(so) Religion (then)

[Bruno]

Over in the Jews thread, Wyatt said something that, as so many of his utterances do, sent me deep into lost contemplation and wonder.

How to deal with the fact that everyone else is apparently wrong? Christianity responds with "OK, go out and convert them." Judaism eschews proselytising, and "We were given this message because God loves us" is, surely, one of very few available ways of squaring a conviction of ones own cosmic rightness with an unwillingness to seek to persuade others.

I didn't come up with much, but I did recall a passage I'd read recently, which I'll quote and, for fun, leave unattributed to see if anyone can guess the author and/or work (not that that's important but because people around here like quizzes):

(characters mentioned are the biblical ones)

One might say that it was presumptuous and all too egotistical of Jacob to regard such a vast calamity as this ongoing drought, which afflicted so many nations and resulted in great economic upheavals, as nothing more than a measure taken to guide and advance the history of his own house - it evidently being his opinion that when it came to himself and his family the rest of the world simply had to make the best of it.

But presumption and egotism are only pejorative terms applied to beneficial conduct worthy of highest commendation - a far lovelier term for it is piety. Is there a virtue that does not leave itself open to terms of censure or in which certain contradictions, such as humility and arrogance, are not inherent? Piety is the privatization of the world as the story of one's self and one's salvation, and without the, yes, sometimes offensive conviction that one is the object of God's special, and indeed exclusive care, without the rearrangement that places oneself and one;s salvation at the center of all things, there is no piety - that is, in fact, what defines this very powerful virtue.

Its opposite is neglect of the self, its banishment to the indifferent periphery, from where no benefit for the world can come either. The man who does not think highly of himself will soon perish. Whoever thinks something of himself - as Abram did when he decided that he, and in him humankind, should serve only what is Most High - proves himself to be a demanding sort of person, true, but with that demand comes a blessing for many. This demonstrates the connection between the dignity of the self and the dignity of humankind. The demands of the human ego are of central importance as a precondition for the discovery of God, and only if - by failing to take itself seriously - humankind were utterly to perish, could both discoveries be lost together.

This proportion can be developed as follows: Privatization does not mean reduction, and placing a high value on the self in no way implies its isolation, that it cuts itself off and hardens itself against the universal, against what is outside and above a person, in short, against everything that extends beyond the self, but in which it solemnly celebrates its recognition of itself. If, in fact, piety is the unshakable certainty of the importance of the self, then solemn celebration is its extension, the means by which it flows into what is eternal, which then returns through it and in which it recognizes itself - which results in a loss of the self's closed-off singularity that not only does not detract from its dignity, not only is compatible with that dignity, but also enhances, indeed consecrates it.

[Wyatt Earp]

(so) Religion (then)

I wouldn't agree that it's a virtue; it's just that I don't think that, in context, such "egotism" is all that much of a vice. If one starts with a conviction that the Truth has been Revealed to ones tribe or creed alone (and I wouldn't start from there, but let's do so for the sake of argument), then (I was arguing) either you must seek to convert everybody else or you must find a way of allowing others to persist in their error. Judaism has found a reasonably elegant and (when you look into it) not all that offensive solution to the latter.

Now, perhaps there's something intrinsically offensive, to start with, about the presumption that one is the possessor of revealed truth, but there's nothing uniquely Judaic about that presumption, by a long long long long chalk.

[Brandenburger Toro]

(so) Religion (then)

Interesting that it's being framed in terms of "virtue" and "vice"; Aristotelian/Virtue ethics says that the idea of impartiality is not a virtue, but likely a sign of derangement. We shouldn't confuse with fairness the idea that a well-adjusted person should be indifferent to his or his family's welfare compared to that of others. Bernard Williams phrased it well; if you can rescue either of two otherwise similar people from drowning, one of whom is your mother, most systems of ethics will permit you to rescue her. But if you even have to ask the question, there's something wrong with you, you are having "one thought too many".

I don't like virtue ethics, but there's something in that.

I agree, it was a great point by Wyatt. And I rarely say that on the topic of religion.

[Wyatt Earp]

(so) Religion (then)

That may be because we're often focused on doctrinal issues themselves rather than (as here) their consequences.

I'm aware of the irony, though, and was at the time of posting. Here I am defending a religion from what I see as a widespread misinterpretation of some of its doctrines. That's not usually been my job on here.

It has political consequences, I think, all this. If you think Judaism and its doctrine of the Covenants are about the superiority of the Jews to the Nations, there are important Middle Eastern sticks you're going to get the wrong end of.

(To be clear about it, because OTF usually misinterprets me on this: getting the wrong end of the stick means not that one risks being excessively harsh on Israel, but that ones arguments against what Israel's doing will be so tainted by obvious false assumptions about its rationale that one will, in practice, land fewer argumentative punches.)