The Main Event

Mysticism in the Christian New Testament

2011-12-07T16:23:00.000-08:00

The two most fundamental branches of any worldview are its metaphysics and its epistemology. The third branch, ethics, is the payoff branch; it develops a code of behavior telling us how to act. In religious worldviews, the moral code comes from the supernatural world. To get that message and other items from the supernatural world to us requires special, supernatural means: mysticism.

Christianity, with more than two billion followers, is the largest religion. Its holy scripture is the New Testament. What elements of mysticism does it present to readers? The following notes, drawn from a ten-week reading of the N.T. for Study Groups for Objectivists, sketch an answer. As a beginning student of the Bible, I welcome corrections.

GENERAL NATURE OF THE N.T.. Jesus lived on earth c. 4 BCE to c. 30 CE. Christians believe he is the son of God.[1] The N.T. describes mainly the "good news" (gospel) of his model life and the message he brought to man: Believe in God and your soul will be saved after death of the body. The N.T. also records the doctrines, practices, and aspirations of Jesus's followers in the two generations after his execution.[2]

The Catholic version of the N. T. includes twenty-seven "books" written c. 50-110 CE by various authors, some anonymous. In sharp contrast to the actual author of the Qur'an, the N.T. writers generally do not claim that God revealed the content as it is worded; instead, Christians -- as men, but perhaps inspired by God -- wrote about God and about their own worries as leaders of a movement. (For mysticism in the Qur'an, see here first and then here.)

AN ANTHOLOGY, NOT A TREATISE. The N.T., considered as a whole, is an anthology of disparate documents. In some, the authors write as if the documents were eyewitness accounts; others are reports of the testimony of earlier Christians; and still others are letters purportedly written by famous Christians to other Christians. The later organizers of the Bible sorted the books in groups. Examples are: the four gospels together at the beginning of the Bible; fourteen letters written by Paul or writers posing as Paul; and, alone, the unusually sophisticated Letter to the Hebrews from an anonymous, perhaps philosophically trained writer living c. 100 CE.

ORDER. The arrangement of the "books" is very loosely from longest to shortest. However, the last, "The Revelation to John," is half as long (at 16 pages of small, two-column print) as the longest book, the third, "The Gospel According to Luke" (34 pages). The general order makes some sense. Jesus is the focus. So, the N.T. begins with the four gospel writers describing the life of Jesus; each writer provides somewhat different information. Then come a variety of letters by Jesus's followers, those spreading the doctrines of Jesus in a hostile pagan world. Last comes "Revelations," an account of visions that God presented to one man, visions presaging the end of the world and the beginning of the everlasting monarchy of Jesus.

A SOURCE OF POPULAR SAYINGS. Of special interest in evaluating the influence of the N.T. today is the high number of N.T. statements that circulate in our modern culture, even among non-Christians. Examples from Matthew are: "You are the salt of the earth" (Chapter 5, Verse 13), "No one can serve two masters" (6:24), and "[D]o not throw your pearls before swine" (7:6).

CHRISTIANITY'S SUPERNATURALISM. The metaphysical foundation of the Christian worldview is supernaturalism, that is, the belief (-ism) that there are two realms: the natural world we know through our senses, and another, higher (super-) world not knowable through our senses. The gap between the supernatural world, which is man's source of ethics, and the natural world, where man lives, requires mysticism, that is, "knowledge" gained through some form other than reason (which is limited to this world, if anywhere).

Consider the first book of the N.T., the 31-page "Gospel According to Matthew." Here supernaturalism is either quietly stated or assumed. The writer makes no effort to convince his readers (presumably already Christians) of the existence of God, his son Jesus Christ, and the otherwise unidentified Holy Spirit. (See, for example, 1:20.)

The writer simply reports supernatural events, that is, events in the natural world that cannot happen without intervention from the supernatural world. An illustration is the impregnation of the mother of Jesus, Mary, by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20).

The importance of the supernatural world relative to the natural world is clear in passages such as Matthew 5:34-35, where the writer says "heaven ... is the throne of God" and "earth ... is his footstool." A few other examples of supernaturalism are: (1) Almost the whole book of "The Revelation to John," who is a Christian living and writing in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) c. 96 CE, including visions of Heaven's war against evil people on earth, at the end of time; (2) Paul (sometimes called the "second founder of Christianity") exorcizing a spirit from a soothsayer (Acts 16:16); and (3) God as "the builder of all things" (Hebrews 3:4).

OBJECTS TO BE "KNOWN" MYSTICALLY. What sorts of things do Christians learn through the various forms of mysticism identified below? First, Christians learn "facts" through mysticism. Angels who rebelled against God were punished by God by being confined "in the nether gloom until" the final day, the day of Judgment, as Jude reports in Verse 6 of his brief "The Letter of Jude." He does not cite a source. He simply speaks authoritatively. His mentions of faith, both a little earlier in the letter and a little later, set a mystical context.

Through mysticism, Christians also learn values -- evaluations, ethical rules, and so forth. One form is through the words and example of Jesus (the supernatural incarnation of God on earth), reported authoritatively by his chosen apostles. For example, from the Biblical accounts of Jesus using a whip to drive sheep, oxen, and moneychangers from the Jews' temple in Jerusalem (in "The Gospel According to John," 2:14-15), Christians learn the superiority of the religious over the mundane.

Sometimes mysticism conveys specific instructions to a single Christian, as when, at Acts, 10:1-9, an "angel of God" appears before Cornelius, a Roman centurion and Christian, to tell him to fetch the apostle Peter from the nearby town of Joppa. At other times, mysticism -- in the form of words from the God incarnate in Jesus -- conveys the defining ethical principles of Christianity, as at "The Gospel According to Luke," 6:27, "Love your enemies."

(1) FAITH. The New Testament is not a collection of philosophical essays. It is an anthology of articles whose authors either describe the divine actions and sayings of Jesus or give their own advice, as an application of divine (that is, mystically known) principles to particular situations.

Faith is one of the forms of mysticism displayed in the Bible. The anonymous author of "The Letter to the Hebrews," writing c. 90 CE, defines faith succinctly. In Hebrews, 11:1, he says that "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Faith is based on emotion (wishful thinking); and it is a belief in objects not evident to the senses. "By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear" (Hebrews, 11:3).

The key point is that faith is an acceptance of ideas without or even contrary to proof based logically on the evidence of the senses. Ideas are motivators; they cause human actions. Faith in God means accepting two ideas as a starting point: God exists and his words are reliable guides to action.

Much of the N.T. is less sophisticated than "Letter to the Hebrews." Most of the various writers merely beseech their readers to "believe" or "have faith." As at Acts, 5:14, followers of the way of life that Jesus had advocated a generation earlier are called "believers." Paul, writing, in part ironically, in "The First Letter to the [Christian] Corinthians," 1:21, reminds his readers that "it pleases God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe." Belief (faith) is required for eternal salvation of one's soul, which is the main point of being a Christian.

(2) REVELATION. Compared to the Qur'an, which is almost wholly a series of revelations passed directly to the reader by the person who said he received them, Muhammad, the N.T. contains little direct revelation from God to man. Two major exceptions in the N.T. are passages quoting Jesus in the four gospels (at the beginning of the N.T.) and "The Revelation to John" (at the end of the Bible).

The gospel accounts were written by men living a generation or two after Jesus. Jesus's statements are thus, to these writers, an indirect or traditional ("handed down") form of revelation. An example is the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew quotes Jesus throughout Chapters 5-7.

"The Revelation to John" begins with a note from an anonymous writer, c. 95 CE. The note tells readers that God gave a message to Jesus (who has been dead for sixty years and presumably resides in Heaven), and Jesus, in turn, has sent "his angel" (in Greek, angelos means "messenger") to carry the message to John of Patmos (Revelation, 1:1). John himself then writes a greeting "to the seven churches that are in Asia" (Turkey, today). The remainder of the letter from John is a statement of what he heard one day while living on the Mediterranean island of Patmos, to which he had been exiled for preaching Christianity (Revelation, 1:9, and Perkins, p. 8). John of Patmos writes:

I was in the Spirit of the Lord's day and heard behind me a loud voice saying, "Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches ...." Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven gold lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands [I saw] one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe ..." (Revelation, 1:10-13).

John continues reporting the actions and words of Jesus and other figures John sees in his serial vision of mankind's fate at the end of the world. The peculiarity of this account, the most mystical in the N.T., is that the author and narrator is human, but quoting Jesus or describing visions which God has sent directly to this writer. "The Revelation to John" is thus a human account of a divine revelation to one man.

(3) SIGNS. The N.T. speaks of signs. An example is the star of Bethlehem. In Matthew, 2:9-10, "wise men from the East" follow a star -- first to Jerusalem and then to Bethlehem -- to see and adore the newborn Christ. The message of this form of mysticism -- "Follow me to the child you seek" -- is implied, that is, not stated in words in the text. The wise men somehow "just know" the star that moves above them is a guide. Perhaps, as usual, this passage of holy scripture was accompanied by an oral tradition that further described the star if any doubter asked questions.

John, 2:1-11, relates the story of Jesus turning water into wine at a marriage festival. This miracle -- that is, a supernatural intervention into the natural world -- is a "sign" of the power of Jesus.

"The Acts of the Apostles" (at 2:43, 4:16, and 5:1-12) speaks of the apostles as performing "signs and wonders." (The Apostles were individuals Jesus had named, during his life on earth, to be evangelists of his message after his death.) One example was an act of the Apostle Peter. He, through his words, struck dead a married couple who, apparently in preparation for Christian communal living, had sold their property but had given only part of the proceeds to the Christians. Their deaths were signs of the power of God.

(4-7) HEARTS, INSPIRATIONS, VISIONS, AND DREAMS. In the N.T., Christian writers mention a variety of other forms of mysticism, again without elaboration or argumentation.

THE HEART. Some of the N.T. writers speak of the heart as a source of ideas that guide our actions. "For man believes with his heart ...," says Apostle Paul, at "Letter to the Romans," 10:10.

INSPIRATION. In one scene, the Spirit of God in the form of a dove alights on Jesus and "a voice from heaven" speaks, says Matthew, 3:16. Matthew does not further describe this spirit. However, in the "First Letter to the Corinthians," 2:10-14, the apostle Paul says:

... what God has prepared for those who love him, God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. ... So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. ... The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Thus, Paul seems to be saying that a Spirit of God is separate from God, perhaps in the same mysterious manner that Jesus is the son of God. Paul further notes that mystical knowledge -- at least in the form of knowing God's thoughts as delivered by the Holy Spirit -- is available only to the spiritual man.

VISIONS. Another way in which God communicates from the supernatural to the natural realm is through visions. The most vivid and large-scale are the visions John the exile saw and then describes in "Revelations." For example:

Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, loud noises, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. (Revelations, 11:19)

Such a vision conveys "knowledge" in that it confirms through sight the existence of items in the supernatural realm, such as the ark of the covenant described in the Old Testament.

DREAMS. After they have adored the Christ child in Bethlehem, a dream warns the wise men from the East not to return to King Herod in Jerusalem as the king had ordered. They obey the dream and depart back to the East (Matthew, 2:12). Likewise, a dream orders Joseph, the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus, to take his family to Egypt as a refuge from the wrath of King Herod in Israel; and when King Herod dies, another dream informs Joseph, living in Egypt, that he should return to Israel (Matthew, 2:19). Dreams seem to generally convey specific knowledge to particular individuals, not broad principles that would be applicable to all men, at all times, and everywhere.

CONCLUSIONS. Like the Qur'an, the N.T. is saturated with mysticism. Despite the variety of types of text included in this anthology seemingly selected by a committee, the N.T. beats a steady cadence of mentions of mysticism: praise for "believers"; directions for travelers via dreams or moving stars; a voice from heaven; and foremost the sermons or aphorisms of a prophet who is the Son of God in human form, a prophet who delivers a divine message to sinful man.

Also like the Qur'an, the N.T. offers no intellectualizing -- no explicit, principled identification of the nature of mysticism in any of its forms, no argued defense of mysticism, and no advocacy of mysticism. Those tasks would go to theologians, religious philosophers, and religious intellectuals in the following generations.

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith, at www.reasonversusmysticism.com

[1] For this post, which is only a collection of notes, my guide to the N.T. is: Pheme Perkins, Reading the New Testament: An Introduction, sec. ed., New York, Paulist Press, 1988 (a revision of the original, 1978 ed.). I chose Perkins, a Catholic scholar, as my guide because I wanted a source that many Christians would support. Secular scholars may offer different details. Many particulars and interpretations of particulars in the Bible are controversial, even among Christians. Perkins's work is sufficient for my initial study.

[2] The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version, New York, Penguin Books, 1962.

Mysticism in the Qur'an

2011-09-14T17:39:00.000-07:00

This post is the second summarizing my notes taken in the Koran Reading Group organized by Amy Peikoff. See the first post, for a bibliography.

GENERAL NATURE OF THE QUR'AN. The Qur'an is an anthology of sermons which, Muslims believe, God revealed to Muhammad c. 610-632. Muhammad recited them to his followers and others in Mecca and Medina. The Qur'an covers subjects ranging from the nature of God to rules of inheritance. Sprinkled throughout the Qur'an are elements of every branch of Islam's crude philosophy -- its metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics.

God is the cause of everything (2:29, 117). Principles of God's nature -- particularly His omnipotence (2:20), omnipresence (7:7), and omniscience (2:29, 32) -- comprise the metaphysics of Islam. Further, this all-knowing God is wise (24:18); He is clear in his revelations (27:1); He wants men to understand (23:80); He says belief is crucial for attaining Paradise (23:10-11; 29:56-58); and He sends Truth (23:90). The Qur'an is thus intently concerned with human cognition.

ISLAM'S NEED FOR MYSTICISM. The Qur'an assumes ideas motivate human actions, but God's perfect ideas are in a supernatural realm (16:2, 25:6) beyond man's grasp. To convey those ideas to severely limited human minds here in the natural realm, God relies on mysticism. That is the only way to bridge the gap between God and man.

Islam's theory of man is a second factor requiring mysticism. Man has a corrupt nature (16:61), a nature that hinders his ability to understand (especially the "Unseen," as implied at 13:9). Man has a "soul ... prone to evil" (12:53). Man has arisen from a "fluid despicable" (77:20). Though created by God with great potential, man becomes the lowest of the low (95:4-5). Man sees himself as self-sufficient, but he is not (96:6-7). Man is easily manipulated by Satan (12:42, 12:100). In the final judgment, "Man will be evidence against himself" (75:14)."If God were to punish men according to what they deserve, He would not leave on the back of the (earth) a single living creature," Muhammad says (35:45).

In summary, the problem for man is that "God knows, and ye know not" (24:19). The solution is a mystical relationship between God and man. God tells Muhammad (who will speak to other men): "The Qur'an was sent down by Him Who knows the Mystery that is in the heavens and the earth" (25:6). The supernatural requires the mystical.

OBJECTS TO BE "KNOWN" MYSTICALLY. For Islam, as presented in the Qur'an, what sort of ideas must mysticism convey to man? Man must have as guides at least three ideas: God exists; God's apostle is Muhammad; and the Light which God has sent down through Muhammad to man is trustworthy (64:8). Once man has mystically acquired those fundamental ideas, beyond doubt, man needs only to look to the Qur'an and traditional descriptions of Muhammad's life for guidance.

FAITH AS ACCEPTING IDEAS. The Qur'an does not explicitly define faith. Inference from numerous uses of the term leads to the conclusion that the term/concept "faith" in the Qur'an (at least in Ali's translation) matches the usual meaning elsewhere: Holding an idea without evidence or even contrary to the evidence of the senses. In his footnote 983 to verse 6:158, translator and commentator Ali confirms that meaning. He defines faith as "the belief in things which you do not see with your eyes but you understand with your spiritual sense." This meaning is partly confirmed in passages such as 13:9, in which God "knoweth the Unseen." Man is limited to his senses, so God can know other things that He can either keep to himself or reveal mystically. Man must either reject them or accept them on faith.

As in Christian literature, Ali's English translation of the Qur'an uses the word "faith" in two meanings: (1) the act of accepting an idea without evidence; and (2) the set of ideas to be accepted. An example of the latter appears in 59:9 ("adopted the Faith").

The last point is that faith, as acceptance of ideas without evidence, is not the same thing as the source of the ideas. God, of course, is the ultimate source of all things, including ideas. What are the intermediate sources through which God conveys ideas to man?

REVELATION AS A SOURCE. God has several ways to mystically convey Truth to man. Revelation is the main one. The Qur'an itself is a collection of God's revelations to Muhammad. The messenger who brought those revelations to Muhammad was the angel Gabriel (also called "The Spirit of Faith and Truth," 26:192-194). Muhammad, in turn, recited each revelation to an appropriate audience in Medina or Mecca. (The Arabic word al-qur'aan means "the recitations".) Some audiences were "Believers" (5:99, 104-105). Other audiences were Jews (4:153-161), Christians (2:138-140), or pagans such as the Quraish (54:43-46), Muhammad's own tribe of origin.

The Qur'an itself tells readers (3:7) that some of its revealed verses are "fundamental" (to be taken literally) and others are allegorical. The allegorical passages have hidden meanings known only to God. "Men of understanding" will nevertheless grasp the meaning. The Qur'an does not tell readers how they will come to understand. In the Qur'an, "understanding" is a synonym for "mystical insight," the methodless method of coming to know something.

SIGNS AS A SOURCE. The God of the Qur'an presents "Signs" as a source of ideas in the form of indirect communication from God to man. An example comes from 2:164: "Behold! In the creation of the heavens and the earth; in the alternation of the Night and the Day; in the sailing of the ships through the Ocean for the profit of mankind ... -- (here) indeed are Signs for a people that are wise." (Sometimes the term "Signs" refers to verses in the Qur'an, as at 8:31.)

In Sura 6, God identifies three levels of cognition, each for a different audience. God says, "We detail Our Signs for people who know [6:97] ... people who understand [6:98] ... [and] people who believe [6:99]." According to translator Abdullah Yusuf Ali (n. 928, p. 318), God is making a distinction: Knowing is for people who merely look at the Signs in the world around them, which is nature; understanding is a higher form of cognition, one required to grasp mysteries; and believing is the highest form of cognition, faith, which brings us closer to God. All three levels of Signs are mystical; they are not functions of reason.

HEARTS, INSPIRATIONS, VISIONS, AND DREAMS AS SOURCES. The Qur'an mentions other intermediate sources of ideas. One is the heart. When God penalizes some individuals, He "set[s] a seal on their hearts," blocks their hearing, and veils their eyes (2.7). The exact meaning of "heart" here is not clear. In Muhammad's time was it synonymous with soul? Was it thus a conflation of emotion, thought, and the "voice" of the subconscious -- as it was among some prephilosophical Greeks? (For the latter, see E. R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational.)

Second, God sometimes uses "inspiration" -- sending a "spirit" into someone -- as a way to download information into an individual's mind. Inspiration is thus a form of revelation (as at 41:6). God chooses to send inspiration (of His "Command") to only a few individuals; He then directs them to warn others.

Third, the Qur'an also notes a use of interpretation of daytime visions (12:43) and nighttime dreams (12:44). Perhaps these are holdovers from Muhammad's pagan culture.

RELATED PHENOMENA. Islam includes several supernaturalist phenomena related to cognition, but Muslims have no choice about these.

1. GOD DOWNLOADS STATES OF MIND. God sometimes downloads a state of mind into a particular individual. "It is He Who sent down tranquility into the hearts of the Believers, that they may add Faith to their Faith, " says Muhammad at 48:4; and, at 58:22, the Qur'an says, "For such [individuals] He has written Faith in their hearts, and strengthened them with a spirit from Himself."

2. GOD MANIPULATES THE SENSES. At the Battle of Badr, early Muslims faced pagan enemies. God distorted the pagans' sense-perception and therefore their assessment of the strength of the Muslim army (3:13, 8:43-44), causing the pagans to miscalculate and lose the battle. (Before the battle, God also made the Muslims more confident than the sense-perceptible facts would have justified.) Combining this interference in sense-perception with God's omnipresence and His inscrutable (arbitrary) decision-making explains why Islam has an epistemology of philosophical skepticism (the notion that we cannot know anything using sense-perception and reason). In the Islamic worldview, faith -- especially in fundamental ideas -- is not merely desirable but required.

3. GOD INVERTS COGNITION. The Qur'an accuses nonbelievers (some of whom refuse to abandon sense-perception in favor of  faith) of lacking the power of hearing and seeing -- for example, at 11:20, 24, and 28. At 12: 108, God tells Muhammad to say that the evidence for the existence and power of God is as "clear as the seeing with one's eyes" (12:108).

CONCLUSIONS. The Qur'an shows God sending philosophical and other messages to man through a variety of sources: God's revelations in the verses of the Qur'an itself; Signs of various kinds; the human heart; visions; dreams; and inspiration.

God expects Believers to accept on faith all the ideas that come from those sources. Further, by implication but never explicitly, God undercuts man's reason. God does so by manipulating man's senses (the basis of reason); by insisting on man's moral corruption as an implied corruption of man's ability to think for himself; by controlling states of mind; and by reminding man ceaselessly that God knows all, both the seen and the unseen, a task impossible for man.

Islam, as presented in the Qur'an, is saturated with mysticism. An iron chain connects the metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics of Islam. God is the first link. Mysticism is the second link; it connects God to Islam's altruism and statism. Mysticism is thus indispensable to the religion of Islam.

Burgess Laughlin

Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith, at http://www.reasonversusmysticism.com

The Qur'an: Notes from a First Reading

2011-09-01T05:45:00.000-07:00

Acknowledgment. I am grateful to Amy Peikoff, JD, PhD (dontletitgo.com), for organizing the Koran Reading Group (KRG). It ran from May to September, 2011; it met, for a nominal fee, weekly for an hour on audio through Webinar and in emails through Google Groups; and it achieved its goals: to do a slow, scheduled reading of the Qur'an and Robert Spencer's commentary on it, especially noting passages used by jihadists today to justify their attacks on non-Muslims. KRG also fulfilled my individual purposes: to become acquainted with the Qur'an as a whole and to learn Islam's view of reason and mysticism, as stated or implied in the Qur'an.

Definition. The Qur'an is the holy scripture of Islam, which is the religion of submission to the one, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God whose final apostle was Muhammad. Muslims believe that God revealed every word of the Qur'an to Muhammad, who then recited the revelations to his followers, who in turn recorded them in their memory and in individual writings.

The Early History of the Qur'an. Following are the major milestones in the development of the Qur'an. Unless specified otherwise, all items come from "Muhammad," Glasse, CEI. (See Bibliography at the end.)

570 -- Birth of M. in Mecca, near w. coast of Arabia. (p. 279)

590? -- In Syria, on a caravan trading expedition, M. meets a Christian monk who tells M. that M. is a prophet. (p. 280)

605? -- M. has visions. (p. 280)

610 -- M. receives his first revelation, in a cave near Mecca. (p. 280)

632, March -- M. receives his last revelation, three months before his death. (p. 284)

632-656 -- Under the direction of the first three caliphs (Abuu Bakr, 'Umar, and 'Uthmaan), Muslims (such as M's secretary, Zayd ibn Thaabit) collect and sort written copies of M's recitations of individual revelations. ("Koran," CEI, p. 230) The edited collection, an artifact of human action, is the Qur'an, developed, Muslims believe, by God at the beginning of time.

The Organization of the Qur'an. The Qur'an consists of 114 primary divisions, the suras (chapters). The compilers of the Qur'an generally arranged the suras by length, with the longest suras first. Each sura, in turn, is divided into verses of one or more lines. For example, Sura 110 ("Help") has three verses. As usual, after the first line, God speaks to Muhammad:

In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

1. When comes the Help of God, and Victory,

2. And thou dost see the People enter God's Religion in crowds,

3. Celebrate the Praises of thy Lord, and pray for His Forgiveness: For He is Oft-Returning (in Grace and Mercy).

The italicized line at the start is one of the standard invocations. In the last line, the translator and commentator, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, inserted the words in parentheses to make explicit the meaning he thinks is implicit in the Arabic text.

The Style of the Qur'an. The Qur'an is poetic, but the lines have variable lengths and meters. The text is sometimes austere and emotive, but often repetitive, bombastic, and authoritarian.

The Muslim View of the Qur'an. Muslims believe the Qur'an is perfect theologically, doctrinally, historically, and poetically. No one, Muslims believe, can evaluate it by an external standard; the Qur'an is the standard of judgment, says Muslim scholar Cyril Glasse, "Koran," CEI, p. 228.

The Philosophy of the Qur'an. A philosophy, even in implicit form, is a set of fundamental principles about: the nature of reality (metaphysics), how we can know that reality (epistemology), what we should do (ethics), and how we should relate to each other in society (politics). Philosophical detection reveals the philosophy of Islam as presented in the Qur'an.

In the Qur'an, the metaphysics of Islam is supernaturalist, positing the existence of (1) an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, most merciful, most gracious, and vengeful being, who is otherwise ineffable, who has knowledge not available to man through man's limited faculties, and who created man knowing ahead what each individual will do, yet holding the individual -- not his Creator -- responsible for failure; and (2) two worlds, this natural world, which manifests God, and the other world, the world of heaven and hell, which is the world of the hereafter, that is, the world in which the souls of dead men continue after life on earth.

In the Qur'an, the epistemology of Islam is mystical. The Qur'an rarely acknowledges the existence of reason, and, even then, only by implication and in truncated form. The Qur'an implies that reason is impotent to develop an ethics that will guide man not only for this life but for man's efforts to secure a happy life in the supernatural realm. Man needs mysticism to gain knowledge of what to do. The forms of mysticism appearing in the Qur'an are many: faith in God; revelation from God to man; reading "signs" of God in nature or in miracles; and others. (Quranic mysticism will be the subject of the second post in this series).

In the Qur'an, the ethics of Islam is altruist, that is, focused on The Other not oneself as the primary beneficiary of one's actions. In the Islam of the Qur'an, in the supernatural realm, The Other is God; in the natural realm, this world, The Other means society, especially family, but also the ummah, the Muslim community, including the needy.

In the Qur'an, the politics of Islam is theocratic, that is, supporting a government that implements God's ethics. The Islamic political system, shown in the Qur'an in incipient form under Muhammad's reign, is a direct inference from the central Islamic principle, the doctrine of unicity: one God, one message, one set of rules for living for all individuals, everywhere, and at all times.

Sura 1, the first chapter of the Qur'an, is unusual in being a short chapter at the beginning of the Qur'an and in being spoken by God's worshippers not by Muhammad or God speaking through Muhammad. Sura 1 suggests the first three elements of the philosophy of Islam.

1. In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

2. Praise be to God, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the Worlds;

3. Most Gracious, Most Merciful;

4. Master of the Day of Judgment.

5. Thee do we worship and thine aid we seek.

6. Show us the straight way,

7. The way of those on whom thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray.

Supernaturalism is shown by the invocation of God. He has created this world on earth and another realm of heaven and hell. God did more than create this world back in time; readers of the Qur'an learn later, that God also sustains the world from moment to moment and can change it at any time. Mysticism is suggested here, by implication, in that praising God requires faith in God's existence and nature, and explicitly in that God's followers must have faith in His Word, worship Him, and seek His aid for humans in this world. Altruism is implied in the focus on God, who will tell us how to live ("the straight way"), which includes our duties to others, as Muhammad explains in later suras.

Conclusions. From reading the Qur'an, I have reached two conclusions. First, Islam's holy scripture, which is essentially a collection of ad hoc sermons, is written in such a way that it makes Islam one of the "cafeteria" religions. (Two other examples are Christianity and Judaism.) A reader can easily pick elements to fit his already formed approach to life, and ignore or downplay contradictory elements. This is why some Muslims can be personally pacifistic and others can be at war with the infidel world around them.

Second, Islam is definitely a religion, which is a mystical worldview consisting of a metaphysics, an epistemology, an ethics, and a politics -- all meant to apply universally, that is, to everyone, everywhere, and at all times. Islam is not an ideology, which is an application of a universalist worldview (religion or philosophy) to a particular milieu for the purpose of developing a strategy suitable to changing current society. It is also true, however, that Islam's holy scripture, the Qur'an, shows Islam's model man, Muhammad, engaged in political action in the form of warfare, negotiation, deception, enslavement, and execution of opponents. Those and other elements shape the various Islamic ideologies active today.

As presented in the Qur'an, Islam is a rotting log from which various ideological mushrooms grow. All are poisonous, some more quickly than others.

Burgess Laughlin

Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith, at http://www.reasonversusmysticism.com

Bibliography

Ali, Abdullah Yusuf, editor, translator, and commentator,The Qur'an: Text, Translation and Commentary, 3rd ed., Elmhurst (New York), Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, Inc., 1938 (1934, 1st ed.), 1862 pages. Muslims I met at Portland State University, Oregon, in 2000, recommended this translation and commentary. Robert Spencer also recommends it as an acceptable translation and mainstream commentary. Approximately one-third of each page is Arabic text, one-third is English translation, and (in small type) one-third is footnotes that explain the meaning of items such as place names; provide background information; and interpret the often terse and confusing verses.

Glasse, Cyril, The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, New York, HarperCollins, 1989, 472 pages. (Later editions are called The New Encyclopedia of Islam). The entries vary from a single paragraph to several pages; they include cultural, theological, and historical terms. Aids to readers include photographs and maps. The author is an articulate Muslim familiar with Western criticisms of Islam.

"Revelation Order of the Qur'an," missionislam.com/quran/revealationorder.htm (in the address, "revealation" is the site creator's misspelling). This Muslim site presents the most widely accepted Muslim view of the proper traditional order of the chapters and verses. The site then lists the 114 suras in chronological order, the sequence, Muslims say, in which Allah sent the suras down to Muhammad.

Spencer, Robert, "Qur'an Commentary," jihadwatch.org/quran-commentary.html. Spencer is a Christian activist and opponent of jihadist Islam. He summarizes the Qur'an, sometimes verse by verse, explains implications of some of the texts (for example, on jihad), and helps the reader integrate the disorganized elements of Islam in this holy text. In this commentary, Spencer generally describes rather than evaluates. He does not critique any element of Islam that also appears in Judaism and Christianity -- for example, supernaturalism, mysticism, and altruism.

"Koran Reading Group" begins May 10

2011-04-14T18:26:00.000-07:00

Amy Peikoff, JD and PhD, has formed an online "Koran Reading Group." It begins weekly online meetings on Tuesday, May 10, 5-6 pm, Pacific Time (USA) and continues until September 6.[1]

REQUIREMENTS. Her weblog, Don't Let It Go, in an April 11, 2011 post, identifies the cost ($20), reading materials (a Qur'an and R. Spencer's online commentary), and procedures for participating (written comments or phone).[2, 3]

Caution: Do not rely on my description of the reading group arrangements; verify everything at Don't Let It Go.

MY PURPOSE. My personal purpose in participating in the reading group is to systematically read one of the most "inspiring" supernaturalist texts of our time and note its uses of and calls for mysticism. In my experience, the Qur'an (Koran) is the text that Muslims most often cite for the ideas that motivate them.

MY MATERIALS. I plan to use the following materials, for my own purposes:

- The Holy Qur'an: Text, Translation and Commentary, editor Abdullah Yusuf Ali, 3rd edition, Elmhurst (NY), Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, Inc., 1987 (U. S. edition). When I was a post-bac student at Portland State University (Oregon), ten years ago, Muslims there recommended this bilingual text. They said the English text is an accurate translation, and the editor's commentary is informative. (My knowledge of Arabic is at the kindergarten level, if that.) Note that Amy Peikoff is using another translation.

- Robert Spencer, "Qur'anic Commentary," on his website, Jihad Watch. Spencer has many insights to offer, but I am wary. He is a monotheist. I doubt that he will criticize any Islamic practice or principle found also in Judaism or Christianity. We will see.

- Cyril Glassé, Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, NY, HarperCollins, 1989. (I highly recommend this volume or its later version, The New Encyclopedia of Islam, 3rd edition, 2003.[4] It is a rich source of cross-referenced, clearly written, fully explained descriptions of the concepts and persons who appear in discussions of Islam. The photographs show the sense of grandeur Muslims seek in their architecture.

- A chronological listing of the surahs (chapters).[5] Traditional Qur'ans show the surahs in order by length of each surah, with the longest given first. By contrast, the chronological listing shows the order in which to read the surahs if you want to follow the historical line of events. The historical order makes clearer, my sources say, that Muhammad changed his behavior once he acquired political power. Islam, a religion drawn from both periods, is thus a "cafeteria religion," offering a seeming jumble of gentle models (the earlier Muhammad) and rapacious models (the later Muhammad) of Muslim behavior.

CONCLUSION. The "Koran Reading Group," in my view, offers great value for some individuals -- especially certain activists -- but at the price of a long and deep commitment. The readings and interpretations (of both the Qur'an and monotheist Spencer's possibly biased commentary) are not light or easy reading. I am looking forward to the challenge.

Burgess Laughlin, author, www.reasonversusmysticism.com, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

[1] theobjectivestandard.com/contributors/amy-peikoff.asp. [2] dontletitgo.com/2011/04/11/koran-reading-group/. [3] jihadwatch.org/quran-commentary.html. [4] amazon.com/New-Encyclopedia-Islam-Cyril-Glasse/dp/0742562964. [5] citizenwarrior.com/2010/07/chronological-order-of-quran.html.

BkRev: The Book of Enlightened Masters

2011-01-02T08:06:00.000-08:00

Andew Rawlinson, The Book of Enlightened Masters: Western Teachers in Eastern Traditions, Chicago, Open Court, 1997, 650 pp.

The Book of Enlightened Masters is not a book for general readers. However, it might interest a variety of specialists. One example is a scholar (or activist) who wants to identify the fundamental nature of Western culture today, particularly the state of Western culture in the USA. Another example is a pro-reason activist who wants to predict the culture's trajectory partly by identifying past trends on fundamental issues. A third example is anyone who wants a case study in the timing and mechanics of cultural change, answering in particular this question: When a culture changes because new ideas enter it, what are the stages of introducing and embedding those new ideas?

Andrew Rawlinson's subject in The Book of Enlightened Masters: Western Teachers in Eastern Traditions is the very broad movement that has brought ancient Asian worldviews into Europe and the USA beginning around 1875. (For the meaning of "movement," see the July 5, 2008 post on Making Progress.)[1] Those worldviews -- all characterized by a metaphysics of supernaturalism, an epistemology of mysticism, and an ethics of altruism -- include Buddhism, Hinduism, and Sufism. (For the Islamic version of Sufism, see the Nov. 3, 2010 post, "Imam Rauf and Sufism," here on The Main Event).

Rawlinson, formerly a lecturer on Buddhism and other religions at both the University of Lancaster and the University of California, writes in a clear, flowing style. Equally important, Rawlinson brings enthusiasm to his subject. The book is a fulfillment of Rawlinson's ambition, begun at age ten, to someday write a one-volume encyclopedia. (p. xiii) That enthusiasm enlivens a subject that would, for many advocates of reason, be a dreary investigation.

Rawlinson knows that individuals as well as books carry ideas from one culture to another. Rawlinson's approach accordingly is two-fold. He notes the avant-garde role played by European translators and other writers in the 1700s and 1800s in bringing Asian sacred texts to Western culture. His main focus, however, is on the role of teachers who traveled from Europe and America to Asia and North Africa, studied religious worldviews there and then returned to the West to teach.

Part I of this two-part book explains "How to Understand Spiritual Teachers." The first chapter, "The Phenomenon: What Westerners are Doing in all the Eastern Traditions and Independently," describes the main sub-movements appearing in the West: Buddhism, Hinduism, Sufism, and "independents," that is, movements started by individuals who detached themselves from the rigid traditions of Asia and began teaching their own versions of mysticism. This chapter is the taxonomy of Eastern mysticism in the West. It describes the wide variety of types, subtypes, and mixtures appearing in the West.

The main themes of the book emerge throughout Part I. First, the many sub-movements of the East-to-West flow of mysticism all exist side-by-side as they continue to seep into Western culture. Second, a uniquely Western, generalized movement -- which Rawlinson calls "spiritual psychology" -- is still forming as it quietly permeates the Western world. (p. 136)

Chapter 2, "The Story: How Westerners Have Become Spiritual Teachers," is the history of the movement, mainly in four stages: "Sowing the Seed: 1875-1916"; "First Growth: 1917-1945"; "Propagation: 1946-1962"; and "Full Bloom: 1963 Onwards" (to the mid-1990s). These stages apply to the whole movement of Westerners bringing Eastern mysticism to the West. Within that very broad movement, there have been many smaller movements; some have remained isolated from the others, and others have intermixed. The results are a complex diffusion of a variety of forms of mysticism into Western culture.

In Chapter 3, "The Issues: The Meaning and Significance of Western Teachers," Rawlinson identifies four characteristics shared by almost all teachers in the movement to bring Asian mysticism to the West. That set of four characteristics is "spiritual psychology." The four characteristics are these four beliefs: (1) understanding humans means understanding their consciousness and how they can modify it; (2) the way to modify consciousness is through "spiritual practice"; (3) gurus (or "masters" or "teachers") have learned spiritual practice; and (4) gurus can teach it to others who want to modify their own consciousness. (p. xvii) Rawlinson's insight here is that "spiritual psychology" as a generalized phenomenon has appeared only in the open society of the West, but did not arise and could not have arisen in the nationalistic and narrowly tradition-bound cultures of the East (for instance, Japan, Tibet, India, and China). Thus, Eastern mysticism has been partly transformed into a unique Western form of mysticism.

Chapter 3 also describes, in great detail, Rawlinson's classification of the types of sub-movements. He uses labels such as "structured, unstructured" and "cool, hot." (I skimmed over this area as being outside my area of interest.)

A more valuable section, for advocates of reason, is "Part II: A Directory of Spiritual Teachers." This part is a catalogue in form but nevertheless readable and sometimes amusing as well; it includes nearly 500 pages (in large format) of descriptions (with some photos and diagrams showing lines of influence) of the many major and minor individuals who have led the various sub-movements. They appear in alphabetical order. (In some cases, Rawlinson describes groups as groups, such as the Sufis and the Hare Krishna gurus.)

Alyce Zeoli, featured on pp. 152-155, is an example of a teacher. From the age of 19, she had dreams that taught her to meditate. She gave spiritual "readings" to individuals she met. A group gathered around her; they called it "The Center for Discovery and New Life." Residing in Washington, D. C., Zeoli met a traveling Tibetan Buddhist monk who was seeking funds for a group in Tibet. Alyce Zeoli officially became Jetsunma Akhon Norbu Lamho, a reincarnated Buddhist teacher who had lived in Tibet in the 1600s. The Center then bought a large house in Poolesville, Maryland and erected Buddhist statues and buildings on the property. One building was a school open not only to the children of local Buddhists but to other local children as well. Meanwhile, Alyce Zeoli taught Buddhism directly to adults. This is only one of many thin streams of Asian mysticism diffusing into US culture.

Again and again in the mini-biographies that Rawlinson presents, the alert reader of this large book sees Eastern mysticism making inroads into what remains of Western Civilization -- with almost no resistance. Each inroad is narrow. Collectively they cover a lot of area.

The persistent pro-reason reader of Rawlinson's biographical profiles of Buddhists, Hindus, Sufis, and new "independent" sub-movements is akin to a biologist standing on a coastland watching an incoming tide slowly filling first all the creek beds, marshes, and other low spots, and then gradually covering everything. There is no tsunami here, only a shallow but gradually rising pool of mysticism that is joining the historically deeper pools of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity that are already part of the culture.

Burgess Laughlin

Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith, at www.reasonversusmysticism.com

[1] http://aristotleadventure.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-is-movement.html

Neoconservatives' two forms of mysticism

2010-12-01T12:22:00.000-08:00

Neoconservatism is an intellectual movement. Its leaders -- such as David Brooks, a writer for The New York Times and an adviser to Senator John McCain -- hope to steer the United States toward "national greatness" paid for by sacrificing the wealth and lives of its citizens.[1] The underlying philosophy of the neoconservative movement starts with a foundation of a metaphysics of supernaturalism (via Plato) and an epistemology of mysticism. Unlike most other mystics examined here in The Main Event, neoconservatives speak of mysticism in two versions, one esoteric and one exoteric, as explained by C. Bradley Thompson and Yaron Brook, authors of Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea.

1. ESOTERIC MYSTICSM. Esoteric doctrines are ideas that theologians and other mystics discuss only among themselves and teach to select students in the inner circles of their movement. (The English word "esoteric" is related to the Greek adjective esoteros, "inner.") Esoteric doctrines are hidden from the public, that is, from the uninitiated individuals who might misunderstand the ideas and react with hostility.

In the 1930s to 1960s, the philosophical and intellectual founders of the neoconservative movement objected to reason as an ideal of the Enlightenment period (roughly 1700-1800). "Through reason," says Leo Strauss (neoconservatism's philosophical founder, 1899-1973), man "becomes aware of his world and its dependence on the 'upper world'." However, Strauss explains, reason is unable to rise to the highest truths, those grounded in that upper world. (p. 110)

What guide do the neoconservative leaders follow in climbing to the highest truths? Thompson and Brook show that Strauss, a Platonist, "seeks a mind meld with the eternal beings," that is, the Platonic Ideas. (p. 106) How can one gain such knowledge? As the first step, "Strauss thinks men gain access to the ultimate nature of things via thinking about what men say about them. Opinions are therefore the basic fact of social reality and are man's 'most important access to reality' . . . ." (p. 107)

As Plato's Socrates found, in Strauss's interpretation of Plato's dialogues, even that dialectical approach is insufficient for attaining higher knowledge. A second step is needed: recognizing that "some kind of nonrational or mystical great leap forward is required for the last push to the summit of wisdom," Thompson and Brook note. This second step is "divination" (daimonion in Greek), which is a kind of "divine illumination" or "revelation" from Plato's world of Ideas, says Strauss. (p. 108)

2. EXOTERIC MYSTICISM. Exoteric doctrines are ideas that theologians and other mystics discuss in the outer circle of their movement or among the public outside the movement, that is, those individuals who have not been "initiated" into special vocabulary and procedures. (The English word "exoteric" is related to the Greek adjective exoteros, "outer.")

The founders of neoconservatism complained that in the Enlightenment reason had "swept aside" the "faith, revelation, and mystic insight" of Medieval Christian culture. "Reason, argue the neocons, shatters everything that gives meaning to the lives of ordinary people; it undercuts their belief in everything that unites and brings order to society." Mysticism, the neoconservatives believe, is crucial to a united and orderly society. Mysticism is the foundation, and therefore for ordinary men the justification of ideas such as "the immortality of souls, . . . an afterlife, and . . . divine punishment, all of which [ideas] are necessary for [ordinary men] to bear the drudgery, injustice, and pain [of] . . . life in this world." In conclusion, the "neocons believe that all societies need religion," say Thompson and Brook. (pp. 78-79)

When leading neoconservative intellectuals speak in public, they advocate conventional monotheistic religions -- with their supernaturalism, mysticism, and altruism -- as guides for non-intellectuals. (pp. 79, 126-127) A secular supplement to conventional religion is "civic religion." It turns the city or nation into a god to whom wealth and lives are sacrificed by their citizens. (p. 86)

"The [neoconservative] philosophic statesman knows that any such . . . civic religion makes truth claims that it cannot verify rationally," say Thompson and Brook. (p. 127) Lacking a rational base, neoconservative ideas about religion or national crusades require "benevolent coercion" to ensure public conformity. (pp. 127-128) Thus brute force must supplement mysticism -- as pro-reason philosopher Ayn Rand pointed out in her essay, "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World."[3]

SUMMARY. Neoconservatives rely on and advocate mysticism in two forms. The first, intended for the inner circle of the neoconservative movement, is the secular, philosophical mysticism of "divination." The second, intended for the non-philosophical public at large, is the mysticism of conventional religion -- faith, revelation, and the authority of scripture or priests.

Burgess Laughlin, author, www.reasonversusmysticism.com, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

[1] This post draws from Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea, by C. Bradley Thompsom and Yaron Brook. I reviewed it here: theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2010-fall/neoconservatism-thompson-brook.asp (fully) and conservative.org/acuf/issue-162/issue162cul2 (narrowly). Their book, which I highly recommend for anyone who has a philosophically deep interest in current U. S. politics and culture, is available here: aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=HT01B. For David Brooks, the journalist, see the many entries under his name in the index of N:OI

[2] The N:OI index has no entry for "mysticism," "faith," or "divination." My own notes in the index cite: for "mysticism," pp. 79, 96, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 147, 148, 152, 164, and 224; for "faith," pp. 78, 79, 86, 87, 99, 108, and 147; and for "divination," pp. 108 and 147. The index does include entries for "Reason," citing pp. 23, 25, 49-50, 68, 73, 79, 85, 87, 107, 110, 146, 147, and others.

[3] Ayn Rand, "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World," Ch. 7 of Philosophy: Who Needs It, 1982.

Imam Rauf on Sufism

2010-11-03T18:40:00.000-07:00

REVIEW. An October 7 post describes Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf as an activist and briefly reviews his book, What's Right with Islam is What's Right with America: A New Vision for Muslims and the West. His book does not openly advocate mysticism. An October 17 post explains that Imam Rauf and his book are thoroughly immersed in a religious worldview. Mysticism is an integral part of that worldview. He assumes mysticism as the norm.

This post explores Sufism, a thread woven throughout Rauf's book. Rauf does not make explicit the value of Sufism in his own life or Sufism's role in establishing his book's theme -- Christians, Jews, and Muslims share an "Abrahamic tradition" that provides a common ground for building a bridge between Western and Islamic cultures.[1]

WHAT IS SUFISM? As a religious worldview, Islam is a whole. It guides the individual in his outer life (particularly his actions in society, including rituals) and in his inner life (particularly his relationship with God). Shari'ia, the body of religious laws based on holy scripture, governs a Muslim's outer life. Following shari'ia is required of all Muslims. Shari'ia is exoteric, that is, instructions for following it are offered publicly to everyone. Islam has simpler expectations of Muslims' inner life. For example, all Muslims should "polish their mirror" (Rauf, pp. 69-70) by being virtuous so that they can reflect God's face when he looks at them. Part of being virtuous is rejecting vices, especially the vice of egoism. (Rauf, p. 65)

In contrast, Sufism, which provides a path for becoming spiritually closer to God, is elective; few Muslims choose to follow the path. Sufism is esoteric, that is, instructions are provided privately by a few teachers to a few students. As specialized Islamic mysticism, Sufism has two forms. In the metaphysical form, the Sufi strives to be in the presence of or even united with God. In the epistemological form, the Sufi tries to gain knowledge of God through direct experience of God. Thus, Sufism attempts to bridge "the gap between human reason and sure knowledge of the Divine," says one Muslim intellectual. (Glasse, "Sufism," p. 375, col. 2)

MOTIVATIONS FOR SUFISM. Why would anyone endure the reportedly arduous and long training that Sufis undergo? One answer comes from Imam Rauf: "A common feature of human life is suffering, whose primary cause is . . . the state of being separated from God." (Rauf, p. 66) Further, "Sufis are taught . . . to learn how to suffer so as to remain unaffected by suffering (even to die before they die so as to embrace immortality), to know how to . . . detach [oneself from this world] so as not to be affected by the . . . loss of possessions." (Rauf, p. 67)

A second major motivation for Sufis is to see "God who is Absolute (most real) Reality. To move closer to God, the Sufi leaves the world -- and the self -- behind because it is merely an appearance of the Real." (Glasse, "Sufism," CEI, pp. 377-378)

METHODS OF SUFISM. A Sufi walks a steep path in his ascent to God. (Rauf, p. 70) He moves upward from "station" to "station." At each station, he may experience a reward from God: a special state of mind, a "heightened consciousness." (Fakhry, p. 239) One way to achieve that heightened consciousness, Sufis say, is through dhikr, "divine remembrance." Dhikr is a ritual in which the Sufi repeatedly chants the names of God or verses that appear in the Qur'an. (Rauf, p. 63) Through this ritual, the Sufi may "remember" in this realm of earthly life the sights he has seen in another realm that is now closed off to him by veils. (Rauf, p. 71) "Chanting la ilaha illallah ["There is no god but God."] as a mantra has positive effects," Rauf says, "especially when done in a group. It can bring people to ecstasy, soothe, and calm, energize, and enable some to make more translucent the veil between them and God." (Rauf, p. 49)

Dhikr is one part of Sufi "technology." Another part is guidance. The Sufi path of ascent (tariqah) to God requires guidance from a spiritual leader (mudhakkir). (p. 70) Some spiritual leaders say they studied with earlier masters (shaykh) who studied with still earlier masters and so on in an unbroken tradition or "chain" (silsilah) leading back to Muhammad's companions and then to Muhammad himself. (Glasse, p. 376. col. 1) For an example of a chain, see: naqshbandi.org/chain/names.htm.

These historical chains of teaching and studying show the survival of Sufism from the generation of Muhammad onward. What explains the geographic spread of Sufism? Muslim conquests opened doorways to other cultures, from Spain to Indonesia and Central Africa to Russia. Today, however, Sufism is expanding beyond the boundaries of Muslim political control -- and may serve as an advance guard of that control.

DISSEMINATING SUFISM TODAY. What is the state today of Sufism in the USA, one of the countries of the West that are under assault from many forms of mysticism? As an army may march in columns, so Sufism is entering US culture in several "columns." What distinguishes one column from another is each column's relationship to Islam.

1. ISLAMIC SUFI ORDERS. One Sufi column is a stream of Islamic Sufi "orders." In a religious context, an order is a type of social organization; it is dedicated to a particular religious purpose. An order's members submit to religious regulation of their lives. These regulations are formulated and applied by the leaders of the organization. Catholic Christianity includes monastic orders (monks) and preaching orders (friars); each order has its own regulations. Islamic Sufi orders apply shari'ia to their members to closely regulate their lives. An example of an Islamic Sufi order is the old and traditional Naqshbandi Order. There are at least ten Islamic Sufi orders operating in the USA.

2. QUASI-ISLAMIC SUFI ORDERS. Imam Rauf is a member of the Nur Ashki Jerrahi Sufi Order, which was founded in the 1980s. (Padela) It is a recent "dervish" (ecstatic dancing) branch of a traditional order. It is open to men and women, Muslims and non-Muslims: nurashkijerrahi.org/main.htm.

3. NON-ISLAMIC SUFI ORDERS. The Sufi Order International is an example of a non-Islamic Sufi order. Its supporters say that its Sufi doctrines and practices are independent of Islam because Sufism was alive in the Middle East and India before Muhammad.

4. SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS. Some organizations that are not orders nevertheless support Sufism. An example is the American Sufi Muslim Association, which Imam Rauf founded. (www.asmasociety.org)

All four classes of Sufi advocates and supporters aid the cause of mysticism, which is the common denominator they promote, no matter what competitions or conflicts arise between them or between the individuals in their organizations. The power of organizations is their ability to concentrate resources on particular goals. For Sufi organizations in a non-theocratic country, that power consists mainly in disseminating ideas through official events such as lectures, as well as through websites, books, and classes in which experts advise and teach novice Sufis. In affecting a culture, having more, but smaller, organizations can be more powerful than having a single, monolithic organization for two reasons. First, multiple smaller organizations are multiple voices bearing the same message from a variety of viewpoints. Multiple voices repeating the same essential message are more likely to catch the attention of nonbelievers.[2] Second, each of the multiple small groups, with its own special interests, can appeal to a different segment of the larger population.[3]

In the USA, Sufi centers appear across the country. The web page www.sufilive.com/centers shows activity centers for one small order of Sufis, the Naqshbandi-Haqqani Order. Including the orders, more than fifty organizations in the West are spreading Sufism: www.uga.edu/islam/sufismwest.html.

CONCLUSION. Sufism is a mystical movement that has flourished in Muslim countries and is now spreading through the West. Its core procedure is abandonment of one's self and this world in order to experience being closer to God and thereby come to know God directly. Sufism's advocates seldom appear in mass media news as Sufi advocates, yet their movement is well established. It is an example of a movement that has quietly built a sub-culture and sub-society while remaining largely unknown to the majority society.

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

[1] This post, like others on this weblog, is an entry in a journal. I am not documenting every statement. Page numbers in parentheses refer to Imam Rauf's What's Right with Islam or other sources identified in "For Further Study." [2] Onkar Ghate and Yaron Brook make this point in their lecture series, "Cultural Movements: Creating Change," at The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights website (Participate tab, Activism tab, right column on Nov. 3, 2010 or, if no working link, search for title). I highly recommend it. [3] Leonard Peikoff describes a similar situation, in Ch. 7 ("United They Fell") of Ominous Parallels. Various political parties in Germany in the 1920s competed with each other for power while generally supporting the same fundamental principles.

FOR FURTHER STUDY OF SUFISM
(1) Ernst, Carl W., "Tasawwuf" (Sufism), Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World, The Gale Group, Inc., 2004; High Beam Research, 9 Aug. 2010, Posted by Worldwatch on http://newsessentials.blogspot.com/2010/08/american-sufi-muslim-association.html. (Ernst is the author of books such as Guide to Sufism.)
(2) Fakhry, Majid, Ch. 8 ("The Rise and Development of Islamic Mysticism"), A History of Islamic Philosophy, 2nd ed., New York, Columbia University Press, 1983.
(3) Glasse, Cyril, The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, New York, HarperCollins, 1989. (A newer ed. is available.)
(4) Kinney, Jay and Henry Bayman, "Sufism, the West, and Modernity," University of Georgia, http://www.uga.edu/islam/sufismwest.html. (A brief description of the four kinds of Sufi organizations, including particular orders in the West.)
(5) Padela, Aasim I., "Imam in the Middle, But Is He in the Center?," Huffington Post, posted Sept. 5, 2010, 10:30 am, at www.huffingtonpost.com/aasim-i-padela/imam-in-the-middle-but-is_b_706119.html. (Padela, a scholarly Muslim who has met Rauf, examines Rauf's standing in the Muslim community.)
(6) Rauf, Feisal Abdul, What's Right With Islam Is What's Right with America: A New Vision for Muslims and the West, Harper Collins, 2004.
(7) Wikipedia, "Sufism" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufism, as of August 30, 2010.

Rauf's mysticism in "What's Right with Islam ..."

2010-10-17T13:51:00.000-07:00

An October 7, 2010 post described Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's activism, particularly for his core purpose in life, building a bridge between the West and the nations dominated by his Islamic worldview. That post also briefly reviews his book What's Right with Islam is What's Right with America: A New Vision for Muslims in the West. The purpose of this post, the second in the series, is to briefly describe the manner in which Rauf uses his book to advocate for mysticism.

One characteristic to keep in mind while reading and evaluating his book is that it is a thoroughly religious book. (For "religion" and similar terms, see the Glossary in an Aug. 27, 2010 post.)

The intended audience is mainly religious readers:
- American Jews.
- Devout American Christians.
- American congressmen (almost all of whom loudly declare their religiosity).
- Conflicted American religious conservatives (such as George W. Bush, Rauf says).
- Generic "spiritual seekers" wondering why Islam is the fastest growing world religion.
- American feminists intrigued by the possibility that life in Saudi Arabia may be compatible with feminism.
- Young American Muslims torn between the image of Osama bin Laden on American TV versus their "sweet grandmother who sits forever on her prayer rug praying that [her grandchild] will marry a devout Muslim . . . ." (pp. xvii-xviii)

The subject of the book is religious: The need for reconciliation between the "West" (which Rauf considers to be synonymous with Judeo-Christian culture) and Islamic nations. Their common foundation in "the Abrahamic tradition" both requires and makes possible reconciliation, Rauf holds. (pp. 282-283)

The theme is religious: "Religion, which speaks to the eternal in us, must be the foundation of a robust, harmonious society and the animating principle of the whole life of a people." (p. 284)

The fundamentally religious nature of the book explains why the author does not advocate for mysticism. He assumes it. Mysticism permeates the book. Evidence of Rauf's mysticism appears throughout his book in the form of particular kinds of mysticism:
- Faith, which "refers to right beliefs about God." (p. 47)
- Revelation, for example, passing the Qur'an from God to the angel Gabriel to Muhammad. (p. 42).
- Prophecy, for example, in the roles of Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. (pp. 57-58).
- Holy scripture as the ultimate authority. (p. 57)

In conclusion, Rauf has described world problems and offered solutions, but always within the context of religion in general and Islam in particular. That religious worldview permeates the book. It is a given, an ever-present premise. The essence of that worldview is that our guide to action, individually and socially, comes to us mystically from a supernatural being. The lesson here is that an advocate of mysticism need not always evangelize for it or attempt to defend it directly. In part, he can work for mysticism by mostly assuming it to be the norm.

Rauf does mention Sufism ten times. He says Sufis are "the mystics of Islam." (p. 49) Sufism will be the subject of the third and last post in this series.

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

Imam Rauf, "What's Right with Islam ..."

2010-10-07T05:36:00.000-07:00

INTRODUCTION. The purpose of The Main Event is to identify activists in the conflict over reason versus mysticism: Who are they; what are their key ideas; and how do they disseminate their ideas? This post begins a brief, exploratory look at one advocate of mysticism, Feisal Abdul Rauf.

APPROACH. The approach here is to move from effects to causes. First, I am examining one of Feisal Abdul Rauf's books, What's Right with Islam is What's Right with America: A New Vision for Muslims and the West, New York, Harper Collins, 2005, 314 pages. The main purpose of Rauf's book is not to directly promote his form of mysticism, but to promote the conclusions he has reached about a current problem, the conflict between the USA and Islam. However, his conclusions are shaped by the fundamental principles of his worldview, Islam, which is mystical in its historical and philosophical origins. Also, as we will see in a later post, Rauf is a Sufi, a person who supports sufism, which is a formal attempt to be closer to God through spiritual and ascetic exercises. (Sufism is optional for Muslims, just as becoming a monk or nun is optional for Catholics.)

AUTHOR AND ACTIVIST. Born in 1948 in Kuwait, Rauf moved with his Egyptian father (a Sunni Islamic scholar) to New York City in the 1960s. There his father helped create the Islamic Cultural Center of New York, which was the first mosque designed and built as a mosque in New York City. The project -- gathering the funds, designing the building, and completing construction -- was a twenty-five year task ending in 1991, a sign of the elder Rauf's long-term dedication. Meanwhile the younger Rauf had graduated from Columbia University (BA, physics) and, c. 1970, obtained a masters degree in plasma physics from Stevens University.[1]

Feisal Abdul Rauf turned from studying nature to advancing his religion. He became the imam (spiritual leader of a local Muslim community) of Masjid al-Farah in New York City in 1983 and has apparently continued in that position for twenty-seven years.[2] (In Arabic, masjid means a "place [ma-] of prostrations"; the classical Arabic term masjid evolved into the Egyptian-Arabic term masgid, French mosquée; and English "mosque.")[3]

During these years, Rauf earned an income in the fields of teaching, sales, and real estate.[4] The first two fields provided an opportunity to practice the skills he needed for his core purpose in life: "selling" the principles of his worldview and its applications. Other actions by Rauf that directly or indirectly disseminated his ideas included founding the American Sufi Muslim Association (1997), dedicated to improving relations between U. S. Muslims and U. S. society. The ASMA changed its name (but not its initials) to American Society for Muslim Advancement. Rauf also became a member of the World Economic Council of 100 Leaders, a group dedicated to encouraging dialogue between Islamic countries and the West.[5]

In 2003, Rauf founded the Cordoba Initiative, an organization connecting the West and the world's Muslims. The CI has offices in Malaysia and New York. In 2009, Rauf announced plans--made by Park51, a nonprofit corporation--to finance and erect Park51, a building which will house an apartment for Rauf and a "nonsectarian community, cultural, and interfaith spiritual center" including a prayer room (for up to 2000 Muslims).[6] Why did Rauf name his original project the Cordoba Initiative? The southern Spanish city of Cordoba was the capital of a supposedly tolerant, "ecumenical" Islamic state c. 800-1200 CE.[7] That sort of society--a tolerant, ecumenical one--is one of Rauf's goals, as shown in his book.

THE BOOK. In What's Right with Islam, Rauf's purpose apparently is the same as his core purpose in life. "We strive for a 'New Cordoba'," says the author, "a time when Jews, Christians, Muslims and all other faith traditions will live together in peace, enjoying a renewed vision of what the good society can look like." (p. 9) To create that shining city of the future, the author and his followers must solve a problem of the present time: bridging the chasm between Muslim countries and the West.

The structure of the book follows naturally from Rauf's work to solve the problem. In Ch. 1, "Common Roots," the author stresses the shared ground of the West and Islam. By "West" he means Judeo-Christian culture emanating from Europe, and by "Islam" he means mostly the culture of the Muslim-majority countries colonized by Europeans in the 1800s and 1900s. The common root of the two cultures, Rauf holds, is the "Abrahamic tradition," which is the tradition of monotheism flowing through Abraham to Jews, Christians, and Muslims. (pp. 12-15) That tradition includes two fundamental commandments. First is the "vertical" commandment for all individuals to worship God. Second, and following from the first, is the "horizontal" commandment to love all other individuals. (pp. 18-19)

Rauf next closely examines "What's Right with Islam" (Ch. 2) and "What's Right with America" (Ch. 3). Rauf is thus following a familiar pattern for mediators and reconcilers: First agree on the good in each side. In Ch. 4, "Where the Devil Got in the Details," the author identifies and explains the errors both sides have made. However, because he is writing to Westerners, the author focuses mostly on concepts misunderstood in the West, he says. An example is "jihad." (pp. 135-138) In Ch. 5, the longest in the book, Rauf more deeply explores the past. "Our history shapes how we continue to act, and thus our future." An example contrast is between the prophet Jesus, whose life ended in political and personal failure, and the prophet Muhammad, whose life ended in political and personal success, Rauf says. (p. 175)

In Ch. 6, "A New Vision for Muslims and the West," the imam offers his plan. Everyone needs to make changes. He assigns tasks to Americans in general and to U. S. Christians, Jews, and Muslims in particular. For example, the U. S. needs to act "as the Great Conciliator" (p. 281) and stop supporting authoritarian Muslim regimes; and Muslim theologians must correct their misinterpretations of the Qur'an and other holy scripture. An example is Muslim theologians' inference that all charging of interest ("usury") is immoral even if a business is borrowing in order to expand, thus creating greater profits and more jobs. Christians and Jews, Rauf says, have abandoned that interpretation of their holy scripture and have gained prosperity a a result; Muslims have not reinterpreted scripture and have lost the economic competition because of it. Rauf thus supports "democratic capitalism," by which he means the welfare state. (pp. 3-4 and 208-210)

The Conclusion, "On Pursuing Happiness," makes the point that trying to bridge the gap between the West and Islam can succeed if we have "faith in the basic goodness of humanity and trust in the power of sincerity and dialogue to overcome differences with our fellow human beings." Both faith and trust are an application of the Abrahamic tradition, Rauf says. (p. 282)

Thus, in 300 pages the author bolts together principles of Islam, principles of other religions, facts of religious history, and analyses of current problems between the West and the Muslim world. The result, he hopes, will be a bridge that allows the U. S. and Muslim countries to see that both will gain from emphasizing common principles and working together to correct mistaken views of the other.

(Next: the mystical elements in Rauf's book and the mystical nature of Sufism.)

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

[1] For his youth and education: Untitled introductory and "Early Life" sections of "Feisal Abdul Rauf," Wikipedia, on Sept. 11, 2010. [2] For Rauf as imam: The untitled introductory section of "Feisal Abdul Rauf," Wikipedia, as of Sept. 11, 2010. [3] For the etymology of "mosque," see: Cyril Glasse, "Mosque," The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, 1st ed.) [4] For Rauf's income: "Career" section of "Feisal Abdul Rauf," Wikipedia, as of Sept. 11, 2010. [5] For founding ASMA and joining WEC: "Career" section of "Feisal Abdul Rauf," Wikipedia, as of Sept. 11, 2010. [6] For Cordoba House: "Career" and "Cordoba House and Park51" sections of "Feisal Abdul Rauf," Wikipedia, as of Sept. 11, 2010. [7] For a contrary view, see Andrew G. Bostom, "The Cordoba House and the Myth of Cordoban 'Ecumenism'," at pajamasmedia.com.

TME Glossary

2010-08-27T17:12:00.000-07:00

This glossary contains my definitions of terms/concepts that appear in The Main Event. I make no claim that they are suitable in all contexts or match others' uses of them. I expect to add terms and revise definitions. To offer alternatives or questions, use the comment section. For a discussion of objective definitions, see Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Ch. 5.

CHRISTIANITY: Christianity is a kind of monotheistic religion. (That is the genus in the definition.) Four fundamental (essential, causal) ideas make Christianity what it is. (1) One omnipotent, omniscient God created everything and can manage it moment to moment. (2) Man must, through mystical communication, learn ethics from God, and those ethical rules are recorded in holy scripture for later generations to read. (3) Two sets of historical events conveyed God's word to man at particular times and places: (a) God revealed himself and his ethics to Jews before 1000 BCE and they recorded God's rules in the Pentateuch; and (b) God, in the shape of the Son (Jesus Christ), was present on earth in sense-perceptible form at a particular time (c. 5 BCE-c. 35 CE) and place (Galilee) for the purpose of offering salvation of one's soul for eternity. (4) To be a Christian, one must accept Jesus as Savior and follow the holy scripture in the Old and New Testaments. The third and fourth ideas -- God's revelations to the ancient Jews and a sense-perceptible form of God on earth -- differentiate Christianity from Judaism and Islam. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam share the first two fundamental ideas, and they are distinguished by the particulars of the last two ideas. (Rev. Sept. 10, 2010)

"Christianity" (like "Judaism" and "Islam") is a proper name for an "abstract particular," that is, a set of particular ideas, customs, and symbols. There are "Christianities" in that various individuals accept the essential ideas, but differ widely in the nonessential ideas. For example, there is no one Christian ideology, but rather a range of them. Example Christian ideologies are: (1) CHRISTIAN ANARCHISM (Leo Tolstoy's idea, but not his term), the belief that Christians should mix with the larger society; help others individually; teach through individual example; and be pacifist, while separating themselves from politics. (2) CHRISTIAN SEPARATISM, the belief that Christians should locally join purely Christian communities isolated from the world -- that is, join a network of hermits, a monastery, a convent, or a similar organization. (3) CHRISTIAN PARTNERING: Christians should neither control government nor be controlled by it, but be willing to work with any government anywhere to better the lives of Christians and others. (4) CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY: Christians should form a government that forces all individuals to be or at least act like Christians.

CONSERVATISM: This word names a certain ideology ("-ism"), the one whose highest values are God, Tradition, Nation (or other form of tribalism), and Family. (All these values are used as mystical floating abstractions.) Thus the foundation of conservatism is mystical. Some individuals are sometimes called -- or call themselves -- "conservatives" who actually are classical liberals in some form; and, as always in society, some individuals are mixed cases. (See also: aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/conservatives.html)

CULT: A "cult," in its original religious usage in the ancient world names the idea of a group of people, at least partly organized, who associate in order to venerate a common high religious value, usually a particular god. (E.g., see the ancient Greek cult of Dionysos, in Walter Burkert, Greek Religion, pp. 290-295.) In a modern usage, "cult" names a certain type of religious organization, essentially one that: (1) has mystically created, esoteric doctrines which isolate it from the larger society; (2) insists on its members agreeing with those doctrines as a criterion for organizational membership; and (3) "owns" the members in some form of collectivism. (A consequence of that third essential characteristic is the use of fraud or violence to prevent its members from leaving the organization.) A modern example was James Jones's People's Temple cult in Jonestown, Guyana. (Rev. Sept. 17, 2010)

A cult is a social entity, specifically an organization. It is not a mere movement. A mystic guru who attracts followers but does not organize them is not a cult leader and does not have a cult, in this modern meaning of the concept. Likewise, a cult is not a religion (which is one type of worldview, which is a set of ideas), though a cult may be religious in purpose and content. (Rev. Sept. 16, 2010)

IDEOLOGY: An ideology is a set of concepts and principles that apply a worldview (which is universal) to a particular milieu. Marxism is an example. It applied a post-Kantian philosophy to Marx's time.

In Somalia, proponents of several ideologies claim to apply Islam to their efforts to improve the world.[1] One ideology there is TRANSNATIONAL REVOLUTIONARY ISLAM (TRI). Al-Shabaab, the organization which advocates TRI, operates mainly in Somalia but plans to expand. Al-Shabaab advocates a "Leninist" international revolution with Islamic content). It has "goals of implementing Shari'ah, rejecting 'false borders and entities created by colonialism', uniting Islamic countries, and restoring the Caliphate"). A second ideology in Somalia is ISLAMIC NATIONALISM. It advocates an Islamic democracy for each nation-state. The organization advocating this ideology is the Alliance for the Re-Liberation of Somalia based in Asmara (A.R.S.-A).[1]

For further examples, consider the Iranian Revolution. Various movements, each with its own ideology, combined to overthrow the Shah's government. Most of the ideologies were rooted in Islam but applied differently to Iran in the 1970s. (See "Ideology of the 1979 Iranian Revolution" in Wikipedia here.)

ISLAM: Islam (Islaam) is a kind of monotheistic religion. (That is the genus in the definition.) Four essential ideas cause Islam to be what it is. (1) One omnipotent, omniscient God created everything and can manage it moment to moment. (2) Man must, through mystical communication, learn ethics from God, and those ethical rules are recorded in holy scripture for later generations to read. (3) At particular times and places (Arabia, 610-632 CE) and to a particular person (Muhammad) through mystical communication, God communicated ethics to man and man recorded it in holy scripture (the Qur'an, firstly; the Sunnah, secondly; and the Hadith, thirdly) for later generations to read. (4) To be a Muslim, one must meet certain requirements: (a) belief (imaan, faith in ideas such as God and God's revelations); (b) practice (islaam, in a, narrow, technical usage of that word, meaning certain acts [worshipping God in certain ways; following the Five Pillars; and implementing sharii'ah]); and (c) virtue (iHsaan, which means worshipping God attentively and striving for "excellence" in all things, including killing).[2] The first two ideas are common to Judaism and Christianity. The particulars in the last two ideas distinguish Islam from the other monotheistic religions. (Rev. Sept. 10, 2010)

"Islam" is a proper name for a set of particular ideas, customs, and symbols. There are "Islams" in that various individuals accept the essential ideas, but differ widely in the nonessential ideas. For example, there is no one Islamic ideology but rather a range of them. For examples, see Ideology.

JUDAISM: Judaism is a kind of monotheistic religion. (That is the genus in the definition.) Four fundamental ideas cause Judaism to be what it is and, in part, distinguish it from other religions. (1) One omniscient, omnipotent God created everything and can manage it moment to moment. (2) God transmitted ethics to man through mystical communication and men recorded it in holy scripture for later generations to read. (3) God chose a certain people, in Judea before 1000 BCE, to carry his ideas to the world. (4) To be a Jew one must accept God, whose revelations are recorded in the Pentateuch, as ethical guide. The first two ideas are common to Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. It is the particulars of the last two ideas that distinguish Judaism from the other monotheistic religions. (Rev. Sept. 10, 2010)

"Judaism" is a proper name for a set of particular ideas, customs, and symbols. There are "Judaisms" in that various individuals accept the essential ideas, but differ widely in the nonessential ideas. For example, there is no one Judaic ideology, but rather a range of them. Two examples are: Pragerism (a semi-humorous but pejorative term applied by Dennis Prager's opponents); and Religious Zionism.[3]

MOVEMENT: A movement is a mental grouping of individuals taking action (including advocacy) toward a common goal of changing certain conditions in which they live. There may or may not be organizations within the movement. The individuals in the movement might be physically isolated, or join in networks, or form organizations (including institutions). The concept "movement" refers to the fact of individuals moving toward the same goal. The Objectivist movement is an example. It includes thousands of individuals who are working toward creating a society based on rational principles. Some work in isolation; some network; a few organize; and a very few form institutions.

MYSTICISM: Metaphysical mysticism is the claim to be "one" with or a part of a supernatural world. Epistemological mysticism is a claim to knowledge drawn from any source other than reason (integration of the data of the senses). The epistemological sort of mysticism is the sort that is a focus of The Main Event.

ORGANIZATION: An organization is a type of association. That is the genus. It is an association which has these defining characteristics: (1) an overall purpose, which its members support; (2) a leadership chosen by a procedure or subgroup known to the organization's members; (3) standards (and therefore "gatekeepers") for admitting new members; and (4) structure (that is, a defined relationship among its members). There are two basic types of organization: (1) ad hoc, having a short-term purpose which, when fulfilled, would lead to dissolving the organization (an example being a committee to elect a particular politician at a particular election); or (2) an institution, which is an organization designed to continue towards its purpose even if, one by one, the original founding members resign or die (an example being an organization designed to disseminate a particular philosophy). In contrast with an organization, a movement (see MOVEMENT above) is a mental grouping of individuals who have the same purpose and are taking actions toward it but may not associate with each other or even know of each other. A movement may have organizations (or other forms of association, such as networks) within it. An "organized movement" is a contradiction in terms except in one sense: A particular organization attempts to lead a whole movement, wherein the members of the movement are also members of the organization.

PHILOSOPHY: A philosophy is a type of worldview, the type that relies, it says, on the use of reason to develop and systematize ideas about the basic nature of the world and man's place in it.

REASON: Reason is the faculty (ability) that forms ideas from sense-perception and applies them to living; reason is thus the faculty of identifying facts and values.

RELIGION: A religion is a type of worldview, the type that relies on mysticism (usually faith, revelation, and clerical authority) to develop and systematize ideas about the basic nature of the world and man's place in it. A religion (as a worldview) is a cause; socially and culturally, some of the effects include organizations (such as the Order of the Dominican Friars), rituals (such as baptism), books (holy scripture and the many books that explain it), events (such as sermons), and paraphanelia (such as rosary beads).

SECT: The term "sect" names a certain kind of religious movement, one that has a certain relationship to a larger religious group (a "denomination"). The term/concept "sect" is thus a relational term. The beliefs or practices of the members of the sect differ in some ways from the larger group's beliefs or practices. Those differences cause conflict with the larger group. An example of a denomination is the Catholic Church; an example of a sect within the Church (or at least within the Catholic movement generally) is the Community of the Lady of All Nations (CLAN, also known as "The Army of Mary"), a sect of individuals who believe that Mary, mother of Christ, was reincarnated as Marie Paule Giguere, who became the founder of CLAN. The Catholic Church said the sect is heretical and excommunicated its main supporters. Not all sects are declared heretical. Not all sects become organizations. A sect is not a cult.

THEOCRACY A theocracy is a form of government in which its supporters claim to govern as God wants. Because God is omniscient and omnipresent, a government of God is totalitarian in intention if not in result. A theocracy is totalitarian because it implicitly covers all aspects of life, though it may not explicitly legislate in some areas. "Theocracy" subsumes various species differentiated by type of personnel or structure. One species of theocracy is a hierocracy, which is a government run by priests (ieros, "holy," in Greek). A theocracy might be republican, democratic, aristocratic, or monarchist in structure, but still be a theocracy, that is, a government run by God's minions, following God's principles, and in God's name. A theocracy might be "hard" (using coercion ruthlessly to enforce conformity) or "soft" (using coercion sporadically). The essential characteristics remain the same: rule (-cracy) in the name of God (theo-). For an example of one mystic's defense of theocracy, see Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, What's Right with Islam is What's Right with America, pp. 104-106.

WAR: A war is a physically violent conflict between two or more governments (or a government and a would-be government, such as a secession movement), or their proxies, that occurs in more than one location and event. World War II is an example. Metaphorically, a war is a sustained verbal, legal, or other social conflict over fundamental values; today's "war" between reason and mysticism is an example. A physical war threatens life itself; fighting in it is an action taken in an emergency justifying the abandonment of normal legal procedures and etiquette. A metaphorical war is not an emergency; fighting in it does not justify abandoning normal legal procedures and etiquette. Switching from one meaning of "war" to the other, within the same argument and without notice, is the fallacy of equivocation.

WORLDVIEW: A worldview is a set of interconnected concepts and principles which explain the basic nature of the world and man's place in it. A worldview is a religion if it cites some form of mysticism (revelation, intuition, special authority coming from God, and so forth) as its source. A worldview is a philosophy if it says it uses reason. Both types of worldview have at least four branches: metaphysics ("theology" for religion), epistemology, ethics, and politics. Any particular worldview may be syncretic, eclectic, a mixed case, or a fraud (e.g., claiming it is based on reason when it is not).

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

[1] For names and descriptions of ideologies in Somalia: http://allafrica.com/stories/200903210022.html. [2] For key terms/concepts of Islam: Cyril Glasse, "Islam," "IHsaan," and "Imaan," The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, New York, HarperCollins, 1989, p. 192, col. 1. The H represents the Arabic letter Haa'. [3] For the ideology (and movement) of Religious Zionism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Zionism.

Dennis Prager, mystic activist

2010-08-24T12:11:00.000-07:00

SUBJECT. This post surveys Prager's activism in its general characteristics. What motivates him? What forms of activism has Prager taken to disseminate his ideas? To whom is he speaking? What lessons has he learned from his experiences as an activist? The following is a preliminary sketch of the actions of a man who is extraordinary in at least one respect: his activism, which is an extension of his central purpose in life, is the core of his life.[1]

REVIEW. As explained in earlier posts, "Stephen Bourque analyzes mystic Dennis Prager" (Jan. 20, 2010) and "Prager on Reason and Mysticism" (March 13, 2010), Dennis Prager's worldview is the religion of Judaism. The metaphysics of his worldview is theism. The epistemology is ultimately mysticism in various forms, though he says of himself: ". . . I am cursed and blessed to be very rational." (pp. 2-3) The ethics of his worldview is altruism. (He has said [p. 90] that he has had a "lifelong interest in altruism.") The politics of his worldview is apparently the mixed economy of a conservative welfare state, but he describes it as "the American central value system with the free market, liberty, and basic Judeo-Christian principles." (p. 84) His ideology -- that is, his application of his universal worldview to dealing with the problems of his particular milieu -- is conservatism (valuing God, Tradition, Nation, and Family).

Prager uses "reason" to articulate and advocate for his ethical and political ideas. His mysticism -- faith, revelation, and so forth -- is always present in his discussions by implication, but occasionally it is explicit too. He spends most of his time advocating for or discussing ethical and political issues, but the flood of his activities carries with it occasional messages about reason and mysticism.

BACKGROUND. As explained in the March 13, 2010 post, Prager's central purpose in life is to propagate "ethical monotheism" -- that is, the ethics that comes (mystically, but with "rational" elaboration) from the one God. For Prager, spreading ethical monotheism is not a mere wish, nor even a sideline form of activism. It is the productive core of his life. His products include thousands of hours of recorded call-in talk-radio shows; lectures likewise recorded; instructional videotapes; and informative books. All are for sale.

Prager's central purpose is an application, to his individual life, of the purpose of Jews as a group. "The purpose of the Jewish people," he says, "is to bring the world to God," that is, to present to the world God and the ways God wants individuals to act. (p. 24)

Prager has designed his life so as to best fulfill his central purpose. For example: "Dennis has organized his life," notes Luke Ford (his informal biographer), "to say and write what he believes to be true without fear of repercussion. He has never wanted to be dependent on [any one particular] boss. Thus, he has earned money for decades from multiple sources (speeches, radio, writing)." (p. 5, minor edits here and elsewhere)

HIS LIFE AS AN ACTIVIST. Prager was born in 1948 into a "modern Orthodox" Jewish family in Brooklyn, New York, There he attended two yeshivas (Orthodox schools of religious and secular studies), from kindergarten through high school. He became fluent in Hebrew and began studying Russian. In school, he met Joseph Telushkin, who became Prager's best friend and, a decade later, a co-author. For Prager, as for so many others, networking paid unpredictable benefits in the years ahead.

"After school," Prager said, "I'd take a subway into Manhattan and go to museums and concerts and plays. I didn't do any homework." Academically, he graduated 92nd in a class of 110, but, because he was senior class president, he spoke at the graduation ceremony. (pp. 15, 16, and 18) His early public speaking was an element of his life that foreshadowed his career path.

A second element was his attitude toward the schools he attended. He said, "I hate to be told what to do unless it has a divine source. I don't want morons telling me what to do." (p. 19) Prager has also identified a third element. "The ability to read how others react to you is about as important a subject as there is in life. I think I am very aware of this. I think it is something I was aware of at an early age. . . . One of the reasons I was able to become an interesting speaker was that I was very aware even in private conversations in high school, whether or not I was boring the person I was with." (pp. 22-23) A fourth element emerged in his teen years: He was a fan of talk-radio, listening and calling frequently. "(p. 22) A fifth element was expecting reasons -- articulated explanations (even if they were ultimately based on something beyond reason) for any belief or action. He rejected some Orthodox Jews' "explanations" such as because God said so. "I left keeping kosher after [attending] yeshiva precisely because no reasons were given." (p. 23) "I believe you have to do things because God said so, but even if God said so, why did God give me a brain if not to understand why he said so?" (p. 24)

After his first year of Brooklyn College, he briefly toured Israel and Europe. (p. 26) At age 21, Prager was influenced by Rabbi Louis Jacobs's book, We Have Reason to Believe. "[W]e can use the faculty of reason to believe in God? Just the title alone changed my life," says Prager. (p. 27) Before his junior year and paid by an Israeli sponsor, he traveled to the Soviet Union for a month, smuggling in religious items and surreptitiously meeting Jewish leaders. He saw dictatorship first hand. (p. 28) Returning to the US, and still a student at age 21, he began speaking to U. S. Jewish audiences about his experiences with Russian dissidents. He donated his speaking fees to the Free Soviet Jewry movement. In 1970, he led conservative demonstrations at a United Nations World Youth Assembly, a convention dominated by socialists and others who hated Israel and the United States. That experience, he said, "cemented [my] ability to speak calmly in the face of hostility." (p. 30)

While in college, he later said, "[I was] very worried -- what will I do for a living? I was not prepared to abandon this sense of mission in life [bringing Jewish ethics to the world] but how do you make a living from that?" (p. 29)

In 1970, he graduated from Brooklyn College, with majors in history and anthropology. (p. 32) He studied next at the Middle East Institute and the Russian Institute of Columbia University's School of International Affairs. Graduate school was difficult because many of his professors were Marxists and he was not. "Since entering graduate school, I was preoccupied with this question: Why did so many learned and intelligent professors believe so many foolish things? . . . One day . . . [s]eemingly out of nowhere, a biblical verse -- one that I had recited . . . in kindergarten . . . -- entered my mind. It was a verse from Psalm 111: 'Wisdom begins with fear of God'." Prager said, "[The] verse . . . put me on a philosophical course from which I have never wavered." He sees the terrible consequences of "godless ideas," and that sight energizes his faith. (p. 34) "I have learned a lot in life because . . . [w]henever people tell me almost anything, I [ask] why." (p. 35)

At about the same time, 1970-1971, Prager taught Jewish history at Brooklyn College. (p. 34) His communication skills grew with each such experience.

In the summer of 1971, Prager toured communist Eastern Europe. Working from those travels, he wrote an essay and a book review for two national conservative magazines. (p. 35) In 1973, he dropped out of graduate school to work with Rabbi Joseph Telushkin to write an introduction to Judaism -- a book "that [unlike his highly specialized Master's thesis] would actually touch people's lives." (p. 36)

In 1975, Prager, age 27, and Telushkin self-published their book, The Eight Questions People Ask about Judaism. Prager wrote the book by drawing on his experiences in lecturing and answering questions on campuses and in discussions of Judaism in missionary work in the Soviet Union and its satellites. The book illustrates a lesson of successful philosophical and intellectual activism: The activist should state broad principles (such as, for Prager, belief in God and the necessity of having values) but also offer suggestions for thinking about those principles and applying them to daily life. (p. 36)

Prager and Telushkin had offered the book to the Jewish Publication Society, but the JPS rejected it as "too advocative." Prager notes, "Joseph and I published the book on our own and sold so many copies that we lived off the sales of the book at lectures for years." Prager explained that, outside some individuals in the Orthodox minority, few Jews advocated Judaism. One exception was the scholarly and mystical Chabad movement. (p. 37 and askmoses.com)

Prager and Telushkin added a ninth question to their book and a mainstream publisher issued it in 1976 as The Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism. Aimed mainly at "secular Jews," that is, individuals born into Jewish culture but no longer following its faith-based customs, it became the most widely used introduction to Judaism. (p. 36)

Prager works for the long-term. He autographs copies of the Bible, and he believes "his contributions won't be recognized for a millenium," says biographer Luke Ford. (pp. 38, minor edit, and 90)

Also in 1976, Prager, at the age of 28, became the administrator of the Brandeis-Bardin Institute in Simi Valley, north of Los Angeles. Its purpose was to produce leaders for the Jewish community. When he gave free copies of his book to the camp counselors at the institute, he learned a lesson in dissemination. "By the tenth person, I realized what a terrible mistake I had made. I knew not one of them was going to read it and that none of them treasured it. Had I charged one dollar for the book, they would've appreciated it." (p. 38)

Later in the same year, the host of a local television program interviewed Prager for his first television appearance. (p. 40)

Prager was alert to judging the state of the culture in which he was speaking and he sought better tools for advocacy. The 1980 election of conservative Ronald Reagan led Prager to see that the fundamental difference between the left and the right is "philosophical and moral," not merely economic. (p. 40)

In 1982, Prager became the host for a Los Angeles radio program, "Religion on the Line," featuring an interfaith dialogue. Prager said later that his first (trial) appearance on the program produced one of the happiest moments of his life because he "ached to get [his] ideas out." He began as host of the two-hour program on Sunday. (p. 41)

"I opened radio to Muslims. . . . I deliberately sought them because it's a major religion. I had Muslims on so often . . . that they invited me to various mosques to speak. . . . The first public demonstration I organized was on behalf of Muslims in [Russian-occupied] Afghanistan." (p. 41) "It was their failure to organize demonstrations against Islamic terror [after August 2000, the Second Intifada in Israel] which caused a certain breach." (p. 45)

In 1983, Prager resigned from his seven-year directorship of the Institute, and, again with a co-author, Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, published his second book, Why the Jews? The Reason for Antisemitism. (p. 42) In the same year, his radio appearances expanded to four days each week. He also wrote a regular column for a Los Angeles newspaper. (p. 44) Thus, Prager by this time had multiple channels for communicating his ideas: lecturing; teaching university courses; hosting a radio talk show on religion and its applications; and writing newspaper columns, national magazine articles, and books.

In 1985, perhaps partly to avoid being edited by others whose views he didn't share, he began publishing a journal for his own writings, Ultimate Issues. Prager continued the journal, with its nearly ten thousand subscribers, for fifteen years. Catholic conservative William F. Buckley praised the journal. As another instance of attempting to support himself through sales directly to his readers and listeners, Prager began selling audiotapes of his lectures. "It was actually the Ayatollah Khomeini [who led the Islamic revolution which overthrew the Shah of Iran] who made me aware of the power of tapes," said Prager. (p. 44)

In 1986, in a house of Chabad at the University of California at Los Angeles, he lectured to students and others. The topic was happiness. "I record all my talks . . . ," Prager says. "I am misquoted often and then I have proof . . . . " From around 1970, he had sold recordings of his lectures to subscribers. His tape of the 1986 lecture on happiness sold well. His experience with this lecture illustrates two points for activists. First, activists cannot always accurately predict market response. Some lectures and books sell much better or worse than the authors predict. Second, a small, short-term project can unexpectedly grow into a larger or more long-term project. Six months after Prager originally presented his lecture, "Happiness is a Serious Problem," it led to an essay for Redbook magazine and then a condensed essay for Reader's Digest. (p. 49)

However, before he committed to writing a book on happiness, he tested his expanded material (for sufficiency and interest) by presenting a course (eight 90-minute sessions) at the University of Judaism in Los Angeles. That succeeded, so next he presented a longer course, sixteen 90-minute sessions. When that went well, he agreed with a publisher to produce a book, but he did not complete it until 1998, 12 years after the original lecture. (p. 49) The progression shows the value of small projects. They can be both experiments and "seed capital" for larger projects.

Throughout all of these public activities, Prager also continued influencing individuals one by one. For example, in 1989, he spent an hour and a half discussing marriage, divorce, and children with a doctor who asked for help. The doctor became an Orthodox Jew. (p. 52)

"In late 1991," says biographer Luke Ford, "Dennis launched the Micah Center for Ethical Monotheism. The purpose of the activist education center is to have a 'place of activity' devoted to his life's mission of spreading ethical monotheism through every available means." (p. 54) The Center has produced training videos about ethics, such as the comedic "For Goodness Sake." (p. 55)

In April 1992, Prager began teaching the Torah, the first five books of the Bible , by lecturing on the twenty percent of the verses that most intrigued him. He taught, on average, about sixteen nights per year, at the University of Judaism (now called the American Jewish University). He finished the series of Torah commentaries eighteen years later, in 2010. The lectures are recorded on more than 300 CDs. Prager has said that the project was the most important of his life and the least well known of his major projects. (pp. 57-58) The effects of an activist's projects are not automatically proportionate to his investment of time.

Also in 1992, he completed ten years of hosting his call-in radio program, "Religion on Line" -- over 500 shows. (p. 53) His radio career continued but the hours and breadth of audience varied as opportunities arose or dried up. When Prager faced difficult career problems, he asked himself, "[W]hat does God want me to do?" (p. 85)

How does Prager conduct himself in debate? In November 1996, Prager wrote an article for the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles. The subject was ordaining homosexuals as rabbis, an action Prager opposed, according to biographer Luke Ford. Prager held the view that the Bible had introduced a "heterosexual revolution" into the world and that it deserved defense. The editor of the Journal, which is heavily left-wing according to Prager, published his own rebuttal alongside Prager's essay. (Ford, pp. 64-67)

In subsequent issues, the Journal published readers' letters on the subject. Most of the letters rejected Prager's position and attacked him personally (calling him "homophobic" and so forth), but "not one dealt with the issues I actually raised," Prager said in his own publication, The Prager Perspective. (pp. 65-66) He ignored all but one of the letters that maligned him. The one letter to which he responded was a letter signed by sixteen rabbis, some of whom had been Prager's friends. He addressed their charges one by one, Prager says. Most disappointing to him, however, was the public silence of other rabbis whom he knew personally to support his position. (p. 66) Such experiences are a painful part of advocacy, for some advocates.

"The only thing I ever lose sleep over," Prager says, is when I am misquoted. It drives me crazy for idealistic reasons. I live so that I can have a good influence on people. If people change what I say, they undermine my ability to do good . . . . If people call me names, that truly doesn't bother me." (p. 68) This is another example of an activist using his central purpose in life as a razor to lop off the unimportant so that he can concentrate on the important. A dedicated advocate continues his advocacy despite attacks and disappointments.

In the Spring of 1998, Prager brought DennisPrager.com online. At that time, it was mainly a sales outlet for Prager's various products. (p. 67) In 1999, Prager's radio show was broadcast to a national audience, but the syndicator dropped him in late 2000. A Christian group, Salem Communications Corporation, added his show to their syndicated network (Salem Radio Network). His radio-show income is about one million per year. (p. 71) In 2009, Prager created Prager University online. It offers five-minute videos on topics such as "The Case for Marriage." (p. 55)

PRESENT ACTIVITIES: DENNISPRAGER.COM. Now that we have quickly examined key points of Prager's work life over the last fifty years, let us look at a cross-section of his work as an activist today. The simplest way to do that is to briefly tour his website, DenisPrager.com.

Start with three elements in the banner at the top of the home page. First, you can listen to his radio show when it is transmitting. To hear earlier shows, up to three weeks old and without the interruptions of commercials, you can purchase membership in "Pragertopia." A second element in the banner is a block containing a phone number and an email address for listeners who want to make a point for discussion on the radio show. This feature allows interactive activism, that is, the activist, Prager, offers an opportunity for his supporters (and detractors) to ask questions and offer their own viewpoint. The variety and the clash of viewpoints in discussion and debate make the activist's presentation more entertaining and informative, thus drawing (and keeping) an audience and thereby helping disseminate the activist's ideas. A third element in the banner of the homepage is a button ("Shop Now") that gives access to the products sold through the store: videos, DVDs, recorded lectures, Bible study courses, and books by Prager. The last item in the banner is an advertisement for courses in Hebrew and Bible study.

The left side of the website lists buttons for such topics as "The Dennis Prager Show," which has subtopics such as "What author/expert did Dennis have on?" Prager interviews authors on a wide range of subjects. On July 8, he interviewed William Rosen, the author of The Most Powerful Idea in the World: The Story of Steam, Industry, and Invention. On July 13, he spoke to David Brog, executive director of Christians United for Israel, and author of In Defense of Faith: The Judeo-Christian Idea and the Struggle for Humanity.

Also in the list on the left is "Denis's Columns." They appear to be articles written weekly, and perhaps published only on the website. Under "Meet Denis" is a tab labeled "Books That Most Influenced Dennis." This list, and much of the work that Prager does, implies that Prager sees that ideas are a cause of history. He is a religious activist, intellectual activist, and political activist who puts that view of history into action.

CONCLUSION. Dennis Prager is a mystic in the foundation of his ethics. His intense and sustained activism is devoted to disseminating Judaic ethics, with occasional references to that mysticism carried along in the stream of discussion and debate. He works in a variety of communication channels and addresses a variety of audiences. He knows ideas move history and he is working for the long-term. Dennis Prager is a formidable advocate.

Burgess Laughlin, author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

[1] I have two sources for this sketch. First is the frequently updated collection of biographical notes written by Luke Ford, an admirer of Prager, at http://www.lukeford.net/Dennis/indexp2.html. It was 92 pages long when I printed it out on Aug. 12, 2010. The second source, as a back-up, but not cited in this post, is the Aug. 12, 2010 Wikipedia page for "Dennis Prager." I have not independently verified either source.

A mystic in reason's camp?

2010-07-27T13:52:00.000-07:00

A SIGHTING. How widespread is mysticism in our culture? Answering that question is one long-term purpose of this weblog. The following anecdote, by Peter Namtvedt (a fellow member of Northwest Objectivists), shows mystics might be found anywhere in our society, even at a gathering of Objectivists, the foremost advocates of reason today. My comments and questions follow his account.

***

Earlier in July, my wife, Mary Ann, and I were among the five hundred people attending OCON2010, an Objectivist conference in Las Vegas. We had signed up for a buffet sponsored by Diana Hsieh, a leader of activists in the Objectivist movement. The purpose of the buffet was to bring together Objectivist activists for their shared interest. The large group made it difficult to hear what others were saying, except three more vocal people we sat with at the end of a long table.

A young woman directly across from me talked to two young men about her knowledge of mysticism. She insisted that it was based solely on her personal experience. I asked her if she had found others who had the same experiences and she replied "No."

I also asked her how she was able to retain a grasp on Objectivism as a philosophy of reason while believing there was any substance to the experiences she called "mystical." She insisted she was holding true to Objectivism, and she was also sure that some day scientific research would validate her experiences and permit conciliation with Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason as an absolute and exclusive source of knowledge.

She described her mystical experiences. On one occasion, she said, she was in a room alone and suddenly got the conviction that someone she knew was standing behind her. The experience was very vivid and, although she found no one there when she turned around, it was real, she said. On another occasion, she visited a cemetery and heard her dead relatives speaking to her.

In the buffet conversation, she made no remarks relating to religion or a god, only to unexplainable "secular" incidents that came to her mind without any use of sense perception. I expected her to start on the topic of angels, which I have heard is a branch of mystical thought popular these days, but she said nothing about it.

I finally objected to this talk and asked the three of them to tell us about their activism on behalf of Objectivism. However, they regarded talk about this young woman's mysticism as more interesting.

I recently searched online for key phrases she used. They match terms in a guest post by Rich Engle, on the weblog Objectivist Living.[1]

As I continued reading the discussion thread on that weblog, a comment by the same fellow on December 17 rang a bell. Here he quotes from a "Starbuck's manuscript collection" (which means nothing to me) some thoughts that reminded me of the definition of religion offered by German philosopher Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), in his On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers.[2] Schleiermacher wrote about the essence of religion being the exaltation or awe one might feel standing on a beach looking out at the ocean. No single statement in his book sums it up thus; I pieced that thought together from many fragmentary statements. Perhaps Schleiermacher's "feeling" is akin to that of Engle and the woman I talked to at the conference. There is a commonality here.[3]

Peter Namtvedt (July 23, 2010)

***

I was not present at the incident Peter describes, but I have had similar conversations.

IDENTIFYING THE TYPE. Part of the purpose of The Main Event is to identify the actions and ideas of advocates of reason and advocates of mysticism, not debate about them. In that setting, two questions arise about the young mystic Peter describes.

1. What are the essential, defining characteristics of her particular episodes of mysticism? First, the young woman's mystical episodes are personally experiential ("feelings"). In the conversation related by Peter, she is not claiming to be at one with the universe or having a conversation with God. Second, her experiences somehow become whole thoughts -- e.g., such a mystic might say, "I heard my dead relatives speaking to me."

This combination of personal experience directly and mysteriously producing a claim to knowledge distinguishes this mystic from two other kinds of mystics. The first kind, exemplified by Plotinus (205-270), has "ineffable" experiences (that is, experiences that cannot be expressed in words). The second kind includes mystics, such as Muhammad (570-632), who receive verbal (conceptual) communications directly from a supernatural source. Peter's mystic, at least as far as she described it in Peter's account, somehow automatically forms knowledge -- as statements -- from her mystic experiences.

2. What term would best label this young woman's form of mysticism, to distinguish it from others? I do not know of a single term. However, this form of mysticism is "empirical" in that it is a direct "experience" and it is cognitive in that it does, the mystic claims, give rise to "knowledge" in the form of statements about a "reality" not knowable by sense-perception (the world of the dead; or a dimension of reality in which someone is present behind me, but is not visible; and so forth). In summary, such a form of mysticism is empirical in origin and cognitive in its product.

TENTATIVE CONCLUSION. Advocates of mysticism or reason can appear even in unlikely places. In social situations in which their view is unwanted, their advocacy can be as simple as stating their view and responding to questions.

Comments that correct, expand, or supplement this post's preliminary observations are welcome.

Burgess Laughlin, author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith at www.reasonversusmysticism.com

P.S. Thank you, Peter. I am very grateful that you brought this particular stream of mysticism to my attention. From it, I have learned of (1) the existence of mystics on the periphery of a social network of advocates of reason; and (2) U. S. psychologist and pragmatist philosopher William James (1842-1910) as an originating mystic, that is, a mystic who formulates and systematizes descriptions of mysticism that others will repeat or modify in their efforts to spread and defend their doctrines.

[1] At http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=79.

[2] For Schleiermacher: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/

[3] For Johann Georg Hamann (1730-1788) and his mystical experiences: Ch. 7 ("Kant: A Philosophy Professor Limits Reason to Make Room for Faith") of The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith.

Prager on Reason and Mysticism

2010-03-13T06:18:00.000-08:00

INTRODUCTION
The Jan. 20, 2010 post on The Main Event, "Bourque on mystic Dennis Prager," interviews Stephen Bourque, who in a year-long series of posts on his weblog One Reality, analyzed a theme of Prager's career: To live rightly in this earthly realm, we need an absolute morality that can come only from God.

Dennis Prager (b. 1948) is an influential, articulate, and prolific writer and speaker. He is popular in the USA's Judaeo-Christian movement, particularly among conservative statists.[1]

SCOPE. Interwoven among Prager's messages, in his many publications, are brief points he makes about reason and mysticism. In line with the overall purpose of The Main Event, I am here trying to identify the nature of those points, but as they emerge in only one of his writings, The Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism.[2] Because I am merely sampling, the conclusions I draw here are subject to correction after wider study of his large body of work.

THE RELIGIOUS ACTIVIST. All his life, Prager says (p. 13), he has been searching for "a way of life -- religious or secular, Eastern or Western, rational or mystical -- which is likely . . . to unlock whatever goodness lies in human beings." His book describes (p. 14) the answer that he found: Judaism. "We are only attempting," he says, "to restate for our generation what Isaiah and others stated for all generations" in the Bible. Prager adds (p. 14) that he is a product of "Judaism and Western reason."

From his successful search for a way of life, Prager's central purpose in life arose: ". . . to bring the idea of a universal God and [God's absolute, universal] morality, or ethical monotheism, to mankind."[3] Ethics is Prager's personal focus. He works from that interest to more fundamental questions such as the existence and nature of God.

THE BOOK. Prager first published his book in 1975. It answered eight questions. He expanded the book to nine questions and republished it in 1981. His audience is anyone considering Judaism, the religious worldview which, Prager holds (pp. 28-29), God revealed as broad ideals but to a particular people at a particular place more than 3000 years ago. Jews -- defined not by race or geography, but by adherence to that worldview -- have since then developed God's broad ideals into a traditional set of detailed rules guiding daily life. Accordingly Prager's purpose in the book, he notes (p. 39), is to describe and advocate Judaism as a way of life: its origins, fundamental principles, problems, and benefits. The book has nine chapters, each answering a question Prager heard repeatedly in his missionary travels in the USA and USSR.

PRAGER'S WORLDVIEW
Prager's views of reason and mysticism arise from and make sense in the framework of his worldview. In The Nine Questions, he reveals the main points of his metaphysics, theory of man, and ethics, as well as a sliver of his politics. However, understanding his epistemology requires more detective work.

METAPHYSICS. Prager's metaphysics -- that is, his most fundamental view of the nature of reality -- is straightforward. He says (p. 26), "[T]he physical world is very real. But it is not the only reality. There is a metaphysical reality as well." God created both worlds. (For Prager, the term "metaphysical" means supernatural, that is, "transcendent.") God is the foundation of Prager's worldview because God causes everything. What is God's nature? God is neither a "grand old man sitting up in heaven" nor a "cosmic butler" who answers our wishes in prayers (p. 31). What then is God? "The Jew cannot know what God is," Prager answers (p. 33).

THEORY OF MAN. Where does man fit into this system of God and the two worlds? Man can "relate" to God, who is "the One Who has no body" (p. 57); and man should follow God's guidance (ethics). What then is man's nature? Prager says (p. 100) that though man is not inherently evil, "since man is naturally selfish, not altruistic, it is easier to do evil than to do good." God created man with a propensity to evil, but God, who is "loving and just," also endowed man with a "touch of the divine" and with a universal purpose (to spread God's morality throughout the world), explains Prager (p. 26).

ETHICS. What is the code of ethics that God wants Jews to convey to the rest of the world? It is Judaism's "all-encompassing value system and way of life," Prager answers (p. 132). That system includes general principles (e.g., the commandments from God) and particular rules (inferred by Jewish intellectuals in a long tradition), such as how to slaughter certain animals before eating them. The core of Jewish ethics is altruism, which is the belief (-ism) that one should be focused on others: God, people, and animals (p. 63).

POLITICS. Prager says little in The Nine Questions about politics. An objective reader may tentatively infer some positions from Prager's statements, subject to correction from other sources. First, he notes (p. 91) that Christians and Jews should be motivated by their common desire to "convert a secular amoral world into a religious moral one." This does not directly specify politics, but it does offer a justification for a theocracy, that is, a state dedicated to applying God's word to life in society. Second, Prager defends (p. 119) the existence of Israel as an opportunity to create a Judaic "model state," indeed "a Jewish state" (p. 121). A state justified by its role in protecting and spreading the word of God is a theocracy.

PRAGER'S MULTIFORM EPISTEMOLOGY
OVERVIEW. Prager is an ethical absolutist. He believes there is a metaphysically objective ethics, the revealed word of God, and it is absolute and universal. An objective reader might ask how a Jew can know: that God exists ("This is life's most crucial question," p. 18); what God's nature is; that God wants everyone to follow certain principles (p. 21); what those principles are; and how one should apply the broad principles to the details of daily life.

Answering these questions can involve a long and confusing effort, as Prager shows in Question 1. Why engage in such a process? To live a life worth living, we must know what to do and in enough detail to be able to practice it.

This is the Jew's dilemma: Man must know that God, the source of a required absolute morality, exists, but because of man's own natural limitations and God's supernatural identity, man cannot know. Here emerge signs of the philosophical skepticism which frames Prager's multiform epistemology. Philosophical skepticism is the idea that one can know nothing (radical skepticism), or know only certain things, or know some things but only to some extent (moderate skepticism). Prager favorably quotes (p. 19) a theologian who says "man's certainty with regard to anything is poison to his soul."

Prager rejects ethical pragmatism, by which he apparently means looking only at short-term benefits for oneself. "Committing evil can be regarded as highly practical," he states (pp. 22-23). He likewise rejects (p. 22) "feelings" as moral guides. He apparently (pp. 20-21) believes the answer to "How can I know?" -- the answer to which connects God and ethics -- should be a chain of three elements.

The first link is reason. Prager seems to be saying (pp. 26 and 27-31) that despite its limitations, it can suggest that the existence of a God is the most probable explanation for the existence and orderliness of the world we live in, but we lack certainty. However, throughout Question 1, Prager sends mixed messages about the role of reason. He sometimes explicitly describes it as an enemy, but at other times by implication relies on it for demonstrating certain points and assessing probability.

The second link between God and ethics is supposition. Since we believe, somehow, that we need an absolute and detailed guide in life and we believe such could only come from a God, we need to presuppose God's existence, even if we cannot prove it (pp. 26 and 27-31).

The third link is faith. Since we have justified belief in God's existence by probability (determined by reason in some form) and presupposition (from necessity), we can then accept it on faith, which brings us assurance. However, while necessary, faith alone is not sufficient, Prager holds (p. 32).

MYSTICISM IN GENERAL. In The Nine Questions, Prager does not take a position on mysticism, objectively defined as any claim to knowledge other than through reason; nor does he himself define it in any of its narrower conventional uses (e.g., a brief state of communion with God). He does approvingly cite (p. 189) works on Jewish mysticism. Further study is required for determining more about his meaning of "mysticism" and his evaluation of it. What then is his view of particular forms of mysticism, objectively defined?

1. FAITH. In The Nine Questions, Prager does not formally define faith. The objective definition of faith -- acceptance of an idea without, or even contrary to, evidence and proof -- does fit his usages of the term. E.g., for Prager (p. 19, quoting Rabbi Emanuel Rackman), having faith in God's existence (as a basis for following God's law) is a virtue, one accompanying the virtue of humility, which arises from perpetual doubt. Prager's unquestioning acceptance (e.g., pp. 87 and 111) of Biblical accounts of revelations and prophecies is an example of faith. However, he says he rejects "blind belief" (p. 139) because it leads to fanaticism (pp. 19-20). Instead, he encourages (p. 140) Jewish parents to offer "reasoned and meaningful answers to their children's questions."

2. COGNITIVE OSMOSIS. There are bits of evidence (and only that) that Prager supports the notion of gaining knowledge through social osmosis (e.g., pp. 135, 137, and 138), which is a natural refuge for skeptics. He speaks of "implant[ing] . . . Jewish identity" through immersion in Jewish culture in Jewish homes and schools. Perhaps he is only speaking loosely and means that individuals learn from the culture around them.

3. RATIONALISM AS "REASON." In The Nine Questions, Prager's views of reason are vague and conflicting. Sometimes reason seems to be an oracle: reason suggests answers and talks to us. Reason is, Prager apparently assumes, useful for tidying up arguments that we present to others. Indeed, we can use reason to justify anything. "Reason rarely argues for moral behavior. In fact, reason can nearly always be used to justify immoral behavior . . . . The use of reason to justify what is wrong is so common that we have a special word for it -- rationalization." Reason for Prager (pp. 23 and 24) is only syllogizing.

Based on three points, Prager holds that we cannot rely on reason to develop ethics. First, "reason is amoral" (p. 24), and the moral cannot arise from the immoral or the amoral. Second, unless it is guided by a prior commitment to God (p. 37), reason tends to support evil. Third, reason is weak; it has no authority: "Reason cannot demand good behavior (even when it suggests it)," Prager says (p. 24). Reason only suggests or asserts things. We need something "higher than reason" to "compel" us "to act morally" (p. 25). However, Prager seems to contradict himself. He also says (p. 28) "logic and reason . . . compel us to reject it [the idea that beauty and justice and other fine things are merely the result of random collisions of molecules, as the conventional atheists claim] as a probability." Can reason "compel" or not? Perhaps the resolution of this seeming contradiction is that Prager believes reason can be compelling in natural science (a question of fact, the "is") but not in ethics (a question of value, the "ought"). Shadowing Prager's account of Judaism is an unstated is/ought dichotomy.

Another instance that might make readers wonder what Prager means by "reason" is this statement: "In Judaism, we can affirm the existence of God without suspending either our reason or our questioning. Indeed, for the Jew, reason and questioning should ultimately be a source of affirmation that there is a God" (p. 37). An objective reader notes that questioning is an element of reason (in its full, objective meaning), so what would "reason and questioning" mean?

Further, Prager speaks (pp. 87-88) of a Christian argument being "logically unsatisfactory" to Jews. The "religious Jew need not abandon reason" (p. 140) but (p. 143) can "use logical arguments" in advocating Judaism to younger people and reason to explain Jewish laws as a way of persuading people to follow them. Prager also disapprovingly notes (p. 45) that many Jews advocate blind obedience to those laws. He says (note, p. 25) faith and reason must be used together. Using either alone leads to immorality.

All of these seemingly supportive uses of "reason" show that Prager's view of reason is rationalism, which is an emphasis on syllogistically correct arguments that start with arbitrary premises. Premises accepted on faith -- such as "God exists" -- are arbitrary.

SUMMARY
Prager's worldview is hierarchical and interconnected. In politics, there must be a state, Israel, that serves as a refuge to protect the social and cultural movement that has persevered in bringing God's ethics of altruism to man. As a theory of man, Prager holds God made man complex: in part mere animal and in part a divine spark, which includes, in his epistemology, a need for and very limited ability to articulate reasons for believing and doing things God commands us to do. Thus man needs both mysticism and rationalism -- humbled by skepticism -- to justify following God's rules ("ethical monotheism"). In metaphysics, God is the cause of all.

Those are Dennis Prager's beliefs, and he is a full-time activist disseminating them.

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

[1] For an overview of Prager's life and beliefs: (a) a biographical sketch at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Prager ; (b) admirer Luke Ford's rough chronology of social, professional, and intellectual events in Prager's life at http://www.lukeford.net/Dennis/indexp2.html ; and (c) Prager's own website at http://dennisprager.com/ . [2] Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin, The Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1981. For brevity, I speak of "Prager" as a reference to both authors. [3] The quoted passage comes from p. 13. My inference of Prager's CPL, here a term by analogy, comes from that page and pp. 20-21, where he speaks of the aims of a "committed Jew." That Prager has applied that general religious commitment to his personal CPL is evident from his career as speaker, writer, and teacher. See [1].

Ayn Rand's Advocacy in Objectively Speaking

2010-02-14T14:22:00.000-08:00

In the Fall 2009 issue of The Objective Standard, Dina Schein Federman, Ph.D. (Philosophy), reviews Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand Interviewed, edited by Marlene Podritske and Peter Schwartz. Dr. Federman's review covers the essential features of this new book. For students of the main event of our time, the conflict between reason and mysticism, I would like to supplement Dr. Federman's review with a few suggestions about issues in advocacy.

The subject matter of Objectively Speaking is easy to follow. In interviews across 50 years, Ayn Rand, the world's most radical advocate of reason, presented elements of her philosophy in a clear, seemingly simple and straightforward style. However, for careful readers who want to study not only the content but also the manner in which she so successfully conveyed her philosophy of reason to her world, reading this collection is more demanding. Such a reader--e.g., a pro-reason philosophical activist who wants to acquire skills for presenting principles on radio, TV, or other media--needs to be aware of both content and manner at the same time. They are connected.

1. Discussion, not debate. Editor Marlene Podritske's "Preface" deserves special attention. In an admirably quiet and direct style, Podritske begins by identifying Rand's "reluctance to grant interviews" because Rand was "concerned that complex ideas could be easily misunderstood and serious discussion limited due to the 'in-a-nutshell' constraints of live programming." (p. vii) Rand rejected interview formats that were quarrelsome rather than informative.

Podritske also identifies Ayn Rand's role as a teacher, which means conveying ideas clearly and encouraging listeners to think for themselves. "I'm always glad to discuss ideas, but not to debate them," said Rand. (pp. vii and 200) The lesson here is that an activist should select venues that best meet his long-term purposes in conveying ideas to rational audiences. No activist has an obligation to automatically respond to every question, challenge, or demand on his time.

2. Objective understatement, not emotionalist hyperbole. Activists interested in learning how best to answer an interviewer's questions can contrast Rand's approach to the approach so common today, both in video and in print. Rand, in most of the interviews in Objectively Speaking, was engaged in in-line activism. In her case, that means she was disseminating ideas that were in line with one of her highest personal values, her central purpose in life, which was to portray the ideal man--including the philosophical ideas that motivate him (pp. 179-180). Of course, as a philosopher, she had a very broad range of interests to discuss in interviews.

Both in writing and in speaking, Rand addressed an audience she assumed to be rational. Her style was passionate in its firmness, but generally understated in its delivery. Why understated? A rational mind needs the "quiet space" that understatement creates. Rand briefly discusses this point in The Art of Nonfiction:

"Unsupported expressions of emotion (e.g., insulting or pejorative adjectives) are arbitrary stylistically, and, philosophically, constitute emotionalism. . . . Even if you give reasons for your strong language, understatement is usually more desirable. When you understate something, the reader is aware of what you are saying; his own mind then supplies the rest, which is what you want. But when you overstate something, you deafen the reader. You do not give him time to come to his own conclusion. . . . When you overstate something, you disarm yourself. A man does not shout when he is sure of his case. When a writer understates what he is saying, what comes across is an overwhelming assurance on his part." (p. 124, pb)

I have observed in personal conversations and in print that some speakers and writers are emotionalists. They want to rouse their supporters (who already agree with the message) or antagonize their opponents (who will never agree, because they hold different premises). When speaking to a sympathetic audience, emotionalists rely on their audience's reactions to terms that are conventional (such as "Big Business" or "Big Government") but vague in meaning--rather than on teaching important new concepts, e.g., precisely definable ideas such as statism, philosophy, egoism, and capitalism. As a corollary, when speaking to or about enemies, emotionalists rely on insults (e.g., "stupid" and "lunatic") not objective communication (identification of facts, integration with fundamental principles, and so forth).

Bypassing the conscious mind, emotionalists speak from the subconscious (their own) to the subconscious (their audience's). In contrast, objective teachers, knowing that emotions are automatic responses to values, address the conscious mind. An audience's emotions don't need to be manipulated. Emotions happen automatically when the rational audience member sees that his values are involved. The next item illustrates this point.

3. Dissection and rejection of conservatism. Ayn Rand had good reason for despising conservatism, an ideology which she philosophically characterizes as being supernaturalist (belief in God), mystical (having faith), altruist (focused on God and God's children), and statist (of the mixed-economy sort).[1] Even here, Ayn Rand's responses in interviews were generally understated. (pp. 15-21) She performed philosophical detection on the broad conservative movement to identify its essential characteristics, while recognizing that the term "conservative" has been used loosely, so individuals using the same label may differ widely. She presented her own position clearly and concisely. This approach is not the approach of an emotionalist but of an advocate of reason.

In summary, Objectively Speaking shows philosopher Ayn Rand, the foremost advocate of reason in our time, speaking as a teacher. She discusses ideas. Her delivery is understated as well as firm, integrated, and clear. As in so many areas, here too she is an inspiration for those who have chosen to struggle for a more rational society in which to live a better life

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

[1] For Ayn Rand's views on conservatism, see also: "Conservatism" and "'Conservatives' vs. 'Liberals'" in The Ayn Rand Lexicon. For a discussion of conservative attacks on Rand's Atlas Shrugged, see: Michael S. Berliner, "The Atlas Shrugged Reviews," Ch. 7, Essays on Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, ed. Robert Mayhew, NY, Lexington Books, 2009, available from The Ayn Rand Bookstore.

Stephen Bourque analyzes mystic Dennis Prager

2010-01-20T03:33:00.000-08:00

Dennis Prager (b. 1948) has a clear central purpose in life: to tell others how to do good and oppose evil. "Good" by what standard? By the standard of what Prager, an advocate of Judaism, calls "ethical monotheism" and some of his critics call "Pragerism." He has written four books, composed many magazine columns (online and in print), delivered hundreds of lectures to live audiences, founded an online "Prager University," and conducted thousands of radio and television shows, often in "talk" format. He has a large following in the U. S. Judaeo-Christian subculture, especially among conservatives (individuals whose main ideological values are God, Tradition, Nation, and Family).[1]

Stephen Bourque, writer and editor of the weblog One Reality, lives in Massachusetts, where he works full-time designing electronic circuits and developing firmware. His other interests include gourmet foods, visual arts, and music. He somehow manages to find time for philosophical and intellectual activism, mostly in the form of thoughtful posts on his weblog. His growth in knowledge and intellectual skills has been a pleasure to watch.

In keeping with the purposes of The Main Event, the following interview with Stephen focuses on two points: (1) His experience, as an activist, in thoroughly analyzing a sample of Prager's work; and (2) his reflections on Prager as an advocate of mysticism, including the general nature of Prager's arguments, their implications, and style of advocacy.

1. First, Stephen, could you summarize the steps you took, as a brief history of your project? For example, what was the time frame from start to finish? The project took just about a year to complete. I started it with an introduction on Dec. 4, 2008, and followed with installments at fairly regular intervals up to the fourteenth and final article on Dec. 8, 2009.

The project itself was quite spontaneous. During routine online reading, I happened upon an article that Prager wrote, called “If There Is No God.” I was familiar with him from his Townhall.com articles, which I always found to be more thoughtful and philosophical than the writings of some of his conservative colleagues.

This article, “If There Is No God,” resonated with me. It was his structure, his organization of fourteen philosophically dense and wide-ranging points that caught my attention. As I read it, I found myself rapidly identifying his premises -- which of course I consider to be mistaken -- and answering each point in my own mind, at least in an informal way. Now, I always do that when I read, but when I got to the end of his article, I was amazed at how much ground had been covered. I credit Prager for this.

There’s something else, too. I had not gotten past Prager’s second point before I started thinking to myself that this sounds like Ivan Karamazov talking, the character from Dostoyevsky’s Brothers Karamazov, which is one of my favorite novels. And sure enough, in Prager’s last point, he himself brought up Dostoyevsky. That coincidence, and the fact that Prager was clearly trying to make an intellectual argument much larger in scope than the typical opinion piece, got me excited about answering it.

2. As an engineer you are accustomed to estimating labor for projects. How much time would you say you invested in this project of philosophical activism? My wife would chuckle at this question, Burgess, for she knows I am a chronic under-estimator of the time required to finish a project -- both as an engineer and as a writer, I am sorry to admit. It took more time than I would have guessed at the beginning of the project. I would estimate each installment took me about ten hours to write, adding up to about 150 hours for the whole project. Almost all that time was spent composing and editing. There wasn’t much research involved.

3. To have worked for more than a year on such a project shows not only the virtue of persistence but a high level of motivation. What were your reasons for undertaking this project? A general motivation for any writing I do is to clarify my thinking on a topic. I’ve heard philosopher Leonard Peikoff say that you don’t really know something until you write about it, and I think that is a great observation.

For this project, however, I had a special purpose in mind: to combat the idea that faith in God is the only basis for morality, the only way to determine absolute right and wrong. Prager missed the mark with his conditional statements. He should not have posited “if there is no God” but “if there is no morality.” I wanted to show to some religious readers, the ones who have active minds, that the roots of objective values exist in the natural world. To plant the basis of one’s morality in a supernatural realm, as believers in God do, is to agree with the subjectivists that there are no absolutes grounded in the natural world.

This is a crucial point, so I’ll elaborate. Most religious conservatives, including Prager, rightly criticize the subjectivism and moral relativism demonstrated by “liberals.” But these same religionists don’t recognize that they are implicitly conceding all ground to their foes. Secular subjectivists deny that moral absolutes can have roots in the natural world. Religionists say that moral absolutes don’t have roots in the natural world -- but they do in heaven. In relation to the natural world, these two positions are identical.[2]

So this is a major theme that I wanted to get across – that however much conservatives and “liberals” think they are opposites, they share much more on the issue of moral absolutes than either group might care to admit. This common position should not be surprising, after all, because both leftists and conservatives share the same morality. In terms of metaphysics and epistemology, the two groups are distinct, but in terms of ethics, they support the same position: namely, altruism. I don’t think I emphasized this last point in the series. Maybe I should have, because it is crucial.

To think these are the only two choices – either an alleged rationality that disqualifies morality, or a morality that depends upon faith -- is not merely a mistake; it is a disaster. The choice amounts to picking either the Gulag or the Salem Witch Trials, to use Prager’s examples, as the model for our future. This is not hyperbole. If we are going to save America, we must convince civilized people that reason is our only means of knowledge, that faith is a license to kill your neighbor as surely as it is to be kind to him, and that moral principles, including the principle of individual rights, are absolutes that can be based not upon faith but upon the sense-perceptible facts of reality as philosopher Ayn Rand has shown in her essay "The Objectivist Ethics." We must rescue morality from religion's grip. The stakes could not be higher.

4. How did you -- with a job and a family -- make time to produce this series of articles? Well, it was a bit of a challenge to balance everything. I wanted to keep up with other topics on One Reality, too -- not just the Prager project -- and there were some weeks when I was too busy with work to do any writing at all. One factor that was very helpful was that my wife is an Objectivist and a blogger, too, so we would often sit side by side, each working on our own writing projects, bouncing thoughts off one another, refining our ideas, and even proofreading. So, in a sense, a lot of the time I spent writing was family time. It would be hard to overstate the importance of our mutual support and the fact that my wife and I are in agreement in every fundamental respect. A project like this, and our activism and intellectual growth in general, is part of our life together.

The biggest time problem for me – one I have yet to solve – is that since I started my blog almost two years ago, my reading has dropped off significantly. The hours I spend writing have directly supplanted the hours I formerly spent reading. Plus, the reading I do now tends to be of the current-events variety, which I loathe. I love fiction and drama, and I am aghast at how little time I have spent reading for pleasure in the last couple of years. I have to figure out how to work the reading back in without letting the writing suffer – and since I can’t add hours to the day, I guess I’ll have to improve my efficiency somewhere.

5. What was the most time-consuming part of the project? I’m a painfully slow writer. I’d love to have the words gush out like notes from the mind of Mozart, setting them down in the perfect order from left to right, top to bottom, as fast as my pen – or rather, keyboard – can set them down, but my brain doesn’t work that way. For that matter, perhaps neither did Mozart’s. In any case, I labor over every word, sentence, and paragraph. Plus, I’m a perfectionist. That doesn’t mean everything I do is perfect -- far from it -- but it means I am perpetually dissatisfied with it. Even when I am dashing off an email or a text message, I am a stickler for grammar and coherent thought.

6. What was the most intellectually difficult part of the project? Interestingly, Burgess, I have to say that intellectually most of this material was close enough at hand for me to write about it without much difficulty. I don’t mean it was a breeze -- it was a lot of work -- but compared to some other topics, like economics or environmental science, religion is relatively easy for me. I’ve been thinking about religion for a very long time. As a child, I was brought up as a Roman Catholic, so I went through all of this thinking first hand, and had thoroughly rejected supernaturalism on my own by the time I was seventeen. Of course, I would not have been able to articulate a positive case for reason until after I discovered Ayn Rand at eighteen, but I had at least thrown off all the fairy tales by then and was strongly committed to understanding the real, natural world.

If I had to highlight one intellectually difficult part of the project, I might point to the chart I made in Part 13, showing the logical hierarchy of the derivation of individual rights. I had labored through a similar exercise years ago in order to satisfy my own understanding -- basically, to check my premises and obtain a more sound grasp of why rights are valid. Anyone familiar with Ayn Rand’s writings, particularly her essay "Man’s Rights", will recognize all the propositions, connections, and interdependencies as hers. Despite the unparalleled clarity of Rand’s writing, a lot of intellectual effort is still required to grasp and integrate all the concepts in the chain. After reading Rand, you might feel like you’ve “got it,” that it is all so obvious and right. It is right, but the scope is so vast, it takes months and years to check, double-check, and triple-check all the connections. The chart was fairly easy for me to recreate for this project, but it was a lot of work back when I first did it.

7. You initially stated your goal as dashing "the notion that there are only two choices in the realm of morality: either to be religious or to reject morality." With that focus on ethics, you still managed to comment in every other branch of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, politics, and esthetics. How did that happen? All the credit here goes to Ayn Rand. She is the thinker who was able to connect the dots on the most wide-ranging topics possible. It is thanks to her work that I can grasp philosophy in a systematic manner, with its major branches of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, and its minor branches of politics and esthetics. Ayn Rand could take the most innocuous-seeming concrete and not only demonstrate its philosophical implications, but show how the same kernel of an idea would play out in other fields. To give an example I remember reading, she could see a streaker running across the stage at the Academy Awards on national television, and not shrug it off with a smirk as most people would, but regard it soberly as an instance of nihilism, akin to rock-throwing louts and student “rebels” of the New Left. She would have been able to tell you, on the spot, how that streaker was connected to modern art, drug use, “anti-heroes” in movies, the hippie movement, “word salad” literature, apathetic sexual promiscuity, and ten other things that most people would regard as totally disparate concepts. I have never encountered her equal in the sheer energy and genius she directed toward identification and integration.

Seeing value in this ability, I’ve made a habit of being a “philosophical detective” myself. Naturally -- and fortunately for me, equipped as I am with an ordinary, moderate intelligence -- one does not have to be a millennial genius like Ayn Rand to do this. Anyone can, and in fact must, think independently if he is not to drift on the sea of ideas. Basically, it’s a commitment to not being mentally lazy – or to put it positively, it’s a commitment to productive mental action, fitting and connecting every new thing into what one already knows.

8. Who was your target audience? Why? I was hoping to reach the minds of readers who hold religious premises and basically agree with Prager on all his points, but are honest enough to consider a perspective based in the natural universe. Obviously, a religious true believer is not going to be accessible here -- or anywhere, for that matter. But I would guess that there are a lot of people who persist in religion mostly because they are revolted by modern intellectual trends -- subjectivism, moral relativism, leftist politics, and so forth. They see religion as the only refuge from such plainly false ideas. And who can blame them? For a century, the progressives and so-called “liberals” have repeatedly declared themselves to be so much smarter than everybody else. Taking them at their word, the religious hold the subjectivists to be the embodiment of reason. That is absurd, of course, but that is the conventional view. Then, when these subjectivists scoff at morality, at the notion of right and wrong, the religious draw the obvious conclusion: reason cannot provide a basis for morality. They associate reason with the irrationality of the left. And so they retreat to faith.

One of my major purposes in this series and in general is to dash the false dichotomy of left versus right, “liberal” versus conservative, the subjectivist versus the mystical or intrinsic. Neither position is correct. A third alternative is the answer: an objective commitment to reason and reality. I would like to get this message across to religious conservatives: As long as they hold that individual rights derive from the supernatural, they are acting to defeat freedom, not to uphold it.

9. In the article you analyzed, does Prager speak much in favor of or even about any particular form of mysticism (such as faith, revelation, authority, or holy scripture)? If not, how does Prager connect the metaphysics of his worldview, which is God as the cause of all, to the ethics of his worldview? In other words, what, if anything, does his brief Town Hall column -- as an isolated sample of his work -- suggest about his epistemology? That’s an interesting question, Burgess, because Prager does not come right out and say, for instance, that truth must be revealed through an act of faith. He does not hit you over the head with pleas to reject your senses and put your faith in God. He comes across as very reasonable. But beneath it all is faith, nonetheless. At the end of his post, Prager has the courtesy to tell us what he means by the term “God” -- the God of the Ten Commandments, the God of the Founders, the God that demands “love thy neighbor.” Setting aside my doubt that the Founders -- Deists who constructed a wall of separation between church and state -- would have regarded God in quite the same manner as Prager does, clearly Prager is talking about a God of Scripture, of revealed word. And for him, God must be an active presence in our lives, a rewarder and a punisher -- not a mere metaphysical abstraction or technical device, like an Unmoved Mover, that has no relevance in day-to-day life.

A clue to his faith-based epistemology comes from his characterizing his opponents as “believers in less noble gods, secular and divine.” Evidently, he cannot even conceive of a faithless means of knowledge about ethics. Reason, for him, would be something like having a “faith” in one’s senses, science, and logic. This is a distortion of reason, and I cannot see how anyone who holds this idea could avoid degenerating into subjectivism.

I suppose there is a slightly more sinister possibility, too. Perhaps when Prager characterizes his opponents as believers in secular gods, he is doing it not because he truly thinks science is just as much a matter of faith as is religion, but simply because he wants to discredit science. If this is true, it is a fascinating confession. To attempt to discredit science and reason by saying they are forms of faith implies that one knows, at least on some level, that faith is a shoddy foundation. In effect, his argument is that science, being faith-based, is just as ineffective as religion is at establishing truth. That would be an astonishing argument coming from someone who is supposed to be claiming the superiority of faith. I am not saying Prager falls in this camp -- I certainly can’t tell this from the articles I’ve read -- but I have seen this position taken by other religionists.

10. Near the beginning of his Town Hall column, where Prager said, "[I]t is not possible to prove (or disprove) God's existence," were you surprised? Yes -- and pleased. This is what I mean when I say that Prager seems to be more honest than many of his conservative colleagues. Unfortunately for him, though, his refreshing candor does not help him escape the ultimate irrationality of his argument. His position comes down to this: "I can’t prove there is a God, but without Him everything is permitted, including bad art, rape, murder, and any imaginable atrocity -- so we sure as hell better believe in a God." That is simply not sound logic. One cannot wish something into existence.

The statement, “it is not possible to prove or disprove God’s existence,” glosses over the fact that it is not necessary to disprove God’s existence. Arbitrary assertions ought to be dismissed out of hand; it is incumbent upon someone claiming a god exists to present evidence to that effect.

11. Based only on the small sample of his work that you have seen, how would you characterize Dennis Prager as an advocate of mysticism and its products?
Because of his basically civilized approach, I would think that Dennis Prager would be a more effective advocate of religious ideas than other popular religious conservatives like Doug Giles, Laura Ingraham, or Ann Coulter. Giles’s brand of humor is off-putting. He comes across as a nut, and a scary one at that. Coulter can be funny for short stretches when she is savaging leftists, but she subverts it all with a knee-jerk, unquestioning faith both in God and in the Republican Party platform. She is smart, but she is not a deep thinker. It is possible that the very sarcasm that I find unconvincing is precisely what affords these types of commentators their popular appeal. Maybe being more thoughtful or philosophical would interfere with their popularity. I don’t know.

On the other end of the intellectual scale is a guy like Dinesh D’Souza who dives right into the philosophy. Ultimately, his dive is very shallow, though it makes a big splash -- that is to say, he is conspicuously, almost boastfully, philosophical and “scientific,” and he is very well read, which he takes pains to let us know about. But, by his insistent questioning, he sets himself up to have to answer, which he cannot do satisfactorily. In a sense, he shines the light on his own weak arguments. Strangely, his approach strikes me as what we would expect more from leftists than from right-wingers. He is convinced of his superior intelligence and struts about with an absurd confidence in his self-proclaimed abilities to defeat the “new atheists” in debate -- as if the “new atheists,” who stand for nothing, were fearsome opponents.

Prager avoids both of these categories. He is thoughtful and operates in the realm of ideas, but without showing off or bullying his audience. And as far as I know, he does not indulge in or rely upon sarcasm and name-calling to stir up his readers. I think that is an effective approach for reaching active minds. I don’t agree with his religious viewpoints, but I consider him to be a civilized and worthy opponent.

12. Do you have any further comments about the appropriateness of Prager's style for his purpose, audience, and subject matter? My experience with his writing is confined to his Townhall.com columns. I didn’t know he had written anything more substantial than that until you mentioned his books in the introduction. I think his style is generally well suited to the Townhall type of forum. His writing has a sort of straight-shooter, common-sense appeal. It’s direct, accessible, and reflects his principles, which as far as I can tell, are quite consistent. However, his style is not perfectly suited to what he was attempting in “If There Is No God,” in particular. His thesis is too ambitious to be constricted to a single Townhall.com column. I wonder now if he would have liked a larger canvas to expand upon, both in terms of space and in terms of his own ability to add color and depth to his arguments. Each of his fourteen points cries out for more attention. Maybe that’s part of my attraction to the project. Prager offered this rich and compelling topic and left it incomplete, as a mere sketch.

13. Did you expect comments from religionists on your weblog posts? I was hoping to receive some comments from religious people, and in fact, I did receive a few. Happily, all the comments I’ve gotten so far on my blog – including all my posts, not just this series – have been very civil. One commenter in particular, who I assume is the same “Anonymous” who chimed in on four of the posts -- Part 1, Part 4, Part 5, and Part 6 -- was particularly thoughtful. He asked questions and wrote coherent sentences, and though it took me a while to reply, I wrote some detailed responses that I hope addressed his points.

At the same time, though, “Anonymous” made the one comment that I found to be a little upsetting. He accused me of “Christian bashing” and thinking that Christians “must be idiots,” which I think is completely unjust and cannot possibly come from a fair reading of my posts. That is simply not the way I think. I do not go around thinking people who disagree with me are idiots, and I don’t think any of my writings could be construed to take that position. If anything, I’ve indicated the opposite – that some of history’s smartest thinkers are the ones who are most profoundly wrong. So, I wasn’t very upset by this comment because I think it is completely undeserved, but I was a little dismayed that an otherwise thoughtful commenter would come away with this impression.

14. Are there any final points for your readers, either about Prager -- especially as a mystic -- or about your activism? Well, there is one point that I haven’t mentioned yet. Despite the fact that this series has been very beneficial for me and perhaps for some others, I do not, in general, think it is fruitful to engage in point-by-point rebuttals of religion. From time to time, it makes sense to combat specific religious arguments with a positive case for reason -- and Prager’s article was an opportunity to do so -- but I would not like to make a habit of it.

There are two reasons for this. First, I’ve already pointed out that arbitrary assertions need not be regarded at all. It is impossible -- and quite futile -- to argue with someone who thinks that black is white and A is non-A if God says so. A discourse on such terms is not an argument at all; it is a waste of time.

More importantly, though, atheism isn’t about anything. It is not a positive set of ideas, or a system of thought, or a philosophy. It is simply a corollary of being committed to rationality. It ought to be entirely uncontroversial. There is something almost surreal and ridiculous about God being such a point of contention in the twenty-first century. I am not primarily an atheist, and I am not particularly interested in rebutting religious claims.

My goal as a writer and a human being is to defend and exemplify reason. I hope that my writing contributes, even if only in a tiny way, to an intellectual movement that advances reason, rational selfishness, individual rights, and laissez faire capitalism. I am encouraged by the recent prominence of Ayn Rand and Objectivism. And even if my efforts amount to nothing more than a drop in the sea, I will continue to think and write for my own selfish purposes. We make the world we live in.

Stephen, thank you for taking the time to discuss your views, not only about Prager's position but also about the process that you -- as a philosophical and intellectual activist -- went through to produce your series of analyses. It is an inspiration to others. Thank you, Burgess, for your support, and for your own intellectual activism on Making Progress and the SGO, which I have admired for some time.

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith>

[1] For an overview of Prager's life and convictions: (a) a biographical sketch at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Prager; (b) admirer Luke Ford's rough chronology of social, professional, and intellectual events in Prager's life at http://www.lukeford.net/Dennis/indexp2.html; and (c) Prager's own website at http://dennisprager.com/.

[2] For the issue of the source of values (traditionally called "the problem of the relationship of facts and values," read: (1) Craig Biddle, "The Is-Ought Gap: Subjectivism's Technical Retreat," The Objective Standard, Summer, 2009 (Vol. 4, No. 2), which describes the traditional problem and offers a bridge over the gap, a bridge that infers values from sense-perceptible facts of the natural world; and (2) Leonard Peikoff, "Fact and Value," The Intellectual Activist, Vol. 5, No. 1, written to students of Objectivism, and available on The Ayn Rand Institute website here.

The Tragedy of Reason (Bk. Rev.)

2009-09-27T19:22:00.000-07:00

In the last fifty years, who have been the leading advocates for each main type of mysticism in our culture? What ideas have they advocated? What actions have the advocates taken to spread their ideas? David Roochnik's The Tragedy of Reason: Toward a Platonic Conception of Logos helps take the first steps in answering these questions for one stream of contemporary mysticism, the "post-modernists."[1]

AUTHOR. When he published The Tragedy of Reason in 1990, Dr. Roochnik was an associate professor of philosophy and classical studies. He is now a professor of philosophy at Boston University. If his classroom manner is like his writing style, he is a clear, lively, and exacting teacher.

SCOPE. As a demonstration of the breadth of the book, and for quick reference in this review, here is a chronology of the main characters in this history:
- Homer (c. 750 BCE), poet.
- Hesiod (c. 700 BCE), poet.
- Thales (c. 585 BCE), the first philosopher.
- Heraclitus (c. 500 BCE).
- Socrates (469-399 BCE).
- Protagoras (c. 490-420 BCE), sophist and relativist.
- Plato (429-347 BCE).
- Aristotle (384-322 BCE).
- Descartes (1596-1650).
- Kant (1724-1804).
- Nietzsche (1844-1900).
- Paul Feyerband (1924-1994), post-modernist philosopher of science.
- Jacques Derrida (1930-2004), post-modernist philosopher.
- Richard Rorty (1931-2007), post-modernist philosopher.

SUBJECT. The title accurately reflects the book's subject. Dr. Roochnik says Plato advocates reason (logos, in Greek) as beneficent but tragically limited in its abilities. Why does Dr. Roochnik choose to present that view as his purpose? He is "convinced that the Platonic conception of logos can be of real value, and not just academic interest, for the contemporary debate about the fate of reason." (p. xii) Dr. Roochnik hopes his interpretation of Plato's dialogues "can help us, even today, participate in the battles currently being waged over the future of reason." (p. xiii)

Dr. Roochnik presents his narrow subject, Plato's conception of reason, in the context of one vein of the 2700-year history of the conflict between those who love reason, here called "philologists," and those who hate reason, the misologists. The book thus broadly examines "the oldest of disputes: that between logos and its accusers," Dr. Roochnik says. (pp. 68-69 and 164)

AUDIENCE. Dr. Roochnik assumes his readers love philosophy but have not studied Greek, Greek philosophy, or Greek literature (the poets and the dramatists). To simplify the text, Dr. Roochnik places scholarly references in the endnotes. "My hope," he says "is that anyone willing to think seriously about the issues under discussion can benefit from this work." (pp. xiii-xiv) However, readers should expect to read slowly, take notes, and frequently access a philosophical dictionary.[2]

"More particularly," Dr. Roochnik says, "I would like to address those readers . . . troubled by the omnipresence of the technical version of rationality [reason is math or science, dealing with facts] and are tempted to join a noted philosopher of science [Paul Feyerband] in saying 'farewell to reason'." (p. xiv)

THEME. The main point of the book is to correct the post-modernists' misrepresentation of Plato as an advocate of Aristotelian reason, which assumes that when we think about the world, our thoughts represent definite entities, each with an identity, out there in reality. Dr. Roochnik says that, in contrast to Aristotle's, Plato's conception of reason--which is limited to dialectical reasoning--is tragically aware of its limitations while also offering "a life-affirming understanding of its goodness." (p. xiv)

The two italicized terms need defining. Dialectics is the art of examining a philosophical statement which someone makes, especially about values, for the purpose of expanding, correcting, or rejecting that statement. An example, from Plato's dialogues, is Socrates questioning what other individuals mean by "justice." In literature, a tragedy is a story in which the hero's virtues, mistakenly applied in a world beyond his control, lead him to destruction. The tragic hero's mistake consists of stepping beyond his natural limits, for example, beyond what his reason can achieve. Suffering is the result. (pp. 3-5) Dr. Roochnik notes that "Kant . . . devoted much of his career to articulating 'the limits of reason'." (p. 13) This side note is an example of the author's clear statements connecting philosophers across the millennia. This is history of philosophy seen from a mountaintop, but with a telescope at hand.

A subtheme--one which is most important to The Main Event--is Dr. Roochnik's observation that some "post-modernist" ideas mirror ancient ones. For example, some of the views of Nietzsche, Derrida, and Rorty mirror elements of ancient Greek sophistry and, even earlier, the hatred of reason displayed by the poet Hesiod and the philosopher Heraclitus. (pp. 44, 45, 64, 126-132, 155-163)

Dr. Roochnik calls the post-modernist followers of Nietzsche (Derrida and others) subversives because they attempt to (1) undermine philosophy, which is a worldview developed by reason; and (2) replace it with rhetoric in some form. (pp. xi and 47) The subversives are misologists. A common denominator for the misologists' views through the ages is their belief that values are subjective. (p. 122) In regard to facts, misologists hold that there is no knowledge, there is only interpretation. (p. 134) The modern subversives are also poeticists, individuals who think man does (and should) make up the world around him, especially in "playful" writing. The "play" here is supposed to be akin to the play of a child making up identities, as when a block of wood becomes a train and then, a moment later, a spaceship. Derrida is such a "playful" writer that he is largely unintelligible.[3] The central conflict, Dr. Roochnik says, is between logos and poeticism--that is, between advocates of reason and advocates of making things up, which means mystics. (p. 94)

STRUCTURE. Dr. Roochnik wrote his book as a Greek tragic drama akin to Oedipus the King, by Sophocles (c. 496-406 BCE). The book's three chapters correspond to three acts of a play. (p. 14) In Chapter 1, Logos (Reason) holds himself to be unconditionally good. Dr. Roochnik appropriately begins by describing Aristotle's conception of reason (which is full reason) and later shows that Plato's version is a truncated, rationalistic form of it. (Rationalism is full reason reduced to a narrow frozen abstraction, basically the ability to deduce conclusions from arbitrary premises.)

In Aristotle's conception of reason, our language reflects facts of reality. (p. 26) Misologists--ranging from the ancient Greek sophist Protagoras to the post-modernist Derrida--attack and reject this view. (pp. 28-30) Aristotle's reason, Dr. Roochnik says (p. 30), "is the distinctly human ability to see and say the world as it is." It can discover facts and at least clarify values. (p. 32) Aristotle's post-modernist critics attacked him for what they call the "naturalist fallacy," which they say is the mistaken idea that one can logically infer values from facts. (p. 35)

By contrast, Plato's conception of reason, besides being mere rationalism, incorporates poeticism, thus creating a synthesis of positions that Plato's modern critics have not acknowledged. (pp. 97-98) Aristotle's reason seeks the truth and sometimes finds it. Plato's reason, forever engaged in dialectic, "seeks the Truth, but does not claim to know it." (p. 98) Plato's representative of reason, Socrates, is forever seeking and questioning, without offering definite results. (pp. 102-104)

Dialogue is an integrating thread in this tragic drama. First the reader hears from Reason, personified; then the reader hears from one or more of the misologists; and back and forth. The plot is complex. For example, Descartes attacked Plato's conception of reason, as Descartes understood it, for suppressing scientific and mathematical advances; but then post-modernists (Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Derrida) attacked Descartes as being an advocate of Plato's conception of reason and thereby a father of modern "soul-less" technology, a development that the poeticists (subjectivists) despised. Dr. Roochnik unravels the tangle of charges and counter-charges.

In Chapter 2, Logos (Reason) reconsiders his position in the light of criticisms by poeticists ranging from Hesiod and Heraclitus to Nietzsche and Derrida. Poeticists hold that one can best describe ultimate reality, which is undifferentiated chaos, through "playful" writing. "Play" here is another word for subjectivism, that is, wishful thinking. When children play, they (innocently) make up a story as they proceed, changing the rules and creating "reality" through make-believe. In philosophically "playful" writing, such as Derrida's On Grammatology, a writer may contradict himself, thereby, misologists say, reflecting a reality which is chaos, that is, a disorderly existence consisting of things that have no fixed identity.

In Chapter 3, Plato's Logos reaches the tragic conclusion that it (Reason) has some utility (in asking questions about what we already claim to know and in exploring the relationships among ideas), but that ultimately it is unable to justify its own position (without begging the question, he thinks). Plato's Logos is therefore unable to debate with and gain the support of those who reject reason, that is, the "poeticists" and other misologists. These inabilities are Reason's "limits," having which is a precondition for its tragic fate. Dr. Roochnik does propose, however, that philosophical reason can continue to serve a role by questioning and challenging, even though it will never contribute fully by offering definitive answers to questions of value.

VIRTUES AND PITFALLS. Dr. Roochnik's ambitious work has special virtues to offer to advocates of full reason. First, he clearly recognizes (p. 32) that Aristotle's concept of reason includes its ability to discover facts and clarify values. Second, Dr. Roochnik defines his terms, if not always formally then at least descriptively. Third, Dr. Roochnik identifies the problem of multiple definitions (and, more broadly, multiple worldviews): Debate becomes meaningless, though perhaps discussion is still possible, if the debaters do not share fundamental principles or even definitions of key concepts such as reason. (p. 15) Of course, that applies to today's "debate" over reason and mysticism.

Readers need to be alert to philosophical errors in this book. One is acceptance of the "naturalist(ic) fallacy," which is the supposed error of attempting to infer an "ought," a value, from an "is," a fact.[4] (p. 35) A second example problem is possible confusion about the meaning of philosophical axioms. Reason is not axiomatic as a concept, but it must be used in order to have a debate (a concept which presupposes reason). (p. 106, but also 149, which is more accurate) A third pitfall is the idea of reason being a truncated form of full reason. Dr. Rootchnik holds reason to be mostly "explaining why one opinion is superior to another." (p. 17) This action, constructing arguments, is only one of the functions of full reason.

CONCLUSION. Dr. Roochnik is apparently not an ally of reason in its full form as advocated by reason's most radical supporters today, the Objectivists, but his work here is valuable to students of the history of the conflict of reason and mysticism because he is able to observe, unravel, and articulate the often confusing and partly hidden doctrines of the many characters of this long drama. Dr. Roochnik provides the pieces of a jig-saw puzzle. The reader must still decide which pieces are valid and how they fit together.

In his own conclusion, the author of The Tragedy of Reason says:

"From a variety of perspectives [presented in this book], logos has been damned as the culprit and made accountable for the barrenness that plagues the twentieth century. The subversives counsel us to say 'farewell to Reason' and to welcome an age that comes 'after Philosophy'. Not surprisingly, I shall end this book by reiterating . . . To relinquish the desire for Truth, for answers, for a rational understanding of our experience and a certification of our values would be a disaster. . . . A life without such logos does not seem worth living for a human being. I hope that you agree; if you do not, I ask only that you try to explain why." (pp. 205-206)

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

[1] David Roochnik, The Tragedy of Reason: Toward a Platonic Conception of Logos, New York, Routledge, 1990, 223 pages. [2] I use W. L. Reese, Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion: Eastern and Western Thought. [3] That is my conclusion from "reading" Derrida's On Grammatology. By comparison, reading Kant's Critique of Pure Reason was a pleasure. [4] For rebuttal of the is/ought (false) dichotomy: (1) The example of Ayn Rand, "The Objectivist Ethics," The Virtue of Selfishness, wherein she infers an ethics of rational egoism from the facts of man's nature; (2) Craig Biddle, "The Is/Ought Gap: Subjectivism's Technical Retreat," The Objective Standard, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Summer, 2009); and, a technical discussion of a bouquet of false dichotomies, (3) Leonard Peikoff, "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy," in Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd ed. (available from The Ayn Rand Bookstore).

Long-term problem: identifying the advocates

2009-08-31T07:20:00.000-07:00

Two of my theme questions are:

4. Who are the main advocates of reason in our time (1960 to now)? What are their key ideas and what actions have they taken to disseminate those ideas?

5. Who are the main advocates of mysticism in our time (1960 to now)? What are their key ideas and what actions have they taken to disseminate those ideas?

What the two questions have in common is the problem of identifying contemporary advocates -- both those individuals who originate new ideas (or new arguments for old ideas) and those individuals who disseminate those ideas. By "contemporary" I mean advocates who have lived within the last philosophical generation (fifty years). By "advocates" I mean those few individuals to whom most other intellectuals on their side of the reason/mysticism debate have turned for guidance. These contemporary advocates are the designers, manufacturers, and distributors of the "intellectual ammunition" that lesser intellectuals use in the reason/mysticism war.

Following are very short lists of individuals who are or might be qualified as originators or disseminators. Additional suggestions are welcome. I will update the list as I encounter new possibilities for investigation.

Candidates and nominees for main advocates of reason
- Rand, Ayn (1905-1982)
- Peikoff, Leonard (b. 1933)
- Is there a contemporary advocate of Aristotle's epistemology?
- Are there other advocates of reason (as the sole faculty for acquiring facts and values)?

Candidates and nominees for main advocates of at least one form of mysticism

Religious
- Niebuhr, Reinhold (1892-1971) for mysticism in Christianity.
- Lewis, C. S. (1898-1963) for mysticism in Christianity.
- Prager, Dennis (b. 1948) for mysticism in Judaism.[1]
- Who is a main advocate of faith or other form of mysticism in Islam?
- Who is a main advocate of modern pagan mysticism in some form?

Secular
- Feyerabend, Paul (1924-1974), for a form of mysticism in "science."
- Derrida, Jacques (1930-2004) for a post-modernist form of mysticism.
- Rorty, Richard (1931-2007) for a post-modernist form of mysticism.
- Who is a main advocate of oracular "common sense"?
- Who is a main advocate of intuition?
- Who is a main advocate of instinct?

If you can suggest candidates for the main advocates -- either originators or disseminators -- of either mysticism or reason in our time, please use the comment form.

Burgess Laughlin

Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

[1] An example of a mystic who was more of a cultural effect than a cause in the mystical movement is Hyman Bloom (1913-2009), a painter. His style reflected his immersion in many forms of mysticism articulated by others. See "Hyman Bloom, a Painter of the Mystical, is Dead at 96," Holland Cotter, The New York Times, August 31, 2009, online (may expire).

What is mysticism?

2009-08-26T07:24:00.000-07:00

The concept "mysticism" subsumes various ways in which mystics claim to acquire special knowledge: "revelation," "faith," "tradition," "authority" (as an unquestionable source), "instinct," "intuition," "just knowing," "feeling," "listening to the heart," "hearing an 'inner voice'," "listening to the gut," and "common sense" (as an unquestionable oracle).[1]

COMMON CHARACTERISTICS. What characteristics do the various forms of mysticism have in common? First, according to reports from mystics with whom I have talked, mystics say they experience something in a non-sense-perceptible form. (Some mystics use sensory words -- such as "hear" and "see" -- to describe their non-sensory experiences, but those terms are metaphors.)

Example conversation: Mr. A: "How did you know whether to marry Jane or not?" Mr. B: " I knew I should marry her. I felt it in my gut, and I knew that what my gut was telling me was right."

Second, the various forms of mysticism eventually lead -- usually in some unspecified way -- to conceptual (verbal) "knowledge" in some form about some aspect of their experience. With that "knowledge" in hand, mystics can then write and speak to others about their mystical experiences.

DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS. What characteristics distinguish the various forms of mysticism from each other? Answering this question more fully will be one of the tasks of this weblog. In the meantime, I would suggest -- based on general reading and general experience in talking with some mystics -- that the various forms of mysticism are distinguished by the claimed origin of the message (a particular Authority or God or a feeling in one's own brain, for example) and by the form of the message which a particular version of mysticism delivers (verbal, visual, coded).

In summary, mysticism is the belief (-ism) that one can acquire knowledge through some means other than reason, that is, some means other than logical abstraction from sense-perception (which includes introspection). The various forms of mysticism are distinguished one from another by their alleged origin (God, the Dictator, my gut, etc.) and by the type of experience (a revelation, an inner voice, etc.).

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

[1] Most of these types of mysticism come from Ayn Rand's list: Ayn Rand, "Faith and Force: Destroyers of the Modern World," Philosophy: Who Needs It, pp. 75-76 (hb). She delivered this lecture at Yale University, Columbia University, and Brooklyn College in 1960.

What is reason?

2009-08-25T08:36:00.000-07:00

NATURE. Reason is the ability of the mind to (1) integrate ideas--concepts, principles, and theories--from a multitude of discrete sense-perceptions of reality; (2) use various techniques for double-checking those ideas to make sure the mind has formed them logically; and (3) then apply those ideas to understanding and solving problems in life, whether they are narrow technical problems or universal ethical issues. Reason involves induction, deduction, integration, differentiation, questioning, analyzing, and other methods. This ability is reason in full.

Reason is, in summary, an ability (faculty) to engage in a process potentially involving many diverse steps, a process of integrating sense-perceptions and arriving at knowledge of the world and our proper role in it--that is, knowledge of facts and values.

EXAMPLE. A man was plagued by an escalating, thirty-year series of medical problems with his skin, eyes, joints, tendons, muscles, and intestine. His medical condition became worse. He became so crippled he could barely walk.

He stopped relying on the mostly ineffective advice of local physicians. As a layman, he began working on the problems himself. He thought about his symptoms and kept records of their ups and downs. He read books on each problem. He compared the symptoms he read about to what he could see in his own body. He asked himself questions about the possible cause of each problem. One day he discovered--that is, he integrated one piece of information with another--that the technical name of each problem had the same ending: dermatitis, iritis, tendonitis, and so forth. The "-itis" ending means inflammation. He wondered what might cause it.

One physician suggested that he eliminate a certain suspect category of foods. He did so, and he saw his problems diminish. He experimented with other foods. Within two years he was confident that proteins--in some form or level--triggered the problems. He cut back on proteins, and the problems greatly diminished. Then he made another connection: proteins are a kind of acid (amino acids). He wondered: Could acidity be a problem? He finally found a list showing the effect of certain foods on acidity in the body. He experimented again and found that the list worked as a predictor (though not an explainer) of inflammatory reactions. Accordingly, he eliminated all acid-producing foods by eating only fruit, vegetables, and potatoes. His medical problems gradually disappeared.

This layman used observing, integrating, differentiating, thinking, and questioning to solve his problems. He used reason. As a layman, and one with limited time to spare from his other interests in life, he did not reach expertise on his narrow subject, but he did make progress -- which is what reason provides. Reason is our tool for living on earth, which is the natural world, a world of things that each have identity.

FURTHER DISCUSSION. Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, is a philosophy of reason. All knowledge comes from reason and reason alone. The "Reason" entry in The Ayn Rand Lexicon neatly collects relevant excerpts of her writings about reason, beginning (as is usual with the Lexicon) with a definition and proceeding to elaborations, special problems, and applications. (The Ayn Rand Lexicon and all of Ayn Rand's writings are available through The Ayn Rand Bookstore.)

"For a definition of reason," Ayn Rand says, "see Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology." That work describes her solution to the central problem of epistemology, the origin of concepts (the "problem of universals"). Essentially reason is a conceptual faculty: forming concepts from percepts, and then building principles and theories, using logic as a guide. In the course of demonstrating her solution, she shows reason in action in its many forms -- induction, deduction, integration, differentiation, and so forth.

By contrast, any claims to knowledge coming from any source other than reason are instances of mysticism -- the subject of the next post.

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

Theme Questions

2009-08-24T08:42:00.000-07:00

Perhaps with the aid of guest posts and comments, I hope to answer these questions:

DEFINITIONS?

1. What is reason -- in my definition and in the definitions of other advocates of reason?

2. What is mysticism -- in my definition and in the definitions of advocates of mysticism?

3. What is the social and intellectual "problem of multiple definitions"? Can discussers and debaters overcome the problem?

ADVOCATES?

4. Who are the main advocates of reason in our time (1960 to now)? What are their key ideas and what actions have they taken to disseminate those ideas?

5. Who are the main advocates of mysticism in our time (1960 to now)? What are their key ideas and what actions have they taken to disseminate those ideas?

THE DEBATE?

6. Is a "debate" about reason versus mysticism even possible?

7. Considering the world in general and in the countries of Western Civilization in particular, who is winning the war between reason and mysticism?

SUMMARY

What is the state of the reason/mysticism debate today?

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

Etiquette for Comments

2009-08-24T06:52:00.000-07:00

I welcome comments that add to, question, or refute anything I write here about the leading advocates in the reason/mysticism debate of our time. Without explanation, I will reject anonymous and rude comments. Always copy your comment before you publish it.

1. Identify yourself. No masked men speak in this forum. If your screen name is not your real name, then use your real name as a signature at the end of your comment. Use a "first" and a last name. Acceptable examples: Alice Smith (for the full name, B. Alicia Smith); and Bill Jones (for William A. Jones, III).

2. Address ideas not other commenters. Do not name or quote other TME commenters, including the TME host (me). Summarize your ideational target in your own words and state your view about it.

Negative example: "Burgess, you blundered when you said, 'Mysticism subsumes all claims to knowledge other than by reason'."

Positive example: "I disagree with the idea that mysticism includes all claims to knowledge other than reason. That definition is too broad."

3. Do not debate reason vs. mysticism. The purpose of this weblog is to identify the key advocates -- both their ideas and their actions -- in the reason/mysticism debate of our time. Take the war itself elsewhere.

4. Communicate objectively. Write accurately, clearly, concisely, and logically. Follow conventional rules of grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Avoid profanity, street talk, and other symptoms of our democratized culture.

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith