that bit yet, although I have got as far as "there is no compulsion in religion". It's also very clear on their right to self-defense. It isn't "ethically backward" if it's true, then it would be "ethically forward". The argument goes the reverse - if it IS ethically backward, then it can't be the truth. Although, as I said, it was forward for the Arabs at the time.
5) There are extra rules for the Priesthood, for the carrying out of rituals and whatnot. You can't dismiss all of the extreme bits on those grounds though.
6) Self-defense again. They will defend their faith with violence if necessary. Don't physically attack them, then you're alright - they won't attack you if you let them be.
7) There is a limit to how open it can go. There can be only one creator and sustainer of all things. Even if there's a "Boss God" who made the other gods, the other gods still aren't comparable with the first, and aren't worthy of worship as such, especially if they be no more than anthropomorphised forces of nature.
Selective answering:
2) I think it's an extension of the story of Onan, which was really about contraception and family obligations. But sexual control is probably part of the powerplay of an organised church.
3) A baptist minister and DDiv I know assures me that a deathbed repentance will get you to heaven, while a lifetime of good works withouth the love of JC will get you nowhere. I don't think the baptists have limbo.
4) backward and forward talk in terms of progress, not eternal truth. Human progress could take you further from divine grace.
7) I still don't see why there can only be one creator. Dualism and pantheism are common enough - even the Gnostics were sort of partly semi maybe Abrahamic, although maybe not wholly dualistic. The universe may be a sum of chaos and order; we need both to exist.
2) That did come to mind. I will be writing about sexual morality at some point. (Also I remember seeing an article in Watchtower magazine about the subject - they admitted the Bible didn't explicitly forbid it, they just think it's a bad habit.)
3) Only if it's sincere though. You can't purposefully go through life sinning with a plan to last-minute repentance. But even still, most people's idea of justice is even to this day based on the primitive notion that bad people must be made to suffer, which is quite wrong. Which gets us onto the subject of Hell - somehow I forgot to mention it, but that's a major reason people think Christianity is just plain wrong. This deserves a thread of its own as well, but take a look at this for now.
My own take on the matter (that is, on the issue, not on Christianity) is that there's no need for salvation at all. God doesn't owe you anything, in fact he's already given you your very existence, and it's entirely your choice whether you use it to do his will or not. You wouldn't donate to a charity and then demand it back tenfold, would you?
4) I don't know what the Muslim view on this is, but the Church of Analysis view is that God's will is not irrational.
7) I can't rule out the existence of other "gods", but the purpose of proposing one God is to explain the existence of all things - you don't need to start proposing any more of them to achieve that end, and it would be unknowable anyway short of divine revelation. And then you've got to propose another "Father God" to account for the existence of all the others. Besides, religions tend towards monotheism in the presence of rationalist influences. The only people I'd attract with such a scheme are the sort of people who like to immerse themselves in a sort of fantasy world - "polytheistic reconstruction" has started to gain popularity in some circles but it's difficult to see what the appeal is outside of their love of ancient history, or how seriously they take it other than re-enactment.
Actually it seems that polytheistic religions often start of as monotheistic, and then accumulate a pantheon in three ways:
a. diplomacy: the god of one city-state is declared the brother/father/son of another's for the sake of good relations or to establish the superiority of one over the other,
b. deification: heroes, high priests and kings, either declare themselves gods, or future generations declare them to be gods,
c. just getting carried away: Greek mythology started off as a mother-earth cult and just got more and more bizarre as it went on - it seems more of a dramatic construct than anything else.
No modern philosopher, as far as I'm aware, have ever proposed polytheism as a serious explanation for the existence of the Universe (although the ancient Greek philosophers just took it as a given). The anthropomorphisation of forces of nature might have originally been a literary or metaphorical device, just as we still today refer to "Jack Frost" and "Lady Luck" without actually thinking they are real people. In this day and age, we know enough about the way the world works not to propose a supernatural explanation for such things as lightning.
Dualism is subtly different. There is evidence of that in the Old Testament, which I'll come to later. But this is really like flip-sides of the same coin, rather than two separate entities.
Post a Comment