Shcopenhauer's Criticisms of Chrsitian theology

[Metacrock]

you never did look at the OT vs NT thing did you?

I'm going to give a series of observations.

http://ia600401.us.archive.org/1/items/ ... 073496.pdf

p 101

Fist two general observations that apply to the whole:

I. His promise is contradiction between OT and NT but he never really develops that nor is his argument about the OT very well developed.

II. He doesn't know much about liberal theology. Of course the major developments of it didn't exist yet in his day, but some did. Schleiermacher's writings did.SK's did I think both men were un known and their writings forgotten for about 50 years after their deaths. Still one might say his observations and arguments only aply to a straw man version of the conservative sort of protestant.

(1) His basic assumption dogma is bad, it's not based upon thinking but upon religoius experience which of cousre in his mind is tantamount to inanity or stupidity. So there's a huge development in multi-directional and interdisciplinary ferment from around the world stretching form his time to the present, with a huge body of empirical data disproving his assertions. While nothing can demonstrate the veracity of scripture in a direct way, there are some strong arguments to be made for the nature of revelation given what we know about religious experience. This would be noetic aspects of religious experience. This would not be suitable for doctrine but certainly could and should inform doctrine.

(2) He asserts that Augustine is the compete Christianity and he connects that to Luther. so his concept of what Christianity is about is based upon a Lutheran reading. Augie saw God as truth to Shop that means doctrine = truth. That's not necessarily what it meant to Augie. Aguie is saying God is truth in the way that God is love. He didn't necessarily mean that this can translated into doctrine, and no doubt he would express faith in the doctrines of the church. yet for Shop to link this to church practice as an outgrowth of belief and revelation is merely begging the question. So wants to set up a straw man that would revolve around Lutheran view points so he can attack the Lutheran reading of doctrine because he has it for that version of things. We can't connect that links. God as truth is not the justification for Luther as truth. Thus the reading that Christianity = Luther is false.

(3) Shop asserts that religion seeks to hide and to liberalize metaphor. He lauds Buddhist superiority in knowing that truth is metaphorical and feels that the "Christian" attempt to liberalize the metaphors is a failure to grasp the nature of truth because the metaphors have been hidden. This is actual a failure of shop to understand the Christian mystical tradition. Aguie is one of the most important in that tradition. Understanding what he means by God as truth is very important, yet Shop just uses it as a link to set up the Luther straw man. If one understood the Christian mystical tradition it would not seem to be hiding the metaphors. Any and all mystical tradition is aware of truth as metaphor; truth as the thing to which all metaphors point. Since mysticism asserts the inability of language to convey truth in whole it automatically understands that analogue is metaphor and thus metaphor is not literal.

(4) Shop understands the chain of authority to go Apostles => Augie => Luther => doctrine. He remarks upon the inability of such a ste up to last. He's essential speaking of cultural constructs even though he doesn't' use that term. He argues that the nature of what is understood as truth culturally will change. Thus one can't have an abiding truth in terms of doctrine. Again this is a function of his straw man. Had he understood the Christian mystical tradition he would know that Christianity can't be reduced to words on paper but consist of personal experience of the divine.

I think he saw the experiential aspect of Buddhism (rooted in meditation) as superiority to doctrinal truth. I do too. I don't see Christianity as limited to doctrine truth alone. Christianity is experiential and not only in meditation or prayer but miracles as well. you can't contain the experiential aspects in forms such as "meditation" or "prayer." It's in everything.

(5) He sees the clash of OT and NT in terms of predestination and grace. He sees predestination as Augie's invention so he thinks its a departure from the Hebrew. In his day we didn't know much about the Hebrew. With the Dead Sea scrolls and all we know they had a concept of predestination and even one of grace. It doesn't' work like Calvin's In fact Luther's didn't work like Calvin's either. He makes mistakes in understanding Luther. get to that in a minute.

He sees Buddhist concepts as more rational. I do too. He apparently didn't know about Arminius. He doesn't even mention Wesley. Not all Christians are into predestination. Shop sees grace as a gift one is born with. He sees the Buddhist version as the accretion of past lives and thinks it's superior. for my money the Wesleyan view is better because it's value added. you don't have acquire it over several life times, and it's not bestowed at birth but comes in responses to the will.

Where he misconstrues Luther is that Luther thought we don't know who is saved. We can't say X is of the elect and Y is not. So we can't assume some big conservative preacher man is of the elect. It may be a gift of birth but we can't know it and we can't guess at it. Calvin used the idea of signs as a means of control. Follow the Calvinist social agenda and prove you are of the elect, if you are not then you wont follow my agenda. Luther never introduced that form of social control.

(6) He assumes Augie;s view is universal to Christianity and blames God for creating weak people who sin. Augie didn't really say that. He has people more like magnetic iron filings being drawn to a magnet. Augie was reacting against the Pelagian heresy and so overemphasized ideas he took from the Manachians. Yet the capacity to sin is sin nature, not surplus guilt for sins not committed. Thus Shop underestimates Wesleyan concepts God's strength for holiness through the second work of Grace. All the methodist stuff is unknown to him.


(7) He regards Jewish theism as optimistic looking up life as real and a gift from God. He sees the Buddhist view as showing life as an illusion and pessimistic. This would appeal to Shop much more because it's more in line with his personality and his views about life and biology trying to kill out ideas.

He thinks satan is brought in to correct the optimistic so it's not too bright. Here he shows his ignorance of history and his unhistorical nature as a thinker. Satan was brought in though near eastern influences upon Judaism which saw him as the prosecutor working for God to accuse the sinful, the he was jacked up into a super villain by Hellenization. The satan of the modern Christina fundies is basically coming to us from the Greeks.

I think bright and optimistic is a plus. NT shares that trait it got form Judaism and its the reality principle that tones it. Sin is the damper on optimism and self esteem/acceptance problems. We don't' need a dampener in doctrine as it is part of the psychology of faith anyway.

He seems to also buy into 19th century ideas about Abraham coming form India which were discredited in their day.

[mdsimpson92]

you never did look at the OT vs NT thing did you?

No, I did. I had actually already read a good chunk of that before I even joined the blog (remember my first experience with theology and philosophry (aside from a little stoicism) was through your sit). If you want me to make commentary I am willing.

He thinks satan is brought in to correct the optimistic so it's not too bright. Here he shows his ignorance of history and his unhistorical nature as a thinker. Satan was brought in though near eastern influences upon Judaism which saw him as the prosecutor working for God to accuse the sinful, the he was jacked up into a super villain by Hellenization. The satan of the modern Christina fundies is basically coming to us from the Greeks.

Wasn't Judaism view of the devil later influenced by Zoroastrianism with the concept of Angra Mainyu. I remember hearing something like that on the History Channel (granted the history channel ceased being reliable many years ago.)

I wonder, could one accuse him of being prejudiced due to the fact that the primary form of christianity that he experienced was Lutheranism. That probably colored his perspective considerably.

[Metacrock]

you never did look at the OT vs NT thing did you?

No, I did. I had actually already read a good chunk of that before I even joined the blog (remember my first experience with theology and philosophry (aside from a little stoicism) was through your sit). If you want me to make commentary I am willing.

He thinks satan is brought in to correct the optimistic so it's not too bright. Here he shows his ignorance of history and his unhistorical nature as a thinker. Satan was brought in though near eastern influences upon Judaism which saw him as the prosecutor working for God to accuse the sinful, the he was jacked up into a super villain by Hellenization. The satan of the modern Christina fundies is basically coming to us from the Greeks.

Wasn't Judaism view of the devil later influenced by Zoroastrianism with the concept of Angra Mainyu. I remember hearing something like that on the History Channel (granted the history channel ceased being reliable many years ago.)

I wonder, could one accuse him of being prejudiced due to the fact that the primary form of christianity that he experienced was Lutheranism. That probably colored his perspective considerably.

Yes I believe I made that point. I'm sure there was a Persian influence.

[mdsimpson92]

Another thing that bothered me was that there was no mention of Platonism. I know that Shopenhauer actually had a high opinion of Platonism but he makes no mention of Neo-platonism's influence on Christianity.

Another thing that I find funny is that he has such a high view of Buddhism but he seems ignorant of the fact that Mahayana was (according to my textbook) probably influenced by Nestorian Christianity. He probably didn't know becuase I think he was preoccupied with Indian thought rather than Chinese.

[Metacrock]

Another thing that bothered me was that there was no mention of Platonism. I know that Shopenhauer actually had a high opinion of Platonism but he makes no mention of Neo-platonism's influence on Christianity.

Another thing that I find funny is that he has such a high view of Buddhism but he seems ignorant of the fact that Mahayana was (according to my textbook) probably influenced by Nestorian Christianity. He probably didn't know becuase I think he was preoccupied with Indian thought rather than Chinese.

Yes good points.he was rooted in his times. they really didn't know that much about Nestorians in China back then.

[mdsimpson92]

You and Tiny did seem to plow through him pretty well. Granted, you both have more knowledge due to more accurate discoveries than what he had available. (as a side not I noticed that aside from Judaism and forms of Protestantism he does seem to be tolerant for his era.) Maybe I really should try and bring Nietzche into this.

Granted his (Nietzsche) thoughts are a little harder to pin down. I actually plan on reading some Nietzche over Spring Break. I have seen bits of his works online. He certainly has venom in his words but he is one of those philosophers that actually is a great writer.

[Metacrock]

You and Tiny did seem to plow through him pretty well. Granted, you both have more knowledge due to more accurate discoveries than what he had available. (as a side not I noticed that aside from Judaism and forms of Protestantism he does seem to be tolerant for his era.) Maybe I really should try and bring Nietzche into this.

Granted his (Nietzsche) thoughts are a little harder to pin down. I actually plan on reading some Nietzche over Spring Break. I have seen bits of his works online. He certainly has venom in his words but he is one of those philosophers that actually is a great writer.

Neitzsche doesn't really depend that much on historical accuracy. He has historical observations but mostly form major texts that are not in question. I should try to dig out some of old graduate papers on him. I really tried to chop him down at one point and wound up liking him.

that's what happened with me and Postmdoernism as a whole. I studied it to destroy it and wound up saying 'well these guys have some important points, they are not all bad."

[mdsimpson92]

Understood, though I should go and try and find "the Antichrist" just for the hell of it at some point.

[tinythinker]

You and Tiny did seem to plow through him pretty well. Granted, you both have more knowledge due to more accurate discoveries than what he had available. (as a side not I noticed that aside from Judaism and forms of Protestantism he does seem to be tolerant for his era.)

Absolutely. I am not trying to condemn what he wrote or ignore his argument's deficiencies or lack of access caused by his era. But he could have, for example, looked beyond Lutheran Protestantism. I wonder what he would have made of the Orthodox churches. But he is far more knowledgeable and generous that the new atheists, and given how cut off he would have been from other voices of Christianity, I can't blame him for his critique.

[mdsimpson92]

You and Tiny did seem to plow through him pretty well. Granted, you both have more knowledge due to more accurate discoveries than what he had available. (as a side not I noticed that aside from Judaism and forms of Protestantism he does seem to be tolerant for his era.)

Absolutely. I am not trying to condemn what he wrote or ignore his argument's deficiencies or lack of access caused by his era. But he could have, for example, looked beyond Lutheran Protestantism. I wonder what he would have made of the Orthodox churches. But he is far more knowledgeable and generous that the new atheists, and given how cut off he would have been from other voices of Christianity, I can't blame him for his critique.

True, which is one of the reasons why I actually respect him greatly. (that and the fact that he inspired some of the greatest thinkers and writers in hisotory) Though you're right, it would be interesting what his opinion on the Orthodox Church if he knew anything about it. Especially since their Nestorian cousin's (from what I read from my textbook) actually probably influenced Mahayana Buddhism. Then again, he was into Indian thought and would probably have been more interested in Therevada instead.

Tolstoy would have had a field day with this though. (Note to self, read "the kingdom of god with within you") But then the only real experience i have had with Tolstoy was "War and Peace" (can't believe I read that monster twice, I must be a masochist or something). But then again I do know that his aeschetics were derived from Shopenhauer.