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?
No comments:
Post a Comment