A Close-Minded View of Islam

I found Sam Harris's article "The End of Faith" ridiculous and bordering on the irrational. I was left feeling insecure about his knowledge on the subject his article discussed. Basically Harris views Islam as an aggressive religion with the intention conquering the world through murders. Although he states that his argument is of faith and the difference between faiths I see no trace of this argument in his article. In my opinion he is giving readers reasons why Islam/Muslims are an inferior religion. It seems as if he has a bias of all Muslims. For example, on pages 108-109 he states that people should not praise Muslims for their advancements in education and technology. He states that there are better people in other countries who may be uneducated but they do not commit acts of violence.

From what I recall from Islam, there is a sect of Islm that adheres to the belief of self-sacrifice for the will and love of one's creator; they feel a call from God to perform self-sacrifice. It was Muslims from this sect of Islam that performed the terrorist acts on 9/11, I believe. Also, these Muslims are very similar to Japanese Kamikaze soldiers.

Relating this article to our class, Harris is either failing or intentionally omitting the use of allegory. Harris does not even attempt to apply an allegorical method in his "understanding" of Islam. For example he writes that the "bottom line is that devout Muslims can have no doubt about the reality of paradise or about the efficacy of martyrdom as a means of getting there" (113). Yet how does Harris know that their thought process/ways of conceiving the path to Paradise is not different from ours? Harris errs in two ways: taking things too literally and not attempting to understand the thought process of Muslims (which could be cured if he applied allegory) and two, that from the very start of his study he seems to have a "Westerner ego"where he sees the Western thought process as superior to that of the Arabs. It makes me wonder how Harris would approach religions such as those of the Ancient pre-Colombian Mayan and Inca, where sacrifice plays a significant part of their belief system.

Applying the allegorical method to Zohar and other mystic religions

The complete understanding and use of allegory is imperative in openly understanding all religions, not solely modern religions. This is especially true in studying the mystic side of any religion such as Tibetan Tantric Buddhism and Zohar, Jewish mysticism.

So, what is allegory? Allegory is essentially saying one thing and meaning another, such as with the use of metaphor. For example, in his commentary on Lamentations Origen refers to Jerusalem as the human soul. Allegory is poetic in that it allows room for interpretation. During our class lecture on April 11th we stated that allegory was useful in interpreting ancient religions because it adds a spiritual side to the historical facts. I agree with this but I strive to emphasize the importance of applying an allegorical method to studying various forms of mysticism.
The Wikipedia article on Zohar states that practitioners of Zohar assume four kinds of Biblical exegesis (to extract what is written in the text the way it was written, from dictionary.com): peshat (literal), remez (allusion), derash (interpretive), sod (mystic/secretive). These allow for a well-rounded interpretation of Zohar topics and symbols. Without applying the exegesis method to Zohar ideas, an outsider may omit meanings/symbols that provide the base of a mystic religion and thus have an incomplete understanding of a religion. This is prominent in a situation in where an outsider would take the literal meaning of Zohar's use of erotic terminology. Zohar mystics do not use the erotic terms in the literal sense; instead they attach a deeper meaning to the terms to illustrate the relationship existing between God and man.

This allegorical method is also extremely important in studying Tibetan Tantric Buddhism (the mystic sect of Buddhism). Tantric has four initiation stages that practitioners must undergo. To explain my point, I will deal specifically with the second initiation stage. Within the second initiation stage practitioners consume the five nectars. The five nectars are urine, blood, semen, brains, and excrement. Taken in a literal sense, Tantrics would seem inhumane and disgusting but this ritual has more importance when looked through an allegorical lens. Tantrics also refer to the nectars as ambrosias as they each have their own cleansing function in order to purify a Tantric's body. Urine cleanses mind, blood cleanses merits, semen cleanses speech, brain cleanses acts, and excrement purifies the body. Thus through an allegorical method outsiders learn of the true meaning behind mystical ritual which will add to their complete understanding of a religion. For example, the overall goal in Tibetan Tantric Buddhism is to utilize both the body and the mind to attain Enlightenment which is why Tantrics place so much importance on cleansing the body.

The main point is that if outsiders rely solely on literal meanings they have too much opportunity to examine a religion with a closed mind and are able to place too much judgment on what they think they see. Allegory creates a clear lens for outsiders to look into, allowing them to understand a religion in a truthful way, a way in which the practitioner would understand it.

Does the "Grizzly Man" show any sign of religion?

For the odd yet sentimental film that it is, I do think the Grizzly Man conveys some form of religion in what he does. For this specific blog, I am going to define religion as a belief or practice that does something emotionally for people. With this definition I am assuming that people do not practice in order to gain physical incentives.
Every summer for fourteen years the Grizzly Man faithfully traveled to Alaska and spent months living among the grizzlies. He did not do this for money or recognition. He only did it because he felt a strong connection to the grizzlies. This ties to my definition of religion because the Grizzly Man did not perform his "ritual" every summer to gain physical incentives; what he did was purely on an emotional level.
Alaska was his sacred place. When he was there it seems as if he was at peace. This is the same sort of feeling religion evokes from people. Even though certain rituals may look absurd to the human eye, we perform them becaues they allow us to create a sacred place for ourselves on Earth.
We may think the Grizzly Man's documentary on grizzlies to be odd and dangerous but his interaction with the grizzlies is a ritual for him because he "performs" it faithfully every summer for a few months. He does not perform the ritual to gain physical incentives such as money or fame but instead performs the ritual to create a sacred space for him on earth.

Lamentations

Lamentations deals with the aftermath of Jerusalem when the Babylonians seized Jerusalem. At this point, religion is extremely important to the Jews. It is almost as if there exists a "parent-child relationship" between the Jews and religion. The Jews show an obvious fear of God. At one point in the text this fear seems like hate, if taken at facevalue. For example, it is said in 2:5 "The Lord has become like an enemy; he has destroyed Israel." Here, it is as if the dad has just punished the child and the child is saying "I hate you and it's all your fault!" Yet the child does not really mean it because in the next breath Lamentations states in 3:25 that the "Lord is good to those who wait for him, to the sould that seeks him," and in 3:31,32 "for the Lord will not reject forever. Although he causes grief, he will have compassion." Deep down, the Jews know that they have sinned and their consequence was the destruction of their once thriving, beautiful city.

Lamentations is the reaction Jews have towards the end of Jerusalem. It is evident that the destruction of Jerusalem is viewed in a purely religious way, therefore suggesting that religion is the center of life for the Jews. Society and way of life is shaped by religion. Also, religion defines good and evil and the Jews adhere to these definitions. This also shows the introduction of a monotheistic religion. Jews do not have a concept of spirits or multiple gods; they know that it is God alone who watches over them. Jews will always link various events to religion whereas in the Paleolithic and Holocence periods events were linked to nature or animal spirits. For the Jews, if something bad happens they will think about the concept of sin and look to see how they sinned and how they deserved the punishment God bestowed upon them. Likewise, if a good event occured they would automatically praise God. As religion plays a major role in the course of events, it gives Jews control of the future of their people and surroundings. They realize that God gives them choices and it is up to them to decide. If they sin, they know there will be consequences but God will always give them more choices. If they do the right thing, God will be merciful and fair by rewarding them.
Basically Jews live their life according to religion and truly view themselves as children of God.

Response to J.B.'s Blog on the "Indian Mounds of Wisconsin"

When I was reading the article on Indian mounds, I took for granted that Indians built the mounds because they were religious and had ceremonies strictly for the gods. I like that J.B. found that the mounds could be looked at with two views. One being that the Indians had ceremonies to thank God for what they were given. The second view J.B. describes as more karma-istic in that the Indians had ceremonies because they thought they had the power to control the weather. This second view is a very intresting concept that I think should be explored further.
Even in the article, the author sometimes doubts the truly religious aspect of the mounds since they tend to disappear after a time...the author often attributes the disappearance of the mounds relating to the fact that the Indians didn't need them after focus turned to agriculture rather than death ritual ceremonies.
I wonder then what purpose the mounds had for Indians; if they held a strong religious symbolism (connecting the middle world with the upper and lower worlds) would the mounds just have disappeared? Perhaps their "fading-out" points into a different direction, one without heavy religious symbolism...maybe the possibility of mounds serving as a function in society such as good weather for crops.

Diffusion of Religion

The article on Indian Mounds of Wisconsin differed from the other articles we read in class on the Neanderthals and the Holocene period in that religion is an established part of Indian society, so much that it begins to have an influence in other aspects of society such as a source of group definition, protection, guide to living, and science.
With the Neanderthals there was more of absence than presence of religion. We first see the beginning establishment of religion in the Holocene where more religious symbolism was seen in the art, yet religion was not an obvious establishment in the Holocene since archaeologists and anthropologists debate the presence of religion in art. Within the Indian tribes of Wisconsin and other areas of the Midwest religious symbolism is noticed in the patterns on pottery.
At this point, it cannot be doubted whether or not Indians were religious or not.
What I noticed is that certain symbols that are taken as religious in the Indian mounds can be traced back to Paleolithic art and can possibly answer the question as to whether drawing of animals contains religious symbolism or is strictly early humans' interest in science. Indians, like the ancient Maya, classified the world into three parts: upperworld, middle world, and lower world. With this cosmology, certain animals were attributed to each part. For example, birds were usually representative of the upperworld. In the mound effigies, Indians would often depict human beings dressed up as birds and acting as shamans (107).
For Guthrie to say that Paleolithic art reflects only the scientific interest of the artists is to say that Indian art has the same reflection. Yet observers would not make that assertion straight away because of what they know of Indian religious beliefs. By studying Indian mounds, it is obvious that religion is an important aspect since they use it to define their clans, to predict the weather, to help their crops, et cetera but I also think it serves as a good example that it is possible that there was an earlier form of this same type of religion in Paleolithic art.

What is the meaning behind Paleolithic art?

In his article, The Nature of Paleolithic Art R. Dale Guthrie argues that the widespread notion of what most people think Paleolithic art means is detrimental to the overall essence of cave art. Most people like to see what Guthrie calls a magico-religious (Guthrie, 8) aspect of Paleolithic art, an attempt to "search for clues to the symbolism and ritual meaning hidden in the images (Guthrie, 5). Guthrie states that this harms the overall picture of Paleolithic art in that people refuse to see any other meaning behind the drawings. Personally, I disagree with Guthrie's argument. I do think that it is important to analyze cave art attempting to seek out different meanings such as religion, science, et cetera but I disagree that "Paleolithic art has suffered" (Guthrie, 8) from the religious approach.

I feel that finding religious meaning in Paleolithic images is a reasonable and unavoidable approach. Since early humans had no obvious form of organized religion it is really unclear what sort of beliefs they had, if any. Guthrie states that "organized religion is a potent force, and religious stories shape our collective perceptions" (Guthrie, 9). The question that Guthrie asks here is whether or not the public including archaelogists and anthropologists truly find religious symbolism in Paleolithic art or are they only hoping to find it. I think it is a little bit of both. Of course people are hoping to find it and they find it in part because religious symbolism is present in the drawings. Religion, whether organized or not, is a way in which humans can relate to and understand one another. By finding religious meaning in Paleolithic art, it is our way of finding some similarity between us and early humans and a way in which to understand what they valued in their society.

Guthrie states that overuse of the magico-religious approach creates a distortion where at "its worst it has presented early peoples in a distorted light as superstitious dolts totally preoccupied with mystical concerns (Guthrie, 10). Rather, Guthrie sees Paleolithic art as portraying "people in close touch with the details of a complex earth" (Guthrie, 10). I do not think that readers or Guthrie should rule out the possiblity of animals as a symbolic ritual object for early humans. I find it hard to believe that early humans would draw images of animals based solely on their scientific fascination of physiology and biology without a trace of religious symbolism. In my opinion religion of early humans while not an organized form is prevalent in their artwork. I believe that animals served a ritualistic purpose for early humans and it is through their art that they aim to show this religious symbolism.