A Difference of Opinion: Foundations of Religion
Part One in a Three Part Series on C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud
To an extent, Schemer may be correct in reference as to why a lot of people come to believe or disbelieve. Few of us are willing to give up the time necessary to do a thorough rational analysis of whether we should believe, instead choosing to simply build up arguments after the fact to support where we stand. However, the cases of C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud are not typical cases at all. In these two men we see two of the most brilliant minds of the late nineteenth through the middle twentieth centuries who did more than simply follow an emotional appeal to their positions, and once there, they did not continue to sit idly on a sandy foundation, but continued to build a strong, systematic defense of their respective beliefs. Both grew up in religious homes and both became skeptics in their youth, but one returned to faith and one did not.
The two books under consideration, Mere Christianity and Future of an Illusion, demonstrate the opposite sides that these two men fall on, but with a distinct difference worth mentioning early on. C.S. Lewis builds up to his deeper chapters by first demonstrating the reasonableness of believing in the divine origin of Biblical teachings in a manner that can be judged by the individual, but Freud’s polar theory on the origins of religious teachings does not have a method to verify itself by. As Lewis notes early on, most people will agree that Jesus was a “great moral teacher” (52). The rub is that a man who was just a good teacher would never say the things Jesus said; to the contrary, Lewis asserts, a mere human saying what Jesus did would not be a “great moral teacher” at all. As Lewis put it, that is “patronizing nonsense.”
We must therefore choose one of the following options concerning such a person: that person was an evil liar, an insane person or was exactly what he claimed to be. Now, of course, the case could be made that the early Christians distorted what Jesus said to fit their needs, but it seems that the claim of the deity of Christ was so ingrained in the early church, it is hard to imagine that Jesus did not accept that attribute being applied to him.
Given this, we receive an easy way of testing Jesus’ claims. We should read the words of Christ and, it is likely we will find that these do not sound like the words of a liar or a lunatic. If he was not a liar or a madman, then we have but one choice: we must accept the claims that Jesus gave. Now, someone could argue that Jesus was sincerely mistaken about this issue, but that takes us back to the state of being mad; I might be misguided on my understanding of a certain mathematical formula without being mad, but if I claim to be the God of all the universe and am not, I must be either mad or lying – I cannot just be sincerely mistaken. Lewis says the choice is obvious to him; Jesus was not a liar or a madman (53). If we can say this, then we have established that the origin of Christianity is God Himself.
Freud on the other hand begins by demonstrating his theories on the origin of religion, namely, of the primal horde (53-54) and wish fulfillment projection (21). In this text, Freud concentrates primarily on the latter, but he asserts they are not different theories, but rather two parts of the same puzzle (28-29). Therefore, since Freud sees the projection ideas explained in Future of an Illusion as simply adding to his earlier statements, it makes sense to consider the problem of the “son-father relationship” (primal horde) theory of the origin of religion before looking at Freud’s primary theory in the book. There is one problem with the primal horde theory that causes a significant impairment to what he assumes based on it: the historicity of this theory’s occurrence is generally rejected today by experts such as anthropologists (“Freud’s theory”). That is, it would appear that Freud did not properly examine the evidence before positing the theory (Hick 34, Scupin 30) and therefore his own suggestion appears to fit his definition of an illusion (Freud 40). Moreover, as Lewis notes, when wandering away from the area of curing neuroses, as he does when discussing theories of the origin of religions, Freud is merely speaking “as an amateur” (89). The issue of evidence presents a serious difficulty in boosting this theory, needless to say. This is not to say that Freud should be written off wholesale. If we substitute his primal horde for Emile Durkheim’s view on the origin of religion, we end up with a bit more stable theory, and in fact, Freud spends a significant amount of time discussing religion in terms of keeping people civilized (Freud 17), something that sounds a lot like what Durkheim had to say. Freud also posits religion as a calming agent for keeping the status quo of society, rather like Marx (62).
However, the theory of religion as an abstraction of society has serious flaws too. Many religions, especially the ones that command the majority of adherents today, have at sometime, past or present, been destructive to the status quo of society rather than helpful in keeping it unified (Hick 32). Christianity may have helped unify the Roman Empire, but before that, it was a schismatic movement that was divisive to the ideas of the Jews and the Romans. Likewise, we can look throughout history and find cases concerning Islam, Buddhism and so on, wherein the religious sentiment did anything but aid in the status quo of society. This is a theory on shaky ground, to say the least.
Now, so far, it has been demonstrated that Freud’s attempt to get his foot in the door of arguing against religion can be quickly rebuffed, but C.S. Lewis’s argument, while not able to convince everyone who reads it, is much harder to dismiss wholesale as a flawed argument. Generally people do like to think that we can tell the difference between the writings of a “great teacher” and a madman, and C.S. Lewis puts the reader to the challenge of doing just that. In other words, the foundation of Freud’s assumptions, the “horde” and “civilization” theories, both seem to be less easily testable than what Lewis uses to base his rationale for arguing for Christ.
In the next part of this three part series, I shall consider the implications and counter-arguments concerning Freud's second theory on the origin of religion and consider the issue of moral law and where it originates.
Brain on Vacation
My brain is presently on vacation.
Today, I visited the local CompUSA, which is about a 30 minute drive away, to pick up some networking equipment for the Great Big Office Move™ at Church. In the process of moving, I'm installing a new wi-fi access point (an Airport Extreme), an extra switch (Linksys 5-Port), a WDS range extender (Airport Express) and, after all of this, I am suppose to get all eight computers back on the network. Did I mention all of this is suppose to happen on Saturday?
Anyway… back to my story. Two days ago I set a copy of the church tax ID certificate on my desk so that I'd remember to bring it to the store. Did I remember to do this? Yes, I did remember it… once I was in the CompUSA parking lot. The story worked out well enough, they still had a copy on file in the commercial sales department from the last time I was there, but it could have been a major hassle otherwise.
My brain has also been MIA the last two nights while trying to write papers. Last night, I tried to write up a 2.5-3 page paper on the problems inherent in Theravada Buddhism (i.e. most people aren't satisfied with a religion without a Supreme Being). This was an easy topic that I've written on a lot before, but it took me an hour to get two and a half measly pages written.
Tonight, I tried to wrap up a paper comparing some key points about Sigmund Freud and C.S. Lewis. Another topic of interest to me, and one I've spent a lot of time on lately. It has been a really big struggle. I've spent the better part of ten hours on it just to get together a rough draft nine pages in length (3000 words). That's terrible for me.
I'm not sure if its daylight savings time (likely) or something else, but whatever the case, I do hope my brain comes home soon. Or at least sends a post card. If you see a brain sneaking through your neck of the woods, let me know, it might be mine.
How's your week going?
Voting
Municipal elections are always disappointing; it never seems like there is enough to vote on to make it worth one's while to come in. Take today: there was some construction at the church where my precinct is, so I had to walk a ways to the entrance, then wait while they looked up my record and so on. It probably took five minutes from the car until I received my ballot. I then went to the Vote-o-Matic and was pushing my ballot into the ballot box less than one minute later. sigh
At least I got one of those nice “I Voted” stickers out of the deal.
Idiotic
My Case Again Ad Blocking for Ethical Reasons
Written February 13-16, 2005
Just to elaborate a bit more, since you seem interested and I am glad to provide the view from the other side. My main point I like to make is that I too am paying for bandwidth (quite a bit, actually!). If you block the ads, you are taking everything and giving nothing in return. I make nothing off the fact that you pay your ISP money — just like an musician makes nothing off the fact that you pay your ISP to download their music off of a P2P site. A better analogy, perhaps: if you pay money to go into a theme park and then take some small craft vendor's product without paying for it, will that vendor be comforted by the fact that you had to pay to get in and take their product? Probably not, because, just like you, they pay to be in the park with the hope that you will buy their product.
Anyway, while the end user is usually on an unmetered plan, my bandwidth is metered and will cost more if I use up my quota. To the tune of $1-$2 per GB, which can add up fast. If you allow the ads to come through, I take some form of “payment” and you take some “product” and we both come out (hopefully) ahead. I'm all for advocating blocking popups, since they invade your screen rather than staying within the page you requested, but if I trusted government more, I'd push to make general ad blocking illegal, since that is only a little site vendor placing a way of recooping costs on the page you requested.
I've considered setting things up so that my sites would refuse to work if ads were blocked with the option of paying with cash as an alternative. I've never gotten that far, though. I think it would serve its purpose though: few people would want to pay money to read my site, they'd probably much rather ignore my ad banners. Just think, if everyone blocked ads, every site would either have to be non-commercial or subscriber only, which would severely limit what we could find on the Internet without a giant bank account.
As an aside, when people complain about ads, I often encourage the use of Lynx or elinks. Since a text based browser uses less of my bandwidth when visiting my site, less harm is done than if people come and load all the “pretty stuff” but block the only thing that generates the profit that keeps the site going.
Well, anyway, I don't mean to keep going on about this. As you can tell, I've thought a lot about this over the years (I've been serving ads on my sites since 1997).
[…]
Now, to confirm what Ed said, the hit count is totally disconnected from revenue (although a high hit count might make you look interesting to advertisers that figure you must have something good to say). There are two types of major ads — CPM and CPC. CPM is cost per impressions, where I am paid for each ad viewed as in downloaded. Most ad blockers block the ad from being downloaded, therefore I am not paid anything. Then there are the CPC's, which have come to be the advert of choice, and of which I only get paid if you click on the ad. Therefore, in both cases, the ad blocking tools do deprive the site owner of revenue (unlike the similar situation on TV).
The other thing to remember is that since click throughs can be measured quite easily (in fact, every one is counted even on CPM ads), advertisers will notice if a site doesn't provide good click through results, even if an ad blocker was kind enough to download the ad prior to removing it from the page.
[…]
Personally, what I would like to see is a consortium of major ad networks get together and offer a “network wide” service that spans all of their networks. In this system, I could pay a certain dollar amount to avoid seeing so many ads on any network site.
Most people, I believe, given proper education of how revenue is generated from ads (i.e. that ad blocking does indeed stop revenue) and this choice to pay to opt out, would choose to keep viewing ads. I would. But some people hate ads enough that it might be worth $20 extra month not to see any ads.
Personally, I don't mind ads on a page that much. I do block popups/popunders and refuse to carry them on my sites as a matter of principle. I see those as invading the user's computer, even if they don't install adware. But, I don't mind having ads pop up on the sites I use otherwise.
[…]
Back in the day, the internet was free and text based. It can still be free and text based with a browser such as lynx. Lynx never loads the ads, but as I noted, it also doesn't load any other graphics, keeping my bandwidth bill down.
Sonnet IX
The days grow long and trees do anxious bloom,
Warm breezes flow and conjure up the flowers.
A flower small does wish for warmth to loom,
Returning coldness would his life so sour.
Summer's prophet does gain my attention rapt,
My mind, day dreaming, does ask of future,
But Sping's foretelling doth end up all capped,
Past pending warmth the Spring would telling err.
And so I settle in to watch the birds,
Whose long southern sojourn deprived us so,
And write patient, anticipating words,
As time, ne'er ceasing, does slowly still flow.
Let the Spring come and happy joy bring here,
To all those who for this did lend a ear.
Sola One: Sola Scriptura
I decided it would be of good use for me to work my way through the five solas of the Reformation. They are too often shoved aside, and as doing the posts on denominations made me think a bit deeper about the issue of church governance, I hope that this too will prove a useful exercise. I do not even hope to create a comprehensive consideration of the five solas, nor will I claim everything I say about them is correct; I am just throwing my thoughts out on the table, and I invite you to do the same in the comments.
The five cries of the Reformation are Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus and Soli Deo Gloria. The beauty of the five solas is that they express the essence of faith in a way that is simple and easy to remember, while providing a massive depth of implications.
Sola Scriptura“Every writing inspired by God is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction which is in righteousness.”—2 Timothy 3.16 (WEB)
This is probably the most often recalled of the five cries. Scripture Alone. What do we mean by this? Do we mean that the church ought to cast off everything other than the Bible as garbage? This does not seem to be what the reformers meant. The two giants of the Reformation, Martin Luther and John Calvin, both produced massive amounts of works to complement the Bible. The key here is that everything should find its root in the Bible.
Now some Protestant groups have gone too far with this, in my opinion. We ought not say that we should only do what is permitted in the Bible, but rather that everything we do should not be is discord with the literal word and and spirit of the Bible. That is why I am perfectly fine with worship music and potluck dinners, despite their lack of mention in the Bible. More importantly, that is why I am fine accepting the early ecclesiastic councils' creeds, such as the Nicene Creed; I would argue that everything within them can be justified with the Bible. I also see the usefulness of newer creeds such as the Westminister Confession, and see every reason why the average believer who does not take the time to justify every nuance of the Faith themselves ought to find the creeds authoritative. At the same time, if it is found that the creed does not agree with the Scripture, then the creed should be thrown out immediately. Creeds should exegete the Bible, never ever eisegete.
Now, of course, in some areas of theology we may try to interpolate on a subject (such as the Trinity) which is not explicitly nailed down in the Bible. The important thing is that a reasonable person, given enough time, would come to the same conclusion using Scripture alone. It isn't enough that I can quote verses to support my favorite doctrine for almost anything can be justified in that way, of course. I also emphasize reasonable time here because few people are going to be able to just open a Bible and immediately come up with orthodox theology, but not everyone's purpose is to be a theologian. As such, those of us who do not have enough time to start from scratch can carefully put our trust in “authority,” but should also test the fruit of that authority constantly against Scripture.
Let's take predestination. I've struggled with this, as many of you know, because I find it hard to get predestination to fit with God's love, for if He predestined some to be saved, it logically means he predestined others to be condemned. If I have no choice in the matter of being saved, then why would God not save everyone? This is difficult. The reason I struggled with predestination and did not throw it out in favor of outright Arminianism was that it continued to be the most logical way I could read many passages. It would be nice just to forget about it and find something easier, but instead, this has lead me to my attempts to harmonize predestination with God's love and freewill (see here and answer to question 4, here).
Back to the point — it is okay to move beyond the Bible, because the Bible simply does not cover everything. From contemporary worship music, to church governance or even some of our core beliefs, we will likely find that we must combine the revelation of revealed Scriptures with the ability to reason that God has given us. This is good and proper, so long as we don't let our reason or any theologian's reason take precedence over God's revealed Word, for we have all sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3.23) and therefore our reason is fallen reason.
In the end, adhering to Sola Scripture means merely that we place the Bible as the ultimate authority above other authorities. It is my duty as someone with a personal relationship with Christ to go directly to His Word whenever possible to insure that my beliefs are based on a good foundation. Just as I should never do something illegal because someone in a higher authority in life (such as a boss) tells me to, I should never accept something theologically wrong just because a higher authority (such as my pastor or a great theologian) says to. Ultimately, just as committing a crime for my boss will bring consequences to me, following heresy because my pastor advised me to would bring consequences to me.
Sunday Brunch: These United States
1) What state were you born in?
The show-me state, Missouri.
2) What state do you currently live in?
Missouri. As Christopher said, “this is going to be a boring brunch.”
3) How many states have you been in? (and yes, driving through counts!)
Eight states, ordered by how frequently I've been there: Missouri (obviously), Illinois (not much more surprising), Arkansas (see a pattern here?), Indiana, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa. I need to travel some, one of these days — I'm in sad shape, I was suppose to travel out of the country a few years back, but that fell through due to a family medical situation, so I've been to eight states and exactly one nation (if you need me to tell you which one, you didn't read this paragraph very closely).
4) If you had your choice regardless of cost, which of the 50 states would you choose to live in?
I love Missouri, and while I haven't traveled extensively, based on the factors I can come up with either based on experience or what I know about places, I don't have a big desire to move anywhere else in the States. I wouldn't mind heading to Southern Missouri, though; the Ozarks are just beautiful. Springfield might be an ideal town for me, not to big but not too small either.
I wouldn't object to living on the western border of Illinois either, but I wouldn't want to live in the middle part of the state — it is too flat. Alton is a nice town, though, for instance. Arkansas would also do pretty nicely.
Now, about states/districts I'd like to see: Most of New England, New York, D.C., California, Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, etc. I'd also like to poke my head above the border and visit some Canadian provinces (nothing particular — I'd probably lean to the east, but if I was up in Washington again, I might try to take a day and go up that way).
5) Which of the 50 states would you rather die than live in?
I have a very bad taste concerning Indiana. It is a fine state and has some pretty areas, but as a whole I'd be loathe to live there. But I don't think there is any state I'd rather die than live in. I love the countryside I saw in Pacific Northwest, but I couldn't stand the rain of a state like Washington, despite the beauty of places like Olympic National Forest/Park. I'd also be rather unhappy in states like Arizona and New Mexico where it gets so hot. Missouri summers are hot enough, thankyouverymuch.
As a whole, I'd probably avoid the Southeast too. I'm not a grits kind of guy, so I doubt I'd fit in there.
In Memoriam: Sic Transit Gloria Mundi
That phrase is a Roman proverb that is included in the ceremony of initiating a new pontiff in the Roman Catholic Church. Thus passes away the glory of the world. This seems like a good statement to meditate on when entering that high office, or really any position of importance; it helps to keep one humble.
Pope John Paul II certainly saw all the glory of his position fade as he suffered over the past few years from ailments. All the pomp and honor of one of the best known and most respected positions in the world does little to help with the cruel, slow onslaught of time on us. The pope died this afternoon at the age of 84. It is sad to hear of the loss of a man who did so much for the Catholic church with such grace and humility. Had I sat down with him to discuss theology, we likely would have differed in many nuances and even on few larger issues, but boiled down to the essentials, I believe every indication was that we were both on the same side. We most certainly agreed on the essential belief that is the heart of the Gospel: “Christ and Him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2).
Obviously, this is why the glory of the world is unimportant. Soli Deo Gloria. God's glory does not pass away, and so there is every reason to expect that His servant Karol Wojtyla is now enjoying the presence of true glory rather than the kind that simply passes away.
I know this news made me depressed, so I'm sure it is especially hard for all of my friends within the Catholic church. My prayers are with you and the church's leaders as the difficult process of transition to the next pontiff begins.
New asisaid Features
I've added some new stuff tonight. Now, you can use any of the smilies supported by WordPress on my blog (I shamelessly borrowed the graphics and related material out of WordPress so that SAFARI could do this ). I borrowed JavaScript code from Alex King's wp_grins so that you can simply click the smilies of your choice below the comment box.
You'll also notice a new “others said here” section on the side (to be distinguished from the old “others said” section that is now known as “others said elsewhere”). The two links there will take you to a “forum view” that shows the blog posts that have the most comments and the most recently commented blog posts. The latter differs from typical “recent comments” sections on blogs in that it does not list every new comment individually, but instead shows the posts that have been commented on, rather like the way phpBB shows topics that have new replies. This insures that one busy post won't hide activity on less busy posts; this is not usually a problem, but keep in mind I'm designing SAFARI to work on bigger things than asisaid. The inspiration of using a forum view for this comes from Kevin's blog from long ago that was based on phpBB — I always liked that concept.
Give the new features a whirl and let me know what you think.
I've Got Questions, Do You Have Answers
From the better late than never dept.
A few weeks ago, I took part in the questions meme with some excellent questions from Christopher. I was suppose to ask questions of five more people as part of the meme. Three of you asked for questions (that means two more can still sign up!), but I'm ashamed to say I never got the questions written. After intense study with a focus group over a period of three weeks an hour or two of thinking, I present the requested questions. Post/trackback below when your questions are up.
Kevin of Christian Hedonist:
1. Two million dollars is given to you, earmarked for allowing you to flee to some country outside North America. Where would you go and why?
2. If you were able to rewind and change one thing that you did in the past, what would it be?
3. Who is your favorite church figure from the last one thousand years? Why?
4. If you could design a job position for yourself without regard as to whether that type of position really exists, what would it be?
5. Explain your position on systematic theology.
David of DavidCentral:
1. How long did it take for you to teach yourself to play an instrument?
2. If you were able to rewind and change one thing that you did in the past, what would it be?
3. If you could move anywhere in the U.S. that was at least 100 miles from your present location, where would you go?
4. Imagine that you could only use a computer for one more hour. What would you do during that time?
5. Who is the best musician/artist in the last twenty years?
Kendell of Sparkle:
1. What is the one thing you would like to accomplish by this time next year?
2. If you were able to rewind and change one thing that you did in the past, what would it be?
3. You are on a desert island with a coconut, a nail, an empty glass bottle with a cork, a cup of Coca-Cola and two matches. What do you do?
4. How do you like your coffee?
5. What book has had the most profound impact on your life?