Fear and Trembling; Faith

How do you view Faith?

1.      Kierkegaard was raised in strict family; they lived very simple even though they were a wealthy family. His father was always very stressed throughout his life as well as in his religion. Kierkegaard grew up with 6 other siblings and only he and his brother Peter made it past the age of 33. After that Kierkegaard become a lot more religious and started studying theology. He was especially interested in the subject of faith, which is what this article is all about. He married Regina Olsen whom he loved dearly, but that did not last long because he decided to pursue his love and dedication to a life of writing as a religious poet, under the direction of divine Governance. The sacrifice of leaving the wife he loved showed his faith was far greater, just like in the story of Abraham. Abraham sacrificed his love (only son) to pass the divine trial God was putting him through.

2.      For Kierkegaard, faith was very important and he always used the story of Abraham as an example of unmatched faith.  But when people read the story of Abraham now days it is very hard to put yourself in his shoes.  Would you be willing to sacrifice your most prized positions to pass the divine trial and prove your faith?  Would it be possible to give up your one and only son? Many people would be very unsure. I mean, wouldn’t that be considered murder in today’s world? Can such events be justified and seen as a great honor and sacrifice to God? In Kierkegaard’s view they cannot be justified by human means like morals and ethics, it’s a far touchier subject that can only be understood by a religious view and a trial of faith. But then again what is faith considered to people?

3.      Kierkegaard’s view of faith was just like Abraham’s, of course. But most people might confuse faith with just believing. Is it possible to do such a thing? Can faith just be going to church and singing hallelujah? Whatever your view may be, Kierkegaard’s view of faith is full devotion of your life to god. If you really want to be great and let your spirit live on far beyond your body’s life time then you must become a Knight of faith, just like Abraham was considered. To do such a thing you would devote your whole life to God without question. Kierkegaard explains it is hard to know when somebody is a knight of faith just because they blend in with life so well. They admire all their surroundings and go about life with joy and happiness because in their hearts nothing else is needed besides faith in god. Anything below those measures would be considered a knight of infinite resignation, meaning your fine with your life. Meaning you wish to be finite (just live and die). But become a knight of faith, and you will become infinite through your soul.

1.      What does faith mean to you?

2.      Is it possible to be a knight of faith?

3.      Can Abraham's faith be equaled in today’s world?

James Rachels: "God and Human Attitudes"

What is worship?

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toPstPIcGnI

  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5mK7dzyUkM

Rachels’s reading had a lot to do with his idea of worship. Rachels described it very negatively as an act of submission. Though this does not necessarily conflict with our general ideas of worship, as most religious people would agree that worshipping is a way of asserting our role as “humble servants” or “children of God”, Rachels goes on to use this idea to show how we cannot submit so entirely without giving up our role as moral agents. If we submit ourselves to God’s laws, then are we not abandoning any responsibility we might have to personally consider morality? 

Based on the traditional moral philosophy, a moral agent is required to be autonomous and self-directed. To clarify, autonomy is the state of being self-governing and acting separately from others. Therefore an autonomous moral agent is someone who is morally independent from the laws imposed upon them by others; or heteronomous influences.  But is this the way in which we would all agree that a moral agent should act? It is explained that moral agents aren’t above taking advice from others, sometimes even relying more upon the judgment of others in certain situations when necessary, but such an approach to morality might be putting more faith in the individual than is comfortable for some of us. When we are establishing our morals as children we are more often than not taught by those around us. There is some inherent sense of what is right and wrong, but is it not more commonly agreed that our morals are taught to us? If we can admit that we lack the proper judgment ourselves, due to ignorance or because we are easily tempted, then we should trust the judgment of another being who knows better, such as God. If we can trust in His judgment more so than our own, then it would still fit in Rachels’s view for us to follow God’s judgments.

What about the example of Abraham’s reactions to God’s judgments? In the first story, Abraham is fully prepared to blindly sacrifice his son just because God commanded him to do so. In the end, God does not truly want Abraham to make the sacrifice as it was merely a test of Abraham’s faith, which he passed. But, in another story, Abraham actually questions God’s judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah.  God declares that if Abraham can find at least fifty righteous men then the city will be saved. However, Abraham actually bargains God all the way down to just ten.  Does this mean that on some level God permits us to question his judgments? Abraham convinced God to change his mind. He did so very politely always implying that his own will was far below that of God, but still he questioned God. Rachels states that “we cannot recognize any being as God, and at the same set ourselves against him” (Robinson 204) but here we have this moment where Abraham does just that. God does not get angry with him so clearly there is some approval or acceptance of Abraham’s actions. Does that mean that our interpretation of God is wrong; in that we can, in some way, probe into God’s reasoning? If so, does that change Rachels’s description of what God is? This story could then support the final counter-argument Rachels mentions; what if, even though God is worthy of worship, we should not worship him in the full sense of the word? We could still love, respect and honor God, but maybe we do not need to give ourselves so entirely over to him and keep some of our autonomy. Rachels argues that “there are no circumstances under which anyone should worship God. And if one should never worship, then the concept of a fitting object of worship is an empty one” (Robinson 210). Do we agree with Rachels’s anti-worship policy? Is there a middle ground where, like previously mentioned, we worship without sacrificing our autonomy?

Experiencing God: Theresa and James walked down the street....

One of the most famous sculptures by Gian Lorenzo Bernini sits in the Cornaro Chapel in Santa Maria del Vittorio in Rome. It is entitled The Ecstasy of Saint Theresa, seen here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Santa_teresa_di_bernini_03.JPG

What is this sculpture trying to portray? How does it connect to belief in God?

Saint Theresa became famous as one of the leading mystical figures in the history of the Catholic Church, alongside Saint John of the Cross, Meister Eckhart (who was controversially tried but died before verdict by the local Inquisition), and most recently Pope John Paul II, Thomas Keating and Thomas Merton (both of the centering/contemplative prayer movement). Theresa thought that through her experiences she could offer criteria and a deeper understanding of the nature of God, prayer and our relationship through an description albeit partial and metaphorical of her way to God. Theresa offered a model of (mystical) prayer that proceeded along 4 levels. The first "mental prayer" involved contemplation or concentration and involved a withdrawal or removal of the soul from the everyday world. The second "prayer of quiet" involves a complete renunciation of the human desiring and willing sphere to God. "The devotion of union" is a state of prayer that involves supernatural grace, and goes beyond human comprehension to reach a level of "ecstatic union" with the Divine. The final and highest stage, "the devotion of ecstasy or rapture" is a purely passive state, where we reside in the Divine Presence and all connection with the sensory or body is gone. These 4 levels, according to Theresa, help us reach closer to God and know his nature and will. Similarly, all of these figures are held up as exemplars of those who communed with God in a deeply personal sense. So through mystical experience, we might get a better idea of who or what God is.

They also lend suggestive evidence to the idea that the best proof of anything is through direct (whether sensory or other forms) experience. Just as I can prove the existence of my hand by seeing it, feeling it, and well using it, so too can we experience God by an experience of the Divine.

These famous religious mystics are not alone in the claim that they experience God. Many everyday believers claim to have 'experienced' God. But what does it mean to experience God? Is the everyday believer's relationship with God an 'experience' of God? Is an 'experience' of God limited to God speaking through the burning bush to Moses, or walking with Abraham, or speaking to the prophets? What about the experience of religious mystics?

The 'experience' of God also raises all sorts of questions about religious pluralism (which itself is not an easy thing to define...see http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_plur1.htm ). Do mystics from different religious traditions experience the same Divine Presence? What do we say about differing accounts of God in this experience? While "experience of God" is the most direct and straightforward 'proof' for God's existence, it is far from easy.
William James attempts to answer some (or many) of these questions.  As a psychologist who was sympathetic to religion and his position of "radical empiricism", James tries to make philosophical and psychological sense of mystical and religious experience. James himself had very interesting ideas on the details and ways to achieve mystical experience, and even allowed and encouraged the use of certain drugs to achieve mystical states (more recently, see the Marsh Chapel Experiments and its impact on the scholar of religion Houston Smith).
What else does James have to add in "the Reality of the Unseen"?
What examples does he offer and how is James's view similar but distinct from Theresa's?  Do you think either holds more 'authority' or weight in their analysis?  Why?
What James means by the Unseen and his focus in this piece is not always clear, and will be something (else) to consider in our discussion.

The idea of God

Pop culture has various 'ideas' or 'pictures' of God.  Here are just a few:

Despite these images and many others, we know none of these are really pictures of God.  Why?  What is it about our idea of God, or our concept or conception of the nature of God/divinity that makes these 'not God'.  This is much of the focus of Davies' reading for today.

The first step is to disentangle our notion of God as discussed in philosophy of religion with any theological views of God in a particular religious tradition, especially that of Jesus Christ as God and man.  Why? Because when philosophers focus on the question(s) of God (who is God, what is God, God's role in the world) we have to do two things (1) bracket/temporarily put aside any specific revelations and (2) look at from a 'formal' and logical perspective what God can and cannot be.

From (1) and (2), both philosophers and theologians throughout history have identified certain attributes/properties we normally associate with God.

These include such properties as omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, infinite, impassible/unchangeable, eternal, an 'unmoved mover' and possibly several others.  The question is, what do these all mean and when put together, what do they tell us about God (or what do they tell us God is not).

For instance, I think it is uncontroversial to say that when we reach for a box of cereal in the morning, we don't expect to see God hiding behind the box of Cap'n Crunch (at least in the normal way we use these terms).  But why not?  Why would we think someone was mistaken if they said they saw God hiding behind the box of cereal?  Or why do we not worry that our space shuttles might hit God in the sky?

What does this intuition say about God?

Davies suggests there are two main contemporary understandings of the God of western monotheism (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) which both reflect our earlier ideas but place emphasis on different aspects of God:

Classical theism: “God is not a person....God is not an individual belonging to any kind.” (Davies, 8)

theistic personalism: “Generally, theistic personalists take God to be strikingly similar to what Descartes describes himself as being when explaining what he thinks he is" (Davies, 11) so the nature of God is understood as something like “person without a body”(Davies, 9).

Now, Davies makes quite clear that most people's conceptions of God fit somewhere between these two 'extremes', but they are helpful to get straight our own ideas on God.

It makes sense that if many of the main questions in the philosophy of religion depend on the existence of God and or God's role in our lives, the universe, the creation of the world, etc then one question we have to reach some level of clarity (as much as we can) is on the nature of God.  What does this term/concept even mean and what possible reality does it point towards?  This is the focus of Davies' chapter, and it relies heavily on what is called Natural Theology, which we will do quite a lot throughout the semester.

So, we can ask:  What is Natural Theology?  Is natural theology really theology or philosophy?

What other conceptions of God are available and might they be more accurate/better than the ones we have in front of us?

Which view, theistic personalism or classical theism do you think is closer to mainline Catholicism, Evangelic Christianity, Eastern Orthodox, other forms of Protestantism?  Why?

Rudolph Otto: The Idea of the Holy

Let's use this first week to get us all on the same page and as a template for our discussions.  In general, this blog is not meant to be a summary of the reading.  The summary of the reading is to be completed 9pm the day before class, and is to be emailed to the professor and Discussion Leader.  I will then look over the summary and give you comments that will helpfully make this blog post stronger.

So what is this blog post for?  It can be used for any number of things:

(1) to supply some background info to help everyone make sense of the context and intent of the reading
(2) To uncover and explain some of the possible consequences from the reading.  i.e. If the reading is true....so what? (the so what questions always important in philosophy)
(3) To unpack/explain some of the difficult concepts or ideas present in the text that require more than just the summary to understand
**(4) To pick some of the ideas/themes from this reading and connect them either to other readings or to stories, articles, discussions in popular culture.  (For instance, when we get to Miracles, you can relate the discussion to many contemporary examples of apparent miracles and how the readings help us make sense of whether these are miracles or not).

In general, I would like you to try to do 2 or maybe 3 of the above 4 ideas (in approximately 500-700 words.  But if you pick #2 or #4, that might be enough for the blog post.  So here is a model with elements from 1-2 (and is 501 words).  We will discuss in detail in class many of Otto's more difficult consequences and how this connects to our own understanding of religion.


(1)
Otto writes the Idea of the Holy in a time when scientific advancements have threatened to 'explain away' God and religious belief.  In some ways, this is not that different than certain trends in our own day.  Otto does not ignore these claims, nor does he ignore challenges to established religions and religious beliefs.  Instead, he suggests that the 'core' insight or idea behind religion/spirituality/faith, whatever you would like to call it lies elsewhere.  In this, he follows (and sometimes critiques) the ideas of Friedrich Schleiermacher, and  (later) Mircea Eliade  in focusing on the experiential elements and core feelings at the core of all religions.  So Otto does not ignore 'rational' concerns with religion, he simply claims that religious faith and practice is ultimately a matter of feeling, not belief.


(2)
Rudolph Otto offers us a different way to enter into questions concerning the rationality/reasonableness of faith, religious belief, practice and many of the other questions at the center of the Philosophy of Religion.  In this, he breaks from the traditional arguments for or against God's existence, for or against the existence of miracles, the problem of evil, the reasonableness of faith (all topics we will explore), and gets us to focus on our feelings.  He pointedly says, if you have not had a religious experience, you should stop reading his text.  Why?  Because you won't know what he is talking about.  But if you have had a religious experience, even if you are not religious, are an atheist, etc., then you can follow along.  And what is a religious experience?  The experience of "The Holy", what he calls the numinous.  And this is marked by a feelings he calls mysterium tremendum (an experience of a tremendous mystery; one that invokes feelings of awe and dread and the Holy's profound power).  But we can always ask, so what?

Otto says that the "so what" is profound consequences in how we understand the nature of religion.  There is nothing wrong with rational frameworks and Creeds and beliefs underlying one's religious views, but Otto thinks that ultimately the source of all religions is a certain feeling.  This means that despite very different religious views and religious beliefs, there might be a core experience at the base of all of them (or some of them).  This opens both the door to religious ecumenism but also to what has often been called Perennialism. Perennialism is the view that suggests despite apparent diversity among religions, their might be a shared insight or truth to which all (true) religions are grounded in.  The reason that there are differences in faith is because people have interpreted things differently in different cultures and different backgrounds.  Otto's view does not require Perennialism, but it leaves the door open for it.  It could be the case that just one religious view is correct (Otto's idea for the numinous is generally grounded in his own Protestant background), but Otto is trying to establish a new way to understand and explain religions.

This raises several big questions: 

Is Otto's account of the numinous and the mysterium tremendum accurate?  For those who have had religious feelings and religious experiences, does it map onto Otto's account?  Why or why not?

What is it to fully explain religion?  Are there dangers to explaining (or explaining away) religion and religious belief?

What is the core or nature to religious experience (and by extension religion)?

Welcome: Getting Started

Welcome to the blog of PH 350, Philosophy of Religion.  This blog will be used to accompany our discussions and presentations throughout the semester.  Anytime during the semester that you are a "Presentation Leader", you are expected to post onto this blog.

(1) So, the first thing to do is to "join this site" to add a blog.  If you have a gmail account, it will be even easier but it is not necessary.

(2) THe second thing to do is to send me your preferred email address so that I can 'add permissions' so that you can be begin posting on the blog.

(3) From there, I hope you begin to use this blog to post comments on your classmates posts, link pictures, articles, or stories that connect to our readings, and to post the core of your Presentation the day you are signed up.