New style, new direction

Let me know what you think of the new direction!

Medieval Christianity: The State of the Field

(h/t: Medievalists.net)

By Katherine J. Gill

Religion Compass, Vol.1 (2004)

Abstract: As in other academic disciplines, historical Christianity in recent years has been energetically navigating the “cultural turn.” Just before the onset of the new millennium, Church History , the publication of the American Society of Church History, added the subtitle: Studies in Christianity and Culture. The subtitle signaled a recognition that Church History as a discipline had come to embrace a greater breadth than the connotations conveyed by the traditional term “Church History.” More specifically, its frameworks of inquiry had come to reflect a greater appreciation of the many facets of lived religion, a greater engagement with questions of how differently situated Christians interacted either among themselves or with others, and a greater openness to methodological innovation.

Click here to read this article from Blackwell Publishing

Short book review: The Medieval Worldview: An Introduction by William R. Cook and Ronald B. Herzman

This book is by far the best introduction to the "Medieval worldview" that I have yet read. It is not a chronological history and, for the most part, does not seek to tell the history of the period in a chronological way; this is the book you should read before getting yourself into reading a chronological history. The authors draw up a sympathetic account that really allows the reader to get inside the minds and, more importantly, the hearts of people from the Middle Ages, who can often seem like distant and bizarre figures. For a little while, while you read this book, you live in the Middle Ages, you feel a real companionship with those who lived over a thousand years ago and in a culture very different from ours today; this is a reflection of the great skill and care that the authors have put into this book. In addition, this book is filled from start to finish with citations, often rather lengthy but always on point, from the primary sources. I highly recommend reading this book.

Praying hands and feudalism

The ideas of lordship and vassalage came to be applied far beyond their original context, especially from the twelfth century on. For example ... early Christians prayed with their arms extended to to either side. The position that we associate with prayer, closed hands held together, is in fact the position of a vassal in the act of doing fealty ... People expressed their relationship with God the way they expressed the relationship of vassal to lord. Furthermore, hymns written to God began to use this same language, as did the hymns written to the Virgin Mary. The concept of dependent relationships that we often label "feudal" was of great importance long after the lord-vassal relationship changed radically from the time of its origins.

William R. Cook and Ronald B. Herzman, The Medieval World View: An Introduction, pg. 216

Purification, Illumination, Glorification -- no other way

From Kevin P. Edgecomb at Biblicalia:

Pursue the small consolation that is acquired in time from toil, that you may be accounted worthy of that great consolation which dispels the troubles of this life of sorrows for those who find it. Do not despise small things, lest you be deprived of great ones. Has no one ever seen an infant who, when he puts flesh in his mouth, sucks milk? By means of small things the door is opened to great ones. You dishonour God, O my brother, in that you desire Him to govern you without a definite order. For no man has been entrusted with great things without first having been tried in small ones.

From The Ascetical Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian, Homily 25.

In context, Saint Isaac is discussing noetic prayer amongst monastics. There were those (like the heretical Messalians) who claimed to be able to enter a state of theoria at will, and that their prayer became such regularly, with no effort. Over the course of this and the previous two homilies, however, Saint Isaac destroys the foundations of such a supposition. Theoria is not something that is generated at will, a kind of “altered state of consciousness”, but is an uncreated grace of God, something on His terms, not ours.

But this brought to my mind how often people these days deceive themselves and one another that a life of prayer is an extremeley easy thing. How easy it is to read a few chapters of the Philokalia, do a couple laps around the prayer rope, and then be impatiently waiting for theoria! What is even worse are those who are completely outside the tradition, smorgasbording their way through ancient Christian texts and practices (Eastern ones in particular are now so en mode!) and who think that this or that ancient text or practice, ripped out of its context, is justificatioin for a personally concocted supremely smug “spirituality” that is so terrifically annoying, yet so abundantly common these days.

The Christian way is threefold: purification, illumination, and glorification. One leads to the other. Without purification, without turning one’s body and mind away from those things which separate us from God, one will not experience the illumination of the soul that comes from the Holy Spirit. And without illumination of the soul, one is not experiencing theosis, the eternal approach toward the perfection of God, which is our transformation and glorification. Purification > Illumination > Glorification. We cannot skip a step. Nor may we adjust any of these steps for a perceived need to appease the world’s perceptions and expectations. The truly Christian life is something that is anti-world. And without that first step, to resolutely turn our minds away from an earthly goal and toward a heavenly one, we are not on that path at all.

Saint Isaac is quite thought-provoking!

And so is Kevin P. Edgecomb!

An important note from Origen on Scripture

The main aim of scripture is to reveal the coherent structure that exists at the spiritual level in terms both of events and injunctions. Wherever the Word [Christ] found that events on the historical plane corresponded with these mystical truths, he used them, concealing the deeper meaning from the multitude. But at those places in the account where the performance of particular actions as already recorded did not correspond with the patterns of things at the intellectual level, Scripture wove into the narrative, for the sake of the more mystical truths, things that never occurred -- sometimes things which never could have occurred, sometimes things that could have but did not...

It was not only in the relation of events before the coming of Christ that the Spirit arranged things in this way. Because he is the same Spirit and comes from the one God, he has acted in the same way with the gospels and the writings of the apostles. Even they contain a narrative that is not at all points straightforward; for woven into it are events which in the literal sense did not occur. Nor is the content of the law and commandments to be found in them entirely reasonable.

Origen of Alexandria, "On First Principles," as quoted in William R. Cook and Ronald B. Herzman, The Medieval World View: An Introduction, pp. 58-9

Plato and Aristotle against relativism

Plato (c.427-357 B.C.) and Aristotle (384-22 B.C.) lived in Athens within a generation of each other; Aristotle was Plato's student, although he wrote more in reaction to his teacher than as a continuation of Plato's thought. Much as he departed from the doctrine of his master, however, the two shared a number of important presuppositions about the nature of philosophical inquiry. Perhaps the most important of these is that both wrote in opposition to a prevalent philosophical skepticism, that is, to a mode of philosophical inquiry that held that truth was ultimately relative and that human reason was at best a faulty guide for answering questions about the nature of reality. For both Plato and Aristotle the doctrine that truth is relative was philosophically untenable, so much so that it is not inaccurate to view the thought of both men as an extended critique of philosophical relativism.

William R. Cook and Ronald B. Herzman, The Medieval World View: An Introduction, pg. 30

The history of the philosophy of history

As someone with an interest in both history and philosophy, and especially in the history of philosophy, a topic that I find very interesting is St. Augustine of Hippo's philosophy of history in his work The City of God. Bertrand Russell, I think, succinctly summarized Augustine's philosophy of history, and the philosophical milieu in which it falls, with his statement that “the Jewish pattern of history, past and future, is such as to make a powerful appeal to the oppressed and the unfortunate at all times. Saint Augustine adapted this pattern to Christianity.”¹

Thomas Cahill's book The Gifts of the Jews also sheds a great deal of light on this “Jewish pattern of history” and why it “is such as to make a powerful appeal to the oppressed and the unfortunate at all times” as well as why Augustine and many others, such as Karl Marx in the 19th century, have been able to adapt it to their own times. According to Cahill,

For the ancients, the future was always to be a replay of the past, as the past was simply an earthly replay of the drama of the heavens: “History repeats itself” – that is, false history, the history that is not history but myth. For the Jews, history will be no less replete with moral lessons. But the moral is not that history repeats itself but that it is always something new: a process unfolding through time, whose direction and end we cannot know, except insofar as God gives us some hint of what is to come. The future will not be what has happened before; indeed, the only reality that the future has is that it has not happened yet. It is unknowable; and what it will be cannot be discovered by auguries – by reading the stars or examining entrails. We do not control the future; in a profound sense, even God does not control the future because it is the collective responsibility of those who are bringing about the future by their actions in the present. For this reason, the concept of the future – for the first time – holds out promise, rather than just the same old thing. We are not doomed, not bound to some predetermined fate; we are free.²

If this paragraph from Cahill is put side by side by with Russell's summary of Augustine's City of God on pages 355-362 of his History of Western Philosophy, it looks as if Cahill too is offering a summary of Augustine's work, or at least a summary of Russell's summary. He is not doing that, of course, but the resemblance is remarkable and indicative of why the “Jewish pattern of history” is so important and so powerful. The two central and distinguishing features of this understanding of history, as Cahill and Russell explain it, are a hope of a better future as a result of one's actions in the present and an acceptance of free will to the exclusion of any form of determinism including the possibility of divination. Augustine's greatest accomplishment in his City of God was, I think, to apply these Jewish ideas about history to the context of Christianity at the time of the fall of the Western Roman Empire. According to Russell,

what Saint Augustine did was to bring these elements [Jewish eschatology, the predestination and election of Paul, and the Old Testament distinction between sacred and profane history] together, and to relate them to the history of his own time, in such a way that the fall of the Western Empire, and the subsequent period of confusion, could be assimilated by Christians without any unduly severe trial of their faith.³

In The City of God, Augustine described his vision of history as a gradual movement from the point of creation to the eventual resurrection of the dead after which “the bodies of the damned will burn eternally without being consumed” and the saints will experience “the eternal felicity of the City of God.”⁴ As Augustine saw it, it is in history, as Frederick Coplestone describes the “Christian standpoint,” “progressively, that the Body of Christ on earth grows and develops and that God's plan is unfolded.”⁵ As Coplestone goes on to say, it is to be expected that when Augustine viewed history in this way, “his outlook was primarily spiritual and moral.”⁶ To view and use history in any other way would have been to step outside of the “Jewish pattern of history” which he had adopted.

Through his work, Augustine was able to successfully integrate the “Jewish pattern of history” into the philosophical framework of the West at the time of the fall of the Western Roman Empire. He was able to make a powerful case for the hope and endurance of Christians while simultaneously launching a major offensive against the pagan understanding of many of his contemporaries. In so doing, Augustine exerted a great deal of influence on subsequent generations and made the “Jewish pattern of history” the pattern of history which the West would adopt, and which it still follows to this day.


Notes
¹ Bertrand Russell, The History of Western Philosophy (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1972), 363.

² Thomas Cahill, The Gifts of the Jews: How a Tribe of Desert Nomads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels (New York: Anchor Books, 1998), 130-1.

³ Russell.

⁴ ibid., 362.

⁵ Frederick Coplestone, A History of Philosophy, Vol. 2: Medieval Philosophy From Augustine to Duns Scotus (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 85.

⁶ ibid.

My Grandfather: Donald Raymond Sorensen (1930-2011)

My Grandpa

Donald Raymond Sorensen of Vassar, formerly of Flint, age 80, died Sunday, May 8, 2011 after a long illness. The Mass of Christian Burial took place, Thursday, May 12, 2011 at 11:00am at the St. Mary Catholic Church in Mt. Morris. Rev. Fr. Thomas Nenneau will officiate. Donald’s family was present to receive friends at the Miles Martin Funeral Home in Mt. Morris on Wednesday, May 11, 2011 from 11:00am until 9:00pm. On Wednesday evening, family, friends and parish gathered at the funeral home to pray the Rosary at 6:00pm. On Thursday, Donald was taken to church to lie in state from 10:00am until time of Mass at 11:00am. Those desiring may direct memorial contributions to the United Cerebral Palsy Foundation.

Donald was born October 17, 1930 in Flint, Michigan the son of Mr. and Mrs. Hanns and Mary (Fritsch) Sorensen. He and Dolores Raymond were united in marriage April 21, 1951; she preceded him in death December 8, 2009. Donald worked at Buick Motor Division, as a Millwright and was a United Autoworkers Union Representative for 43 years. He served the membership of UAW Local #599 as a Committeeman, Shop Committeeman, National Gear and Axle Council Delegate/Chairman, National Drop Forge Council Delegate/Chairman, Vice President, Education Director/Editor, and as an International Union Representative prior to retirement in 1991. Donald also served the people of Genesee County from 1974 until 1982, as their Chief Animal Control Officer. While at the Genesee County Animal Control, Donald completed the Michigan Law Enforcement Academy and received his Michigan Law Enforcement Officer Certification. Donald worked part time as a Road Patrol Officer at the Grand Blanc Township Police Department for 18 years. Donald also served several elected terms as a Trustee on the Genesee Township Board. He was a member of UAW Local Union #599, The Fraternal Order of Police, F.O.P., and the Labor Union Press Association. He received the Walter P. Reuther Distinguished Service Award for recognition of his service in the United Autoworkers Union. He also was awarded the Pioneers Award from Unity for Justice, in recognition of his work in the early days of the civil rights struggle and is recorded in the Library of Congress. He also worked on many community service projects in Michigan and in Arizona helping to raise funds for the purchase of clothing and shoes for underprivileged and needy children. He enjoyed auto racing, hunting in Michigan and Wyoming, and showing his award winning mint 1969 Sedan Deville in local car shows. He most enjoyed talking about his many grandchildren and great-grandchildren to anyone that would listen.

Donald leaves to cherish his memory, 10 children; Donald and wife, Theresa, Daniel, Cathy and husband, Duane DuFresne, Julie and husband, Glenn Church, Dennis and wife, Mandy, Pamela and husband, David James, David, Karen, Beth and husband, Steve Walker, and Laurie and husband, Ryan Conley; 24 grandchildren; 16 great-grandchildren; brothers, Richard and Arthur (Lee); as well as several nieces, nephews and many friends.

Donald was preceded in death by his parents; wife of 58 years, Dolores; one granddaughter; brothers, Clarence, Elmer, and Mike; and sisters, Leona, Sadie and Alice.

More Contemporary "Christian" "Worship" vs. the Worship of the Early Church

An interesting discussion is currently taking place in the comments section of my post Contemporary "Christian" "Worship" vs. the Worship of the Early Church. Take a look and chime in -- I'd like to hear everyone's opinion on this fascinating topic!

Quick Review: The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order by Samuel P. Huntington

While I don't always agree with Huntington's conclusions and opinions -- and I sometimes dispute his "facts" -- I must say that this book is an excellent introduction to the issues that we, inhabitants of the world, face as the world continues to "shrink" and members of such a great variety of civilizations and cultures are brought closer and closer together. "The other" is often more different from ourselves -- and more difficult to really understand -- than most of us would like to admit. Two features of this book that stood out to me as especially worthy of consideration were: 1. Huntington's consideration of what it is that makes Western Civilization different from the other civilizations of the world and 2. Huntington's examination of the roots of Islamic violence. In these two areas especially I think that his commentary is especially insightful and helpful. I recommend this book to all people of all civilizations as seek to live together peacefully in this complex world of ours.

St. Augustine's work as proof of God's existence

Professor Gilson, in his Introduction d l'etude de Saint Augustin, remarks that in the thought of St. Augustine there is really one long proof of God's existence, a proof which consists of various stages. Thus from the stage of initial doubt and its refutation through the Si fallor, sum, which is a kind of methodical preliminary to the search for truth, assuring the mind of the attainability of truth, the souls proceeds to consider the world of sense. In this world, however, it does not discover the truth which it seeks and so it turns inwards, where, after considering its own fallibility and changeableness, it discovers immutable truth which transcends the soul and does not depend on the soul. It is thus led to the apprehension of God as the Ground of all truth.

The picture of Augustine's total proof of the existence of God given by M. Gilson is doubtless representative of the Saint's mind and it has the great advantage not only of bringing into prominence the proof from thought, from the eternal truths, but also of linking up the 'proof' with the soul's search for God as the source of happiness, as objective beatitude, in such a way that the proof does not remain a mere academic and theoretic string or chain of syllogisms. This picture is confirmed by a passage such as that contained in Augustine's two hundred and forty-first sermon, where the Saint depicts the human soul questioning the things of sense and hearing them confess that the beauty of the visible world, of mutable things, is the creation and reflection of immutable Beauty, after which the soul proceeds inwards, discovers itself and realises the superiority of the soul to the body. 'Men saw these two things, pondered them, investigated both of them, and found that each is mutable in man.' The mind, therefore, finding both body and soul to be mutable goes in search of what is immutable. 'And thus they arrived at a knowledge of God the Creator by means of the things which He created.' St. Augustine, then, in no way denies what we call a 'natural' or 'rational' knowledge of God; but this rational knowledge of God is viewed in close connection with the soul's search for beatifying Truth and is seen as itself a kind of self-revelation of God to the soul, a revelation which is completed in the full revelation through Christ and confirmed in the Christian life of prayer. Augustine would thus make no sharp dichotomy between the spheres of natural and revealed theology, not because he failed to see the distinction between reason and faith, but rather because he viewed the soul's cognition of God in close connection with its spiritual search for God as the one Object and Source of beatitude. When Harnack reproaches Augustine with not having made clear the relation of faith to science, he fails to realise that the Saint is primarily concerned with the spiritual experience of God and that in his eyes faith and reason each have their part to play in an experience which is an organic unity.

Frederick Coplestone, A History of Philosophy, Vol. 2: Medieval Philosophy From Augustine to Duns Scotus, pp. 70-1

Osama bin Laden & St. Cyril of Alexandria

(h/t: MYSTAGOGY)

From St. Cyril of Alexandria's commentary on Luke 9:51-56:

What, then, was the purpose of this occurrence? He was going up to Jerusalem, as the time of His passion was already drawing near. He was about to endure the contumelies of the Jews; He was about to be set at nought by the scribes and Pharisees; and to suffer those things which they inflicted upon Him when they proceeded to the accomplishment of all violence and wicked audacity. In order, therefore, that they [the disciples] might not be offended when they saw Him suffering, as understanding that He would have them also to be patient, and not to murmur greatly, even though men treat them with contumely, He, so to speak, made the contempt they met with from the Samaritans a preparatory exercise in the matter. They had not received the messengers. It was the duty of the disciples, treading in the footsteps of their Lord, to bear it patiently as becometh saints, and not to say anything of them wrathfully. But they were not yet so disposed; but being seized with too hot indignation, they would have called down fire upon them from heaven, as far as their will went. But Christ rebuked them for so speaking.

See here, I pray, how great is the difference between us and God: for the distance is immeasurable. For He is slow to anger, and long-suffering, and of incomparable gentleness and love to mankind: but we children of earth are quick unto anger, hasty unto impatience, and refuse with indignation to be judged by others when we are found out in committing any wrong act; while we are most ready to find fault with others. And therefore God the Lord of all affirms, saying; "For My thoughts are not as your thoughts, nor your ways as My ways; but as the heaven is far from the earth, so are My ways from your ways, and My thoughts from your thoughts." Such, then, is He Who is Lord of all: but we, as I said, being readily vexed, and easily led into anger, take sometimes severe and intolerable vengeance upon those who have occasioned us some trifling annoyance: and though commanded to live according to the Gospel, we fall short of the practice commanded by the law. For the law indeed said, "Eye for eye; tooth for tooth; hand for hand:" and commanded that an equal retribution should suffice: but we, as I said, though perhaps we have suffered but a trifling wrong, would retaliate very harshly, not remembering Christ, who said: "The disciple is not greater than his teacher, nor the slave than his master;" Who also, "when He was reviled, reviled not again; when suffering, threatened not; but committed His cause to Him Who judgeth righteously." As treading this path much-enduring Job also is justly admired: for it is written of him, "What man is like Job, who drinketh wrongs like a draught?" For their benefit, therefore, He rebuked the disciples, gently restraining the sharpness of their wrath, and not permitting them to murmur violently against those who sinned, but persuading them rather to be longsuffering, and to cherish a mind immovable by ought of this.

It benefited them also in another way: they were to be the instructors of the whole world, and to travel through the cities and villages, proclaiming everywhere the good tidings of salvation. Of necessity, therefore, while seeking to fulfil their mission, they must fall in with wicked men, who would reject the divine tidings, and, so to speak, not receive Jesus to lodge with them. Had Christ, therefore, praised them for wishing that fire should come down upon the Samaritans, and that so painful a torment should be inflicted upon them, they would have been similarly disposed in many other instances, and when men disregarded the sacred message, would have pronounced their condemnation, and called down fire upon them from above. And what would have been the result of such conduct? The sufferers would have been innumerable, and no longer would the disciples have been so much physicians of the sick, as torturers rather, and intolerable to men everywhere. For their own good, therefore, they were rebuked, when thus enraged beyond measure at the contumely of the Samaritans: in order that they might learn that as ministers of the divine tidings, they must rather be full of longsuffering and gentleness; not revengeful; not given to wrath, nor savagely attacking those who offend them.

And that the ministers of God's message were longsuffering, Paul teaches us, saying, "For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were, condemned to death; for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. Being reviled, we bless; being defamed, we persuade: we have become the offscouring of the world; the refuse of all men up to this day." He wrote also to others, or rather to all who had not yet received Christ in them, but, so to speak, were still afflicted with the pride of the Samaritans: "We pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God."
Great, therefore, is the benefit of the gospel lessons to those who are truly perfect in mind; and may we also, taking them unto ourselves, benefit our souls, ever praising Christ the Saviour of all: by Whom and with Whom to God the Father be praise and dominion, with the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever, Amen.

Atheistic morality debate: David's 2nd rebuttal

In my rebuttal, I will be addressing Skierkowa's second rebuttal somewhat in reverse order; the reason why will be evident in my rebuttal itself.

I'm happy to see that Skierkowa acknowledges in his response that the scholars I cited as being in agreement with me concerning the historical development of Western moral ideas are indeed eminent and credible scholars whose words can certainly be taken as conveying the academic and scholarly consensus on topics like this. I'm also quite happy that Skierkowa pointed out that these scholars come from a variety of backgrounds and hold to a variety of religious and philosophical positions themselves. The only one whom I listed with whom I share a common religious affiliation is Jaroslav Pelikan, who, like me, was a convert to Eastern Orthodoxy.

I'm quite disheartened, however, to see that Skierkowa demonstrates no more knowledge of them and their positions than is available from a quick search on Wikipedia and uses this information to imply that I am lying about the positions that these scholars hold. I have decided to take the liberty of quoting each of these scholars at some length concerning their positions; this will necessarily cause this post to run well over the allotted 1200 word limit, however, I have granted Skierkowa the privilege of not counting quotes toward his word limit in his previous entries in this debate so I pray that he will grant me the same privilege now, especially given the relevance that these quotes hold to our topic of discussion. I will still keep my own words within the 1200 word limit.

In order not to bias the results in my favor, I will not offer quotes here from Jaroslav Pelikan, though I do highly recommend giving his Jesus Through the Centuries: His Place in the History of Culture a very thorough read. I have also not quoted from Dostoyevsky nor from Nietzsche as I assume that Skierkowa is willing to admit that they are both in agreement with me as he did not raise an issue with my use of them.

Please remember as you read these that the position I laid out and claimed these scholars supported is that the moral ideas of the West derive from the moral monotheism of the Jews with their doctrine of Imago Dei which later was coupled, by Christians, with the doctrine of the Incarnation. Let's see what they say:

Consider now the portrait of humans, humankind, that emerges from the biblical creation story in contrast to Enuma Elish. In Genesis, humans are important; in Genesis 1 humans are important. And in fact the biblical view of humans really emerges from both of the creation stories, when they're read together--the story here in Genesis 1 and then the creation story that occupies much of 2 and 3. The two accounts are extremely different but they both signal the unique position and dignity of the human being. In the first account in Genesis 1, the creation of the human is clearly the climactic divine act: after this God can rest. And a sign of the humans' importance is the fact that humans are said to be created in the image of God, and this occurs in Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." What might that mean? Looking at the continuation of the verse, of the passage, we have some idea because humans, we see, are going to be charged with specific duties towards, and rights over, the created world. And it seems, therefore, that the idea of being created in the image of God is connected with those special rights and duties. A creature is required who is distinguished in certain ways from other animals. How are humans distinguished from other animals? You could make a long list but it might include things like the capacity for language and higher thought or abstract thought, conscience, self-control, free-will. So, if those are the distinctive characteristics that earn the human being certain rights over creation but also give them duties towards creation, and the human is distinct from animals in being created in the image of God, there's perhaps a connection: to be godlike is to perhaps possess some of these characteristics.

Now being created in the image of God carries a further implication. It implies that human life is somehow sacred and deserving of special care and protection. And that's why in Genesis 9:6 we read, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, in exchange for that man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God was man created" [Hayes' translation]. [They] invoke that rationale from Genesis 1 in the absolute prohibition on murder. There is no way to compensate or punish someone for murder, it simply means forfeiture of one's own life. That's how sacred human life is. That's the biblical view.

So, the concept of the divine image in humans--that's a powerful idea, that there is a divine image in humans, and that breaks with other ancient conceptions of the human. In Genesis 1, humans are not the menials of God, and in fact Genesis expresses the antithesis of this. Where in Enuma Elish, service was imposed upon humans so the gods were free--they didn't have to worry about anything, the humans would take care of the gods--we have the reverse; it's almost like a polemical inversion in Genesis 1. The very first communication of God to the human that's created is concern for that creature's physical needs and welfare. He says in Genesis 1:28-29, he blesses them, "God blessed them and God said to them, 'Be fertile and increase, fill the earth and master it; and rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky and all the living things that creep on earth.'" In Genesis 2:16 after the creation story there, "And the Lord God commanded the man saying, 'Of every tree of the garden you are free to eat.'" His first thought is what are you going to eat? I want you to be fruitful and multiply, and so on.

So, humans in Genesis are not presented as the helpless victims of blind forces of nature. They're not the menials and servants of capricious gods. They are creatures of majesty and dignity and they are of importance to, objects of concern for, the god who has created them. At the same time, and I think very much in line with the assertion that humans are created in the image of God, humans are not, in fact, gods. They are still creatures in the sense of created things and they are dependent on a higher power. So in the second creation story beginning in Genesis 2:4, we read that the first human is formed when God fashions it from the dust of the earth or clay. There are lots of Ancient Near Eastern stories of gods fashioning humans from clay; we have depictions of gods as potters at a potter's wheel just turning out lots of little humans. But the biblical account as much as it borrows from that motif again takes pains to distinguish and elevate the human. First, the fashioning of the human from clay is--again--in that story, it's the climactic or, well not quite climactic, it's the penultimate, I suppose, moment in the story. The final climactic act of creation is the creation of the female from the male. That is actually the peak of creation, what can I say [laughter]? Second and significantly, not an afterthought, it's the peak of creation! Second and significantly, God himself blows the breath of life into Adam's nostrils. So while he fashions this clay figure, this carcass actually--and then breathes life, his own life into it. So, in the second creation story just as in the first, there's a sacred imprint of some kind that distinguishes the human creation from the other creatures. So this idea that the human being is a mixture of clay, he's molded from clay, but enlivened by the breath of God, captures that paradoxical mix of sort of earthly and divine elements, dependence and freedom that marks the human as unique.

It should further be noted that in the first creation account, there's no implication that man and woman are in any kind of unequal relationship before God. The Hebrew word that designates the creature created by God is the word adam. It's actually not a proper name, small a; it is adam, it's a generic term. It simply means human or more precisely earthling because it comes from the word adamah, which means ground or earth. So this is adam, an earthling, a thing that has been taken from the earth. Genesis 1 states that God created the adam, with the definite article: this is not a proper name. God created the adam, the earthling, "male and female created he them." That's a line that has vexed commentators for centuries and has spawned many very fascinating interpretations. And you will be reading some of those in the readings that are assigned for section discussion next week and I think having a great deal of fun with them. Moreover, this earthling that seems to include both male and female, is then said to be in the image of God. So that suggests that the ancient Israelites didn't conceive of God as gendered or necessarily gendered. The adam, the earthling, male and female was made in the image of God. Even in the second creation account, it's not clear that the woman is subordinate to the man. Many medieval Jewish commentators enjoy pointing out that she was not made from his head so that she not rule over him, but she wasn't made from his foot so that she would be subservient to him; she was made from his side so that she would be a companion to him. And the creation of woman, as I said, is in fact the climactic creative act in the second Genesis account. With her formation, creation is now complete. So, the biblical creation stories individually and jointly present a portrait of the human as the pinnacle and purpose of creation: godlike in some way, in possession of distinctive faculties and characteristics, that equip them for stewardship over the world that God has created.

Finally, let's talk about the image of the world that emerges from the creation story in Genesis 1. In these stories, there's a very strong emphasis on the essential goodness of the world. Recall some of Kaufman's ideas or categories again. One of the things he claims is that in a polytheistic system, which is morally neutral, where you have some primordial realm that spawns demons, monsters, gods, evil is a permanent necessity. It's just built into the structure of the cosmos because of the fact that all kinds of divine beings, good and bad, are generated and locked in conflict. So the world isn't essentially good in its nature or essentially bad. Note the difference in Genesis. After each act of creation what does God say? "It is good," right? Genesis 1 verse 4, verse 10, verse 12, verse 18, verse 21, verse 25… and after the creation of living things, the text states that God found all that he made to be very good. So there are seven occurrences of the word "good" in Genesis. That's something you want to watch for. If you're reading a passage of the Bible and you're noticing a word coming up a lot, count them. There's probably going to be seven or ten, they love doing that. The sevenfold or the tenfold repetition of a word--such a word is called a leitwort, a recurring word that becomes thematic. That's a favorite literary technique of the biblical author. So we read Genesis 1 and we hear this recurring--"and it was good… and he looked and it was good… and he looked and it was good," and we have this tremendous rush of optimism. The world is good; humans are important; they have purpose and dignity.

Hayes, Christine. Open Yale Courses. “Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible): Lecture 3 Transcript.” (2011) http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/introduction-to-the-old-testament-hebrew-bible/content/class-sessions/transcripts/transcript03.html (Accessed 17 April 2011).

Note in the above quote the importance of humanity in the Jewish scheme of Creation – as she makes clear, a concept of humanity that is unique to the Jews among ancient peoples.

In the last two centuries, both [Judeo-Christian religion and Greek reason] these most characteristic elements of Western civilization have in fact become increasingly under heavy attack. At different times, science and technology have been blamed for the destruction of human community and the alienation of people from nature and from one another - for intensifying the gulf between rich and poor, for threatening the very existence of humanity, either by producing weapons of total destruction or by destroying the environment. At the same time, the foundations of freedom have also come into question. Jefferson and his colleagues could confidently proclaim their political rights as being self evident and the gift of a creator. By now, in our time, however, the power of religion has faded, and for many, the basis of modern political and moral order has been demolished.

Nietzsche announced the death of God and Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor asserted that when God is dead all things are permitted. Nihilism rejects any objective basis for society and its morality. It rejects the very concept of objectivity. It even rejects the possibility of communication itself, and a vulgar form of Nihilism, I claim, has a remarkable influence in our educational system today, a system rotting from the head down, so chiefly in universities, but all the way down to elementary schools. The consequences of the victory of such ideas, I believe, would be enormous. If both religion and reason are removed, all that remains is will and power, where the only law is the law of tooth and claw.

There is no protection for the freedom of weaker individuals, or those who question the authority of the most powerful. There is no basis for individual rights, or for a critique of existing ideas and institutions, if there is no base either in religion or in reason.

Kagan, Donald. Open Yale Courses. “Introduction to Ancient Greek History: Lecture 1 Transcript.” (6 September 2007) http://oyc.yale.edu/classics/introduction-to-ancient-greek-history/content/transcripts/transcript1-introduction (Accessed 17 April 2011).

Note that Dr. Kagan says above nearly exactly what I've been saying in this debate – and Skierkowa has yet to answer this point. How does atheism not inevitably end up as nihilism – both moral and epistemological?

The Jewish pattern of history, past and future, is such as to make a powerful appeal to the oppressed and the unfortunate at all times. Saint Augustine adapted this pattern to Christianity, Marx to Socialism. To understand Marx psychologically, one should use the following dictionary:

Yahweh=Dialectical Materialism
The Messiah=Marx
The Elect=The Proletariat
The Church=The Communist Party
The Second Coming=The Revolution
Hell=Punishment of the Capitalists
The Millennium=The Communist Commonwealth.
The terms on the left give the emotional content of the terms on the right, and it is this emotional content, familiar to those who have had a Christian or a Jewish upbringing, that makes Marx's eschatology credible. A similar dictionary could be made for the Nazis, but their conceptions are more purely Old Testament and less Christian than those of Marx, and their Messiah is more analogous to the Maccabees than to Christ.

Keep this quote in mind for a moment; later quotes will elucidate on why this is important.

Suppose you are a Jew, and your family has been massacred. Suppose you are an underground worker against the Nazis, and your wife has been shot because you could not be caught. Suppose your husband, for some purely imaginary crime, has been sent to forced labour in the Arctic, and has died of cruelty and starvation. Suppose your daughter has been raped and then killed by enemy soldiers. Ought you, in these circumstances, to preserve a philosophic calm?

If you follow Christ's teaching, you will say "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." I have known Quakers who could have said this sincerely and profoundly, and whom I admired because they could. But before giving admiration one must be very sure that the misfortune is felt as deeply as it should be. One cannot accept the attitude of some among the Stoics, who said, "What does it matter to me if my family suffer? I can still be virtuous." The Christian principle, "Love your enemies," is good, but the Stoic principle, "Be indifferent to your friends," is bad. And the Christian principle does not inculcate calm, but an ardent love even towards the worst of men. There is nothing to be said against it except that it is too difficult for most of us to practise sincerely.

This is especially important for its juxtaposition of the Greco-Roman philosophical approach with the Christian approach, making precisely the same point I made in my first rebuttal concerning this very matter.

The view of the state of nature and of natural law which Locke accepted from his predecessors cannot be freed from its theological basis; where it survives without this, as in much modern liberalism, it is destitute of clear logical foundation

Russell, Bertrand. The History of Western Philosophy. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1972: 363-4, 578-9 and 623-4.

As Russell explains previous to the above-quoted portion, the specific theological basis of Locke's views, which contributed significantly to the development of modern Western democratic government, were the Medieval Christian philosophers, who in turn drew on their Jewish and early Christian, especially Latin Christian, roots.

By granting immortality and value to the individual soul, Christianity encouraged the growth of the individual conscience, self-responsibility, and personal autonomy relative to temporal powers – all decisive traits for the formation of the Western character.

In its moral teachings, Christianity brought to the pagan world a new sense of the sanctity of human life, the spiritual value of the family, the spiritual superiority of self-denial over egoistic fulfillment, of unworldly holiness over worldly ambition, of gentleness and forgiveness over violence and retribution; a condemnation of murder, suicide, the killing of infants, the massacre of prisoners, the degradation of slaves, sexual licentiousness and prostitution, bloody circus spectacles – all in the new awareness of God's love for humanity, and the moral purity that love required in the human soul.

Tarnas, Richard. The Passion of the Western Mind. New York: Ballantine Books, 1991: 116-7.

Again, exactly what I've been saying throughout this debate.

Christianity's claim that all were equal before God and all equally precious to him ran through class-conscious, minority-despising, weakness-ridiculing Greco-Roman society like a charged current. It is no wonder, really, that the primitive church seemed an almost fairyland harbor to women, who had always been kept in the shadows, and to slaves, who had never before been awarded a soupçon of social dignity or political importance.

Cahill, Thomas. Mysteries of the Middle Ages: The Rise of Feminism, Science, and Art from the Cults of Catholic Europe. New York: Doubleday, 2008: 44.

Note, in addition to the concise quote, the name of the book.

The Greeks, the Romans, the Syrians, and most of the other Mediterranean peoples would have said two things about their gods' characters. First, they tend to be amoral; second, toward humankind they are preponderantly indifferent. The Jews reversed the thinking of their contemporaries on both these counts. Whereas the gods of Olympus tirelessly pursued beautiful women, the God of Sinai watched over widows and orphans. While Mesopotamia's Anu and Canaan's El were pursuing aloof ways, Yahweh speaks the name of Abraham, lifting his people out of slavery, and (in Ezekiel's vision) seeks out the lonely, heartsick Jewish exiles in Babylon. God is a God of righteousness, whose loving-kindness is from everlasting to everlasting and whose tender mercies are in all his works.

Smith, Huston. The World's Religions: Our Great Wisdom Traditions. New York: HarperCollins, 1991: 275.

Again, the importance of that moral monotheism of the Jews.

The casual cruelty of other ancient law codes – the cutting off of nose, ears, tongue, lower lips (for kissing another man's wife), breasts, and testicles – is seldom matched in the Torah. Rather, in the prescriptions of Jewish law we cannot but note a presumption that all people, even slaves, are human and that all human lives are sacred. The constant bias is in favor not of the powerful and their possessions but of the powerless and their poverty; and there is even a frequent enjoinder to sympathy. … This bias toward the underdog is unique not only in ancient law but in the whole history of law.

Again, note the emphasis on the uniqueness of the Jewish understanding.

We can read the Bible (as do postmodernists) as a jumble of unrelated texts, given a false and superficial unity by redactors of the exilic period and later. But this is to ignore not only the powerful emotional and spiritual effect that much of the Bible has on its readers, even on readers who would rather not be moved, but also its cumulative impact on whole societies. The Bible's great moments – the thunderous “lekh-lekha” spoken to Avram, the secret Name of God revealed to cowering Moshe, Miryam's song on the far shore, God's Ten Words, David's Good Shepherd, Isaiah's Holy Mountain – are hard to brush aside as merely human expressions with no relationship to the deepest meanings of our own individual lives. Nor can we imagine the great liberation movements of modern history without reference to the Bible. Without the Bible we would never have known the abolitionist movement, the prison-reform movement, the antiwar movement, the labor movement, the civil rights movement, the movements of indigenous and dispossessed peoples for their human rights, the antiapartheid movement in South Africa, the Solidarity movement in Poland, the free-speech and pro-democracy movements in such Far Eastern countries as South Korea, the Philippines, and even China. These movements of modern times have all employed the language of the Bible; and it is even impossible to understand their great heroes and heroines – people like Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Mother Jones, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Cesar Chavez, Helder Camara, Oscar Romero, Rigoberta Menchu, Corazon Aquino, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, Charity Kaluki Ngilu, Harry Wu – without recourse to the Bible.

Beyond these movements, which have commonly taken the Book of Exodus as their blueprint, are other forces that have shaped our world, such as capitalism, communism, and democracy. Capitalism and communism are both bastard children of the Bible, for both are processive faiths, modeled on biblical faith and demanding of their adherents that they always hold in their hearts a belief in the future and keep before their eyes the vision of a better tomorrow, whether that tomorrow contains a larger gross domestic product or a workers' paradise. Neither ideology could have risen in the cyclical East, in Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, or Shinto. But because capitalism and communism are processive faiths without God, each is a form of madness – a fantasy without a guarantee. Democracy, in contrast, grows directly out of the Israelite vision of individuals, subjects of value because they are images of God, each with a unique and personal destiny. There is no way that it could ever have been “self-evident that all men are created equal” without the intervention of the Jews.

I don't believe that that could possibly be clearer, but later on Cahill is even more clear:

Unbelievers might wish to stop for a moment and consider how completely God – this Jewish God of justice and compassion – undergirds all our values and that it is just possible that human effort without this God is doomed to certain failure. Humanity's most extravagant dreams are articulated by the Jewish prophets. In Isaiah's vision, true faith is no longer confined to one nation, but “all the nations” stream to the House of YHWH “that he may teach us his ways” and that we may learn to “beat [our] swords into plowshares.” All who share this outrageous dream of universal brotherhood, peace, and justice, who dream the dreams and see the visions of the great prophets, must bring themselves to contemplate the possibility that without God there is no justice.

Cahill, Thomas. The Gifts of the Jews: How a Tribe of Desert Nomads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels. New York: Anchor Books, 1998: 154-5, 248-9, and 251-2.

Indeed; that is exactly the point that I have been trying to make in this debate.

Although I didn't originally cite David Gress in my list of scholars, I want to offer something from him as the final, summarizing quote here:

The Israelites were not unusual among the peoples of the ancient Near East in their general culture or language, which was closely related to those spoken throughout the area. The Israelites, or Hebrews, were unusual in their religion, because unlike the other Near Easterners they claimed that their god was the only god, that he had made the world and everything in it, but was separate from the world, that he had made a special covenant with them, and that, as part of this covenant, he had given them a full set of laws and rules on how to live and how to worship him. The Israelites thus contributed monotheism to the West. This contribution was important not as religion or theology, but because monotheism made a radical distinction between the divine and the human. This distinction had two consequences. It emphasized the moral value of individual human acts and thus helped to create the idea of an individual conscience and individual responsibility. Second, it directed human attention to understanding nature, both human and nonhuman, and this impulse, together with Greek rationalism and modern European principles of freedom and toleration, made possible science and democracy.

Gress, David. From Plato to NATO. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1998: 41.

I think that this final quote really summarizes it all. I am not trying to detract from the contribution that the Greeks have made to Western Civilization; I pointed out several times in this debate, in fact, that they made a significant one. Their contribution was not, however, in the field of ethics and morality. It was in the field of reason. The moral development of the West is almost solely the prerogative of the Judeo-Christian tradition. I think we've beat this horse dead; hopefully Skierkowa can admit when he is wrong and we can move on to actually addressing the topic at hand in this debate, which has hardly been touched by Skierkowa: "Can an atheistic worldview support a consistent morality?" As of yet, we have no reason to believe that it can.

Skierkowa also criticizes my statements on Machiavelli, alleging that The Prince "is a work of irony written in support of republicanism." First, it should be pointed out that that is only one perspective that modern scholars have on Machiavelli and it a minority position. Secondly, that doesn't really matter. What matters is that Machiavelli consistently appeals to Classical Greco-Roman examples in describing the ruthless and cunning way that the ideal prince should behave, and he contrasts this on a regular basis with Judeo-Christian morality throughout his book, stressing the practicality of the former even while extolling the gentleness (if impracticality) of the latter. Also note that Skierkowa entirely ignored the fact that I pointed out that Nietzsche also appealed to Classical Greco-Roman standards in his desire to return to a "master-morality." Many scholars, including Bertrand Russell, have quite fittingly compared Machiavelli and Nietzsche because of this similarity in approach. But enough on that topic.

Returning to the first half of Skierkowa's rebuttal: he offers us there a very muddled argument that “if this were an atheistic society … that society would also approve of its own values.” Yes, it certainly would, and that's a large part of the point I've been trying to make. How would it differ and what would be the basis of its values? If my scenario is “absurdly deranged,” what is Skierkowa's alternative vision and his reasoning to back it up? I find it interesting that Skierkowa refers to “our” values and society, admitting, of course, that he and I share these things in common. But as we've seen in the quotes above, the values of our society are derived from the theological foundations of Judeo-Christian religious beliefs. Is it not inconsistent for Skierkowa to continue to adhere to these values without adhering to the beliefs that underpin them? Why is this not inconsistent? What does a consistent atheistic morality look like? “Can an atheistic worldview support a consistent morality?” That is the question, after all, and I hope that Skierkowa will get around to answering it sometime soon.