For two weeks now I have been reading the book "Jesus Remembered" by James D G Dunn. Its a tome and hard going, but finally finished it. Yay!! Feeling very exhausted and satisfied, because with it the first phase of my foray into understanding the nuts and bolts of Christianity is over. So now I think its time to take a breather and reflect on the 2 years I have spent on this in company with my great friends from IBS.
In retrospect, this task was far harder than I expected it to be. My mistake was obvious, Christianity is a religion that comes from a different culture with very different cultural assumptions and worldview. I was unfamiliar with it, or the language that is used to describe it, and that took a lot of time to understand. In contrast the eastern tradition (hinduism, buddhism, jainism, taoism) used cultural assumptions that I understood very well and hence comprehension came rather easily.
In my mind I usually divide all worldviews (of any sort) into these parts:-
1) How the world actually is
2)The ethical ideals that support it
3) The historical events and personalities that shape it
4) The way in which the subscribers of the worldview live their lives within it.
All these aspects are either more or less important in one worldview or the other.
For example almost entirety of Atheism is spent on establishing how the world is with very little importance on anything else. Secular Humanism by contrast places great interest on ethics as well.
For example in Hinduism (1),(2),(4) are very important while in Buddhism (2) and (4) are more important than (1) . None of the Eastern traditions place much importance to historical trends believing all times are on equal footing and universe is eternal and circular. The identity and character of the discoverer is far less important than the content of the discovery.
In Christianity, for the first time I saw a worldview in which 3) The historical events are even more important than all the other put together. One personality, his life, his actions, his words and events around his life and death were considered more important than anything else that has happened before or since.
This was a problem.
I have always been able to understand and learn from philosophical, ethical and lifestyle attitudes of different religions, cultures and people. It was a bit like cooking recipes, I imitated those that worked, modified some according to my needs, and rejected some that didn't seem to work for me.
But this was a single person. Entire Christianity seems boils down to believing that Jesus of the NT is the God and Messiah who came down, died and resurrected and believing in this leads to forgiveness of sins and salvation after death.
It was Caesar Salad made entirely of Caesar. You either like it or you don't.
This simplicity was incomprehensible, equally strange was why so much time and and so many books have been and continue to be written on the subject. The only thing that seemed relevant was to read the NT portions of the bible, establish for yourself somehow whether to accept this claim or not and you are basically done.
How to establish(or refute) this claim? I could think of three parallel tracks
1) One way was to see how my Christian friends have established this faith for themselves and how they live by it. That's where IBS was so valuable as place for discussion and sharing and friendship.
2)The other way is to see how the apologetics have tried to establish this in their books.
3)The third way is to assess the claim through history. This was what I finished today.
It is this third part that was completed (to some satisfactory level) today. I have been thoroughly chastened from my initial presumption of simplicity. For example
1) The discussions in IBS has driven me to try to understand the nature and status of subjective experience, meaning in life and meaning of life, and psychology of self. Hard going to get the answer for the simple question "Where does faith come from?"
2)Apologetics (and counter-apologetics) have thrown everything but the kitchen sink to establish and refute each other. I remain very unimpressed by the apologies that I have read so far, but its not clear at all if that is because of the bias I already have on my part or not. I am equally unimpressed by the ostensible counter-apologetics of new Atheism, though the philosophical literature is better. Maybe I have not yet come across the right book on both sides, will keep looking.
3) History has one clear message:- go elsewhere to convince yourself whether jesus was "really" God or not. but for other information on jesus and his first disciples history has a lot to say with reasonable conviction. In the last 400 years Biblical history has every possible mistake one can think of, has been severely criticized by everyone (atheists, christians, postmodernists, positivists....). Her confidence is so completely shattered that every historian (who is not a blunt atheist or apologist Christian) writes 400 pages before coming to one small little conclusion, then another 400 pages for the next small little conclusion. But I have finally convinced myself that the conclusions of the centrist camp (I think there are 4 or 5 camps now) does have the historical credentials to stand on 2 legs . Meanwhile I have learned how history is done, how history is abused and distorted and that even for the most sensitive of issues it is possible to know about the past without falling for one partisan line or the other.
Ok this rambling is too long already. It will take a lot of time and lot of posts to verbally re-express all that I have gained in this IBS experience as a non-Christian, Hindu, atheist Indian. I do not know if you agree with how I have gone about understanding Christianity. Will be pleased to hear any suggestions.Bye for now,
sayak banerjee
In retrospect, this task was far harder than I expected it to be. My mistake was obvious, Christianity is a religion that comes from a different culture with very different cultural assumptions and worldview. I was unfamiliar with it, or the language that is used to describe it, and that took a lot of time to understand. In contrast the eastern tradition (hinduism, buddhism, jainism, taoism) used cultural assumptions that I understood very well and hence comprehension came rather easily.
In my mind I usually divide all worldviews (of any sort) into these parts:-
1) How the world actually is
2)The ethical ideals that support it
3) The historical events and personalities that shape it
4) The way in which the subscribers of the worldview live their lives within it.
All these aspects are either more or less important in one worldview or the other.
For example almost entirety of Atheism is spent on establishing how the world is with very little importance on anything else. Secular Humanism by contrast places great interest on ethics as well.
For example in Hinduism (1),(2),(4) are very important while in Buddhism (2) and (4) are more important than (1) . None of the Eastern traditions place much importance to historical trends believing all times are on equal footing and universe is eternal and circular. The identity and character of the discoverer is far less important than the content of the discovery.
In Christianity, for the first time I saw a worldview in which 3) The historical events are even more important than all the other put together. One personality, his life, his actions, his words and events around his life and death were considered more important than anything else that has happened before or since.
This was a problem.
I have always been able to understand and learn from philosophical, ethical and lifestyle attitudes of different religions, cultures and people. It was a bit like cooking recipes, I imitated those that worked, modified some according to my needs, and rejected some that didn't seem to work for me.
But this was a single person. Entire Christianity seems boils down to believing that Jesus of the NT is the God and Messiah who came down, died and resurrected and believing in this leads to forgiveness of sins and salvation after death.
It was Caesar Salad made entirely of Caesar. You either like it or you don't.
This simplicity was incomprehensible, equally strange was why so much time and and so many books have been and continue to be written on the subject. The only thing that seemed relevant was to read the NT portions of the bible, establish for yourself somehow whether to accept this claim or not and you are basically done.
How to establish(or refute) this claim? I could think of three parallel tracks
1) One way was to see how my Christian friends have established this faith for themselves and how they live by it. That's where IBS was so valuable as place for discussion and sharing and friendship.
2)The other way is to see how the apologetics have tried to establish this in their books.
3)The third way is to assess the claim through history. This was what I finished today.
It is this third part that was completed (to some satisfactory level) today. I have been thoroughly chastened from my initial presumption of simplicity. For example
1) The discussions in IBS has driven me to try to understand the nature and status of subjective experience, meaning in life and meaning of life, and psychology of self. Hard going to get the answer for the simple question "Where does faith come from?"
2)Apologetics (and counter-apologetics) have thrown everything but the kitchen sink to establish and refute each other. I remain very unimpressed by the apologies that I have read so far, but its not clear at all if that is because of the bias I already have on my part or not. I am equally unimpressed by the ostensible counter-apologetics of new Atheism, though the philosophical literature is better. Maybe I have not yet come across the right book on both sides, will keep looking.
3) History has one clear message:- go elsewhere to convince yourself whether jesus was "really" God or not. but for other information on jesus and his first disciples history has a lot to say with reasonable conviction. In the last 400 years Biblical history has every possible mistake one can think of, has been severely criticized by everyone (atheists, christians, postmodernists, positivists....). Her confidence is so completely shattered that every historian (who is not a blunt atheist or apologist Christian) writes 400 pages before coming to one small little conclusion, then another 400 pages for the next small little conclusion. But I have finally convinced myself that the conclusions of the centrist camp (I think there are 4 or 5 camps now) does have the historical credentials to stand on 2 legs . Meanwhile I have learned how history is done, how history is abused and distorted and that even for the most sensitive of issues it is possible to know about the past without falling for one partisan line or the other.
Ok this rambling is too long already. It will take a lot of time and lot of posts to verbally re-express all that I have gained in this IBS experience as a non-Christian, Hindu, atheist Indian. I do not know if you agree with how I have gone about understanding Christianity. Will be pleased to hear any suggestions.Bye for now,
sayak banerjee
No comments:
Post a Comment