Le Sabot Post-Moderne: Pravda, UFOs and Nietzsche's "Rain of Gods"

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/

"We want the freedom to believe what we like [e.g. organized religion], ignore facts, sugar-coat reality, but then we have to recognize that there is a price to pay. If we abdicate reason and clear thinking and reality checks, the result is not only that pesky scientists can't gainsay our beliefs--neither can we gainsay those of fundamentalists, theocrats, obscurantists, Nazis, Holocaust deniers. We have to choose, we can't have it both ways, we can't embrace irrational ideas we just happen to like and reject the ones we don't. If you insist on setting sail for the realm of hunch and intuition and thinking with your gut, you're likely to meet some fellow voyagers who are not all peace and love and light."

This applies to the "higher superstition" namely monotheism as well.

You cannot fight pseudo-science with fictitious belief based ideologies such as religion. Sort of like combatting street crime by the force of the mafia. Only objective enlightenment and the scientific method can combat pseudo-science.

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/infocusprint.php?num=14&subject=Science%20and%20Religion

Posted by: Manucher at janvier 16, 2005 10:18 PM

Dear Disco,

"Those who see organized Christianity as an obstacle to a free, rational society should think twice before removing it. You might like what fills the vaccuum even less."

Wonderful post.

Leftism today is filled with the same drivel with which it was filled in Hitler's time: the substitution of environmentalism, exhortations to healthy living and to stop smoking, vegetarianism, the effort to evolve a new neo-pagan nature-worship religion (Gaia-ism), and of course hatred of Christianity, of the enlightenment tradition, and of the Jews and Judaism.

I am certain that if the Leftists of today gained the power that Hitler possessed in his day, the results would be equally horrible for their own countries and for the world.

The unopposed growth of this kind of superstition in Russia and the Ukraine is a worrisome thing.

Posted by: Alvar NC de Vaca at janvier 17, 2005 12:58 AM

Greg-

Thanks so much for posting the link. . . In the next couple of days I'll probably bump the Lewis piece up to the front page. :)

Manucher-

Hi pal,

Thanks for devoting the time to such a good, long response.

I have a couple of questions I'd like you to interact with when you can, please:

1. You have posted a universal metaphysical statement and posited it as true. On what basis? Why should I accept your superstition over anyone else's?

2. Could you please demonstrate empirically, from history, where the logical positivism that you're advocating has actually been shown to be superior? Your historical overview there was a leeeetle bit selective. It misses, just off the top of my head:

a. The French Revolution b. The Soviet gulags c. Pol Pot's Cambodia d. China's Cultural Revolution

All of these were done in the name of the very scientific atheism that you're proposing. Considering the body count your people have racked up just in this century alone, I'm curious as to where your assurance comes from.

Alvar-

Hey there!

I am certain that if the Leftists of today gained the power that Hitler possessed in his day, the results today would be as horrible for their own countries and for the world as Hitler's results were

I think that any movement that acquired totalitarian powers would abuse them horribly. I have a strong belief in the inherent sinfulness of man.

That said, I'm not so hard on the modern Left as you. Underlying their paternalistic approach to politics is a definite authoritarian streak. But I think very few are conscious of it, and genuinely think they're working for liberation of some kind. But yes, given total power, this authoritarian streak would probably be something frightening to behold. Some of the worst acts in humanity's history have been done in the name of the "People vs. the Powerful", to borrow a Shrumism.

Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 17, 2005 03:05 AM

D.,

always a pleasure to drop by your place. I appreciate a lot the back-to-usual-business that your posts have now resumed (not to deny the important role your blog has played in the glorious days of the tent city). This last post is therefore among my favorites. However, though in a sense I cannot but agree that getting rid of religion does not ensure "freedom", there are a few things that worry me. Pardon me if it's somewhat philosophical, but your post leads to that.

I'm not sure that when deprived of an outlet what brings people to the "occult" is their "innate religious sense". The "rain of gods" is to be understood as a coming to the forefront of tendencies that are let loose when one socially organized form of the "supranatural" collapses. And the fall of communism is certainly a dying of a god. So in a sense it is not that when the gods die people replace them with the "occult", but rather that… well, gods don't all die at the same time! Enlightenment is a continuous process. The urge towards the "irrational", or the "occult", is therefore not a surrogate of the "religious sense" but a lingering of it, a remnant. What it tends to show, for sure, is that the Enlightenment.is far from being completed.

Nonehteless, your post reminds me of a quote by Horkheimer and Adorno (Dialectic of Enlightenment): "Myth is already Enlightenment, and Enlightenment reverts to mytholgy". That is, to my sense, a very pessimistic thesis. And it may well be the case…

Posted by: Jean Pierre Bonin at janvier 17, 2005 03:10 AM

Dear Disco,

Thanks for noticing my comments.

We can get into the Leftist meme in another thread, at another time. It's just that Europe has lived through the substitution of these false ideas for its authentic tradition before. No good can come of it.

Leftism is not authoritarian, it is rather totalitarian. See if you can find a copy of Igor Shafarevich's book "The Socialist Phenomenon.' It was first published in Paris in the '70's, with a preface by Solzhenitsyn. Now I know that Shafarevich, in his dotage, has been linked with a number of unsavory Russian elements. However, his critique of the idea of utopian totalitarianism is quite good. He traces the socialist meme to the medieval cults (think of Joachim of Fiore), the post-reformation excesses of Jan of Leyden (in Munster) and Thomas Muentzer, through the horrific "Utopia" in Thomas More's awful nightmare of a totalitarian society, the English ranters and levellers, and then the likes of Babeuf, Proudhon, Owen, Marx & Engels, and so forth.

Most interesting is his description of the totalitarian Inca state, and the Jesuit "empire" of early Paraguay.

He is not correct in every detail, but you have to realize that he was working only with materials available in academic libraries in Moscow - in the 1950s and 1960s.

But more, anon.

Posted by: Alvar NC de Vaca at janvier 17, 2005 04:41 AM

I'm not sure why Christianity's decline really matters much. What is the harm or difference if you believe in a virgin birth or you believe saucers regularly visit people in search of greater proctological knowledge? If you believe one thing purely on faith, it seems to me you cannot judge the faith of another. One impossible thing equals another impossible thing.

Actually, in your list of secular revolutions, you forgot my all-time favorite (and probably yours too): the American Revolution. While God may have gotten the occasional shout-out here and there, the heart of the thing was born of people who loved reason and placed it above any religious dictate.

Considering the harm done by people claiming to be Christians over the centuries, I would be interested to see what would replace it. But I fear idealogues of any stripe. Religious, atheist, left, right, an idealogue is not to be trusted. An idealogue always knows more than you and knows whats best for you and wants to impose that upon you. There's no need to single out the left. The right would equally as bad (though in different directions) given enough power.

Perhaps Pragmatism (ala William James) or Maybe Logic (Robert Anton Wilson) is the best approach when combined with a sort of eternal vigilance and a health sense of skepticism. If that replaces Christianity, then the evolution of thought has done its work.

Posted by: cs at janvier 17, 2005 01:33 PM

CS,

In partial answer to your question:

"What is the harm or difference if you believe in a virgin birth or you believe saucers regularly visit people in search of greater proctological knowledge?"

The harm or difference derives from the fact that Christian belief in the enlightened West, particularly in a country with a Calvinist or Protestant heritage such as the United States, is inextricably intertwined with a philosophy or ideology that values the INDIVIDUAL, the individual's conscience, the individual's conscientious engagement by and with the Creator, and the individual's unalienable religious and political rights.

The scattershot occult beliefs that Disco described in his original post are associated with totalitarianist leftism, such as was the case in Hitler's Germany. These beliefs tend to denigrate the individual, and teach the insignificance of the individual. They are also internally incoherent and logically unsound.

The religious underpinnings of the American Revolution are much stronger than you suggest. Unfortunately, secular and leftist historians are tone-deaf to the profoundly religious orientation of Deists such as Washington and Christians such as Patrick Henry. In an interesting reading of 17th and 18th Century American sermons published in the current issue of Commentary, David Gelernter shows that the model for republican democracy in the United States was taken less from Greece and Rome, and more from the Bible.

Posted by: Alvar NC de Vaca at janvier 17, 2005 03:29 PM

An "amen!" (is that appropriate in this thread?) to Disco and Alvar for implying two points in their comments which I'd just like to make explicit:

1. Why rely on philosophical PREDICTIONS of what could happen if a society could be "liberated" of Christianity (because that's what we're talking about here; not what Cambodia would be like free of Buddhism, but the emerging worldview of Russia, Europe and the Americas as Christianity's controlling influence wanes) when we can just look at EMPIRICAL EXAMPLES of what happens. Several examples are mentioned above whether it's Leyden, Munster or Weimar Germany. In point of fact, in every instance when Christianity logical positivism doesn't bloom, but pantheism, supernatural occultism, magic, etc.

2. "A tree is known by its fruits," in other words the value of Christianity to the society is demonstrated by the benefits -- heck the superiority -- it has brought to Western Civ. The question is not how bad Western Civ has been under Christiantiy, but how much more brutal and terrible Western history would have been without the moderating influence of Christianity.

3. One other thing that MUST be brought out here is (for those of us who are Christ-followers) is that God is not an idea but a participant in history. What I mean is that when the Church (in the transcendant, universal sense of the word, Church with a capital "C") is on the wane or under attack the Holy Spirit often works to revive it. When darkness fell on Europe in the 6th century, the shepherd Patrick founds a nation of scholars and saints that preserve the texts. When the Church in Britain had become hopelessly scholarly, beaureaucratic and political the Wesley's come along and inspire the people to experience God and pursue personal virtue. When the churches of the founding fathers in New England had become empty and dead Jonathan Edwards and the First and then Second Great Awakening revitalized American Christianity. In the 1960's when the counter-culture began to descend into the occult, pop psychology repackaged as eastern religion and drugs along came the "Jesus Movement" which brought the Gospel in the vernacular for the Rock-N-Roll generation.

In other words, when the gods begin raining, God Himself is not passive: He will send missionaries, reformers... even prophets.

Posted by: Greg at janvier 17, 2005 05:57 PM

The American revolution definitely uses elements of Christianity but moved it into a post-Christian ideal. None of the founding fathers were religious men, not at least in the way the current regime is.

Of course they were influenced by it. But Christianity was never inherently democratic. Nor is it inherently despotic. Christianity was designed to be apolitical and mostly underground. Of course, if we're going to bring the entire Bible into this, the ancient Israelites were despotic, genocidal, with a near complete lockdown of society under a fairly brutal set of rules which would seem totalitarian today. Not a good example for any government.

Sure a few occultists today might share some beliefs the Nazi's had. So what. Hitler wanted to ban smoking. So did Bloomberg. Does that mean Bloomberg will now send stormtroopers to ethnically clean the Bronx?

And considering the Wiccans and other pagans I've known, they can barely keep their organizations together because of an excessive belief in the sovereignty of the individual. They believe in it so much that its hard for them to make the necessary compromises to keep an organization running.

And there's something deeply democratic about a set of beliefs which accept the beliefs of others without judgement and also believe that 'if you harm none, you can do as you will.' Far more democratic and forgiving than Christianity.

I should clarify "accepting the beliefs of others without judgement": accepting the non-harmful beliefs of others specifically without judgement. Obviously any religion which would teach something harmful, for example: Wahhabism, would be rejected.

And after looking again at the mentioned silly beliefs in UFO's as quoted in the original story, I'm not sure how they fit into a tolitarian scheme. Most ufo-ologists I've read or known were annoying and harmless. And again, I can't see any qualitative difference between believing in virgin births and UFO's taking the entrails from livestock. Neither sort of belief is naturally going to produce either democracy or tolitarianism. One has only to look at the history of Christianity to know its adherents are often not on the side of the good. But neither are they always on the side of the bad.

Religion is a neutral force which can be used by both sides. Ascribing one faith as good and another as evil, except in cases like conservative Islam or your garden variety death cult, is a mistake.

Posted by: CS at janvier 17, 2005 10:48 PM

CS:

Anarchy is, while not in theory or intent, in practice a de facto the rule of the jungle: rule of the strongest. Removing ANY system of moral restraint from a society -- from a Greek polis to imperial Russia to the 21st century United States -- WILL NOT result in the sovreignity of the individual, but the "Lord of the Flies." And don't argue that shamans (other than Disco) or occultists don't have moral restraints in their systems: of course they do, but when everyone is free the ones who have no moral restraints in their worldview but DO have guns -- will rule the others.

It seems to me the issue has to be discussed on two fronts (at least):

1. Is Christianity the best possible system of moral restraint (the salt that preserves Western Civ)? That's a utilitarian argument for it.

2. More importantly, is it objectively TRUE? Would we want to believe in fairies and UFO's if we knew they were a crock but thought that it was useful to believe in them?

Posted by: Greg at janvier 18, 2005 01:52 AM

CS,

There were a few atheists among the American revolutionists, but most were hearty, God-fearing Christians. Although he is not known to have taken communion during his adult life, George Washington regularly attended worship services, and continually referred to the Deity or the Creator in his public and private writings.

President Bush is well within the mainstream of American Presidents in so far as his religious expressions are concerned.

President Clinton was an assiduous worshipper, in church nearly every Sunday, President Reagan had a deep and abiding faith in God, although he was not much given to the formalities, and President Carter of course was a self-professed born again Christian who remains quite active in his church. I don't recall the left being overly concerned about Dhimmi Carter's Christianity.

For an interesting reflection on some of the religious foundations of what we may as well agree to call "Americanism," see:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=11901043_1

Let me add that I am aware that in Senate-ratified treaties with the piratical jihadis of the Barbary Coast, the United States expressly declared that it (they) was (were) not a "Christian nation." But the Natural Law upon which all American law is explicitly based indeed derives from the Creator, and the overwhelming majority of Americans are, after all, Christians.

All the very best.

Posted by: Alvar NC de Vaca at janvier 18, 2005 02:43 AM

Since Christianity cannot be proven to be any more objectively true than the belief in fairies, I would consider both beliefs to be on roughly the same level. Christianity has been around for much longer so it can have a better body of philosophy and literature than the (usually) sad sacks who pen books about fairies which end up with the other dreck in the new age section. But, at its core, Christianity's chief claims cannot be proven. Perhaps Jesus existed, perhaps he worked miracles and perhaps he was raised from the dead. But there's no proof. Ultimately, the large edifice of Christian theology is balanced upon an unanswerable question mark, the same question mark most of the new age dreck rests upon.

Which is why I'm still a bit confused why people of faith attack others of faith.

As far as the American Revolution, I still stand by my original statement. Some of the men were men of faith, some of the men were ardent Deists and Atheists. But the final, collective result of their labors was the first truly secular government in history. Theirs was not a movement based on any sort of messianic, overly idealistic goals, but rather a deeply pragmatic base. The creator may have given men inherent rights but the founders used reason to identify which rights those where and what should be done with those rights. Its not as if the Bible gives a good example regarding freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion. The founders broke with not only the Bible but also with the religious tradition in their country.

Sure the majority of Americans may be at least nominal Christians. Every President has given at least lip service to Christianity. Still doesn't change the fact the country was founded on reason and not religion. This country still operates on a basis where laws, even those proposed because of belief, still must have reason behind them, even if the reason is badly-rationalized.

As far as moral authority goes, the American Revolution proves that removing God from the center of government will not unleash mere anarchy upon the world. I've seen too many blameless atheists and too many unscrupulous Christians to think simple belief offers any sort of protection. One has only to look at crime rates lowering at the same time church attendence lowers. Not that I'm suggesting that there is a correlation between the two, but rather the lowering of active religous participation should have a negative effect on societal harm, if the religion has any sort of control over the morality of others.

Posted by: cs at janvier 18, 2005 10:21 AM

CS,

The American government may be "secular" but it reposes on a bedrock of Natural Law which is of divine origin.

We hold these truths to be self-evident--
that all men are created equal --
that they are endowed by their Creator --
with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness --
that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed --

(From memory, hope I got it right.)

The point is, the entire legitimacy of the government rests on the recognition that the Creator created individual human beings --in his image-- and that earthly governments are designed to support rather than thwart the Creator's intentions.

If you would read David Gelernter's well-documented article, you would see that the generations that founded America thought they could find the basis of not only individual freedom but also the democratic republican form of government -- in the Bible.

There is absolutely no evidence that the Founders broke with either the Bible or with religious tradition. I think the contrary is true. It was because they upheld the Bible and upheld their religious tradition(s) that they felt compelled to inititate a separation from England and a revolution against the monarchy.

Posted by: Alvar NC de Vaca at janvier 18, 2005 12:22 PM

Disco - in reply, also from a previous thread:

1- If you mean by a "universal metaphysical statement" the principle of atheism - I have posited no such statement. For the purpose of the discussion, you need to differentiate between atheism and agnosticism. For some reason that I dont understand you seem to be fixated on atheism as a convenient bogeyman. Existence of god(s) cannot be proven nor disproven, and therefore atheism is equally wrong (actually equally meaningless). What I have posited is a question of methodology and not of metaphysics.

2- There is ample evidence of the superiority of positive empiricism over faith based or ideological based methods. The whole progression of western civilization, from 1500 onwards with the decline of the powers of the church and the political, philosophical and empirical struggles to separate the church from the state, points to the determining role of the Enlightenment, scientific revolution, industrial revolution and capitalism - all embodiements of positive empiricism. Organized religion in cahoots with the privileged classes fought tooth and nail to maintain its ill-gotten positions of privilege, at the expense of liberalism and progress. Throughout most of the history of western civilization, organized religion played a reactionary and obscurantist role - one last example being the Moscow oriented Orthodox church establishment of Ukraine and the anti-democratic and reactionary role that it played.

The emergence of social contract theory and the concepts of liberty and liberal democracy by empiricists like Hobbes and Locke is directly a consequence of British empiricism and not of the church of England.

Your examples of Soviet totalitarianism, chinese cultural revolution, etc. as a consequence of atheism is rather disingenious pal. True that these movements were anti-theistic and did result in a (state) backlash against religion - but they were equally far removed from the tenets of positive empiricism, liberalism, and democracy. For one thing these totalitarian ideologies had something profoundly in common with religion - they held faith supreme and profoundly believed in an ideology (albeit materialistic) - and in many other respects, they were religions without a god, where the communist party was the church, the chairman was their pope, and dialectical materialism was their god.

Positive empiricism is non-ideological and participatory in its core, and equally condemns those who make religion out of science, or who make religion out of humanity, or who make religion out of metaphysics. But of course this is not to deny considerable credit due to certain shared values of the judeo-christian tradition, many of which are not theocratic to begin with. There is nothing religious about the Golden Rule and the precept "do not lie".

Your question of "... as to where your assurance comes from" - is a good one. For one thing I am sure we agree such assurance does not emanate from higher superstitious belief systems that are so easily exploited by the ideologues masquerading as pious and out-of-this-world men. Or equally exploited by legions of believers who wish to forcefully impose their values on the unsuspecting and the weak. For another thing we hopefully agree that such assurance is not based on obfuscation and falsification of the truth - neither on the hypocricy of condemning election fraudsters which we happen not to like, but cheering on ontological fraudsters whom we happen to like.

The assurance is empirical and historical: Western civilization with all its defects has resulted in scalable prosperity and progress - nothwithstanding the criticisms of the obscurantists and postmoderns, is a direct result of putting reason ahead of irrational theistic and traditionalist beliefs. Last but not least, Positivism is also a direct consequence of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics where entropy is decreased in locality.

The scientific method does not per se endorse a value system and is value neutral. However, positive empiricism implicitly endorses highly egalitarian ethical precepts, natural rights, individual liberties, and the democratic method of governance. Empirical and consensual ethics, based on the concept of natural individual rights assures us a liberal and pragmatic standard. This body of thought is extremely well developed, and there is no need for man-made "holy" scriptures and Koranic "words" of god. In fact those in the forefront of the democratic struggle have invariably been the non-religious, the enlightened, and the scientific. And historically it has been the religious folks who wish to close down society in the name of their deity(s), unfounded belief systems, and group interests. Although we rarely see Christianity taking this regressive role in the modern age (due to the Reformation), I dont need to remind anybody of the reactionary and authoritarian role played by Islam in god-fearing moslem societies today.

And BTW, the "innate religious sense" that you so heavily draw upon happens to be an epiphenomena of the neural circuitry of the brain coupled with neurochemicals that are responsible for a sense of spirituality and religiousity. This "sense" is pretty well explainable by even the scarce amount of data available on the spiritual functions of the brain. Checkout the book by Dean Hamer of the US NCI pointing to certain genetic variations that results in an enhanced sense of religiosity. Also it is well known that a certain class of epileptics (pedophile Mohammad, which I understand many Christians are loath to criticize, being one of them) are extremely religious.

And finally BTW, "logical positivism" in your reply refers to a philosophical movement on the role of logic in philosophical discourse. You must have instead meant "positive empiricism".

Posted by: Manucher at janvier 18, 2005 12:39 PM

Manucher,

One of the points that Dr Disco has been trying to get across, is that the kind of rational empiricism you describe has never in history been sufficient to maintain a civilization, and that the vacuum left by the suppression of traditional religious expressions has been filled by Bonapartism, superstition, and a host of ugly ideas and movements.

The experience of the XIXth and XXth centuries has been, that so-called "empirical ethics" inevitably degenerate into tyranny and genocide, and that devoid of a concept of a divine judge, coercive dictatorships inevitably develop. Particularly when coupled with a collectivist ideology.

As far as the "neural circuitry" of the brain is concerned, do not confuse the machinery necessary to actualize the Will in a physical world with the Will, itself.

Posted by: Alvar NC de Vaca at janvier 18, 2005 01:21 PM

I'm really not sure how anyone can claim the Bible as any sort of basis for democracy. The Old Testament obviously is out as a guide. The New Testament is a bit more friendly but is still out due to the fact the doctrine taught is essentially intolerant of other beliefs and, in the personhood of Christ, emphasizes a benign dictatorship based on messianic principles and taking the leadership on faith.

Messianic prinicples seem to only lead to dictatorships and cults of personality. Democracy is antithetical to these religious notions. In a democracy everyone is simultaneously special (due to guaranteed rights) and no one is special, not even the leadership, due to the fact the leadership can be changed, with free elections, and anyone can be derided or praised at will, with free speech. Furthermore, with freedom of religion, no religion is special. One religion or another may be dominant, but any beliefs, or no belief at all, are allowed.

Its a very pragmatic system. Most religions, including Christianity, ultimately cannot be pragmatic.

The only seed of democracy within the Bible would be in the emphasis on the individual. But the Pagan systems of Greece and Rome, as well as the theological systems of Buddhism, Judaism and Islam, gave a similar empahsis, so this doesn't add anything special. And I've already described earlier how modern pagan groups add their own quirky emphasis on freedom. Even when it hurts their goals of organization, freedom is paramount.

So my point is not that Christianity is bad, but rather that Christianity is not special in regards to democracy and that modern democratic systems evolved because of increased secularization and not because of increased religion.

What you quoted is a beautiful passage from Thomas Jefferson who also is famous for saying:

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."

There's many other such quotes as that one. Whatever he meant by creator, he certainly didn't want to lock it into the Christian system. In addition, he is clearly stating the organized church is antithetical to freedom. Considering the system of state churches, trials for blasphemy, and the country's puritan heritage, I would strongly state that Jefferson, and his colleagues, strongly believed freedom lay in secularization and a complete divorce of the state from the church.

This hardly seems to be a system which any part of the Bible would advocate.

Posted by: cs at janvier 19, 2005 02:56 AM

CS,

Although you may think that there is no basis for a representative, democratic republic in the Bible, the Founders of the United States evidently thought otherwise! And it was in the Jewish Scriptures that they found their texts -- particularly in the Book of Exodus in which a representative system is spelled out. I am not going to repeat all of the examples cited by Gelernter in the article I linked to above. Those examples refute your bald statement.

The pagan systems of the Hellenistic world, and the self-denying systems of the East, assuredly do not sanctify and honor the individual the way that the Jewish and Christian religious heritage does. Which may be why we find democratic institutions in countries influenced by the Judaic and Christian heritage.

By the way, I heard an interesting news report tonight. It seems that there are a couple of hundred thousand North Korean refugees who are making their way through an "underground railroad" in China. And the "safe houses" along the way are being provided, you may be surprised to learn, not by "rational empiricists" or even Buddhists, but by Christians.

Posted by: Alvar NC de Vaca at janvier 19, 2005 12:45 PM

A question for discussion...

1. How does the British system fit into this debate? (I mean from the point of view of history).

Posted by: Valerie at janvier 19, 2005 03:51 PM

I'm so proud of you when you post on religion and manage not to take a swipe at Catholicism.

Posted by: Gleeful Extremist at janvier 19, 2005 08:20 PM

CS,

I hope that I am not violating copyright by appending a short excerpt from Gelernter's article. This excerpt shows that to a Connecticut Puritan in the XVIIth Century, the Book of Exodus was a source for representative, democratic republicanism.

You have a particular reading of the Bible. According to your personal interpretation, the Bible is not a source for democratic institutions.

Not a few people do not share your particular reading.

All the very best,

Alvar

Here's the quote:

"The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, often called the “first written constitution of modern democracy,” were inspired not by democratic Athens or republican Rome or Enlightenment philosophy but by a Puritan preacher’s interpretation of a verse in the Hebrew Bible. They were drafted in May 1638, in response to a sermon by Thomas Hooker before the general assembly in Hartford.

Hooker cited the biblical passage, “Take ye wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you” (Deuteronomy 1:13). This he interpreted to mean “that the choice of public magistrate belongs unto the people, by God’s own allowance. . . . The foundation of authority is laid, firstly, in the free consent of the people.”

Hooker’s interpretation was hardly novel or eccentric. Many preachers knew and believed the same thing. In 1780, roughly a century and a half after Hooker’s epoch-making sermon, with the Revolutionary War under way, Pastor Simeon Howard of Boston was pondering the new nation’s government. He too decided—on the basis of this same passage, and of the classical Jewish historian Josephus—that America should be a democratic republic.

Howard’s advice was as radical as it was straightforward, as avant-garde as it was Puritan, Bible-centered, and godly. “In compliance with the advice of Jethro,” he preached,

Moses chose able men, and made them rulers [over the Israelites in the desert]; but it is generally supposed that they were chosen by the people [emphasis added]. This is asserted by Josephus, and plainly intimated by Moses in his recapitulary discourse, recorded in the first chapter of Deuteronomy.

Historians have pointed out that the clergy wielded far more influence over the colonial public than a Tom Paine or John Locke did. In 1776, three-quarters of American citizens were Puritan. Puritans have long been classified as strait-laced, dour, and joyless, far from passionate revolutionaries or radical democrats. Like nearly all stereotypes, these are partly true—but they are a long way from the whole truth."

Posted by: Alvar NC de Vaca at janvier 19, 2005 08:43 PM

Alvar:

Thanks for the great excerpt. Two quick thoughts:

1. Some folks in this thread seem to confuse the religious views of some of the founders with the religious views of the people as a whole. Whether Jefferson was a deist or not (I think he was) is not the point. As Tocqueville pointed out, what distinguished american democracy from french democracy was that the american people brought their judeo-christian moral sensibilities with them into the ballot box. And isn't that what the founders had in mind with their language about religion being essential to the survival of the democratic experiment? Not that american institutions were particularly christian, but that the moral worldview of the voting public would determine the direction of the state. To this day, the europeans joke about "Jesusland" because a majority of americans walk into the polls and excercise their consciences which have a lot to do with their Christianity.

2. Isn't that where this thread started? Disco talked about the fascination with the occult, etc in the Ukraine and Russia and speculated about what happens to a people when their worldview descends into superstition and philosophical chaos.

Posted by: Greg at janvier 19, 2005 09:32 PM

Alvar NC de Vaca,

I'll see your Christian-run underground railroad and raise you the Buddhist response to the tsunami. Temples have been opened as shelters and monks have been on the frontlines of the aid and hard work cleaning up, burying the dead, assisting the living, and offering spirtual solace. A Buddhist church in Canada decided to sell its temple and give all of the money to aid organizations. I'd be hard pressed to find a Christian church which has done the same.

Buddhist teachings are very tolerant of the beliefs of the individual and do not assume Buddha's way was the only way. There is a high degree of tolerance for the individual and whatever his daily life is. They think their path is the best one but do not presume that it is the only way. This attitude is much more tolerant towards intellectual diversity than the Christian model.

As for the pagans, I think the best example which comes to mind are the plays of Aristophanes. From what we know, his work was very popular and representative of the time. He celebrated individuals and their foibles in a really beautifully funny way. He, with impunity, made fun of the ruling class. He also dared criticize the war with Sparta during wartime and was apparently allowed to do so with no censure. His rights were not challenged. The Greek democracy respected his rights and the rights of other citizens.

(Yes, I know many people were disenfranchised in the Greek system, but they were also in the early days of the American republic. In both cases, it was a good start.)

The examples in the Old Testament don't hold a candle to what the pagans accomplished. In the OT, you unquestioningly obey God (and worship him) or you die. Where was freedom of religion when the Israelites decided to dance around the golden calf and got slaughtered in great numbers for their heresy? Where's freedom of speech when the people are forced to eat poisonous black manna because of their complaints? A free spirit like Aristophanes would have been crushed in such an oppressive environment.

Do I even need to go into the Mosaic legal system with harsh punishments for every minor infraction? Or the merits of a tribe which celebrated genocide and almost endless war? Sure, back then, everyone in the Middle East did those things. But, if you supposedly have the enlightened view of God behind you, don't you think things would have turned out differently?

To be charitable, I do think the Founding Fathers could have taken away the respect for the rule of law from the Mosaic texts. But there's not much else which would serve as an example. If you do have any further examples, then I'd love to see them. Seriously, because I cannot think of how much good could come from such an oppressive system.

And if the clergy were as powerful in early America as stated, then I can certainly understand Jefferson's harsh comments regarding them. And while the majority may have followed the clergy more than Tom Paine, the constitutional system was not devised by the majority nor, thankfully, by their clergy.

I seem to have have Washington on my side. Would a Puritan, with their notable trials for witches and heretics, every say this?

"We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition ... In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States."

-- George Washington, letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793

Posted by: cs at janvier 19, 2005 10:04 PM

Greg,

I'm not sure how Judeo-Christian principles have been upheld in the ballot box or in the government.

Good christians supported slavery and racism, good christians supported the slaughter and removal of indians from their lands, good christians supported the disenfranchisement of women and various races, good christians, most recently, have supported the torture in Iraq.

With that sort of record, one cannot imagine how believers in UFOs and fairies could do much worse.

Posted by: cs at janvier 19, 2005 10:12 PM

CS,

Your examples are good, and show that good people are found in a variety of traditions. But I think we are missing the point (and I apologize for digressing myself) if we try to prove that the adherents of this or that doctrine are more or less capable of actions we consider to be good.

For me, the point is that a democratic republic was developed in the United States, and has survived for over 200 years. That has something to do with Protestantism. Such a democratic republic did not develop in any other culture.

By the way, the point is not that the United States countenanced slavery at its inception, but that the United States ended slavery, and that Americans were willing to sacrifice blood and treasure to do it.

To demand that human beings instantly perfect themselves and create a Utopia is not realistic. In fact, all utopian schemes end in horror. What the example of the United States shows, is that a democratic republic can improve, and gradually better itself.

Posted by: Alvar NC de Vaca at janvier 19, 2005 11:01 PM

CS:

1. You keep shifting the basis of the discussion. Now you are arguing the relative utilitarian merits of various religions. Where this whole thing started was the hypothesis that as ethical monotheism wanes (whether that is in 8th century BC Israel, 5th century BC Athens (in fairness ethical monotheism was never the dominant worldview there, but it was the view of the Socratics), 6th century Western Europe or 21st century Europe and North America) the vaccuum would be filled with superstition and the occult. Now, as I understand your objection to this point, you think that the belief in UFO's and fairies is no more or less true or no more or less useful to a society than ethical monotheism. I think you're just wrong about that. The fact that Buddhists or whatever do good works is no surprise: thoughtful Christians have always had a doctrine called "common grace," which means that there is a grace and goodness that permeates the created world apart from the "special grace" unto salvation that comes with the gospel. Moreover, the doctrine of "total depravity" does NOT mean that Buddhists or Hindus or whatever are completely bad -- many I've known are good and decent folk -- but only that apart from saving grace sin stains every aspect of our lives. Our best efforts are always tainted with self-interest, etc.

2. This "Christians voted for slavery, etc..." meme gets real tiring. If it comes to historical fact, BAD Christians justified slavery, etc. GOOD Christians were the motive force behind the abolitionist movement, human rights, etc., etc., etc. While a Buddhist temple in Canada may have given sacrificially, most of the immediate aid $ for tsunami relief is being deployed by Christian relief organizations that don't have to hurry there to respond: they have been there for years providing relief and support to the poor. I have friends that have spent their lives in that part of the world doing just that. When the tsunami came they have been able to respond quickly because they already have the organizations on the ground, speak the languages and have the experience with disaster relief, medical care, etc.

DON'T say that Doctors without Borders is secular or that there are Red Crescent workers or even that some individual Christian workers there may done some bad things. I don't deny any of that. The point is, though, that Christianity is not -- as you suggest -- a morally neutral force in society. Christians, acting on conscience, have been at the forefront of most of what has been good and decent in Western history from the invention of hospitals to the development of the university to human rights to Solidarity in Poland. Other Christians have no doubt opposed them, but the good conscience of Western Civ has been Christianity. Can you imagine Western Civ without it? How much more brutal?

3. Regardless of your views on the Iraq war or whatever, it is precisely the Christian conscience of a majority of American voters that caused the infamous Der Spiegel cartoon about "Jesusland." Misguided or not, as Tocqueville observed 200 years ago, America is a more personally religious society than Europe and American citizens bring that into the voting booth. America is still marginally more conservative on social issues than Europe and while European countries give $ from tax revenues for things like disaster relief, in America it comes from Americans giving personally -- lots of them through their churches.

Posted by: Greg at janvier 19, 2005 11:24 PM

Oooops. Forgot the slash to end the boldface. I really should take the time to proofread, but then I couldn't do six things at once here.

Posted by: Greg at janvier 19, 2005 11:26 PM

This message is going to go a little off topic, but it does respond to some concerns that have been mentioned in this thread of comments.

First of all, Greg, thanks for your comments, and I agree that the discussion started when the Discoshaman pointed out that the disappearance of organized Christianity in the Soviet Union did not bring about an end to belief, but rather opened a vacuum that was and is being filled by a variety of superstitions. He quoted Chesterton and Nietzsche to good effect.

You are also spot on regarding the religiosity of individual Americans and of American society in contrast to Europe. This phenomenon is particularly apparent now. Something like 50% of Americans regularly attend organized religious worship services; in Europe the figure is less than 10%, and in England, there are more participants in the Mosque than in the Church. Not percentages, mind you, but absolute numbers.

CS, the witch trials in Salem were stopped when the Puritan divines who were in charge of judging them realized/decided that the evidence being offered was invalid. The whole history of these trials is very complex and has been written about extensively. You do not do the subject justice in your capsules.

As far as the episode of the Golden Calf is concerned, the example is not relevant to a discussion of civil society. By worshipping God in the form of a Golden Calf, the Israelites did not transgress against their civil society, but against God. They never maintained, nor do their descendants today maintain, that the particular rules God gave them should be followed by any other group of people. The relationship between God and Israel was claimed by God to be unique, and that accounts for what may seem excessive in the punishments that were meted out on that occasion.

God, by the way, is no utopian. Look over His promises to Abraham in Genesis, Chapter 12, particularly Verse 3. God did not arrange things so that all of the other peoples in the world would bless Abraham, and He did not promise Abraham that his descendants would enjoy unalloyed blessings and the warm glow of the admiration of other nations. No, God simply promised that "who blesses you, I will bless, and who curses you, I will curse." I think history shows that God has fulfilled that promise.

Posted by: Alvar NC de Vaca at janvier 20, 2005 12:57 AM