I’ve been thinking about all of the God talk, and all the various descriptions of just what God is or isn’t that keeps rolling around in this forum and it seems to me that it finally comes down to who or what we grant authority to in deciding our particular beliefs. At the base of our beliefs, the best we can say is simply our opinion. Whether we give our authority to the concepts we were raised in, study all the available texts, scriptures, listen to this person or that one, have personal experience of, it still comes back to us - our opinion formed by any means.
In a sense, God exists to those who believe, but only by the authority of the believer. This sounds simplistic, but it has implications for how each of us creates the universe. Whether God as the traditional Christian omnipitent creator, a personal god, an impersonal god, nature as god, it still comes back to the individual: we create by granting authority.
Is this important? Perhaps not. But it does explain how belief can be different to different people, and why the discussion is virtually endless.
I now entertain all the explanations of why I’m wrong…
But then one might ask: Why do we so need to grant authority to another or to the Other?
Is it to escape culpability?
Is to absolve ourselves of the implications of being incomplete entities?
Is it a part of the social instinct which seeks leaders to follow and groups to belong to?
Is it a metaphysical drive for a return back to the beginning?
I can’t completely agree with you since this would bring about the end of the world, but I think you have raised a very important issue.
Our reference to spiritual authority is close to the heart of almost everything we talk about here. One’s acceptance of a certain spiritiual authorty by definition changes the whole foundation on which we stand. I completely disagree that it somehow changes the nature of the truth itself since one must first accept relative truth to think in this way (I think that’s what you are implying, and from your persepective it may seem like this).
Funnily enough I don’t see this choice as individualistic as you seem to infer. In fact I see the very opposite happening. Those who refuse religious authority by definition are standing on their own sorting though every issue from first principles without any help or reference. From my perspective, I find this approach unusually stupid, despite the fact that many intellectuals take it.
In contrast, acceptance of a spiritual authorty by definition places you in a COMMUNITY of like-minded individuals (however big or small). From my perspective one automatically gains the strength that comes from community and loses much of the weakness that comes from standing alone. Issues do not have to be determined by first principles, subjectivity is reduced, spiritual progress will be accelerated,… and everyone will live happily ever after!
True, I do not see truth as something outside of self. Given the obvious situation of only seeing from the tiniest of perspective points, it seems plausible that my truths are tenuous at best, and have nothing to do with another’s. But we’ve disagreed on this before.
The idea of community does give the advantages you speak of, but from my perspective, community is still made up of individuals making personal choices, from granting authority to government to granting authority to a concept of god. That we, or a group may share a common vision is interesting, but we still make our choices as to authority granted as individuals.
I would argue that standing alone is not a weakness. Iron does not become steel until subjected to fire. I see no particular positive in simply accepting what is placed before me compared to foraging on my own. In fact, while the journey may be longer, there just might be stronger conviction at the end.
But I suspect that our difference lies more in the issue of closed system/open-ended system. I’m quite content to let the mystery be the mystery since, from my perspective, we are allowed awareness, but not knowing.
I completely disagree (ah, the universe is returning to normal!).
I think our definition of spiritual authority is at odds here. I’m not simply talking about collective goveernance, I’m talking about concerete submission to authority in spiritual understanding. If I accept the Nicean creed for example, I am submitting my own ability and understanding in this particular matter to another group. I choose to give up my own ideas and accept the conclusions of another. I don’t simply retain my own ideas and go along with collective goverance. Obviously, this can have an astounding impact on the foundation of my spirituality and reduces individualism. I’m not saying I would choose to do this in all areas of spirituality, but I do in this particular instance. In essence what I’m saying is that if I read the bible personally and find some individual understanding that conflicts with the creed, I deliberately choose to see my own understanding as incorrect. How does that grab you?
Again, I disagree. Standing alone is always a weakness. Everyone is limited whereas the community is less so. Of course there may be unhealthy communities, but that’s a different matter.
— … it finally comes down to who or what we grant authority to in deciding our particular beliefs.
O- Switch it around and see a more interesting view: All our belief, those that matter, are already decided, and then we grant authority to what or whom best stands next to those belief. The belief comes before God.
— In a sense, God exists to those who believe, but only by the authority of the believer.
O- I like your take on the primacy of the subject. You take objectivity right out of religion and leave in it’s place a sound relativism. But while I might agree with that, depending on how I feel that morning, it is but part of the story. Wherefore God? We grant authority to goverment, to Kings, but why do we have to give authority? Why believe in goverment? In Kings? Or King of Kings? Certainly God exists because people believe, because people have faith, because people accept scripture that speaks of Hid existance and character. This explains How we believe, not Why we believe.
— Is this important? Perhaps not. But it does explain how belief can be different to different people, and why the discussion is virtually endless.
O- Yes, but it does not address why there is a debate going on in the first place.
Is this a choice you make on a case by case basis, or a choice you made once, and now you’re done with it? Can you describe a little what sort of process leads to this decision?
— In contrast, acceptance of a spiritual authorty by definition places you in a COMMUNITY of like-minded individuals (however big or small). From my perspective one automatically gains the strength that comes from community and loses much of the weakness that comes from standing alone.
O- It depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to discover what is true then standing by a community of fools will not help you reach your goal though, in compensation, you will share in the strenght of their perspective-- that is, your view will be reinforced, however wrong, by the agreement within the group-- and you will avoid the weakness, regardless of how correct you might be, of standing on your own.
— Issues do not have to be determined by first principles, subjectivity is reduced, spiritual progress will be accelerated,… and everyone will live happily ever after!
O- What is defined here as progress? That you get to all wear the same coveralls so that you do not have to choose what to wear? Is that progress? We’re herdic- err, social beasts, but this instincts does not demonstrates the strenght on a held position, only our own predispositions to close our own minds and comform.
Well, it’s still a work in progress I’m afraid. I can see the attractiveness of Roman Catholicism where you cede 100% of your ability to another (your priest, his bishop…eventually the pope). However, I think it is clear from history that this can be unhealthy, and I find Martin Luther’s rebellious decision to be the morally correct path. However, this has led to the idea that protestants should cede 0% of their spiritual authority. Again I think this is very close to making up your religion as you go along and you lose all the value of communal spirituality.
I don’t like the case by case approach either although I probably parctice it. It’s very subjective. I suppose my approach has been to read as much of the early church literature as I possibily can and cede spiritual authority in most matters to those who were closest to Christ. However, this is easier said than done since there were many areas of disagreement even then. But most of the basic aspects of Christology and morality can be found fairly easily. Maybe I’m trying to join an unseen dead community!
Few protestants appreciate the value of ceding authority. Probably my friendship with numerous Catholics has made me appreciate the value or maybe the vapid nature of modern protestantism.
How strong do you feel this instinct is in modern day America? I hear “Everybody is a herd animal- be your own person, be rebellious, question everything!!” so very often these days, in everything from ILP posts to soda commercials, that I’m starting to wonder if* an anti-traditional gut instinct is rising to dominance. Is rebellion a virtue?
Read ‘starting to wonder if’ as ‘fairly convinced that’.
I understand your position, but I’ll politely disagree - again. This is the long way around, but bear with me. If there is a personal God, it just seems reasonable that I, along with everyone else, has been given all the tools (mind/heart, or cognitive/affective) to understand and make choices without any authority but our own. We may cede authority (and we all do), but we must acknowledge that all such spiritual authority suffers the same fallability as we do as individuals. No mattter their eruditon, their granted status, their view or spiritual vision is still opinion. Up pops that old nemesis: ineffable. In short, I have the same capability to understand as the most reverend spiritual leader, and I choose to examine and make my own choices. What choices? Those that ring true to me (ineffable again) In essence I do that which my awareness asks of me, with the limited cognitive/affective abilities I posess. Is my understand correct? Correct for whom? You? Certainly not. From my perspective, I do that which any reasonable creator would ask: Take the tools given and explore the world. Make mistakes and learn from them. But be who and what you are as a part of that world. Spiritually, to cede authority to any but that which is, is to cede my spirituality to that which is of humaness and not godliness.
And for the same reasons, standing alone is the correct path. It is the community which lessens spirituality at the expense of fostering human acquiessence.
Hell, you can even stop hoarding the boxed macaroni.
Tent,
The problem with such a viewpoint is the simple question: where does it lead you?
Are you inherently smarter than those who have come before you? Confucius said that when traveling with someone, he was bound to have two teachers – the positive aspects he would emulate and the negative aspects he would seek to eradicate from himself. By placing one’s self in a tradition and a community, you increase your exposure to those teachers.
Let’s face it, if you (personally) make a mistake, you are likely to either completely miss it, or rationalize it as being correct action. In a community, that doesn’t fly. Similarly, when someone else in the community has incorrect action, you are able to help them correct it.
Sure, sometimes what the community decides is absurd. No question there. So, what it comes down to is a net benefit analysis, and I’ve got to say that the community wins here. I believe it was Ned who said that the rubber meets the road in terms of practice. When studying a text by our selves, we are likely to create totally convoluted explainations but when placed before the eyes of others these absurd notions wither.
For example, for a while I was working with a (mis)translated version of a passage from the Analects (Lau loves esoteric shit) and I corrolated the passage to a poem in the Odes. However, upon examination of the original text and in communication with others, it clearly became a simple lamantation that a follower had left. Stupid time wasted.
I like what you said, Xunzian.
I have a question about your view, Tentative (we all know where I disagree, so questions are a change of pace).
How does your approach handle the fact of judgement? That is, we all have the impulse to say "That guy's beliefs are silly/incorrect/evil". Under your view, is that impulse just a wrong-headed thing we need to overcome, or is there a proper application for it? I'm thinking of minor differences like Baptists vs. Episcopalians, as well as more drastic things, like Unitarians vs. Shariah-law Muslims. Most important, though, are probably all the in-betweens.
I think we are discussing the value of spiritual authority, not the criteria by which one choses to follow a given authority. I agree that it is an important issue since making a mistake can be costly. But no less costly than trailblazing a mistaken path on your own. Thus, the issue of choice is secondary. I don’t think Tent is at all convinced of the value of authority even if a good choice were available.
I left it deliberately vague so that it would be applicable to any given spiritual authority. For me as a Christian it might be loving God and loving others more often.
Maybe. But what if our individual understanding is limited? Given the limited nature of individual human understanding in other walks of life, why would it be any different in spiritual matters? Or did you build your own car and make your own iPod? It seems to walk your path one would have to believe that your individual spiritual understanding is equal or greater than the pooled efforts of every spiritual community on the planet.
Do you read books? Do you fly in planes? Did you go to school? Almost all of life is based upon the previous behavior and skills of others. We recognise that those who have gone before us have accomplished useful things and we use their knowledge as a base move forward. So, why do you want to start again as a cave man when it comes to spiritual matters?
Grr, I thought of another one- I hate having to post twice like this!
If there is a personal God, and we’re operating under the assumption that he gave us all the tools to understand and make choices, why can’t the tendency to group together and defer to appropriate authority be one of those tools?
— I think we are discussing the value of spiritual authority, not the criteria by which one choses to follow a given authority.
O- I believe that both are related. If you ask a christian why he is a christian and not a muslim you’ll find that most are assured that what their religions holds as indisputable is at the same time the very truth on the matter at hand. Again, I think that having a spiritual authority, a Book, a Church, a Pope, certainly makes your belief that what you believe is correct that much stronger but that is a deficiency in logic. It is an illusion. One chooses to follow what one believes to have value. Indeed, that is where it gets it’s authority.
— I agree that it is an important issue since making a mistake can be costly. But no less costly than trailblazing a mistaken path on your own.
O- I agree. Simply being an enemy of the people does not mean that you are not just simply a wild duck. But you can be sure that whichever path is takes, alone or in company, it will be taken with the belief that everyone else is mistaken and that you (or “we” if in company) are right. Because there are other different groups that offer the same values, the same perks and advantages, it does come down to the shoulders of the individual just the same.
— Thus, the issue of choice is secondary. I don’t think Tent is at all convinced of the value of authority even if a good choice were available.
O- “Good” is a value-judgement, so choice is not secondary, but primary. How would he know that a good choice was available. If it is good, it would be good in the eyes of tentative and he would take the choice. If he does not see aligment with the collective-- err christian faith, for example, it is because he does not see it as a good choice. Because he chooses in his mind what is good, to him that is, he chooses differently.
All this suggests that because the “goodness” of something is in the eye of the beholder, the individual chooses that which is “good” because that is what has value, and so might take him to adhere to Nicene as a Creed or to move away from such a Creed. It is true, that because he is a social beast that he might band to a group, or accept uncritically the faith of his parents as true, as valuable, as Good and only later try to rationalize why his choice is best. Yet, even if he does not take up the faith of the group, his parents etc, that does not imply that he is striking it alone, but might simply mean that he now takes another group as good and of value. In either case a measure of herd mentality exists.
— How strong do you feel this instinct is in modern day America? I hear “Everybody is a herd animal- be your own person, be rebellious, question everything!!” so very often these days, in everything from ILP posts to soda commercials, that I’m starting to wonder if* an anti-traditional gut instinct is rising to dominance. Is rebellion a virtue?
Read ‘starting to wonder if’ as ‘fairly convinced that’.
O- I believe that the question needs to be generalized. It is not that the instinct is observed in America and nowhere else. It is a human trait that is found in the burning of heretics in the Middle Ages, to the witch hunts in America, to the rise of anti-semitism and Hitler to the power of Marxism in Russia and China. It is a natural attribute I said, but it does not mean that it cannot be tammed to a certain degree and lived with.
The idea of individuality, of “just be yourself man”, when it adquires a spirit of being a command, leads to the paradox that in being rebellious one is the most comformist.
One man has an idea
a new idea that goes against the institution
the idea then grows
and becomes an institution itself
to be supplanted by yet another idea.
I agree that the issue of community self confirmation is a circular argument. But why is this relevant? I’m not claiming that this is the only or major benefit of community? Are you? Obviously if you assume from the outset that there are no good choices around, then you wont choose any. Which is why talking about choice is irrelevant until we establish that there is any real benefit to community.
Again you seem to assume that the only benefit of community is self-affirmation of your choice of community. I seriously doubt this is the case.
O- “Good” is a value-judgement, so choice is not secondary, but primary.
Not really. I already mentioned in this thread that I see benefit in Roman Catholicsim. But I am not a Catholic.
That’s like saying “things are the way they are, because things are the way they are”. It doesn’t mean very much. I may see many benefits in eating McDonalds every night and I may even desire to do so. But I don’t. Because there are negatives that outweight the perceived benefits.
Omar, Perhaps I answered your question in my post to Ned following yours. I guess the only thing I can see to elaborate on is the issue of relatavism. I know you mean it in a collective way, but my emphasis would be that each personal understanding isn’t relative to any measure but their own understanding. We may share a different understanding, but the isn’t anything relative about it. Ned doesn’t see relativism, nor Uciisore, nor I. We all seem to be quite comfortable in our spiritual understanding.
Xunzian,
You ask where does it lead me? Nowhere but to myelf and my personal spiritual awareness. This isn’t about how shall we live? even though our POV on our spiritual nature obviously informs us as to how we should conduct our lives. Am I smarter than those who came before? No. But I’m no less capable either. I can consider all the wisdom of the past I want, but ultimately I alone must grant authority. That was my point.
Ucc,
Judgement of human conduct/thinking is inescapable. Thinking that those judgements represent the “truth” is what I would have problems with. The differences between denominations and other faiths is the application of human interpretation and really has more to do with the how shall we live? questions than a personal understanding/relationship with that which we call God.
Ned - again…
Our individual understanding IS limited, just like the understanding of those we grant authority. This isn’t to say that I’m incapable of accepting the wisdom of others, or scripture, or words of people alive this minute. Accepting wise words isn’t the same as accepting authority. Alan Watts said it best: “When you confer spiritual authority on another person, you must realize that you are allowing them to pick your pocket and sell you your own watch.”
