Sunday, July 27, 2008
More Thoughts on Religion 2.0
Quick and perhaps unclarified notes:
A podcast on BBC Forum at http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/forum/forum_20080725-1700.mp3 goes a short way, almost certainly wihout that intent, to breaking ground on the contentious topic of Religion 2.0, an idea which must obviously relate to science, as in essence the existence of Religion 2.0 depends on the existence of science for it to be there in the first place, and for many individuals Religion 2.0 can be a contender with science for prime place. That is something which appears totally obnoxious to some people in all camps, and a fact which can also obviously lead to facile, immature and irrelevant suggestions, or can seem to do so.
By the way I do not accept or agree with many of the comments in the podcast. But the podcast seems relevant to Religion 2.0 and is thus of interest.
Be that as it may, the first section seriously has worries with modern Islam (as I do too) and I am certainly saddened by the large sums of money which have led the way into what looks like the beginning of the disintegration of a great faith. But unfortunately I see the thrust of Mona Siddiqui's argumentation as in itself leading closer to a sort of 'God of the Gaps' idea or indeed to hypostatisation. Certainly Siddiqui moves, but, as is so often the case, not altogether in the right way.
In later sections I am somehow reminded of D.H. Lawrence's book 'Kangaroo'. Fine ideals but so out of tune with the true local context, often almost laughably - though Parkes has doubtless written a fine book nonetheless. There seems to be misplacement of identity more like anomie than anything we would really benefit from. The idea "If you think too much you go mad" certainly fits in with what is happening though of course that is not to say that we should not think a lot.
Then of course there is "passionate rationalism" but my feeling is that the trend of the discussion is more towards anomie than syncretism, and syncretism is something which I have always seen as useful and rational though the participants of the group all seem to lack the qualities of self-denial that can make syncretism truly work. That is not a criticism - we may reasonably argue that such a discussion must pertain very closely to the academic and analytic, expecially where science is concerned. But to bring the matters down to such factors as neocolonialism - which certainly exists - is probably to nice down the discussion unduly.
Then almost inevitably there is a discussion of Plato's 'Symposium'. When I was a schoolkid, the more intellectual children used to read Plato's 'Symposium' a lot and enjoyed it for some reason, but the panel almost looked at it through Jungian eyes. Given the 'Symposium' is effectively almost being used as an analogy, it is quite good but a more modern approach, rather like a modern version of Jung's histological idea of Freud's 'Oedipus Stain' might have worked better, I do not know. But by this time they have truly oversimplified from the viewpoint of Religion 2.0 IMO. But they are clearly looking for 'something' - flux ? the human state ? something missing ? even Allah as 'God of the Gaps' ? I think none of these, but I would like to see Religion 2.0 take its true position some time, as an analytic computer tool perhaps. But then the tendency is for all to say 'but NOTHING MORE than an analytical tool'. Why not ? An interesting question, for which we should perhaps not seem to look to soon for an answer, positive or negative.
Quick and perhaps unclarified notes:
A podcast on BBC Forum at http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/forum/forum_20080725-1700.mp3 goes a short way, almost certainly wihout that intent, to breaking ground on the contentious topic of Religion 2.0, an idea which must obviously relate to science, as in essence the existence of Religion 2.0 depends on the existence of science for it to be there in the first place, and for many individuals Religion 2.0 can be a contender with science for prime place. That is something which appears totally obnoxious to some people in all camps, and a fact which can also obviously lead to facile, immature and irrelevant suggestions, or can seem to do so.
By the way I do not accept or agree with many of the comments in the podcast. But the podcast seems relevant to Religion 2.0 and is thus of interest.
Be that as it may, the first section seriously has worries with modern Islam (as I do too) and I am certainly saddened by the large sums of money which have led the way into what looks like the beginning of the disintegration of a great faith. But unfortunately I see the thrust of Mona Siddiqui's argumentation as in itself leading closer to a sort of 'God of the Gaps' idea or indeed to hypostatisation. Certainly Siddiqui moves, but, as is so often the case, not altogether in the right way.
In later sections I am somehow reminded of D.H. Lawrence's book 'Kangaroo'. Fine ideals but so out of tune with the true local context, often almost laughably - though Parkes has doubtless written a fine book nonetheless. There seems to be misplacement of identity more like anomie than anything we would really benefit from. The idea "If you think too much you go mad" certainly fits in with what is happening though of course that is not to say that we should not think a lot.
Then of course there is "passionate rationalism" but my feeling is that the trend of the discussion is more towards anomie than syncretism, and syncretism is something which I have always seen as useful and rational though the participants of the group all seem to lack the qualities of self-denial that can make syncretism truly work. That is not a criticism - we may reasonably argue that such a discussion must pertain very closely to the academic and analytic, expecially where science is concerned. But to bring the matters down to such factors as neocolonialism - which certainly exists - is probably to nice down the discussion unduly.
Then almost inevitably there is a discussion of Plato's 'Symposium'. When I was a schoolkid, the more intellectual children used to read Plato's 'Symposium' a lot and enjoyed it for some reason, but the panel almost looked at it through Jungian eyes. Given the 'Symposium' is effectively almost being used as an analogy, it is quite good but a more modern approach, rather like a modern version of Jung's histological idea of Freud's 'Oedipus Stain' might have worked better, I do not know. But by this time they have truly oversimplified from the viewpoint of Religion 2.0 IMO. But they are clearly looking for 'something' - flux ? the human state ? something missing ? even Allah as 'God of the Gaps' ? I think none of these, but I would like to see Religion 2.0 take its true position some time, as an analytic computer tool perhaps. But then the tendency is for all to say 'but NOTHING MORE than an analytical tool'. Why not ? An interesting question, for which we should perhaps not seem to look to soon for an answer, positive or negative.
# posted by uv : 4:03 AM
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
