The value of religion and a discussion of 'faith, reason and gnosis'

A book I started reading recently has once again inspired me to write another thread. This time discussing the value of religion to the human experience, and the difference between "faith" (or belief), "reason" (or science/rationality) and "gnosis" (or knowing) and the implications this has to the understanding of the human psyche and its relation to the development of religion.

The book in question is "The Serpent's Gift" by Jeffery J. Kripal (University of Chicago Press, 2007), a philosophical play on the idea that orthodox hermeneutics may not be the "truth" we should be seeking out when studying religion, and it plays with ideas of sexuality being the cornerstone of all faiths (a very Freudian idea) and especially with regards to homoeroticism playing a central role in Christianity, especially within the New Testament.

Ironically, the reaction the author is seeking is not one of acceptance of his ideas, but the mess of trouble it stirs up with orthodox fundamentalists. How would anyone who considers themselves an orthodox Christian hearing the idea that Jesus was gay and established his ministry around his homosexual tendencies not be outraged and vie for blood at the blasphemous talk about their saviour?

That is what Kripal's thesis is centered on, the idea that gnostic interpretations (that is, mystical knowledge brought about by stark realization of truth held within oneself) of Christian texts, both canonical and heretical (Nag Hammadi texts for example) are the place where we should be focusing our attention when studying religion (in this case, when studying Christianity), and not on the faith-centric or historical truths we've come to associate with religious studies throughout the centuries.

The main basis for his ideas come from Ludwig Feuerbach, a 19th century German author who challenged interpretations of Christianity and religion, and posited that the real value of religion lies within its being created by the human psyche and its reflective nature on the psychological implications therein, not being an actual extant system of supernatural beings, rituals to please them and faith.

~~~

This brings me to the main discussion point of my thread. What do you feel the value of religion is to society and the human experience?

I personally feel, much in line with Feuerbach, that it holds an inherent value that goes deeper than being merely a cultural creation, and in fact does give great insight into the human psychological experience. It shows us that we want to get in touch, as Feuerbach puts it, with our "divine self" in that, we have created God in our image (contrary to the orthodox idea that God created us in his image). This desire to touch the divine is why we created the supernatural, and religion, to allow us a means to become one with the divine, even if that divine is within ourselves and isn't a man in the sky.

I am not saying this is some sort of "hidden knowledge" that gives us special "powers"… but I am suggesting that it should, and much like Kripal also, that it will open up plenty of new doors and avenues of thought within the academic community of religious studies (and for some, religious experience). Instead of just being about analyzing faith, or figuring out what is historical truth and merely myth… it allows us to apply religious studies to the study of the human experience, and give us insight into our own minds and perverse natures (we are highly sexual beings, denial of this only furthers problems).

~~~

Something else I want to address in this thread is the main difference between "faith", "reason" and "gnosis." I think Teenaged might recognize this to a degree (does he post here?), in that there is stark differences between what we believe, what we can determine objectively, and what we know. I put know in italics because that is the essence of gnosis, we just "know" that particular thing to be true, whether we believe or rationalize it out in another way.

Once again it brings me back to Kripal's book and Feuerbach. People of faith tend to be focused on fulfilling that faith, and miss out on rational thought. People of science and extreme rationalist thought tend to focus only on the rational, the objective, and what they can sense directly, with the means to support and verify that experience. Kripal's (and Feuerbach's) main idea is that we should be gnostic in the sense that we don't write off the rational if we are of faith, and we don't write off faith if we are rational, but go one step further and find a deeper understanding of ourselves, our human natures, and figure out exactly what makes us "tick" inside those thick masses of brain matter stuffed into our skulls.

I for one am in agreement with Kripal and Feuerbach. Throughout my life and travels through religiosity and rationality, I can't help but think there is more to what meets the eye here, and it can't be narrowed down to one or the other, and there is more to the human psyche than just those two things. One thing to note too, is that Feuerbach's work was exceptionally atheistic and critical of faith.

I am still in the process of reading "The Serpent's Gift" (ironically a gnostic interpretation of Genesis, and the idea that the serpent is the benefactor between him and God), and have already decided that it may end up becoming a text book for one of my courses that I teach when I become a professor. It is brash, intelligent and quite thought-provoking, exactly what I want to do with my religious studies course(s). I want to be the "hip" prof who makes RS an appealing career, and make people, including academics, rethink their positions about religion in society.

Religion is useful if aren't an independent individual. Religion creates a community of people helping you when you need it and gives you hope when you can't emotionally see through a task to completion. However, individuals should be independent and they should not give in to their whims. When men realize that, religion will no longer be necessary.

The difference between faith, reason, and gnosis are vast. Faith accepts things without evidence or questing. This creates a gullible individual, and most importantly, a gullible society. Many individuals buy into pressure of society to accept faith as society sees it, but if they rationally researched faith on its own, they would find that it's unsupported by the evidence. Faith is a poor substitute for reason. Reason can be questioned and in response can offer evidence to support it. Gnosis is the belief that truth is automated to humans. Truth, however, does not simply originate in your brain when it's formed in the womb. Truth must be searched for and must be preserved against those that try to rewrite it.

I think Teenaged might recognize this to a degree (does he post here?),foxhound_fox

I am an officer here!!!111 :P

 _______

I'll post mythoughts tomorrow.

Well I suppose religious myths do give an insight into the human psyche. The fact that the Greek gods are so sex crazed is indicative of our own sexual appetites, the fact that the old testament god is so war-like is indicative of our own violent and territorial tendencies.

As for faith, reason and gnosis, well of course they are different things. Was there ever any argument against that?

If your intent is to become a professor of religious studies, while maintaining the oulook that you have, then you are indeed a true scholar, in my eyes. Your post hits the nail on the head for me as being most relevent to this union.

The divisions between faith, gnosis and reason are fundamental in my experience to the various strands of relgious belief. The confusion between these ideas acts as a divide and a barrier to understanding. Your statements of Kripal's ideas strikes a strong chord with me (so thanks for this new area of enquiry!). Even more so, the underlying ideas from Feuerback (so thanks again!)

So I agree that a belief in the nature of religion gives us important insight for self-actualisation, if we consider it with our new-found analytical, global and historical contexts. But I'm not sure if that insight could not also be gained through more direct and effective ways that ignore faith-bound ideas completely and focus on modern, successful, naturalistic, moral concepts.

Is the distinction here between faith and gnosis the typical belief vs fact distinction?

Also, when you say (that they say) we should be gnostic it is meant as in being more intuitive/impulsive in the sense of trusting our innate abilities to sort out things?

(I have across this term in pragmatics too -I dont remember in contrast with which term- and couldnt understand for sure what was meant by it)

It seems that being gnostic is putting a "bridge" between reason and faith and not siding with one exclusively?

______________

I am a bit confused because at first it seems that gnosis is contrasted to faith but then faith is contrasted with reason.

Is the distinction here between faith and gnosis the typical belief vs fact distinction?

Also, when you say (that they say) we should be gnostic it is meant as in being more intuitive/impulsive in the sense of trusting our innate abilities to sort out things?

(I have across this term in pragmatics too -I dont remember in contrast with which term- and couldnt understand for sure what was meant by it)

It seems that being gnostic is putting a "bridge" between reason and faith and not siding with one exclusively?

______________

I am a bit confused because at first it seems that gnosis is contrasted to faith but then faith is contrasted with reason.

Teenaged

Gnosticism for Kripal is "direct knowledge" i.e. subjective experiences. Faith is the unsubstantiated belief in something outside reason, and reason is the objective measurement of the universe around us. I think he is positing that both faith and reason are insufficient in helping us understand our entire existence/experience... I think he uses the term "gnosis" in a way that differs from the traditional usage for the religious groups, and merely uses it because it can be defined as "direct knowledge."

A lot of what he talks about is related a lot to the field of religious studies, which I have an interest in as well, as well as an interest in pushing it forward into new realms like Kripal is attempting.foxhound_fox

I really like those divisions, since they show the incompatibility of faith and reason, or rationalism (more specifically, since I think reason can still be inductive). I also like the idea of how personal experience - "gnosis" is used by the two groups. I think gnosis must be far more implicit in faith, as much as it is questioned in rationalism.