Meera seems to overlook the debt the Enlightenment owes to biblical religion. Biblical religion, 3,000 years ago, invented the distinction between the natural and supernatural, by de-divinizing the natural world. At that time, the natural world was full of gods, goddesses, spirits, demons, and powers that regularly intervened, willy nilly, in the natural affairs of men; this religious phenomenon is today variously called “paganism,” “pantheism,” or “natural religion.” The First Commandment of the Israelites (“Thou shall not have any other gods before you”) ended all that, at least propositionally (the Israelites were notorious backsliders, and the Prophets had to continuously remind them of the basic fundament of their religion). The apex of this development was Constantine’s abandonment of sun worship (the sun as a “god”) and his commitment to Christianity. It is fundamental in both Judaism and Christianity that we cannot know God through or in the natural world, and that the natural world is not God or the equivalent of God. Rather, God can be known only through revelation, an event that originates outside of nature. This development (consolidated over a 1,000 year period) liberated nature from the supernatural, and helps explain why the Christian world was so enthusiastic about the discovery and acceptance of naturalistic philosophies such as those of the Greeks, and in particular Aristotle.
The West takes the de-divinization of nature for granted, but this distinction was not an achievement of the Enlightenment; it was part of the traditional heritage of the West inherited and adopted by the Enlightenment thinkers.
Secondly, the idea that the universe is orderly and subject to rationally intelligible laws originated in Judaism, and has always been a basic tenet of Christianity (the “logos” that governs the universe). Both Judaism and Christianity believed, and established as central to the Western tradition, the proposition that the natural world is not random, chaotic, disorderly, or arbitrary, but rather is a gift of a benevolent God and is the product of that God’s order, reason, and unchangeableness. Following on this is the idea both in Judaism and Christianity that human reason is next to godliness (“in the image and likeness of God”), and the pursuit of reason is to become closer to God and his creation. These kinds of ideas — that the universe is a reflection of an unchanging and rational God and is bound by rationally intelligible laws –were expressed by Copernicus, Newton, and Descartes.
We now take for granted several assumptions that originated in the Judeo-Christian tradition: 1. That the universe is lawful and governed by coherent laws; 2. We are rational beings endowed with reason; 3. That the universe, having been created in accord with reason, may be understood by the use of our reason; 4. That the universe, being lawful and coherent, is subject to rational investigation by rational beings, such as ourselves; 5. That the universe is bound by basic principles of coherence, continuity, and unchangeableness; 6. That our rational investigations are trustworthy and reliable.
(Footnote: Postmodernism questions, or even denies, many of those 6 assumptions. Christians don’t. In fact, Christians delivered those 6 assumptions to the Enlightenment thinkers, who also share them (it’s not clear why; these assumptions have theological foundation in Christianity, but just hang there, unsupported, in non-theistic materialism).
Finally, Christianity delivered to the Enlightenment two other important concepts, one of which was internalized and never questioned, and one which took some time to be accepted.
The Judeo-Christian tradition takes history as real, that it is significant and has meaning, and that its concept of time as unfolding one event upon another is correct and reliable. Compare this concept of time and history with that of, say, Hinduism. This concept of time, notwithstanding David Hume, of course is the foundation of both western historical consciousness (which we have so deeply internalized we take for granted) and the concept of cause and effect.
Finally, the Judeo-Christian tradition has always maintained that time had a beginning. Enlightenment thinkers, and modern science in particular, were slow to agree to this premise, even after the evidence became overwhelming (thanks to Mr. Hubble). It may now be said that science and Christianity now agree on this point.
Meera Nanda seems to assume that the Enlightment was some great liberation from the Judeo-Christian tradition and its associated destructive superstition, a movement of liberation that in itself has salvific implications, both for an individual and for society. She ignores the deep continuity between the Enlightenment and the Judeo-Christian tradition, and the debt the Enlightenment owes to that tradition for its entire worldview. She also ignores that it was the Judeo-Christian tradition that rid the natural world of superstition, not the Enlightenment; by the time of the Enlightenment, all the heavy lifting had been done.
MD correctly points out that Enlightenment thinkers built upon the thinking of their Judaeo-Christian predecessors but rather oddly that:
“…the idea that the universe is orderly and subject to rationally intelligible laws originated in Judaism…”
Judaism and its offshoot, Christianity, of course also built upon the thinking of previous philosophies, including the notion, necessarily fundamental to any religious frame, of order in the universe.
The disingenuous notion of “supernatural”, the origin of which MD generously ascribes to Judaism, is indeed at the heart of the present “debate” between scientific and religious thinkers. The latter yearn for an end to uncertainty and invoke God to fill any dark spaces. The former are able to accept the notion that there ain’t no “supernatural” – the whole of reality / existence / cosmos / universe, including any trans temporal or spatial realms, any extra terrestrial life or intelligence – it’s all natural.
Meera Nanda’s review of Sam Harris’ END OF FAITH: I’m so glad somebody besides me has taken Harris to task for his endorsement of the paranormal, and that’s precisely what he has done. How strange that so many people who read his book have overlooked it.
Regarding the relevance of Freud and psychoanalysis, I recommend the “Canadian Journal of Psychoanalysis”, the lastest issue containing a frank discussion regarding the relevance of Freud’s ideas and of psychoanalysis in modern clinical practice, by two of its most preeminent practitioners, one of whom is undertaking the first significant long term study as to its benefits.
Meera writes: “But can one honestly say that Jains and pious Hindus, many of strict vegetarians, have shown any compassion and “one-ness” for the Muslims, Christians and other religious minorities in India?”
Yes, one honestly say that it because of Jains and Hindus non-exclusive view of religion (as opposed to only one true God and path) Jews and Zorastrians (Parsees) have lived in peace for hundreds of years in India without any persecution, Muslim population percent in India has grown while Hindu population percentage in Pakistan has reduced, hundreds of Christian missionary schools exists in India in which students are exposed to Christianity without any objection from majority Hindu parents, Mother Teresa was given a national funeral, India has a Sikh PM, and an Italian-Indian Catholic is the power behind the current center left government. These are the results of more than just patronizing “compassion”.
Admittedly, there are Hindu Muslim riots continue, but the reasons for these can be attributed to both communities. Recently, there has been violence against Christian missionaries but this can, to a great extent be attributed to the missionaries’s total and blatant disrespect for Hindu religion and attempts to convert.
I really enjoyed reading the article about Jacques Lacan. It was a good introduction and critique of his philosophical thought, especially the ways he plays with language and explains what he is thinking. You connected him to Post-Structuralism and Post-Modernism and many other things. Thank you. I have learnt a lot about Lacanism.
Thank you for saying so clearly what has been down there in my gut, instated. Like Dawkins, I am a scientist who believes that religion is an impediment to social progress and doesn’t buy the idea that religion is somehow complementary to science.
Re: Meera Nanda’s Godless States in God Land
Meera seems to overlook the debt the Enlightenment owes to biblical religion. Biblical religion, 3,000 years ago, invented the distinction between the natural and supernatural, by de-divinizing the natural world. At that time, the natural world was full of gods, goddesses, spirits, demons, and powers that regularly intervened, willy nilly, in the natural affairs of men; this religious phenomenon is today variously called “paganism,” “pantheism,” or “natural religion.” The First Commandment of the Israelites (“Thou shall not have any other gods before you”) ended all that, at least propositionally (the Israelites were notorious backsliders, and the Prophets had to continuously remind them of the basic fundament of their religion). The apex of this development was Constantine’s abandonment of sun worship (the sun as a “god”) and his commitment to Christianity. It is fundamental in both Judaism and Christianity that we cannot know God through or in the natural world, and that the natural world is not God or the equivalent of God. Rather, God can be known only through revelation, an event that originates outside of nature. This development (consolidated over a 1,000 year period) liberated nature from the supernatural, and helps explain why the Christian world was so enthusiastic about the discovery and acceptance of naturalistic philosophies such as those of the Greeks, and in particular Aristotle.
The West takes the de-divinization of nature for granted, but this distinction was not an achievement of the Enlightenment; it was part of the traditional heritage of the West inherited and adopted by the Enlightenment thinkers.
Secondly, the idea that the universe is orderly and subject to rationally intelligible laws originated in Judaism, and has always been a basic tenet of Christianity (the “logos” that governs the universe). Both Judaism and Christianity believed, and established as central to the Western tradition, the proposition that the natural world is not random, chaotic, disorderly, or arbitrary, but rather is a gift of a benevolent God and is the product of that God’s order, reason, and unchangeableness. Following on this is the idea both in Judaism and Christianity that human reason is next to godliness (“in the image and likeness of God”), and the pursuit of reason is to become closer to God and his creation. These kinds of ideas — that the universe is a reflection of an unchanging and rational God and is bound by rationally intelligible laws –were expressed by Copernicus, Newton, and Descartes.
We now take for granted several assumptions that originated in the Judeo-Christian tradition: 1. That the universe is lawful and governed by coherent laws; 2. We are rational beings endowed with reason; 3. That the universe, having been created in accord with reason, may be understood by the use of our reason; 4. That the universe, being lawful and coherent, is subject to rational investigation by rational beings, such as ourselves; 5. That the universe is bound by basic principles of coherence, continuity, and unchangeableness; 6. That our rational investigations are trustworthy and reliable.
(Footnote: Postmodernism questions, or even denies, many of those 6 assumptions. Christians don’t. In fact, Christians delivered those 6 assumptions to the Enlightenment thinkers, who also share them (it’s not clear why; these assumptions have theological foundation in Christianity, but just hang there, unsupported, in non-theistic materialism).
Finally, Christianity delivered to the Enlightenment two other important concepts, one of which was internalized and never questioned, and one which took some time to be accepted.
The Judeo-Christian tradition takes history as real, that it is significant and has meaning, and that its concept of time as unfolding one event upon another is correct and reliable. Compare this concept of time and history with that of, say, Hinduism. This concept of time, notwithstanding David Hume, of course is the foundation of both western historical consciousness (which we have so deeply internalized we take for granted) and the concept of cause and effect.
Finally, the Judeo-Christian tradition has always maintained that time had a beginning. Enlightenment thinkers, and modern science in particular, were slow to agree to this premise, even after the evidence became overwhelming (thanks to Mr. Hubble). It may now be said that science and Christianity now agree on this point.
Meera Nanda seems to assume that the Enlightment was some great liberation from the Judeo-Christian tradition and its associated destructive superstition, a movement of liberation that in itself has salvific implications, both for an individual and for society. She ignores the deep continuity between the Enlightenment and the Judeo-Christian tradition, and the debt the Enlightenment owes to that tradition for its entire worldview. She also ignores that it was the Judeo-Christian tradition that rid the natural world of superstition, not the Enlightenment; by the time of the Enlightenment, all the heavy lifting had been done.
MD correctly points out that Enlightenment thinkers built upon the thinking of their Judaeo-Christian predecessors but rather oddly that:
“…the idea that the universe is orderly and subject to rationally intelligible laws originated in Judaism…”
Judaism and its offshoot, Christianity, of course also built upon the thinking of previous philosophies, including the notion, necessarily fundamental to any religious frame, of order in the universe.
The disingenuous notion of “supernatural”, the origin of which MD generously ascribes to Judaism, is indeed at the heart of the present “debate” between scientific and religious thinkers. The latter yearn for an end to uncertainty and invoke God to fill any dark spaces. The former are able to accept the notion that there ain’t no “supernatural” – the whole of reality / existence / cosmos / universe, including any trans temporal or spatial realms, any extra terrestrial life or intelligence – it’s all natural.
Meera Nanda’s review of Sam Harris’ END OF FAITH: I’m so glad somebody besides me has taken Harris to task for his endorsement of the paranormal, and that’s precisely what he has done. How strange that so many people who read his book have overlooked it.
Regarding the relevance of Freud and psychoanalysis, I recommend the “Canadian Journal of Psychoanalysis”, the lastest issue containing a frank discussion regarding the relevance of Freud’s ideas and of psychoanalysis in modern clinical practice, by two of its most preeminent practitioners, one of whom is undertaking the first significant long term study as to its benefits.
“…they have been enthusiastically re-published on various sites on the internet, varying from nationalistic and anti-Swedish to Neo-Nazistic…”
Maybe Mr.Godwin say something about this??
http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natsikortti
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Meera writes: “But can one honestly say that Jains and pious Hindus, many of strict vegetarians, have shown any compassion and “one-ness” for the Muslims, Christians and other religious minorities in India?”
Yes, one honestly say that it because of Jains and Hindus non-exclusive view of religion (as opposed to only one true God and path) Jews and Zorastrians (Parsees) have lived in peace for hundreds of years in India without any persecution, Muslim population percent in India has grown while Hindu population percentage in Pakistan has reduced, hundreds of Christian missionary schools exists in India in which students are exposed to Christianity without any objection from majority Hindu parents, Mother Teresa was given a national funeral, India has a Sikh PM, and an Italian-Indian Catholic is the power behind the current center left government. These are the results of more than just patronizing “compassion”.
Admittedly, there are Hindu Muslim riots continue, but the reasons for these can be attributed to both communities. Recently, there has been violence against Christian missionaries but this can, to a great extent be attributed to the missionaries’s total and blatant disrespect for Hindu religion and attempts to convert.
I really enjoyed reading the article about Jacques Lacan. It was a good introduction and critique of his philosophical thought, especially the ways he plays with language and explains what he is thinking. You connected him to Post-Structuralism and Post-Modernism and many other things. Thank you. I have learnt a lot about Lacanism.
Thank you for saying so clearly what has been down there in my gut, instated. Like Dawkins, I am a scientist who believes that religion is an impediment to social progress and doesn’t buy the idea that religion is somehow complementary to science.