Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Religious Reformations

Rate this topic


wishbone

Recommended Posts

Some posts by BigBangSingh prompted be to check out sites on Sikhism. I now understand Sikhism to be a Hindu "reformation", much like Lutherism was for the Catholic church.

The similarities are:

1. A rebellion against priests, with a corollary democratization of the religion.

2. A "back to basic philosophy" approach to religion, which does away with "excessive" rituals, idols and other physical symbols. In summary, a more abstract religion.

Can anyone point to other common and key elements of Sikhism and Lutherism?

I think there is some good in these types of religious movements.

Often, religions are formed around core philosophical ideas, but as they get popular they get a lot of added baggage. Priests become powerful. Some people become priests for the power and money rather than for the philosophy. While people like Martin Luther may have been motivated by a desire to "clean up" the priestly class, they acheive a secondary effect of empowering individuals and affirming the validity of individual reason, even if this is a limited type of reason constrained by the beliefs of the religion.

In this sense, while Sikhism & Protestantism are far from being advocates of reason, they are *steps* along the way toward a more reason-based philosophy.

Politically, these movements are a move closer to democracy. Again democracy is a bad basis for a political system, but perhaps it is a *step* along the way to a system based on individual-rights.

People speak of the Protestant "work-ethic". I think there is a certain amount to truth to this. Historically, the people in Protestant countries of Europe seemed to have approached life and work in a more rational non-emotional way. This resulted in relative economic prosperity.

Most Indians would testify to a Sikh work-ethic, with similar effects on Punjab (the state in India that is predominantly Sikh).

What about the negatives? I am not so sure here? Does a move to abstract philosophy make people stricter altruists? Does it lead to repression as a way of life?

I look forward to hearing from anyone who thinks that Catholic philosophy is superior to the Lutheran one. (Hindu philosophy is harder to pin down. There are many who think that ancient Hinduism was relatively more reason based than later Hinduism.)

I also look forward to anyone who has an explanation other tha Luterism to explain the cultural differences of Northern and Southern Europe. I am particularly struck by the cultural similarities that Ireland shares with the Catholic countries, when one would assume it would be more English, if one ignored the religioius influence. (Ireland is probably a mixed case, because of the two major influences.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wishbone, I think you are entering an intriguing field of study. Your tentative conclusions are worth following up. They are important. We live in a world of diverse philosophies and religions (which are primitive forms of philosophy), and we need to have some idea of their relative threats and merits.

Unfortunately, your Viewing Profile is worthless for telling me what your central purpose in life (career, basically) is. Are you a university student? Philosophy? History of philosophy or cultural history or intellectual history? Whichever CPL you have chosen, I look forward to seeing your work in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wishbone,

... ...

Are you a university student? Philosophy? History of philosophy or cultural history or intellectual history? Whichever CPL you have chosen, I look forward to seeing your work in the future.

Nearing 50 years old, I cannot say that I have a CPL. I chose a career in software development. I find it satisfying, but I lack some "social skills" that would take me to the next level of management; and, I do not have the motivation to gain those skills :)

(But, that's a different thread...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wishbone,

I don't agree that the Protestant Reformation was a step along the way toward a more reason-based philosophy. I would argue quite the opposite: the Reformation mainstreamed relativism and subjectivism. Protestantism today has splintered into 30,000+ denominations, each with its own version of "truth", which often contradicts the 'truth" of the next Protestant church down the street. If everything is truth, then nothing is truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree that the Protestant Reformation was a step along the way toward a more reason-based philosophy. I would argue quite the opposite: the Reformation mainstreamed relativism and subjectivism.

Yes, I suppose that is another negative of an "anti-establishment" movement like the reformation. By saying "don't listen to the church, think for yourself" one is offering an epistemological approach, not an alternative ethics. In absence of a new ethics, it is not surprizing if subjectivism rules. So, Luther may have "fathered" Kant.

However, we see this from our modern perspective. History doesn't move from imperfect to perfect in one jump. I think it is probably more correct to view Luther's ideas as a positive. It was up to subsequent generations to develop them further, and to show that one can have individual thought without subjectivism.

Incidentally, I see a similar development in the deism of the founding fathers. I think they moved further into the modern world, by assuming that God made the world and that 's it... it is up to humans now... The Deists had no basis for an ethical theory. Benjamin Franklin comments on this in his autobiography.

What I beginning to see, as a picture in my mind is this: a line running from Catholics, to Luterans, to Deists, and then... branching out to Kant. Meanwhile, another branch goes out and ends at Ayn Rand. This is over-simplification -- the reality is probably far more complicated, but I'm trying to picture the "essential" history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wishbone,

Luther's message was most emphatically NOT, as you put it, "don't listen to the church, think for yourself". Luther's message was, "Listen to ME". He was not at all tolerant of divergent viewpoints.

You wrote: "History doesn't move from imperfect to perfect in one jump." I would question the premise that it moves from imperfect to perfect at all: the premise that modern thought is superior to all past forms of understanding reality needs to be proven first.

Also, it is an oversimplification to state the progression as "a line running from Catholics, to Luterans, to Deists, and then... branching out to Kant." It is essential to understand the underlying philosophies behind and originating in the Reformation. Luther had a tendency towards scrupulosity; this could be traced at least partly (he may have also suffered from OCD) to the influence of Ockhamism, which injected arbitrariness---quite the opposite of Thomism. Ockhamism laid the foundation, so to speak, for Luther's actions and their success. But I will agree with you that it could be argued that Kant could be a "descendant" of Luther...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luther's message was most emphatically NOT, as you put it, "don't listen to the church, think for yourself". Luther's message was, "Listen to ME". He was not at all tolerant of divergent viewpoints.

Perhaps I'm misinformed about Luther's message being an encouragement to use one's mind and a tool of cognition superior to the edicts of the church. I will have to study more to make a judgement.

What would you say would be a "standing on one leg" summary of Luther's message? (While I could believe that an aspect Luther's message was "listen to me", I find it implausible that "Listen to me" can summarize the crux of his teaching. In other words, when he said "Listen to me when I tell you to do the following...", what was he telling his followers to do?)

BTW: Are you implying that being "tolerant of divergent viewpoints" a good thing, regardless of what those divergent viewpoints are?

You wrote: "History doesn't move from imperfect to perfect in one jump." I would question the premise that it moves from imperfect to perfect at all...

I apologize for the imprecise formulation. When I said "imperfect to perfect", I could also have said "perfect to imperfect". All I meant is that History does not move in a smooth progession.

the premise that modern thought is superior to all past forms of understanding reality needs to be proven first.

I suppose that if you considered the typical subjectivist college philosophy professor and compared his thought with "all past forms of understanding reality", the modern will lose. So, you'd have to consider a particular genre of ancient thought and a particular genre of modern thought.

At any rate, there is a certain progession of ideas that build upon each other, or revolt against the other, but are still linked in a historical progression.

Also, it is an oversimplification to state the progression as "a line running from Catholics, to Luterans, to Deists, and then... branching out to Kant."

Glad to see you agree with me that this is an oversimplification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Wishbone,

You asked, "What would you say would be a "standing on one leg" summary of Luther's message?"

I'm not sure that such a summary would be useful, or fair to Luther! But I would have to say that "sole fide" would certainly be the overiding message.

Luther's writings make for interesting reading. A picture of a very conflicted man emerges...

You wrote: "BTW: Are you implying that being "tolerant of divergent viewpoints" a good thing, regardless of what those divergent viewpoints are?"

It depends on what you mean by "tolerant". Luther encouraged the princes to slaughter rebelling peasants (resulting in an estimated 100,000 deaths), so I don't see him as a figure who championed individual rights. Carlstadt and Zwingli became bitter enemies merely because they disgreed with him, and Luther attributed satanic influences to those who dared to do so.

You wrote: "At any rate, there is a certain progession of ideas that build upon each other, or revolt against the other, but are still linked in a historical progression."

I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another interesting case is that of Pure Land Buddhism in medieval Japan. It was a movement against the institutional and corrupt temple structure. The feeling was that Temple Buddhism had become just another means of oppressing the people (and more importantly taxing them), so the movement just broke away and ignored the temples. Thereafter Pure Land Buddhism was something peasant groups rebelling against the oppressive aristocracy (and clergy) rallied under.

A more similiar group to this in Europe than the Lutherans would be the Anabaptists. The Anabaptists were the group that the rebelling peasants in the "Peasants Rebellion" in Germany rallied under. Luther opposed the popular uprising and sided with the aristocracy. Thereafter it was clear that Lutheranism was going to play the same role in Northern Germany that Catholicism played in the South. Lutheranism was really more of a schism with Catholicism than a true reformation. The real reformation was in the Anabaptists who were trying to free the people from an oppressive clergy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Punk,

You wrote: "The real reformation was in the Anabaptists who were trying to free the people from an oppressive clergy."

They were interested in setting up an oppressive clergy of their own: look at what what happened when they took over the government of the city Münster in 1534. Treasures of literature and art were destroyed; communism and polygamy were introduced. It is true that they mellowed---the Amish of today are descendants of that movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True enough, I concede your point. Also the French Revolution didn't pan out as many would have hoped (and the American Revolution had its own Terror after all).

I think though that people are too quick to write off religious movements of the pre-modern epoch as barbaric and irrational. Many of them were really social movements against an existing tyranny cast in a more religious language than we would ever use today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While people like Martin Luther may have been motivated by a desire to "clean up" the priestly class, they acheive a secondary effect of empowering individuals and affirming the validity of individual reason, even if this is a limited type of reason constrained by the beliefs of the religion.
Martin Luther wrote this in 1543:

First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly ­ and I myself was unaware of it ­ will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. (remainder omitted)

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuteronomy 17 [:10 ff.]) in which he commands them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: "what they teach you in accord with the law of the Lord." Those villains ignore that. They wantonly employ the poor people's obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them with this poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us captive with the declaration in Matthew 16 {:18], "You are Peter," etc, inducing us to believe all the lies and deceptions that issued from his devilish mind. He did not teach in accord with the word of God, and therefore he forfeited the right to teach.

Fifth, I advise that safe­conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let they stay at home. (...remainder omitted).

Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us all they possess. Such money should now be used in no other way than the following: Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God's blessing in a good and worthy cause.

Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen 3[:19]}. For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.

He wasn't a nice guy. His movement did nothing but cause massive wars, rampant killing, and a destruction of knowledge (he hated the advances in the world and desired a return to an agrarian, 'biblical' society).

In this sense, while Sikhism & Protestantism are far from being advocates of reason, they are *steps* along the way toward a more reason-based philosophy.
I would disagree for one reason: there is not a single core philosophy uniting Protestantism (other than they aren't Catholic). Some Protestant religions are greater strides towards reason, and others are greater strides away from reason.

Politically, these movements are a move closer to democracy. Again democracy is a bad basis for a political system, but perhaps it is a *step* along the way to a system based on individual-rights.

Once again, I advise you to be careful. Calvinism captured the city of Geneva and set up a Theocracy-eventually such a totalitarian one that they were kicked out by rebellion. Protestantism is a very, very broad word.

People speak of the Protestant "work-ethic". I think there is a certain amount to truth to this. Historically, the people in Protestant countries of Europe seemed to have approached life and work in a more rational non-emotional way. This resulted in relative economic prosperity.

Most Indians would testify to a Sikh work-ethic, with similar effects on Punjab (the state in India that is predominantly Sikh).

The 'work-ethic' actually comes from Calvin and those Protestant denominations that adhere to his beliefs. Calvin developed the idea of Predestination, which states that God has already chosen who is going to Heaven and who is not. However, nobody truly knows. The only way to discover is to work-and the wealthier you are, the greater you are in God's glory. Thus many Calvinist began to work hard in order to see if they were blessed by God (and thereby going to Heaven).

I also look forward to anyone who has an explanation other tha Luterism to explain the cultural differences of Northern and Southern Europe. I am particularly struck by the cultural similarities that Ireland shares with the Catholic countries, when one would assume it would be more English, if one ignored the religioius influence. (Ireland is probably a mixed case, because of the two major influences.)

Besides the traces of the Roman Empire (except for Britain, it didn't go to any of the other Northern Countries), the only other major difference was Catholicism vs. non-Catholicism. These were not religions like we think of them today-people practiced these religions fanatically, and instituted them into all aspects of their life. The core differences of the religions explains the differences in the countries (though of course there are many smaller factors-these are the major two).

:thumbsup: Hope that helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

“Can anyone point to other common and key elements of Sikhism and Lutherism?”

I wish I knew more about Sikhism, but I can point out a few typical qualities of Lutheranism, many in relation to Catholicism:

Lutheranism is taken to be a more “earthy” philosophy, though I think this is an over-simplification. I can explain my reasons, but for now I will simply assert that it is actually more ephemeral and ascetic. People are to work to the point of exasperation (more than six hours of sleep is considered out-right sinful), for the sole purpose of keeping themselves away from sin.

It stresses the ugliness of human nature, and argues that few people are actually moral and good. It rejects volition and, according to Calvin, all but a handful are going to hell by god’s providence.

It is supposedly a more consistent application of the letter of the Bible. It rejected the church’s authority over the Bible, and it’s exclusive right to read and interpret it.

It is highly individualistic philosophy, so individualistic that “radical” does not suffice to describe it. The proper Lutheran, and even more so for the proper Calvinist (the intellectual and historical heir to Lutheranism), is so intellectually and emotionally disconnected from everything that it is as though they lived in the cold emptiness of blank space to contemplate their own moral worth.

Still, they were highly organized. In spite of the fact that, at a generous estimate, during the Religious Wars in France protestants (mostly Calvinists, some Lutherans, a few others) constituted 10% of the population, they were able to occupy entire portions of France and obtain treaties that guaranteed their sanctity from Catholics. They fought battles ferociously because they hadn’t the slightest fear of dying, and believed that god’s providence favored their side of the fight. The whole dynamic changed after the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, but in principle this illustrates their dedication to their community.

I have heard that Sikhism is highly militant compared to mainstream Hinduism, and likewise Lutheranism was virulently aggressive in its first 100 years, though Protestantism in general has since lost some of its fervor.

Some demographic characteristics of Lutheranism in its early stages was the fact that the vast majority of people who converted were middle-class merchants (which probably helped make England and the Netherlands convert so readily). This is partly because they were not as susceptible to threats by their government, since much of their wealth was potable. Many wealthy people converted to Protestantism because it was an excuse to rebel against and extort the national government.

Well, I’ve exhausted much of the relevant trivia I know about Lutheranism. Whatever parallels this runs with Sikhism, let me know.

Edited by LifeSimpliciter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread has been interesting and has dispelled the naive misconceptions I had about Luther. Having never been particularly interested in religious history, I had assumed that the stories about his main message being an individualistic (in a good way) "think for yourself" were generally true. Nietzsche's intense dislike of the man makes a lot more sense now.

I suppose I should actually buy a book about the Reformation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...