If you've ever wondered why God would reveal himself in the form of a guy born around 1 A.D. in Palestine instead of making a general revelation to the world, then you've stumbled across what theologians call the "Scandal of Particularity." Which also happens to be the name of a blog that I recently stumbled across through my referral log. Check out the Donne poem.
Posted by Camassia at July 01, 2003 08:31 PM | TrackBackIt's a good question and one of the reasons why I am agnostic. I just can't see an answer that doesn't seem contrived. Yet I also cannot disprove that there may be an intelligence in the universe that is greater than what the best of us has in our skull.
Thought: what would an Amoeba make of intelligence? For that matter, is an amoeba even aware of us? I doubt it. It neither has the capacity for intelligence or the ability to sense us except in a very limited fashion. It cannot recognize us for what we are. Likewise, I grant that there could be something beyond the senses that my puny little brain can't fathom.
Posted by: Joel on July 2, 2003 02:38 AMThere isn't a good answer. All, or almost all, of those who do believe that God revealed himself in the form of a guy born around 1 A.D. in Palestine would instead believe that God revealed himself through a man born in 19th century Utah or in 6th century Saudi Arabia if they had been born to different parents or in a different culture. That's the thing about religion; it's all so arbitrary, largely a product of the circumstances of one's birth and upbringing.
Posted by: Don P on July 2, 2003 11:21 AMAll belief systems - religious, political, philosophical - are influenced by your own personal life experience, culture, and background. And all of them also involve the use of reason. Religion isn't something uniquely arbitrary and impervious to logic.
Anyway, thanks, Camassia, for the pointer to a cool blog, and that is one of my favorite Donne poems.
What makes something scandalous -- literally, a stumbling block to accepting something -- is that it is contrary to our expectations.
But since when do our expectations define reality? Maybe we should be scandalized by scandal.
Posted by: Tom on July 3, 2003 06:21 AMLynn:
All belief systems - religious, political, philosophical - are influenced by your own personal life experience, culture, and background. And all of them also involve the use of reason. Religion isn't something uniquely arbitrary and impervious to logic.
No, they don't all involve the use of reason. Zen Buddhism, for example, eschews reason because it deems it to be inherently dualistic and thus an obstacle to Enlightenment.
But reason, even when it is a part of such a belief system, is not an indication of merit. Nonsensical premises will yield nonsensical conclusions, whether the reasoning applied to those premises is valid or not. Garbage in, garbage out.
And the point about personal life, culture, parentage, etc., is not that those factors merely influence a person's particular religious beliefs, but that they largely determine them. If a devout Christian had been born and raised in, say, Saudi Arabia instead of, say, Alabama, he'd most likely be a devout Muslim instead. And if he'd been born in India, he'd most likely be a devout Hindu. The most reliable predictor of a person's religion is the religion of his parents and the prevailing religion of his culture. Religion is to a very great degree an accident of birth. That is, in part, what makes religion so arbitrary and thus its claims to truth or correctness so implausible.
Thank you very much Camassia for the kind words about me. I understand what Don is saying about being born into a belief system, but I'm not sure that's valid in today's world - I'm just thinking of Christianity here, especially in America. We're so multicultural now that you can be born into a Christian family and grow up to be something completely different. Tertullian said Christians are made, not born.
I obviously don't have a problem with truth claims coming from a particular/arbitrary time, place, and culture. I kind of fall into the postmodernist camp - all truth claims or beliefs, even non-religious ones, come from a particular. There is no more universal.
My head is kind of exploding now too, which isn't necessary bad. I need to think more, but thank you for making me think!
Posted by: Jennifer on July 3, 2003 02:10 PMDoes your argument follow through on ideas other than faith, then? If you're born in the U.S., you will most likely believe in democracy, think it's the best form of government there is, and think that we should help other countries become democratic too, because it brings freedom and other good things to people. America definitely makes truth claims about democracy. Should we not say, democracy is the best form of government, you should try it, let me help you learn about it and try it - simply because we're born into it? You can answer, that's right, you can't say that - I'm just pointing out that your argument can be applied to things other than religion. Religion isn't the only thing out there we're born into that's making truth claims.
Posted by: Jennifer on July 3, 2003 07:57 PMI agree with Jennifer's point. Yes, lots of people blindly accept their culture's faith, and I've criticized Christians who regard their faith choices as being either Christianity or nothing. But if cultural disagreement alone is enough to invalidate something, we don't have much left, do we?
Posted by: Camassia on July 3, 2003 08:21 PMIf anyone's confused about what Jennifer's second post is responding to, it was a comment by Don P's sock puppet. I guess he just wanted to see if I was serious. Sheesh.
Posted by: Camassia on July 3, 2003 10:51 PM