Pluralism and Salvation

In today’s global society, the need for interreligious dialogue is becoming very important amongst efforts for creating peace. It is for this reason that I returned to school to pursue a BA in Religious Studies and a career in interfaith relations. I intend to work closely with Muslim – Christian relations, and as such, knowing the contemporary arguments for religious ecumenism is as important as knowing the history for and against pluralism and salvation of the “other” in Islam.

In Mohammad Hassan Khalil’s “Salvationand the ‘Other’ in Islamic Thought: The Contemporary Pluralism Debate (inEnglish)”, the fact that not all pluralists are created equal is made known. Pluralism in Islam (and likely elsewhere) has divisions which is a main reason for the diversity in arguments for pluralistic salvation. Categorizing the arguments starts by categorizing the types of pluralists. It is of some importance to note that most of these pluralists write in English and reside in predominantly non-Muslim countries.

The esoteric perennialist school of thought began with Rene Guenon. Its core belief is that each of the major religions has truth and lead to God. Later, John Hick argued a congruous form of pluralism akin to the story of the elephant and the blind men – the seeming differences in religion are actually only because of perspective and frame of reference. Building on the perennialist thought and distancing from Hick’s view, Reza Shah-Kazemi uses the term universalism and suggests that in order for a religion to be a valid path to salvation, it need to be divinely inspired, not a human construct.

A critical issue with all of these arguments is that they frequently refer to the Qur’an almost exclusively, whereas the majority of Muslims view hadith to be authoritive. In order for many of these Muslims to be open to the pluralist arguments, there may need to be some reconciliation with their views based on hadith. Simply writing hadith off as fabricated or corrupt does a disservice to the debate, as it is akin to telling someone that what they believe in is lies.

The best way to move forward in the debate, which is one important to interfaith relations locally and globally, is to determine how best to help create a paradigmatic revolution. These paradigm shifts are possible, as history has shown us – in both the USA with the civil rights movement and in recent times, in the Middle East with the Arab Spring.

On Goodness

In response to the following readings,

Ethics, Books I-V by Aristotle

Meno by Plato

Gorgias by Plato

Crito by Plato

Symposium by Xenophon

                The readings from Aristotle, Plato, and Xenophon all deal with aspects of ethics (sometimes called politics), i.e. the pursuit of happiness by means of being a good person.  Book I of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics helps to define what “good” is and how one defines it for himself or for society and the methods to seek it. Aristotle suggests that In order for a person to be able to realize what his or her higher good is and the methods for achieving it, thus achieving happiness, he or she needs to be mature and knowledgeable; i.e. they need to be able to use reason. Once able to use reason, man can keep desire under control (within the “golden mean”) and become a moral person. Book II goes on to expand on what moral virtues are.

                Aristotle sees each person as a particular nature and particular tendencies to desire an excess (above or below) what brings them to their highest good. He explains that self-realization is the way to understand one’s inclination and to learn to control the vices in life. He goes on to explain how we must use reason to look at the long-term outcomes when making choices for our highest good. He expands this idea to society at large and suggests that the good of the majority supersedes that of the minority (perhaps relating the minority to the likes of special interest groups that would operate like desire out of control).  He suggests that disorganization of human nature is what amounts to moral evil; that we are born neither good nor bad but have the possibility to become either and that our nature grows by the choices we make and the habits we acquire.

                The formation of our habits may be difficult, but with the use of reason, we can overturn bad habits and take on good ones. Aristotle supposes that only with a good set of habits can one be a good person and to form these good habits, one must follow the “golden mean doctrine”, or as Plato refers to in his writings, temperance: i.e. avoiding excesses. There is no set standard to follow and each person must use reason to find out where the golden mean is in each situation that he encounters – to use intellect rather than emotion. The golden mean however, never allows for the toleration of injustice or cruelty.  Aristotle goes on to explain moral responsibility regarding the choices we make in Book III.

                Moral responsibility, to Aristotle, meant that we are responsible for any voluntary course of action we follow and the resulting consequences. He does admit that sometimes coercion or ignorance causes us to makes choices that we might otherwise not choose, and in those cases, he removes responsibility. To him, good moral choices are not based on the intent or the outcome, but comes from a good intention, uses good methods, and ends in good results, as  much as can be determined ahead of time.  A wise decision is usually based on the deliberation prior to making the decision, involves thinking for the long term and using reason over emotion. Finally, in the end of Book III, Aristotle differentiates between vice and virtue as vice being something we over-indulge in. A virtue he mentions is courage, which is between cowardice and foolhardiness and thus follows the golden mean. Again he is referring to the need for temperance. He gives further examples of virtues in Book IV of Nicomachean Ethics.

                Aristotle continues to give examples about how virtues demonstrate the golden mean, avoiding any excess. He also points out that the moral quality of an action or decision is situation specific, and thus must be measured on its own merits and should be based on reason versus emotion (as previously mentioned).  

All of the arguments in Aristotle’s first three books of Nicomachean Ethics lead to a description of how to be a good person in Book IV.  To begin with, a good man will be generous, but without exceeding the long-term needs of those s/he helps; it is by wisdom that s/he will know how and when not to exceed. S/he will not be generous for sake of attention and public honor, but because it is right and good and will be generous quietly, occasionally publically, will be modest, and accept what is due, even if it be public honor. Such a person would be considered magnificent by Aristotle. Further, s/he will be kind and considerate, gentle in disposition, but know when appropriate anger is necessary, without letting it get out-of-hand. S/he will be honest and modest, and ambitious but not greedy.

Book V turns away from the description of a good man to the topic of justice. Again he uses the doctrine of the golden mean as his tool by which to measure; however, this time he discusses not only individual justice, but more so, societal justice (the golden mean doctrine is for individuals).  Society has rules, or laws, and laws are given to provide for freedom more so than anarchy does and supplies a system of rewards and punishments (much like a parent/child relationship, as Socrates later suggests in Plato’s Crito).  The rewards and punishments must conform to the golden mean in order to be just – they must not be too light or too severe. The just state will provide a just system and distribution of wealth that provide for the best way for its people to realize their highest good. This does not mean equal distribution, as the distribution in Aristotle’s mind is to be based on merit as well as need. Aristotle sees justice as being “good”, whereas Aristotle and Socrates call it a virtue.

In Plato’s Crito, Socrates says ruling (government) can only be virtuous if it is just. If we put his words with Aristotle’s, it would seem that virtue is equal to “good”; however, Socrates seems to be unable to define what virtue is, but can only come to the conclusion that it is something neither innate or learned, but is, as he puts it, “a gift from the gods”.  Plato continues to describe how Socrates considers virtue in the dialogue, Gorgias.

In Gorgia’s, opposite natures are expressed: true/false, flattery/routine, good/evil, etc. Another distinction is made regarding “good” – it is different from pleasant. Socrates especially differentiates between rhetoric and wisdom. He sees rhetoric as false, as it is persuasion to convince others that something is true when it may not in fact be. Wisdom regards acknowledgement of actual truth. Virtue is something that Socrates says arises from the balance of the arts (i.e. temperance ), which is similar to Aristotle’s idea that following the golden mean doctrine provides for what is good. Further, Socrates suggests that virtue manifests in righteous living and suggests its importance beyond life.

Socrates further discusses justice in regard to the State and laws and ethical behavior in Plato’s Crito. Here, Socrates is portrayed in prison when a friend comes to persuade him to escape. Socrates refuses, saying that to do so, he would have to cause others to do wrong and he himself would be doing wrong and go unpunished, which he believes is the worst evil. Crito is concerned about what others think of him if he is unsuccessful in helping Socrates escape, to which Socrates answers that a person should not care about public opinion, but rather wise advice, and to just behave well and justly. (This is much like what I tell my son: that when others say things about him that are not nice and not true, I remind him to ignore their lies and be confident in his truth).

Socrates continues to show the parent/child relationship mentioned earlier that the citizen has with the State. If one is a citizen of the State, s/he must follow the laws that are set forth with the assumption that the State (or parent figure) is looking out for the citizen’s (child’s) best interest. If you continue to live in the State and not leave, it is an unspoken contract to follow the Law. As Socrates had lived in Athens for over seventy years, he shows Crito that he would be very wrong to escape now, as he had contracted for all this time to follow the laws and never left when he had the opportunity to.

At this point in the readings, it seems to me that a “good” person is one that:

·         practices the golden mean in their actions

·         uses wisdom in deliberations

·         seeks the  long-term highest good

·         follows the Laws of the State in which s/he chooses to reside

·         uses good intention, good methods, and has good results

The final reading, Xenophon’s Symposium appears to me to expand the idea of good and how each of us have different highest goods, or rather, that each of us have his or her own purposes in life to fulfill, and what we pride ourselves in seems to help us to define our purpose.

                In the beginning of Symposium, Socrates suggests that love of the soul is much more important than love of the body. In this, I think he refers not only to human desires, but also the material versus the immaterial. The man focused on material things or human desire rather than the quality of his soul is like the short term renter and not a mortgage holder. The renter does not care to look at the long term, whereas the mortgage holder wants a return on his investment and is willing to put the work into increasing the quality of the home. He continues to discuss how our relationships also have effect on the moral quality of our souls, as if we keep good company, they will help us to also become good, and if our company is corrupt, we will be likely to pick up their habits. And since habit has much to do with our moral quality, we should only seek to keep company with the righteous. This also works in reverse, for how can we provide real help to our loved ones to become good if we ourselves are not good? He finalizes this message by explaining that a virtuous life will be self-evident, which is reminiscent of Socrates’s chastisement of Crito about being worried about what others think of him. Live righteously and do not let others deflect your path to immortality. 

I would love to hear your critiques, comments, and more, so write something below! :)      

Written for my Intro to Political Philosophy class on 3/5/12

               

        

Paul and Augustine: Conversion Narratives and the Retrospective Self

In response to Paula Fredriksen’s Paul and Augustine:  Conversion Narratives, Orthodox Traditions and the Retrospective Self

Conversion stories bring with them an establishment problem, that of retrospection. Conversions come in an instant; it’s that eureka moment where the light bulb goes off. One is not usually writing about the experience as it happens, instead he/she writes about it after it happens, in retrospect. Retrospection is always 20/20 because we read into our past the information we need to explain our present: to ourselves, to others, to the ones angered by our change of opinion. Paul and Augustine are no different. Augustine takes this a step further though, as he attempts to redefine Paul’s conversion to match his own. He looks for credibility by incorporating Paul into his own conversion and circularly, recreating Paul’s own conversion to match.

Augustine

            Paul has to explain himself to those that disagree or do not understand his new philosophy. His conversion story becomes rhetoric. We cannot know the moment of his conversion, nor do we have a vast autobiographical retrospective account like Augustine, but we can pull what Paul feels convicted about via his rhetorical writings to the churches. But even there, the past gets in the way. We cannot see clearly the present and present theology or philosophy without reviewing the past, where our minds automatically make assumptions to make the past match the present and vice versa. But it’s a past and present that we want to see. We cannot review the past without introducing our own bias, which is the problem of conversion narratives, Paul’s included. 

Paul

Written for my Birth of Christianity class on 2/14/12

Biblical Wisdom

Many people read the Bible in an effort to understand their life; to find answers to their questions about life and perhaps the problems they are facing.  Ancient holy books, like the Torah and the Bible, have been considered not only history books by their readers, but also guidebooks to life and how to live it.  They are instruction books to life and encourage the reader to remember that God is the one in control and that to revere God is the beginning of wisdom (Journey).

In the Hebrew Bible, there is a section of writings that are considered wisdom literature. They are Proverbs, the Book of Job, and Ecclesiastes.  All three writings try to tell the reader how he/she should live their life. Proverbs is a book of writings credited to Solomon. It is essentially an anthology of sayings and poems that make observations about life or instruct the reader in the forms of advice and admonitions (Journey).  Proverbs gives dual choices that are rather black and white to deal with most issues that come up in life. The dualistic nature of proverbs is evident not only in their meaning, but also in their structure, where wisdom and folly are often contrasted within the same short sentence: “Those who are hot-tempered stir up strife, but those who are slow to anger calm contention” (Proverbs 15:18).  The wise person follows the wise choice, and the fool goes astray.  Not only is choice in life simplified to two choices for every question, but it suggested that divine justice is always served.  The wise person is rewarded and the fool is punished; therefore, be wise (choose rightly): “Therefore walk in the way of the good, and keep to the paths of the just. For the upright will abide in the land, and the innocent will remain in it; but the wicked will be cut off from the land, and the treacherous will be roosted out of it” (Proverbs 2:20-20).

Proverbs gives the reader the sense that God is control of all things and that the meaning of life is to be good, choose wisely, and you will be rewarded. The flip side of the idea is that any wrong against you will be meted out in punishment of the fool.  The wisdom to some might give the idea that if they do good deeds, they will always be rewarded; but one of the main concepts that is strung through Proverbs is that reverence of God is of the most importance. Without that you have no wisdom (Journey). The other wisdom writings, the book of Job and Ecclesiastes, are not as optimistic about life and divine justice.

The Book of Job is a writing that is structured as a poetic drama enveloped within a folk tale. This book might ultimately tell the reader to have faith in God, no matter what, because the reader cannot possibly understand the ways of God. Either God’s ways are outside comprehension or we are simply unable to know or understand all the facts. The story is roughly an account of what a righteous man, Job, is put through because God took up a wager with one of his court, the accuser. The accuser, or Satan, suggested that Job was only thankful and reverent to God because he had abundance in life. He wagered that if Job was afflicted, he would no longer remain so pious. So, taking Satan’s bet, God allowed Satan to afflict Job and bring suffering upon him in rapid succession.  Job knows that he has been wise and good and is perplexed with his sudden calamity. He knows that he is righteous, yet his suffering went against divine justice.  He essentially asks, “why me?” while lamenting.

Many people throughout the ages and into the future have and will identify with Job, asking the same, “why me?” when finding themselves in what they perceive as unjust situations. Stricken with cancer even though you lived a healthy life? You may ask, “why me?” Lost your job even though you were an exemplary employee? Again, “why me?” The Book of Job tries to explain to the reader that not only can we not begin to understand God, but that also, humanity is not the center of the universe. Human justice is not necessarily of God’s concern, but our own (Journey). It does give a bit of reflection to the idea of the righteous being rewarded, however, as Job is rewarded doubly after passing this test of his love for God. It gives hope to the sufferer that the reward will come as long as he/she is faithful and patient.  Again, we hear the idea that wisdom begins with reverence for God.

Ecclesiastes is yet another writing in the wisdom literature. It is perhaps less optimistic than Job in that it writes off life as essentially meaningless and the pursuit for wisdom is futile. There is no divine justice as it seems the wicked and the good both die in the end and in life the wicked are often treated well, and the good treated wickedly (Journey and Ecclesiastes). This writing is also attributed to Solomon, but may have been written by an old sage (perhaps an old disillusioned Solomon?). It gives the idea to the reader that it is best not to question the way of the world or the ways of God, as god is inscrutable and all else is vanity and emptiness. It suggests to the reader to essentially, eat drink and be merry, for life in this world is short, so enjoy it as it comes, moment by moment (Journey).

It doesn’t remove the reader from God, but basically reiterates the idea from Job that one should have faith in God that all is as it should be, and that he/she cannot possibly fathom the reasons. It suggests that we should try to find the good in every situation – for how else can one enjoy life moment by moment unless he/she looks for the good in that moment? It gives the reader the sense to persevere, not because we will be rewarded like Job, but because we can’t completely understand what God may be up to. The book finishes with a touch that may have been added by an editor to reign in the work to include God and retribution a bit more: “The end of the matter; all has been heard, fear God, and keep his commandments, for that is the whole duty of everyone. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every secret thing, whether good or evil” (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14). Again we hear the echo of the reverence of God being the beginning of wisdom. 

Written 12/5/11 for my Intro to Biblical Literature class

Theodicy and Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989)

The movie Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989) shows a world that many can familiarize with: a world that allows for seemingly unjustified suffering and reward. Cliff, one of the main characters of the story, notices this aspect of life and points it out to his niece while divulging his words of wisdom to her, “you’ll find as you go through life that great depth and smoldering sensuality does not always win.” He tells her this after relating to her how he is in love with Halley, but she is enamored with Lester, a man that he finds revolting and undeserving of his wealth and fame. Cliff seems to be a pessimistic man and that he has learned his lessons from having experienced life first hand. Ecclesiastes 1:18 perhaps explains his attitude on life, “because in much wisdom there is much grief, and increasing knowledge results in increasing pain.”

Cliff also tells his niece about how although the world is unfair and good people like Ben, the rabbi, suffer without reason, it is good people like Ben that don’t seem to let the world come down on them. Ben doesn’t let on that he is suffering, rather he has a good attitude towards life and Cliff considers him to be a “mensch” – a man of integrity.

Ben is reminiscent of Job from the Bible. Ben, like Job, is a God-fearing man that is struck with a seemingly undeserved affliction that is causing him to go blind. We don’t know from the film whether or not Ben laments the way Job does, “Why did I not die at birth,
Come forth from the womb and expire? Why did the knees receive me, and why the breasts, that I should suck? For now I would have lain down and been quiet; I would have slept then, I would have been at rest, but we are given a sense that he does not” (Job 3:11-13), but we are given the sense that he does not. Rather than lament, Ben seems to have the “patience of Job” that is discussed in Journey on page 184. He seems to grasp the overarching meaning of Job, that humankind is not “at the center on the cosmic stage” (Journey, 188).

Two men in the film carry the theme of unjustified reward, Judah and Lester. Cliff is obvious in his distaste for Lester. He finds Lester to be an arrogant womanizer that is undeserving of his wealth and fame. Lester seems oblivious of his nature and goes through life as if he is happy and always celebrating. Perhaps he has an outlook on life that can be taken from Ecclesiastes 8:15, “So I commended pleasure, for there is nothing good for a man under the sun except to eat and to drink and to be merry, and this will stand by him in his toils throughout the days of his life which God has given him under the sun.” At the end of the film, Judah seems to take on the same outlook, as he seems to have gotten away with having his mistress, Deloris, killed. Nothing particularly bad had come to him from her death. Another man was punished for the crime, but Judah didn’t feel this was a problem as that man had committed several other crimes of a similar nature and, “what was one more” (Crimes and Misdemeanors, 1989).

Judah didn’t always have this attitude though, and it is possible that although he seems to feel that he has gotten away with the crime; his increase in drinking perhaps shows that he still feels guilty and expects to be punished yet. It is as if he knows that “God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil” (Ecclesiastes 12:14) and is waiting for that axe to fall. Even the fact that he seemingly confesses to Cliff, while giving him a plot for a movie, shows that he is still disturbed and in wonderment of the fact that he has so far gotten away with the murder. Judah would have been wise to follow the words from Ecclesiastes 1:10-19:

¹⁰ My son, if sinners entice you,

Do not consent.

¹¹ If they say, “Come with us,

Let us lie in wait for blood,

Let us ambush the innocent without cause;

¹² Let us swallow them alive like Sheol,

Even whole, as those who go down to the pit;

¹³ We will find all kinds of precious wealth,

We will fill our houses with spoil;

¹⁴ Throw in your lot ^[c]with us,

We shall all have one purse,”

¹⁵ My son, do not walk in the way with them.

Keep your feet from their path,

¹⁶ For their feet run to evil

And they hasten to shed blood.

¹⁷ Indeed, it is ^[d]useless to spread the baited net

In the sight of any ^[e]bird;

¹⁸ But they lie in wait for their own blood;

They ambush their own lives.

¹⁹ So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence;

It takes away the life of its possessors.

Perhaps if he had, his conscience would at least be clear and he would not be ever waiting for that axe
to fall.

                All in all, the messages from the movie seem to accumulate to a common theme that seems expressed best in Ecclesiastes 9:2-3, “It is the same for all. There is one fate for the righteous and for the wicked; for the good, for the clean and for the unclean; for the man who offers a sacrifice and for the one who does not sacrifice. As the good man is, so is the sinner; as the swearer is, so is the one who is afraid to swear.  This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that there is one fate for all men. Furthermore, the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil and insanity is in their hearts throughout their lives. Afterwards they go to the dead.”

Written on 11/8/11 for my Intro to Biblical Literature class