Religion or Ethics?
This line of thought was sparked by a rabid debate among two friends. The question began as follows: At what point does being a “progressive Muslim” disconnect you from the traditional and fundamental tenets of Islam? Sure. I’m a progressive Christian. I believe in God and Jesus, but I don’t agree with some of the more controversial aspects of Christianity because it’s not acceptable in society to do so.
It got progrssively more complicated, and digressed quite a bit and this was my attempt to tie it up into something that I understood that was cohesive.
Ethics v. Religion
Religions / Theology don’t simply give us a moral code. In addition to a moral code, and more importantly, they attempt to satisfy some basic metaphysical questions that most humans begin to ask themselves as children: “Where did I come from?” “Why are we here?” “If there is a God who loves us then why does he make us suffer” etc.
Religions/theology/spiritual thought are intended to give indirect answers to these questions - or better yet - contextualize the questions in such a way that you are forced to revisit the meaning of the questions themselves. They provide myths and stories that aim to give life meaning.
Ethics tell you the how about life - Theology tells you the why about life
You might say, well there are tons of people who just don’t care as much about those kinds of questions anymore. Though we’ve come leaps and bounds in terms of creating a more egalitarian and just society on earth, I think we foolishly believe that our technology has killed God.
Here’s a silly example that has caused alot of confusion…Take the Judeo-Christian creation story. Our scientific observations tell us that man came to be millions of years after the first life began on the planet, but the bible tells us that man was created only seven days after not just the planet, but EVERYTHING was created. So what do we do? We throw out the baby with the bathwater, which is the wrong approach, as upal said.
Its silly when I think of it now, but I’ll admit - as a child, when I saw this juxtaposition of science and religion I was deeply disturbed and my faith in Christianity was profoundly shaken. I have a better understanding of Christianity now, and an appreciation for it, but I expect that many young people turned their backs on their religions due to the incongruities with respect to the various creation stories, and scientific observation and since then haven’t taken the time to re examine the divergence.
Today’s religions will experience challenges in retaining their integrity in the next 200 years - I’ll say that. But answers to our spiritual questions have to come from somewhere. And it won’t be from any ethics books. I’m afraid we’ll still be relying on myth and metaphors for as long as we’re in existence.
However - I agree that religions are absolutely absurd! They tell these crazy stories, and you’re expected to believe!? Well alot of folks think that believing in the unintelligible propositions and symbols of their religions is the true test of faith. Tertulian of Christianity said “I believe, because it is absurd.”
Food for thought…
I do think that many people who are fortunate enough to have a western education are spiritually starved… I read something the other day that I thought was apt:
T. George Harris wrote:
”The social hierachies of the past, where some boss above you always punished any error, conditioned men to feel a chain of harsh authority reaching all the way ‘up there.’ We don’t feel this bone in today’s egalitarian freedom. We don’t even have, since Dr. Spock, many Jehova-like fathers in the human family. So the average unconscious no longer learns to seek forgiveness from a wrathful god above.”
He goes on:
”Our generation knows a cold hell, solitary confinement in this life, without a God to damn or save it. Until man figures out the trap and hunts ‘the ultimate ground of being’ [his uncontaminated word for God] he has no reason at all for his existence. Empty, finite, he knows only that he will soon die. Since this life has no meaning, and he sees no future life, he is not really a person but a victim of self-extinction.”
So to sum up all I’ve said above - I feel that religion has great value because it explains metaphysical questions that we all ask ourselves. From time to time we may ignore these questions, or try to placate ourselves with other distractions, but a good deal of the pain and suffering in life is felt because we do not understand the answers to these questions - and that is precisely why they are important.
Now, given that religion/theology/spirituality will always have a place in society, I’ve already raised some points about how fucked up they are.
Religions are Retarded
Religions are faulted - I’ll more than admit that. I mean there are several examples of religions that just expired because they couldn’t evolve with the times. However, I accept why religions are faulted: it’s because they attempt to explain that which cannot be explained, the sacred, the divine, the all encompassing truth, the underlying being, whatever you want to call it. No one can explain this literally – it’s the “Achilles heel” of all religions/theology. Its definitely the common denominator of all religions. A theology attempts to explain this through myths and stories (“theo“=god “logos“=story) which act as similes or metaphors to describe the divine, never able to do more than point in the direction of what they are trying to explain. We are no more able to explain the divine than we are able to look at our own eyeballs without a mirror, or no more than we are able to bite our own teeth. It’s a reflexive activity that can’t be completed because essentially all our questions originate or somehow involve ourselves. But I digress…
To get more to the heart of the question that prompted this discussion, you need to look at why religions consistently fail to keep pace with progressive thought.
I see religions as basically a combination of static and dynamic forces. When I say static forces, I mean written doctrine, and very basic ‘platform ideology’ (if you will) that defines the seminal thought that makes that religion unique. Many static forces are hard to change - if not impossible. Sometimes this inflexibility threatens the survival of the entire belief system (take the Vatican’s refusal to admit that sun does not revolve around the earth). But there are varying levels of static forces. I mean, that there are really basic ideas, and then there are hundreds of pages of sacred text. That’s what I mean by static forces – the guiding light of a religion.
By dynamic forces, I’m talking about the ever-changing, evolving thought that creates movement/change. It’s a burst of energy that is essentially an act of creation in your brain. It’s the here and now. It’s what keeps any system alive. It prompts discussion like the one we’re having, and it also provides fertile ground for religious scholars to perform intellectual masturbation.
Now static and dynamic forces hold a belief system together like two oppositely charged metals, and without the other they kind of fall apart and lose form. They also constantly chafe at each other, and keep each other in check.
An example that is apt to what we’re discussing would involve scholars debating over the application/interpretation (dynamic force) of sacred text (static force) in light of a new day (progressive thought). I mean interpretation of sacred text is basically what creates religion right? So thats how I disseminate religion into these two ideas.
Ok so if we agree on that, lets get back to the question here…
While these two elements are what make up any religion, its impossible to keep pace with progressive thought without some time lag. So heres the problem - we’re back where we started.
Lets agree to rephrase the original question:
At what point do the dynamic forces in today’s progressive thought overpower the static forces in traditional Islamic religious thought?
I don’t know as much about Islam as I expect [redacted] to know, but I will say that from what I know about the basic pillars, there is little progressive thought that precludes abiding by the basic tenets of Islam. Not to pick here, but you really have to ask yourself what are the basic tenets of Islam? If the answer is the 5 pillars, then that’s produces a series of results that are different if you say that every last friggin detail in the Koran make up the basic tenets. So the answer is not definitely yes or no because it depends on what you believe the basic tenets are. However you interpret the basic tenets to be there HAS to be some flexilibity in how you interpret the teachings of religion for it to survive.
I mean lets take Christianity - The core principal boils down to the golden rule: Do unto others what you would have done unto you.
Pretty simple… However, there is also an entire series of books that helps explain this in many different ways; stories, and myths that add color and flourish to deepen the meaning of this simple idea.
The problem with the divine, the sacred, the underlying being is that the more you try to explain it, the farther you get from it. The closer you look, the more distorted picture you find. That’s how I explain why there are errors in holy texts. PEOPLE wrote the bible. Yes, they had the Holy Spirit speaking through them, but those people still left their traces. And when I read parts of the bible that disparage gays, or seem to go against progressive thought, I can’t help but see those as stains that the writers left behind that are just residual of the times in which they lived.
Being a follower of no one religion, but respectful of many, its evident that I believe that not all religions are created equal. Like I said before - some just died out because it couldn’t keep up with the changes. If I had to put my money on it, I would say that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, have all stood a long test of time, and I doubt that any of them will die out any time soon because progressive thought made them extinct. I just think the people who choose to follow the path of Islam are dedicated enough to keep that debate going to find utilitarian solutions to the practical problems that are confronting the religion.
RSS
Archive
Mobile