RELIGION IN THE AGE OF REASON
Some thoughts
Brian Colless
This is the Age of
Enlightenment, a time of shedding light on ignorance, when light itself has come
under scientific scrutiny, and knowledge has thereby increased remarkably (think of
Newton, and Einstein). It might also be the Age of Aquarius, if the water
carrier is there to pour cold water on the menacing fires of religious
enthusiasm and the noxious flames of passionate dogmatism.
The ‘Enlightenment’ movement
of the 18th century has been indicted as the undivine creator of
selfish immoral individualism; cultural imperialism; the Terror in the French
Revolution; the horrific Holocaust in the Third Reich; the destructive Atomic
Bomb in the Land of the Free; and the unhealthy global warming or climate
change on Planet Earth. In the face of this indictment, Phil Badger of
Sheffield asks:
‘What’s Wrong With The
Enlightenment?’ (Philosophy Now, 2013) [Thanks to Li Dong]
In his essay ‘What is
Enlightenment?’ (1784) Immanuel Kant
summed it up:
“Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity.
Immaturity is the inability to use one’s own understanding without the guidance
of another.” Therefore we must think for ourselves, and resist tradition,
convention, or authority as sources of wisdom and knowledge. The individual
person could now be seen as equipped to decide matters of both empirical fact
and moral value for himself (‘herself’ came a bit later, Badger adds; but let
us say “themself”; MSWord changed that to “themselves” without my permission).
(Sorry, but for writing Chinese and English
one must obey the orthographic tradition and ask a teacher or a lexicon how to
write every single word in the language; no room for messing about and being
clever and doing it my way. Bat ay stil chuuz tuw duw it may wey.)
In India, long before the
European Enlightenment (two millennia already), the word enlightenment (or bodhi, its Sanskrit and Pali equivalent)
appeared in the Buddhadharma, the teaching of Gautama the Buddha. The idea of
skepticism (as practised in the modern scientific method) is nicely formulated
in the Pali Kâlâma Sutta (or Kâlâma Sûtra, in Sanskrit; sutra/sutta,‘a thread’). [Thanks to
Thana na Nagara]
The Buddha opposed blind
faith, dogmatism, and belief obtained from specious reasoning. He was practically
an atheist, in that he said we should not go to gods for help with our personal
problems. He started out from the event of a light going on inside his darkened
head, a mystical experience of
illumination or enlightenment in which he saw it all, so to speak, as he was
seated under a species of fig-tree; but he was nevertheless a philosopher
(promoting right thinking) and a psychologist (showing a pathway to happiness
through right thinking for elimination of stress and misery), as well as the
founder of a religion.
This text (a discourse
delivered to the people of the Kalama clan) is the Buddha’s charter of free
inquiry for the establishing of truth; his advice is to be wary of information
coming from: repeated hearing (hearsay), tradition, rumour (the news media),
scripture (authoritative texts), surmise (suppositional reasoning), axiom
(philosophical dogmatism), specious reasoning (common sense, elegant, and
beautiful, and ‘special’, but wrong), bias (in personal opinion), another
person’s apparent competence (experts!), recognized authorities (such as monks
and teachers).
Incidentally, the Jewish
Enlightenment (Haskalah) also began
in the 18th century, and resulted in the formation of Liberal
Judaism.
In Europe the progression from darkness to light went
along the following lines.
The
Renaissance saw the rebirth of
classicism in the arts. Ironically, ancient gods were revived in this movement.
Those naked bodies in the (Bible-based) statues and paintings of Michelangelo (1475-1564) conceal the
fact that he belonged to a movement in the Roman Catholic Church for promoting
greater spirituality; it was a secret society, which included an English bishop
who just missed out on being elected Pope, and his rival was a tyrant. It
desired devotion plus morality, faith and good works, piety and practising what
you preach.
Individualism arose in the
religious conflicts of seventeenth-century Europe: conscience and inner light,
rather than the traditions and regulations of the Roman Catholic Church, should
guide a person.
The Reformation brought back “justification by faith” and personal
conversion, but there was still a desire for spiritual reform in the Lutheran
Church, and the movement to restore piety is known as Pietism.
Jesuitism
refers to the Society of Jesus founded by Ignatius Loyola in 1534; the
members of this order were called Jesuits, and their roles were: defenders of
the faith against the Reformation and missionaries to the heathen. Their
spirituality was sincere (Francis), but the secrecy of their activities and the
power they wielded sometimes led to their expulsion by civil and religious
authorities.
Pietism arose in the 17th century, presenting a combination of
religious faith with a moral lifestyle, and it had widespread influence,
notably in Prussia and other Baltic states. The name of Count von Zinzendorf
(1700-1760) is closely associated with it; and in England there was the
Methodism of John Wesley (1703-1791), with his brother Charles Wesley as the
prolific hymn-writer for ‘the people called Methodists’. To outsiders, this
pietism was “enthusiasm” and “emotionalism”, and piety bringing “pie in the sky
when we die”.
Jansenism
was a Catholic sect, founded by Bishop Cornelius Jansen (1585-1638),
emphasizing the teachings of Augustine of Hippo (354-430); Pascal was attracted
to it; abolished by the Pope in 1731.
Humanism was an extension of
Renaissance ideas of personal autonomy and optimism. John Locke (1632-1704) spoke against the Divine right of kings to
rule (James I); Locke declared that a ruler’s legitimacy depended on the
consent of the ruled. This principle was enshrined in the American Declaration
of Independence: it was a self-evident truth that governments derive “their
just powers from the consent of the governed”, and “whenever any form of
government becomes destructive of those ends” (namely inalienable rights to
“life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”) “it is the right of the people to
alter or abolish it”.
Coincidentally, the age-old
principle and practice in China was: when the mandate of Heaven was withdrawn
from a corrupt ruler, a new dynasty was created.
“We hold these truths to be
self-evident” [axiomatic? or discovered by reasoning?]: “all men are created equal”
and “are endowed by their Creator [God] with certain inalienable rights”
(Of course the only rights
and values that concern most citizens are their water rights and their property
values, what the value of their property is.)
A noble affirmation: “We hold these truths
to be self-evident” [axiomatic? or discovered by reasoning?]: “all men are
created equal” and “are endowed by their Creator [God] with certain inalienable
rights” (but not women and other inferior beings, such as slaves and homosexuals).
Note the flight of French
philosophers to the courts of monarchs:
Descartes
(1596-1650) to Queen Christina of Sweden
Cartesian rationalist scepticism
His stay with her was the death of him,
having to get up at 4 am and walk through the snow to counsel her for the day.
He died a Christian, thinking only of the
mercy of God.
Diderot (1713-1784)
to Queen Catherine II the Great of Russia (1773-4, 7 months)
Atheistic materialism
The Encyclopedia and the scientific spirit
were his legacy.
Voltaire
(1694-1788) to Frederick the Great of Prussia
Rational deism
He set up a place of worship on his estate,
I have heard.
Two great thinkers, who
bequeathed collections of thoughts:
Blaise PASCAL (1623-1662) Pensées (Thoughts)
Charles de MONTESQUIEU (1689-1755) Considérations, Cahiers (Notebooks)
Pascal
His father was interested in
the sciences, and at age 12 Blaise rediscovered by himself 32 propositions of
Euclid; at 17 he composed a treatise on “Sections Coniques”; at 19 he constructed
a calculating machine; he formulated Pascal’s principle in physics. He was
influenced by Jansenism, and had a blissful mystical experience; he became an
apostle and an apologist for Christianity.
His Pensées were fragmentary notes for a book directed to a libertine
who had become entangled in the pleasures of the world and had forgotten about
his need for salvation; he would show him the nature of humanity, and arouse
unease in him about his ultimate destiny; he would point out the impotence of philosophies
and religions to calm his disquietude, and then show him the way of salvation
through the Holy Scriptures and the light of Christ.
The book would have two parts: Misery of of
Man without God, and Felicity of Man with God.
“The heart has its reasons, which reason
does not know.” (277)
He presents his case with the idea of a
wager: one could bet on the truth of eternal life, and practise devotion and
morality, and ultimately if the eternal goal was not there, nothing would have
been lost, since one would have had happiness in this life.
Montesquieu
He came from an aristocratic
family of parliamentarians, and lived in a castle.
To do great things, one must
not be above people, one must be with them.
Classification of governments:
REPUBLIC : Head of government
(president) < Citizens (equal in liberty)
MONARCHY : King > Intermediaries > Subjects (equal in
obedience)
DESPOTISM : Despot > Slaves (equal in servitude)
Montesquieu conceives the
universe as a field for methodical exploration.
The art of living consists in
a methodical search for happiness (bonheur).
“Il ne faut point beaucoup de philosophie pour être heureux; il n’y a qu’à
prendre des idées un peu saines.” Happiness does not require much philosophy,
just a few sound and sane ideas; one’s reason conceives these ideas and engages
the will in conformity with them.
Proscribe passions. It is pleasant to love,
but not to be enchained and fettered by love; it is nice having grand designs,
but it is not good being tormented by ambition; accept the good things of
fortune, but do not be subjected to their tyranny, since money is a good slave
but a bad master.
Accept destiny. Reason disposes the soul to
make the best of every situation (including his blindess), and to discern the
good side of every thing and every person.
Cultivate pleasures. Reason teaches us to
draw from life the greatest possible number of enjoyments. The highest joys are
those given by the mind in solitude and recollection.
“L’étude a été pour moi le
souverain remède contre les dégoûts de la vie, n’ayant jamais eu de chagrin
qu’une heure de lecture ne m’ait ôté.”
The art of thinking involves
a methodical search for truth (vérité).
Proscribe prejudices. Reason frees the soul
from the prejudices that conceal the truth from it. He revels in observing
disputes, concerning literature and religion. “La religion catholique détruira
la religion protestante, et ensuite les catholiques deviendront protestants”
(the catholics will become protestants). Excessively exalting one’s country is
a prejudice. “Tout citoyen est obligé de mourir pour sa patrie; personne n’est
obligé de mentir pour elle.” One must raise oneself above private
considerations and assign each notion to its place in the universal order.
Accept reality. The worst prejudice is to
reject the present order in favour of the fantasy of revolution. Be a good
citizen in whatever country you are born.
Prepare the future. However, in politics he
rebels against imposed traditions: “Je n’épouse pas les opinions excepté celles
des livres d’Euclide.” All authority must be reasonable: “Une chose n’est pas
juste parce qu’elle est loi; elle doit être loi parce qu’elle est juste.”
Remember, he was the author of L’Esprit
des Lois (1748), “The spirit of the laws”, a treatise on political
philosophy.
The art of writing is a
methodical search for effect. Montesquieu strives to write with order and
reasoning, and also with irony and humour, putting “salt” (and pepper?) and style into
his works. His first published book was Lettres
Persanes (1721), “Persian Letters”,
a satire on French society.
Of all the French philosophers, he was the
most conscientiously an artist, a stylist.
All these French literary philosophers
have exerted their influence on me; I was forced to study them by Sydney
University for my Bachelor of Arts degree: Descartes, Pascal, Montesquieu,
Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau (and all the romantics who came after him), also
the playwrights Molière and Beaumarchais, Corneille and Racine, and eventually
Camus and Sartre (but, unfortunately, not Proust).
Speaking personally, I am
always reluctant to throw away old things (such as articles of clothing, and
books, and gramophone records) until they are clearly threadbare or obsolete, or
broken; and so I do not easily discard old characters (like Voltaire) and
age-old concepts (such as God) because they might still be viable and come in
handy some day.
God of the gaps, God the gap-filler in God-shaped holes.
Scientism, a new religion,
everyone must think the same, according to the dictates of science, using the
reasoning of the modern closed mind, which is blindfolded and blinkered against
contemplating metaphysical matters.
Just a thought for the day. No doubt it will pass away tomorrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment