The Nature of Doubt, Vol II

[Morfin]

ARCH EDIT:

This discussion originated in Insomniac's "Ideal Religion" thread, but is rather off-topic and doesn't really belong there. So in order not to detract from the original poster's intentions, I'm giving it its own, especially since I think that something good could come from this...


No "ideal" religion can be devised until one decides what one wants from a religion.

Does one want hope for something after death?
Does one hope for fairness?
Does one hope for a reward for being good?
Does one hope for a supreme being who will protect the good and punish the bad?

If I wanted an ideal religion, I would say "Yes" to the last question. Not only would I feel that there was a reason to be good, the bad guys would also be good. And free ice cream in heaven. That too.

[Archangel]

No "ideal" religion can be devised until one decides what one wants from a religion.

Does one want hope for something after death?
Does one hope for fairness?
Does one hope for a reward for being good?
Does one hope for a supreme being who will protect the good and punish the bad?

If I wanted an ideal religion, I would say "Yes" to the last question. Not only would I feel that there was a reason to be good, the bad guys would also be good. And free ice cream in heaven. That too.

I would want something that made me ask myself some serious questions, and didn't just feed me cheap, easy answers. Answers are the death of thought; fuck that shit.

[Morfin]

This will sound trollish, but I seriously am looking for your explanation about "something that made me ask myself some serious questions." Give me an example so I can understand what you are saying.

[Archangel]

Weren't you there for my Kierkegaard thread on the old boards?

Well then...


Basically, I don't like taking any thought for granted.
It's this misunderstanding of Descartes' teachings - wrong word, really, he never wanted his observations to become dogma - that has exalted a type of superficial doubt above all other thoughts: The problem with that doubt is that it doesn't take its precedents, or rather its prerequisites, seriously enough. You start with Foucault, and then you postulate that and how he's wrong, without trying to fully grasp what he has said, how he arrived at his conclusions, and what came before him that made him so revolutionary. It's an intellectually lazy apotheosis of the status quo: Everything that has come before must eo ipso have been easy.

On the other hand, you have a similarly lazy faith that professes to have all the answers to everything, no thought required. Which, in turn, breeds the aforementioned intellectually lazy doubt - which itself leads to easy answers, namely the opposite of the ones it wants to replace. It doesn't take much to say that the Teletubbies are fucking stupid and that your children's show is better.

However, when applied to things of actual substance, such as, say, Kant's critiques, Aristotelian ethics, Dante's or Shakespeare's literary works, and indeed the Bible, those models simply fall flat on their faces.

To me, reading anything of depth raises hundreds of questions, some based on epistemic thought, some based on today's experiences. Kierkegaard's treatise regarding Abraham is one example: Faith teaches you that Abraham was a very faithful man and thus was willing to sacrifice everything to God, while its opponents say that his is an example that shows how bloodthirsty faith is.

Both are idiots. Because stories such as his aren't there to tell you anything, they're there so that you can ask yourself some questions regarding your relation to the things that matter. And that this Dane (at my age, no less) would analyse himself through the exegesis of that episode, and then arrive at something such as the Teleological Suspension of the Ethical, one of the boldest thoughts in recent history - while at the same time praising Abraham's resigned faith - proves that that was what those passages in Scripture are for.
Anything truly great gets its impact through how it resonates within YOU. And that resonance is applicable to no one else. Everybody reads the phone book in the same manner: EVERYBODY reads Dante differently. The notion that everybody's supposed to agree 100% about Scripture is the single gayest thing about religion. Fuck you, stay away from my conclusions. Get your own.

Anything that blocks the next "why?" is by its very nature suspect to me.

Why does Christ, in His final moment, wail: "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani (Matthew XXVII, 46)"? How can God ask whether God has forsaken Him? It's a question of supreme importance in understanding whom it is that you're actually worshipping, yet hardly anybody fucking thinks about it. All they do is give you standard answers. And the thing about answers is that they are like clothes: The better they fit you, the less likely they are to fit anybody else. Something custom-made just for you won't fit bloody anybody but you, but it's a damned sight better than some cheap one size fits all piece of shit (staying with the Scandinavians: It's rather telling that regarding the same episode, hardly anyone had asked himself, "what the fuck happened to Barabbas?" until Pär Lagerkvist came along).

The problem is, that would require people to think for themselves. Make an effort. Stand still at the tailor's for hours and spend a lot of money instead of going to some evangelical KMart. To them, answers are an end to thought, not the beginning. And that is literally all sorts of wrong. It's lazy, it's dangerous, it's stupid. EDIT: Now that I think of it, the aforementioned passage says something to that effect:

22Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.
23And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.

"Why?" Always needs an answer. Otherwise, you're gonna look dumb, evil, or both. Their only reason is their conviction, which in this case isn't even their own:

16And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas.
17Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?
18For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.
19When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.
20But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.

And that simply doesn't fucking cut it.


Your faith may even be blind, but your trust in the conclusions of others (or your own) never should be.

[Archetype]

And the thing about answers is that they are like clothes: The better they fit you, the less likely they are to fit anybody else. Something custom-made just for you won't fit bloody anybody but you, but it's a damned sight better than some cheap one size fits all piece of shit (staying with the Scandinavians: It's rather telling that regarding the same episode, hardly anyone had asked himself, "what the fuck happened to Barabbas?" until Pär Lagerkvist came along).

So you mean I don't really want to kill my father and sex up my mother?