It cannot be the denied that the Pharisees are negatively portrayed in the Gospels. Whether this is an accurate portrayal of the Jewish sect is debatable. As with any text, the Gospels are likely to contain at least an element of bias (especially considering the aims of the evangelists in promoting Christianity) The Pharisees may have been misrepresented in at least some degree in the Gospels, especially in Matthew and John, which reflect the growing antagonism between Christianity and Judaism after 70 A.D (Destruction of the Temple).
Before we begin, you might be wondering:
Who were the Pharisees?
The Pharisees were a major Jewish sect during Jesus' time. In the New Testament, they appear as Jesus' most vocal critics. Their insistence on ritual observance rather than the spirit of the law evoked strong denunciation by Jesus; countless times he calls them "hypocrites". They are portrayed as plotting to destroy Jesus and pressure Pilate to "crucify him". Although Pilate, as the Roman Procurator, had the ultimate authority to pass the death sentence, the Evangelists do not present him in the negative light that the Pharisees are presented.
SO...
Is it any wonder the Pharisees were depicted in this way?
It was in fact the Pharisees of all the Jews that most resisted the influence and ideology of early Christianity. For Jews, the idea of the trinity was irrational in the view of the Pharisees, since it seemed to violate the sacred Jewish teaching that God is 'One'. The Christians ignored many of the ritual observances that the Pharisees felt would bring the Kingdom of God, such as the Sabbath and circumcision.Jews very much believed that God would protect them from foreign intervention in the Holy Land if they followed His law (The Covenant). What the Pharisees attempted to do was bring every area of life into subjection to the law. They had a longing for a righteous Israel and the hope for the Messianic Kingdom in the imminent future. They sought to save people by turning back to the law. This is why they were so harsh with Jesus when he heals on the Sabbath, subsequently breaking the Sabbath law.
What were they really like?
While the Gospels portray the Pharisees as pretentious, they were actually the most egalitarian sect. They allowed anyone to become a Pharisee, provided they studied and knew the Law well. It can be argued that rather than recognising the devout nature of the Pharisees to the Law, the New Testament condemns them as taking part in the Jewish rituals without being spiritually involved. A classic example of this is the Parable of the Good Samaritan, where the Pharisee ignores the suffering of a man attacked by bandits, because he would become unclean by touching him. Although this may be true of many Pharisees, the evangelists often make sweeping generalisations condemning all Pharisees to a stereotype (there were in fact two types of Pharisee - each deriving from Shammai or Hillel - Shammai being more strict).Other Jewish sects, less passionate about preserving Judaism, are not indicted in this manner. The Sadducees for example, were far more open to Hellenistic influence and disagreed with any notion of the afterlife, yet are not portrayed nearly as negatively.
Do the Gospels really present them SO negatively that it is impossible to believe the depiction of them?
They Gospels do present the Pharisees very negatively, but this is not to say that it is all bad. As with any person/group/ideology, there are always positive and negative aspects. The Gospels present some positive aspects of Pharisaism, that does suggest the view of the Pharisees in the New Testament is an accurate one. For instance the Pharisee Nicodemus features positively. He says, "for no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him." There are also various occasions when Pharisees showed Jesus hospitality. In fact, the apostle Paul is meant to have been a Pharisee.
How do the Gospels compare with other sources on the Pharisees?
To discover whether the picture painted by the evangelists of the Pharisees is an accurate one, it will be necessary to cite other sources which mention the Pharisees, including the works of Flavius Josephus and the various compilations of the Rabbis.
Of the three sects that Josephus lists (Pharisees, Essenes & Sadducees), the Pharisees appeal to him most. Josephus presents them generally positively, however the Rabbinic traditions do not. The Talmud lists seven categories of Pharisees, and only the seventh is laudable: there is the shouldering Pharisee, who parades good deeds; there is the delaying Pharisee, who lets business wait in order to do a good deed; there is the bruised Pharisee, who walks into a wall to keep from looking at a woman; there is the pestle Pharisee, who with false humility walks with his head down like a pestle on a mortar; there is the ever-reckoning Pharisee, who asks what good deeds he might do that would be reckoned as canceling out his neglects; there is the fearful Pharisee, who is in terror of God; and there is the loving Pharisee, who like Abraham loves God--he is admirable. Two other expressions are used in the Mishnah to describe the Pharisees: "destroyers of the world" and "Pharisaic plagues," which certainly portray them very critically.
It should be noted here, however, that even the use of the explicit sources is problematic. The Rabbinic traditions are shaped by polemical forces are often anachronistic. The value of Josephus' information, which has traditionally been regarded as the most reliable, is diminished by recent studies which suggest that Josephus was not a Pharisee before all the other sects died out (A.D. 70) and that his eventual conversion to the sect was motivated by political realities.
Overall, it seems that the Pharisees are not wrong identified in the Gospels but are used to support their case. It is one thing to say that the Gospel writers selected cases that best illustrated the Jewish opposition to Jesus; but it is quite another to say that they misrepresented facts or invented stories. The negative depiction of the Pharisees cannot come from no-where, but it is likely that the evangelists exaggerated them. It is conceivable of humans to become self-righteous and proud of their law-keeping, getting too caught up in its minute detail. Whether this was true of all Pharisees, is unlikely.
Saturday, 19 April 2014
Tuesday, 11 March 2014
A problem with the record of genealogy of the Messiah
First, let us have a look at Matthew 1:
This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2 Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3 Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
4 Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5 Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6 and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife,
7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
8 Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9 Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10 Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
11 and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
12 After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13 Zerubbabel the father of Abihud,
Abihud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14 Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Elihud,
15 Elihud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.
17 Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah.
St.Luke goes further and relates Jesus to Adam, The Son of God.
Interestingly, in both gospels, Jesus is connected to David through Joseph. However, before Joseph and Mary were married, Mary was pregnant "through the Holy Spirit". Matthew makes it clear that "he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son." So Joseph, according to the gospels, is not Jesus' father. Jesus, since he had no earthly father, cannot be a direct male descendant of David, and therefore cannot be the Messiah. Is this a valid objection?
In response, it is claimed that Joseph adopted Jesus, and passed on his genealogy via adoption. There are two problems with this claim:
a) There is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption;
b) Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn't have. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah)
To answer this difficult problem, apologists claim that Jesus traces himself back to King David through his mother Mary. However:
a) There is no evidence that Mary descends from David. Both Matthew and Luke show Jesus' claim through Joseph. If Mary had a claim, then surely they would have used her genealogy, as this was more likely to be accepted as authentic.
a) There is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption;
b) Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn't have. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah)
To answer this difficult problem, apologists claim that Jesus traces himself back to King David through his mother Mary. However:
a) There is no evidence that Mary descends from David. Both Matthew and Luke show Jesus' claim through Joseph. If Mary had a claim, then surely they would have used her genealogy, as this was more likely to be accepted as authentic.
b) Some scholars have argued that Jesus cannot be related to David through Mary because even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn't help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. (Numbers 1:18)
c) Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendant of David through his son Solomon (II Samuel 7:14) The third chapter of Luke is irrelevant to this discussion because it describes lineage of David's son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31)
d) Luke 3;27 lists Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in his genealogy. These two also appear in Matthew 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. If Mary descends from them, it would also disqualify her from being a Messianic progenitor.
If we have a look at Luke's genealogy, he begins by saying, "He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph."
Some scholars have pointed out that Luke was suggesting Jesus was actually the son [i.e. descendant] of Eli. Since Jesus' actual physical descent was through Mary, his closest male ancestor (Eli) would be Mary's father. The word "son" in Hebrew can be used of multi-generational descent, as in the English word "descendant."This makes Luke's genealogy a record of Mary's ancestry.That Eli was Mary’s father may also be confirmed by the rabbis in the Jerusalem Talmud, which mentions a Mary the daughter of Eli/
So, in that case, we can fall back on Luke's genealogy of the Messiah. Although Jesus hasn't descended through His father, Genesis' requirement of the Messiah is only that he will be of the tribe of Judah. Isaiah says only that he will be a descendant of Jesse (the father of King David). Jeremiah says only that he will be a descendant of David himself. So there is no reason why the Messiah cannot be descended from David on his mother's side.
The objection that tribal affiliation is only through the father is not always true. If a man has only daughters, the tribal inheritance is through the daughters (Numbers 27;7). This might well have been the case with Mary, since only her sister is mentioned in John 19 and not a brother. But even so, since Mary was still living at home and Joseph was not the father of her child, there would be no one else to trace the child’s heritage through other than Mary and her father. This is exactly the implication of Luke: that Jesus was a descendant of Eli.
So there is no serious objection to accepting Luke’s genealogy as the actual physical genealogy of Jesus through his grandfather Eli and his mother, Mary. He was a physical descendant of King David, and therefore eligible to fulfill the prophecies pointing to the Messiah.
So you might wonder then, what is the purpose of Matthew's genealogy?
| |
Monday, 10 March 2014
Resurrection or Reincarnation?
Hi there.
I haven't been writing as frequently lately, so I thought I'd get back to it. This question came to mind when I skimmed through A2 Philosophy Past-paper questions earlier today, and realised I'd never really put these two wide-spread beliefs together in a critical comparison.
For those who don't know much about either, I thought I'd start with a brief explanation.
Resurrection
Resurrection is the belief of Christians, Jews and Muslims. It is the belief that God will raise the dead back to life on Judgement day. The righteous will form an eternal kingdom of God from which all sinners will be excluded. This life is often understood as a testing ground for the next. It is traditionally a monist view i.e body and mind are inseparable. However, some do take a more dualistic approach:
“The resurrections of the Divine Manifestations are not of the body. All Their states, Their conditions, Their acts, the things They have established, Their teachings, Their expressions, Their parables and Their instructions have a spiritual and divine signification, and have no connection with material things.” {Baha'i writings}
Therefore, the resurrection and ascension of Christ are both spiritual and symbolic, but not material.
Reincarnation
Reincarnation literally means 'to take on flesh again'. Sikhs and Hindus believe in this. Belief in reincarnation also depends upon belief in an immortal and eternal soul, called an Atman, that passes from body to body depending on the life it has lived. In every person there is an Atman which animates the body and is the essence of the person. Hindus use reincarnation to explain the presence of physical, social and financial inequalities among humans and believe that the goal of life is to escape the cycle of reincarnation (samsara) and achieve unity with Brahma - the ultimate reality.
People say that there is evidence for reincarnation in past-life memories i.e. the sense of deja-vu, and in hypnosis. Some have taken on new characters and even spoken in different languages.
Now, the main problem with disembodied existence is the issue of body and mind/soul identity. Are you really yourself without your body? I didn't find it difficult to think I could be myself without by body, but after having a look at these questions, I had to think again:
1) Are you the same person that you were when you were seven? If you had scribbled on the wall when you were seven and it was only discovered today, would it be fair for you to be punished for it now?
2) If someone committed a war crime forty years ago, but then lead a charitable life, would it be fair for them to be punished today?
3) Is someone who has suffered a total memory loss still the same person? This relates to problems with Reincarnation quite well...As Peter Geach points out, "How is the new body YOU if it lacks your body, memories, and feelings?"
3)Is someone who suffered both physical and mental changes still the same person? E.g. Someone who is confined to a wheelchair and brain damaged by an accident, so that the body is changed, the memory is impaired and the personality is altered? Try to think of a way in which they are the same.
4) Suppose scientists made an exact replica of you, with your exact DNA produced in another being who is cloned to be the same age as you. Would you and the clone be the same person?
5) Imagine someone who had been a recipient of of every organ donation possible - skin, grafts, face transplant, heart and lungs, corneas, new kidneys. Say a brain transplant was possible too. Person A had the organs, and Person B was the donor. Is Person A now Person B?
6) Person C dies. What aspects of person C must continue to exist so that he/she is in fact the same person?
Descartes said, "I think therefore I am." So therefore, we are primarily a "thinking thing". Basic knowledge of the self is independent from the body; the immortal soul is the source of conscious life. This thesis is called “mind-body dualism.” He reaches this conclusion by arguing that the nature of the mind (that is, a thinking, non-extended thing) is completely different from that of the body (that is, an extended, non-thinking thing), and therefore it is possible for one to exist without the other.
This argument gives rise to the famous problem of mind-body causal interaction still debated today: how can the mind cause some of our bodily limbs to move (for example, raising one’s hand to ask a question), and how can the body’s sense organs cause sensations in the mind when their natures are completely different?
I haven't been writing as frequently lately, so I thought I'd get back to it. This question came to mind when I skimmed through A2 Philosophy Past-paper questions earlier today, and realised I'd never really put these two wide-spread beliefs together in a critical comparison.
For those who don't know much about either, I thought I'd start with a brief explanation.
Resurrection
Resurrection is the belief of Christians, Jews and Muslims. It is the belief that God will raise the dead back to life on Judgement day. The righteous will form an eternal kingdom of God from which all sinners will be excluded. This life is often understood as a testing ground for the next. It is traditionally a monist view i.e body and mind are inseparable. However, some do take a more dualistic approach:
“The resurrections of the Divine Manifestations are not of the body. All Their states, Their conditions, Their acts, the things They have established, Their teachings, Their expressions, Their parables and Their instructions have a spiritual and divine signification, and have no connection with material things.” {Baha'i writings}
Therefore, the resurrection and ascension of Christ are both spiritual and symbolic, but not material.
Reincarnation
Reincarnation literally means 'to take on flesh again'. Sikhs and Hindus believe in this. Belief in reincarnation also depends upon belief in an immortal and eternal soul, called an Atman, that passes from body to body depending on the life it has lived. In every person there is an Atman which animates the body and is the essence of the person. Hindus use reincarnation to explain the presence of physical, social and financial inequalities among humans and believe that the goal of life is to escape the cycle of reincarnation (samsara) and achieve unity with Brahma - the ultimate reality.
People say that there is evidence for reincarnation in past-life memories i.e. the sense of deja-vu, and in hypnosis. Some have taken on new characters and even spoken in different languages.
Now, the main problem with disembodied existence is the issue of body and mind/soul identity. Are you really yourself without your body? I didn't find it difficult to think I could be myself without by body, but after having a look at these questions, I had to think again:
1) Are you the same person that you were when you were seven? If you had scribbled on the wall when you were seven and it was only discovered today, would it be fair for you to be punished for it now?
2) If someone committed a war crime forty years ago, but then lead a charitable life, would it be fair for them to be punished today?
3) Is someone who has suffered a total memory loss still the same person? This relates to problems with Reincarnation quite well...As Peter Geach points out, "How is the new body YOU if it lacks your body, memories, and feelings?"
3)Is someone who suffered both physical and mental changes still the same person? E.g. Someone who is confined to a wheelchair and brain damaged by an accident, so that the body is changed, the memory is impaired and the personality is altered? Try to think of a way in which they are the same.
4) Suppose scientists made an exact replica of you, with your exact DNA produced in another being who is cloned to be the same age as you. Would you and the clone be the same person?
5) Imagine someone who had been a recipient of of every organ donation possible - skin, grafts, face transplant, heart and lungs, corneas, new kidneys. Say a brain transplant was possible too. Person A had the organs, and Person B was the donor. Is Person A now Person B?
6) Person C dies. What aspects of person C must continue to exist so that he/she is in fact the same person?
Descartes said, "I think therefore I am." So therefore, we are primarily a "thinking thing". Basic knowledge of the self is independent from the body; the immortal soul is the source of conscious life. This thesis is called “mind-body dualism.” He reaches this conclusion by arguing that the nature of the mind (that is, a thinking, non-extended thing) is completely different from that of the body (that is, an extended, non-thinking thing), and therefore it is possible for one to exist without the other.
This argument gives rise to the famous problem of mind-body causal interaction still debated today: how can the mind cause some of our bodily limbs to move (for example, raising one’s hand to ask a question), and how can the body’s sense organs cause sensations in the mind when their natures are completely different?
St.Paul & Resurrection
St Paul's explanation of Resurrection is what I like to call 'Theology in the Making'. You'll see why.
When Paul went to Athens to share the good news, he received a terrible response to resurrection from the Athenians. The Athenians had a history of philosophical thought through Plato's Academy and Aristotle's Lyceum. Paul clearly hadn't done his research, he hadn't thought about the philosophical problems that are implicated in a resurrected body. Although there aren't letters to the Athenians in the New Testament, we can imagine it went something like this:
Followers of Plato were dualist, and since Resurrection is a monist theory, would have argued that the body could be seen as the source of flaws and limitations i.e. desire and disease and if Life after Death was really perfect, we couldn't live in our bodies. The Aristotelian, being monist, argued that the soul cannot be separated from the body. Aristotle used the analogy of the eye. If the eye were an animal, sight would be its soul. When the eye no longer sees it is an eye in name only. Likewise a dead animal is only an animal in name only. It has the same body but it has lost its soul. What is important for Aristotle is the purpose of something. The soul is simply the form of the body and is not capable of existing without it, when we die, our body and soul cease to exist together. Clearly, Resurrection was alien to Greek thought, they didn't believe it possible that Jesus rose again. Paul had no answers , he left, embarrassed.
When Paul arrives in Corinth he explains resurrection again. Most of the Corinthian converts denied resurrection. They thought the spiritual gifts they had received from Jesus' message constituted the new life: already they were 'kings'. Paul didn't agree, he emphasised that what was most important lay ahead. They will all be transformed:
We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.
(1 Corinthians. 15: 51-2)
Paul had difficulty in saying precisely what the transformed body would be like. He knew the body would be both visible and identifiable but he also believed "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven." He realised that flesh and blood was perishable, and the body in the kingdom was imperishable.
He came to the conclusion that we would become a 'spiritual body'. (Isn't that a contradiction of terms?) There would be continuity of sorts between the ordinary and the resurrected person. To express this, Paul used the simile of the seed, which, when planted, is in one form, but, when grown, in another. Or as I like to think, a caterpillar that is transformed into a butterfly. He also said it was like 'putting on' immortality (like a cloak). "The living...would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life."
The problem when Paul goes to Thessalonica is that some members of the Christian community had died, and the survivors worried about their fate. You might wonder, why? If they were good Christians, they would go to heaven, surely? Actually, no. Paul's original message was that the return of the Lord would be in their lifetimes, and that they would live to be saved. Death was not expected and so when people died before the second coming, the Christians considered this unfair. The idea that people go to heaven when they die is not a scriptural teaching from Jesus, but rather a teaching that Paul came up with to solve this problem. Paul wrote to reassure the survivors that the dead would not miss the return of the Lord:
We who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep...And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive; who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord. (1 Thessalonians. 4:15-18)
Paul began to worry. The Christ had not returned. He was imprisoned and facing death at the time he wrote Philippians. Paul began to envisage the ascent of each person's soul at death, rather than the transformation of the entire group of believers, whether living or dead, at Christ's return. So Paul put two ideas together. If he died, he would immediately be with Christ, and at the end of time the Lord would return and resurrect everyone.
General arguments for Reincarnation
As a caterpillar, having come to the end of one blade of grass, draws itself together and reaches out for the next, so the Self, having come together at the end of one life and shed all ignorance, gathers in all its faculties and reaches out from the old body to a new. (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad III.)
I thought people that claim to have been reincarnated was a good argument. Unlike Resurrection, you might say there is more evidence for Reincarnation. I particularly like this example from 'Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation' written by Ian Stevenson. Stevenson took examples mainly from India, Ceylon and Brazil, of children who had 'memories' of past lives, and whose memories bore an unusual resemblance to the lives of deceased people they had never met. He chose to confine his study to children rather than adults, because he thought they were less likely to be motivated by attention-seeking desires.
Swarnlata, a child in India, was taken at the age of three to a town called Katni 170 miles away from the place she had lived all her life. When she arrived in Katni, she pointed out the road where 'my house' was. She described how she had lived there as a member of a family called Pathak, and she commented on the ways in which the place had changed. She performed songs and dances for her family that she claimed she had learned when she was a member of the Pathak family. The language of these songs were Bengali, but she had grown up only knowing Hindi. The Pathaks' daughter Biya had lived to adulthood, learned Bengali songs and dances, married and then died. Swarnlata recognised Biya's brothers and sisters when she was introduced to them, greeting them as if she knew them.
Stevenson looked at the ways in which this could be explained. He considered the possibility of fraud, but thought this unlikely; the child had little to gain from sharing this experience. There was no money or favourable publicity for them, and they found the media attention (if any) to be a nuisance. Swarnlata was actually offered an education from the more wealthy Pathak family but her father refused it. The experience would also have a negative effect in that a young girl talking about having previously married, would not be advantageous when it was her time to marry. He also considered the possibility where a person thinks they remember something but in fact they heard it from another source. There was no link between the two families however. Another idea he considered was genetic memory: i.e. birds that remember how to build nests even though they've never been taught. However there was not a genetic link between the remembering child and the deceased
Hick argued that the case comes from a country where reincarnation is an accepted belief. Why doesn't cases suggestive of reincarnation happen in Europe etc? Similarly, why don't people see Resurrected bodies in the East like Paul claims to have saw Christ?
SO. Resurrection or Reincarnation?
Well that's for you to decide. Perhaps you'd like to put both together like Peter Novak has suggested.
Basically, Novak's theory states that the soul body and spirit body separate after death. The soul body is discarded and the spirit ultimately reincarnates with a new soul body. After a large number of reincarnations, the spirit has discarded a large number of soul bodies. At the time of the "Final Judgment," a doctrine held by all Middle Eastern religions, the so-called "resurrection" will occur. Novak theorizes that at this time, all the discarded soul bodies will reunited with the spirit body. The result will be a world of highly enlightened people knowing all their past lives and their associated life experience and knowledge. Thus, reincarnation and resurrection are not mutually exclusive concepts according to Novak's theory.
Or perhaps you're a Dawkins follower i.e. Neither!
"There is no spirit-driven life force, no throbbing, heaving, pullulating, protoplasmic, mystic jelly. Life is just bytes and bytes and bytes of digital information."
With all this in mind, it seems more difficult to choose. That's because we don't tend to think as much about the philosophical implications, and when we do, we have to re-assess everything. I don't particularly like the idea of suffering in this life because of a previous mistakes that I in no way remember. However, it does seem to me to be more logically coherent than a resurrection. Where is this heaven when we die? & If the end time is on earth, how can we live as a spiritual entity on a physical one? I quite like Novak's theory to be honest. But none the less, the theory of dreams holds strong. (see a few posts below)
Bye for now.
Hick argued that the case comes from a country where reincarnation is an accepted belief. Why doesn't cases suggestive of reincarnation happen in Europe etc? Similarly, why don't people see Resurrected bodies in the East like Paul claims to have saw Christ?
SO. Resurrection or Reincarnation?
Well that's for you to decide. Perhaps you'd like to put both together like Peter Novak has suggested.
Basically, Novak's theory states that the soul body and spirit body separate after death. The soul body is discarded and the spirit ultimately reincarnates with a new soul body. After a large number of reincarnations, the spirit has discarded a large number of soul bodies. At the time of the "Final Judgment," a doctrine held by all Middle Eastern religions, the so-called "resurrection" will occur. Novak theorizes that at this time, all the discarded soul bodies will reunited with the spirit body. The result will be a world of highly enlightened people knowing all their past lives and their associated life experience and knowledge. Thus, reincarnation and resurrection are not mutually exclusive concepts according to Novak's theory.
Or perhaps you're a Dawkins follower i.e. Neither!
"There is no spirit-driven life force, no throbbing, heaving, pullulating, protoplasmic, mystic jelly. Life is just bytes and bytes and bytes of digital information."
With all this in mind, it seems more difficult to choose. That's because we don't tend to think as much about the philosophical implications, and when we do, we have to re-assess everything. I don't particularly like the idea of suffering in this life because of a previous mistakes that I in no way remember. However, it does seem to me to be more logically coherent than a resurrection. Where is this heaven when we die? & If the end time is on earth, how can we live as a spiritual entity on a physical one? I quite like Novak's theory to be honest. But none the less, the theory of dreams holds strong. (see a few posts below)
Bye for now.
Monday, 10 February 2014
Feeling Alive
“I don’t believe people are looking for the meaning of life as much as they are looking for the experience of being alive.”
Of course, we are all alive, but are we really living? Are you alive or just breathing? What makes you feel alive? What does it mean to feel alive?
We live in a world where we are constrained by walls, that ironically, we have built ourselves. It's the norm to spend 5/7 days a week working at your school or your job, and 2/7 days studying, cleaning and doing the tedious chores you were unable to do when you were at work. We go about life doing things everyday that are nearly always unnecessary. We've lost the magic of life, that you only had when you were a child. Everything important is lost in the piles of responsibility and hustle of our everyday lives.
What makes you feel alive?
So many people don't know the answer to this question. We don't know our own self. We don't know what matters.The key is appreciation. I feel alive... when I pour water in the soil of a dying flower, and hours later, like magic, see that flower revived and beautiful. I feel alive when I ride a bicycle, or poke my head out the window of a car....when the wind blows in my face ferociously. When I dance in the rain, when I laugh, when I sing, when I love. Blast my favourite song. Smile at a tree. When I watch the sun rise or set. Screaming at the top of my lungs. Spontaneity!
“Grown-ups love figures... When you tell them you've made a new friend they never ask you any questions about essential matters. They never say to you "What does his voice sound like? What games does he love best? Does he collect butterflies? " Instead they demand "How old is he? How much does he weigh? How much money does his father make? " Only from these figures do they think they have learned anything about him.”
This quote from "The Little Prince" sums up what I'm trying to say. Ask the right questions. See the beautiful. Forget, forgive. The life we've made for ourselves, it isn't real. Paint the canvas that is your life. Life is about creating yourself.
Who cares if you forgot the homework? Who cares if they don't love you? Who cares?
These things are important because we've made them important. Yes, they're partially important because that's the society we live in and those are the rules we abide by, but sometimes, FORGET. Remember nature. Society isn't real. A man-made creation that will not get the better of you.
Ignite the passion.
Of course, we are all alive, but are we really living? Are you alive or just breathing? What makes you feel alive? What does it mean to feel alive?
We live in a world where we are constrained by walls, that ironically, we have built ourselves. It's the norm to spend 5/7 days a week working at your school or your job, and 2/7 days studying, cleaning and doing the tedious chores you were unable to do when you were at work. We go about life doing things everyday that are nearly always unnecessary. We've lost the magic of life, that you only had when you were a child. Everything important is lost in the piles of responsibility and hustle of our everyday lives.
What makes you feel alive?
So many people don't know the answer to this question. We don't know our own self. We don't know what matters.The key is appreciation. I feel alive... when I pour water in the soil of a dying flower, and hours later, like magic, see that flower revived and beautiful. I feel alive when I ride a bicycle, or poke my head out the window of a car....when the wind blows in my face ferociously. When I dance in the rain, when I laugh, when I sing, when I love. Blast my favourite song. Smile at a tree. When I watch the sun rise or set. Screaming at the top of my lungs. Spontaneity!
“Grown-ups love figures... When you tell them you've made a new friend they never ask you any questions about essential matters. They never say to you "What does his voice sound like? What games does he love best? Does he collect butterflies? " Instead they demand "How old is he? How much does he weigh? How much money does his father make? " Only from these figures do they think they have learned anything about him.”
This quote from "The Little Prince" sums up what I'm trying to say. Ask the right questions. See the beautiful. Forget, forgive. The life we've made for ourselves, it isn't real. Paint the canvas that is your life. Life is about creating yourself.
Who cares if you forgot the homework? Who cares if they don't love you? Who cares?
These things are important because we've made them important. Yes, they're partially important because that's the society we live in and those are the rules we abide by, but sometimes, FORGET. Remember nature. Society isn't real. A man-made creation that will not get the better of you.
Ignite the passion.
Monday, 3 February 2014
Beauty and Perception
There are several reasons why I feel it has become necessary for myself to write about beauty and perception. Firstly, probably the most obvious reason, that I experience the day-to-day pressures of a woman who is unwillingly and unfortunately conscious of how I look and how I am perceived physically. This is not to say that I feel physical beauty is of value in my life, just in that it is something that feels impossible to escape from. Secondly, that I am studying Feminist Literature for my A2 Coursework and these topics are frequently observed. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, that I have recently subscribed to a channel on YouTube called "Soul Pancake" that discusses all sorts of topics including religion, children's perspective of the world, love, happiness...etc. There is a particular programme called "That's What She Said", which discusses things like "Beauty and Self-image", "Perception and Confidence", or "Ageing and Death." It reminded me of how subjective beauty is, and how we are perceived, actually is.... and because this is such a subjective experience, it is often said that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." In the videos, particularly the first two, the women discuss several things that I'd like you to think about (men and women alike).
How do you want to be perceived?
I've thought about this myself and also made a point of asking others my age, both male and female. There were all sorts of responses, for women, the most popular were "strong-willed" and "nice", amongst others such as "unique", "a mystery" and even "a teacher." What surprised me most was how most of the responses were non-physical. Although I'm sure we'd all like to be seen as "pretty", "beautiful" or "sexy", this doesn't seem to be priority when we think about how we would like others to view us. For men, there were no responses that suggested the importance of physical perception in themselves. Like women, the most popular answer was "nice", with a close second being "himself". A man wants to be viewed as he is. Perhaps in this way, men are less complicated than women, with less men trying to be something that they are not. It is undeniable that the importance of physical beauty in society is paramount, however, I get the feeling it is also unwelcome a lot more than we might think.
When do you feel most beautiful?
This is the more difficult question to answer it seems. After a lot of thought on this, I decided that I feel most beautiful when I realise I am one with nature, when I smile or when I laugh...when I catch someone looking at me. The most popular answer in women was "when complimented" (be that physically or in any other way). Simply being complimented wasn't enough for some women though, they wanted to know "why he thought she was beautiful" or "why he loved her". Some women felt most beautiful when "natural" or "after a shower", and this also appeared in some men's answers. Interestingly, one male said "I feel most beautiful when it is clear that I am viewed in the way I wanted to be perceived." Another interesting response was "When I have a surge of energy or adrenalin...like a personal revelation." I honestly preferred the men's responses, because when comparing, it is clear that men feel best in a way that we could say is more "natural" and less "physical". Ironically, the man has set the criteria of beauty for women, and a woman simply aggravates this physical importance by not only accepting this idea of beauty but also encouraging it in the way she dresses and changes herself. Perhaps this is because a man's image is not as important as a woman's in society. (I am not denying that men have a tough time too)
Now I'd like to discuss a film that deals with perception and beauty. It's a comedy I watched the other day called "Shallow Hal". It's not a great film but not bad either...Jack Black stars. Hal is, as the title suggests, a shallow male who only seeks women's looks. His life contains a series of brief and meaningless relationships, until one day he is trapped in a lift with a self-help guru who hypnotises him to only look for the inner beauty in women. Soon, Hal begins to have extra-ordinary success with women, in particular a woman named Rosemary. The film plays with point of view shots to show us that Rosemary's actual weight is 140 Kg, but to Hal, all he can see is a slender woman, who is also a lovely person. The trailer prattles on about how Hal now sees only the inner beauty in women. No he doesn't. When he looks at an overweight woman and instead sees her as thin women, he's not seeing her inner beauty. What he is seeing however, is a typical tall, thin model type woman....which in some ways is more insulting than if he saw her as she really is and instantly rejected her.
Lastly, I'd just like to remind you that what we want to be seen in ourselves, many others will also want to see in themselves. Before you "judge a book by its cover", think about how that person wants to be viewed, and also think about what you think should be valued more in society. We forget that we make society, and the more people that change ideas of perception and beauty in their minds, the more likely these important things will be valued.
Until next time,
Goodbye.
How do you want to be perceived?
I've thought about this myself and also made a point of asking others my age, both male and female. There were all sorts of responses, for women, the most popular were "strong-willed" and "nice", amongst others such as "unique", "a mystery" and even "a teacher." What surprised me most was how most of the responses were non-physical. Although I'm sure we'd all like to be seen as "pretty", "beautiful" or "sexy", this doesn't seem to be priority when we think about how we would like others to view us. For men, there were no responses that suggested the importance of physical perception in themselves. Like women, the most popular answer was "nice", with a close second being "himself". A man wants to be viewed as he is. Perhaps in this way, men are less complicated than women, with less men trying to be something that they are not. It is undeniable that the importance of physical beauty in society is paramount, however, I get the feeling it is also unwelcome a lot more than we might think.
When do you feel most beautiful?
This is the more difficult question to answer it seems. After a lot of thought on this, I decided that I feel most beautiful when I realise I am one with nature, when I smile or when I laugh...when I catch someone looking at me. The most popular answer in women was "when complimented" (be that physically or in any other way). Simply being complimented wasn't enough for some women though, they wanted to know "why he thought she was beautiful" or "why he loved her". Some women felt most beautiful when "natural" or "after a shower", and this also appeared in some men's answers. Interestingly, one male said "I feel most beautiful when it is clear that I am viewed in the way I wanted to be perceived." Another interesting response was "When I have a surge of energy or adrenalin...like a personal revelation." I honestly preferred the men's responses, because when comparing, it is clear that men feel best in a way that we could say is more "natural" and less "physical". Ironically, the man has set the criteria of beauty for women, and a woman simply aggravates this physical importance by not only accepting this idea of beauty but also encouraging it in the way she dresses and changes herself. Perhaps this is because a man's image is not as important as a woman's in society. (I am not denying that men have a tough time too)
Now I'd like to discuss a film that deals with perception and beauty. It's a comedy I watched the other day called "Shallow Hal". It's not a great film but not bad either...Jack Black stars. Hal is, as the title suggests, a shallow male who only seeks women's looks. His life contains a series of brief and meaningless relationships, until one day he is trapped in a lift with a self-help guru who hypnotises him to only look for the inner beauty in women. Soon, Hal begins to have extra-ordinary success with women, in particular a woman named Rosemary. The film plays with point of view shots to show us that Rosemary's actual weight is 140 Kg, but to Hal, all he can see is a slender woman, who is also a lovely person. The trailer prattles on about how Hal now sees only the inner beauty in women. No he doesn't. When he looks at an overweight woman and instead sees her as thin women, he's not seeing her inner beauty. What he is seeing however, is a typical tall, thin model type woman....which in some ways is more insulting than if he saw her as she really is and instantly rejected her.
Lastly, I'd just like to remind you that what we want to be seen in ourselves, many others will also want to see in themselves. Before you "judge a book by its cover", think about how that person wants to be viewed, and also think about what you think should be valued more in society. We forget that we make society, and the more people that change ideas of perception and beauty in their minds, the more likely these important things will be valued.
Until next time,
Goodbye.
Tuesday, 21 January 2014
Life after death - A theory of dreams
Hello again friends,
Dreams. I've always been infatuated by dreams. (not only is the word lovely and perfectly explicit of its meaning).... For millennia philosophers have searched for the meaning of life far and beyond, but sometimes the answers are right there in-front of us. Could it be that dreams hold the answers we are looking for? I think so. Dreams and their meanings have become so commonplace that nobody questions why we might have a dream. And i don't mean the typical answer "Because you thought of it before bed and that's why you dreamt it" OR (another classic) "That dream is giving you a message". Both statements I feel are true, but go beyond that. Think "Why would dreams give messages?", "Why would 'someone' want to give me this message at all?", or "What do dreams care whether or not we learn this message". So in a nutshell, what is the meaning of this meaning? (I really hope you're not lost, this is a very difficult idea to convey). Part of me, that is my spiritual inclination, often makes me feel as if those dreams are given to me by some higher being that hopes to offer psychological support. So then you might ask, Why is it that we forget dreams if that is the case?
Have you ever woken up and remembered a dream vividly, and about a minute later haven't got the slightest clue what the dream was. How is that possible? How can thought be lost from memory in a matter of seconds? Again, I am inclined towards something non-empirical. Is it possible that the meaning of life is being snatched from our brains, taken away so we will never know the answer that pervades our minds (or at least my mind). So this higher being, why does "he" mock this crucial information before our minds and disappear it? Perhaps "he" doesn't. (Notice the speech marks, I don't like to refer to something out of this world as male or female, or imply this force is anything similar to what we are but i have to use a word, to make it easier I've chosen "he".)
So, I don't believe in a Devil, (evil to me is simply the definition of something "without good" or "privatio bonni" as Augustus said.) but yes i admit the devil seems to fit here. I think Devil is quite a strong word, for me it is human nature that is the devil of us, and this is what holds us back. So you could say, it is our nature or our inability to understand the meanings of life that makes us forget our dreams.
So you're probably wondering, OK, so what is the meaning of dreams and ultimately, of life. Well I'm getting to that...
P.s. Labeling myself is very difficult but If i were to say what i believe, it'd be that i'm an agnostic, and if you imagine agnosticism on a scale of one to ten, one being closer to atheism and ten being religious, well I think I'm on the high end of the scale. No that wasn't an irrelevant comment, because I want it to be clear that I might not believe my own theories, they are just thoughts to me...possibilities even.
Okay, with that in mind, life after death.
Sometimes I feel dreams our are soul, our subconscious, the inner-self that makes us all Godly...partly because just like this all-good being, we cannot understand dreams. Sometimes I think dreams will be the only thing that stay with us after death. Have you ever wondered where the dreams go? Do they just disappear, all those thoughts and knowledge in the tender capacity of our brains simply vanished? No, I don't think so. Often, we are told that life is learning game, what we learn now will aid us in the next life. Well, dreams are also a learning process for me. Life is a period where our dreams are learning, getting reading for perfection, our whole lives we have imperfect dreams, and this is finally explained and justified in a perfection. So due to our human in-capabilities, we have dreams that our dysfunctional, confusing and often irrational. How could that person be that person, but at the same time not really be that person? After death, perhaps those problems are solved. Perhaps we experience a revelation when we die, a feeling where things often "just make sense." You can't explain how or why, they just feel. This is why dreams are death become perfect. Like heaven.
So the theory is really, heaven in a dream.
For me, perhaps I'd be surrounding by books, people i love, and flowers that sing...
The lovely thing about this theory is it doesn't encounter the usual problems concerned with life after death.
1) Where is this place and how does it hold all these bodies?
2) How can so many people share the same perfection? My heaven is not necessarily your heaven.
So in this theory, My best friend could be you, even if you might not necessarily be my best friend. In your dream your perfection might be with someone else. That's okay. Nobody would know any better, I would never wake from my dream, and neither with you. Our dreams would never intercede one another.
You might think, but it's not real then. Who's to say what's real and not real though? As far as I'm concerned, a dream that is eternal, with a perfection that you feel you are living and never waking up from...may as well be real.
My perfection is conjured from my mind and experiences, something that is different for everyone.
(just look at the different religions...ideas of life after death are based on the cultures in which they were brought to life) ...For example, the Koran promises Islamic martyrs 72 virgins. Is that really paradise for these virgins? I highly doubt it.
So what dreams do "evil" people get? Perhaps these people don't get good dreams?
...
Open-mind
Dreams. I've always been infatuated by dreams. (not only is the word lovely and perfectly explicit of its meaning).... For millennia philosophers have searched for the meaning of life far and beyond, but sometimes the answers are right there in-front of us. Could it be that dreams hold the answers we are looking for? I think so. Dreams and their meanings have become so commonplace that nobody questions why we might have a dream. And i don't mean the typical answer "Because you thought of it before bed and that's why you dreamt it" OR (another classic) "That dream is giving you a message". Both statements I feel are true, but go beyond that. Think "Why would dreams give messages?", "Why would 'someone' want to give me this message at all?", or "What do dreams care whether or not we learn this message". So in a nutshell, what is the meaning of this meaning? (I really hope you're not lost, this is a very difficult idea to convey). Part of me, that is my spiritual inclination, often makes me feel as if those dreams are given to me by some higher being that hopes to offer psychological support. So then you might ask, Why is it that we forget dreams if that is the case?
Have you ever woken up and remembered a dream vividly, and about a minute later haven't got the slightest clue what the dream was. How is that possible? How can thought be lost from memory in a matter of seconds? Again, I am inclined towards something non-empirical. Is it possible that the meaning of life is being snatched from our brains, taken away so we will never know the answer that pervades our minds (or at least my mind). So this higher being, why does "he" mock this crucial information before our minds and disappear it? Perhaps "he" doesn't. (Notice the speech marks, I don't like to refer to something out of this world as male or female, or imply this force is anything similar to what we are but i have to use a word, to make it easier I've chosen "he".)
So, I don't believe in a Devil, (evil to me is simply the definition of something "without good" or "privatio bonni" as Augustus said.) but yes i admit the devil seems to fit here. I think Devil is quite a strong word, for me it is human nature that is the devil of us, and this is what holds us back. So you could say, it is our nature or our inability to understand the meanings of life that makes us forget our dreams.
So you're probably wondering, OK, so what is the meaning of dreams and ultimately, of life. Well I'm getting to that...
P.s. Labeling myself is very difficult but If i were to say what i believe, it'd be that i'm an agnostic, and if you imagine agnosticism on a scale of one to ten, one being closer to atheism and ten being religious, well I think I'm on the high end of the scale. No that wasn't an irrelevant comment, because I want it to be clear that I might not believe my own theories, they are just thoughts to me...possibilities even.
Okay, with that in mind, life after death.
Sometimes I feel dreams our are soul, our subconscious, the inner-self that makes us all Godly...partly because just like this all-good being, we cannot understand dreams. Sometimes I think dreams will be the only thing that stay with us after death. Have you ever wondered where the dreams go? Do they just disappear, all those thoughts and knowledge in the tender capacity of our brains simply vanished? No, I don't think so. Often, we are told that life is learning game, what we learn now will aid us in the next life. Well, dreams are also a learning process for me. Life is a period where our dreams are learning, getting reading for perfection, our whole lives we have imperfect dreams, and this is finally explained and justified in a perfection. So due to our human in-capabilities, we have dreams that our dysfunctional, confusing and often irrational. How could that person be that person, but at the same time not really be that person? After death, perhaps those problems are solved. Perhaps we experience a revelation when we die, a feeling where things often "just make sense." You can't explain how or why, they just feel. This is why dreams are death become perfect. Like heaven.
So the theory is really, heaven in a dream.
For me, perhaps I'd be surrounding by books, people i love, and flowers that sing...
The lovely thing about this theory is it doesn't encounter the usual problems concerned with life after death.
1) Where is this place and how does it hold all these bodies?
2) How can so many people share the same perfection? My heaven is not necessarily your heaven.
So in this theory, My best friend could be you, even if you might not necessarily be my best friend. In your dream your perfection might be with someone else. That's okay. Nobody would know any better, I would never wake from my dream, and neither with you. Our dreams would never intercede one another.
You might think, but it's not real then. Who's to say what's real and not real though? As far as I'm concerned, a dream that is eternal, with a perfection that you feel you are living and never waking up from...may as well be real.
My perfection is conjured from my mind and experiences, something that is different for everyone.
(just look at the different religions...ideas of life after death are based on the cultures in which they were brought to life) ...For example, the Koran promises Islamic martyrs 72 virgins. Is that really paradise for these virgins? I highly doubt it.
So what dreams do "evil" people get? Perhaps these people don't get good dreams?
...
Open-mind
Tuesday, 14 January 2014
Religious experience
Hello fellow bloggers!
Had a lot to think about today, thought i'd get it down for all to think about if they please.
SO it's about religious experience. (that's a turn away for most i'm sure) Well for those philosophy lovers,
First a few questions to think about...
Do you believe your eyes? You probably aren't sure what I mean by this, but Yes you do . We all believe our eyes, although perception can often be wrong, we generally don't question day-to-day experience. For example, when crossing the road, we are trusting our eyes.
Secondly, do you trust people?
Most people would say no but it's surprising how much trust we place on strangers. Think about when you go travelling, you are placing trust in the hope that the pilot is qualified enough, that the air traffic control is efficient, that the fuel supplier and moderator has checked and RE-checked the amount of fuel...that there is not too much or too little. And ironically we don't even think about these things much, we have enough trust to not even THINK about it, but when it comes to non life and death situations, like trusting a person with our money, or our secrets...we are unable or unwilling to do that right, with that in mind, I will now take you to a short summary of Mr Richard Swinburne's "The existence of God"
Swinburne believed that although he had never had a religious experience himself, he thought that religious experience was a credible way of proving the existence of God for the individual (generally)
He felt that religion needed to be assessed just as fairly and as similarly as anything else we might assess in our day-to-day lives. For this he came up with two principles known as Credulity, and Testimony. Credulity goes back to the first question i brought up at the beginning of this discussion, "do you believe your eyes?" The term focuses on the idea of trusting your senses. "If it seems to subject that X is present, then probably X is actually present, what one perceives is usually so." (unless of course you are taking drugs, or are very ill)
The principle of testimony is about trusting others. The assumption here is that people usually tell the truth. For example, in court, a lot of evidence is based on peoples perceptions which seems to be just fine and enough evidence for that but when it comes to religious experience SUDDENLY (and coincidentally) our perception becomes "faulty". (Compare RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE to a persons perception of a crime, a person who has a religious experience is less likely to have an ulterior motive for telling the story....when somebody shares something about a religious experience, they are unlikely to gain anything - it's more likely people will think they are nuts,- you could say they have more to lose) P.s he does concede that you don't always take somebody's religious testimony at face value (depends on the persons character...presumably you know what their track record is...) You know best!
SO...why should we not believe in a religious experience? Fair enough if you can't trust other people but surely you can trust yourself? Perception is extremely subjective, however, we seem to be doing a bit of a pick and choose game. We trust completely at moments and at others we ignore! Strange...think about it.
Right now to Mr William James. (a lovely thoughtful psychologist...supposedly)
He believed religious experience had to have a special criteria to regard as true or not, I quite like this way to remember his criteria...think PINT. Yes, Pint. P for Passive. I for Ineffable. N for Noetic. T for Transient. I know what you're thinking "I only know a quarter of that terminology" No fear!
Passive.
Mr James believed religious experience is more credible when
1) you were not expecting that experience
2) You don't have an ulterior motive for sharing that experience
3) You are preferably an agnostic/atheist. (He didn't say that exactly, apologies for my additions)
Ineffable.
An experience too great or too extreme or intense to be expressed with the human language. Language is so so limited...it's hardly going to do much when describing God or a religious experience that NOBODY else has had (not exactly the same anyway)
Noetic.
I love that word ^^ Anyway...this means that the experience has to lead to some sort of revelation. The person has learnt something about God, preferably sees life in a clear and simple light. (the way it IS and should be)
Transiet.
This means temporary...the religious experience doesn't last forever. It is after all an experience, this could mean a few minutes, hours, days or months (GASP) even...just not anywhere near a lifetime.
Well this certainly convinced me a wee bit more about religious experiences, couldn't say I've had one myself, but often I do "feel" somethings presence...not in a freaky spooky sort of way, just a happy fulfilling feeling. (a break through for the philosopher i think!) Not sure that counts.
One last thing....Imagine yourself in God's situation.
If he doesn't give any of us a religious experience, people question why anyone would want to believe in a God that isn't personal and doesn't try to involve himself with humans to help them believe. (certainly religious experience must be the best way to do so!) although there is that whole argument about just having faith and all...well. Anyway...if we are given a religious experience, we immediately question the reliability of this and assume that we are hallucinating, ill....or simply ready for a mental hospital. Who's to say you wouldn't have believed if you had the religious experience of another?
Open-mind.
Goodbye
Had a lot to think about today, thought i'd get it down for all to think about if they please.
SO it's about religious experience. (that's a turn away for most i'm sure) Well for those philosophy lovers,
First a few questions to think about...
Do you believe your eyes? You probably aren't sure what I mean by this, but Yes you do . We all believe our eyes, although perception can often be wrong, we generally don't question day-to-day experience. For example, when crossing the road, we are trusting our eyes.
Secondly, do you trust people?
Most people would say no but it's surprising how much trust we place on strangers. Think about when you go travelling, you are placing trust in the hope that the pilot is qualified enough, that the air traffic control is efficient, that the fuel supplier and moderator has checked and RE-checked the amount of fuel...that there is not too much or too little. And ironically we don't even think about these things much, we have enough trust to not even THINK about it, but when it comes to non life and death situations, like trusting a person with our money, or our secrets...we are unable or unwilling to do that right, with that in mind, I will now take you to a short summary of Mr Richard Swinburne's "The existence of God"
Swinburne believed that although he had never had a religious experience himself, he thought that religious experience was a credible way of proving the existence of God for the individual (generally)
He felt that religion needed to be assessed just as fairly and as similarly as anything else we might assess in our day-to-day lives. For this he came up with two principles known as Credulity, and Testimony. Credulity goes back to the first question i brought up at the beginning of this discussion, "do you believe your eyes?" The term focuses on the idea of trusting your senses. "If it seems to subject that X is present, then probably X is actually present, what one perceives is usually so." (unless of course you are taking drugs, or are very ill)
The principle of testimony is about trusting others. The assumption here is that people usually tell the truth. For example, in court, a lot of evidence is based on peoples perceptions which seems to be just fine and enough evidence for that but when it comes to religious experience SUDDENLY (and coincidentally) our perception becomes "faulty". (Compare RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE to a persons perception of a crime, a person who has a religious experience is less likely to have an ulterior motive for telling the story....when somebody shares something about a religious experience, they are unlikely to gain anything - it's more likely people will think they are nuts,- you could say they have more to lose) P.s he does concede that you don't always take somebody's religious testimony at face value (depends on the persons character...presumably you know what their track record is...) You know best!
SO...why should we not believe in a religious experience? Fair enough if you can't trust other people but surely you can trust yourself? Perception is extremely subjective, however, we seem to be doing a bit of a pick and choose game. We trust completely at moments and at others we ignore! Strange...think about it.
Right now to Mr William James. (a lovely thoughtful psychologist...supposedly)
He believed religious experience had to have a special criteria to regard as true or not, I quite like this way to remember his criteria...think PINT. Yes, Pint. P for Passive. I for Ineffable. N for Noetic. T for Transient. I know what you're thinking "I only know a quarter of that terminology" No fear!
Passive.
Mr James believed religious experience is more credible when
1) you were not expecting that experience
2) You don't have an ulterior motive for sharing that experience
3) You are preferably an agnostic/atheist. (He didn't say that exactly, apologies for my additions)
Ineffable.
An experience too great or too extreme or intense to be expressed with the human language. Language is so so limited...it's hardly going to do much when describing God or a religious experience that NOBODY else has had (not exactly the same anyway)
Noetic.
I love that word ^^ Anyway...this means that the experience has to lead to some sort of revelation. The person has learnt something about God, preferably sees life in a clear and simple light. (the way it IS and should be)
Transiet.
This means temporary...the religious experience doesn't last forever. It is after all an experience, this could mean a few minutes, hours, days or months (GASP) even...just not anywhere near a lifetime.
Well this certainly convinced me a wee bit more about religious experiences, couldn't say I've had one myself, but often I do "feel" somethings presence...not in a freaky spooky sort of way, just a happy fulfilling feeling. (a break through for the philosopher i think!) Not sure that counts.
One last thing....Imagine yourself in God's situation.
If he doesn't give any of us a religious experience, people question why anyone would want to believe in a God that isn't personal and doesn't try to involve himself with humans to help them believe. (certainly religious experience must be the best way to do so!) although there is that whole argument about just having faith and all...well. Anyway...if we are given a religious experience, we immediately question the reliability of this and assume that we are hallucinating, ill....or simply ready for a mental hospital. Who's to say you wouldn't have believed if you had the religious experience of another?
Open-mind.
Goodbye
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)