What drives you? What keeps you going day after day? What is it that you are hoping to achieve in this life before you die? As men, it’s important to have a core set of beliefs. These beliefs should serve as the foundation for everything you do in life and as such should be unshakable. No one should be able to push you from your foundation. Of course, as you experience more of life, you might shift a few of those beliefs. That’s just a natural part of living and discovery. For the most part though, your beliefs shouldn’t change and you should feel compelled to defend those beliefs should they be challenged.
What beliefs do you have and why? Let’s start with religion. I think it’s safe to say that the majority of the world’s population was brought up in some form of religious community. If that’s you, do you still subscribe to those beliefs? If so, your reasoning should be more than just “That’s how I was raised.” As a man, able to reason and make decisions for yourself, you should have a deeper rationalization. If you’re Christian, why do you believe in God? Jesus as your savior? Is it because the Bible says so? Have you ever studied the origins of the Bible or how it was assembled by just a small group of men who basically picked what they thought should be included? What about Jesus? Is there any historical evidence that he actually existed? What about eyewitness accounts (the Gospels are hearsay at best)?
If these questions have you doubting your beliefs, you may have some soul-searching to do. Do some research. Find out the facts. If you’re still standing firm, you might just be stubborn and ignorant, or you might have other deeper reasons. Maybe you’ve experienced first-hand a powerful interaction with God or Jesus. Maybe you’ve witnessed a miracle or a prayer that was answered with no other explanation but God. If so, I both respect and envy you.
I’m not trying to single out Christianity — I just have more experience with it than any other religion. If I wanted to, I could probably find some holes in Buddhism or Islam as well. I was raised Catholic and for most of my life, I took the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church at face value. My faith in Jesus was strong, or so I thought. It wasn’t until I started to see the ignorance of hardcore conservatives and religious zealots that I decided to start investigating on my own. What I found brought my foundation crashing down. I found a holy book forged from a corrupt system of picking and choosing. I found scripture verses that contradicted others. I found the story of a savior that has no historical roots other than a few hearsay accounts. I found scripture stories vaguely similar to those of Greek, Roman and Nordic myth and a religion that is basically an amalgamation of pagan religions long forgotten. The evidence was there and I couldn’t refute it. How could I? My beliefs were based on faith. Faith is tricky because as strong as it is, it isn’t unshakable. Like a Jenga puzzle, all it takes is for the right brick to be removed for it to come crashing down.
I bring this up not to convert people to atheism (I actually still believe in a higher power or God if you will) or to abandon religion. Religion has been useful in that it has kept us as a society from decaying into total anarchy. I just feel that as men, our lives should be ruled by reason. Keep an active healthy lifestyle not because the Bible says your body is a holy temple but because it’s the only one you have and life is better experienced with a healthy body. Give to charity not because Jesus did it but because it benefits the community, in turn benefiting you. Practice game because you know that Christianity’s teachings on courtship are long expired and irrelevant in this age of feminism. You see what I’m getting at.
Don’t simply believe for the sake of believing. Live your life according to a set of principles backed by reason. Your foundation will be strong and you’re less likely to be blown off course.
Cross-posted at The Masters of Fate.
{ 41 comments… read them below or add one }
you wouldnt know yr asshole from Carlsbad Caverns if you had photos of both
Which, of course, ray does, because he’s into those things.
Photos of people’s assholes, that is. Not the caverns.
What does it mean to live by reason??? What could it possibly mean? Absolutely clueless.
“I should do what I want to do; what makes me feel good.” Is that how a man should live his life? What’s your justification for believing it? Is it man’s actual purpose? And where does reason even start to begin to answer this. “Fucking feels good, I should learn how to fuck hot girls, that’s my purpose, hurr durr durrrrrrrrrrrr”.
These questions you can never answer, and they are ones which can only be answered by divine revelation.
“Test all things; hold fast that which is good.” – 1 Thessalonians 5:21
Gotham National Bank Manager: Think you’re pretty smart, huh? The guy that hired you, he’ll just do the same to you. Oh, criminals in this town used to believe in things. Honor. Respect. Look at you! What do you believe in, huh? WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IN?
Bozo: I believe whatever doesn’t kill you, simply makes you…
[takes off his mask, revealing the Joker]
The Joker: …stranger.
“If I wanted to, I could probably find some holes in … Islam as well”
“probably”??
Pussy.
We should start new religions.
I’m not exactly sure where your getting the whole hearsay accounts idea from. If you actually look at the process by which old manuscripts are tested and considered valid, the gospels stack up quite well with other documents. And beyond that, you may be referring to the naked assertion that no other historical documents refer to Jesus or the events found in the New Testament, but that is all it as, an assertion. Josephus references Jesus multiple times in his writings, as does Tacitus the Roman historian. And there are more than that, I just got those from a quick google search. And if those were not enough, there is the fact that a movement was started by these events that took place right after they happened. This is easily verified as well. So if Jesus didn’t exist how did this movement start? Where all the people who signed on really so gullible? I mean sure the gullibility of say Scientologists is one thing, but it be quite another of Ron L. Hubbard never even existed.
Just another atheidiot making the same arguments that have been refuted thousands of times over the years.
You guys simply never do anything new. Everything you wrote in your article has been refuted so many times…here is a hint: google is your friend.
If you are going to argue against Christianity, try actually doing some reading first so you won’t repeat the same arguments that have been totally discredited already.
Some good reading to bring you out of grade school levels of ignorance:
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jexfound.html
http://www.tektonics.org/archmony.htm
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/03/mailvox-history-and-christianity.html
The core sites whose articles are linked to above contain plenty of other great material, that among other things takes down all the core atheidiot arguments that you either used here or almost undoubtedly believe (like the ‘Galileo affair’ or the alleged war between science and faith.)
Bottom line: Christianity has a *ton* of evidence, Philosophical and Historical that supports it, and atardism is totally ignorant and naive.
Why do atheists insist on bringing back the same zombified arguments again and again! At least try something new every once and a while!
Fellow blog readers – do not take Invictus III”s little rant seriously…he is way behind on scholarship. He preaches an utterly empty and discredited hedonistic atheism that is far from even the slightest glimmer of understanding.
Bottom line: do a little reading, peruse some scholarship on these issues, and only then are you qualified to spout off your opinion. To quote Vox: “It’s not mere ignorance that makes an idiot, it is ignorance combined with an opinion”
I never said I was an Atheist. I’m really just trying to make the point that there is a great deal of evidence for and against most of the major religions today. We could go on and on quoting sources and writing ‘scholarly’ articles to prove our religion was more valid than the others. All you would really be doing is closing your mind off to truth if it decided to hit you in the face one day.
Atheist and Atheistkult are two different things.
Atheistkult is one sect of Leftism, derived from Christian teachings. Egalitarianism, Universalist end-of-history utopianism, et cetera, derive from the bible. Leftists has simply removed God from the equation, the same way Protestants removed Mother Mary.
It’s just as pseudo-science and unquestioning as faith healers. This is not what Invictus is advocating.
Quite frankly, if you think you can Know God the same way you can know thermodynamics, you don’t understand religion. You don’t understand Mystery. And your god is animist at best.
Any true theologian would be far less confident in their assertions, and far more prone to agreeing with Invictus, than your self-assured Southern Baptist. To state such is Pride, my friends, and it is missing the point of the teachings. If God exists, then he gave us the ability to reason with a purpose in mind – that we should exercise it. Faith has a variety of definitions, and you’re conflating them into a single thing.
At best, the Church is trying to model itself after the Kingdom of God; it is not the Kingdom itself. You’re choosing earthly matters for spiritual matters, by applying the standards of the former to the latter. That’s the quickest path to Satan.
Faith that isn’t questioned and tested on a regular basis will always be weak. Their are many similarities between the story of Jesus’ life to many other myths, however the central message and narrative of Christianity is unique, that of a Creator who loves his creation enough to save it by sacrificing himslef/his son. As far as I can no other religion has a similar religion.
Buddhism and Zorastorianism have a focus on committing good deeds and respecting creation, but Christianity is unique in the message it brings. Even if you don’t believe, Christianity is still a good place holder at the very least. Just look at what takes its place if it is absent.
@Incvictus
“I never said I was an Atheist. I’m really just trying to make the point that there is a great deal of evidence for and against most of the major religions today.”
Please provide evidence of this naked assertion. Simply saying that each belief has strong evidence for and against is not the same as it being true.
” We could go on and on quoting sources and writing ‘scholarly’ articles to prove our religion was more valid than the others. All you would really be doing is closing your mind off to truth if it decided to hit you in the face one day.”
Hmm…so scholarship and actual evidence and logic blinds one to the truth? Pray tell, how else does truth ‘hit you in the face’? What this tells me is that your positions are totally irrational and you are aware of that one some level, and you are afraid of hitting up against those pesky things like history and philosophy that may say something that you don’t like. So you avoid dealing with these hard questions by saying…that deailng with the hard questions somehow blinds you to the correct answers to them. Hilarious!
@Aurini
“Quite frankly, if you think you can Know God the same way you can know thermodynamics, you don’t understand religion. You don’t understand Mystery. And your god is animist at best.”
And you *know* this how? We can’t put God under a microscope, true (never said you could, btw so your statement is a straw man anyway) but what if He gave us revelation about Himself? You could be quite sure of that.
“Any true theologian would be far less confident in their assertions, and far more prone to agreeing with Invictus, than your self-assured Southern Baptist.”
Really? And you *know* this how? How many theologians do you know? For someone who claims that having any precise knowledge of religion equates to arrogance, you sure have a lot of precise claims to knowledge about religion and those who study it! In his article, Invictus was sure certain of his alleged claims of Bible contradictions and his alleged version of the origins of Scripture…
“To state such is Pride, my friends, and it is missing the point of the teachings. ”
By your logic, how can you be so arrogantly certain that that is what pride truly is? Which teachings would those be? Some examples would be nice!
“If God exists, then he gave us the ability to reason with a purpose in mind – that we should exercise it. Faith has a variety of definitions, and you’re conflating them into a single thing.”
Again, you seem very certain of this naked assertion – how do you *know* this?
“At best, the Church is trying to model itself after the Kingdom of God; it is not the Kingdom itself. You’re choosing earthly matters for spiritual matters, by applying the standards of the former to the latter. That’s the quickest path to Satan.”
A common refrain in your arguments is claiming that we can know nothing about God, but then turning around and saying that *you* know all these things about God, but they are just not the things that I know. How can you *know* that we can’t know anything about God? Who gave you that insight? You can’t even keep your own story straight. Thanks for playing and please do some good philosophy reading before trying again. Maybe G.K. Chesterton’s Heretics http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/470 or Orthodoxy http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/130 would be a nice start.
@JP
There a a few *very* superficial similarities that do not merit any claim of cultural/religious derivation. If you disagree, then please name a few of the ones that you think are even remotely significant. That site I linked to above goes into a lot of the alleged pagan copycat stuff too (such as Mithraism http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html) …those claims look kinda compelling on the surface, but not once you actually start delving into them carefully!
I am off to a family function in a little while, but I will try checking back later to see what other fun stuff pops up here. If you are going to respond, please try something a bit more sophisticated than naked assertions and self-contradictions!
@Incvictus
” I’m really just trying to make the point that there is a great deal of evidence for and against most of the major religions today.”
I would find you point more convincing if you had provided some of this theoretical evidence.
@Aurini
“Quite frankly, if you think you can Know God the same way you can know thermodynamics, you don’t understand religion.”
Out of all the straw men thrown around this one is unique in that it actually made me laugh. The thing is, I also don’t know any of my friends the way I know gravity. Nor do I know anyone in my family the way I know that I like pizza. But you got me, because I don’t know God the way I know thermodynamics, I guess I have to throw out the Bible which DOES teach teach that every follower of Jesus should know him like they know various scientific laws.
Invictus,
Great article! Isn’t it funny how the craven fear of our resident theologians prevents them from even considering the origins and basis of their religion.
But that doesn’t stop them from jumping and shrieking, as they scoop and fling “evidence” from halfway up their dung heap.
From PC Geek: “… but what if He gave us revelation about Himself? You could be quite sure of that.”
@ The Fuckwits:
Mmm … okay … [clears throat]
I hereby reveal myself unto you as God, and command you to found my religion, Moosianity!
And to then create great writings documenting this revealed truth, which will become “evidence” and “proof” for the “quite sure” who are trying to convince themselves that their “choice of belief” is not arbitrary and baseless.
Reason: This is what we know, through repeatable direct observation. This is what we don’t know, so we will continue to investigate.
Religion: This is what someone told us to believe. This is stuff we made up to hide what we don’t know, and which we are demanding that other people believe, so that we can pretend that we didn’t just pull it out of our ass.
@Simon
“These questions you can never answer, and they are ones which can only be answered by divine revelation.”
Nah. Solutions to these questions can be found without much difficult. What is difficult is determining what your goal is. That is all a god really gives you, is an explanation of what your goals should be. But you don’t really need a god for that, either.
No one can give us purpose but ourselves. Religion is nothing but a way of convincing ignorant proles to believe in the same purpose wise men decided by coming up with a goal and figuring out how to achieve it.
Moose and Jeremiah,
I give you +5 for inane stupidity.
I’m a Germanic neo-Pagan. Asatru is the common name for that.
It works for me. I’m agnostic on a lot of these higher questions. I’m more focused on my ancestors and my kin.
I was an agnostic for most of my life, until 2007. I am an insufficient servant of Jesus Christ for a number of reasons.
Finding out my perception of Christianity and the Bible was utterly wrong. Vox Day’s blog led me to ask a number of questions. Some things that really struck me to learn about Jesus: He doesn’t promise us a good life on earth, He actually says you’ll be hated by the world and that it’s likely serving Him will lead to misery and death. And I can tell you, my Bible-inspired stances frequently put me at odds with this world in many ways. It definitely works against my financial and especially sexual gains.
Learning more about the real words of the Bible intrigued me intellectually for a few years but still left my heart cold.
But in a bad time, I felt like asking Him for help, but I didn’t want to surrender my pride and I held onto it, like it was some cherished principle. Why? No clue. But I turned to Him… admittedly because I needed help, but He answered in a manner that was real and undeniable.
Nothing about my experiences that I can write here will convince any skeptics, but He granted me one “soul experience” and a few small miracles to which I have no witnesses.
But… you asked.
Jeremiah,
Excellent points!
Unfortunately, the following two groups are mutually exclusive:
1) People who have enough character and reasoning capability to proceed on a basis such as: this is where we want to be; this is why we want to be there; this is how we get there.
2) People who can believe in religion.
And it never ceases to amaze me that people can be so delusional that they, figuratively speaking, find one Tootsie Roll in a sewer full of turds and then proclaim: “see, God exists and He is wonderful”.
In the end, all the atheidiots can do here is hurl insult after insult, with a few naked assertions mixed in. None of them even attempted to argue their points or refute any of the notions that I raised (except one straw man attempt by moose above – anyone with room temperature IQ should be able to see what is wrong with his argument).
When you gentlemen can respond with more than insults and mockery, then it is worth talking to you.
Until then, you can remain in your delusions. It is not worth speaking with people who can’t even follow basic arguments and respond in kind. If you can respond to the historical and philosophical case for Christianity with coherent counterarguments, then i would love to see them. Otherwise, if childish insults is all you have, if you truly believe that mockery is a sound response to rational argumentation, then there is no point to conversing with you.
Good day. I’m outta here.
PC Geek, I’m not sure if you’re trying to sound like a jackass, but you’ve been doing a mighty fine job of it so far.
@Invictus
I’ve written a post on my blog answering your question. Different things convince different people. In the Bible, Jesus mentioned to man named Nathaniel that He saw him sitting under a tree and that was enough to convince that apostle, which astounded Jesus. What convinces me and the arguments I make with other people are usually two different things, of necessity. I know that my subjective experience of “feeling” the presence of God is not going to convince many, if not most, non-believers out there. What will convince them? The complexity of Creation is enough for some, the prophecies of the Bible is enough for others, even simply seeing someone speak in tongues can do the job. It’s different for all people. The apostle Thomas said he would only believe if he stuck his finger in the wounds of Jesus, to which Jesus arrived and showed Himself to him.
Some people require more convincing, but if you are earnestly seeking His presence and not merely a miracle, then He will reveal Himself to you, and you might just get to see the miracle you were hoping for. We believe first and then we see.
@ PC Geek, February 18, 2012 at 10:48 pm
“When you gentlemen can respond with more than insults and mockery, then it is worth talking to you. … It is not worth speaking with people who can’t even follow basic arguments and respond in kind. If you can respond to the historical and philosophical case for Christianity with coherent counterarguments, then i would love to see them.”
Let us review.
In the original article, Invictus wrote:
“If you’re Christian, why do you believe in God? Jesus as your savior? Is it because the Bible says so? Have you ever studied the origins [link provided] of the Bible or how it was assembled by just a small group of men who basically picked what they thought should be included? What about Jesus? Is there any historical evidence [link provided] that he actually existed? What about eyewitness accounts (the Gospels are hearsay at best)?”
And then, on February 18, 2012 at 12:57 pm, PC Geek responded with the following “coherent counterarguments”:
“Just another atheidiot making the same arguments that have been refuted thousands of times over the years. You guys simply never do anything new. Everything you wrote in your article has been refuted so many times…here is a hint: google is your friend. If you are going to argue against Christianity, try actually doing some reading first so you won’t repeat the same arguments that have been totally discredited already.”
Hmm, isn’t “atheidiot” an insult, you fucking hypocrite?
And, apparently, the whiny bitch, PC Geek, believes that one debates by saying: “I feel that I am so right that I could pee all over myself, so now you go prove that you are wrong, by using Google”.
I like how the Christian fanatics keep saying the “atheists” (I think various types of skeptic would be a better description) are hurling insults and mockery when it is the Christians in this post who seem to be name calling, dodging responses, and blanketly proclaiming the truth of their unproven claims.
Anyway, it is a good article Invictus. I think religion was in some since a primitive form of science. It was man’s way of explaining things before the scientific method started to emerge. You are right though, we have minds and we should reason with them and not be prisoners of what we where told was true but can’t substantiate.
‘ Is there any historical evidence that he actually existed? ‘
Is there any evidence that historians have any coherent theory of what constitutes evidence?
Seriously, I’ve met historians. They don’t strike me as very bright. They’re liberal-arts drunkards who stumbled and photocopied their ways through Ph.D. programs.
Further, many historians have huge conflicts of interest. Historians take money from military think tanks to argue that war is glorious. Historians take money from feminists to argue that women are more moral than men.
Historians are probably smarter than Jesus-freaks, but historians are still too stupid to talk about what evidence might be.
I don’t know where you can get goals from nature without resorting to what’s been called “religion” for several thousand years. Show me where a goal can be found in nature by observation and reason without relying on a faith-based personal value. Goals always flow from values, and as we should know “you can never derive an ought from an is.” (Look that up if you never heard it and you are a religion hater). Too many anti-religious people fail to actually be irreligious. Too many anti-religious people go about inventing their own religion, plagiarizing other religions, and *then* giving their neighbors an earfulll about what they think people “ought” to do in life. Too many “atheists” are actually humanists- humanism being a religion without the gods.
Please nobody bring up emergent properties. Or quantum foam.
Earl (February 19, 2012 at 12:22 am),
Goals are not something that you get from nature. Goals are incremental steps on the path that expresses your values.
For a non-believer, values are a description of his nature, which he reveals by defining “good”, and then by explaining and defending that position.
For a believer, values and “good” are what someone else told him was the opinion of God. But this opinion, whose origin is to be accepted on faith, is at best superfluous:
“Imagine someone said the source of right and wrong is divine decree (killing is wrong because God said it is wrong), well then you have to ask, why did God say it was wrong? Did he have a good reason, or was it just a whim? He could have just as easily said that it’s right to go out and kill and rape and torture, in which case it would be right because he said it was right. Now if you recoil at that suggestion: If you say, no it would still be wrong, even if God said it was right, or you say God wouldn’t have commanded us to kill and rape because he had a reason not to give us that command, well we can appeal directly to the reason and skip the middle man.”
Quoted from: http://www.nobeliefs.com/SomethingToThinkAbout.htm
@Moose of Wisdom
“And it never ceases to amaze me that people can be so delusional that they, figuratively speaking, find one Tootsie Roll in a sewer full of turds and then proclaim: “see, God exists and He is wonderful”.”
When you’ve ACTUALLY experienced starving, being prosecuted, running for your life, and finally finding one real Tootsie Role in the midst of human excrement, then perhaps you can understand why such people still think God exists.
If you’re just living in a typical Western existence, being mostly well-fed, safe, and hedonistic, it’s not really a surprise that you might think people who believe in God are delusional. But PLEASE don’t attempt to undermine the experiences of people who have been in real shit and still do believe in God. You know nothing.
Physphilmusic (February 19, 2012 at 1:08 am),
I wrote “figuratively speaking”, to indicate that it was an abstract illustration, and not an actual scenario.
The point was that you cannot pick and choose minor evidence that supports your position, and ignore major evidence that refutes it.
It is like when the survival of a single baby in a theater fire is proclaimed to be a “miracle that proves God’s unbounded love”, while her parents and the other thousands of people are conveniently ignored.
Moose do not try and proselytise your incoherent and irrelevant faith. Not only will you have to answer to God, you’re harming your own chances of finding him.
i happen to believe that Emergent Properties and Quantum Foam are the answers to most, if not all, of humanity’s questions
has anyone thought of that?
ps i live near mountains and there is a LOT of moose wisdom in the forests — we usually hose our boots soon as we get home
I believe in the extraterrestrials who seeded earth and pray they don’t decide to cleanse the planet of their experiment gone wrong.
Excellent post. I think religion is useful to the extent that it helps people cope with the nature of reality, “red in tooth and claw” as Darwin so elegantly put it.
However, the best way to actually overcome said nature (instead of just wishing it away using religion) is through science. Science is the key to Heaven on Earth, biological immortality and all that stuff – but, sadly, that utopia will probably not be reached in the lifetimes of the people reading this blog.
The problem with most religions is that, despite offering good feelings and a positive outlook on life which is necessary for human productivity and helps with happiness, they go against scientifically established facts. I think a new science-friendly religion is necessary, and it just so happens that there is one today that does just that: Transhumanism as preached by Ray Kurzweil. It is still pretty rough at places and maybe ill-equipped to deal with Leftism (especially given the aversion to eugenics for intelligence), but it offers an optimistic view of the future while not being blatantly anti-science. Still, I find myself hard to be optimistic that we will achieve biological immortality within my lifetime, especially after become aware of HBD and the real nature of Leftism (which is pretty much an anti-science religion, given the rampant dysgenics it advocates; also, see how the religious leftists trash any research on race and IQ and hear Anna Smajdor’s opinion that we shouldn’t make scientific progress as long as people don’t benefit from it equally: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74QSrIK9Wd0 ).
Unfortunately, the following two groups are mutually exclusive:
1) People who have enough character and reasoning capability to proceed on a basis such as: this is where we want to be; this is why we want to be there; this is how we get there.
2) People who can believe in religion.
Fascinating. Very well, let us consider your assertions here, Moose. What is your evidence substantiating your claim that the two groups are mutually exclusive? Will you accept as a qualifying metric for membership in group (1) the ability of an individual to successfully proceed, with intent, from one geographic location to another? Surely you don’t expect us to believe in the existence of these two mutually exclusive classifications solely on the basis of your decree!
@Eugenick
“equipped to deal with Leftism (especially given the aversion to eugenics for intelligence), but it offers an optimistic view of the future while not being blatantly anti-science. Still, I find myself hard to be optimistic that we will achieve biological immortality within my lifetime, especially after become aware of HBD and the real nature of Leftism (which is pretty much an anti-science religion, given the rampant dysgenics it advocates; also, see how the religious leftists trash any research on race and IQ and hear Anna Smajdor’s opinion that we shouldn’t make scientific progress as long as people don’t benefit from it equally”
Good post Eugenick! I oftentimes think these exact same things. What we really need is a highly politically incorrect race conscious (but not necessarily wn) and sex conscious reformed transhumanism.
I apologize for the length of this articles- but it addresses the relationship between history and transcendence.
Antidote to Modern Nihilism: The Qur’anic Perception of Time
Dr. Parvez Manzoor
The problem with history is intractability: it proffers an obscure, if not a totally opaque, vision of the human condition. Whether conceived as a record of human past or perceived as the matrix of human existence, history, as science and as philosophy, reveals the unfathomable ends of Man. As science, it collapses before the question of meaning; as philosophy it exhausts itself overcoming the antinomies of reason. While to be human and to strive for a meaningful existence is to impose on the infinity of the world a structure and a form, to bestow it a finitude and a temporality, the paradox is that such a partial world of history and society can only be constructed from some premonition of the whole. It can only be derived from a cosmology that is trans-societal and trans-human. History, in other words, acquires its meaning from a perspective which itself is meta-historical. Or, at least, this was true of all traditional civilizations.
Modernity however is a different breed. As culture, it creates its meaning by obdurately refusing to scan beyond the horizons of man and by confining the meaning of history to history itself. Little wonder that by so doing, it also abandons the quest for the ultimate meaning. Despite the lusciousness of its empirical pastures, the modern epistemological project thus ends in the normative wasteland of nihilism. All modern discourses, notwithstanding their dissimilar disciplinary moorings and disparate ideological assumptions, amply testify to the suffocating embrace of nihilism which wrecks all modern courtship with the ‘historical truth’. Indeed, even modernist Islamic thought, resolutely committed to preserving a normative vision, seems unable to avoid the unsettling gaze of modern nihilism.
It is now generally recognized that the biblical concept of history, when freed of its transcendent moorings and secularized, inaugurates the reign of relativism and nihilism. Nihilism, of course, represents the reverse side of the modern, secularized consciousness; the obverse one, which is displayed far more often as the real face of modernity, reflects the conflict between science and religion, reason and faith; or between secular history and redemptive history (Heilsgeschichte). The upshot of this nihilism however is that the story of humanity becomes ‘a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.’ In stead of the humanity, it is the nation that takes on the challenge of making history and of defining the goal of collective existence. For, while partial history, history as the march of a nation or a state in time, may retain some semblance of meaningfulness, universal history (Weltgeschichte), history as the story of humanity, looses all claims to meaning when viewed empirically and without the imposition of any pre-conceived pattern. It opens up that fateful divide between the real and the rational, between history and theory that, pace Hegel, cannot be overcome. Consequently, world-history either remains a philosophical theory that is without any collateral in actual history; or it becomes a historical chronology that is devoid of all normative meaning. In short, on closer reflection, ‘the philosophy of history’ reveals itself either as history and facts, or as philosophy and norms. No wonder that from within the perspective of secular history, from the cognitive premises of immanentism, the antinomy of norm and history can never be overcome and the demons of relativism and nihilism can never be defeated.
True enough, the revelation is presented in the Hebrew Bible as the participation of God on the side of the Israelites in actual history. Such a claim was instrumental in fostering a view of history (of a specific nation) as sacred. Or, as expressed by a modern philosopher: ‘Since biblical times, the Western, Judeo-Christian world has found Transcendence in history. This has happened for better: in the midst of human historical world was found a Transcendence other than human and higher-than-human which gave meaning, if not to all of history, so at any rate to crucial, epoch-making events in it.’ (Emil L. Fackenheim: ‘Transcendence in Contemporary Culture’, in H.W. Richardson & D.R. Cutler (Ed.): Transcendence, Beacon Press, Boston, 1969. P. 144.) Leaving aside the moral discomforts of a universal God taking sides in history, or the logical incoherence of transcendence within immanence, there’s no denying that not only is the biblical proclivity for historicizing the truth, or sacralizing history, always under the assault of the immanentist, secular consciousness (the sin of idolatry in its own parlance), it also becomes vulnerable to the judgment of the empirical vision, once the latter has freed itself from its sacred moorings. Or, stated differently, as long as the premise that God has a special covenant with the children of Israel remains valid, biblical history retains both its ‘historicity’ and legitimacy. However, once that premise is set aside, as happens in the Enlightenment’s secularized version of the universal history, the truth of the Bible itself comes under the scrutiny of historicizing sciences which, paradoxically, care nothing for the kind of transcendence which is the sine qua non of the biblical vision of history.
Fortunately, the Qur’an has a view of history, revelation, truth and man that avoids the conundrums and aporias of biblical Heilsgeschichte. To start with, the Qur’anic perspective, whether theological, cosmological or anthropological, is that of unity. However, this unity is not ontological; for God remains distinct from his creation, but it is a unity of purpose, goal and meaning that all are expressions of God’s will. From this perspective, both the concept of history and that of nature appear problematical. The created world (nature) and the temporal one of man (history) are certainly real, indeed even indispensable for the fulfilment of man’s mandate of vicegerency. Nevertheless, the Greek concept of “nature”, whether postulating a self-contained, self-sufficient, self-regulating universe, or signifying the intrinsic disposition of a thing to obey immanent laws, is alien to the Qur’anic worldview. The world exists, according to the Qur’an, not due to any intrinsic necessity but because of the gratuitous act of a transcendent will: it is radically contingent rather than naturally necessary. The same is true of history: the very concept of history – pure immanence and temporality that is self-referential and immediately accessible – is missing in the Qur’an. History does not have any claim to any autonomous inner logic which must perforce follow its logical course. Whatever its other benefits, such a deterministic view of history is compatible with man’s moral freedom.
As befits the transcendental worldview of the Qur’an, the addressee of its discourse is a universal, archetypical and trans-historical human being. Even the covenant that God has with man is primordial and is contracted prior to the advent of the historical time. Man enters his/her historical existence only after submitting to the sovereignty of God (7:172). Further, Adam, the first man, stands for all humanity and inasmuch as he is recognized as the first prophet, mankind has never been without divine guidance. Hence, when the Qur’an speaks of historical men and women, especially former prophets, it does so without the least regard to chronology. The Qur’an does not concern itself with the historical succession of messengers and prophets but with the proclamation of the unity of the trans-historical revelation. Neither does it make any distinction between former prophets. The unity and identity of divine guidance, available to all prophets and preached by all of them, renders all historical, ethnic and geographical distinctions superfluous.
The very notion of faith, Islam (Surrender to God) also presupposes a trans-historical and transcendent disposition of man (fitra). Surrender to God is not something that may be realized, gradually and progressively, within the flux of time. It is an instant decision of the individual soul: one either surrenders himself/herself to God or one doesn’t. Consequently, God’s guidance (huda) is not a progressive march towards a single, climactic event, but a here-and-now that is forever eternal, forever available to every human soul. Thus, a modern Muslim may confidently pronounce that the Qur’anic idea of revelation is trans-historical:
‘It is also impossible on the basis of the goal and mean (of divine guidance) to construct a history of salvation which is gradually realized either in a Christian or non-Christian [secular] sense, neither Muhammad (S) nor the Muslims thought of such a possibility. For the Koran recognizes no original sin and no corresponding redemption; hence it presents no salvation history comparable to the Christian tradition. But if salvation is understood, as it is in the prophetic religions, as “the individual’s encounter through faith and grace with a personal God”, then salvation is contained precisely in the human surrender to God (Islam) and that divine guidance (huda) which according to the Koran remains or should remain forever unaltered by time and history. Accordingly, there’s no reason to conceive of revelation as something temporal or historical.’ (Abdoldjavad Falaturi: ‘Experience of Time and History in Islam’, in Annemarie Schimmel & Abdoldjavad Falaturi: We Believe in One God. Burns and Oates, London, 1979. P 65. Emphasis added).
Far more radical than the Qur’anic disregard of history as a chronicle of events, is its perception of time. Time, according to the Qur’an, is not the perpetual flux that results in a linear or cyclical conception of temporality, but an eternal present that always carries with it the possibility of surrender to God (Islam). Again, the Greek term for times, Xronos, which is usually translated as zaman (not of Arabic origin) does not occur in the Qur’an. The proper expression for time in the Qur’an is, of course, waqt. According to Falaturi, an analysis of the term shows that ‘it does not imply progressive enactment, and that it has no regulatory character, as is the case with Xronos (zaman), a character which every concept of history presumes as its basis. Waqt is rather spatial, a self-enclosed, static, unalterable where of an event….. In waqt, …. [in] an ever-present area of events created by God, all events are independent of one another, yet have a direct relation to their omnipotent, omnipresent Creator.’ (pp. 68-9). It is the consciousness of the transcendence of God which shatters, as it were, the fluid temporality of ordinary experience into an infinity of static ‘nows’
Another comment by a perceptive non-Muslim also reinforces this insight about the ‘atomistic’ nature of the Qur’anic temporality. Commenting on Surah 18 (Al-Kahf), Norman O. Brown, a non-specialist on Islam but a celebrated American thinker of our age (1913-2002), makes the following statement: ‘Massignon calls the Sura 18 the apocalypse of Islam. But sura 18 is a résumé, epitome of the whole Koran. The Koran is not like the Bible, historical, running from Genesis to Apocalypse. The Koran is altogether apocalyptic. The Koran backs off from that linear organization of time, revelation, and history which became the backbone of orthodox Christianity and remains the backbone of the Western culture after the death of God. Islam is wholly apocalyptic or eschatological, and its eschatology is not teleology. The moment of decision, the Hour of Judgment, is not reached at the end of a line, nor by a predestined cycle of cosmic recurrence; eschatology can break out at any moment. Koran 16:77: “To Allah belong the secrets of the heavens and the earth, and the matter of the Hour is as the twinkling of an eye, or it is nearer still.” In fully developed Islamic theology only the moment is real.” (Norman O Brown: ‘The Apocalypse of Islam’, in Apocalypse and/or Metamorphosis. University of California Press, 1991. P 86.) Brown is also cognizant that the rejection of linearity involves rejection of narrative and that ‘the Koran breaks decisively with that alliance between the prophetic tradition and materialistic historicism – “what actually happened” – which set in with the materialistically historical triumph of Christianity.’ (87). Finally, in his judgment, ‘Islam is committed by the Koran to project a metahistorical plane on which the eternal meaning of historical events is disclosed.’ (88). Or, returning to our own query, the transcendent worldview of the Qur’an is not affected a whit by the cognitive haggling between archaeology and the Bible which.
The cult of history is a modern heresy, just as the philosophy of history is a supremely arrogant and narcissistic form of reflection on the meaning and goal of western civilization. In postmodern times, however, the grand narratives of both the Christian redemptive history (Heilsgeschichte) and the Enlightenment’s universal history (Weltgeschichte) have been abrogated by the new logic of globalization and Empire. The message today is that history has come to an end and the current hierarchy of powers represents the permanent state of humanity. And yet, humanity’s search for a meaningful, moral existence has not come to a halt. It is the Muslim’s duty to delineate the Qur’anic vision of history and time – the purpose and meaning of human existence – in such a way that it acts as an antidote to the modern form of nihilism which is the principal source of the spiritual and moral anguish of our times.
The author tried to avoid the atheist-versus-deist debacle.
The real question is what we live for. To my mind, the answer is some kind of fulfillment.
But that cannot be found in the self alone, except in very shallow people (leftists, numus, Twilight fans).
Moose said:
“Goals are not something that you get from nature…”
and then he said
“Goals… express your values.”
and later,
“Values are a description of his nature”
and then I cried!
does it matter if jesus existed? it doesnt. we all know that the torah is written in the language of man. we all know that things written in the holy books are not to be taken literaly. BTW nat geo (or discovery? can’t remember)looked up in one of their episodes with renowned egyptologists. they have cocluded that jesus was indeed a great leader and quite “alpha”. actually you dont need to do what the bible says because it says so, for me the bible’s commandments are words of wisdom and no actually rules per say. actually there is science behind those words and the sages dont want women and ignorant people to know the secrets of the world so they made it cryptic and for godsakes that is how people wrote at that time. when the bible says that swine is a bad food how did they know that pig fat can easily harbor 500% more cancer virus? how did they know that hatred and bitterness makes the body release stress hormones that shortens your life? in the end it all makes sense especially the ones in the old testament. you will find also great wisdom with the words of budhism, taoism, and the one’s who practice yoga (not the fitness hype but the monks) who knew long ago that the mind possess unmeassurable power. so wisdom is actually in their teachings but it is undeniable indeed that catholism used has evolved as an instrument of politics and domination by the roman empire so it doesnt surprise me that they violate most of what they are suppoesd to uphold but no christian sect is actually perfect. even protestants have corrupt and illogical beliefs of their own.
I would recomend that you read Guide for the perplexd. it will help alot. the author is a philisopher disciple and a doctor
{ 1 trackback }