Christian Anarchism Q: What is the atheist response to Tolstoy's "The Kingdom of God is within you"?
Hi,
This is my first attempt to start a thread.
Simple straightforward question. Tolstoy gives in what has later been renowned as "Christian Anarchism" a break from the church however keeping some (more-or-less arbitrary disregarding the non-forceful response...) of what was said in the new testament without actually going as far as the more radical position atheism. I am just wondering if the atheist won't be in problem here? What I am saying is that when arbitrarily taking givens, it would seem very hard as a hard-necked atheist to refute the whole of the new testament. Surely, there must be something worth keeping here even for the most radical?
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/43302/43302-h/43302-h.htm
This is my first attempt to start a thread.
Simple straightforward question. Tolstoy gives in what has later been renowned as "Christian Anarchism" a break from the church however keeping some (more-or-less arbitrary disregarding the non-forceful response...) of what was said in the new testament without actually going as far as the more radical position atheism. I am just wondering if the atheist won't be in problem here? What I am saying is that when arbitrarily taking givens, it would seem very hard as a hard-necked atheist to refute the whole of the new testament. Surely, there must be something worth keeping here even for the most radical?
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/43302/43302-h/43302-h.htm
Comments (26)
Not really. The question is, can you refute the whole of the Koran or the whole of the bhagavad gita or the whole of the Book of Mormon or the whole of any scripture from any given religion? All holy books rely on a similar type of justification - the truth in book form.
A considered atheist position on any given holy book would not be to refute it (or refute that Gods exists) but to ask, is there a good reason to accept any of these books as true? Answer... no. But this doesn't mean that the books don't sometimes count as great literature or that they don't contain some useful stories.
You may be interested to learn that many Christians do not consider The Bible to contain true stories as such, but think of the books held within it as largely an allegorical expressions of the transcendent not to be taken literally.
I think so, but many here will not.
[quote=Leo Tolstoy]Men on a lower level of understanding, when brought into contact with phenomena of a higher order, instead of making efforts to understand them, to raise themselves up to the point of view from which they must look at the subject, judge it from their lower standpoint, and the less they understand what they are talking about, the more confidently and unhesitatingly they pass judgment on it.[/quote]
:up: Amen to that.
Tolstoy certainly didn't have much trouble passing judgment, with confidence and no hesitations.
You can't deny he was being consistent. He did not understand Shakespeare; in his ignorance he passed judgement. Much like he said people do who are ignorant of an issue pass judgment quickly and without effort.
T was right on the button in his opinion, and his own example offered just one more piece of evidence how right he was.
I am sure the Christian community will find something in Das Kapital or in The Communist Manifesto something worthwhile to keep, too, much like the atheists will find something worthwhile to keep that's written in the Bible. Nobody denies loving feels good, money is the root of all evil, thieving and murder is bad, and mercilessly exploiting the poor by the rich is despicable.
That Tolstoy simply invented his own religion, which, essentially, makes him an infidel and an atheist. (To be stoned to death by proper religious people.)
1. Why call oneself by the ideologically laden term "hard-necked"??
2. Why would the atheist need to refute anything??
Can you answer?
*awww*
If only I hadn't heard this from so many different religious, spiritual, and otherwise "advanced" people, each of them, of course, promoting their own ideology as "the highest".
Hearing it once, it seems so pertinent! So to the point. But hearing it a dozen times, from a dozen different sources, each one promoting their own ideology as "the highest", it doesn't make sense anymore. It's just another way to blame the other person for not living up to one's standards, and more, it's just another way of expressing the demand that others should live up to one's own standards.
That's what is called 'cynicism'.
What you quoted above from Tolstoy, this idea I first heard from a Hare Krishna devotee. Then from a Catholic. Then I read it in a book on literary theory. Then I remembered hearing such things from my wannabe bourgeois extended family as I was growing up. Then I heard it from a Bahai. Somewhere inbetween I read it from Tolstoy. And, of course, I had heard it from several of my teachers in elementary school and some in highschool. In elementary school, our teachers routinely considered us stupid, primitive.
I used to go Nordic walking. On the trail, I'd often meet a lady, about 25 years my senior, and she always wanted to engage me in conversation. (She is a certified Nordic walking instructor. But she wants to talk while walking. Which is odd, given that the relative suitable speed of walking is at a pace where one cannot comfortably talk anymore.) She was always full of advice for me. One day, she told me that it would be really good if I learned English, that it is important to know foreign languages, esp. English. I gathered that she was sure that I don't speak English, given that she was so persistent. I think I even replied something in English, but she was not impressed. Out of respect for her seniority, I didn't say anything further.
I know several such people. They consider me really dumb and primitive. That I don't understand this or that; that I am, in fact, incapable of understanding those elevated topics. It's rather ironic, but it does get boring after a while.
So I'm reminded of that scene from Legally Blonde:
Tolstoy seems to have been a very sanctimonious fellow and, as would seem to follow from that, exceedingly self-righteous. All should read Donald Barthelme's story, At the Tolstoy Museum, which pokes fun at him and his mythos most enjoyably.
As to the New Testament, I would say an atheist would in all likelihood have little to complain about when it comes to most of what Jesus is said to have said about loving our neighbors, for example, and letting the one without sin to cast the first stone, and ridding our eyes of logs or whatever that was about--the simple recommendations regarding how to treat one another which are contained in that work. I say "simple" because most of that was said by others such as philosophers long before Jesus the man was a twinkle in his Father's (and therefore his own) eye, but in a more complex manner.
I read a bit more of that Tolstoy excerpt. I thought it pretty insightful and cutting, although he was obviously a man of very strong opinions. I don't think I would regard him as a primary source in my own reading.
I've been through periods of cynicism myself. Like when I discovered Chogyam Trungpa had died of alcoholism after I'd been telling everyone how great he was, and when that book about Krishnamurti's affair with Rosalind Rajagopal Sloss came out. That would have been in the early 90's, I think or maybe it was the 80's. I also had an encounter with infamous guru Adi Da, mainly through his books, although did actually even go and meet his emmisaries, before the scandal broke. A lot of what goes on, or at least some of it, in that space is delusional and self-seeking, that's for sure. But ultimately, I realised there must be a real dimension to it. 'Without gold, there would be no fool's gold' is an oft-quoted saying.
I hadn't heard of 'nordic walking', although I intend to do a bit of bushwalking myself the next couple of months, we have lots of nice trails in our area.
I've become inclined to think that this is actually what spirituality is all about, and what it means to be spiritual -- but sans the anxiety.
It's not cynicism. I grew up in a traditionally Catholic country where it is normal for the priest to have illegitimate children, or a least be an obvious glutton or drunkard. I guess it's hard for an outsider to understand how ordinary this seems to us. So when I got older and saw other spiritual leaders get involved in scandals with sex, drugs, money, and guns, this seemed nothing out of the ordinary. But what gets to me is how they make excuses and justifications for being that way. I understand that people routinely don't live up to what they preach, and I don't take much issue with it. It's when they invent justifications for being that way that I can't quite stomach it. But what is the absolute deal breaker for me is blasphemy. I just can't get past that. For example, I can get past a Theravada Buddhist monk handling money, drinking alcohol, or having a girlfriend, but I just can't get past it if he doesn't have a respectful attitude toward Buddhist sacred objects. Like if he bows to a Buddha statue in haste, or puts the paper with a Dhamma talk on the floor. I feel a visceral revulsion then, I see such a person as someone toward whom to keep an absolute distance.
How did you realize that?? By implication?
Just because people seek the Holy Grail doesn't mean the Holy Grail actually exists, or that it is what they originally set out believing it is.
It's good to use poles, so that the arms do some of the work.
Something about things written down. They enforce more forcefully.
If the attendant says "please take off your shoes," you look at him as if he were mad, and you make a decision to take off your shoes or not. But if the attendant shows a printed plaque on the wall with the words on the plaque, "Please take off your shoes", you take off your shoes without hesitation.
If the announcer in the auditorium says "please put your telephones on airplane mode", you laugh and clap and fidget, and you may adjust your device accordingly, or you may elect not to. But if at the entrance there is a huge sign "Please put your phone(s) on airplane mode," then chances are higher that you will.
If the guy on the mound says, "blessed are the meek for they shalt inherit the Earth," then you feel mildly righteous and you feel your generosity has been satisfied. The Earth after doomsday will worth much less than before the End, but it will be worth SOMETHING.but way too true and spot on. However, when it is WRITTEN that thou shalt not kill, then you don't pontificate, you just obey without putting up an argument first.
Internal experience and witness testimony.
However, for better or worse, theists prevent such nuanced and subtle approaches to religion. Their stance is as simple as idiotic - ALL or NONE! Given this ultimatum as it were, atheists have no option but to reject all of religion, including the good parts that so obviously stand out like a gorgeous goddess of a woman in a crowd of plain Janes.
It's a dilemma I tell you. On the one hand, accept the girl of your dreams with her annoying parents (accept all of religion so that you may benefit from what's good in it) or reject the annoying parents and lose the girl of your dreams (reject all of religion and sacrifice the good that's in it).
I do not here see an argument for either of the two sides. Not from what you are presenting, at least.
As goes for any "incentives", mine are of course there. My research subject for the moment is Anarchism, and theologian such is therefore difficult to leave unexplored.
I have researched much original theologian text such as the Bhagavad Gita, Pothapada, Quran, New Testament, well, you get the picture. Of course the Bhagavad Gita here in my mind stands on another plateu, so to speak, if one will consider the easiest ways to reach happiness. I have not experienced such easiness for my mind to more or less automatically hold itself in a state of bliss. But these discussions are with much more depth than Tolstoys religious statement, which essentially is what he does in the text.
.
However, If that is what he said about Shakespear, I may have to agree. I happen to find Shakespear rather boring, to tell you the truth. Not something I will likely pursue during this lifetime.
Men on a lower level of understanding, when brought into contact with phenomena of a higher order, instead of making efforts to understand them, to raise themselves up to the point of view from which they must look at the subject, judge it from their lower standpoint, and the less they understand what they are talking about, the more confidently and unhesitatingly they pass judgment on it. — Leo Tolstoy
I'll be happy if you can share it. Thx.
Its a beautyful quote. I see myself in it.
Experience or realization?
I don't think an atheist would find a problem finding deeper meaning and wisdom when reading any literature, whether that piece of literature is one from the current New York Times bestseller list or whether it is the New Testament. The fact that the animals in Aesop's fables never existed and never engaged in all the behavior they're claimed to have been has no bearing on whether there is a moral behind each of those stories. The fact that a work is fiction does not mean it doesn't contain truths. That is, it's irrelevant whether there actually was a Jesus to the Atheist, but if the New Testament sheds some light on how humans ought behave, even if that work is entirely fiction, the book has important value.