tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3759353.post3530693410723942227..comments2023-08-29T02:42:23.063-05:00Comments on ¡Bemsha SWING!: Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09371893596402673898noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3759353.post-8362062278344268222008-03-14T14:59:00.000-05:002008-03-14T14:59:00.000-05:00What makes any religious experience illegitimate o...What makes any religious experience illegitimate or shallow or fake? Who's to judge?Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09371893596402673898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3759353.post-28877394896815979292008-03-14T13:17:00.000-05:002008-03-14T13:17:00.000-05:00In Judaism & Christianity, the idea is that histor...In Judaism & Christianity, the idea is that history itself, and the world-in-history, are being fashioned by the Divine toward certain ends. Islam makes a similar claim, though I don't know enough to say much about it. These claims are based on certain historical particulars - the history of the Jewish people, the lives of Christ & Mohammad.<BR/><BR/>This is a different kind of historical reality or historicism than you find in Buddhism, Taoism, various kinds of animism, etc. Buddha is also a historical figure swathed in legends (as are the figures in the Abrahamic faiths) - yet the emphasis in the non-Abrahamic faiths, it seems to me anyway, is on a timeless or cyclical transcendent Reality, divorced from historical time and events.<BR/><BR/>You argue that religion simply corrals individuals' vague feelings of transcendence, in a "totally illegitimate way". Au contraire. Religious expression can be legitimate or not, genuine or fake, deep or shallow. The literary, dogmatic and ritual phenomena of religion are expressive in themselves; they're not simply guideposts or rules for channeling individual feelings. The acts of Christ or Buddha INSPIRE feeling and action, they don't simply control some pre-existent inner state. <BR/><BR/>The soul is "naturally Christian", says Tertullian; he's talking about the receptivity of the non-believer to the message of Christ. It's not a question of control, in your sense, but of a natural affinity.Henry Gouldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06763188178644726622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3759353.post-384208849395800662008-03-14T11:22:00.000-05:002008-03-14T11:22:00.000-05:00All religions are historical. They all give a spe...All religions are historical. They all give a specific name to their deities and want you do do specific things, believe in specific texts. The leap from one's own feelings of transcendance to a very specific set of beliefs is identical. In fact, most people making that argument from one's own inner feelings of transcendance happen to be Christians. <BR/><BR/>So it boils down to saying: "My religion is not like the others, because it's true, it really happened." The what is rejected is an empirical claim, not the vague sprirtuality everyone feels. It is actually a lot easier to dispute those empirical claims, though. I can't deny that somebody had a particular inner religious experience, but I could question that those particular events happened.Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09371893596402673898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3759353.post-23043063405527365252008-03-14T10:23:00.000-05:002008-03-14T10:23:00.000-05:00But Kierkegaard & others might argue that Christia...But Kierkegaard & others might argue that Christianity (& one could add, Judaism) is not a religion in this sense. <BR/><BR/>Christianity is a historical religion, claiming divine intervention very much in THIS world.<BR/><BR/>Of course, one can refuse to accept those claims - but the refusal would have to be based on a different set of arguments than those you offer here.Henry Gouldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06763188178644726622noreply@blogger.com