If you haven't noticed, I spend a lot of time thinking and writing about religion. Why? Because for better or worse, religion is one of the most powerful phenomena in human existence so it deserves serious thought. One of the things I've noticed as I've listened to contemporary discourse about religion is what I think of as theological atheism or more precisely, anthrocentric theology. In its simplest form, anthrocentric theology views human beings as the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end of the human-God relationship. There are two basic assumptions of anthrocentric theology:
1. God is whatever people believe God to be.
2. Scripture is a product of the human mind, thus it does not mean anything in particular. Because it does not mean anything in particular human beings can make it mean whatever they want it to mean.
People who subscribe to the first assumption tend to use phrases such as "my God is a God of ____" or "the God I believe in is ______". This kind of God-talk is generally preceded by someone suggesting that God might disapprove of whatever the person making these statements, does or believes. Thus God is essentially the advocate of my particular likes, dislikes, political views, life-style choices etc. I decide what is right or wrong and God backs me up, kind of like a lawyer in the court of public opinion.
People who subscribe to the second assumption talk much like the first group of people (these are often the same people actually) except that they substitute scripture for God. So you hear things like "I think ____ Holy Book says this or that. Why? Because I say so." Again, scripture says whatever I want it to say, which usually is whatever supports my particular likes, dislikes, political agendas and so on.
A God whom is whatever I want God to be is not a God worth taking seriously. Likewise, scripture that simply says whatever I want it to say is no more meaningful than a phone book. People who engage in this kind of God-talk are unwittingly making the same basic argument that atheists make, namely that religion is simply a product of human imagination.
"Therefore, reflect that different peoples of the world are revolving around imaginations and are worshipers of the idols of thoughts and conjectures. They are not aware of this; they consider their imaginations to be the Reality which is withdrawn from all comprehension and purified from all descriptions... [material] idols at least have a mineral existence, while the idols of thoughts and the imaginations of man are but fancies; they have not even mineral existence. 'Take heed ye who are endued with discernment.' "[1][1 Qur'án 59:2.] (Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 149)
What do you think reader?
This is an interesting post, Phillipe, and I certainly think you've highlighted a way of thought that some religious (and some not very religious) people have adopted. I don't know if you've ever read anything by Anglican theologian Don Cupitt, but this is pretty much the stance that he takes - except that it is worked out in greater detail. To put it crudely he says that "God" is a label for all that we value most.
ReplyDeleteThis line of thought refuses to accept that there is an irreducibly transcendent reality that is the ground of our being. This line of thought removes the necessary way markers on the journey of life - we can, so it would seem, go anywhere we like and do anything we want. And we can justify it by reference to our interpretation of our favourite Holy Book.
Baha'u'llah teaches a quite different approach, as reflected in the quotation from 'Abdu'l-Bahá that you have included in your post. Of course, this doesn't stop us striving, through study and consultation, to understand more deeply what God is saying to us through Baha'u'llah, but it does warn us unequivocally to refrain from claiming that our very limited understanding replaces that Glorious Transcendent Reality that we call God.
Well said Barney. I'm being quite simplistic but in my experience what I've described is the essence of anthrocentric theology in its various permutations. How nice to wake up to a comment from you!
ReplyDeleteWhat do other people think?
"he says that "God" is a label for all that we value most." - which is true. So not everything that we value, and label "God" is God.
ReplyDeleteWe already knew that: look at the things done in the name of God, from educating children and abolishing slavery to blowing up girl's schools and enslaving people. The arbitrary and unreliable nature of religious labels is in our face every day
very interesting perspective,, Phillipe.
ReplyDeleteI have most often encountered such views/opinions being put forth by "fundamentalists" holding various beliefs who have closed minds.
The search for Truth is not as easy as it might seem. According to Baha'u'llah, there are pre-requisites for embarking on such a search: humility, detachment, purity of thought and motive. --see, The Book of Certitude.
My questions when encountering persons with such views always revolve around what answer(s), if any, are appropriate. Does "speak not, unless you obtain a hearing", apply in such situations? Or does the admonition to defend the Faith with convincing proofs? i would be interested in hearing from others, especially others who have had success, in thi arena.
Judith W.
Great post!
ReplyDeleteI've been involved in firesides lately on Baha'i Island in Second Life and am learning something critical to teaching the Truth that 'Abdu'l-Baha exemplified:
Listen, listen, listen. Let their cup empty. And, if they speak for a long time and you sense their cup is still full, thank them for sharing and leave them to God...
~ Alex from Our Evolution
Samuel Skinner
ReplyDelete""I think ____ Holy Book says this or that. Why? Because I say so." Again, scripture says whatever I want it to say, which usually is whatever supports my particular likes, dislikes, political agendas and so on."
I don't see an alternative. As long as faith is based on relevation, people will argue about the true meaning of said relevation.
Anonymous, I think that disagreement over the meaning of scripture is different than using scripture as a kind of rhetorical devise to justify whatever a person happens to want to do. It's the later that I'm describing and not just differences of interpretation which as you point out are going to happen when people attempt to understand scripture.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. I think this way of thinking is easier to fall into than we might hope. And, I'm curious to know more about how you would distinguish this thinking from differences of interpretation. Could you give an example of each? If I give into cynicism, it almost seems like a chicken and egg question. Thoughts otherwise?
ReplyDeleteAllison, this is a good question. I think what I'm talking about are the assumptions underlying how scripture is read. It really begins with the first way of thinking about God. Scriptural interpretation which is essentially driven by egotism, flows naturally from a conception of God that places our own whims on the same level as Divine authority. In a Baha'i context the ultimate test of personal interpretation of the Writings is whether or not they square with interpretations of 'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi who have been given authority to interpret scripture. As such, I cannot simply make up a meaning for the Writings because it works for me personally. This is part of why the Covenant is so powerful, it places a necessary check on the exercise of personal interpretation which is inherently flawed and vulnerable to the dictates of the ego. What I'm talking about though is an approach to religion that actually suggests than an egocentric (what I'm referring to as anthrocentric) way of thinking about God and scripture is the way things should be.
ReplyDelete