Dabbling in Philosophy and Religion (wrt Macmurray)

Dear Jonathan and Laura

On Saturday evening, after an interesting discussion with Laura (my adult grand-daugter) in which she seemed to me to be scoffing religion, tho later she denied that; and also my finding that she seemed very moralistic, I had another interesting discussion with Jon (a lecturer in religion and philosphy) in which I said I had been getting pleasure from reading some philosophy even though it was so difficult to me that I could hardly understand it. Taking up the journal* again this evening I was surprised to find the next passage (which I do understand) seemed to be relevant to both discussions. I will quote it in full (despite it being tedious to do so. I have lost the software I had which could transcribe printed text into electronic form) The author is reviewing a book by Hugh Rock in which HR is commenting on a book by Macmurray.

“Having established the relational nature of religion with the help of Macmurray … Hugh Rock then argues that religion is alive in popular culture but not articulated in normal religious language, and not recognised by Christian churches. He calls this the “Super Ethic”, found especially amongst younger people, of ‘respect for the absolute autonomy and self-determined fulfilment of every person’. However, as Rock recognises, there is no religious articulation it, and this inevitably leads to problems in sustaining the ethic in the teeth of problems of … everyday life, and the distractions of our consumerist materialistic culture. This is perhaps seen in the existence of ‘serial monogamy’ – the ethic maintains the integrity of each relationship, but it is difficult to sustain any one relationship for an extended period. The purpose of religion, understood relationally**, is to provide the means to overcome conflict and hurt, and thereby sustain relationships.

“This ‘Super Ethic’ he goes on to call ‘The Religion of the Authority of No Authority’. He then defines God as

‘the ideal potential of the psychosymbiotic creative power of the self-fulfilment of persons in relationship to one another’.

“Hugh Rock recognises this as a form of anarchism, …

“Hugh Rock does find one place where such religion is practiced”:The bravest attempt to implement the authority of no authority in Christian practice has been that of the … Quakers.
…
“ However it is my experience of being a Quaker that current Quaker practice has been taken over by Hugh Rock’s Platonic “Nature God’.*** Increasingly Quakers have affinity with Buddhism, and there is substantial division within [Quakers] between ‘theists’ and ‘non-theists’.

“Hugh Rock’s final argument is that religion understood as about personal relationships invalidates the distinction between sacred and secular…”

One reason I found this so fascinating and helpful to me, was that the description of the Super Ethic seemed to sum up nicely Laura’s ethics, which I had repeatedly called ‘moralistic’. I was surprised at her admirably high morality while condemning stridently the moral authoritarianism she seemed to me to regard as the main feature of the church. Later I tried to explain to her that I did not go to Quakers etc for moral instruction, but for religious/spiritual nurture – described above as the sacred as opposed to the secular.

My view on this is that we cannot know what God is or even if anything usually known as ‘God’ exists, but we can chose to name the source of good (of ethics), and day to day guidance ‘God’ even though maybe that source is none other than within us (or between us in our relationships?). Even if it is in fact only within us there is no harm in regarding it as external to us since whatever it is, it is beyond our conscious control, as is another person.

Another point I’d like to add is that I disagree with the above writers in their assumption that in the Quaker religion there is ‘no authority’. There is, or was until recently, a very strong authority, that of God, as exemplified by the life and teaching of Jesus and as conveyed by the Spirit.

Nuff said!

Best wishes to both of you,

Stephen

Compassion or Love. Democracy or Theocracy?

I was impressed by what the Dalai Lama said in a huge gathering in the O2 stadium, reported on the early Sunday religious affairs programme on Radio 4. As I understood it he drew attention to the decline of religion world-wide, and the resultant lowering of ethical standards. He proposed an ethical base which would be acceptable to all religions and also to the secular world, namely Compassion. Apparently he went on to describe compassionate politics, compassionate economics, etc. What intrigued me was his condemnation of competition, which is so deep in our culture. I warmed to ‘compassion’ as I have often felt that the Christian fundamental virtue, universal love, is too idealistic, even unattainable. I cannot really love all people whatever their country or culture. But I could feel compassion for them in appropriate circumstances.

It occurs to me that ‘non-theistic’ Quakers are a subset of the many Westerners who turn to non-Christian spiritual practices and esoteric religions. They are attracted to these spiritualities by their compassionate ethics and absence of Christian language. They are those for whom the Dalai Lama’s Compassionate religion would be most suitable. As it has not been available (for some reason the British Humanist Society seems not to have been attractive) they have found a home amongst Quakers. The latter have not only been tolerant of these ‘refugees from Christianity’ for the past 50 years or so, but have deliberately avoided using Christian language so as not to trouble the newcomers. As a consequence the proportion of non-theists has increased. Many have been appointed to religiously significant positions.

If most participants reject Quaker fundamentals – being God-centred and Spirit-led – the Quaker Decision-making Process becomes a nonsense. It becomes democratic. The question now is whether the tide can be turned back, or whether British Quakers (BYM) will admit to having become secular. In the near future our ‘book of Christian discipline’ is due to be revised. Non-theists will be prominent and evangelically active in the process. Will decisions about what is to be included be based on democracy or the ‘leadings of God’?

Migration

Article by me published in Bristol Post (and its sister paper the Western Daily Press) on 8 September 2015.

I continue to be horrified and saddened by the ignorance, racism and bigotry of so many of my fellow-countrymen and women. I refer to the  unfeeling, irresponsible, inhumane, even un-British reaction to the tide of desperate migrants bravely seeking safety and a useful life for their families. The shameful refusal of our present Government to accept more than a very few of these people contrasts sharply with our near neighbours’ humanity. It also flies in the face of common sense, as another problem we face is the growing proportion of old people which the younger generation will have to support.

To see how other countries have benefited from immigration we have only to look at the USA, Canada and Australia, while closer to home Germany, Holland, and the Scandinavian countries accept a much greater proportion of immigrants and continue to prosper. Some of the poorest countries in Europe are those most violently opposing immigrants. Would it have been better to leave Australia to the indigenous people, or to have reserved all the Americas for the Native Americans? We waste money on Trident and our other ‘defense’ systems, and furthermore we destabilize and bomb countries to shreds, causing the chaos and misery which results in hatred of the West, and in mass migration. Meanwhile countries like Norway spend an equivalent amount on overseas aid, in order to bring peace, stability and prosperity to the Third World.

Many of our anti-immigration bigots are themselves the descendents of immigrants. Practically all Britons descend from Anglo-Saxon invaders who ethnically cleansed the Celts from their land. Israel, to whom we give benefits as if they were in the EU, and with whom we have a massive arms trade, is seemingly trying to cleanse Palestinians from Palestine. We do nothing to oppose that injustice. In other words we glorify our own emigration while treating our intended immigrants as if they were morally offensive.

There has always been emigration, there always will be, and, unlike war, it’s beneficial to us all.

Britain should assist, welcome and support many more immigrants, especially Iraqis and people from Afghanistan – who have served us in the recent past, – Christians being driven from Syria and Iraq, Libyans whose plight is due to our military action, and all young people keen to bolster our economy, doing jobs we refuse to do, or bringing skills we urgently need. Where there is undue pressure on schools and other services, the answer is to increase the provision, not simply to blame the service-users.

As Homo Sapiens, let us try to apply some of that sapiens to our current problems, rather than fall back on ignorant selfish, short-sighted racism.