Chapter 14 In the Presence of Mystery: Modern Religion _____________________________________________________ Structure of the chapter: The Modern Challenges

Chapter 14In the Presence of Mystery: Modern Religion_____________________________________________________

Structure of the chapter:The Modern Challenges to ReligionNon-Modern Religious Beliefs TodayMODERN RELIGIONModern Religion and Other Stages


Modern Challenges to Religion1. scientific worldviews2. secularity3. autonomous selfhood4. the tentativeness of knowledge.


The Challenge of

• Scientific Worldviews-- naturalism (no miracles)?

-- aimless universe? -- darwinism and its challenges (ch. 12)


The Challenge of

• Secularitygive up other-worldliness

to improve this world: seek to decrease

war, poverty, disease, childabuse, abuse of women,slavery, torture, oppression

ofthe weak, injustice . . . .

Migrant Mother, photo by Dorothea Lange, mid ’30s


The Challenge of • Autonomous selfhood

OR: obey God, follow religious tradition; do what the Church says.


The Challenge of • The tentativeness of knowledge

OR:




Non-Modern Religious Beliefs Today

Rev. Pat RobertsonFamous fundamentalist

Amish in the City –

And numerous traditional Religious groups today.

David Koresh,Branch Davidians, Waco


Non-Modern Religious Beliefs Today

For the essay exam, be able to indicate how these three groups – fundamentalists, sects like the Amish, and a “cult” like Brand Davidians –React to the four challenges of modernity.




MODERN RELIGION and 1) scientific worldviews


MODERN RELIGION and 1) scientific worldviews Three different approaches:

1. Segregate religion from science2. Unite religion with science3. Wait for further developments.



1. Segregate religion from science.



1. Segregate religion from science. We will review 4 theologians and a skeptic,

just to see a range of responses to science.



1. Segregate religion from science. a. Schleiermacher’s “liberal theology”

Friedrich Schleiermacher1768-1834



1. Segregate religion from science. a. Schleiermacher’s “liberal theology” Cultural context: Deism had eliminated miracles.

biblical miracles, the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus !?



1. Segregate religion from science. a. Schleiermacher’s “liberal theology” -- true religion = experience of the divine Whole on which the entire universe depends. This experience is “God-consciousness.”



1. Segregate religion from science. a. Schleiermacher’s “liberal theology” -- true religion = experience of the divine Whole on which the entire universe depends. Religion does not depend on external evidence like science does. It is entirely separate from science.



1. Segregate religion from science. a. Schleiermacher’s “liberal theology” -- true religion = experience of the divine Whole on which the entire universe depends. True religion does not depend on belief in miracles. [a concession to deism??]



1. Segregate religion from science. a. Schleiermacher’s “liberal theology” -- true religion = experience of the divine Whole on which the entire universe depends. -- all doctrines are just symbolic attempts to express the basic religious experience.



1. Segregate religion from science. a. Schleiermacher’s “liberal theology” -- all doctrines are just symbolic expressions of the basic religious experience. -- e.g. idea that Jesus is divine as well as human ?




-- e.g. idea that Jesus is divine as well as human ? Just a symbol of this: Jesus had the greatest God-consciousness




-- e.g. belief in a life after death?




-- e.g. belief in a life after death? This is just a symbolic way of expressing trust that at death a person enters into final unity with the Whole.



1. Segregate religion from science. a. Schleiermacher’s “liberal theology” -- result: no LITERAL incarnation of God in Jesus, nor life after death.

“Fundamentalism” defined itself as a rejection of “liberal theology” in the early 1900s. (See ch. 12)



1. Segregate religion from science. a. Schleiermacher’s “liberal theology” Rudolph Otto (the “numinous” guy)

God = mystery, fascinating & terrifying.This God can be found through religious experience or feeling, as Schleiermacher said.

1869-1937

http://www.epistemelinks.com/Main/ImageSources.aspx




In between Schl and Otto: Feuerbach

Rudolph Otto (the “numinous” guy)

More people accept Otto than Feuerbach

1869-1937



1. Segregate religion from science. b. Ludwig Feuerbach “inner experience can deceive us”

1804-1872



1. Segregate religion from science. b. Ludwig Feuerbach “inner experience can deceive us” We have a capacity for the infinite. The infinite scares us So we “project” a comforting image into the sky: God, made in our own image.

1804-1872



1. Segregate religion from science. b. Ludwig Feuerbach We attribute to this “God” our own powers of thought and free choice, made perfect. Then we submit to this fiction we have created.

1804-1872



1. Segregate religion from science. b. Ludwig Feuerbach He did not prove God does not exist.But he planted the suspicion.Both Marx and Freud used this theory.These 3 = “masters of suspicion.”

1804-1872




In between Schl and Otto: Feuerbach

Rudolph Otto (the “numinous” guy)

More people accept Otto than Feuerbach. Nonetheless, Feuerbach made people nervous.

1869-1937



1. Segregate religion from science. a. Schleiermacher’s “liberal theology” b. Feuerbach’s suspicion c. Karl Barth’s “neo-orthodoxy”

1886-1968



1. Segregate religion from science. a. Schleiermacher’s “liberal theology” b. Feuerbach’s suspicion c. Karl Barth’s “neo-orthodoxy”

1886-1968



1. Segregate religion from science. a. Schleiermacher’s “liberal theology” b. Feuerbach’s suspicion c. Karl Barth’s “neo-orthodoxy” no miracles but faith is God’s gift not something to be proven or disproven by science.



1. Segregate religion from science. a. Schleiermacher’s “liberal theology” b. Feuerbach’s suspicion c. Karl Barth’s “neo-orthodoxy” d. Rudolph Bultmann’s “Christian existentialism”

1884-1976



1. Segregate religion from science. d. Rudolph Bultmann’s “Christian existentialism” We do “ex-ist” in the universe.



1. Segregate religion from science. d. Rudolph Bultmann’s “Christian existentialism” We do “ex-ist” in the universe. Shall we then despair?



1. Segregate religion from science. d. Rudolph Bultmann’s “Christian existentialism” We do “ex-ist” in the universe. Shall we then despair? No: say “nevertheless” I will have courage, inspired by Christ.

Salvador Dali, 1954.



1. Segregate religion from science. d. Rudolph Bultmann’s “Christian existentialism” This echoed the position of Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

Fear and Trembling: Abraham.











1. Segregate religion from science. a. Schleiermacher’s “liberal theology” b. Feuerbach’s suspicion c. Karl Barth’s “neo-orthodoxy” d. Rudolph Bultmann’s “Christian existentialism” e. Mircea Eliade’s phenomenology of religion



1. Segregate religion from science. e. Mircea Eliade’s phenomenology of religion Experience of the sacred is “sui generis” -- unique. The sacred cannot be grasped by non-sacred methods. (Primitive people are closer to the sacred than moderns.)

[end of section on segregate]



1. Segregate religion from science.2. Integrate religion with science.



1. Segregate religion from science.2. Integrate religion with science. [First -- two people to ignore for the exam:]

G. W. F. Hegel (1770-1831)

Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947



1. Segregate religion from science.2. Integrate religion with science. A person to recall: agnostic Julian Huxley



1. Segregate religion from science.2. Integrate religion with science. A person to recall: agnostic Julian Huxley and his friend Pere Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J.



1. Segregate religion from science.2. Integrate religion with science. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin proposed a Christian version of Huxley’s theory

1881- 1955



1. Segregate religion from science.2. Integrate religion with science. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin



1. Segregate religion from science.2. Integrate religion with science. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin differentiation complexification conscientization: DESIGN



1. Segregate religion from science.2. Integrate religion with science. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin differentiation complexification conscientization OMEGA POINT-- union of all with the divine



1. Segregate religion from science.2. Integrate religion with science. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin OMEGA POINT-- union with the divine History of the universe driving towards unity: LOVE



1. Segregate religion from science.2. Integrate religion with science. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (He was forbidden to publish his ideas. When he died in 1955 they were still treated as dangerous -- But eventually:



1. Segregate religion from science.2. Integrate religion with science. Mysticized Science: mingle knowledge of the universe with experiencing it as sacred [ignore these names also: Bohm, Davies.]



1. Segregate religion from science.2. Integrate religion with science. Two more modern “arguments from design”:



1. Segregate religion from science.2. Integrate religion with science. Two more modern “arguments from design”: a. Anthropic Principle (“fine tuning”) The apparent randomness of the universe is not so random after all.



1. Segregate religion from science.2. Integrate religion with science. a. Anthropic Principle Also called the Goldilocks argument – everything is “just right.”



1. Segregate religion from science.2. Integrate religion with science. Two more modern “arguments from design”: a. Anthropic Principle (“fine tuning”) The whole structure and history of the universe looks as though it were designed to allow life to appear -- and us.


MODERN RELIGION and 1) scientific worldviews a. Anthropic Principle


MODERN RELIGION and 1) scientific worldviews a. Anthropic Principle



1. Segregate religion from science.2. Integrate religion with science. Two arguments from design a. Anthropic Principle Each basic force is finely tuned to cumulatively produce a universe with galaxies of stars heavy elements, making planets like ours possible



1. Segregate religion from science.2. Integrate religion with science. Two arguments from design a. Anthropic Principle Each basic force is finely tuned to cumulatively produce a universe with galaxies of stars heavy elements, making planets like ours possible -- and US.



1. Segregate religion from science.2. Integrate religion with science. Two arguments from design a. Anthropic Principle This is not Paley’s argument that LIFE is too complex to be the result of accident. It argues that life could arise and develop by natural selection only because the whole universe was finely tuned from the start.



1. Segregate religion from science.2. Integrate religion with science. Two more modern “arguments from design”: a. Anthropic Principle (“fine tuning”) b. “Intelligent Design” (all arguments from design can be named this -- BUT: )



1. Segregate religion from science.2. Integrate religion with science. b. “Intelligent Design” Wm Dembski’s design inference:


MODERN RELIGION and 1) scientific worldviews Three different approaches: b. “Intelligent Design” Wm Dembski’s design inference: Find “highly specified complexity.” Did it happen by accident? No. Do the laws of nature produce it? Did it have to have been designed then? Yes. NATURALISM IS WRONG (?)


MODERN RELIGION and 1) scientific worldviews Three different approaches: b. “Intelligent Design” Wm Dembski’s design inference: Find “highly specified complexity.” Did it happen by accident? No. Do the laws of nature produce it? No. Did it have to have been designed then? Yes. ALTERNATIVE: NATURAL SELECTION



1. Segregate religion from science.2. Integrate religion with science.3. Patient Moderation about Religion and Science “Modern” forms of religion usually say: Adapt when reasonable to do so-- e.g., Copernicus, Darwin

End of part 1 of ch. 14


MODERN RELIGION and 2) secularity Modern religion values this world

The Human Home.God-given,to be made better in answer to a divine call,to love one another.


MODERN RELIGION and 2) secularity Modern religion values this world E.g., Bishop Robinson’s 1960 Honest to God promotes “worldly holiness” -- Find God in creation and others. Practice religious humanism: trust that God empowers us to seek and achieve greater human well-being


MODERN RELIGION and 2) secularity Modern religion values this world E.g., Liberation Theologies -- Latin American, black, feminist


MODERN RELIGION and 2) secularity Modern religion values this world E.g., Liberation Theologies -- Latin American: preferential option for the poor and oppressed

Gustavo Gutierrez1927 --


MODERN RELIGION and 2) secularity Modern religion values this world E.g., Black Liberation Theology James Cone, "Black Theology and Black Power,” 1969

“The truth about injustice

always sounds outrageous”


MODERN RELIGION and 2) secularity Modern religion values this world E.g., Feminist Theology Recovering the story of women, giving them a history/reality, and equal status in the human family before God.

Phyllis Trible


MODERN RELIGION and 2) secularity Modern religion values this world E.g., “Deep Ecology”


MODERN RELIGION and 2) secularity Modern religion values this world E.g., “Deep Ecology”


MODERN RELIGION and 2) secularity Modern religion values this world E.g., “Deep Ecology” Older view:• Bible gives humans dominion over earth.• The end of the world is not far off.


MODERN RELIGION and 2) secularity Modern religion values this world E.g., “Deep Ecology” Newer view:Humans = stewards.Care for God’s great creation.


MODERN RELIGION and 3) autonomous selfhood A kind of humanism.

Humanism implies -- • trust in human abilities• to serve human well-being


MODERN RELIGION and 3) autonomous selfhoodHumanism implies • trust in human abilities• to serve human well-beingContrast traditional Xtn view: We are fallen sinners. Pride is the worst of sins.

Dirk Bouts, d. 1475.“The Fall of the Damned,” ca. 1450.


MODERN RELIGION and 3) autonomous selfhoodHumanism implies • trust in human abilities• to serve human well-beingContrast traditional Xtn viewWith humanism: we are imperfect but capable of great good With Xtn humanism, capable as God made us: trust in personhood, as image & likeness of God


MODERN RELIGION and 3) autonomous selfhoodHumanism implied • trust in human abilities• to serve human well-beingXtn humanism = “implicit faith” that acting “autonomously” is living by the value of personhood.


MODERN RELIGION and 3) autonomous selfhoodHumanism implied • trust in human abilities• to serve human well-beingXtn humanism = “implicit faith” that acting “autonomously” is living by the value of personhood.Recall: autonomy = taking responsibility through inner reflection and choice. This = “authentic human existence.”


MODERN RELIGION and 3) autonomous selfhoodHumanism implied • trust in human abilities• to serve human well-beingXtn humanism = “implicit faith” faith that Personhood is the ultimate truth – that “God” is the ultimate truth, that our freedom is an ‘image’ of that God.


MODERN RELIGION and 4) tentativeness of knl.


MODERN RELIGION and 4) tentativeness of knl.Can Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. treat their sacred texts and traditions as tentative?


MODERN RELIGION and 4) tentativeness of knl.Can Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. treat their sacred texts and traditions as tentative?Modern religious thinkers say:the Ultimate is infinitely greater than our knowledge.Even the truth of scripture and tradition cannot contain the full truth of God, Allah, etc.


MODERN RELIGION and 4) tentativeness of knl.Can Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. treat their sacred texts and traditions as tentative?Modern religious thinkers say:We should not be surprised that we are still on a journey of discovery about the Ultimate.


Structure of the chapter:The Modern Challenges to ReligionNon-Modern Religious Beliefs TodayMODERN RELIGION Summed up in last paragraph on p. 308Modern Religion and Other Stages


MODERN RELIGION and other stages of religionThe stages tend to accumulate: primitive + archaic + historic + modern


MODERN RELIGION and other stages of religionThe stages tend to accumulate: primitive + archaic + historic + modern historic modern

Archaic

Primitive



Modern can reject earlier modes???Better to draw upon them: imagination of primitive narratives and images of archaic intellectual and mystical sophistication of historic



Modern can reject earlier modes???Better to draw upon them: imagination of primitive narratives and images of archaic intellectual & mystical sophistication of historicBalanced by scientific understanding, secularity, autonomy, and openness to development ?

End of ch. 14

Documents

Chapter 14 In the Presence of Mystery: Modern Religion _____________________________________________________ Structure of the chapter: The Modern Challenges