In an honest and open effort to increase dwindling numbers in the confessional, the Vatican has released a new set of modern sins titled “The Seven Mortal Sins” to roundly complement and update the “Seven Deadly Sins” of old.
The new list consists of the following:
This is a serious press release by the Vatican, read by Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti at the end of a training seminar for priests in Rome. Now, as noble as the general subject matter of the list might be, I think the pope and his lot have finally lost the plot.
Remember, engaging in any of these new sins means eternal damnation into the fires of hell upon death — should the Catholics in fact turn out to be right, God help us all! As unpleasant as that sounds and at the risk of probably insulting a good number of you, I would like to state what an absolute pile of blatant, unashamed, insulting, inane, festering rubbish this list is. In fact, if the Catholic Church were looking for a singly brilliant way to inform people of what man-made, ludicrous fear-mongering it peddles, this would probably be it.
The first thing that strikes me as obviously dubious is that the Vatican has freely admitted that the new list was decided right here on Earth by a stuffy collection of repressed, aged, single men in a conference hall. It is worth remembering that these are the same men who normally have their hands full trying to convince the world that they are not molesting children and protecting the seemingly endless stream of balding, churchly child molesters across the globe. In their infinite wisdom, they have now decided to tell the millions of Catholics around the world exactly what God will or will not do to them after death based on a new and modernised list that they have compiled all on their own. Did He delegate the task to them because He was busy? The arrogance displayed in publicly presuming to know what God thinks and how He will judge you, should He, She or It even exist at all, is staggering.
Secondly, our men of the cloth also openly admit their frankly commercial reason for producing the list. Attendance is down 60% in Italy; after 1 500 years people have finally seen through the lies and are happily trying to live guilt-free lives. The only way to bring them back in line is to invent a few new, completely vague and scary sins. In the past, at least we were led to believe that the process of compiling such lists involved a little communing with God atop a mountain by a prophet, normally sent down for that express purpose. Now it seems the methods form part of a strategic marketing plan. In the absence of any real demand, demand must be brought forth. The church can then supply the heavenly product to meet the new and vigorous spiritual demand. Good for turnover, good for profit, market share regained, bonuses for the marketing department and guaranteed wings upon death.
Now luckily I am no guilt-ridden Catholic, but if I were, I would be literally wringing my hands in terror. This list of mortal sins is leagues more vague than the original and leaves way more questions asked than answered.
For example, how would I know if I am committing the sin of environmental pollution? Am I guilty by buying foods with plastic wrappers or perhaps by having a braai on the weekend and sending smoke upward? Driving a car or taking a flight pollutes the air and should land me in very hot, sulphurous water. No doubt tossing out the garbage and not recycling is a one-way ticket to eternal damnation. Is modern life not stressful enough for these people?
Genetic manipulation? Are the good doctors in their little coats going to fry at an unholy temperature for trying to feed the world with genetic crops or finding a cure for Parkinson’s? “Yes,” according to the Vatican. God does not want you to play God. That’s his gig and He is actually pretty annoyed that you have figured it out this far and he will burn you for meddling. That’s right, your loving Father in heaven is going to burn you and listen to your screams and say it was your fault for not listening when the Vatican nailed its latest list to the church door. Right. Pity about those who have been meddling and died before the list was pinned up. Sorry guys, bad timing. And since the same group had a conference to cancel Limbo, you really are in deep trouble.
What about excessive wealth? At what point does my accumulation of wealth turn from being acceptable to damnable? Presumably the Vatican’s all-new audit department will troop into each Catholic’s home once a year with an environmentally friendly calculator and portable confessional. After assessing said Catholic’s affairs, they will pronounce him safe or about to be burnt to a crisp. Do developed countries get a bigger allowance for higher living standards? Is tax heavenly deductible? Ridiculous? You bet!
It also gets tricky with wealthy philanthropy. What about Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? They have excessive wealth no matter what definition you apply, yet are doing way more than the Catholic Church to benefit the poor and needy. They are trying to stop Aids while the church is inadvertently spreading it. In fact, while we are on the topic of excessive wealth, the Catholic Church itself is by all estimates an excessively wealthy organisation. Who burns now? The priestly employees of said church? The paying clients who keep it going? Perhaps even the owner/founder himself? That’s right; God may have to burn Himself for holding 100% interest in an excessively wealthy enterprise. It is His church, after all, and He calls the shots, doesn’t He? The works of art alone are priceless. The bulletproof pope-mobile must have cost millions. The church owns more real estate than Donald Trump could hope to accumulate in his entire lifetime. Did these guys even think this through or are they that confident that people will soak it up because of whom they claim to represent?
And so we move along to inflicting poverty. Right, who gets it here? Again, the Catholic Church gets my vote for its stance against birth control, leading to huge families that are just too large for poor people to look after, and for making the poor pay 10% to the church when they can ill afford to do so. Sure, we may catch a few nasty, corrupt politicians in the net and perhaps a few greedy executives of major corporations. Well, maybe they all deserve to bake with each other, come to think of it.
Drug trafficking and consumption is one of my firm favourites. What will God classify as a drug on our big day and did these wine-toting old fellows from Italy draw up a banned-substance appendix so we can make sure we are safe? If alcohol makes the cut, hell is going to be full to the brim with every Irish Catholic I have ever met and most of the rest of us too.
Marijuana? Well, He made the damn stuff, according to the creationist Catholics, and since there were no labels on the plants stating what to do with what, how the hell are we supposed to know what is a drug and what is not? Panado, Disprin, Grandpa? Can you frizzle now for popping a pain pill or flying to London with a bottle of good South African Amarula for your buddy?
Morally debatable experiments are up next. Hallelujah for the vaguest sin of the whole motley lot! Notably the phrasing includes the word “debatable”. Now if it is debatable, then it can’t be a clear case of wrong, otherwise it should have read “morally unjustifiable experiments” or perhaps “morally reprehensible experiments”.
Not so?
The experiment that you and the lovely lady are about to perform only needs to be morally debatable, and only a prostrate admission of guilt by both of you might buy you salvation. I am guessing that if you have escaped so far, this one will get you. Got a tattoo? Oops. Masturbate as a teenager? Sorry, but you are in for a sweaty afterlife because we all know that masturbation is surely morally debatable experimentation in the eyes of the church. Going to be tough to break this one to your struggling, messed-up, pubescent, spotty teenage kid. You touch it and fire will burn it off!
So if, by some reason, you are still confident that you are off to heaven to learn the harp and float about in a state of timeless peace, serenity and profound boredom, let’s see if you might be nabbed at the gates by “violation of fundamental rights of human nature”. The wording of this one has me totally stumped. I can only assume we are encountering a Babel-esque glitch after translation from the Italian version. Human nature is very different to human rights and includes a whole bunch of weird stuff that society tries hard to keep under control. Are they saying we have a right to go with the raw human instinct that is our nature? If so, then they have just endorsed absolute anarchy. As fun as that sounds, perhaps the learned sages need to check their wording.
If they meant “violation of fundamental human rights”, however, most white South Africans are clearly in for the high jump, as are millions of Americans. Hell must be full of Brits from the empire days and probably full of church leaders and their stake-burning henchmen from the past two millennia as well. And what Bill of Human Rights exactly are we using as a yardstick to ensure our clearly critical compliance? I must confess to being a little perplexed by this one.
So if sloth, lust and the other originals don’t get you, booze and pollution probably will. The sticky web has been spun. There is no way out. You are going to burn and scream for all eternity unless you rush off to church in your droves and repent. The Vatican’s plan is perfect. Dry-clean your suit for Sunday and dust off those Bibles.
I think not.
These prescriptive, religious men have spent their protected lives holed up studying a religion consisting chiefly of one tired book. They are, as a result, by far some of the least qualified mammals on this planet to be advocating rules pertaining to modern life and its very real challenges. It is beyond laughable and misguided. It is cruel, evil, manipulative and desperate. This list reeks of supreme arrogance and tyranny of truly biblical proportions, and is nothing more than a desperate thrust for power and control over vulnerable, indoctrinated people. If indeed there were a hell, I would look forward to meeting all of them there.
Just before you pen your indignant answers, dear Catholics and other sympathetic religious types, ask yourself if you truly, truly accept the swill you have just been dished up by these learned members of the church. If the answer is a blessed “no”, then please question the validity of all that came before it for it is simply more of the same. If the answer is “yes”, then you must truly belong to the flock and walk to a different bleat, and good luck to you.
Oh, and I am happily far beyond saving, so please don’t even try.
Grant why don’t you look at the history of secularism with an open mind. Darwin discovered evolution. It was a great insight which I think almost anybody accepts as a true theory. However evolution fed into social Darwinism which lead directly to eugenics and colonialism. Just as species fought to survive so races did. That is why blacks, aborigines, American Indians etc were not able to survive. They had not evolved as well as the white man. Now do you believe that? The Church always mantained that all men are souls and are created in the image and likeness of God.
Then Nietsche came along who said Christianity was a religion of slaves and Jews. It had overthrown the great free thinking paganism of the Greeks and Romans. We should thorw it out an the ubersmensch would go beyond good and evil. This lead directly to Nazism. The other great atheists were the communists. Out with the opium of the masses. The class struggle drove history you could only enjoy the rights you’r class could defend. The churches were closed priests shot etc and we had 70 years of gulags purges and over 20 million deaths.
What has secular society achieved since the 1960′s and the sexual revolution. Has abortion improved the condition of women anywhere. In fact it has made it worse now we men can shag as many people as we want if they get pregnant they can just have an abortion. Has the breakdown of the family due to easy availability of divorce been good for society. Most children from divorced parents suffer major psychological trauma.
It is the Catholic Church that has instilled a modicum of moral decency in humanity through the ages. The petulant moaning of secularist like yourself is just that the wilfulness of a child who wants the freedom to do what he or she wants without any consequences. As far as your elevation of science goes just look at the consequences. The great minds who worked on the Manhattan project were determined to achieve their goal they never for a moment ever thought about morality. Robert Openheimer himslef became totally opposed to nuclear weapons in his later life and had his security clearance revoked by the Pentagon. Science for science sake is not necessarily the best thing for humanity.
If God is dead then I am afraid everything is permissible.
I forgot to mention that other great moment of secularism the french revoulution. Out with the old Make a God of Reason and start a new with out the old Christian months. What did that lead to the Reign of Terror and the Napoleonic wars which were perhaps a precursor of the world wars. ANother great moment for secular humanism
Grant, because I do not know you from a bar of soap, I took the trouble to read what you had to say in your blog “Some Black and White truths”. I congratulate you on that fine piece of writing. I find it ironic that you are able to be open-minded and eloquent in exhorting people to understand one another across the racial divide. Yet in assessing Catholicism, you come across as utterly bigoted and misinformed. You really do seem blinded by hatred of an institution to which I belong, but which in my experience of it, bears almost no resemblance to your description of it.
Just listen to your characterisation of Catholicism:
- people who threaten other people…
- they attempt to enforce compliance with fear and indoctrination …
- their own twisted way…
I went and did some digging about these new seven mortal sins that are so upsetting you. The “story” that you have latched on to turns out to be a storm in a teacup. A minor Vatican functionary, Gianfranco Girotti, has said in an interview with L’Osservatore Romano (Vatican Newspaper) nothing more than has been said quite frequently by both the former and present Pope: that we should respect the environment and the like, that the pursuit of exhorbitant wealth is indecent, etc etc. Nothing new in this, for heaven’s sake. Jesus himself taught it. As far as I can make out, there has been no formal document issued, no papal decree, no edict, no dogma, no force, no threat. Merely a repetition of what most informed Catholics already know and believe.
The BBC, CNN, and other news agencies have latched on to this, giving it their own spin, headlining seven new mortal sins; blogs and commentators all over the world seem to have grasped at this opportunity to castigate the Church for heaven knows what. All the prejudices, misconstructions and bigotry come crawling out of the woodwork.
In future, it really would be nice if you would treat differences on and about religion with the same dignity and respect that you showed vis-a-vis different racial perceptions.
Yuki
I am afraid you are wasting your time with Grant. He is a closed minded bigot when it comes to religion. He thinks he has the truth and no-one else has.His whole argument has been one of opinion and not much substance. When confronted with a few home truths about the evils of secularism he reponds with the sort of unsubstantiated responses that you highlight. People have asked him to list what he finds objectionable about the Church and he has been extremely silent about this. The Catholic Church is a nice PC target. If he took on Islam he might get a fatwa on his head so he steers clear. If he criticise Judaism teh JDL might pay him a visit, far better to take on the that old faithful the Church.
Leave him alone he is content and salf satisfied. He knows all teh answers. As he has said Mother Teresa is a phony, all the AIDS orphanages and hospices run by the Church in KZN are phony.
Yuki – Again, you have been 95% accurate in your assessment but you leave out the critical point that Mr Girotti was asked if these things were SINS! Not guidelines, good moral values, nice things to do, critical issues to resolve in this decade…but SINS! That label has far reaching implications for those who are followers of the CC.
Also, you used the word hatred. I do not hate the Catholic Church and I certainly do not hate the people who belong to it. Some of my friends and family makes up your numbers. I do, however, disagree strongly with certain things that they teach and the way they use the concepts of sin, hell and guilt to promote compliance to biblical laws.
Grant
You sound like another wayward Catholic having your little rebellion. Usually what happens to people like you is that once your own mortality is brought into focus you rapidly return to the fold. the Church will always be there waiting for you to return just like the Prodigal son. When Voltaire was on his deathbed some one called a priest. His students rallied to hsi side and told him to tell the priest to go away. Volatire knowing he was dying looked at his followers and said ” My friends now is not the time to pick a fight”
Grant,
Why the hell, quite literally, is the concept of sin so objectionable to you ?
What does this concept imply if not that certain actions and attitudes are evil and that they may have consequences, even final consequences.
That such actions could be punished by an absolute Being is almost secondary. Both Hinduism and Buddhism believe that you can land in hell even without divine judgement.
Yet they also believe in final consequences which return upon perpetrators of evil.
Not by divine command but maybe even less forgiving, since the idea of repentance and grace is Christian, Jewish and Islamic.
“Karma” is less forgiving, since it works by intrinsic logic.
“Sin” is actually connected to the idea of real responsibility: to know that one’s actions can be of real and final consequence.
Let us assume things had gone out of control during the Cold War and we had all been fried in a nuclear war, the ultimate holocaust, sort of.
Would you still hesitate to call that “sin”, and perhaps talk about “human freedom” to be defended against fear-mongering ?
Do you really prefer the idea that evil actions should be of no consequences, as long as you don’t get caught and as long, as your lenient judgement against yourself, to which we all are prone, excuses you suitably ?
Is it that sort of willfullness and not being serious that you are fighting for so desperately ?
The concept of sin – and that also means to have philosophers, theologians and people of other fields, like botanists and medics, to say what sins are in particular, and also to have institutions to debate that, to arrive at common conclusions and to to make them known – is this concept of sin and what follows from it as to “structured discourse” (= church) really and logically opposed to “fredom” ?
Is it not rather the opposite of “wilfullness” which does not like to accept any authority above itself to which it can VOLUNTARILY bow ?
I assume that your are of secularised Protestant stock, and heir to many anti-Catholic prejudices and stereotypes, dating back to Henry VIII who disliked the Roman Church for quite personal reasons. Others disliked it for more noble reasons and left it in despair to set up an own shop finally.
The pride on this “freedom of conscience” which the Reformation theologians held, in view of a very oppressive Roman church in their days, was still bound to divine authority, sometimes even more strictly than in the Church of Rome. Their sense of freedom went along with a severe sense of responsibility to a higher authority than their own limited selves of whose fallacy they were all too aware.
Now what seems to have happened during secularisation is that the anti-Roman sentiments have survived, but not the sense of being responsible to an absolute authority of an all-seeing Being, or to any supreme judgement.
Without such a point of reference beyond my limited self my freedom quickly becomes mere willfullness and egoism.
Now you might object: But who says that a church could be an agency to mediate the divine discernment and judgement ?
This implies that the church has to be measured by its own standards. Inspite of many sins there is a lot of merit about which others have written enough here.
Who else should or could fulfil the tasks of a church? Which formation in society could debate and codify that and transmit it to the public by teaching an by example ?
The churches do not consider themselves to be infallible. (Even Papal decrees are considered “infallible” only under very strict limitations and are even then subject to divine judgement.)
The Church of Rome has acknowledged that it is subject to imperfection and sin too, being after all a human body.
But that does not relieve it from the responsibility of giving guidance and standards.
One may not agree with Catholic morals in many instances, nor with their mores too, but that is a matter for debate.
So who could replace that body and organisation suitably with the same effectiveness ? Some politbureau or some body of public educators ? possibly even the press ?
How about journalists as priests, subject to the same responsibilites and requirements?
It might be about time, Grant, to reconsider these things in a wider frame.
Meanwhile I get the impression that the editors were looking for a volunteer to write some really nasty piece about the Catholic Church that would really satisfy the sentiments of the secular portion of the readers, while the religious-minded portion was fed with an article about the economic benefits of the rising number of Pentecostals for South Africa.
So you may have taken up the task and have fought for those sentiments doggedly and undauntedly.
O.K. probably you share those convictions too, as you explained.
But how serious is this game ?
Ullrich
Grant – let’s understand the terms that are being used. The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” (a very orthodox document commissioned by previous pope – many catholic thinkers would have difficulty with aspects of it) defines sin in the following terms:
“Sin is an offence against reason, truth and right conscience; it is a failure of genuine love for God and neighbour caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined [by St Augustine] as ‘an utterance, a deed or a desire contrary to the eternal law.’”
I really don’t see why you want Girotti to confer, debate and backpedal about whether or not it is sinful to be attached to exhorbitant wealth or to be selfishly indifferent to the ecological consequences of one’s actions. Such things seem to me self-evidently sinful. Indeed, many Catholics have been distressed that it has taken the Vatican so long to say something about these matters.
But let me pick up on your broader concern. You say you: “disagree strongly with certain things that they [Catholic Church] teach…” You might be surprised to find that many loyal Catholics strongly disagree with some of the things that the magesterium teaches (I do not say “Church teaches” because we – the members of the church /are/ the Church). For example, it is estimated that some 80% of practicing married Catholics in the western world simply disregard the magesterium’s position on contraception. Many many Catholics have problems with Vatican policies (as opposed to teaching): eg towards divorced people, enforced celibacy and masculinity of the priesthood, etc etc. Yet we continue to be loyal Catholics, because we find much deeper and richer treasures within the Catholic Church.
You then go on to say: “and the way they use the concepts of sin, hell and guilt to promote compliance to biblical laws.” Here I find it hard to follow you. Many people (former Catholics and others) seem to have encountered ignorant, boorish and authoritarian church officials (priests, nuns, I don’t know) who somehow use the concepts of sin, hell and guilt to promote compliance to biblical law. This has simply not been my general experience of priests, nuns, bishops, and fellow Catholics. Some are indeed, for my liking, too pietistic and too naively compliant with every utterance from the Vatican. And I have met a couple of impossibly anal and uptight priests. But challenges to me if and when I differ from official viewpoints have generally been respectful, intellectual, and tolerant.
So, I am sorry if your general experience of the official Catholic Church is that it uses the concept of sin, hell and guilt to promote compliance… I cannot deny your experience. I can merely point out that it is not consonant with my own. Maybe your experience is derived from BBC reports and other superficial journalistic twaddle, rather than from real face-to-face experience.?
This whole debate reminds me of an event that was supposed to have happend in a monastery in about 1432 where a group of learned gentlemen spent several day debating the number of teeth in a horses mouth, only to be confounded by a novice suggesting they go out and count them in the animal. Almost everything so far propounded comes down to one word “CREDO” I believe – blind faith with no proof. This failing is not exclusive to Catholics but applies to all religions, and dare we say, particularly to Islam. Until you bring proof of the existance of this anthropomorphic creature we call God all religion must, at best, be based on a hypothosis i.e. a supposition made as basis for reasoning, without assumption of truth.
Louis
Louis,
As so many other atheists, you simply put up straw men, and then bash them down with great bravado.
The debate has not been about the existence or non-existence of God. It has been about the alleged behaviour of the Catholic Church.
I really do not want to get into that circular debate about whether or nor God exists. IMHO, the only intellectually honest position one can assume in this regard is that we simply don’t _know_ the answer. Agnosticism is an intellectually honest position, and I guess to some extent, most of us are ‘agnostic’ – we don’t know for sure that God exists; and we don’t know for sure that God does not exist.
Some unreasonable people may make a _blind_leap_of_faith either way and proclaim themselves as atheists or as theists. Others remain agnostic. Some of the most intellectually honest people I know are in this agnostic position.
Most reasonably people weigh up all the evidence at their disposal (not a blind leap of faith) and either conclude “I can’t accept this God thing” or “Hey man … there seems to be something here” and in each case they make a choice to commit their loyalty and lifestyle to one or other particular non-agnostic position.
This Dawkinsonian notion of religious people making a “blind leap of face” is just so much rhetoric. There is lots of evidence for the existence of God, but whether or not it cumulatively constitutes a reason for belief is a highly subjective decision. Here are some examples of evidence of the transcendent:
- the coherence of nature
- philosophical arguments about a first cause
- alleged paranormal phenomena
- reported near death experiences
- the personal sense of the numinous that Ulrich refers to above
- the testimony of many other believers
- thaumaturgic and otherwise unexplained healings
- subjective experiences of prayer that is answered, sometimes quite dramatically
Of course, as an atheist, you _have_to_ reject each of these as inconclusive. By virtue of your dogmatic atheist stance, you cannot afford to concede that one single smallest of these alleged items of evidence is legitimate. Instead, you demand the same sort of proof that one gets in science.
If you were an intellectual agnostic, you would look at the evidence and say: I honestly don’t know, I have no direct experience myself, and cannot commit to a religious position unless and until I personally have some such decisive experience.
For myself, I find untennable the moral vacuum into which I would be plunged if I embrace atheism or agnosticism. Despite all the utilitarian arguments, etc, I just don’t find a coherent imperative in atheism for moral action. I am not saying atheist are immoral – on the contrary, they are curiously moral. I am saying that the reasons that atheists give me for being moral, don’t make sense to me. They seem to me to be living off their heritage of Christian morality, without really being able to explain why they regard this as good and that as bad. I have had many conversations with atheists in this regard, and I just don’t get it. Maybe I am doff. Maybe I am missing something. If so, it’s not for want of trying to understand atheism at this level.
On the other hand, I find a certain joy, peace, consolation and intellectual coherence in embracing religion in general, and Catholicism in particular. But this is a subjective experience, and I understand that you don’t share it. It would be nice if you acknowledged it is an intellectually honest and worthy position, rather than get into this cyclic “blind faith with no proof” junk. Most of us who have remained religious in this increasingly secular world have not done so lightly. We have agonised and thought about our position. We have been jeered at and pilloried by headlines such as the one on this Blog “Catholics modernise their mumbo-jumbo”. Yet when we peer over the fence at where our opponents live, it appears to us as a vacuous world where many (not all) are intellectual midgets who jump up and down with all sorts of unsubstantiated generalisations, judging centuries of thought and history with superficial grandstanding.
I am going to sign out on this blog now. Can’t afford to devote more time to it.
Grant – thanks for your concessions. I respect that.
Louis
Why don’t we turn it around. Where is your proof that God does not exist. There is plenty of proof that he does. Dawkins claims that life as we know it is a chance a one in a gzillion chance that the right conditions exist. If the world was a few degrees hotter or colder or less carbon based then we would not be here. What is the chance of that happening by itself. Rather remote if you ask me.
By using his infinite alternative universes solution he is guilty of an age old problem in philosophy namely proposing a solution that tends to infinity. The idea of a prime mover behind all this makes much more intellectual sense. The memes argument is similar. If we are all survival machines for memes then waht drives the memes to this frentic creativity. Rahther just exist as an amoeba. Aquinas used the argument about causality to prove God. We all believe in causality. Nothing happens without something making ity happen. That is what science is based on. SO waht made the forst thing happen? The whole big band theory turns on a moment of creation and a finite end to the universe. An alpha and an omega.
I persoanlly find the Catholic explanation more academically fulfilling and believable. But hey I am not as intelligent as you atheists. I only have two masters degrees and a surgical fellowship so I suppose I am just dumb.
PS try and be a bit more polite when you argue. Using emotive language seldom convinces your opponents
Time too for me to bow out,
and I might stick to it.
It was fine to meet some noble souls and minds here. Special regards to Yuki and Hopeful and some others too who will know.
The phenomenon of a pretty vulgar atheism will keep us “happy” for quite a while still.
To those interested: We have a real turn in dominant public orientation here in Germany with regard to religion, which is not only reflected in the statistics about the significantrise of religious orientation in younger generations, but also in public debate.
Our leading left-liberal journal (comparable in format to Newseek or Time magazine) the SPIEGEL, which used to revel in anti-clerical an anti-religious sentiments and argument has made a significant turn-around over the past three or four years, which was attached to a debate about some writings of famed Heidelberg Egyptologist and historian of culture Jan Assman on the Egyptian heritage and the Mosaic limitation to monotheism. In essence Assmann claimed that the pantheism and panentheism of Egypt, thus Egyptian paganism, had brought forth a non-violent, tolerant society, whereas the monotheistic “narrowing” of faith was necessarily bound to a delimitation of what is good and bad, thus to ethics, the “Mosaic distinction” mbetwee right and wrong, good and evil in culturally distinct norms. This he claimed to have brought about a potential of violence manifest in the history of the monotheistic religions.
The interesting thing was that the confrontation now was not between atheism and religion but between polytheism and monotheism (of which Catholicism and Orthodoxy are, in a way, the “softest” variants.
This polarity between Christianity and Paganism seems to be an upcoming topic which the SPIEGEL, alert as ever had sensed.
O, by the way, some thirtyfive years ago the present pope, then stil professor at Regensburg or maybe already archbishop of Munich wrote a spirited and defense of Neoplatonic studies, which was till a courageous thing to do in ecclesiastical circles. -
But back to the SPIGEL’s article and its author.
The SPIEGEL followed up the public debate raised by Assmann, presenting and advancing the it with several intervies and with some good in-depth research in background articles with reknowned scholars in the fields concerned.
Initially one could see, how the SPIEGEL tried to keep up the customary mocking tone and attitude to religion in general, which had been a mark of the SPIEGEL for so long.
But then one could observe how even within one long article a change of attitude came about, and one could see that the author, a professed agnostic seemed to have discovered something which was touching him: a sense of seriousness, something precious which perceptibly intrigued him and began to take effect.
The article then took a turn: the tone became modest, serious, personal. the author ended up with a statement which said, that that regardless of all of the critical aspects of Mosaic religion and in spite of his personal agnosticism he found that this religion summed up to a commandment for which he knew no better alternative and well worth to be considered and he quoted Micah 6,8: “He hath shewed thee o man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk rightly with thy God”
Since that article the general attitude of the SPIEGEL has changed and they have begun to write seriously about religion, which was rare before.
This development reflects a general change in attitude here. It is a tentative quest which can be observed, but a realisation that the issue is about something precious and serious.
Of course that vulgar mass atheism will continue for quite a while. Such cultural movements are like those of tankers. Some time from the 1830′s onwards, materialism became the norm. It too a few generations to become the dominant attitude, significantly in the late 19th century (Marx, Feuerbach), then after the 1st World war for the next five decades or so, during which it became a mass phenomenon, after it had been the cultural norm of “reasonable people” for some time.
But in the last decades of the 20th century counter moements in various fields of thought, which had developed of the past 100 years already, were increasingly takion effect and gained acceptance.
The shift in general intellectual “climate” can be observed in various places over the past years in particular.
But that again takes effect only gradually.
maybe the agressive rantings of Dawkins and his ilk reflect the perceived loss, that their cognitive biases ( – we all have them -) are the general norm.
With atheism having become a vulgar phenomenon we have to accept that it expresses itself acordingly.
There have also been vulgar polemics enough in the churches, which we should not forget, when we were fighting amongst ourselves.
So there might be time for a “Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!” during this time of lent and to set an example.
Ullrich
Hi Hopeful
Firstly I consider myself an agnostic not an aethiest. I believe something caused all this marvelous universe we see arround us. I have a couple of degrees myself bye the way. What I do not accept for myself is the necessity to have to create an anthromorphic Humanoid God to explain all these marvels. I know several Nuns who are very fine women and live a very selfless and careing life, I also know a few Priest who I would not allow anywhere near my grandchildren. Out on the hills far from the city at night I don’t think anyone would not be able to feel that there is something wonderful out there, but, I don’t need the social manipulation of any religion to impose its dogma on me to explain that basic feeling of awe.
Louis
@ Concerned
You have misunderstood Nietzsche. He never said Christianity was a religion of slaves and Jews. He said Christianity AND Judaism was a religion that promoted a slave mentality.
A subtle but significant difference. The Nazis misinterpreted and changed his philosophy to suit their aims.
I consider myself an atheist, but athiestic arrogance annoys me. Being an atheist does not imply a higher IQ, or an inability to trust bad science.Many of the worlds greatest thinkers have been deeply religious.
And Richard Dawkins may be a brilliant scientist, but ultimately he can be criticised on many levels as well. And no one (not even him) can prove scientifically that god does NOT exist, just as no one can prove that he can. That has been a philosophical debate for centuries.
Lisa
I am not sure whether I have misinterpreted Nietsche but I accept your point of view. I am gald that atheistic arrogance upsests you and I can assure you that religious arrogance upsets me. The whole blog seems to have been written with an intention to antagonize rather than debate. It seems that the tone has softened with the last couple of posts and I welcome that.
Ag Shame
Grant believes in the Big Bang and he is not
alone,others think they should have
their own Big Bang right here on earth and
it brought them no more than misery in the
form of Aids and other STDs.
Here is a question to ponder over has anything
ever been created out of nothing and do
scientists not just discover things that
exist?
@Ullrich
To respond to your posting a little higher up. I think it is a fairly accurate perception of faith. I tend to see the behaviour of religious people – from the pope in his ridiculous over the top garments to congregants with arms waving about in apparent rapture – as somewhat cartoon-like. So yes, that is exactly what my perception of religious faith is; and yes, it is rather sad.
Many good people relate their goodness not to a faith in some transcendent being (which amounts to nothing more than superstition), one does not need faith to find goodness. Your position implicitly implies that one does. This is not the case.
Indeed there are many robbers and murderers among the faithful! In fact many of them were leaders of the faithful murdering in the name of their faith! But more to the point, there are robbers and murderers among those who don’t have faith; and, believe it or not, they too can know that it is wrong and they too can feel varying degrees of remorse. One does not need the baggage of a religion to explain these things. The Christian tradition is full of repentant robbers because human tradition is full of repentant robbers, from time immemorial. All these biblical characters were human and so to were their actions and emotions. The common denominator is not religion – that aspect is redundant; the common denominator is humanity.
No, Hitler etc. did not kill in the name of any faith; they killed in the name of their respective goals, ideals and political amibitions. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.
As for the difference in percentage of atheists in the two respective age-groups you present for only one country, I can only think that this is because the older one gets, the less prone one is to believing rubbish.
@ cool down
Of course something has been created out of nothing before. Religion has.
Jean
I think the whole point of this discussion has been the fairly obvious observation that humanity is pretty rotten. Grant started off implying that only religious nuts committed acts of violence and that somehow secular people did not. Various post have pointed out that this is not true. Remove God and things do not automatically get better. To be a true atheist is a brave and lonely experience. Read ALbert Camus and teh Myth of Sisyphus and the Outsider for an analysis of existentailist angst at the thought that we are alone and this is all there is. Flippant posts about how liberating it is and how everyone else who has faith are dumb are not very helpful and come across as so much misplaced bravado. The person of faith believes that there is a benign cause of all this and that ultimatley the universe is not as Camus put it absurd. I doubt veyr much whether there are any trues atheists out there. What Ulrich was saying is that there is a growing move to new age spiritualism in teh west. This is true and in my view reflects the fact that post modern humanity is still in need of teh spiritual. Go to your nearest exclsive books and look at the spirituality section. Using terms like not beliveing in rubbish does not help you advance your argument. If you are truly an atheist I somehow admire your courage and ability to function. However very many highly intelligent people and a vast number of not so intelligent people believe in a benign creator. Please try and not assume an arrogance in your arguments againsty faith
Blackie
and how did you arive at that brilliant conclusion?
Logic and a bit of common sense
Rationalist
Define logic.
@Ullrich
This is probably too late to reach you – I got into this TL only yesterday – but just in case ..
It is your PS above out of all your writings here that gets to the core of the problem.
White culture does appear to have fossilised in SA; that is what you would expect when you recall that apartheid cut the country off from the mainstream, from the huge advances in democracy and thought since WWII, which is why what strikes you in this debate is the, in European terms, outdated ‘positivism’ and ‘secularism’.
It is hard to see how this gap can easily be closed. Debate in SA today rages around issues of race, relativism, moral equivalence, issues perhaps in turn being left behind in a world moving more confidently beyond post-modernism.
Mother Hubbard,
Sorry for the late reply. In response, I don’t think humanity is rotten. I think humanity is doing remarkably well. In relation to the past we treat each other with a respect and understanding not seen before on this scale. Progress is being made. Of course, complete harmony is impossible – resources are finite, demand isn’t, etc. – and our society will never be a perfect, utopian society; but that’s irrelevant, the idea of perfection is ultimately a human conception and I don’t think it correct to apply it to any worldview, as it doesn’t really have any bearing on metaphysical realities. But back to the point, religion has caused, and continues to cause, much suffering, whilst its benefits – if indeed there are any – are negligible. Removing God(s) and especially their supposed doctrines is not sufficient for improvement, I grant you that, but it is a necessary step.
As for your comments on atheism, I wouldn’t call myself an Atheist. It’s a position the very definition of which relies on the existence of exactly that which it opposes. An untenable view if ever there was one – almost as untenable as its contrary. Suffice to say that my worldview does not encompass the supernatural; that is my position, call it what you will. I think ‘Bright’ is the increasingly popular term. Anyway, to follow your train of thought; I agree, not believing in a God is potentially a lonely experience. The reasons for this require lengthy discussion, and I don’t have the time, nor your patience I’m sure, to engage in it. Briefly, I will say that this loneliness is simply a social issue. If the majority of society were not religious, then those whose worldview does not encompass any supernatural entities wouldn’t feel so lonely. On the other hand, if you’re speaking of loneliness in terms of not having some supernatural being to keep you company and watch over you for the duration of your existence, my response would be to say that the comfort (or lack of loneliness) one gets from believing in a God has no bearing, nor should, on the veracity of that belief. It would feel wonderful if I believed I was going to win the lottery this weekend, but I’m not going to live my life according to that belief simply because it makes me feel better.
As for the aspect of bravery which you mention, if people believe in God because they aren’t brave enough not to, then they aren’t Christians (or whatever other religion), they are cowards. One must believe in God because one knows he exists and for no other reason. Unfortunately, nobody knows this, no matter how much they insist that they do!
I have read both the books to which you refer. I don’t deny the angst associated with the human condition, but again this does not mean a God exists or that it’s right to believe in one. All it means is that it’s lonely to be alive. Believing that there is a benign cause because one cannot live in the face of absurdity is the wrong reason to believe. This, incidentally, was where Camus said humans achieve their greatest triumph; to live despite this absurdity; to live in the face of this absurdity. Thus he celebrates that moment when Sisyphus, having reached the top of the hill and watched his boulder roll back down, once again descends to the bottom and begins to push it up again; this rebellion against the absurdity – and futility maybe? – of repeatedly pushing a boulder up a hill – of life, – is where man, for Camus, reaches his greatest standing. If you’re using Camus’ notion of absurdity as a reason to believe in a benign cause, then you shouldn’t refer to him as you clearly don’t understand his philsophy.
As for flippant posts; they are just that, flippant. I think now and then, there is a place for them in discussion. With regards to your accusation of arrogance, just because belief in a God, and religious doctrine, have survived and entrenched themselves in our culture does not mean that they should be placed on a pedestal. There is no more justification or merit in believing the kind of worldview which encompasses the supernatural, than there is in still believing that the earth is flat. Would you come across as arrogant when arguing against someone who still believed something as absurd as the earth still being flat?
Furthermore, if, as I suspect, you are indeed Christian then you believe that you have a handle on the absolute truth. That your minister was chosen by the creator of the universe to be one of his point-men on earth, and that everything else incompatible with your holy book is simply wrong; cherry-picked re-interpretations of the Bible notwithstanding! In any case, given your beliefs I do no think that you are in any position to accuse others of arrogance.
To your final point. There might be a yearning for the spiritual, in fact I think there is a yearning for the spiritual – on this we agree. But that does not mean religion should have a place in society, it means that the spiritual should. While religion necessarily encompasses the spiritual, the spiritual does not necessarily encompass religion.
Given that all religions, each one claiming a handle on the absolute truth, give rise to spiritual experinces, we must accept that the spiritual does not rely on any one religion tobe achieved. Spiritual awareness can be achieved by means of fasting, meditating, listen to music, helping our fellow man, etc. Suffice to say, we can live spiritually without being religious. For while religions encompass rituals which give rise to spiritual experiences, these practices do not depend on those religion to exist. In any event, its only a matter of time before our understanding of the brain and the mind allows us to give a perfectly rational naturalistic explanation for the spiritual and our experiences of it; and these explanations won’t depend upon superstitious ideas of the supernatural. You imply that our need for spirituality is the reason religion still has a role to play in society, this is not the case. It is simply the reason that spirituality has a role to play in our society. To suggest the former is opportunistic and deliberately misleading.
The Catholic church in the UK has just influenced Catholic members of parliament to vote against a bill allowing the creation of human/animal stem cell hybrids to continue thus far extremely succesful research into treating diseasea like Multiple Sclerosis and Alzheimers. Surely the life of a grown person suffering from a painful debilitating disease is far more important than a handful of cells (I think its about 3-5) in a petri dish? Just to put things in perspective, there are about 100 cells in the brain of a fly!
Is this not yet another example of the debilitating role religion plays in our society?
Jean
Jean
I think I do understand what Camus was on about. I think it is a misplaced philosophy and that is why I reject it. I do not belive in God becuase I am afraid. As to the Catholic church holding back science well we must look at the fruits of science. What has science/technology done for us. It has allowed us to endanger our whole planet to exploit the earth to the n th degree. Look at the atom bomb it was a great scientific achievement as is the devlopment of naplam and smart bombs and even xyklon B. Science without morality is a great danger to us all. If we ignore the sanctity of human life we open all sorts of pandora’s boxes. The spiritual without organized religion oftne becomes merely self indulgnet and directionless. The arrogance of secularism is misplaced. The secularists believe that without the Church they will be able to create a wonderful utopia where oppression and inequality are banished. That is an extremly arrogant position. In my dealings with humanity I am exposed to naked cruelty and violence on a daily basis. I very mush doubt that secularism will be able to solve the problem of humanity’s cruelty and avarice
Jean and Grant
I am a life long practicing Catholic. I believe in God and base this on a knowledge I derive from my faith. I don’t agree with atheism and I generally don’t get involved in discussions about religion because they don’t take anyone forward. I go to Mass I pray and I don’t ever push my faith on anyone. I don’t interfere with others. However the posts on this blog surpirse me with their vehemence. Jean says it is a pre-requisite that organized religion be overthrown. Wow that is a bit of a manifesto. Why are you Jean and Grant so violently opposed to teh Catholic Church. You are not forced to believe anything. No one makes you go to Mass. Why can you not live and let live. Yes we do believe we have a truth of inestimable value and I will never hide it from some-one who comes searching. I certainly don’t believe in converting anyone by force. That is why the vehemence of you atheists is somewhat surprising. Why can’t we just discuss and the agree to disagree. I believe I have a truth and you obviously believe that you have a truth. Why the stridency?
Samantha
Jean
I have never come across a post of such wonderful eloquence before. You have moved me to teh very core of my being. My random collection of atoms and particles that just by chance happen to result in a thinking human being are just buzzing around in my head.
Wow. Now why didn’t I think of some of those profound things. We don’t need organized religion just some Wiccan books and a few bath salts to get us in touch with our Inner Goddess.
Jean,
Thank you for articulating much of what I wanted to express..
Unlike the snide and silly “thank the Goddess” I do feel that you your post is wonderfully elegant and thoughtful.
Mother Hubbard,
You might reject Camus’ philosophy, but you have yet to explain why you embrace religious theology. I find it funny how you complain about science and all the bad things its given rise to whilst communicating via a medium which science, not God, made possible! The list of benefits derived from science is far longer, believe me. If you want to discuss the relative merits of science and religion, think about when you’re in a dark room and need some light. Do you get down on your knees and pray for light, or do you walk over to the wall and flick on a light switch?! I do agree with you though, science without morality is a great danger. However, it’s wrong to think that God is necessary for morality. Before Moses went up the mountain and was given the commandments, do you think everyone in the camp down below had no idea that stealing, murdering and sleeping with each other’s wives was wrong? Think of it this way, are you telling me that the only reason you don’t murder, steal or commit adultery for eg. is because God happened to tell you not to? If that’s the case, then I’m concerned, but I don’t think it is. In any case, do you really want to get started on the violence religion has given rise to; a Pandora’s box if ever there was one!
As for ignoring the sanctity of life, my definition of life encompasses far more than a few stem cells. It encompasses the ability to suffer, to love etc. The Church’s is a very simplistic definition; and inevitably leads to the kind of absurdities we’re seeing in, specifically but not only, the Catholic Church’s response to this research.
Why do your spiritual experiences need to be directed by someone else? How does it become self-indulgent?
Lastly, I don’t believe secular society will be a utopian one, in fact I pointed that out in my previous post. Perfection is a dream, it has no bearing on reality. That said, I do think that secular societies are far better at achieving the goals humans commonly aspire to. Think of Sweden, Norway Finland etc. They are the most secular and have the lowest abortion rates, the lowest murder rates, the lowest teenage pregnancy rates the highest levels of education. It’s ironic that in this sense, their lifestyles are the most Christian! They are by no means utopian though! If I’m being arrogant I apologise. I also deal with humanity, and while I don’t deny the nasty, I don’t deny the good either. Secularism won’t get rid of the nasty bits, but it will get rid of the nasty bits that religion gives rise to; which is progress.
Samantha,
I don’t think its fair to bracket Grant in on what I’ve said, he probably disagrees with quite a lot of it and I don’t think his tone would have been quite so condescending as mine!
I think discussions about religion do take things forward, and maybe you should get involved in them from time to time. Its good that you don’t interfere with others. However, your religion requires that you spread the ‘good news’ as it were, it requires that you stop others from having abortions, or undertaking research into Alzheimers and that’s why it is not enough for you to say I don’t get involved. You subscribe to an institution which believes it has a duty to force soceity to subscribe to its own doctrine, because they think it is the complete truth as revealed to them etc etc.
I don’t think debate is violent, in that sense its wrong to say that I’m ‘violently’ opposed to the Catholic Church. Strong worded criticisms, even arrogant tones, do not constitute violence. Given the Catholic Church’s history, its probably better not to raise the issue of violence.
I’m not forced to believe anything, yes, but your institution attempts to force me to live according to beliefs which are yours not mine. I can’t live and let live, because I don’t want potential life-saving stem-cell research stopped because some old man in the Vatican thinks three cells in a Petri dish constitutes a human being!
Lastly, I don’t believe I have an ultimate truth as you do. I accept what I feel is reasonable to accept, based on evidence and argument, and when new evidence emerges or better arguments emerge, I have no problem accepting that what I previously accepted was wrong. Religious people can’t really do that can they, given the fact that they already had the truth revealed to them!
Anyway, thats enough. I’ve become a caricature of myself in these posts so I’ll stop now.
As for thank the Goddess – enough said!
As for
Well Jean
Thank you for your posts. It does unfortuantely seem that there is no middle ground. As a Catholic I can assure you that I will never accept the idea that human life is not sacred and that we can have a cavalier attitude towards it. Abortion is murder as is stem cell research. You atheists wil have to accept that your points of view are not accepted by everyone else and that we will oppose it. Remember the Nazis were atheists too and look what their eugenics program lead to. It is a slippery slope but it is indeed very slippery.
Why atheism is a load of bollocks.
There are a number of issues with atheism.
1. There is no proof of God. The atheists use this as there trumps all argument. Show us proof and we may believe they say. Well there is plenty of proof. God is the most eloquent and simple answer to the whole issue of why we are here and do we have a purpose. According to atheism we are all a simple chance event. There are infinite universes where the right or different conditions for life exist. So that precludes the need for a creator. However it takes more faith to believe in infinite other universes (none of which we have any proof for) than to believe in a benign creator. The overwhelming fact that most human beings feel they are here for a purpose seems to be ignored by atheists.
2. Religion has been responsible for death and violence throughout history. Before we had monotheism we were peaceful and tolerant. This is the Golden Age argument. There is little evidence that we were ever peaceful. Even primitive tribes in the Amazon had well established rituals of war and violence. The rise of disbelief in the 20 th century has been pushed by several organizations who themselves have been extremely violent. Communism made militant atheism part of its dogma and the results are apparent. The Nazis sought to establish a neo-pagan religion and similarly they resorted to massive killing. Paul Johnson says that we have to admit that with Christianity humanity has been bad but how much worse would it have been without Christianity?
3. We don’t get our morals from a book say the atheists. Well neither do Catholics. Catholic moral teaching is based on reflection and the use of reason. One cannot deny the profound influence Catholic teaching has had on ethics. The mere fact that Paul said there is no such thing as slave and freeman meant that it was impossible to create a spiritual justification for slavery. The sanctity of human life mean that we embarked on a long pilgrimage to our current understanding that execution is wrong. The atheists have by and large been unable to generate a code of morality. Kant who was himself a profoundly religious man developed an enduring secular morality which whilst it is adamant that it comes from reason approximates much of Christian teaching. For example his maxim that we can never treat another human being as a means is very similar to Christ’s injunction to Do unto others as we would have them do unto us. The fact that atheism leads to moral collapse is best exemplified by the Marquis de Sade. He was profoundly influenced by the enlightenment and once he discounted the idea of a benign God moved towards a philosophy of profound sensual enjoyment even if this was at the expense of others. He was perhaps the greatest atheist as he accepted the consequence and explored them to their final conclusion.
4. Atheism is satisfying as a philosophy and a belief. Atheism remains a cry of despair. There is no future there is no point to it all. We go on like Camus in the face of an absurd uncaring universe. When we die our atoms return to some sort of cosmic dust. Atheism tends to arise in rich countries. It is unheard of in Africa or South America. Why is that? The atheists say quite smugly because we are educated and enlightened. Perhaps it is because they are by and large divorced from the naked reality of human suffering. If you are so divorced from the human condition that you don’t even tolerate the smell of human sweat and effluent then you are often divorced from the fact that we all suffer and die. In the modern world death is clinical in hospitals as is birth. There is very little in the way of blood guts and shit in the modern developed world. Yet that is the world Christ experienced as a Man. He was born in a stable he did not have running water or air conditioning. He was a third world Christ. So the poor and unwashed respond to Christ. The rich keep him at arms length.
5. Atheism is tolerant and open to debate .The modern strident and smug atheist movement is hardly tolerant of counter arguments. They set the whole argument up in a way which will always polarize. When people of faith begin to explain why they believe the atheists simply become strident and start chanting their refrain of where is the proof. In many ways atheism has become a cult. It has it’s high priests namely Dawkins and Hitchens. It has its own Holy Books and it refuses to discuss only to shout. In the modern world no –one is forced to believe anyone yet the way atheists carry on you would think they were living in Isabella’s Spain. They use traditional anti-Catholic propaganda much of which was generated by Protestant apologists during the wars of religion to inflame anti-Catholic sentiments. It is like us still getting upset about accusations that German soldiers killed Belgian Baby’s during the early part of WWI. This was acknowledged after the war as being Allied propaganda. So paradoxically the atheists simply echo the propaganda of the No-popery men without realizing it. The Catholic Church of the 21 st century stands without secular power as a force for moral good. It speaks truth to power and often pays the price.
don’t think its fair to bracket Grant in on what I’ve said, he probably disagrees with quite a lot of it and I don’t think his tone would have been quite so condescending as mine!
Well actually Jean the words shrill strident and self righteous come to mind more than condescending. There is a difference don’t you know
Sweden which Jean holds up as such a great place has one of the more notorious arms industries around. As you know it is great to have a secular paradise especially when you are exporting death an ddestruction by the bucketload to the Third world. Once again teh all too human sin of hypocrisy
Ironic,
But then again some of the most religious nations also have notorious arms industries. Moot point.
@ Paul Whelan on March 26th
Hello Paul,
Having popped in just now to see how the debate went on, I came accross your lines.
Thanks for the appreciation !
It seems some editors of M&G seem to have read this blog too, because a whole series of articles followed over these days which picked up the cues: like a brief message about a black African Krishnaite saddhu and others too on aspects of post-modern spiritual developments.
Even Grant’s reflections on the theme of “bodily resurrection” from an atheist perspective on Easter may be counted here.
As to Grant he picked up the cue of ministering to the atheists with his “sermon” on bodily resurrection in the form of molecules rearranging themselves differently after our deaths. He could find himself in good company with Buddhists in that view, who might add some extras of theirs.
Living here in Germany for a long time I could again experience the intellectual flexibility and openness to new developments also characteristic of South Africa, besides that cultural conservatism, when I did some courses at UNISA. There may be some advantages of being “at the fringes”.
As to immersing oneself in the culture of the people around oneself, from a white perspective: maybe this will become stronger, once the issues relating to the distribution of wealth and social opportunities after apartheid are no longer dominant and people meet not only about issues of social assets.
Indeed the relative marginality of being a white person in SA could become a cultural and spiritual asset. (This is not meant to be condescending, but rather with some sense of envy, as writing from a very homogeneous culture here.)
Actually all emigrant cultures seem to be conservative. Germans in Brazil or Russia have preserved many ways which have been lost in Germany itself – and just think of the Amish in the USA.
What fascinates me about developments in Brasil is how Brasilians are consciously tracing their cultural roots to al three races: American Indian, White and Black. All of these influnces merge in their culture which is so rich, not only in music but also in spiritual movements: within the church, in Pentecostal and Catholic spiritual perceptions and liturgical expression, but also outside of it, in Umbanda which synthesises Yoruba and Bantu traditions with European spiritualist thought and some Indian views. Interestngly the Roman Cathlic church there is quite tolerant of Umbanda, regarding it as some kind of inferior sister religion, whereas the Pentecostals fight against it fiercely as being of the devil. (Which does not prevent them from adopting many elements of Umband ritual into their own services.)If it were not for the language barrier South Africans might relate more strongly to Brasil, but perhaps it is a bit too “Roman” (Catholic and Portuguese) for SA tastes.
However there are interesting things happening in SA too as to religious developments: The “Zionists” have preserved much of African Traditional Religion in cosmology, spiritual practise and liturgy. It is also reported that its founder, Isaiah Shembe, had also adopted significant ideas from Hinduism in Natal. These “alien” heritages have caused serious concerns about Zionism to be “syncretistic” -which could actually be a badge of honour, since Christianity in its vital and radiant stages has been very syncretistic, assimilating much religious thought and practise from heathens and pagans around and growing by it.
So with Zionism there is something “new and exciting” developing out of the encounter of the different peoples and religions in South Africa. But as we know Zionism has not exactly spread much beyond the black population.
Maybe time to take a closer look at these movements, than to indulge in the sectarian battles of atheists fighting a gainst the respiritualisation of culture as “Mother Hubbard”, very thoughtfully, and “thank the Goddess”, with freakish sarcasm, have likewise suggested.
regards,
Ullrich
@Ullrich -
All interesting points, not widely shared or even perhaps welcome here yet, maybe.
It seems to me settlement in S. America, especially perhaps in Brazil, inclined from the beginning more towards ‘melding’ than ‘apartheid’, the form it took in southern Africa. Part of it seems to be traceable to the ecumenical/’New Testament’ tendency of the ‘Roman’ settlement in S. Am. compared to the Protestant/’Old Testament’ settlement here. Nineteenth century scientism, with its hierarchy of ‘races’, and the rise of nationalism and urbanisation, would then have found fertile soil in which to grow the differences.
It is often overlooked here that Europeans way back learned to borrow from each other – and from anyone else, past or present, who had a good idea.
When Thabo Mbeki mooted the idea of an ‘African Renaissance’ at the beginning of his presidency, I remember an encouraging article from Pallo Jordan, arts & culture minister now, saying this meant seizing on all usable ideas from whatever source. I doubt if it went down well in the ANC, and you certainly hear nothing along those lines right now.
Trouble also was that Mbeki never defined what a ‘Renaissance’ meant in African terms – which left it open to a cynical French wit recently to comment in a letter to a newspaper here that now the Renaissance has been and gone, perhaps it is time for a Reformation.
Best wishes.
Hello Paul,
I will readily agree.
To pick up your observations on “Renaissance”: if we look closely at it, it did not involve a “return to one’s own roots” as it may be understood. Let’s remembered what actually happened in Italian Renaissance: The Italian principalities, resentful of a millenium of Germanic domination – quite a long colonial period actually – sought liberation and a return to their own former glory of the Roman empire.
Since Latin culture however had become the intellectual property of France and Germany with their emergent universities, an alternative was needed for cultural identification. Fortunately for the Italians the Byzantine empire was just about dying at the hands of the Turks and as a result of own faults (including the harsh apartheid which the Greeks practised towards their oriental fellow citizens in Egypt, Syria and Asia Minor – and still practise today in Greek orthodox church circles). So an exodus of talented Greeks, of scholars, medics, and artisans began, of people who were just too happy to get a “green card” from the Italian principalities. The Italians, mindfull that Rome’s culture had always been centered in Greece, were all too happy to receive them.
So “renaissance” actually involved a process by which the Italians and then other Europeans studied an “alien” culture: that of Greece, maybe more thoroughly than the ancient Romans ever had done.
So the paradigm of “renaissance” does not mean a return to one’s own cultural roots, but growth by assimilation of other, superior cultures. A “renaissance” as an invigoration, to rise again may be a result, but it is no restoration at all.
What Mbeki may have had in mind was more likely a “National Romanticism” a developed from the 1800′s onwards, well into the early 20th century, when Scandinavians, Balts, Hungarians, Poles, Germans and Russians became interested what the culture of their tribal ancestors was, and how distinct national traits and traditions could be preserved or revived.
But none of those sober in their minds would have chosen to return to forms of social organisation and rulership of those days.
So what could that spell for SA ? Where could “African renaissance” draw its inspiration from ? – or is it actually about some “National Romanticism” in the lines of Credo Mutwa, for example ?
Now it is about time to thank Grant for his generosity with this forum.
I feel he has taken “Oom Frikkie’s” kind words to his heart.
Thanks Grant !
Now I may have to justify, why I, as a protestant, have been defending the Church of Rome so staunchly. It is simply the recognition that, in spite of all of its frequently harsh and authoritarian practise, the Roman Catholic church has a degree of tolerance and inclusiveness of theological approach, even verging on pantheism, which is unsurpassed by any oter denomination , even my own.
It is for this reason that it was Jesuite missionaries and scholars, who brought Zen Buddhism to the West,which would have been utterly immpossible to any protestant minister.
For all of the protestants’ merits in social respects, like the determined fight against slavery – just remember that staunch evangelical Wiliam Wilberforce – for all these merits, the protestant theological horizon is far narrower than the Catholic.
And isn’t ironic that in the middle of the 20th century the present pope, then still Professor Ratzinger in Regensburg, had been officially criticised by the then papal authorities, as an “unreliable theologian”, together with two other reknowned Catholic theologians. Somehow Ratzinger survived that and made it to become pope.
His broadmindedness reappears every now and then, like with his initiative of creating a standing committe of official exchange with Islamic theologians of authority. If that works out it might save many a soldier’s life in Afghanistan or elsewhere in the region.
There is no similar protestant initiative, because protestants are barred dogmatically from acknowledging that there is a large common basis of faith and cognition of God, which the Catholics with their idea of degrees of convergence can. So that is why the present and the former pope could pray in mosques, which a protestant is not supposed to do.
And perhaps there is such “inclusivism” also to be found on the Muslim side, apart from the terrible aggressive fundamentalisms raging from Saudi Arabia to Iraq and Afghanistan: Some weeks ago I could observe, on a visit in Syria, that Muslim women (and their families) were also praying at shrines to Mary, Mother of God, or to St. Tekla, in Christian Orthodox and Catholic churches, alongside with the Christians. It was relieving and encouraging to see this happen.
So after all religions could actually bring people of different faiths together too.
Seeing that the present Pope Benedict- for all his faults and authoritarianisms – is engaged in this direction on a solid basis of theology, is one reason for me to defend his church.
Maybe this explains something.
regards,
Ullrich
Whether Grant’s oppinions of the Catholic church are right or wrong, the fact that the pope and other hierachial figures feel that they can add rules and threats to a religion that was created by God shows the great fallacy of the religious argument.How can the Catholic church possibly validate any story of the bible now?
Ulrich,
Talk about getting lost in high theology!
Hello Adrian and Jean,
the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches draw certain consequences from the statement of the creed that the church is a product of the Holy Spirit and, for all its inmperfections inspired by it. They are also mindful of the fact that it was the early church, which decided, which of the large number of gosples and apostolic letters that existed were to be included in that volume which became known and officially endorsed as the “New Testament”: thus the Church precedes the Bible as to the New Testament. therefore the doctrine of faith too is open to development. Accordingly both churches have developed a set procedure: only what is accepted by the general community of believers, the lay people and the clergy, can become new doctrine. The pope or patriarch and the bishops and synod can only proclaim to be doctrine or element of faiith if this has undergone a broad process of debate and acceptance. This is what happens even in our times.
Protestants are at a structural deficit: any innovations must be presented as already existing in Holy Scripture. So in principle innovations or new developments are rejected or left to be practised without special endorsement.
As to getting lost in high theology: it is like hiking in the mountains: there is a chance of getting lost but it is fascinating too, especially if you come across mountain pools you did not expect or some high valley you were not aware of.
Ullrich
The problem is the premises on which theology is based. They have no basis in reality. In might be fun, granted, but its not academically worthwhile. Its a bit like people endlessly debating the ins and outs of Star Trek episodes. While it might be fun, it has no basis in reality other than maybe some degree of cultural significance.
As for your analogy about hiking in the mountains, thats the best illustration of academic endaevour I’ve ever heard. Nice one.
Hey, you’re now allowed to join the rest of us and accept the possibility of aliens!
http://www.news24.com/News24/AnanziArticle/0,,2-13-1443_2322090,00.html