Religious practice for Philosophers - Essay Example

2. Sigmund Freud believed that religion represented unconscious relationship patterns from primarily early childhood projected onto reality as concepts of God, Heaven, Hell, etc. For Freud, the individual practice of religion was related to guilt, morality, and the relationship with the parents, typically as the basis for the conditioning that led people to religion. Freud compared religious practice with neurosis as it related to the unconscious forces of guilt through repetitive behavior. (Kessler, 2007, p.149)When discussing religious mysticism and the unity experience, Freud believed that the deep unconscious patterns of the womb experience and infancy were the basis of this manifestation in religion. (Kessler, 2007, p.148) Along with this, Freud viewed desire / satisfaction, feelings of security / insecurity, and the need to be accepted or loved as related to childhood patterns of family relationship. These also form the basis of the need for religion in the individual. Freud believed that the Oedipal complex was itself a universal pattern that was reflected in religious belief. He felt fundamentally that religion was an illusion, like a neurosis, and used historically for the repression of instincts. As human societies become more developed and educated, he believed, religion would increasingly be replaced by a rational and secular society where sin was redefined and guilt was not repressed. Thus, modern, cosmopolitan liberal culture and the sexual development of Western culture that has occurred since the 1920’s are an example of what Freud believed would occur when religious beliefs on the repression of basic instincts and desires were lifted by society through secularism. Carl Jung believed that Freud was too narrow in interpreting the Oedipal as universal and in basing all religious instincts on the unconscious behavior patterns of childhood. His work posited the “collective unconscious” and psychological archetypes that formed a type of deep human identity relationship with the universe and manifested through religious mythology and dream symbolism similarly. (Kessler, 2007, p.149) According to Jung, the way that the individual conceived the self and God or ultimate reality represented a gap that was to be bridged by the spiritual path or the process of self-realization. Thus, if the individual viewed the religious path as a means of self-expression of the Self’s highest values, it would be a valuable and healthy aspect of self-development, and not neurosis as Freud posited. Some claim that each psychologist’s writings reflected a cultural bias from their social position. Freud’s family was Jewish growing up in the pre-Nazi era in Austria (Vienna), while Jung was a Protestant German in the same period who relocated to Switzerland during the pre-war era. Jung was highly influenced by the German alchemical tradition, and he uses psychology as a basis to reformulate this religious philosophy into a theory of higher self-realization, while Freud’s own Oedipal complex may have been dominant and thus related to him as positing it as a cosmological principal. Similarly, Freud and Jung’s views on religions can be seen as describing their own highest Self and value systems, and based on their own understanding of the individual in relation to society which is also projected subjectively into the theory. 3. A theodicy is a theological or religious justification for the existence or appearance of evil in the world. (Kessler, 2007, p.161) As Kessler states, this is the simplest definition, for on one hand evil can be defined in all manner of ways as intentional pain, suffering, violence, death, destruction, cruelty, etc. but a theodicy is generally used to reconcile these perceptions of reality with a conception of God that is pure, true, the sum of the good, and all-loving. The practical experience of an individual living in the world contradicts the ideal of a perfect, loving God generally unless it is mediated with a theodicy. The karma philosophy in Buddhism and Hinduism posits a transmigrating being that exists in samsara, or a world that is fundamentally suffering. Through doing good deeds, the individual being evolves to higher states of consciousness and awareness, and through negative actions, devolves to lower states such as Hell or Hungry-Ghost realms. In karma, the individual being may transmigrate from god states of being to hells in a continual cycle for eons or eternities until finally reaching complete Enlightenment. (Kessler, 2007, p.167-9) Eschatological systems typically posit an afterlife where the justice required by the theodicy is distributed individually after death through the experience of the soul in Heaven or Hell. Kessler identifies “other-worldly” and “this-worldly” eschatological systems to emphasize that some may believe in an earthly manifestation of justice or ideal order to the imperfect world through the establishment of ages, descent of gods, pure lands, or second coming of prophets. (Kessler, 2007, p.169) Kessler sates that a participatory theodicy will make the suffering of the individual relative in the greater context or higher reality of the religious system. (Kessler, 2007, p.170) Participatory theodicies such as Buddhism or Christian mysticism may also stress an experience of self-transcendence where the individual goes beyond the ego identity that creates the suffering and experiences a higher state of being or awareness of the universe. Dualistic theodicies are based on the combat of good and evil according to divine or cosmological dualities established in the religious system of belief. (Kessler, 2007, p.173) Jesus and Satan in Christianity and Islam may both manifest in the world on this pattern within a higher universal aspect of God that fuses the duality in higher order. 4. In Monotheistic religions, the theological theodicy is often required as an interpretation by scholars and learned teachers or priests to make sense of the issues related to the experience of evil or suffering in the world, particularly because these religions also posit an all-knowing, all-powerful God that is the source of all goodness. William Rowe cites three reasons as characteristic of the inductive argument in theological theodicy, which are: first, if God is omnipotent and wholly good, God could act and prevent the occurrence of evil and suffering; second, if God is omniscient and wholly good, God could know and prevent the evil and suffering; and third, because of this, there is no wholly good being that is both fully omniscient and omnipotent. (Kessler, 2007, p.175) This is important, for if there were a wholly good, omnipotent, and omniscient God or higher power like a Buddha, they could theoretically or hypothetically institute a perfect world. Because of the distinction between the experience of reality and the perfection of God typically posited in monotheistic religions, the theological theodicy becomes a requirement of belief or advanced thinking related to the belief system. In discussing practical examples of theological theodicy, there are different schools within the religions themselves. For example, Buddhism has the Mahayana, Theravada, and Vajrayana all with a common foundation but which may approach eschatology or transcendence in different methods. The Hindu and Buddhist systems both share a belief in karma and cyclical migration as common foundation, yet some Hindu schools are based on deity worship and devotion, such as to Krishna or Kali, whereas others are yoga based and seek unity of the Self or Soul (atman) with God. The theology and theodicy arguments of each of the schools are different, but share and even at times dispute fundamentals, such as the nature of the atman itself. One example of a Buddhist theodicy represented in theology is the Bodhisattva path where the individual will reincarnate for incalculable eons, as Shakyamuni Buddha did, collecting karmic merit through positive actions such as giving or serving others selflessly. This can be seen as a type of continual progress in mental and spiritual evolution over a great expanse of time, innumerable lifetimes. In this view, the sufferings that any being may experience, animals, hell beings, humans, etc. are all the result of that same being’s previous negative actions committed over incalculable eons and continuing as karmic patterns. In Christianity, there is a belief in the soul and the view that bad actions are the path to heaven and the evil actions are the path to hell. There is a dualistic eschatology with after-worldly aspects as well as the chance of the Second Return of Christ, which would triumph the establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. For the individual soul, rebirth into Christ consciousness within this world would lead to a type of soul-consciousness where love, tolerance, and understanding would be made manifest in all behavior. This type of wisdom experience is also transcendent, and leads to a higher experience of self-identity in the soul. Christ mediates the after-life eschatology through the power of forgiveness for sins, thus saving beings from hell and delivering them to heaven. In Islam, there is a theological understanding of God that mirrors in many ways the Old Testament of Christianity and Judaism. It can be noted that the theological position in the Quran would be that Allah in the 99 Names of God is a multi-dimensional being or awareness that is beyond all human conception, including limited views of good and evil. If Islam is translated “Submission”, it is because fundamentally the individual must submit to the transcendent majesty of the higher power expressed in the unity of life, in all of the extremes of human emotion, terror, fear, deep love, understanding, wisdom. This vision of God also posits a soul identity and a morality system that is mediated by the Prophet Muhammad, who teaches the way of correct behavior, thinking, and understanding in order to be able to comprehend the majesty of God and the soul in this manner, through humility and submission combined with right conduct. The inclusion of a deity with 99 attributes rather than just “wholly good” allows for a theological position of the deity that is in accord with reality, as well as providing an eschatological solution and path of moral behavior. 5. In the “divine command theory of ethics,” the correct path of human behavior with regard to distinguishing between good and evil in life is given by the deity, either directly or through a prophet, priest, shaman, or other social mediator. (Kessler, 2007, p.187) Examples of this can be seen in the Quran as revealed by the prophet Muhammad, the 10 Commandments revealed by Moses, the Sermon on the Mount – where Jesus taught his most extensive philosophy in the New Testament, and even in the Four Noble Truths, Sutras, and other teachings of the Buddha, though that tradition does not view Buddhahood as formal divinity. The divine command theory of ethics posits a higher source for human values than the individual, society, and history, distinguishing religion fundamentally from humanism. Kessler discusses the Mutazila philosophers, Confucius, and Sharia as examples of “divine command theory of ethics.” (Kessler, 2007, p.189-90) Kessler discusses the fours sources of authority in Islam as being: first, the Qu’ran itself; secondly, the Haditha or Sunna (“customs”) of Muhammad; third, scholarly interpretation; and fourth, community consensus. (Kessler, 2007, p.190) Sharia means “religious law” in Islam and can be seen to be composed of these four elements. In the Quran, the word of Allah is spoken directly through his Prophet Muhammad and the archangels. This aspect of Sharia is direct and sometimes also open for interpretation. The first reference in interpretation is the Haditha, which represent the actual behavior of the Prophet Muhammad in life, as recorded by his contemporaries. These records clearly show many aspects of morality and proper daily conduct as required by Islamic ethics. When these Haditha also require interpretation, or when aspects of the Quran itself are discussed, a learned scholar such as an Imam will be the authoritative source of interpretation of meaning. These scholars typically have graduated from an Islamic theology school and studied years in the Quran, Haditha, and Islamic history. When there is not a clear understanding from the other sources, community practice during the time of the Prophet, or historically, may be considered as another guide for interpretation of scriptures as they show the example or larger context of the issue. In this manner, the ethical standards communicated in the Quran at the time of the Prophet Muhammad become a living tradition that evolves on shared fundamentals over the course of time in cultural expression across the Islamic world. Source: Kessler, Gary (2005), Studying Religion: An Introduction Through Cases, McGraw Hill Higher Education, 2005. Read More

Freud’s family was Jewish growing up in the pre-Nazi era in Austria (Vienna), while Jung was a Protestant German in the same period who relocated to Switzerland during the pre-war era. Jung was highly influenced by the German alchemical tradition, and he uses psychology as a basis to reformulate this religious philosophy into a theory of higher self-realization, while Freud’s own Oedipal complex may have been dominant and thus related to him as positing it as a cosmological principal. Similarly, Freud and Jung’s views on religions can be seen as describing their own highest Self and value systems, and based on their own understanding of the individual in relation to society which is also projected subjectively into the theory. 3. A theodicy is a theological or religious justification for the existence or appearance of evil in the world.

(Kessler, 2007, p.161) As Kessler states, this is the simplest definition, for on one hand evil can be defined in all manner of ways as intentional pain, suffering, violence, death, destruction, cruelty, etc. but a theodicy is generally used to reconcile these perceptions of reality with a conception of God that is pure, true, the sum of the good, and all-loving. The practical experience of an individual living in the world contradicts the ideal of a perfect, loving God generally unless it is mediated with a theodicy.

The karma philosophy in Buddhism and Hinduism posits a transmigrating being that exists in samsara, or a world that is fundamentally suffering. Through doing good deeds, the individual being evolves to higher states of consciousness and awareness, and through negative actions, devolves to lower states such as Hell or Hungry-Ghost realms. In karma, the individual being may transmigrate from god states of being to hells in a continual cycle for eons or eternities until finally reaching complete Enlightenment.

(Kessler, 2007, p.167-9) Eschatological systems typically posit an afterlife where the justice required by the theodicy is distributed individually after death through the experience of the soul in Heaven or Hell. Kessler identifies “other-worldly” and “this-worldly” eschatological systems to emphasize that some may believe in an earthly manifestation of justice or ideal order to the imperfect world through the establishment of ages, descent of gods, pure lands, or second coming of prophets.

(Kessler, 2007, p.169) Kessler sates that a participatory theodicy will make the suffering of the individual relative in the greater context or higher reality of the religious system. (Kessler, 2007, p.170) Participatory theodicies such as Buddhism or Christian mysticism may also stress an experience of self-transcendence where the individual goes beyond the ego identity that creates the suffering and experiences a higher state of being or awareness of the universe. Dualistic theodicies are based on the combat of good and evil according to divine or cosmological dualities established in the religious system of belief.

(Kessler, 2007, p.173) Jesus and Satan in Christianity and Islam may both manifest in the world on this pattern within a higher universal aspect of God that fuses the duality in higher order. 4. In Monotheistic religions, the theological theodicy is often required as an interpretation by scholars and learned teachers or priests to make sense of the issues related to the experience of evil or suffering in the world, particularly because these religions also posit an all-knowing, all-powerful God that is the source of all goodness.

William Rowe cites three reasons as characteristic of the inductive argument in theological theodicy, which are: first, if God is omnipotent and wholly good, God could act and prevent the occurrence of evil and suffering; second, if God is omniscient and wholly good, God could know and prevent the evil and suffering; and third, because of this, there is no wholly good being that is both fully omniscient and omnipotent. (Kessler, 2007, p.

Read More