Intellectual Questions Breed Uncomfortable Challenges

One of the plays we saw this past week-end, "Spinoza on Trial", challenged the social norm of Judiasm and the Church. One had to question which was of greater value or significance, reason or revelation.

Christianity has its roots in Judiasm but has developed whole theological systems to "explain God". Judiasm is more of a "wisdom tradition". The Christian faith in certain circles is an exclusive faith. And it is the theological tradition that underwrites the exclusivity.

Judiasm is a tradition that is handed down through the generations and is an ethnic identity, whereas Christianity is not in some segments of Christiandom. Christianity is a "gentile religion" and was underwritten by "Paul", using Jesus as a means to that end.

Judiasm is a tradition that is grounded in the real world of everyday life, not in the "ideal" world of an after-life. Judiasm is a humanistic understanding of life, not a de-valuation of human life.

Spinoza had the liberty to "think outside the box" of his Judiasm in what was called a tolerant Amsterdam. Spinoza's parents had fled the Spanish Inquisition and the Jews were told by the Dutch to remain silent concerning their religion. (The Dutch are Reformed and Catholic in thier religious background. ) Although Spinoza was Jewish, Spinoza had made a Reformed friend and had fallen in love with a Catholic girl. How was he to "be himself" apart from sharing his thoughts about God?

Spinoza's "God" was a god based on mathmatical precision that underwrote his logic. Because his intellect was a strong force in his life, he couldn't help but "think out loud" concerning his faith. But, his faith was a challenge to the ruling authorities to his Jewish community and the Dutch civic authority.

Spinoza found himself betrayed by the Reformed friend, and eventually shunned by his Catholic girlfriend. His thinking and questioning of theism was at issue in his trial. His mentor was torn over whether to stand with his student and his brillant challenge to "tradition", or to stand with his traditional community. What was he to do? Was he to loose his place in his own society to defend Spinoza, and what then? What about his own life?

His mentor chose to stick by his own community, even though he had to agree that Spinoza's logic was equal to none, and one could not question the thoroughness of his "solution" about God.
Spinoza's view of "god" was monistic. God was nature, or Nature was God. People's essence is "who they are". God was no longer seen as an outside source of value, but "what is" was and is God.

The fatalistic mentality has it problems and its benefits. Those that adhere to such a view can relax, and refresh themselves on the knowledge that all that is, should be embraced. But, is this fatalism wise? Is there no moral judgment or value? And what of evil? Is evil seen as part of God, too? Certainly, this is what scriptures teach, as there is no dualistic universe. God is one, in nature. His was as monistic view of God. And monism falls in line with a scientific view of man. But, is man only his physicality?

The real world does not function on such a view. The reality is, there are "weeds" and these weeds need to be seen in our own garden, as well as the world. And the judgment on the weeds are what we are responsible for. Terrorists are alive and well. Crime exists, social evils prevail and one doesn't have to be a "rocket scientist" to know that our society is being destroyed from within. How do we "see" the world and its problems? What do we think is important to do about it? These are practical questions that impinge on what one chooses to do with one's life.

Judiasm would see the need of rectifying societies "ills" and to do so, begins with the family. The Catholic tradition also would concur with this evaluation. The family is the environment of formation for the child and unhealthy families breed unhealthy children and disturbed young adults.

All the intellectual questions in the world will not answer the child's need for his family. So, Spinoza's mentor was impressed with his mind, but he chose to stick with his community for the overall importance and value of "heritage". The mentor was challenged to challenge his tradition's social conventions. In this case, social conventions were a more important value to uphold. Spinoza was banned from his community and his mentor oversaw the judgment.

How was the mentor to encourage the young Spinoza to 'think" and continue to do so? Was Spinoza's work important and of value? Why, of why not? Did Spinoza's challenge to his community bring about their own struggle to understand or was there a prejuidice that was born our of 'self-defense'? One must think about these things.....

Life Forms

This morning while having breakfast with my husband, we talked about what made human life different from other forms of life, or could we make that distinction.

Scientists understand life's interdependence. It views life from a wholistic viewpoint. This is why there is so much concern over the environment. Without environment, then 'life' cannot function properly.

This is also the case in human contexts. Without the proper environment, life cannot function properly. Life is squashed, squelched, and squandered.

But, is there something greater than the equality of life forms? Is human life no different from biological systems?

The irreducible complexity of the world and the human being is beyond human ability to understand. I wonder if we will ever be able to understand everything about the world and life.

Life is truly a mystery. In this sense, life goes beyond the material realm. Life points beyond itself, as a design. But, what kind of design is the question. That is what philosophers these days are quandering over.

I just hope they don't reduce life, otherwise, we are headed for quanity over quality and that would be a disservice to mankind.

Theology and Philosophy?

Theology assumes God exists. The question for the theologian is how to defend God in today's world of scientific exploration. Many have given an "apologetic" for the faith, as this is what the Church Fathers did throughout Church history. This is the stance of the theologian; faith in using philosophy to formulate thier particular theological "form". But, is faith in faith viable, really? How do you use reason? Do you depend on experience? I think this is a dangerous stance.

While the theologian assumes God, the philosopher does not. He begins with reason as his resource, but those philosophers who believe in God have faith in reason and seek to explain God within that frame through the disciplines.

Other philosophers, whether agnostic or atheistic, do not believe that God actually exists, but that God is a "function" within society or for the individual. These believe in the development of persons and societies because God is a needed resource for those whose contexts have been "barren".

Agnostics don't really want to defend God, as they are humanists at heart and think that this is the proper focus of life. If God exists, the agnostic believes that God's interaction with the world remains a mystery as we cannot observe God's intervention directly, except through faith.

Atheists believe that God only functions as an illusion in one's mind that is a needed representation of the mind, so development can occur.

Which one are you? Do you begin with faith, assuming God's existance, or do you have faith in reason, as God's gift, and believe that one can ascertain God in whatever one encounters in faith?

Or do you hold God tentatively, because there is no way to "prove" God. God has to be a presuppostion.

Or are you an atheist that believes that "god" is good because he is useful for a purpose?

What I Find Interesting in Language

As I have been intereacting on different blog sites, it occurs to me that each subject or discipline has its own language, which different "communities" or "peoples" use, understand and value.

I think that for one to be a good social constructionist, all languages must be used. For without the different languages, and ability to translate into other languages amongst the disciplines, then the disciplines cannot colaborate about the "whole" truth of a certain subject.

Since the human being or person is the unifying factor amongst all subjects, then one must ascertain what defines the human person.

Social scientists inform us that we are products of our environment. These are determining factors, while the more recent intersection of the neurosciences suggest that the human is determined by his DNA. Which is true? Both.

Religion and anthropoligists say that the human is bound by his particular context and understanding in his cultural framework. While this is true it undermines what moral philosophers and moral development has found to be true.

Moral philosophers and moral developmental has shown that the human person is a free agent. A free agent is determined by his free choice in a free society. But, what defines morality in a free society? This is where moral philosophy that was wrought in America's founding is useful.

I find that all of these subjects are profoundly interesting. And this is why I am wanting to learn the languages.

Stem Cell Research continued

This morning's paper had an editorial about stem cell research that got my mind back onto that challenge before us.

The writer was not religious, but was concerned over our President's lack of boundary in regards to stem cell research. The President was going to base his policy on "facts of science". Science cannot be an ultimate guide for life in this world, otherwise, we have dissolved life of value or meaning. This writer had been on a Bio-ethics committee under the Bush adminstration, so he was not speaking off the top of his head.

He was concerned that no boundary or definition about 'life" was a disregard of human life. Was any life "made" either thourgh in vitro fertilization or cloning of the same moral fabric? He was making a moral distinction of valuing human life, as to our responsibility for human life. This is where the discussion should be. And it should be a discussion that is free from dogma and ideology, but not free from reasoned boundary concerning human life, if we continue to believe that human life has any value apart from the 'greater good" argument. The author speicifically stated that human life was never to be used as a means, but always an end. That is good moral philosophy. I think most rational people could agree with that.