Religion: Formed by Both Belief and Skepticism
Sunday read a post by Zohar Atkins at What is Called Thinking and found it interesting enough to share with Monday. Much was discussed, but for this post we’ll focus on skepticism.
Quote of interest from this post.
“You could even argue that monotheism was a kind of critical thinking relative to paganism. The Midrash that figures Abraham as smashing his father’s idols paints the religious hero as a kind of “v1” of Durkheim and Hanson. Abraham is not moved by awe, in the story, but rather by skepticism. Religion isn’t just about defending the sacred, it’s about trying to distinguish the genuine sacred from the fake sacred.” - Zohar Atkins, What Is Called Thinking?
SUNDAY: Monday and I talked about the idea of sacred as it relates to religion and the rest of society, but the point I want to focus on here is the idea of critical thinking used as a means to persuade that a religion has the ‘actual’ truth, and that some beliefs are true and others are not.
That a certain religion has a monopoly on truth, and you have to be more intelligent, wisened, or enlightened to realize that is a powerful persuasive tool. We want to be considered any and all of those qualities—so for a religion to peddle that it is the truth—it appeals to us wanting to be, well, believers in the one truth. And to exercise ‘critical thinking’ to come to that conclusion. It makes us seem more advanced, right?
Believing in everything just isn’t rational, critical thinking can’t allow for all truths, only some truths, so it isn’t enough to believe everything of Christianity—you can’t, also, paradoxically, believe everything in Hinduism. You aren’t a true Christian if you believe Jesus is the Son of God while also believing Jane Doe is the Daughter of God and there’s also a Goddess named Isis that’s equal to God—or whatever. The denial of other beliefs is critical to being a ‘proper’ believer as believing in the main tenants. Belief is about not believing certain things as much as believing in other things.
MONDAY: We can tell that a thinker is not "critical" when they use critical thinking compartmentally but offer no justification for their compartmentalization. The primary characteristic of emotional reasoning is that the reasoning follows the conclusion, post hoc. In the Abrahamic tradition, no argument is offered for why there is only one God, or why only one God is worthy of being worshiped. Greek philosophy supplies such arguments but ancient Judaism did not. Monotheism is established on the basis of authority. God appears to Israel then makes demands. He threatens and promises. The people comply. No intellectual arguments are offered. Granted, the complying Israelies would be "skeptical" of the claims of other religions, but the skepticism involved is not the same as "critical thinking." It is skepticism based on authority. Later in history, Greek reasoning is adopted, but such reasoning is demonstrably not the source of the ideas. The iconoclasts of Israel were not motivated by skepticism and it is disingenuous to claim they were. This isn't to say, however, that all spiritual thought is irrational. One can disagree with the need for Deism, intellectually, but the basics of simple Deism are sound. We do not have a firm grasp of the origin of the cosmos and a conscious creator is certainly a possibility. One could, in theory, even recommend a mystical appreciation of this hypothesized Deity. After all, if someone can fall into an ecstatic trance by looking at a picture of the universe from the Hubble telescope, why couldn't they fall into an ecstatic trance contemplating the architect or architects of the cosmos? And what is the rational argument against this? Still, there is a vast gulf separating Deism and Theism, as the latter suggests revelation and divine intervention, neither of which possess evident rational support. Calling this type of Theism a type of skepticism can only be a marketing gimmick, in light of the facts. Honestly, I respect Fideism more as a religious position, as it is at least honest about its claims.
Saying that, it’s still possible for religious thought to be informed by critical thinking, in theory. In India, it was common for different religious/philosophical sects to debate, publically. The king would then give special favors to the victors and often the victors would become the official religion of the kingdom. Hence in India there were historical Hindu, Buddhist and Jain dynasties. Or, if a group lost a debate, a king might switch sides.
SUNDAY: That’s a really good point about the loss of public religious debates internally and externally. The Council of Nicaea was massively important in shaping Christianity—why haven’t we had further councils and debates from other major religions? Why not have modern debates on sects now? This is making me wonder on the evolution and development of religions—have the ‘big’ ones stagnated?
But, going back to this topic, haha. I agree completely on the authoritarianism of ‘this is true because we say so’ approach to monotheism. There’s no reason for one God instead of many, except that you need to sell yourself as The Truth. I don’t believe actual skepticism was at all a motivator in Israel of old or any religion—it’s a differentiator in the form of posturing (as in, we appear more rational).
Speaking of differentiation, with Deism and Theism, I don’t see the line as that blurry. If everything is of a creator (which is possible), isn’t everything proof of a revelation, or everything a revelation? But that leads directly to Fideism, no? I feel like in either case, Fideism (which I haven’t looked into much) is the honest, truthful end result.
I don’t think a logical argument for a creator exists, since the creator would have made logic. They could make it impossible to determine themselves, except by way of implication. ‘Logic’ in a religious context is like…a marketing tool to get people to start the engine on belief. It’s not actually what’s needed, but like…the push to get there. Needing to be logically persuaded to have faith feels like an oxymoron. Using ‘logic’ to get people in the door? Marketing.
MONDAY: There have been Christian (Catholic, Orthodox) and Buddhist councils akin to Nicea in modern history. The Sunni Islamic situation is a bit dicier but that's a whole other discussion. By "revelation" I mean revelation in the form of a scripture or inspired line of gurus/teachers, or a divinely guided Church. By "fideism" I mean the historical current where Christians (or other sects) looked at faith as independent and opposite of reason. Theism, in common parlance, is distinguished from Deism by the idea of revelation and historical interventions. When God exists but doesn't inspire prophets or reveal sacred texts, or establish infallible religious bodies like the Catholic Church, the word for this concept in philosophy is usually "Deist". It was a concept held by most philosophers and naturalists until supplanted by Agnosticism or Atheism. When you say, "If everything is of a creator (which is possible), isn’t everything proof of a revelation, or everything a revelation?" This isn't wrong, per se, but it's not using the terms in the same way they're used historically. A Deist could look upon anything as being revelation in a poetic or mystical sense, but it's not "revelation" in the hard-boiled, specific sense that Muslims, Christians or Jews use the term. A "flower" isn't generally used as a proof text in the same way the Bible has been, for example. On the statement, "I don’t think a logical argument for a creator exists, since the creator would have made logic," why would the creator's creation of logic preclude logic from supporting the existence of a creator? Couldn't a creator, in theory, create a universe which also had elements that proved its existence? What is stopping the (potential) creator from doing so?
SUNDAY: There’s nothing stopping a creator from doing so or having a universe that proved its existence. But it doesn’t need to exist. So maybe I should rephrase: “a logical argument need not exist since the creator could have made logic so such a thing is impossible”.
The idea of revelation in such a way seems so dogmatic and strange to me. I mean, the idea of something supernatural happening historically makes sense to differentiate, but the idea of revelation feels more ambiguous. But, such religions must be dogmatic, otherwise they wouldn’t be able to control/differentiate themselves. The concept of ‘Revelations’ feels like another gimmick to inspire faith/determine who has authority. This person from history had a revelation…but you did not when you felt the presence of God by looking at a flower. It’s subjective, but imperative to how religions are based now.
This conversation has made my perspective on organized religions incredibly cynical (well, more cynical than it was before). Ways to reason to make everything work nicely in terms of faith/reason without back-bending are avoided for the ones that demand recognition of some authoritarian concept… Sigh. I wonder if it’s possible for a structured, organized religion to fall onto dogmatism like this. Or does organization imply it?
What do you think of the interplay of faith and reason? Must an organized religion always appeal to authority to succeed?