So why the contemporary return to heresy-slash-Gnosticism,
with the official sanction of so many religious institutions? Well, it is
understandable. Since no logical defense of modern day Judaism or
Christianity withstands the pressure of present day scriptural analysis, this
‘mystical exclusivity’ is a last ditch defense of a rapidly crumbling doctrinal
status quo. Significant attrition has occurred in numerous
Judeo-Christian sects already. The remaining faithful are largely forced
into ‘believing agnosticism,’ holding personal faith in the existence of God
and a specific doctrine as the approach to Him, while at the same time
recognizing that such beliefs cannot be objectively proven.
Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, Sir William
Hamilton’sPhilosophy of the Unconditioned (1829), and Herbert Spencer’s Principles(1862)
laid the cellulose foundation of the concept, and T.H. Huxley packaged and
popularized it.
So, does the concept of Agnosticism have value?
Returning to the rock, which only has value to those in need of one,
Agnosticism has practicality for those who feel the need of a theological
defense system. Those who are satisfied with such theology end religious
discussions by deflecting the threat of rational argument off the shield of
Agnostic defenses. To all others, it is just a rock. It doesn’t
change anything, it doesn’t do anything. It just sits there like the
impotent and self-evident lump it is, occupying metaphysical space.
Examination of the Islamic religion fosters an interesting
thought, in this regard. The teachings of Islam were not available in the
English language until Andre du Ryer’s French translation of the meaning of the
Holy Quran was rendered into English by Alexander Ross in 1649 CE. This
first translation into the English language being notably of hostile intent and
filled with inaccuracies, it fell hugely shy of inviting objective analysis of
the Islamic religion. As the translator stated in his address ‘to the
Christian Reader,’
“There being so many sects and heresies banded together
against the truth (by which the author refers to Christianity), finding that of Mahomet wanting
to the muster, I thought good to bring it to their colours, that so viewing
thine enemies in their full body, thou maist the better prepare to encounter,
and I hope overcome them….Thou shalt find it of so rude, and incongruous a
composure, so farced with contradictions, blasphemies, obscene speeches, and
ridiculous fables…Such as it is, I present to thee, having taken the pains only
to translate it out of French, not doubting, though it hath been a poyson
(poison), that hath infected a very great, but most unsound part of the
universe, it may prove an antidote, to confirme in thee the health of
Christianity”
The translator’s prejudice clearly evident, a person should
hardly be surprised to find the translation fraught with error, and inclined to
exert little positive impact on Western consciousness. George Sale,
having been unimpressed, picked up the torch and attempted a new translation of
meaning, criticizing Ross as follows:
“The English version is no other than a translation of Du
Ryer’s, and that a very bad one; for Alexander Ross, who did it, being utterly
unacquainted with the Arabic, and no great master of the French, has added a
number of fresh mistakes of his own to those of Du Ryer; not to mention the
meanness of his language, which would make a better book ridiculous.”[1]
Not until George Sale’s translation of meaning into the
English language in 1734 did the Western world begin to receive teachings of
the Holy Quran in an accurate, though all the same ill-intentioned, exposure.
George Sale’s perspective is evident in the first few pages
of his address to the reader, with such statements as,
“They must have a mean opinion of the Christian religion, or
be but ill grounded therein, who can apprehend any danger from so manifest a
forgery….But whatever use an impartial version of the Koran may be of in other
respects, it is absolutely necessary to undeceive those who, from the ignorant
or unfair translations which have appeared, have entertained too favourable an
opinion of the original, and also to enable us effectually to expose the
imposture…”
and,
“The Protestants alone are able to attack the Koran with
success; and for them, I trust, Providence
has reserved the glory of its overthrow.”
The translation of Reverend J. M. Rodwell, first published
in 1861, coincided with the nineteenth century rise of oriental studies in the
scientific meaning of the term. And it was during this period of dawning
Islamic consciousness in Western Europe that
Huxley presented his proposal of Agnosticism.
Many Muslims might wonder, had Huxley lived in the present
‘information’ age of ease of travel, broad cosmopolitan exposure to people,
cultures and religions, complete with accurate and objective information on the
Islamic religion, would his choice have been any different? It is an
interesting thought. What would a man have done who, as previously
quoted, stated, “I protest that if some great Power would agree to make me
always think what is true and do what is right, on condition of being turned into
a sort of clock and wound up every morning before I got out of bed, I should
instantly close with the offer.”[2]
To such a man, the comprehensive canon of Islam may have been not only
appealing, but welcome.
This section began with the assertion that Agnosticism
coexists with most religions of established doctrine. Doctrinal adherents
can be divided into functional sub-categories on this basis. For example,
the Theistic (Orthodox) Christians who conceive the reality of God to be
provable, the Gnostic Christians who conceive knowledge of the truth of God to
be reserved for the spiritual elite, and the Agnostic Christians, who maintain
faith while admitting inability to prove the reality of God. The
distinguishing difference between these various subgroups exists not in the
presence, but in attempts at justification, of faith.
Similarly, most religions can be sub-divided by the manner
in which individual adherents attempt to justify faith within the confines of
doctrine. At the end of the day, however, these divisions are of academic
interest only, for the how or why of belief does not alter the presence of
belief any more than the how or why of God alters His existence.
Copyright © 2007 Laurence B. Brown; used by permission.
The above excerpt is taken from Dr. Brown’s forthcoming
book, MisGod’ed, which is expected to be published along with its sequel, God’ed.
Both books can be viewed on Dr. Brown’s website, www.Leveltruth.com.
Dr. Brown can be contacted at BrownL38@yahoo.com
Footnotes:
[2] Huxley, Thomas H. Discourse
Touching The Method of Using One’s Reason Rightly and of Seeking Scientific
Truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment