I have a lot to say about rationality. I think being rational is overrated. In an earlier assignment I stated that “I think that rationality has its place; it just is not very important when it comes to religious experience.” Now I would like to take that back and say that rationality has no place in the religious experience. Religion and rationality do not belong in the same sentence. The human religious experience was never meant to be rational.
It seems as if I believe that there is some ‘all-knowing force’ that has determined how things are ‘meant’ to be—but that is not what I am getting at. I am trying to express the sentiment, belief, or what-have-you, that rationality and religion are oxymoronic. A religious person does not need to be rational and a rational person does not need to be religious. In fact, being rational practically precludes religiousness and being religious pretty much excludes rationality.
In this age of science, where empiricism seems to be king (or God, if you want to go that far) everything must be weighed and measured, observed and recorded. Religious experience was never meant to be weighed or measured. Religious experience is in the experiencer (I just made up that word!).
Where does rationality belong? It belongs to the realm of the concrete. When dealing with objects—objects that one can see, smell, taste, hear and touch. This is the case for being rational, this is when and where it is important, has relevance. If you pour the water on the floor, it will be wet and slippery. If you step off the curb into a street where cars are speeding by, chances are that you will get smashed up.
Religion, by definition does not deal with what can be seen, smelled, tasted, seen, touched, heard and measured. It resides in the realm of the unseen. There is nothing in religion that is concrete. So I just wish people would give up trying to make it what it isn’t.
But is it possible to be open to all options, in reality? As we were considering these words, and teasing apart their meanings, Professor Pam asked a very interesting question; is it possible for intellectual inquiry (or any other kind, for that matter) to be carried out with complete impartiality? Can a person listen to the point of view of another or observe activities that are completely foreign and unfamiliar, and not bring something of themselves to the table?
I do not think that it is conceivable for a human being, raised in a particular family, having been taught certain religious values, living in a particular community, in a specific country, saturated to varying degrees by the culture and society in which he/she lives to be totally impartial and not to be seeing through at least partially biased eyes.
As a student of psychology, my opinion is that it is not possible to be completely impartial. An educated and enlightened person can certainly bring a certain amount of impartiality (or even a great deal of it), but one cannot expect miracles in this area. A person is only able to perceive within the context of his or her own experience.
He argues against Williams' claim that the very presence of someone with different viewpoints, invalidates the viewpoint of the other. I understand and agree with Philips' refutation of this, but I do not understand the whole point of the argument.
Of course, the idea that people search for and long for the divine doesn't enter your mind. How could it? You have no notion of it, so why would you seek it out as a reason for the existence of religion? I suppose you can't be expected to look for something, if you have no idea of its existence. (That, by the way, that is my objection to 'the scientific method'--one must first come up with a hypothesis in oreder to prove it. And since a hypothesis must be based on the known [even if the imagination may come into play] there's no way to study areas that are not known or thought of).
I do agree that society seems to need religion for cohesiveness, even though it destresses me what has become of many of the institutions of religion.
He makes these broad statements about 'religion' and really he is only referring to Christianity (and Judaism, somewhat). It is understandable that he should, after all, he IS a product of his time. But the fact that he cannot see that, really irks me! Its so very strange to me that this brilliant person who was able to see beyond the mores of his time in his attempts to understand the sexuality and the human psyche, could not or would not see how narrow his vision of 'religion' really was.
In my mind, his writing reflects his utter ignorance (and I mean ignorance--in that he has chosen to ignore--not stupidity--in that he does not know of) of the existence of other religions that are not patriarchal. To him, the word 'religion' connotes an institution that believes in a patriarchal god and that is it.
Yes, he is extremely reductionist, but, as I mentioned before, he has only really addressed that one main religion. He writes about 'civilization'. Sorry Mr. Freud, you seem to be only addressing Western civilization. What about the rest of the world, Asia, Africa and all the other indigenous people?
Sigmond Freud
Freud contends that civilization and religion have been created by human beings to curb the instinctive nature of humanity. That nature is very base. Without those controls imposed on them, human beings would run rampant over each other. These rules and constrictions prevent people from killing and maiming, raping and looting, stealing from one another and other horrific types of things.
He also says that up to now, religion has been necessary, because humanity has been in its childhood and needed such a 'fairy tale' to keep it in check. It needed to have devices, such as religion and the laws and mores of civilization to keep the baser instincts repressed. However now, with the advent of science and the scientific method, civilization is ready to begin moving into its maturity. Society is ready now to begin hearing the 'truth' as he (Freud) sees it. Gradually, people should begin to understand that they do not need the notion of God any more. And as science wins over more and more converts, all will be able to live decently without the aid of the fears of punishment wielded by an all-knowing god.
One point I have been dying to make is. Really, how well have those institutions, Religion and civilization been able to control the baser actions of people. The world is a dangerous, scary place and I'm not sure how much all the rules and regulations have stopped people from running roughshod over each other. If people want to kill and steal, they often do.
And the other, is, I believe that there are many decent people in the world who have no desire to harm others, whether or not they have been taught not to, or whether or not they believe in a god that will punish them if they don't follow his or her commandments.
If I understand correctly, Freud says that in childhood, every one goes through a stage he calls obsessional neurosis, and normally grow out of it. He contends that humanity has gone through that stage and is ready to come out of it (p. 55). I just cannot accept that it is a normal stage of development of childhood. I am sure that it happens to some, but to everyone--I don't think so!
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
freefeather- freefeather
Syndicate
