Richard Palazzo has been following Jesus since 1985. He has been married to Theresa since 1978, and they have 5 wonderful, married children and (so far) 5 delightful grandchildren. They happily make their home in Lynchburg, VA. Rich & Terry home-schooled their kids through high school, with Rich teaching mostly Creation studies, World History, American History, Worldview Studies, Government , Economics and Bible (Theresa teaching everything else). Rich also taught classes to other families' children, presented at home-school conventions, and taught various church classes on Creationism, American History, The Bible and American Government, including "Understanding the Times," and "How Should We Then Live?" Rich also was a member of a team that taught "The Essentials of Discipleship." Rich and Terry were part of the Long Island LEAH home-school convention team from 2003-2010.
“I knew that the cross was simultaneously, the point of greatest suffering, the point of death and transformation, and the symbolic centre of the world”
I, myself, am only just learning about Peterson, but so far I find him to be one of the most interesting, engaging, and provocative speakers of our generation
The obvious question, then, seems like it should be, Is it?
I think it is. Why?
I have chosen to believe that Jesus is who He said He was.
Remember that C.S. Lewis wrote: “A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell.”
Matthew 26:63-68, where the high priest accuses Jesus of blasphemy for saying He was the Messiah
Jesus considered the Bible to be the “Word of God.”
John 10:35, where Jesus said that the Hebrew “Scriptures”could not be “broken”(the Greek word translated here as “broken” is lyō , which Thayer’s Greek Lexicon defines as “to annul, subvert; to do away with; to deprive of authority.”
The New Testament was written by Jesus’ friends and relatives and people who knew them personally.
What I find very compelling about these writings is that they often include many instances of Jesus “apostles” doing many uncomplimentary things.
Accepting Jesus as the long-awaited Jewish Messiah (and therefore, the Christ) allows one to find the epistemology, ontology, and even the cosmology of the Bible to be clearly stated, understandable, and comprehensive.
The Bible as “True truth” should be able to stand up against all scrutiny, historically, prophetically, doctrinally, ethically, and morally.
And in Archaeology and the New Testament, the author tells us that, “Archaeology has played a major role in determining the trustworthiness of the Bible… One of the greatest archaeologists…wrote:
‘I began with a mind unfavorable to it [Acts], …but more recently I found myself often brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth.’
St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, By Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, 1896
Simon Peter, a man who knew Jesus well, often considered the leader of the early church, once wrote:
“For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
2 Peter 1:20
This is actually from a very interesting portion of the New Testament:
“For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,’ we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
2 Peter 1:16-21
So what problem are you having with the Bible? If you believe in Christ, but not the Bible, then why?
“Creation eagerly waits with anticipation for God’s sons to be revealed.” (Romans 8:19)
That is, I think, an intriguing statement.
“For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. .” (Romans 8:14)
“The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ…” (Romans 8:26-27)
Isn’t this just religious “mumbo-jumbo”? What does any of this have to do with epistemology, ontology, and cosmology?
Taking Mankind to a New Level?
Charles Spurgeon, a Christian leader of the 19th century once said: “There is no room for indifference where the gospel is concerned — it is either the most astounding of impostures, or the most amazing of revelations; no man can safely remain undecided about it, it is too weighty, too solemn to be snuffed at as a matter of no concern. Foes and friends alike confess that the mystery of godliness is great: it is no rippling rill of dogma, but a broad ocean of thought, no molehill of discovery, but an Alp of revelation, no single beam of light but a sun shining at its strength.”
imposture = "an instance of pretending to be someone else in order to deceive others." (Bing)
What did he mean by the mystery of godliness? He tells us:
“(It is) the union of the divine and human in the Lord Jesus…”
Charles Spurgeon on The Great Mystery of Godliness
Paul (the apostle) said as much when he wrote:
” God chose to make known…the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.”
Colossians 1:27
What is this saying?
A very popular and influential Christian named Chuck Smith once said:
“God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to die for my sins, to provide forgiveness for my sins. And then…He did something else, He rose from the dead. And then He said, ‘Now, I will come and dwell in you and by My dwelling in you, I will give to you the power to walk this path. You don’t have it in yourself; you can’t do it in yourself, but I will dwell in you, and I will live in you, empowering you to do it.’ …That basically is the chief difference between Christianity and the other religions of the world. With Christianity, the power is imparted by the indwelling of Jesus Christ. It isn’t just pointing to the path and saying, ‘That’s the way you should walk.’ But it is coming in and giving you the capacity and the power to do it.”
Christianity submits a number of propositions, which it expects us to believe, and then it submits the life of Jesus of Nazareth as evidence of their veracity.
So what about the veracity of its ontological statements?
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away, and look, new things have come.
2nd Corinthians 5:17
What kind of creature?
My first thought is of “Superman” (as in Friedrich Nietzsche’s Übermensch).
Britannica.com says–regarding Nietzche’s overman:
“This superior man would not be a product of long evolution; rather, he would emerge when any man with superior potential completely masters himself and strikes off conventional Christian ‘herd morality’ to create his own values, which are completely rooted in life on this earth. …His goal was a ‘Caesar with Christ’s soul….’”
“This is why you were chosen. Because the strong man who has known power all his life, may lose respect for that power, but a weak man knows the value of strength, and knows… compassion.”
“God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God
1st Corinthians 1:27-29
Christianity, then, must be, therefore, what Spurgeon said it was:
“One of the most extraordinary doctrines that was ever de- clared in human hearing…”
Charles H. Spurgeon
The New Testament does not seem to be attempting to say that Christians are “super-soldiers.” What the Bible does seem to be saying is that the smallest of us–when united with the Spirit of Christ–can do far greater deeds than he ever could have done on his own.
“I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John (the baptist). Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”
Luke 7:28
” For by you I can run against a troop, and by my God I can leap over a wall.”
Psalm 18:29
“I can do all things through him who strengthens me.”
Philippians 4:13
What that implies, then, is that a timid young girl can stand up before a crowd and perform her viola recital successfully (and then go on to spend much of her life on various stages), or the fearful old man–when told by his physical therapist that his full recovery from a stroke could only come if he overcame his fear of walking on his own legs–somehow can summon the courage to stand and take those first steps to a full life.
Christianity professes to be filled (on a normal and continuing basis) with miracles that come when foolish and weak and timid and lowly Christians rise up to do good, noble, and even great things.
And this seems to have been true throughout history.
One article I found, says: “Former professor of sociology Dr. Alvin Schmidt notes Elwood Cubberly’s observation that the biblical teachings of Jesus Christ challenged ‘almost everything for which the Roman world had stood…’ (How Christianity Changed the World, Schmidt, p. 44).”
It goes on to say: “Dr. James Kennedy writes, ‘Life was expendable prior to Christianity’s influence… In (the days of the Romans) abortion was rampant. Abandonment was commonplace: It was common for infirm babies or unwanted little ones to be taken out into the forest or the mountainside, to be consumed by wild animals or to starve… They often abandoned female babies because women were considered inferior’ (What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?, pp. 9–11).”
Another site talks about Patrick, the patron saint of Ireland: “He was a Roman citizen of Britain (known as Patricius) who was captured by pirates at the age of sixteen and sold into slavery in Ireland. He escaped back to Britain, became ordained as a bishop, and returned to the land of his captivity as a missionary in c. 432/433 (A.D.). He is credited with expanding literacy in Ireland through the monastic orders he established, revising and codifying the Brehon Laws, and converting the country to Christianity.”
Researching further, I found this: “(In the Renaissance) Christianity brought caring communities with indiscriminate personalised care for the ill and aged. This ultimately led to the creation of hospitals as we know them today. Monastic institutions appeared which often had hospitals, and provided a degree of medical scholarship. “
And further: “A solitary monk who shook the world”–Martin Luther, who stood alone against the greatest powers of his day–the Catholic Church, and the Holy Roman Emperor.
And still further, in Britannica.com: “Though the impulses for transformation of the social order according to the spirit of the Christian ethic came more strongly from the Free churches, state and territorial churches made positive contributions in improving the status quo. In 17th- and 18th-century Germany, Lutheranclergy, such as August Francke (1663–1727), were active in establishing poorhouses, orphanages, schools, and hospitals.
” In England, Anglican clerics (and, especially, John Wesley and the Methodists)…began a Christian social movement during the Industrial Revolution that brought Christian influence to the conditions of life and work in industry…(and) in 1848, the year of the publication of the Communist Manifesto and a wave of revolutions across Europe (English Christians) were concerned with social issues, prison reform, and care of the mentally ill.”
Britannica.com also tells us about William Wilberforce, whose “abolitionism was derived in part from evangelical Christianity, to which he was converted in 1784–85. His spiritual adviser became John Newton, a former slave trader who had repented and who had been the pastor at Wilberforce’s church when he was a child. In 1787 Wilberforce helped to found…the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade—the latter more commonly called the Anti-Slavery Society.”
And lastly, we quote from David McCullough’s wonderful book, 1776:
“(George Washington) was not a brilliant strategist or tactician (like Napoleon)… At several crucial moments he had shown marked indecisiveness. He had made serious mistakes in judgment…(but) he never gave up… (And) for those who had been with Washington and who know what a close call it was at the beginning–how often circumstance, storms, contrary winds, the oddities or strengths of individual character had made the difference–the outcome (of the America War for Independence) seemed little short of a miracle.”
David McCullough, 1776
A prayer attributed to Washington reads: “Oh, eternal and everlasting God, direct my thoughts, words and work. Wash away my sins in the immaculate blood of the Lamb and purge my heart by Thy Holy Spirit. Daily, frame me more and more in the likeness of Thy son, Jesus Christ, that living in Thy fear, and dying in Thy favor, I may in thy appointed time obtain the resurrection of the justified unto eternal life. Bless, O Lord, the whole race of mankind and let the world be filled with the knowledge of Thee and Thy son, Jesus Christ.”
“We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man. We have all seen this when doing arithmetic.”
C.S. Lewis (in Mere Christianity)
Before going on with our study, we must begin, as Lewis did, with the clear understanding that that our purpose here is not to be–what he would call–a “religionist.” Our purpose–as always–is to think clearly and accurately (about history, current events, and the world we live in).
Our underlying, foundational method (algorithm, if you will), has been to look for an epistemology, ontology, and cosmology we can accept without reservation and build a worldview through which we can understand life.
algorithm = "a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations..." (Bing)
Now when we talk about Christianity, we must first recognize that it was founded by Jews (similarly to the founding of Buddhism by Hindus). Let’s start, then, with the Hebrew Scriptures (what Christians call the Old Testament).
” Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; forasmuch as they broke My covenant, although I was a lord over them, saith the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the LORD, I will put My law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people; and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying: ‘Know the LORD’; for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.”
Jeremiah 31:30-33
But let us quickly depart from the theological and religious aspects of all this, and try to keep to our previous course.
I found an interesting paper which says the following:
“Epistemology is one’s view or theory of knowledge, and as a discipline, it seeks to respond to the following kinds of questions. What is the nature, or what are the features of knowledge? What can we know? Are there things we cannot know? What are the sources of knowledge? How is knowledge justified? What are the limits in attempting to justify knowledge? And so on…
“…In accordance with the biblical view of humanity as a differentiated totality rather than as a being composed of body and soul, knowledge is an activity in which the whole person—intellect, emotion, will—participates. The heart and all its faculties as the defining element of a person are central to the knowing process as a totality.”
Based on this, it seems that the Hebrew house might be thought of as being one story, while the Christian house might be thought of being a second-story addition to the house.
But that seems like an over-simplification. New Testament ontology is different in several distinct ways. To begin with, Christians not only believe that Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah (“Christos” or “Christ” in Greek) of Judaism. They believe that He was God Himself.
Christ = anointed; (e.g., the 'Messiah')
“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about (Jesus): I’m ready to accept (Him) as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”
Another thing that Christians believe, is that Christ, after being crucified by the Romans, was resurrected–that is raised from the dead, and that He is no longer dead but alive, where He sits in a throne in heaven, at the right hand of God.
” The LORD said to my Lord, Sit you at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool. “
Psalm 110:1
So, from an ontological point of view, heaven is like a throne room, where God sits as a King, and Jesus sits in a favored place–like the “right-hand man.”
This idea is actually corroborated throughout both the Old and New Testaments in several places:
“In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple.”
Isaiah 6:1
“I watched till thrones were put in place, And the Ancient of Days was seated…
A thousand thousands ministered to Him; Ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him.”
Daniel 7:9-10
“At once I was in the Spirit, and behold, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne.”
Revelation 4:2
So there is a God. But Jesus is also God. This is part of what Christians call the Trinity.
Trinity = "In Christian doctrine, the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead." (Britannica.com)
In the New Testament, we are told:
“Everything was created by Him (meaning Christ), in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible…”
Colossians 1:16
We are also told:
“In the beginning was the Word (again referring to Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning (God’s right hand man?). All things were created through Him, and apart from Him not one thing was created…”
John 1:1-3
So, as difficult as any of this may be to believe, these are the New Testament’s propositions.
“Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse…”
I ran across something, though, by someone named John Stuart Mill, a critic of Christianity, whom the “Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy” says: “profoundly influenced the shape of nineteenth century British thought and political discourse… His substantial corpus of works includes texts in logic, epistemology, economics, social and political philosophy, ethics, metaphysics, religion, and current affairs.”
“But about the life and sayings of Jesus there is a stamp of personal originality combined with profundity of insight….in the very first rank of men of sublime genius of whom our species can boast. When this pre-eminent genius is combined with the qualities of probably the greatest moral reformer, and martyr to that mission, who ever existed upon earth, religion cannot be said to have made a bad choice in pitching on this man as the ideal representative and guide of humanity; nor, even now, would it be easy, even for an unbeliever, to find a better translation of the rule of virtue from the abstract into the concrete, than to endeavor so to live that Christ would approve our life.”
So belief in Jesus Christ as the Jewish Messiah seems to be the apparent linchpin of Christianity’s epistemological and ontological system of propositions.
What about cosmology?
Well, here, my thinking was inspired by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , specifically their site called Cosmology and Theology. There they raise an interesting idea:
“According to traditional Christian theism, creation ex nihilo is miraculous—something which the laws of nature cannot explain. But then why should a theist expect to be able to derive creation ex nihilo from the laws of nature? Compare with other supposed miracles, e.g., within Christianity the claim that Jesus changed water into wine. Do Christian theists claim that chemistry should predict that water can transform into wine?”
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Cosmology and Theology)
In this they refer to John 2:1-11, which records Jesus’ first miracle.
miracle = "an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs" (Mirriam-Webster)
The idea, then, is that Jesus created the wine with the appearance and properties of real wine, to such an extent that:
” When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, ‘Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.'”
John 2:9-10
So, this dude–this “master of the feast” (the Maitre d’ ?) tastes the wine and (presumably based on the skills and experience that landed him the gig) thinks the stuff is ‘the good wine’?
Wait one moment… Let’s pause here and think about this…
Is that suggesting a possibility that a guy like Charles Lyell might look at the striated layers of the geologic column, and (mistakenly) assume that it was laid down through natural processes over millions of years?
And… so… may that also mean that a fellow like Charles Darwin (as sincere as he might have been) may havebeen mistaken, when in the Galapagos, Darwin first postulated the idea that animals and humans shared a common ancestry.
“Reuven, I did not want my Daniel to become like my brother, may he rest in peace. Better I should have had no son at all than to have a brilliant son who had no soul. I looked at my Daniel when he was four years old, and I said to myself, How will I teach this mind what it is to have a soul? How will I teach this mind to understand pain? How will I teach it to want to take on another person’s suffering? How will I do this and not lose my son, my precious son whom I love as I love the Master of the Universe Himself? How will I do this and not cause my son, God forbid, to abandon the Master of the Universe and His Commandments? How could I teach my son the way I was taught by my father and not drive him away from Torah? Because this is America, Reuven. This is not Europe. It is an open world here. Here there are libraries and books and schools. Here there are great universities that do not concern themselves with how many Jewish students they have. I did not want to drive my son away from God, but I did not want him to grow up a mind without a soul. I knew already when he was a boy that I could not prevent his mind from going to the world for knowledge. I knew in my heart that it might prevent him from taking my place. But I had to prevent it from driving him away completely from the Master of the Universe. And I had to make certain his soul would be the soul of a tzaddik no matter what he did with his life.”
tzaddik = a righteous and saintly person by Jewish religious standards (Mirriam-Webster)
In investigating the connection between Judaism and righteousness, I found this: “The lifestyle of the religious Jew is based on certain underlying theological assumptions about God and His role in history. Clearly, the belief that He is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, Who revealed His Law to Israel at Mt. Sinai, has profound practical implications for the Jew and for all humanity. That man is accountable to God for his deeds and that he is expected to realize a spiritual purpose in his life transform him from a highly developed animal into a transcendental being. Most certainly, then, Judaism does affirm basic faith principles.”
Let us, then, look into these principles.
principle = "a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning." (Bing)
proposition = "a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion" (Bing)
What, then, are the propositions of Judaism?
One site says: “Jews believe that there is a single God who not only created the universe, but with whom every Jew can have an individual and personal relationship.
“They believe that God continues to work in the world, affecting everything that people do.
The Jewish relationship with God is a covenant relationship. In exchange for the many good deeds that God has done and continues to do for the Jewish People…
The Jews keep God’s laws
The Jews seek to bring holiness into every aspect of their lives.”
Some thoughts immediately come to mind…
What about their slaughter of the Canaanites, an earlier nation that had inhabited the Levant?
What about supposed miracles, such as “crossing” the Red Sea and the destruction of the wall of Jericho?
What about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and the holocaust associated with the Nazis during World War II?
Well, those are good questions, but first I’m interested in what a covenant relationship is.
covenant = "an agreement"
in law, "a contract drawn up by deed" (Bing)
Ok, so we are to understand that God has a special agreement or contract with the Jewish people (as opposed to non-Jews, or gentiles). Is this correct?
“This idea is a recurring theme in Jewish liturgy and is expressed in many passages of Scripture.”
Britannica.com (“Chosen People”)
Hebrew Scripture = "Tanakh," "collection of writings that was first compiled as the sacred books of the Jewish people..."
I found one site, though, that took a head-on point-of-view: “The commandments of the Torah…
Torah = "the first five books of the Hebrew Bible..." (Britannica.com)
…concerning the conquest of the land of Canaan by the Hebrews who had come out of Egypt are particularly violent and shocking to people today. Taken literally, they call for the total extermination of the native tribes of the land, as is shown in (Deuteronomy 7:2)… Later, a long passage from the Book of Joshua relates the meticulous and systematic implementation of this extermination (Joshua 10:28-30).”
“The reason, for such intransigence,” they say, “is quite clear (referring to Exodus 23:32-33)… As strange as it may seem today, idolatry is described as being the object of great temptation… The fear, furthermore, that the will towards idolatry is infectious is such that it leaves room for neither tolerance nor compromise, almost as though Hebrew civilisation itself were at risk.”
Going on, they say: “As difficult as it is for us to accept that entire peoples were slated for massacre at the order of God, it is not necessary that the animosity reflected in such orders be seen as fundamentally racist because the same set of values is applied to the Israelites themselves after leaving Egypt. After the incident with the Golden Calf, for example, God undertakes to annihilate the Hebrew nation as well. Indeed, had Moses’ intercession not have been successful, the people’s punishment would surely not have been diluted through half-measures and passing time (Exodus 32:14, 33-35). Similarly, a divine plague killed 24,000 people in the wake of the Baal Peor apostasy—so one can hardly argue that it is only alien nations that risk annihilation when they behave contrary to the will of the divine! In that case, had it not been for the intercession of Pinchas, the number of dead would surely have been even higher (cf. Numbers 28:5-11). Eventually, this severe stance towards idolatry finds its natural conclusion in the lesson of Scripture according to which a city in Israel that gives itself totally over to idolatry is to be totally annihilated and its inhabitants executed en masse (cf. Deuteronomy 13:13-19).”
In other words, the God of the Hebrew Scriptures seems to present a covenant to His “chosen people” that includes blessings (Deuteronomy 28:1-14) andcurses (Deuteronomy 28:15-69).
So that might explain our 3rd question: What about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and the holocaust associated with the Nazis during World War II ?
The Nazis
I am guessing, then, that those first 14 verses containing the “blessings” must be pretty great, considering the 54 (!) verses of “curses.” Let’s take a look.
1 And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all His commandments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all the nations of the earth. 2 And all these blessings shall come upon thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God. 3 Blessed shalt thou be in the city, and blessed shalt thou be in the field. 4 Blessed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, and the fruit of thy cattle, the increase of thy kine, and the young of thy flock. 5 Blessed shall be thy basket and thy kneading-trough. 6 Blessed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and blessed shalt thou be when thou goest out. 7 The LORD will cause thine enemies that rise up against thee to be smitten before thee; they shall come out against thee one way, and shall flee before thee seven ways. 8 The LORD will command the blessing with thee in thy barns, and in all that thou puttest thy hand unto; and He will bless thee in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. 9 The LORD will establish thee for a holy people unto Himself, as He hath sworn unto thee; if thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God, and walk in His ways. 10 And all the peoples of the earth shall see that the name of the LORD is called upon thee; and they shall be afraid of thee. 11 And the LORD will make thee over-abundant for good, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy land, in the land which the LORD swore unto thy fathers to give thee. 12 The LORD will open unto thee His good treasure the heaven to give the rain of thy land in its season, and to bless all the work of thy hand; and thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow. 13 And the LORD will make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath; if thou shalt hearken unto the commandments of the LORD thy God, which I command thee this day, to observe and to do them; 14 and shalt not turn aside from any of the words which I command you this day, to the right hand, or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them.
Deuteronomy 28:1-14
If we consider our 2nd question: “What about supposed miracles, such as crossing the Red Sea and the destruction of the wall of Jericho?” I am guessing that, included in the blessings, are also supernatural acts of God, described as signs.
This view is supported by a TV show, currently on Amazon Prime, called “Against All Odds.”
“…The Hebrew Bible is not an essay in epistemology, yet its discourse does contain assumptions about the nature of knowledge, belief, truth, interpretation, understanding and cognitive processes.”
WRS Journal
proposition = "a...point of view or statement that is presented for discussion. This may be in the form of a direct statement, or indirectly underpins the statement in question." (University of Bradford, U.K.)
assumption = "a point of view that is taken for granted without the need for evidence, or even discussion of the issue." (Univ. of Bradford)
“Historically, of course, Judaism presented itself as a possessor of the truth revealed to the Israelites at Mt. Sinai and preserved for posterity in torat emet, the Torah of truth.”
Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion
So, that seems clear. That proposition (we’ll refer to it as proposition #1)–the claim that is being made–that the Hebrew Bible is a collection of the “words” of a living God–is assumed, and is for us to believe or not.
What about ontology?
ontology = "the philosophical study of being in general, or of what applies neutrally to everything that is real." (Britannica.com)
What do the Hebrew Scripture say is real?
Well, to begin with, this is not a look at Hebrew theology.
theology = "the study of the nature of God and religious belief." (Bing)
theology = "religious beliefs and theory when systematically developed." (Bing)
Actually, I think the word–“theology”– is from the Greek, meaning the study of God. Bible.org says this: “Webster’s dictionary defines theology as ‘The science of God or of religion; the science which treats of the existence, character, and attributes of God, his laws and government, the doctrines we are to believe, and the duties we are to practice. . . ‘” But that is not our purpose. All we are trying to establish is, What do the Hebrew Scriptures say is real?
After much research, I found:
“In rejecting pantheism Judaism embraced the distinction between the creator god and the created world. This reveals itself in the normal biblical language about heaven and earth: heaven is created by the one creator in order to be the location of himself and his entourage, whereas earth is where humans live.”
N.T. Wright
So the Hebrew Bible proposes a dualistic ontology. (proposition #2)
dualism = "the division of something conceptually into two opposed or contrasted aspects, or the state of being so divided." (Bing)
The Hebrew Bible speaks of angels. (proposition #3)
” Praise ye Him, all His angels; praise ye Him, all His hosts “
“In one form or another, the belief in angels appears in the earliest stages of Jewish history, and continues to live in the spiritual world of the Jews…”
Jewish Encyclopedia
The Hebrew Bible speaks of demons. (proposition #4)
“And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto the satyrs, after whom they go astray. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations. “
Leviticus 17:7
שָׂעִירsâʻîyr = "resembling a 'he-goat'"
“They sacrificed unto demons, no-gods, gods that they knew not, new gods that came up of late, which your fathers dreaded not.”
Deuteronomy 32:17
שֵׁדshêd = "shade... a dæmon (as malignant):—devil"
According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, “The demons mentioned in the Bible are of two classes, the se’irim and the shedim. The se’irim (‘hairy beings’), to which the Israelites sacrificed in the open fields (Lev. xvii. 7; ‘devils’), are satyr-like demons, described as dancing in the wilderness…and are identical with the jinn of the Arabian woods and deserts… To the same class belongs Azazel, the goat-like demon of the wilderness (Lev. xvi. 10 et seq.), probably the chief of the se’irim, and Lilith (Isa. xxxiv. 14).”
The Hebrew Bible describes an unseen place (a nether-world), similar to the ancient Greek Tartarus or Hades. (proposition #5)
“Oh that Thou wouldest hide me in the nether-world, that Thou wouldest keep me secret, until Thy wrath be past, that Thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me!–
But this idea seems to have been discarded by modern Jews.
However, one idea promulgated by the Book of Daniel (for one) is that of a Maschiach (or Messiah). (proposition #6)
” Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sin, and to forgive iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal vision and prophet, and to anoint the most holy place. Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince, shall be seven weeks; and for threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, but in troublous times. And after the threescore and two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and be no more; and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; but his end shall be with a flood; and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease; and upon the wing of detestable things shall be that which causeth appalment; and that until the extermination wholly determined be poured out upon that which causeth appalment.”
Mashiach = "literally means 'the anointed one,' and refers to the ancient practice of anointing kings with oil when they took the throne. The mashiach is the one who will be anointed as king in the End of Days." (Judaism 101)
Conclusion
Our efforts, for the past several months, have been to find an epistemological system that we can believe. Can you believe the Hebrew Scriptures, the Tanakh? It seems that many Jews do not.
“(There is in Jewish thought an) ‘assertion . . . that side by side with a written code there exists a living tradition with power to interpret the written code, to add to it, and even at times to modify it or ignore it as might be needful in a changed circumstance, and to do this authoritatively…'”
English rabbinical scholar Herbert Danby
To be fair, an organization called the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies has a website called IJS (Israel & Judaism Studies), which says that there are “three major variants or streams of Judaism… Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism (often called ‘Liberal’ or ‘Progressive’)…”
It goes on: “The Orthodox view is that the Biblical law may be developed and interpreted only by processes of reasoning which maintain respect for its Divine origin…”
“(Conservative Judaism’s) study of the holy texts,” it continues, “is embedded in the belief that Judaism is constantly evolving to meet the contemporary needs of the Jewish people.”
And it also says: “A new element entered the Jewish world in the early nineteenth century, a movement which is variously described as Progressive, Reform or Liberal Judaism…(which) originated with the emancipation of the Jews of the various German states…(who) sought full acceptance in the German cultural milieu to which they had finally been admitted. Many were influenced by the philosophy of the eighteenth century Enlightenment.
“…By the late 19th Century the ‘Science of Judaism’ reflected the developing understanding of evolution, history and biblical scholarship…”
So here we end our study of Judaism, with cosmology. The Hebrew Bible says:
” In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
Genesis 1:1
The problem, though, is that many Jews no longer believe it.
As an illustration of this, I discovered a white paper called, Judaism and Cosmology by Joel Primack (Physics Department, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA).
“My Judaism-and-science thinking is mainly on the implications for us Jews of the new picture of the universe that modern cosmology is giving us. I’m a theoretical physicist. In the early part of my career, my research helped to create what is now called the Standard Model of particle physics. After that, cosmology became my main research interest. The Cold Dark Matter theory that I developed with my colleagues starting in the early 1980s has now become the standard theory of the composition and structure of the universe. Since the early 1990s evidence has been accumulating of the success of this theory, which has led to our first scientific understanding of the evolution of the universe starting just fractions of a second after the Big Bang. Thus we cosmologists are beginning to be able to answer God’s challenge in Job: ‘Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?’ We are now able, in our scientific imaginations, to see in considerable detail how the universe and the earth were created. Our growing ability to understand the history of the universe in turn encouraged my wife Nancy Ellen Abrams and me to think about the possible larger cultural and religious implications… The new cosmology explains for the first time the evolution of the material content and structure of the universe, including the origin of galaxies and planetary systems. Especially for us Jews, whose greatest religious text begins with two creation stories and whose liturgy routinely praises God as the creator of the universe, a new picture of the origin and structure of the universe must have religious implications. In addressing this question… Nancy and I have emphasized the surprising ways that human beings (and any other intelligent creatures that may inhabit our universe) are central or special from a cosmic perspective… We also live at a pivotal time for humanity, the end of the brief period of exponential expansion in our numbers and in our technological impacts on the earth. The new cosmology thus gives us humans a new perspective on how we fit into the universe.”
1. The things which from of old have got the One (the Tao) are–
Heaven which by it is bright and pure; Earth rendered thereby firm and sure; Spirits with powers by it supplied; Valleys kept full throughout their void All creatures which through it do live Princes and kings who from it get The model which to all they give. All these are the results of the One (Tao).
2. If heaven were not thus pure, it soon would rend; If earth were not thus sure, ‘twould break and bend; Without these powers, the spirits soon would fail; If not so filled, the drought would parch each vale; Without that life, creatures would pass away; Princes and kings, without that moral sway, However grand and high, would all decay.
3. Thus it is that dignity finds its (firm) root in its (previous) meanness, and what is lofty finds its stability in the lowness (from which it rises). Hence princes and kings call themselves ‘Orphans,’ ‘Men of small virtue,’ and as ‘Carriages without a nave.’ Is not this an acknowledgment that in their considering themselves mean they see the foundation of their dignity? So it is that in the enumeration of the different parts of a carriage we do not come on what makes it answer the ends of a carriage. They do not wish to show themselves elegant-looking as jade, but (prefer) to be coarse-looking as an (ordinary) stone.
Chapter 39
There is, I think, something about the Tao that is quite appealing. But, the Tao Te Ching is more a book about wisdom (and ethics?) than about the things we have been thinking about.
Let me ask you a question. Can a system of ethics (and/or wisdom) be disconnected from its epistemological/ontological/cosmological underpinnings?
I would say yes–if you give up its claims to authority.
In other words, when the Tao Te Ching contains a proposition that you personally dislike, you are free to discount it, to ignore it, to skip it.
1. Not to value and employ men of superior ability is the way to keep the people from rivalry among themselves; not to prize articles which are difficult to procure is the way to keep them from becoming thieves; not to show them what is likely to excite their desires is the way to keep their minds from disorder.
2. Therefore the sage, in the exercise of his government, empties their minds, fills their bellies, weakens their wills, and strengthens their bones.
3. He constantly (tries to) keep them without knowledge and without desire, and where there are those who have knowledge, to keep them from presuming to act (on it). When there is this abstinence from action, good order is universal.
Chapter 3
Hmmm…
But, let’s be honest, there’s still something strangely intriguing imbedded in there–some inherent wisdom that’s worth further investigation.
Then, I went to Britannica.com, and found that the Tao Te Ching first appeared in the 6th century, B.C. That would have been during the Zhou dynasty (1045-256 B.C.), which conquered the prior Shang dynasty (1556-1046 B.C.). Although much of ancient Chinese history seems to lapse into legend, it appears that the Shang dynasty was preceded by the Xia dynasty (2100-1600 B.C.). I wondered, What were the beliefs of ancient Chinese people before the Tao Te Ching?
“Laozi doesn’t invent the conception of ‘Tao.’ More than two thousand years before Laozi’s Tao Teh Ching, ‘Tao’ appeared in I Ching (Yi Jing), the Book of Changes.”
Xuan Weng, in “BRIDGING CULTURES IN A THIRD SPACE: A PHENOMENOLOGICAL STUDY OF TEACHING CHINESE IN AMERICAN CHINESE SCHOOLS,” Graduate School of the University of Maryland – College Park, 2010
Further study finds this by Richard Wilhelm: “The Book of Changes — I Ching in Chinese — is unquestionably one of the most important books in the world’s literature.”
I don’t profess to be as knowledgeable as Richard Wilhelm, but let’s look into this a little bit more together.
One site says: “When you consult the I Ching, you build up a hexagram line by line according to the results of coin tosses or one of the other methods, such as sorting yarrow sticks or pulling marbles from a bag. All the translations will tell you how this works – it’s absurdly simple. And so you are pointed to a particular collection of texts – and, if one or more of your six lines is in the process of changing from solid to broken or vice versa, then there are also line texts to read, and the second hexagram that’s formed after the lines have changed. A hexagram isn’t just a convenient chapter heading – it’s also a very simple, elegant picture of how the energy is flowing through the situation.”
Another site says: “A more modern method uses a series of coin tosses using three identical coins (copper pennies will work) with an identifiable heads and tails. In each case, the process is done six times, with each outcome producing one line of the hexagram.”
Hmmm…
Interestingly, though, we also find this: “Centered on yin and yang (and represented through the straight and broken lines in hexagrams), the Yijing is one of the main sources of Chinese cosmology.”
And this: “The texts that explain the meanings of the hexagrams describe the particular Cosmic Principles of Harmony associated with them. They set the standard by which we need to examine our ideas and beliefs regarding the hexagram subject. “
So, it is not the 64 hexagrams of the I Ching themselves but the texts, and the various translations of the texts associated with them that interpret them that we should be focusing on?
The 64 hexagrams of the I Ching
“The first hexagram is made up of six unbroken lines. These unbroken lines stand for the primal power, which is light-giving, active, strong, and of the spirit. The hexagram is consistently strong in character, and since it is without weakness, its essence is power or energy. Its image is heaven. Its energy is represented as unrestricted by any fixed conditions in space and is therefore conceived of as motion.”
Richard Wilhelm Translation of text of I Ching, 1950
Hmmm…
I looked further, and found the 1899 translation by someone named James Legge, which referred to the 3rd volume of the Sacred Books of the East (“Shu King,””Shih King,” and “Hsaio King”) and some comments that he had made in the preface there. So, finding that book online, I looked it up.
This is what I found: “The version of the Shû that appears in this volume is substantially the same as that in the third volume of my large edition of the Chinese Classics, and which was published in 1865. I wrote out the whole afresh, however, having before me not only my own version, but the earlier translations of P. Gaubil in French and Dr. Medhurst in English. Frequent reference was made likewise to a larger apparatus of native commentaries than I had formerly used. Going to the text anew, after more than twelve years devoted mainly to the continuous study of the Chinese classics, I yet hardly discovered any errors which it was necessary to correct. A few verbal alterations were made to make the meaning clearer. Only in one case will a reader, familiar with the former version, be struck with any alteration in this. The Chinese character 帝 (Tî), applied repeatedly to the ancient Yâo and Shun in the commencing books of the classic, and once in the 27th Book of the fifth Part, was there translated by ’emperor,’ while it is left untranslated in the present volume, and its name transferred to the English text.
Before adopting this change, I had considered whether I ought to translate Tî in all other instances of its occurrence in the Shû (and invariably in the Shih), and its intensified form Shang Tî (上帝), by our term ‘God.’ Gaubil rendered Tî for the most part by ‘le Seigneur,’ and Shang Tî by ‘le Souverain Maître,’ adding sometimes to these names Tî and Shang Tî in brackets. Medhurst translated Tî by ‘the Supreme,’ and ‘the Supreme Ruler,’ and Shang Tî by ‘the Supreme Ruler.’ More than twenty-five years ago I came to the conclusion that Tî was the term corresponding in Chinese to our ‘God,’ and that Shang Tî was the same, with the addition of Shang, equal to ‘Supreme.’ In this view I have never wavered, and I have rendered both the names by ‘God’ in all the volumes of the Chinese Classics thus far translated and published.”
What?
He continued: ” What made me pause before doing so in the present volume, was the consideration that the object of ‘the Sacred Texts of the Religions of the East,’ as I understand it, is to give translations of those texts without any colouring in the first place from the views of the translators. Could it be that my own view of Tî, as meaning God, had grown up in the heat of our controversies in China as to the proper characters to be used for the words God and Spirit, in translating the Sacred Scriptures? A reader, confronted everywhere by the word God, might be led to think more highly of the primitive religion of China than he ought to think. Should I leave the names Tî and Shang Tî untranslated? Or should I give for them, instead of God, the terms Ruler and Supreme Ruler? I could not see my way to adopt either of these courses.
“The term Heaven (天, pronounced Thien) is used everywhere in the Chinese Classics for the Supreme Power, ruling and governing all the affairs of men with an omnipotent and omniscient righteousness and goodness; and this vague term is constantly interchanged in the same paragraph, not to say the same sentence, with the personal names Tî and Shang Tî. Thien and Tî in their written forms are perfectly distinct. Both of them were among the earliest characters, and enter, though not largely, as the phonetical element into other characters of later formation. According to the oldest Chinese dictionary, the Shwo Wăn (A.D. 100), Thien is formed, ‘by association of ideas,’ from yî (一), ‘one,’ and tâ (大) ‘great,’ meaning—what is one and undivided, and great. Tâi Thung, of our thirteenth century, in his remarkable dictionary, the Liû Shû Kû, explains the top line of it as indicating ‘what is above,’ so that the significance of the character is ‘what is above and great.’ In both these dictionaries Tî (帝) is derived from 丄 or 亠 (shang), ‘above,’ or ‘what is above:’ and they say that the whole character is of phonetical formation, in which I am not able to follow them; but Tâi Thung gives the following account of its meaning:—’Tî is the honourable designation of lordship and rule,’ adding, ‘Therefore Heaven is called Shang Tî; the five Elementary Powers are called the five Tî; and the Son of Heaven—that is, the Sovereign—is called Tî. Here then is the name Heaven, by which the idea of Supreme Power in the absolute is vaguely expressed; and when the Chinese would speak of it by a personal name, they use the terms Tî and Shang Tî;—saying, I believe, what our early fathers did, when they began to use the word God. Tî is the name which has been employed in China for this concept for fully 5000 years. Our word God fits naturally into every passage where the character occurs in the old Chinese Classics, save those to which I referred above on p. xxiii. It never became with the people a proper name like the Zeus of the Greeks. I can no more translate Tî or Shang Tî by any other word but God than I can translate zăn (人) by anything else but man.”
Going back again to his notes on the I Ching, I found: “Those who object to that term say that Shang Ti might be rendered by * Supreme Ruler’ or ‘Supreme Emperor,’ or by ‘Ruler (or Emperor) on high;’ but when I examined the question, more than thirty years ago, with all possible interest and all the resources at my command, I came to the conclusions that Ti, on its first employment by the Chinese fathers, was intended to express the same concept which our fathers expressed by God, and that such has been its highest and proper application ever since. There would be little if any difference in the meaning conveyed to readers by ‘Supreme Ruler’ and God ;’ but when I render Ti by God and Shang Ti by the Supreme God, or, for the sake of brevity, simply by God, I am translating, and not giving a private interpretation of my own. I do it not in the interests of controversy, but as the simple expression of what to me is truth ; and I am glad to know that a great majority of the Protestant missionaries in China use Tt and Shang TI as the nearest analogue for God.”
“The mysterious Laozi’s ancient wisdom may be hard to translate, but the meaning is clear – learning to be self-aware could improve modern life.”
the Guardian
In researching Taoism, and the Tao Te Ching by Laozi, I first turned to an article on the subject by the British news organization.
Self-awareness is an admirable quality, but let’s look at Taoism’s epistemological position.
One site tells us that the Tao is “the reality beyond human perception, a reality that Taoists strongly associate with the natural world.” That may have been hard for someone to translate, but it certainly seems even more difficult to comprehend.
Another site called “Taoism 101” begins with the admonition: “Don’t concentrate on the meaning of Tao…”
“The more you know, the less you know; the less you know, the more you really know.”
Aristotle
The Cambridge Press article goes on to say: “If we know our own True Self…then we shall know all things.” The implication, then, is that only sages (those who know their true self) can know all things.
sage = "From a Taoist viewpoint, this term refers to one whose actions are in complete harmony with his surroundings - both the immediate environment and the universe as a whole." (JadeDragon.com)
Well, that’s ok, right?–“Someone whose actions are in complete harmony with his surroundings”–I have to admit, I’d like to be one of those “sages,” wouldn’t you?
So, what, then, can I expect to know?
Well, as we’ve done before, let’s take a look at the ontology and cosmology of the Tao Te Ching.
“The basis of the Taoist worldview is one unified pulsating cosmos and all its manifestations. Taoist thinkers interpret existence as a continuous process. They consider complementary forces to be the source of movement. The world creates itself out of its own potential existence.”
Tatiana Danilova National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine”
“The world creates itself out of its own potential existence”?
Another site, called An Insider’s Look at Taoist Cosmology says:
In the beginning, there was an endless void, known as Wu Chi, or Tao. The Tao is a universal energy, from which all things emanate.
From this vast cosmic universe, from Tao, the One emerges.
As the One manifests in the world, it divides into two: the Yin and the Yang, complementary conditions of action (Yang) and inaction (Yin)…
From this dance of Yin and Yang emerges the five elements: wood, fire, metal, water, and earth….
From the five constituent elements come the “ten-thousand things,” representing all of manifest existence, all of the objects, inhabitants, and phenomena of the world that we experience…
I am trying to think of things that emanate from something else without some actor, some entity, bringing them forth. The first example that comes to mind is the butterfly, emerging from its chrysalis. Or the birth of a baby. Is that what Taoist cosmology is describing?
Attempting to understand, I reluctantly found myself at a wiki site, which includes this as an explanation: ” Firstly, (the Tao) is the eternally existing Origin of the world: it knows no limits in space or time. According to Laozi, it is an undifferentiated whole which precedes the existence of Heaven and Earth. It is empty, silent and formless; it grows independently and is inexhaustible; and eternally revolves without ever stopping. It is the Source of all beings.”
” The Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It’s an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together.
Obi-Wan Kenobi (Star Wars)
Even with its inscrutability, one reading is enough to realize that there is much that is attractive, useful, and even profound that is in the Tao Te Ching, but as a source of ultimate truth, it seems wanting. Yet, it does sound interestingly familiar…
“There is a thing, formless yet complete. Before heaven and earth it existed. Without sound, without substance, it stands alone and unchanging. It is all-pervading and unfailing. We do not know its name, but we call it Tao. .. Being one with nature, the sage is in accord with the Tao.“
In our last blogpost, we talked about Hinduism, but today we go on to consider the Hindu founder of–what he called the “middle way” between various forms of Hinduism–Siddhartha Gautama , “the Buddha” (6th century BC). The stated purpose of Hinduism had been “to achieve Dharma, Artha, Kama, and Moksha.”
dharma = "(in Indian religion) the eternal and inherent nature of reality, regarded in Hinduism as a cosmic law underlying right behavior and social order." (Bing)
artha = "the pursuit of wealth or material advantage" (Britannica.com)
But the Buddha renounced artha and kama. He focused on dharma and a revolutionary doctrine called nirvana (“quenching” or “blowing out”) . Hinduism had taught that the soul is eternal, and that by passing through multiple lives, and reincarnations, and by way of karma can eventually achieve moksha.
karma = "(in Hinduism and Buddhism) the sum of a person's actions in this and previous states of existence, viewed as deciding their fate in future existences."
But Gautama (Buddha) taught that many cycles of these multiple births and rebirths can be skipped by following the noble eight-fold path.
THE NOBLE EIGHTFOLD PATH:
Right understanding
Right thought
Right speech
Right action
Right livelihood (no trading in animals for slaughter, dealing in weapons, dealing in slaves, dealing in poison or dealing in intoxicants.)
Right effort
Right mindfulness (putting aside greed and all distress )
Right concentration (pleasant abiding)
A good way of understanding the difference between Hinduism and Buddhism is by thinking of the Protestant Reformation in 16th century Europe. One source says:
“Gautama did for India what Luther and the Reformers did for Christendom.”
The Journal of Sacred Literature
Buddha’s teachings (contained in the buddhavacana) seem, though, more similar to a self-help program, kind of like Tony Robbins’ 5 Steps to Take Control of Your Life Now.
But, from just a strictly epistemological point-of-view, the question is, Are the buddhavacana‘s propositions true?
One site answers that this way: Nirvana is about “getting off the Ferris wheel of reincarnation…“ But what happens then?
The site goes on to say: “Where Buddha departed most radically from Hinduism was in his doctrine of anatta, the notion that individuals do not possess eternal souls. Instead of eternal souls, individuals consist of a bundle of habits, memories, sensations, desires, and so forth, which together delude one into thinking that he or she consists of a stable, lasting self.”
So let’s sum up.
Buddhist teaching is about escaping suffering in this life. It is not concerned with the next. So that’s its ontology. And its cosmology? We are told about the Thirty One Planes of Existence through which beings are born and reborn. And we are told that:
After a fair amount of research, I found this: “One of the basic tenets of Buddhism is the concept of interdependence which says that all things exist only in relationship to others, and that nothing can have an independent and autonomous existence. The world is a vast flow of events that are linked together and participate in one another. Thus there can be no First Cause, and no creation ex nihilo of the universe, as in the Big Bang theory.”
Hmmm…
Even though so many famous people (such as Angelina Jolie, Orlando Bloom, Keanu Reeves, Leonard Cohen, Tina Turner, Steve Jobs, and Tiger Woods) are okay with that, I’m not sure that I am.
Steve Jobs, by Walter Isaacson (2011)
I checked the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and found something called The Cosmological Argument which says:
“…Philosophers infer deductively, inductively, or abductively by inference to the best explanation that a first or sustaining cause, a necessary being, an unmoved mover, or a personal being (God) exists that caused and/or sustains the universe. “
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
So, despite its popularity among Hollywood celebrities, singers and song-writers, entrepreneurs, and golfers, and even considering Gautama’s laudible, well-intentioned sincerity, it seems that we have to look further than the buddhavacana to find the source of ultimate truth.
In our last blog, we talked about Hinduism, thought by many to be the oldest religion, with its collection of “sacred” texts, known as theVedas. But how can we judge them as a possible source of ultimate truth?
What are our standards?
I went to one website which talks about epistemology and talks about different kinds of knowledge. They talk there about something called propositional knowledge.
Propositional knowledge (or declarative knowledge) = "knowledge that some proposition is either true or false." (Bing)
So how can we know if the propositions contained in a religious text are true or false?
This, I think, is where it becomes valuable to think of epistemology, ontology, and cosmology in relationship with one another.
The Vedas, obviously, are written from the perspective that they are true. Assuming that they are, we therefore would have to accept their view of reality (that the physical world is only an illusion, as in Dr. Strange or The Matrix). We might also take another look at their understanding of God. One site says that “Brahman created Gods and humans in such a way that they had to be dependent on each other. Gods had power but could not make food for themselves and humans did not have power but they could make their own food.” This almost makes me think of the Valar in J.R.R. Tolkein’s The Silmarillion. Do they sound like gods to you?
god = "(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being." (Bing)
god = "(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity" (Bing)
We are told that “Indra is the most popular and praised god in the Vedas. In the Rig Veda, more than half the hymns invoke 3 gods, with Indra being the one who has the maximum number of hymns ( 250 hymns). He is the lord of the heavens. He is the god of thunder and rain and a great warrior.”
So, isn’t it safe to say that Hinduism’s Vedas are starting to look a lot like the Norse, Greek, and Roman systems that we–all our lives–have been told were only mythology?
mythology = "a collection of myths, especially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition," or
mythology = "a set of stories or beliefs about a particular person, institution, or situation, especially when exaggerated or fictitious." (Bing)
pantheism = "a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God." (Bing)
Is that what you believe?
Doesn’t pantheism suggest to you that cutting down a tree for fuel, or for materials for home-building, or killing a steer or a chicken for food, is a form of sacrilege (Brahman = God = the Universe = Nature)?
Pantheists seem to be suggesting that we should inter-relate with our environment as one would inter-relate with an all-knowing, all-powerful God. But does that seem reasonable? Is that a proposition that you can accept as true?
All in all, doesn’t Hinduism–though perhaps an attractive alternative to western Judaeo-Christian traditions because of its mystical (inscrutable) other-worldliness)–seem a bit difficult for you to reconcile with your intellect? In spite of Sherlock Holmes’ advice, we may have to leave Dr. Strange to the world of Marvel comic books heroes, and continue our search for ultimate truth elsewhere.
“How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?” Sherlock Holmes, “The Sign of Four”
We’ve discussed Science; we’ve talked about Empiricism, and Rationalism. We’ve even appealed to Tradition (listen to our latest podcast).
Now, we venture forth into what–in today’s postmodern world–might be considered by many to be (for all intents and purposes)–the unknown…
In this blog, we are going to start taking a look at the world’s religions and their “sacred” texts from the vantage point of epistemology. Is it possible–as Sherlock Holmes might say–that one of these religious texts might prove to be a source of ultimate truth?
According to one website, the oldest religion in the world is Hinduism. And it’s associated group of texts is called the Vedas. It seems that the Vedas were written sometime after the Aryans invaded the Indian subcontinent (c. 1500 BC). They were based upon oral traditions which seem to be much older. The Vedas tell us that the Hindu religion involves the worship of many gods, which does not seem that unusual, but they also include rules for something called the caste system, through which the earlier (pre-Aryan) peoples–called Dravidians–began to be considered to be “untouchables.”
For Odo, his physical form is something he takes on for the sake of his interaction with humanoid (“solids”), but his “real” existence is something other-worldly, a condition which is often associated–especially among westerners–with eastern religions, in general, and with Hinduism, in particular.
Terms that have come into the West from Hinduism include: Maya – the idea that the physical world and all that is in it is an illusion, and that “the real nature or essence of this world is divinity alone.” Adherents (and proselytes) are encouraged to “see” real reality through “spiritual wisdom” obtained through yoga. They are also encouraged to achieve ethical standards through dharma, a kind of general moral law (but which also includes specific laws to be followed “according to one’s class, status, and station in life.”)
PHOEBE: Go ahead and scoff. You know, there’re a lot of things that I don’t believe in, but that doesn’t mean they’re not true. JOEY: Such as? PHOEBE: Like crop circles, or the Bermuda triangle, or evolution? ROSS: Whoa, whoa, whoa. What, you don’t, uh, you don’t believe in evolution? PHOEBE: I don’t know, it’s just, you know…monkeys, Darwin, you know, it’s a, it’s a nice story, I just think it’s a little too easy. ROSS: Too easy? The process of every living thing on this planet evolving over millions of years from single-celled organisms, too easy? PHOEBE: Yeah, I just don’t buy it. ROSS: Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact like the air we breathe, like gravity. PHOEBE: Ok, don’t get me started on gravity. (Friends)
So, we ended off our discussion last time with our introduction of cosmology.
cosmology = "the science of the origin and development of the universe." (Bing)
We have been asserting that there is a relationship between what you think is true,what you think is real, and where you think everything came from.
For example, let’s say that you believe–like the character Ross in the TV sitcom Friends–that Science is the source of “ultimate truth,” then you would probably be a materialist, or, at least, a naturalist. For you, you would have to try to explain where everything came from from within that context. The answer, then, for you would have to include evolution, natural selection, and “survival-of-the-fittest.” In other words–we are all just products of chance (over time).
But what if, like, Phoebe in the scenario above, there is something about that line of thought that you’re uncomfortable with?
Some people believe in “intelligent design.” That theory is that things are just too complex to have just come about by chance–you know, the galaxies, the solar system, the human body, the eye, even life itself. These folks think that someone or something created the universe and its contents, and mankind.
Where do you come down?
Take a look at our Cosmology grid printable document download.
