Bible as Legitimate Source?

There was an interesting in-class discussion about Margaret Fell and her argument for Quaker women speaking in worship services. Relating Fell to Harris caused quite a stir, ultimately it seemed like she, unlike Harris, took passages in context while arguing for a tangible goal. The question came up whether or not it is ever possible to prove anything using the Bible. It seemed like people generally agreed that in taking it as allegory it is possible, but there are various levels of convincing.

I think it’s tricky to legitimately prove anything (besides distinctly religious cases) with the Bible as a primary source. Allegories allow quite a bit of room for interpretation, and nothing is definite because the Bible itself is not composed of facts. The Bible is, however, a respected holy book; when addressing religious issues (like Fell did) it can be used as a legitimate source. She did selectively interpret the Bible, but also addresses how she justifies her arguments with the entirety of the Bible. Margaret Fell ultimately gained much more credibility than Sam Harris because she had an argument and a proposed course of action, for one thing, and she managed to justify her selective interpretation of the Bible, rather than take passages completely out of context and expect them to sound credible.

"Yeh, Holy Mount Zion"

Related to Ethiopian Christianity (Some Ethiopian Christians consider themselves Rastafarian in ideology), Rastafarians also used the Kebra Negast to glorify Ethiopia and its head of state, Haile Selassie (whom they call Jah- God incarnate). It was interesting to read how, initially, Rastafari promoted African supremacy (some still do) rather than equality. However, Selassie explicitly condemned racism in a speech that turned around that movement into more of one of equality.

The lack of structure in the “religion” made it quite interesting to read about. I don’t know if it can be called a religion, as there is no strict doctrine or worldview pressed upon its believers. There is a huge focus on the self, finding inner spirituality through various channels. The use of marijuana as a central aspect for “seeing the light”, and the abstinence from alcohol and meats were also pretty unique aspects of this movement.

I’ve visited the Caribbean a couple times and have been surprised by the huge glorification of Bob Marley (apparent everywhere) both times. My sister had completed a school project on Bob Marley and Rastafarianism shortly before (and she has been obsessed ever since), so she purchased a Bob Marley necklace in a small store (in St. John, V.I.) and the woman shopkeeper spent about 5 minutes discussing the greatness of Bob Marley. It was a lot of fun, my sister was thrilled, and it really stuck out to me as a unique experience to that part of the world. After reading more about Rastafarianism, and listening more closely to Bob Marley’s actual lyrics, I can see why he would be an emblem for the movement.

I can accept the general peace-loving, equality-promoting ideologies as such, but the religious aspects of Rastafarianism (I word I shouldn’t be using) are trickier to codify and declare a “religion”. Though, if considering the overlying frame definition of religion, this definitely qualifies as a frame for ones life, a way to live.

Trick or Agreed?

Reading chapters 1-33 of the Kebra Negast, I was struck by how it relates many of the same stories as the Old Testament of the Bible and, in doing so, how it often references the Bible. Ultimately, the meat of this book- the detailed explanation of the Tabernacle, the description of the Solomonic line of kings and the conversion of Ethiopia to Orthodox Christianity is unique to the Kebra Negast.

Even after the discussion of these chapters in class, I have a (slightly more tempered, but still) negative view of Solomon. I can accept his polygamy, because that generally accepted in his culture, but his blatant manipulation of the Queen of Sheba into sleeping with him is still difficult to justify. If Solomon was not supposed to be an all-good, just and fair spiritual leader to his people, his unfair tactics could be shrugged off as human weakness. In all other facets of life he is hardly equated to your average human, so why in this does he display a flaw? Perhaps it could be argued that it is not weakness, but his strength and cunning that enables his trickery in the first place. I do not see that. It was either basic human lust or the desire for a perfect male heir via the Queen that tempted him to act deceitfully.

Moving beyond what exactly King Solomon’s actions were, perhaps in relating his manipulation of the Queen of Sheba in such a way gave people faith that men still held sway over women. Their culture could continue unimpeded by a strong-willed seemingly indomitable queen.

It could be argued, however, that it was strongly implied in the Kebra Negast that the queen did actually want to sleep with Solomon (considering she was so enamored by him), and the deceit was only on the surface, beneath that there was complete consent from both parties. In that case, the Queen of Sheba’s indomitability would not be in question and no sex (male/female) issues need be raised.

The fact that the King of Solomon desires a male heir with the Queen of Sheba could be considered perfectly natural and appropriate a desire for him to possess. Maybe this in no way undermines his kingliness.

As I have established no real conclusion, perhaps I shouldn’t end here, but this could be argued ceaselessly without conclusion, it is so fascinating.

Chickadee-y Allegory

I am opting not to comment on the Harris reading, as my post would most likely digress into an angry rant, of sorts. Instead, I'm going to discuss "A Different Kind of Courage", or at least what the brief New York Times review had to say about it. While rereading the review of "A Different Kind of Courage" (after having read “Conceptual Blending” and the Zohar), I was struck by how easily Plenty Coups' actions can be related to conceptual blending or allegory.

When Plenty Coups and the rest of his Crow tribe were relocated to reservations, he took initiative by using traditional practices and blending them into the Crows’ new, foreign situation. He used the ancestral custom of going into nature to seek revelation through dreams to convey to his people what they needed to do. Plenty Coups' "dream" told of the end of the old Crow way of life, but also promised a sort of survival, provided they could listen "like the chickadee". The chickadee "had an established position in traditional Crow life", so the blending of this traditional symbol and practice (of seeking revelation through dreams) with the message to cooperate enabled other Crow to accept Plenty Coups’ proposal without a lot of difficulty.

Plenty Coups found courage as a "mean between cowardice and rashness", in how he coped with the situation. He proposed a policy of "wary and vigilant cooperation" with the U.S., rather than complete non-cooperation, which is what Sitting Bull sanctioned. Courage is another example of an allegory that, when translated into their new life situation, helped the Crow adapt to their new culture. “Courage had a very definite sense in the traditional culture, but this is now inapplicable, and so it is no longer clear what courage involves”. There needed to be a complete redefinition of the term, and in his actions, Plenty Coups exemplified this new definition. One could adapt the Crow’s specific definition of courage from “the military virtue of facing clearly identified danger steadfastly and without irresponsible rashness” to “courage, one might say, of lucid action, rather than indulging various kinds of consoling illusion or succumbing to blind but powerful emotional responses”. This revamped definition now applies to all cultural situations, rather than a specific few.

There were many other terms that needed redefining for their new cultural situation, but through Plenty Coups' use of conceptual blending and allegory, the Crow were able to pull some sort of a life back together. The human ability for this complex process of transferring well-known practices to completely foreign situations is essential in a situation like that which the Crow were thrown into. Without it, “nothing” might have continued to happen for them.

Reconciliation of Science and Religion

This is somewhat of a response to Carissa's "Blending and Religious Beliefs" post and Daniel's "Empiricism, A Religious Experience" reply to her post.

I agree with Carissa that "Conceptual Blending and Analogy" by Gilles Fauconnier was a fascinating chapter. We never think about how many "easy" actions we perform daily are actually incredibly complex conceptual blends. The computer mouse example really struck me, as it is something I use every day without devoting any conscious thought to it. Obviously, at one point in my life I had to consciously learn the coordination to manipulate a mouse about a computer screen, but by now that action has become so natural that essentially no conscious thought is needed to do it.

This reading highlights the "remarkable human capacity for building novel conceptual/physical domains"(Fauconnier 278). This is the essential trait for creating religious beliefs, and as we discussed earlier in the term, something the Neanderthals were lacking. Without this quintessential human ability, it would be impossible to link definite real-life events to abstract descriptions of them. Therefore, all abstract religious belief would be nonexistent and so would any other abstract scientific descriptions of nature (taking off of Daniel's post) like quantum mechanics or relativity. Basically, any way that people attempt to describe observable physical effects with non-observable causes (Dan mentioned electric field) would be impossible for humans without this conceptual blending capacity that Fauconnier describes.

Carissa clarified her position by countering Dan's post with, "when religion looks for explanations of phenomena, the explanations are very broad as opposed to restricted to certain situations like an electric field". I would argue that although the electric field is one specific case, if you combine that explanation with all other scientific explanations for other observable phenomena, there is a generally excepted scientific "religion". This "religion" is constantly evolving as more applicable theories are introduced to replace obsolete ones, similar to how religions are evolving to better explain human nature. (Which Dan mentions as well).

Carissa also mentions in her reply, "the scientific theory [of evolution] only deals with the evolution of animal species while the God 'theory' deals with the creation of the entire universe". I completely disagree that evolution "only deals with the evolution animal species" because, basically, it doesn't just deal with the evolution of animals. The theory of evolution encompasses all living things, not just animals. So, that theory along with other physical theories can describe the physical world in the same way that religion describes human nature and dynamics. However, it seems like religion also attempts to describe the physical world, so I'm not sure how to connect that with my argument. I suppose that I use physical laws and theories as sufficient explanation for the world around me, and in the same way many use religion as sufficient explanation for otherwise incomprehensible phenomena.

The striking connection between religion and empiricism definitely makes me want to delve into this subject a bit more.

Woe to the Wicked

The Zohar presents a less formal approach to religion that provides much more room for personal interpretation than, say, the Bible or Torah. The entire first chapter we read was titled, "How to Look at Torah" which advises the reader to look for a deeper meaning behind the stories presented in the Torah, and specifically to not take them literally.

Woe to the wicked
who say that Torah is merely a story!
They look at this garment and no further.
Happy are the righteous
who look at Torah properly!

The Zohar emphasizes how stories in the Torah are not merely stories, but allegories with much deeper meaning than the superficial. There are four levels of increasingly secretive interpretations of Biblical text (known as PaRDeS) presented in the Zohar, which closely analyze biblical text without imposing outside ideology onto them. In my opinion, the Zohar seems to be an archetype religious text. It strongly encourages personal interpretation, while presenting its own interpretations in a conversational way, interacting with the reader, not monologuing to the reader.

The controversy behind the authenticity of the work is pretty interesting, and the fact that many rabbis censured it because of its mystical nature (though many others held it in high acclaim directly because it opposed religious formalism). If I were to possess religious views of any sort, I would much appreciate a text like the Zohar to guide me through my interpretations, at least initially. If only I were a 40 year old Jewish man... (Though that has probably changed by now, hopefully)

Explaining the Unexplainable

When tragedies occur, people need a way of explaining them in order to move past them. We build stories to explain and make sense of things we can't possibly understand, and often those stories are related to religion. Religion provides a narrative lens to view historical events through and decipher them, and this is exemplified in Lamentations in the way religion is used to explain the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586 BC.

Lamentations describes the horrific destruction of Jerusalem as God's punishment for leading sinful lives. After acknowledging the faults of the people, the narrative proceeds to ask God for forgiveness and pleads, "that we may be restored; renew our days as of old"(5.13 22-23). They create hope by taking decisions out of their hands and placing them in God's. In this case, giving up control is a way to move on past the tragedy. Even though life is horrible now, there is significant hope that it will improve, because God is forgiving and basically Good.

As we discussed in class, there is a significant parallel between the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC and the 9/11 crisis in 2001 AD. People responded in similar ways to make sense of the tragedy, with both religious and secular narratives. The process of unloading emotional trauma in a creative way is a universal human trait. In any tragedy, the same sort of emotional responses occur as in Lamentations. Religion has a way of bringing people together, and post-tragedy, the last thing one wants to feel is alone. The sacking of Jerusalem and the emotional response of "the city" parallel many tragic situations and the typical human response to them; narratives are created to explain the unexplainable catastrophes in life and provide hope for the future.