The birth of natural religion

There are many different religious traditions, and they all hold their beliefs regarding the universe, human creatures, the meaning of life, etc., to be more or less correct.

Many of these religious traditions are quite ancient. Even though they presume to be divinely guided, the recipients of revelation, witnesses of miracles, etc., the only evidence they have is the testimony of others, passed on from generation to generation, and anecdotal stories that seem to support their assumptions. 

What if starting today you choose to set aside the old traditions about deities and spirits, and look at the world with these beliefs bracketed or unassumed? Would the gods or God make an appearance at all? Without your former presuppositions, would you find even a hint of the old gods in the world around you? 

This is a challenge to those who have received their beliefs from others.  What do you see if you use your own eyes?

Aphorisms

1

When we start with the question, “Is there a God?” we already presume too much. It’s as if an answer has been given before the question was even asked. On what basis do we ask the question? Where did this idea come from: God? It was offered to us. It didn’t come from ourselves. It was ready-made. Have we not grown weary of believing, without reflection, in the ready-made? 

2

Kant opened his famous essay on the Enlightenment with these words: “Aufklärung ist der Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner selbstverschuldeten Unmündigkeit” (Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity). He continues: “Unmündigkeit ist das Unvermögen, sich seines Verstandes ohne Leitung eines anderen zu bedienen” (Immaturity is the inability to use one’s own understanding without the guidance of another). The religious, on the other hand, think that accepting the ready-made on faith is one of the greatest virtues: “Lean not on your own understanding, but trust in God with all your heart” (Proverbs 3:5). Religion is the antithesis of the Enlightenment i.e. the antithesis of human emergence.

3

The basic starting point of any spiritual investigation is human experience. To be even more clear: the basic starting point is individual experience. Neither my friend’s experience, nor the experience of a man living in the wilderness two thousand years ago teaches me anything about the shape my own experience should take. They are never prescriptive. At best they offer demonstrations of various possibilities. Even here these possibilities are often marked by some previous imposition of religious structure (which is by nature a delimitation).

4

The vast majority of religious adherents never have profound spiritual experiences. They go to mosque, synagogue, church, or temple and rehearse the same ritualistic motions day after day, week after week. This monotonous rehearsal often makes up the greatest part of religious life. The multitude is content to allow the true spiritual experience be the special privilege of the religious founder, the religious genius. They think he or she is exceptional by nature when in fact the religious genius has an exceptional will.

 

 

On Religious Confidence

Josephus on Circumcision (Letter to a Colleague)

Lately I've been reading through Josephus' "The Life of Flavius Josephus" when I was reminded of something we briefly discussed: the issue of "conscience" in St. Paul. I quoted Romans 2.14-15:

"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them."

At the time you commented something to the effect that he may not have meant what I thought he means. You may be quite right (I’ve filed it away for another day), but of interest in Josephus was the following passage:

“At this time it was that two great men, who were under the jurisdiction of the king [Agrippa] came to me out of the region of Trachonius, bringing their horses and their arms, and carrying with them their money also; and when the Jews would force them to be circumcised, if they would stay among them, I would not permit them to have any force put upon them, but said to them, "Every one ought to worship God according to his own conscience, and not to be constrained by force; and that these men, who had fled to us for protection, ought not to be so treated as to repent of their coming hither." And when I had pacified the multitude, I provided for the men that were come to us whatsoever it was they wanted, according to their usual way of living, and that in great plenty also. (23/112).” Italics mine.

Again a similar reference to conscience, here tied to what appears to be a rebuttal of forcible conversion. It is interesting to note the similarities between Paul and Josephus: both operating in a more Hellenistic environment, cosmopolitan, self-proclaimed Pharisees... One can also note that Josephus here offers a minor refutation of that aspect of Paul’s work which seemed to place circumcision among Jews in a highly prominent position (and a major refutation of those abusers of history who go beyond any ambiguity in Paul). Perhaps we see here once again a failure to appreciate the rhetorical structure of Paul’s letters and the worlds in which he lived.

I know that certain communities, like Qumran for example, could be quite strict about membership, but if Josephus is any indication, Jewish sentiments regarding circumcision and conversion during this time were not quite as black and white as Paul or many more contemporary commentators seem to indicate.