Here is a short but provocative article on TS Eliot and the relationship between religion and humanism.
While I am sure my friends in SHAFT will disagree, I don’t think humanism can survive without religion. But what is interesting here is Eliot’s claim that religion cannot survive without humanism.
(On the first claim, of course in order to decide what humanism needs we first need an adequate anthropology – that is, we need to know what a human is. The folks over at SHAFT are probably all materialists, so we already don’t agree there. I want a humanism that is worthy of the human person as a whole).
For those interested in reading more on religious humanism, I would direct you to John Paul the Great (JPII). His personalism is a fine example of authentic humanism, and it is philosophically informed (you may recall that JPII first ‘job’ was as a philosophy professor).
September 18, 2008 at 1:37 pm |
John Paul II? Wait, I thought you were an Episcopalian! :)
September 19, 2008 at 9:37 am |
That was a great FT article, the best thing I’ve read there in years.
“In religious debate, believers get the enemies they deserve. When salt loses its savor, only the insipid will bother to reply, or even to notice.”
Though I don’t think I agree with Oakes on what constitutes saltiness. I imagine he thinks it’s orthodoxy. I think it’s the imitation of Christ. The discussion there (including Nietzsche) is unbalanced toward overvaluing intellectualism; it’s still a good discussion. I also still think some of the best criticism of Christianity comes from within and that the internal criticism can make substantial progress. The psyche builds a wall toward outsiders and outsiders are less likely to understand what the religious language means.
September 19, 2008 at 6:46 pm |
I agree. Great FT article. External criticism is the only unsympathetic criticism one can get. Change within orthodoxy probably requires a personality from inside the community that embraces external criticism. What is obvious to the critical outsiders eventually captivates an insider who challenges sloppy ortho-praxy of the orthodox as will as sloppy orthodoxy. Examples of insider critical voices that lead to better orthopraxy might be Dietrich Bonhoeffer, William Wilberforce, John of the Cross, Francis of Assisi, Bernard of Clairvaux. The internal criticism is generally too weak in its assessment of the disease they diagnose.
As to the theism-atheism debate. I pronounce it a draw before the debate. Both sides are intellectually reasonable. If G-d is there, then G-d leaves a very light footprint on the world. However, I will try to get to the debate and assess the skill of the antipodal debater!