More “Religions”

08 Thursday Feb 2018

Posted by memoirandremains in Culture, Uncategorized

Tags

Culture, politics, Politics as religion, religion, Sports, Sports as Religion

I previously posted on politics as religion. Here is yet another example:

Siegel: Liberalism has taken on a religious aspect. It’s a belief system, and not a system that represents political interests. Liberalism is seen as a source of grace, in religious terms. It is hard to talk to people, when you are effectively suggesting they are not among the blessed (or, to use Thomas Sowell’s phrase, the ‘anointed’), that they are in fact mistaken. Trump is wrong about many things, but you can argue with Trumpism. But it is very hard to argue with contemporary liberalism, especially in its West Coast incarnation.

Just prior to the Super Bowl, the Washington Post wrote on football as Tom Brady’s religion. This is nothing new. The Aztecs played a purposefully religious: “The Aztec ball game had a lot of ritual significance. It was mean to mirror the ball court of the heavens, this being the ball court of the underworld where the sun passed each night.” The games of the ancient Greeks were religious affairs such as the Olympics or Isthmian Games.

Sporting events as religious ceremony has been noted many times:

As Wann and collaborators note, various scholars discuss sport in terms of “natural religion,” “humanistic religion,” and “primitive polytheism” pointing out that “spectators worship other human beings, their achievements, and the groups to which they belong.” And that sports stadiums and arenas resemble “cathedrals where followers gather to worship their heroes and pray for their successes” (1, p. 200). Meanwhile, fans wear the team colors, and bear its flags, icons, and mascots whilst literally singing its praises.

Sport as Religion. Or as The Atlantic writes, “In short, if you look hard at sports, you can’t help but see contours of religion.”

Politics as Religion

23 Tuesday Jan 2018

Posted by memoirandremains in Politics, Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

politics, Politics as religion, religion, Romans 1:18-25

A few recent articles have made the point that political positions can function as religion: a totalizing story of sin and sacrifice which gives some sort of meaning to existence. First, there Ta Nehisi Coates with a theory of original sin:

What does the philosopher teach? His philosophy can be summed up in a passing phrase from “Between the World and Me”: “I… felt that the galaxy was playing with loaded dice.”

It’s a passing phrase, but a concept that suffuses his work. At a cosmic level, existence itself is slanted against the flourishing of black people. Chance is not really chance. We already know how history will unfold before it happens: black people will suffer because of white people. That’s what being black means. That’s what being white means.

Here is New York Magazine asking if intersectionality is a religion

It posits a classic orthodoxy through which all of human experience is explained — and through which all speech must be filtered. Its version of original sin is the power of some identity groups over others. To overcome this sin, you need first to confess, i.e., “check your privilege,” and subsequently live your life and order your thoughts in a way that keeps this sin at bay. The sin goes so deep into your psyche, especially if you are white or male or straight, that a profound conversion is required.

The story continues with the obligatory swipe at the Puritans, which demonstrates that most people know nothing more about Puritans that what they can kind of remember from The Scarlet Letter and what they heard about The Crucible — neither of which has anything to do with the Puritans in reality.

Alan Jacobs asks if Wokeness is a Myth:

The term “woke,” for those who have managed to escape it, means being aware of racial, gender, and economic injustice. It is employed today either in mockery of the woke or in ironic reappropriation by the woke, and it is probably irrecoverable for serious use. But “woke” derives from “waking up” to how things are — and that ought to suggest that to commend wokeness is to invite people to participate in a mythical experience.

There is even redemption — sacrifice — required of this religion:

Go deeper into the cult, and the disciplines get more rigorous. Now white women must admit their role in oppressing women of color. This requires some of the groveling that white males must endure. But it offers the same benefit: a sense of forgiveness, and spiritual progress. Likewise black males must atone to women of color. All straights must bow down to gays. Even gays must make amends for their insensitivity to “trans” people. I am not sure to whom “trans” people of color must apologize. But give intellectuals time, and they’ll find someone. Or invent them.

With little work, I could find many more examples and certainly make a broader argument that all sides of political argument easily slide in a religious dimension — or that the arguments are informed by a story of fall, sin, punishment, sacrifice.

This is important to realize: just because a human being rejects some long-standing religious explanation does not mean that human beings change. The basic elements of fall-sin-punishment-sacrifice-possibly some escape/redemption are inherent in how we understand the world.

As a Christian, I would contend they are necessary for us our thinking. Paul argued for a hardwired, if you will explanation:

Romans 1:18–25 (ESV)

¹⁸For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. ¹⁹For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. ²⁰For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. ²¹For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²²Claiming to be wise, they became fools, ²³and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

²⁴Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, ²⁵because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

Marriage and Religion

12 Monday Sep 2016

Posted by memoirandremains in Culture, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Hugh Macmillian, marriage, religion

17230391396_a2c70a989f_o

Hugh MacMillian, in his sermons (1882), The Marriage in Cana of Galilee, makes the following observation about the relationship between religion and changing marriage. I found it interesting in light of the West’s current work of fundamentally restructuring marriage in ways even more dramatic that the bigamy or forced celibacy condemned here. Macmillan would tie the change in marriage to “religious enthusiasm” — which is certainly the case in the West (and the fact that this new religion merely considers itself natural, common sense, not a religion does nothing to alter its fundamentally religious nature):

Marriage is the best and simplest test by which a religious sect or community can be tried. According as ti conforms or fails to conform to the Divine law in this primary relation of life, so ought it to stand or fall in the estimation of the world. It is a remarkable circumstance that every religious enthusiast who facing that he is inspired to proclaim a new faith, whenever he succeeds in impressing his convictions upon others, begins to tamper with marriage. The Mohammedanism of the East, the Mormonism of the West, proclaim themselves systems of imposture by their abuse of this all-important relation. The spiritual-wife communities which have sprung out of religious excitement and revivalism of America are based upon radical errors, and are as injurious to human nature as they are false to God. On the side of sensualism or on the side of asceticism, every false religion is sure to err fatally. Nature uniformly revenues the outrage upon her law in every case.

Pages 22-23

The religion of “sci-tech progress”

30 Wednesday Mar 2016

Posted by memoirandremains in Culture, Hope, Psychology, Theology, Thesis, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Culture, Hope, Psychology, religion, Romans 1, Sci-Tech, Thesis

This article from reason explains that hope — although it does not explain it in terms of hope — is the (?) basis for satisfaction:

Stavrova and company concluded that the “correlation between a belief in scientific–technological progress and life satisfaction was positive and significant in 69 of the 72 countries.” On the other hand, the relationship between religiosity and life satisfaction was positive in only 28 countries and actually negative in 5 countries. Similarly, belief in sci-tech progress correlated with a sense of personal control in 67 countries, whereas religiosity was positively associated with personal control in only 23 countries—and was negative in 10 countries.

Stavrova and her colleagues speculate that this negative association between a belief in God and a sense of personal control might arise from dispositional differences. Primary control strategies aim to change the external world so that it fits with one’s personal needs and desires; secondary control strategies seek to change personal needs and desires so that they fit with the external world. Earlier research has found that religious believers tend to score higher on secondary than primary control strategies. Stavrova and her fellow researchers suggest that future studies might “examine whether a belief in scientific–technological progress, in contrast to a religious belief, entails individuals to rely more on primary rather than secondary control strategies.”

So why do people who believe in sci-tech progress tend to be happier than the religious faithful? Stavrova and her colleagues propose that “achieving control over the world and mastering the environment has always been one of the major goals of science. Believing that science is or will prospectively grant such mastery of nature imbues individuals with the belief that they are in control of their lives.” This sense of personal control in turn contributes to a higher life satisfaction.

It turns out that people who rely upon the efficacy of the human intellect to solve problems have a greater chance of living satisfying lives than those who cling to the supernatural hope that an unseen sky-God will somehow save them from their troubles.

A few things here: I certainly don’t believe bare “religious belief” matters much at all. In fact, I would hold that his belief in “science” is a “religious belief”. Belief can never be better than its object: the study merely looks at “religious belief” as if all religious belief were interchangeable. It does not consider the certainty of that belief.

It is the Scriptural position that most “religious belief” is false and rebellious.

Second, there is no apparent control for circumstances. I suspect that most of the people who hold to the “sci-tech progress” and well-educated, relatively prosperous and younger. In such a circumstance “sci-tech” has relatively little work to do. A comfortable, sociable, reasonably attractive 30 year old is probably happier than other people: but such happiness hinges upon circumstance.

I would be curious of the satisfaction of a “sic-tech progress” believer on the day they learn their child has cancer.

As a Christian (and often a poor specimen), I know that there is no promise of endless happiness now. In fact, the promise is precisely the opposite. I am hopeful; but I also know the realism that this world as a painful one. I know that making a better device will not alter the human heart. I know that no amount of medical technology (for which I am very grateful) will ever ultimately put off death.

I know that cultist and idolators often begin joyful.

Another aspect: personal control. Any belief in “personal control” is on its face irrational — although the desire for personal utter autonomy has been a human goal since the Garden.

What is Worship?

10 Wednesday Feb 2016

Posted by memoirandremains in Culture, Sin, Soteriology, Thesis, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Culture, Hope, religion, salvation, Thesis, Worldview, Worship

I have been trying to find a definition which captures the concept of worship when it expands out into “normal” activities. Without question, our relationship to various “idols” — sports idols, music idols, the famous, the beautiful, the powerful can constitute worship. A college football looks like worship.

But there is also the worship of the mall (James K.A. Smith’s first chapter in Desiring the Kingdom is brilliant on this point). How do we capture work as worship? And how do we distinguish appropriate human action is appropriate and not as sinful worship? How do I go to a football game or a concert and not “worship” the performer?

This is still tentative:

Every worldview — even if it is inarticulate — grapples with the “wrong” in the world, the way it is not supposed to be. The most thoughtless person still struggles against something wrong. There is some Fall, some Sin which haunts us all — even if we don’t think of it in “religious” terms.

There is a solution to that something wrong: If you will, there is Sin and there is Salvation.

The object of worship is that thing, person, whatever, which the human worshiper believes will resolve the “what is wrong with the world” problem. It might be the outcome of political election or new shoes.

The act of worship is that set of actions and affections which seek to obtain the benefit of the object hoped in.

There may be more than one object of worship necessary to resolve the problem as understood by the human worshipper.

Seen in this way, not all worship will entail distinctly “religious” means. The act of worship is fit to the object of worship.

“Religious” acts of worship take place where the object of worship is principally spiritual.

However, where the objet of worship is a material object the practice of worship will not appear to be “religious”. If it is an objection and action which is common to a particular culture, it will appear “normal” and be largely invisible.

God didn’t create, but elves and trolls ….

03 Wednesday Feb 2016

Posted by memoirandremains in Culture, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Creation, Culture, Iceland, paganism, religion, Science, secularism, Thesis

Iceland seems to be on its way to becoming an even more secular nation, according to a new poll. Less than half of Icelanders claim they are religious and more than 40% of young Icelanders identify as atheist. Remarkably the poll failed to find young Icelanders who accept the creation story of the Bible. 93.9% of Icelanders younger than 25 believed the world was created in the big bang, 6.1% either had no opinion or thought it had come into existence through some other means and 0.0% believed it had been created by God.

Read the rest

This story about Iceland seems related to this story about Icelanders: More than half of Icelanders believe in huldufolk, hidden people like elves and trolls.

Why are human beings inveterately religious?

27 Wednesday Jan 2016

Posted by memoirandremains in Culture, Romans, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Atheism, religion, Religious, Romans 1, Romans 1:18-25

According to Dominic Johnson:

Reward and punishment may not emanate from a single omnipotent deity, as imagined in Western societies. Justice may be dispensed by a vast unseen army of gods, angels, demons and ghosts, or else by an impersonal cosmic process that rewards good deeds and punishes wrongdoing, as in the Hindu and Buddhist conception of karma. But some kind of moral order beyond any human agency seems to be demanded by the human mind, and this sense that our actions are overseen and judged from beyond the natural world serves a definite evolutionary role. Belief in supernatural reward and punishment promotes social co-operation in a way nothing else can match. The belief that we live under some kind of supernatural guidance is not a relic of superstition that might some day be left behind but an evolutionary adaptation that goes with being human.

It’s a conclusion that is anathema to the current generation of atheists – Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and others – for whom religion is a poisonous concoction of lies and delusion. These “new atheists” are simple souls. In their view, which derives from rationalist philosophy and not from evolutionary theory, the human mind is a faculty that seeks an accurate representation of the world. This leaves them with something of a problem. Why are most human beings, everywhere and at all times, so wedded to some version of religion? It can only be that their minds have been deformed by malignant priests and devilish power elites. Atheists have always been drawn to demonology of this kind; otherwise, they cannot account for the persistence of the beliefs they denounce as poisonously irrational. The inveterate human inclination to religion is, in effect, the atheist problem of evil.

But what if belief in the supernatural is natural for human beings? For anyone who takes the idea of evolution seriously, religions are not intellectual errors, but adaptations to the experience of living in an uncertain and hazardous world. What is needed – and still largely lacking – is a perspective in which religion is understood as an inexhaustibly complex variety of beliefs and practices that have evolved to meet enduring human needs.

Read the rest

I agree that this process is hardwired — although I hold that the source comes from a different direction:

Romans 1:18–25 (ESV)

The world is more intensely religious than ever before

10 Thursday Dec 2015

Posted by memoirandremains in Culture, Thesis, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Culture, religion, Rodney Stark

Rodney Stark explains:

Many intellectuals insist that a worldwide triumph of secularization is inevitable, and they applaud whatever is interpreted as a sign of religious decline. Religious believers, meanwhile, lament these same signs. The crucial point is that both sides accept the premise that the world is becoming more secular.

Well, they are both wrong.

The world is not merely as religious as it used to be. In important ways, it is much more intensely religious than ever before. Around the globe, four out of every five people claim to belong to an organized faith, and many of the rest say they attend worship services. In Latin America, Pentecostal Protestant churches have converted tens of millions, and Catholics are going to Mass in unprecedented numbers. There are more churchgoing Christians in Sub-Saharan Africa than anywhere else on earth, and China may soon become home of the most Christians. Meanwhile, Islam enjoys far higher levels of member commitment than it has for many centuries, and the same is true for Hinduism.

Immanent Religion

06 Friday Nov 2015

Posted by memoirandremains in 1 Peter, Culture, Hosea, Judges, Thesis

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Baal, Culture, E. Herbert Nygren, Hosea, idolatry, Immanence, Judges, Micah, religion, Religious Impulse, Thesis, Transcendence, Worship

Photo courtesy of Johannes Zielcke.

(Thinking through the question of religious practice of people who deny the transcendent, which help from E. Herbert Nygren.)

Nygren observes that the secular age does not merely dispense with God but rather makes God utterly immanent: what is lost is not a god per se but rather a transcendent God:

Emily Brunner, some years ago, in his book Revelation and Reason wrote: “The most characteristic element of the present age, and that which distinguishes it … is the almost complete disappearance of the sense of transcendence, and the consciousness of revelation.”

The disappearance of transcendence—this can take us in either of two directions: the total abandonment of God i:n favor of a secular society or the total involvement of God within the secular society.

The former—the abandonment of God in favor of the secular conceded to the physical world the right to exert a controlling force over life. Several distinguishable corollaries are illustrative of this mood. There is a persistent appeal to physical accomplishments, minimizing or even neglecting human needs and values.

****

The second aspect of the disappearance of the sense of the transcendent involves the total involvement of God in the secular world, the nearly exclusive emphasis upon immanentism. In many instances, the churches no longer make ontological or dogmatic statements about a transcendent Diety. God-talk has been dispensed with in favor of a theological language speaking about Jesus of Nazareth, about human self-understanding, about the “Death of God.” To make religion relevant to the secular society, the supernatural has to be excised, erased, forever.

But this cry for relevance so easily results in religion’s being swallowed up in the secular society.

E. Herbert Nygren, “Secularism—The Theological Challenge,” Ashland Theological Journal Volume 4 4 (1971): 41. The effect of this loss of transcendence is the loss of direction, the loss of purpose:

How suggestive this is of modern man’s dilemma. It lies in his loss of direction; he is willing to go anyplace anyone will take him, and having arrived will do anything anyone asks him to do. It is possible that modern man’s frustrations and dissatisfactions lie in the fact that he has fallen in love with everything and anything rather than with something and someone.

Nygren, 42. Without a sufficient object, the “religious impulse” or the direction of man’s worship becomes corrupt. Nygren illustrates this corruption with the stories of Hosea and Micah in the book of Judges: one exhibits sexual immorality, the other crass materialism.

The worshippers of Baal had lost the personal God of Israel among the nature forces and immorality:

As Walter Eichrodt expressed it, Israel had lost a personal relationship with God by an impersonal entry into numinous forces of agricultural cults. In a desire to make religion relevant, they tried to imitate the mythology of the day, the mythology of the marriage of gods and goddesses with earth by having sexual relations with the cultic prostitutes at scattered shrines.

Nygren, 42. Micah directed his religious impulse toward a god of silver whom he could move — and lose to the more vicious Dannites.

In both instances, the religion becomes a desire for a god whom the worshipper can manipulate. Micah apparently believes an idol and a “priest” who give him the ability to “worship”. The Baal worshippers of Hosea certainly hoped their immorality would bring the blessing of their wholly immanent storm god.

It seem that Nygren is one to something here: the modern perversion of worship seems to tend in one of these two directions: First, there is the physical pleasure, the sex, drugs and rock ‘n roll of Hosea. Second, there is the rank materialism of Micah. If anything the decadence of the West has coupled these two into a combination of “erotic liberty” (to use Mohler’s phrase) and material progress (preferably without labor) will bring about happiness: a sort of perversion of Peter’s encouragement: to”rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory, obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls” (1 Peter 1:8b-9).

The worship of this immanent age there must be seen in the subjection of one’s life to obtain this “salvation”. We make a mistake when we think that a religion must solely be focused on some transcendent object: idolatry is by very definition something that can be seen and touched with the hope of bringing about immediate physical good.

Moreover, an immanent religion will be largely invisible, because it will be just the “normal” way one lives.

(There is also the “religious” error of a wholly transcendent religion which merely seeks the escape of this world. Christian cherishes both the transcendent and immanent which lies at the heart of our worship: Jesus the Incarnate Son of God who will raise the dead and restore the world, bringing about a New Heavens and a New Earth.)

An “experience” is not a good ground for faith.

20 Sunday Jul 2014

Posted by memoirandremains in 2 Peter, Apologetics, Faith, Romans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

2 Peter, A.C. Grayling, Apologetics, Barbara Ehrenreich, experience, Faith, religion, Romans, Self-Disclosure

Ehrenreich’s chief experience of a transcendent Otherness, an experience which has had a large impact on her life, occurred when she was eighteen.

Grayling then goes onto describe her sense of “otherness” in some detail. Ehrenreich took the experience to be some sort of divine intervention. He also critiques her understanding of this Other as a true objective event:

Religious people, of course, attribute them to encounters with the divine, and it may well be that experiences caused in these ways lie at the root of humankind’s impulse to create religion. But the fact that empirical science today so well explains the causes and nature of these disturbances of normal neurological function is reason to guard against the supernaturalistic attempts at explanation, which were once the only resource our forebears had.

I have no opinion about the natural or source of Ehrenreich’s experience. The very subjectivity of such an experience makes it impossible to affirm or deny or perhaps even understand. For the Christian, even an event which others experienced is alone insufficient to ground faith. Peter specifically directs our attention elsewhere:

16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,”
18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.
19 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts,
20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation.
21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Peter who had a supreme experience, a sight of the transfiguration of The Lord, refuses to rest faith there. Rather he directs us to something else: God speaking. This may seem an odd ground for faith, and yet there it is:

14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?
15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?”
17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

Romans 10:14-17. This is so, because all that we can know of God can only come through revelation. God must disclose himself to us, for we cannot come to him any other manner. The self-disclosure of God coming in its final form as God speaking in his Son (Hebrews 1:2a, in these last days he spoke to us in his Son):

No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known. John 1:18.

Thus, we do not ground our faith in some subjective experience but rather in God’s objective self-disclosure.