tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post6075354834475675420..comments2024-02-29T03:34:23.190-05:00Comments on Who Were the Sea Peoples?: Religion and Ideologygcallahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-42890839886358206952015-02-24T16:07:10.815-05:002015-02-24T16:07:10.815-05:00Thank you for this, it's a valuable frame for ... Thank you for this, it's a valuable frame for thinking about a very important distinction. <br /><br />It seems to me that most people must start out with ideology, and if they persevere they may ascend to religion. Unfortunately, most exoteric churches have lost sight of the proper purpose of dogma. It should be seen as a stepping stone or guide post to a deeper and truer faith (perhaps a vital one, but intermediate nonetheless).Gabe Ruthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06958214257606957422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-78390102449621155652015-02-24T12:20:02.845-05:002015-02-24T12:20:02.845-05:00Professor Callahan, thank you for your reply.
You...Professor Callahan, thank you for your reply. <br />You write that: "His differentiation is on whether or not the people using the religious symbols are using them to reach the experiences being symbolized, or simply using them as learnt formula"<br />I believe that even most legalistically minded Catholic dogmatists would deny that they are using religious symbols as mere learnt formulas. This “learnt formula” approach is probably the domain of people with shallow understanding or interest in their religions that are confronted with outright attack form similarly uneducated opponents.<br /><br />Also, it seems to me that there isn’t really Christianity without its dogmas (and, what follows, the condemnations), at least not the one we know, and it started far earlier (e.g. with disputes against Marcion and the Gnostics) than official dogmatic statements of Nicene Council and others. I might be wrong here – could you please describe a non-dogmatic Christianity?<br /><br />As far as I can tell, St. Francis, apart from representing a real irruption of genuine religious experience, he also was completely orthodox in both his teaching and his beliefs, to the point of trying to actively convert Muslims, sultan in particular. This stands in contrast to e.g. the Cathars, whose religious experiences were not entirely unlike St Francis’, but differed greatly in terms of creed (Gnostics, again!). <br /><br />What I’m arguing here is that unless we mean that any religious group can degrade into factionalism and use its symbols as merely declarations of allegiance (which is probably much less frequent than is commonly accepted), the differentiation as formulated by you is not helpful at all.<br /><br /><br />wywialmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10839436531140017459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-4303689033740965052015-02-20T21:08:47.985-05:002015-02-20T21:08:47.985-05:00Voegelin analyzed these issues in detail in about ...Voegelin analyzed these issues in detail in about 12 volumes of detailed historical analysis. Needless to say, I cannot do justice to this material in a blog comment. But Voeglin certainly does not limit the category of genuine religious experience to just Zen Buddhism! His differentiation is on whether or not the people using the religious symbols are using them to reach the experiences being symbolized, or simply using them as learnt formula. Any religion can become mainly dogma, but probably also always contains the possibility of breakthrough into genuine religious experience. So, for instants, St. Francis would represent a real irruption of genuine religious experience within a church that was becoming worldly and dogmatic.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-69606132402837114792015-02-20T12:51:51.192-05:002015-02-20T12:51:51.192-05:00Professor Callahan, you write that "Definitio...Professor Callahan, you write that "Definitions cannot be right or wrong, they can only be more or less helpful". This is certainly true when introducing a formalism and in sciences applying formal methods. However, it seems to me that unless you reject essentialism, the definitions should be helpful In grasping these essences and not “just helpful”. If you agree on this, there certainly is a possibility of criticizing your definitions as being wrong on the ground that they do not capture the essence of what we refer to as religion. Also, from purely logical point of view, the definition can be wrong when it simply does not denote its examples with sufficient clarity.<br /><br />Consider the following definition of religion: “an attempt to submit the mind and will of the people to some authority by reference to a particular order of being and whose existence has not been otherwise observed”. This definition, while probably not giving a very nuanced view of religion, will prove to be helpful when planning a political attack on e.g. Islam. <br /><br />Regarding your definitions, I believe that what you refer to as “religion” is encompassing e.g. science, which is most probably too broad and not very helpful. If you define religion without referencing cultural practices common to religions or common properties of their worldviews, you may get indeed surprising things.<br /> <br />By your example, a vast majority of e.g. Catholic or Orthodox tradition seems to be not religion at all (and mere ideology) and indeed any religious tradition that attempts to articulate itself in something other than myth or raw mysticism is an ideology. Do you mean that? If not, could you point to some other examples of genuine religious traditions other than Zen Buddhism, please?<br /><br />This may be influenced by rather obscure terminology of Voegelin (I believe that Voegelin’s use of the term “dogma” is very creative, similarly to his use of “Gnosticism”), but nevertheless very strange. It may be also influenced by your wide application of your definitions, because there is nothing in your definition of religion that prevents it from asserting that the being is not ultimately mysterious (how do we experience mystery?). <br /><br />But, of course, I may be wrong or may totally misunderstand you. If this is the case, please do not hesitate to correct me.<br />wywialmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10839436531140017459noreply@blogger.com