History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

The deeper logic beyond monotheism

November 22nd, 2014 · No Comments

One of the ironies of secular humanist critiques of religion, Xtianity especially, is the inability to explain what’s going on with their manifest histories. Declaring a stance of atheism is all well and good, but god or no god no humanist critiques have yet been able to really figure out what is going on with the religions we know: the Judeo-Xtian stream, the Persian, the Indic, the slightly different yet ultimately analogous cases of Confucianism and Taoism, and the curveball in the lot: the Greek archaic/classical period, which seems more secular than anything else.

The format of Xtianity, especially, defies easy sociological reduction, even as its content is seen to suffer a strange brand of mythological interpretation. In fact, a close look at the ‘macro’ effect, which highlights the Axial Age correlation of religious emergence is completely neutral on the categories we would use to distinguish ‘sacred’ and ‘secular’.
In any case the issue of futurism is built into the macro effect, we suspect, because the relationship between historical directionality and the ‘virtual future’ is intrinsic in some fashion.

The question of monotheism is subject to a very strong set of critiques in the passage through modernity, but the issue of divinity is not likely to end up replaced by atheism, despite the strong showing of that perspective in the wake of the modern transition. History here in such cases shows a ratchet effect, and probably will not end in a total reversal of emergent monotheism. The resolution of the paradox is already visible in figures such as Hegel, and others, who so easily transpose the question into a new key (and Hegel is often criticized for being a closet atheist).

The language of Xtian theology is a set of puzzles, one of them the endless citations re: the ‘son of man’ and the ‘son of god’. This language and its literature, including the apocrypha, is hard to assess, and is apparently corrupted by its own exemplars who ended in a muddle of crypto-polytheistic literalism that thought in terms of a family of divine entities, the case of a ‘son’ being one of the curious fumbles. The larger meaning was an attempt, perhaps, to express something not unlike the Indic conception of the ‘avatar’, or in general some manifestation of the higher (what is that?) in the lower. Much of this thought suffers the same ‘scrambling’ we find in the legacy of proximate antiquity, but sourcing further back in the Sumerian nexus.

In any case, the biblical legacy of Xtianity is a completely obscure puzzle and seems at times to show a populist version of the avatar/godman lore, so common in India. There is an additional parallel current in the emergence of Buddhist Mahayana, with its symbology of saviors.

In any case the question of the demiurgic realm broached by J.G. Bennett foots the bill here for a coherent sub or superstrate to the emerging monotheism which was hardpressed to produce a coherent version of its core concept. The confusion over existence and the supernatural was never resolved in the theological realm and suffered the inevitable reversal of atheism, equal and opposite in its incoherence.
The idea of realm of demiurgic powers was an important shift in the discussion, one hardpressed to really advance, but one that can much more coherently reconcile questions of metaphysical divinity by putting the realm of spiritual powers directly in the space-time framework, with a possible twist in the collation of the ‘eternal’ to space-time cosmology. This one can stop atheists in their tracks.

In any case, the issues of the monotheistic and ‘dharmic’ religions (i.e. buddhism), discussed here somewhat superficially in terms of paths of will and the paths of being, make better sense if seen as the subcosmic labors of the ‘sons of god’, i.e. really existing spiritual identities unknown to us, and still in the realm of existence. The closest approximation is the scifi idea of ‘beings of light’, we are at step one in our incomprehension of this mode of existence, including the possibility it is our imagination, but one that bypasses the perplexities correctly posed by scientific skepticism.
We are confronted in the Axial period with a ‘process’ that is equally the source of monotheistic, dharmic, and proto-secular mindsets. Clearly in retrospect there is something is our mentation level that falls short of real understadning.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment