A Tract On Religion
A Tract On Religion
> Image Above is Generated Using Stable Diffusion [k_dpm_2_a sampler] with Prompt “A Tract On Religion” (With additional refining tags such as ‘highres’) and steps at 100.
> Other images were generated in similar manner with section titles as primary prompt
That Which Is Religion
Before any discussion of personal religion can be permitted, as with any subject, the object of inquiry must be clarified. Therefore, it is fundamental that the concept, in this case religion, be (1) defined in as significant detail as relevant, and (2) differentiated with justification from similar though disanalogous concepts.
A Definition of Religion
Religion has been a traditional, perhaps perpetual, companion to humanity. It has proved to be perhaps the most prolific and enduring meta-philosophical stance we have thus far encountered. Therefore, any definition of religion ought to be careful not to disbar traditional religious beliefs; ie. by restricting it to ‘modern’ (eg. Anno Domini) religious sects such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam.
In its most essential form, religion is a set of beliefs, the objects of which belong to non-physical, ineffable, or non-noumenal realms. Such sets of belief necessarily entail a commitment to metaphysical stances. However, they may not require commitments to ethical or epistemological stances (unless one believes that those fields are reducible to the first). Further, such sets of beliefs need not be attained or maintained through logical means. In other words, the veracity of the beliefs is not relevant to their status as ‘religious’ (subordinate to the concept religion).
Common, though not essential aspects of religious belief sets include (1) repeated and systematic practising of rituals, (2) incredible, potentially unconditional deference to symbols or idols, (3) adherence to a particular meta-historical or historical narrative, (4) belief in the superiority of one’s own belief set, (5) belief in the ethical superiority of the adherents of one’s own belief set (a superiority narrative), (6) belief in a sustained and divinely inspired meaning or purpose to life (teleology). Note; by ‘divinely inspired’ is meant that which has its origin in the divine; that is, that which originates from a subject who (by their nature) exists in some ultra-material realm.
Separation from Similar Concepts
Spirituality shares in some of the substance of religion but can be separated. Historically, spirituality refers to a predisposition for belief in constructs and concepts residing in a non-material (‘spiritual’) realm. In this regard, spirituality and religion are similar in that (part of) their reference is a non-material realm. However, they differ in that religion is a set of beliefs and not a temperament. Further, religion typically adds ritual, symbols, narrative, and ethics to this set, whereas spirituality characteristically does not. Cynically, a spiritual outlook requires no change in one’s life, whereas religion demands it.
Christian Gnosticism
Gnosticism
Gnosticism is a belief, particularly in the religious context, in the supremacy of ‘personal knowledge’ (an unfortunate misnomer; should be personal experience) above the purported authority of doctrines. A person who follows this concept; ie. who believes in the primacy of experience in the religious realm, is thus termed a ‘gnostic’.
In the context of Gnosticism, personal knowledge of the religious or the divine is termed ‘gnosis’. The term gnosis is Greek in root and is usually interpreted as intellectual knowledge. It is related to the Greek terms praktikos (‘practical art’) and gnostikos (intellectual art). Gnos is a prefix thus meaning ‘of the mind’ or the intellect (gnostikos can also mean ‘cognitive’ or ‘mental awareness’). The suffix ‘sis’ implies action (mechanism) or process. Therefore the term may be literalised as ‘intellectual process’ or ‘the process of achieving the intellect’ or ‘that which produces awareness’. This interpretation is supported by the historical understanding of Gnosticism as relating to abstract or highly intellectual concepts.
Christian Gnosticism
Gnosticism has a particularly rich history in the Christian and Jewish tradition, particularly during the formation of the early universal (Greek: ‘katholikos’, translates to ‘Catholic’) church. This tradition, particularly through the Jewish inheritance, likely picks up on the personal and mostly hidden God of the Old Testament (see Genesis 22:11, Genesis 32:22-32, Exodus 3:1-6, Exodus 19:16-25, Deuteronomy 4:11-12, Deuteronomy 4:33-36, Deuteronomy 5:4-19, Deuteronomy 33:2, 1 Kings 19: 11-18), and the essentially fully personal God of the New Testament (see the theophanies Mark 1:9–11, and Luke 9:28–36). In this way, the faiths likely tend towards gnosticism more than other faiths.
The writings of Christ’s apostles provide the first precepts of the gnostic tradition in Christianity. Particularly the writings of John which emphasise a separation between the body and the spirit and emphasise the primacy of experience:
1 John 1: 1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. (Holy Bible, New International Version 1973) (emphasis added)
1 John 2: 15 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. 16 For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world. 17 The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever. (Ibid.) (emphasis added)
For primacy of experience, see also the whole book of Revelations, with particular reference to Revelations 1: 10-20, Revelations 4: 1, Revelations 6: 1-14, and Revelations 22: 6-8. As to the separation of the body and the spirit; see Romans 8:
Romans 8: 1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Holy Bible, King James Version 1987) (emphasis added)
Romans 8: 5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. (Holy Bible, New International Version 1973)
[For comparison] Romans 8: 5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. (Holy Bible, King James Version 1987)
In the same vein, see the extra-biblical literature in the Christian tradition, particularly in the writings of the venerable St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas (see his Summa Theologica 2006: Part 1, Question 75). In this way, Gnosticism is richly found in both the biblical literature and the extra-biblical authorship.
Realisation Of Jacob's Ladder / The Experience Of The Transcendent On Earth Through Derealisation
Jacob’s Ladder
The book of Genesis is filled with stories of miraculous events and scenes of religious ecstasy. Of these, potentially the most well known (From the post-edonic period) are: The Flood of Noah (Genesis 6-9) (Comerre 1911), The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) (Martin 1852), and The Binding of Isaac (Genesis 22) (Caravaggio 1603). However, a more interesting, and biblically unique incident is the narrative of Jacob’s (later given the name ‘Israel’ (Genesis 32:22-32)) dream at Bethel.
Though similar incidents are recorded in other books (notably in the Elijah cycle of 1 Kings 17:1 – 2 Kings 1:18 and the Book of Daniel), this event stands out amongst them. Jacob’s dream is the only instance in the early bible of a vision of ascension unto heaven and unto the divine. Note: Other visions of divine reference like the apocalypse of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1-3) and the apocalypse of Zechariah (Zechariah 1-6) refer not to ascension but to destruction. Below is the text of Jacob’s Dream according to the KJV and NIV respectively:
Genesis 28: 10 And Jacob went out from Beersheba, and went toward Haran. 11 And he lighted upon a certain place, and tarried there all night, because the sun was set; and he took of the stones of that place, and put them for his pillows, and lay down in that place to sleep. 12 And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it. 13 And, behold, the Lord stood above it, and said, I am the Lord God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; 14 And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. 15 And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of. 16 And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said, Surely the Lord is in this place; and I knew it not. 17 And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful is this place! this is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.” (Genesis 28: 10-17, Holy Bible, King James Version 1987) (emphasis added)
Genesis 28: 10 Jacob left Beersheba and set out for Harran. 11 When he reached a certain place, he stopped for the night because the sun had set. Taking one of the stones there, he put it under his head and lay down to sleep. 12 He had a dream in which he saw a stairway resting on the earth, with its top reaching to heaven, and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. 13 There above it[c] stood the Lord, and he said: “I am the Lord, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac. I will give you and your descendants the land on which you are lying. 14 Your descendants will be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west and to the east, to the north and to the south. All peoples on earth will be blessed through you and your offspring.[d] 15 I am with you and will watch over you wherever you go, and I will bring you back to this land. I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you.” 16 When Jacob awoke from his sleep, he thought, “Surely the Lord is in this place, and I was not aware of it.” 17 He was afraid and said, “How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God; this is the gate of heaven.” (Genesis 28: 10-17, Holy Bible, New International Version 1973) (emphasis added)
In this account we see a theophany by illusion occur. A theophany is any purported experience of the divine. This theophany is rightly conditioned ‘by illusion’ as, unlike previously cited experiences, it occurs in an illusory state (that of a dream) and not a veridical state. This is of greater significance then it might first appear for 2 reasons:
(1) This occurrence represents biblical support for the view that religious experiences need not be veridical in nature. That is; the experiences themselves, although the noumena associated with them cannot be denied, need not relay truth of any kind, nor do they even need to be truth apt. A guided analogy can make this easier to understand:
Let us say that I am dreaming one particular night. My dream is rather simple. In this dream I am floating across a cloud-filled sky. This floating experience is quite pleasant to me. Eventually I wake up and return to my veridical experience. What can we say about this dream? Firstly, the dream did not relay any truth about the world (ie. it was illusory). My dream world is completely disconnected from my waking world such that any experience in one cannot be used to infer truths about the other. Even so, the experiences I had in the dream were real. That is, the noumena or qualia of that floating journey is real. By this I mean I really did have the experience of floating through a cloud filled sky, even though I did not (in fact) float through a cloud filled sky. In this way, the dream was completely illusory but still conveyed noumenal experiences.
(2) Similarly, this occurrence establishes (biblically) that religious experiences, or even revelations, can occur in altered states of the mind. Dreaming; that is, intuiting your consciousness through a map of illusory perceptions produced by the mind under states of REM sleep, is an altered state of consciousness. It is altered simply in view of it representing a distinguishable change from the purported normal state of consciousness (neurotypical experience in the waking realm). Under the same conceptual umbrella of altered states are drug-induced hallucinations, schizo-affective symptoms, temporary instances of psychosis, mania, serotonin overdose, derealisation, and delusion.
Derealisation, Delusion, Divinity
This brings me to my present view; namely that experiences attained in altered states of mind, though they are not veridical, are still authentic (insofar as the experiences themselves are real)
and can still act as the emotional basis of a persons’ belief or set of beliefs. This belief is not particularly novel or particularly radical. It has precedent in both religious and non-religious history.
On the Christian front, instances of religious mad men, holy ecstasy, and possession by the holy ghost continue to the modern day. Even in the scriptures themselves, instances of religious mania are present, most notably those forming part of the Schizoid Theory of Christ. Such instances, which are generally accepted by religious authorities (excepting the last one), represent illusory experiences with veridical qualia which form the emotional basis of a belief.
On the non-Christian front, prominent philosophers like David Hume have quite persuasively argued that “reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions” (2003: Book 2, Part 3, Section 3, ¶4). That is to say, all our beliefs are grounded solely on emotion and could be otherwise. Thus all beliefs are equally illogically grounded. Further still, insofar as emotion is the product of experience and not reality, belief is therefore grounded in the illusory (experience) and not the veridical (fact).
On both fronts, there is the acceptance that emotion and emotional experiences are, at the absolute least, the grounding for beliefs and, more boldly, ought be the grounding for beliefs. Thus I feel justified in asserting that, if these thinkers are right, my religious belief, provoked by emotional experiences seemingly attained through altered-states (notable derealisation likely produced by interference from my Temporal Lobe Epilepsy), are as justified as any other belief the likes of which has its ultimate grounding in emotion.
Consideration Of Trivialities
I previously stated that; “in its most essential form, religion is a set of beliefs, the objects of which belong to non-physical, ineffable, or non-noumenal realms”. Whilst this is indeed the essence of religiosity; as I also explained, it is a non-observable instance and thus is not, in fact, of closest association to that concept. Instead, and quite naturally, it is the observable particulars which (incidentally) coincide with this concept that form its closest association in most people's minds. When I ask someone about religion; although I am asking ‘What is religion?’, they likely interpret my queries as requiring them to answer ‘What does religion look like?’. This is not necessarily a problem but it is something to be aware of. It is because of this that if I ask, ‘What is religion?’, most people will answer me something to the effect of ‘Ritual and Symbol’.
These are the observable, though non-essential components of that concept. One can certainly be religious without adhering to ritual or to symbolism. One can be a-religious whilst still adhering to ritual and symbol (ie. purportedly ‘cultural christians’). This is because, as also previously mentioned, the metaphysical commitment of a religious person (for that is what religion is) “may not require commitments to ethical or epistemological stances”. This is relevant because questions of ritual practice and symbols differ from the prior discussions, insofar as they are philosophical questions relating to actions and intentions, and are thus ethical (and not metaphysical or epistemological) questions. Even so, at the very least, the prevalence of these incidental practices should be impetus enough to investigate whether they can play a role in the cultivation or sustainment of belief.
The Place For Ritual and Symbol
Speaking to the Christian religion, only as I know it best, ritual plays a major role in most people’s faith. The most common rituals being [personal] prayer, mass, and sacrament. These are all practices and thus fall under the realm of ethics and not metaphysics. Further their role cannot be considered essential to the concept of religion (nor to the concept of Christianity) (this can be easily inferred from the wide variety in expression or lack thereof of these practices across denominations). Nonetheless, they play an important role in most Christian’s faith, and thus shouldn’t be dismissed if our intention is not to dismiss that faith.
Prayer in particular plays a crucial role in most Christian faiths, as a method of direct communication with the divine (that is, the object of worship and the motivator for the metaphysical stance). Especially in the Catholic and Orthodox churches, prayer is an expression of personal devotion in which one attempts to mediate the metaphysical spirit or animas through the passions of the divine so that they might better comprehend divinity and, in doing so, achieve a sense of reconciliation and attain a state of love closer to Christ (Doctrine of the Imitation of Christ). It is the basis of one of the most important Catholic doctrines, that of the Interior Life, most prominently presented by Thomas a Kempis in his highly influence work, The Imitation of Christ:
“The kingdom of God is within you, saith the Lord. Turn thee with all thine heart to the Lord and forsake this miserable world, and thou shalt find rest unto thy soul. Learn to despise outward things and to give thyself to things inward, and thou shalt see the kingdom of God come within thee. For the kingdom of God is peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, and it is not given to the wicked. Christ will come to thee, and show thee His consolation, if thou prepare a worthy mansion for Him within thee. All His glory and beauty is from within, and there it pleaseth Him to dwell. He often visiteth the inward man and holdeth with him sweet discourse, giving him soothing consolation, much peace, friendship exceeding wonderful.
2. Go to, faithful soul, prepare thy heart for this bridegroom that he may vouchsafe to come to thee and dwell within thee, for so He saith, if any man loveth me he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him and make our abode with him” (Kempis 1999, Book 2: Chapter 1: ¶1-2) (emphasis added)
John Paul II later remarked on the same doctrine:
“[I]t is fatal to forget that "without Christ we can do nothing" (cf. Jn 15:5). It is prayer which roots us in this truth. It constantly reminds us of the primacy of Christ and, in union with him, the primacy of the interior life and of holiness.” (emphasis added)
Though it is but a ritual, and should in no way be conflated as essential to religious belief, we thus see that it of no less value, even if that value be instrumental in nature. As it is with other forms of ritual and with symbols. In short, though rituals are not necessary for belief, they are one of the most apparent expressions of it, and one of the most valuable to adherents. Therefore, one should not disregard them without proper consideration.
The Lack of any Rational Rationale for Belief
What is Rationality
Rationality is the consistent interpretation of the objects of the minds through the faculties of that organ. It is the systematisation of the intuitions of the mental and of the impressions produced thereof, and imprinted thereon by the noumenal. It is the a priori faculty which renders all abstract cognition possible. As Kant variously declares in his Critique of Pure Reason (Kant 2003):
“[A]n empirical judgement never exhibits strict and absolute, but only assumed and comparative universality (by induction); therefore, the most we can say is—so far as we have hitherto observed, there is no exception to this or that rule. If, on the other hand, a judgement carries with it strict and absolute universality, that is, admits of no possible exception, it is not derived from experience, but is valid absolutely à priori.
Empirical universality is, therefore, only an arbitrary extension of validity, from that which may be predicated of a proposition valid in most cases, to that which is asserted of a proposition which holds good in all; as, for example, in the affirmation, “All bodies are heavy.” When, on the contrary, strict universality characterises a judgement, it necessarily indicates another peculiar source of knowledge, namely, a faculty of cognition à priori.” (Kant 2003, Introduction: II.)
(Separately): “In whatsoever mode, or by whatsoever means, our knowledge may relate to objects, it is at least quite clear that the only manner in which it immediately relates to them is by means of an intuition. To this as the indispensable groundwork, all thought points. But an intuition can take place only in so far as the object is given to us. This, again, is only possible, to man at least, on condition that the object affect the mind in a certain manner. The capacity for receiving representations (receptivity) through the mode in which we are affected by objects, objects, is called sensibility. By means of sensibility, therefore, objects are given to us, and it alone furnishes us with intuitions; by the understanding they are thought, and from it arise conceptions. But an thought must directly, or indirectly, by means of certain signs, relate ultimately to intuitions; consequently, with us, to sensibility, because in no other way can an object be given to us.” (Kant 2003, I.P1.§ I)
(Separately): “[B]ecause the receptivity or capacity of the subject to be affected by objects [ie. to cognize] necessarily antecedes all intuitions of these objects, it is easily understood how the form of all phenomena can be given in the mind previous to all actual perceptions, therefore à priori” (Kant 2003, I.P1.SI. § 2)
(Separately) “Our knowledge springs from two main sources in the mind, first of which is the faculty or power of receiving representations (receptivity for impressions); the second is the power of cognizing by means of these representations (spontaneity in the production of conceptions). Through the first an object is given to us; through the second, it is, in relation to the representation (which is a mere determination of the mind), thought. Intuition and conceptions constitute, therefore, the elements of all our knowledge, so that neither conceptions without an intuition in some way corresponding to them, nor intuition without conceptions, can afford us a cognition.”
(Kant 2003, I.P2.Introduction.I)
In short, rationality is the sole defining feature of all rational agents; the preceder of all intuition, the organiser of all sensation, and the systematiser of all cognition. It is the very nature and the greatest we all share.
What Are The Objects Of Rationality
As Kant proceeded, with great inspiration, after Hume, it is no surprise that the foundations of Kant’s (richer) writings can be found in the writings of Hume. The difference being; where Hume sought to develop a science of the mind, Kant sought to develop a metaphysics of the mind. That is; Hume sought to understand the mind's operation in the a posteriori realm, where Kant sought to understand the mind's structure and operation in the a priori realm.
Because the a priori objects of the mind are sufficiently considered by Kant, and because they are readily apparent to anybody, they require little consideration of their operation. One merely has to close their eyes and consider anything the likes of which they have no experience, or which lies in the purely abstract realm (for example mathematical concepts). Indeed, the a priori objects of the mind cannot but be the faculties, structures, concepts, and intuitions which alone belong a priori to the mind. Thus, a consideration of the a posteriori objects of the mind is more relevant to the present discussion. As Hume writes in his Treatise on Human Nature (Hume 2003):
“All our simple ideas in their first appearance are derived from simple impressions, which are correspondent to them, and which they exactly represent.” (T Book 1, Part 1, Section 1, ¶ 8)
The a posteriori objects of the mind thus conceived are the impression of the senses which, to use Hume’s phrase, we ‘copy’ onto the face of that organ such that we cognise them at once. Further, as rationality is an exclusive faculty of the mind, and is purely contained in that facility, the objects of rationality cannot be more (but may be less) than these objects. In short, the objects of rationality, in the a posteriori domain can only, at most, extend to the objects of the senses.
Why Is The Concept Of Religion Outside The Bounds Of Rationality
We may then ask; why is the concept of Religion outside the bounds of the rational? In other words, why can religion not be an object of the mind? To answer simply; it is because religion, in its essence, is composed entirely by objects the likes of which the mind does not, and cannot investigate.
In the first instance; the concept of religion cannot belong to empirical reasoning. Empirical reasoning being that which considers states belong to a posteriori realm (ie. to sensory world). Against this; the objects of religion, as previously stated, are the “non-physical… or non-noumenal realms”. These realms are neither sensory (as they are non-noumenal) nor empirical (as they are non-physical) and thus cannot be a posteriori in nature. This is because, at the very least, a posteriori objects must be either (1) sensible, or (2) empirical as that is all which composes the world.
In the second instance; the concept of religion cannot belong to pure reasoning. Pure reasoning being that which considers the a priori realm. Against this; the objects of religion, as also stated, are “ineffable” meaning non-expressable, non-definite, and non-cognizable. This is in firm contradiction to the operation of the mind; the a priori movement of which is expressible, definite, universal, absolute, and (pre conditionally) cognizable. Further; if the concept of religion was subordinate to the a priori operation of the mind; the concept could be justified and interrogated through metaphysical means. However, this has not, at least as of yet, been demonstrated. Further, if my former analysis is correct, it could not ever be demonstrated, as it would produce a contraction.
What Is Left For Faith?
Having established that it cannot be rationally attained, what are we then to do with the religious and with faith? There remains only one, dreadful path. It is the path recognised and asserted by that father of Existentialism; Søren Kierkegaard:
“Faith is the highest passion in a person. There perhaps are many in every generation who do not come to faith, but no one goes further. Whether there are also many in our day who do not find it, I do not decide. I dare to refer only to myself, without concealing that he has a long way to go, without therefore wishing to deceive himself of what is great by making a trifle of it, a childhood disease one may wish to get over as soon as possible. But life has tasks enough also for the person who does not come to faith, and if he loves these honestly, his life will not be wasted, even if it is never comparable to the lives of those who perceived and grasped the highest. But the person who has come to faith (whether he is extraordinarily gifted or plain and simple does not matter) does not come to a standstill in faith. Indeed, he would be indignant if anyone said to him, just as the lover resents it if someone said that he came to a standstill in love; for, he would answer, I am by no means standing still. I have my whole life in it. Yet he does not go further, does not go on to something else, for when he finds this, then he has another explanation”. (Kierkegaard 1941, ¶ 3)
With no rational pathway to faith; the only one left is the path of the passions. The passions which produce both elatement and despair. This is the grimest path to any conclusion and is only engaged by the mostly-wise (though not the wisest) as a last resort. Passionate states give way to change by their nature; it is this possibility then, and the realisation of it, that produces the greatest anxiety and the greatest dread within us. It is this passionate state in the face of uncertainty which is the foundation of all existentialism; the root of all existential angst, and the cause of the self-conscious faithful’s Fear and Trembling.
The (Lack Of) Impact On My Ethics
Having so far discussed the abstract concepts of religion, the presentation of gnosticism, the experience of theophany, and the irrational nature of faith, it is fitting that we now close with a note on practical matters.
Religion is not, and ought not be, the basis for any system of ethics; applied or otherwise.
Here I will relitigate Kant and his enrapturing anthropology. Ethics is no more than the consistent production of rational actions based on underlying maxims. Rational actions are the domain of rational agents alone. Man is, at base, a rational agent. To act in a manner contrary to this state is, at best, to disrespect our fantastical state, and, at worst, to engage in intellectual suicide; to degrade oneself to the status of beast, to insanely rip oneself from the cloth of humanity. Indeed, before I face any smug anti-theist rebukes, I will come out and declare that faith, my faith, is an act of beastilisation which degrades the pure nature of mankind. It is from a weakness of the will, and not a conclusion of the mind, that I believe in God. Ideally, it is a weakness that would be torn from me. In short, ethical decisions, for the rational agent, ought to be born of rationality. Religion is not a rational basis for any decision; thus it cannot be the basis of ethics for rational agents.
Let me make two final points; pre-empting counter-arguments. Firstly, to those who might say ‘But [they] am not a rational agent. Therefore, I may take up religion for my ethics!’. I would hope, dearly hope, that they are wildly wrong. Or, perhaps I should be ambivalent about the matter. Since they are so keen to stamp themselves with this strange fate; I shall present to them the two outcomes. Either (1) they are mistaken, in which case they are rational and religion cannot be a basis for their morality, or (2) they are not mistaken, they are truly irrational, and they are owed no moral consideration, a protection which exclusively exists between moral agents. For their sake, I hope it is not the latter…
Secondly, let me speak on the (usually) Christian adherent who is motivated by fear into subservience. Such a man cringes at the sound of the whip; at the slashing of the pastor’s tongue as he hears ‘fire and brimstone’. Such a man runs from his own shadow lest it overcome his delusional reality. Such a man weeps at the mention of reward; and begs like a dog to be forgiven by his owner. He does not realise, the collar he wears is one of his own making. The pastor he hears is no greater than himself. The hell he sees is not unlike the state of his mind. The heaven he longs for is not fit for him. He is less than a beast. Even animals show courage, but not this man. In the face of tyranny he is easily domesticated. He is without his rationality, without his humanity. Any person who believes to assuage the threat of hellfire or to reap the reward of salvation believes not. He who acts well under duress is but a slave to bonevolent masters. He who gives plentifully in the eyes of the public hoards himself. Christians are not called to be sheep, but to realise the greatest essence of what it is to be. God is not the end, but the object of worship. Virtue is not the burden but the reward of faith. Beauty, not fear, should fill our hearts. Truth, not hypocrisy, should rule our lives. For the hypocrit, no sooner has satisfaction been gained than it becomes slavery. We are commanded to speak the truth with all diligence. Love, not fear, shall set us free. I will be better than I am afraid. Let my actions lead others into this glorious light. To fail at such things is far worse than any torment of hell or reward of heaven.
References
Aquinas, T 2006, ‘Of Man Who Is Composed Of A Spiritual And A Corporeal Substance: And In The First Place, Concerning What Belongs To The Essence Of The Soul’, in Summa Theologica, Project Gutenberg, viewed 1 December 2022. <https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17611/pg17611-images.html>
Caravaggio (1603), Sacrifice of Isaac, image, Wikimedia, viewed 2 December 2022, <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Sacrifice_of_Isaac-Caravaggio_%28Uffizi%29.jpg>
Comerre, L 1911, The Flood, image, Wikimedia, viewed 2 December 2022, <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Le_d%C3%A9luge_-_mus%C3%A9e_de_beaux_arts_de_Nantes_20091017.jpg>
Holy Bible, King James Version 1987, BibleGateway, viewed 1 November 2022, <https://www.biblegateway.com>
Holy Bible, New International Version 1973, BibleGateway, viewed 1 November 2022, <https://www.biblegateway.com>
Hume, D 2003, A Treatise of Human Nature, Project Gutenberg, viewed 2 December 2022, <https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/4705/pg4705-images.html>
Martin, J 1852, The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, image, Wikimedia, viewed 2 December 2022, <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/John_Martin_-_Sodom_and_Gomorrah.jpg>
Kempis, TA 1999, ‘The Second Book Admonitions Concerning The Inner Life’, in W Benham (trans.), The Imitation of Christ, Project Gutenberg, viewed 3 December 2022, <https://gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1653/pg1653-images.html>
Kant, I 2003, The Critique of Pure Reason, Project gutenberg, viewed 5 December 2022, <https://gutenberg.org/cache/epub/4280/pg4280-images.html>
Kierkegaard, S 1941, ‘Epilogue’, in W Lowrie (trans.), Fear and Trembling, Princeton University Press, viewed 5 December 2022,
<https://www.religion-online.org/book-chapter/epilogue-3/>
Comments
Post a Comment