Y luego no se pregunten por qué

Aquellos que dudan de la utilidad del estudio de las religiones y de la necesidad, incluso en un país predominantemente monoreligioso como es Colombia, de establecer departamentos de religiones comparadas necesitan leer la siguiente pieza del Pasquín y pensar por cinco segundos si en cinco años vamos a poder entender (sin totearnos la cabeza) el sancocho religioso que se está volviendo nuestro país. (O la muy interesante relgión que se cuece en nuestra hermana república que mezcla un evangelismo bolivariano con pelígrosísimos tintes fascistas).

Sin academia no hay paraíso, sin académicos no hay policy. Déjenos trabajar.

One of the Most Enlightening Pieces I have Read on the Subject

When I was born, almost thirty years ago, my country was almost 99.9% Catholic. Since then there has been an explosive development of Evangelical Christianity among both the popular classes and some of the comercial elite and the emerging upper middle class. I think that around 80% of the urban population of Colombia is now Catholic, whilst the rest is some shade of Protestant. My friends in the intelligentsia, all of them raised as upper middle class Catholics, have gone in more exotic directions: everything ranging from Mahayana Buddhism to "bright" agnosticism to American Indian naturalist-paganism, and, of course, Judaism. This just shows the incredible disatisfaction with traditional religion in even a relatively conservative country like Colombia and the great mobility of ideas that bring people to new ideological and spiritual landscapes. Very much like our physical realities are becoming increasingly mobile and more and more people are moving away from the places of their birth, more and more people are moving away from the religion of their parents. We are at the dawn of a new age of conversions. Quite like the Roman Empire in its transit from a Republic to the Caesarate, people are greatly disappointed with their lives and are looking for meaning in a society were many cultures and religions come together in the great Market of Ideas. It was in the early Roman empire where centurions born in Italy worshipped the Aryan deity Mithras, where Turkish matrons converted to Judaism, and the philosophers of the age were fascinated with the arcane knowledge of the Egyptian sages. Against the backdrop of this world could a Jewish cult like Christianity prosper and conquer Europe. Today, in the new Rome, there are Chinese Jews, Anglosaxon Muslims, Black Buddhists, Latino Mormons, etc., etc., etc. Here is a wonderful article to understand this Brave New world which such people in it.

"Religion in a Globalizing World" by Peter Berger

[M]y major thesis this morning is that what is happening with the globalization of religion is a globalization of pluralism. Pluralism, which was a much more geographically, much more limited phenomenon 150 or 200 years ago, has become a global phenomenon, and that has enormous implications.

Más Putnam

Hace poco publiqué un link al debate entre los eminentes pensadores Hilary Putnam (judío)y Alvin Plantinga (calvinista) sobre la relación entre la filosofía y la religión. Ninguno de los dos filósofos es un filósofo de la religión sensu strictu. Es más, ambos pertenecen a la escuela analítica, muchas veces vista (por radicales como este servidor) como una colección de positivistas ateos e inconformes. Por ello mismo es bastante interesante escuchar a dos pensadores brillantes discutir temas morales y religiosos sin partisanismos ni excesivo apego doctrinal.
Hoy, rebrujando en la biblioteca del seminario, encontré un Festschrift reciente dedicado al eminente rabino y filósofo israelí David Hartmann (Editor Jonathan Malino, Judaism and modernity :the religious philosophy of David Hartman /Aldershot, Hants, England ; Burlington, VT : Ashgate, 2004). David Hartmann es uno de los filósofos religiosos judíos más influyentes e importantes de la última mitad del siglo xx. Su visión filosófica, basada en una reintrepretación de la filosofía de Maimónides para la era actual, trata de reconciliar la Ortodoxia con los desafíos morales y teóricos de la modernidad.



Putnam, escribió para este Festschrift, un bellísimo ensayo de diez páginas titulado "The Pluralism of David Hartman". En éste, Putnam compara su propia visión del pluralismo religioso y de cómo él, como filósofo, vive su vida religiosa como un judío liberal observante con el concepto de pluralismo de Hartman, también filósofo pero ortodoxo.
En este artículo, esta joya:

For me, however, it [religious pluralism] means more than that. Not only do I believe that no religion has a monopoly on religious value; I also reject the "containment" model, the model on which the value and virtue that the pluralist finds in the other religions are all supposed to be already "contained" in one´s own religion (or one´s religion at its best anyway). One reason this model is wrong is that all perception, including religious perception, is dependent on concepts, and concepts, as we have learned from Wittgenstein, depend on practices and on whole ways of life. Buddhists, whom I mentioned before, have been meditating on the meaning of compassion for more than two millennia, and living a way of life which focuses that meditation and provides concepts for it. To suppose that they have failed in all that time to see anything about what it means to live a compassionate life that Jews and Christians have not seen is arrogance and worse than arrogance- it is a form of blindness. Each great religion, at its best, provides forms of religious perception which are less developed in other.
On the other hand, being a religious pluralist does not mean that one has to give up one's own tradition or one's own views as to how that tradition is to be interpreted, unless those views are themselves inherently intolerant. (If it did, religious pluralism would just be a new universalistic religion.) For example, belief in a single personal God is dear to me (a fact that shocks some members of my minyan [Jewish prayer community]). I disagree with some views of other traditions- for example, I do not myself agree with the Buddhist idea that the eschatological goal of human existence is "non-attachment". But, as I just indicated, my contacts with Buddhists have convinced me that there are profound moral and spiritual resources in that tradition, resources I can admire and respect and learn from. And I am also convinced that whether one has the right or wrong view on theological questions is far less important to God than whether one shows compassion, cheerfulness, and makes a contribution to enriching human spiritual and material life. pp. 241-242.

Putnam and Plantinga on Religion

If you have an hour to spare, kick back, relax and listen to two philosophical giants talking about religion: Hilary Putnam and Alvin Plantinga. Both philosophers belong, however broadly defined, to the "analytic tradition". Both thinkers are also religious men. Putnam self identifies as a Conservative "observant" Jew. (For the JTS crowd, if we are out to find smart members of our congregations, this is guy is it with a capital I!) Alvin Plantinga is a religious Calvinist but teaches at a Catholic university (Notre Dame). Really juicy stuff! Putnam is the good looking baldy on my left. Plantinga is the dashingly bearded man on my right.

Where I am now

To all those who commented on the Science and Religion post, thank you. I think you have made a great contribution to the future of this blog which, with podcast taking care of all my personal needs and announcements, will -hopefully, time and God permitting- concentrate more on issues of belief in the twentieth century (I can hear some of my friends groaning there in the back. To them, speak now or forever hold your peace). In that spirit, a great quotation of the JTSer Rebbe -Abraham Joshua Heschel z''l- which pretty much describes where I am now religiously and philosophically:

"The fundamentalists claim that all the ultimate questions have been answered: the logical positivists maintain that the ultimate questions are meaningless. Those of us who share neither the conceit of the former nor the unconcern of the latter, and reject both specious answers and false evasions, know that the ultimate issue is at stake in our existence, the relevance of which surpasses all final formulations. It is this embarrassment that is the starting point for our thinking." From God in Search of Man (1955)

In the face of the incapability of analytical philosophy to provide a convincing philosophical proof of the silliness of our big bad romantic questions about ultimate purpose and its recalcitrant denial of any other model (philosophical or otherwise) for approaching problems, should we begin thinking again in terms of a synthetic philosophy? A rennaissance of dialectic? Or is it just me dreaming?

One for the good old boys (and girls)

Question: Can you be a good and honest scientist and at the same time be religious?

Disclaimer #1: The philosophers can assume that philosophy is also a science although you and I both know that it is not the case. Furthermore, and this is just me, philosophy should not limit itself to science's precise but incredibly unimaginative methods.

Disclaimer #2: Those of you who actually are scientists can pick whatever religion you want.

Disclaimer #3: Those of you who are neither just think in the haughtiness of scientist who dismiss all of mankind's religious beliefs as "silly superstitions" and also think about the professors in Alabama who are willing to deny the fact that Charles Darwin ever said anything of worth. Just food for thought.

You can answer in Spanish, English, German or Hebrew.

(The image is a cool Assyrian astronomical and astrological chart)

A word about evolution and creationism

I understand, although I do not share, the mistrust of science's infalibility by this country's radical Christian right . The past century gave us enough examples of how science, even in its Nobel prize parnassum, can be easily corrupted by ideology and by politics. Aryan physics and Lisenkoism, among others, have shown that lies can pass as legitimate science when properly expressed in scientific language. People, often uncritical and improperly educated, have the same blind faith in science or what is presented as such as the faith of medieval man in saints' relics. Nevertheless, what I understand even less is their fanatical attachment to the letter of Scripture. If they can read most of the Pentateuch allegorically, allowing them to do away with the eating of pork and shrimp and the Israelite sacrificial system, why do they insist so staunchily and arbitrarily in the literality of the seven days of Creation? If they defend so vocally the allegorical reading of most of the Hebrew Bible, why are they not willing to entertain even the possibility of an allegorical reading of this particular passage? Is it the obstinacy of their fundamentalism or is their stubborness a last stand against the possibility of another source to the truth other than revelation?

- Parábola teológica real- נפשנו כציפור

La compasión humana es extraña. A la hora del almuerzo lo oí por primera vez. Un piar desesperado escapando de una de las rejas de desagüe del cesped central del seminario. Pi. Pi. Un pajarito, parecido a los copetones de Bogotá, piaba desesperado atrapado en el desague. Pi. Pi. Cuando levanté la pesada reja de hierro, el pajarito trató de volar pero sus mojadas alitas no fueron suficientes para sacarlo del hueco. Ni pensar en meter mi mano. Apenas me acerqué más al hueco, el pajarito escapó por uno de los tubos de desagüe. Desde ahí habría de observarme con recelo, asomándo sólo la punta del pico. La hora de mi almuerzo consumida, tuve que volver a poner la reja en su sitio y abandonar el pajarito a su suerte. Horas más tarde, cuando el cielo de Nueva York era un sólo nubarrón. Pi.Pi. Pi. Imposible ignorar el desesperado piar. Esta vez con la ayuda de A., levantamos la reja y tratamos de convencer al pajarito en nuestro mejor copetonés de que saliera antes de que la tormenta llene este desagüe de agua. Nada. El pajarito se vuelve a esconder en el desagüe y desde ahí pía desesperado pero aún sospechando de los gigantes que, sin saberlo, están tratando de ayudarlo y no de devorarlo. Nuestros extraños silbidos en cuclillas bajo la llovizna pronto atraen la atención de los oficiales de seguridad del seminario y los empleados de mantenimiento. Todos se apiadan del pajarito pero nadie puede convencerlo de que salga del desagüe. Nada consiguen los desesperados y poco persuasivos discursos en copetonés. Nada consigue el pedazo mojado de pan que saqué de la basura de la cafetería. Nada consigue la rampita de cartón que construimos. El pajarito no quiere salir. El pajarito tiene miedo de los gigantes. El pajarito tiene miedo de la gran planicie azul. La lluvia arrecia. Pronto, sólo A. y yo quedamos para compadecernos del pajarito terco y miedoso. Pi. Pi. Empapados decidimos que no hay poder humano que nosotros, aterradores gigantes podamos ejercer sobre el pajarito para convencerlo de que quedarse en el desagüe no es una buena idea. Bajo una lluvia inmisericorde nuestros misericordiosos pero inútiles manos ponen la pesada reja de hierro en su lugar. Mi corazón rabínico cita: "Nuestra alma es como un ave que escapa de la trampa de los cazadores. La trampa fue rota y nosotros escapamos." Salmo 124:7. La compasión humana es caprichosa y extraña. La compasión divina es inescrutable pero mucho más eficaz.

Una pequeña revelación filosófica

Esta semana he estado trabajando en un hospital de voluntario. Aquellos que me conocen podrán imaginarse que la cosa al comienzo no fue muy agradable. Lentamente, a punta de paciencia y auto boosts de confianza para poder entrar a cuartos de gente que no conozco, cogerlos de la mano y escuchar sus multiples problemas, a veces reales, a veces imaginados , dolores reales, dolores del cuerpo, dolores del remordimiento, ya estoy logrando un mayor nivel de tranquiliadad con la disciplina. Después de una semana de experiencia ya he desarrollado una piel un poco más gruesa pero también una empatía mucho más afinada. Una identificación con la persona que está ahí tirada en la cama tal vez muriéndose, tal vez no, tal vez por culpa propia, tal vez por motivos que desconoce. Y con esa identificación he llegado a la conclusión de que uno de los mitos en los que había creído hasta hoy era completamente falso. LA VIDA DEL FILOSOFO NO ES LA MEJOR VIDA QUE MERECE SER VIVIDA. Desde los Griegos venimos dándonos contentillo con ese cuento de que la vida dedicada al estudio de los intelectuales perdurables es la mejor vida que puede tener el ser humano y el antídoto más eficaz contra el sufrimiento. Ya debí haberme dado cuenta de que ello no era cierto cuando la mayoría de mis profesores en la universidad, esplendor y corona de la filosofía nacional, no sólo no eran felices sino que no vivían en paz con ellos mismos ni con sus mismos colegas. En este sitio de fragilidad humana, de materia, de este mundo, he visto gente más tranquila y más adecuada a su misma mortandad, a sus mismas limitaciones que jamás han meditado sobre los inteligibles ni se preocupan por la opacidad referencial de las metáforas en los lenguages no formales. Para quienes no hay mayor diferencia entre Westinghouse y Wittgenstein. Gente que con la serenidad de quien se quita los pantalones antes de irse a la cama, piensan en lo importante de su vida y son conscientes de sus verdaderos logros y sin pretensiones saben qué es lo que les espera y qué es lo que le quieren decir a Dios. Una de dos, o la razón no da la felicidad o no estamos usando nuestra razón bien -lo cual me hace pensar que este cambio de carrera fue algo productivo. AHHHHRGH. Feeling way too preachy and anxious. No será más por hoy.

Dance Macabre. Lubeck.