Tim Miles Acording to the front cover of SEA OF FAITH magazine we are told that the purpose of the network is "exploring and promoting religious faith as a human creation". I wish to argue that this formulation is (i) philosophically confused and (ii) unnecessarily abrasive. That the Network has something important to say is not in dispute. The purpose of this article is to offer a contribution towards saying it better.
First, the mistake is one which has occurred in various guises in the history of philosophy. In general terms, if one wishes to say that the distinction between A and B is of no value, there is danger that others (and even oneself) may interpret this as meaning that in fact everything is A and nothing B (or vice versa). The result is that those who have failed to "get the message" do not question the distinction between A and B but criticise one for coming down on one side of the dichotomy and insist that "the other side" has a fair hearing.
The point was, I think, fully recognised by Hippocrates in his discussion of epilepsy. In his words, The disease called the Sacred arises from causes as the others, namely those things which enter and quit the body, such as cold, the sun and the winds, which are ever changing and never at rest. And these things are divine, so that there is no necessity for making a distinction, and holding this disease to be more divine than the others, but all arc divine and all human. ["The Genuine Works of Hippocrates", tr. F Adams, London, 1984, vol II p5871 One might paraphrase Hippocrates by saying that for the purposes of treating epilepsy we do not need the distinction between "caused by a god" and "naturally occurring". But it would be very easy to attribute to him the view that there is no divine causation and that everything occurs naturally.
There has been similar distortion of the ideas of Bishop Berkeley [see in particular "A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge" and "Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous"]. One can usefully interpret him as saying that the distinction between what we perceive ("the ideas in our mind") and the alleged entity which the physicists of his day called "matter", comprising primary but not secondary qualities, is misconceived.
Yet some commentators have supposed him to be saying that only minds exist and not matter. They then scrupulously make sure that "the other side" has a fair hearing, with the result that the student is given the impression that the issue is a meaningful one and remains open. It is somewhat like trying to steer a middle course between partiality and impartiality.
A similar problem arises in the interpretation of Gilbert Ryle. Ryle argues in "The Concept of Mind" [Hutchinson, London, 1949] that the Cartesian distinction between "mind" and "matter" is of no use, or, in his terminology, is a "category `Why obfuscate our religious language with all this bad philosphy?' mistake". Yet some have attributed to him the view that minds do not exist and that there is only behaviour. This is to repeat the category mistake, not to get rid of it.
In general, even when we try to avoid a distinction, it continues to exert a malign influence.
This, I suspect, is what has happened in the case of the expression "religious faith as a human creation". This form of words implies that religious faith could have been something different, viz. created by God, but in fact is not. I can mischievously imagine the followers of Hippocrates forming a "network" with the slogan "Epilepsy as a human creation".
What we need to say, in my view, is that a literally understood contrast between "human activity" (something "natural) and "divine activity" (something "supernatural") is of no use. So far from being a sine qua non of religious belief, this dichotomy obfuscates religious language with bad philosophy. I have no space here to offer reasons for saying this; but I believe that if the concept of "God" is properly understood, none of the things which we say of him/her can be understood literally.
When SEA OF FAITH magazine uses the expression "religious faith as a human creation" it is WHY SO ABRASIVE?
Tim Miles Acording to the front cover of SEA OF FAITH magazine we are told that the purpose of the network is "exploring and promoting religious faith as a human creation". I wish to argue that this formulation is (i) philosophically confused and (ii) unnecessarily abrasive. That the Network has something important to say is not in dispute. The purpose of this article is to offer a contribution towards saying it better.
First, the mistake is one which has occurred in various guises in the history of philosophy. In general terms, if one wishes to say that the distinction between A and B is of no value, there is danger that others (and even oneself) may interpret this as meaning that in fact everything is A and nothing B (or vice versa). The result is that those who have failed to "get the message" do not question the distinction between A and B but criticise one for coming down on one side of the dichotomy and insist that "the other side" has a fair hearing.
The point was, I think, fully recognised by Hippocrates in his discussion of epilepsy. In his words, The disease called the Sacred arises from causes as the others, namely those things which enter and quit the body, such as cold, the sun and the winds, which are ever changing and never at rest. And these things are divine, so that there is no necessity for making a distinction, and holding this disease to be more divine than the others, but all arc divine and all human. ["The Genuine Works of Hippocrates", tr. F Adams, London, 1984, vol II p5871 One might paraphrase Hippocrates by saying that for the purposes of treating epilepsy we do not need the distinction between "caused by a god" and "naturally occurring". But it would be very easy to attribute to him the view that there is no divine causation and that everything occurs naturally.
There has been similar distortion of the ideas of Bishop Berkeley [see in particular "A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge" and "Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous"]. One can usefully interpret him as saying that the distinction between what we perceive ("the ideas in our mind") and the alleged entity which the physicists of his day called "matter", comprising primary but not secondary qualities, is misconceived.
Yet some commentators have supposed him to be saying that only minds exist and not matter. They then scrupulously make sure that "the other side" has a fair hearing, with the result that the student is given the impression that the issue is a meaningful one and remains open. It is somewhat like trying to steer a middle course between partiality and impartiality.
A similar problem arises in the interpretation of Gilbert Ryle. Ryle argues in "The Concept of Mind" [Hutchinson, London, 1949] that the Cartesian distinction between "mind" and "matter" is of no use, or, in his terminology, is a "category `Why obfuscate our religious language with all this bad philosphy?' mistake". Yet some have attributed to him the view that minds do not exist and that there is only behaviour. This is to repeat the category mistake, not to get rid of it.
In general, even when we try to avoid a distinction, it continues to exert a malign influence.
This, I suspect, is what has happened in the case of the expression "religious faith as a human creation". This form of words implies that religious faith could have been something different, viz. created by God, but in fact is not. I can mischievously imagine the followers of Hippocrates forming a "network" with the slogan "Epilepsy as a human creation".
What we need to say, in my view, is that a literally understood contrast between "human activity" (something "natural) and "divine activity" (something "supernatural") is of no use. So far from being a sine qua non of religious belief, this dichotomy obfuscates religious language with bad philosophy. I have no space here to offer reasons for saying this; but I believe that if the concept of "God" is properly understood, none of the things which we say of him/her can be understood literally.
When SEA OF FAITH magazine uses the expression "religious faith as a human creation" it is slipping back into promoting the dichotomy from which we are trying to free ourselves. Inevitably this will promote a backlash to the effect that religious faith is a divine creation, and the result will be deadlock.
Secondly, one of the worries expressed by various people at the SoF conference in July 1992 was that instead of a "network" we might find ourselves becoming a "movement" - a body of people with a leader and a distinctive programme of beliefs. The words "religious faith as a human creation", so far from countering this view, actually reinforce it. A formula of some kind is useful on a magazine cover, but I suggest that thought be given to providing a less abrasive one. The word "exploring" should in my view certainly be retained, but I wonder if we could indicate that one of the things which we are exploring is the idea that talk of God should not be interpreted literally.
In any attempt to avoid abrasiveness one needs to start where the other person is. In the present case it could be pointed out - as something obvious and not controversial - that when we say "sitteth on the right hand of God" we do not imply that God has a right hand in any literal sense. A more sophisticated hearer might also be willing to agree that when expressions such as "activity" and "power" are used of God they should not be understood literally.
Finally it can be pointed out that the same is true of the words "exist" and "real". (Perhaps there is a temptation to say that all these words are a "human creation", but what else could they be?). There are difficulties in saying "God exists" in a literal sense; but they arise not because one's religious commitment is in doubt - this is quite a different matter - but because the "greatness" of God cannot be captured in language. The commitment, whether of an ordained minister or of anyone else, need not be tied to literal interpretation of "God"-language, nor to the belief that some events can be termed "natural" and some "supernatural". Those who argue that we are denying what Christians have believed for nearly two millenia could perhaps be reminded that there is no obvious word in New Testament Greek corresponding to "supernatural".
In short, "religious faith as a human creation" is a provocative thing to say. "Talk of God should not be understood literally" is not.
Tim Miles is Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the University of Wales, Bangor. He is a member of London Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends.