Essay: Religion And Sociology (SOC101 Summer 2010)

3.  Choice a religion other than your own and research one ritual (e.g. singing hymns) associated with it.  What symbolism or meaning is there for the ritual?  Is this a ritual that most religions partake in or is it unique to the ritual that you are researching?

    "In order to secure the allegiance of his people in the future, Moses prescribed for them a novel religion quite different from those of the rest of mankind. Among the Jews all things are profane that we hold sacred; on the other hand they regard as permissible what seems to us immoral. In the innermost part of the Temple, they consecrated an image of the animal which had delivered them from their wandering and thirst, choosing a ram as beast of sacrifice to demonstrate, so it seems, their contempt for Hammon. The bull is also offered up, because the Egyptians worship it as Apis. They avoid eating pork in memory of their tribulations, as they themselves were once infected with the disease to which this creature is subject. They still fast frequently as an admission of the hunger they once endured so long, and to symbolize their hurried meal the bread eaten by the Jews is unleavened. We are told that the seventh day was set aside for rest because this marked the end of their toils. In course of time the seductions of idleness made them devote every seventh year to indolence as well. Others say that this is a mark of respect to Saturn, either because they owe the basic principles of their religion to the Idaei, who, we are told, were expelled in the company of Saturn and became the founders of the Jewish race, or because, among the seven stars that rule mankind, the one that describes the highest orbit and exerts the greatest influence is Saturn. A further argument is that most of the heavenly bodies complete their path and revolutions in multiples of seven.
    Whatever their origin, these observances are sanctioned by their antiquity. The other practices of the Jews are sinister and revolting, and have entrenched themselves by their very wickedness. Wretches of the most abandoned kind who had no use for the religion of their fathers took to contributing dues and free-will offerings to swell the Jewish exchequer; and other reasons for their increasing wealth way be found in their stubborn loyalty and ready benevolence towards brother Jews. But the rest of the world they confront with the hatred reserved for enemies. They will not feed or intermarry with gentiles. Though a most lascivious people, the Jews avoid sexual intercourse with women of alien race. Among themselves nothing is barred. They have introduced the practice of circumcision to show that they are different from others. Proselytes to Jewry adopt the same practices, and the very first lesson they learn is to despise the gods, shed all feelings of patriotism, and consider parents, children and brothers as readily expendable. However, the Jews see to it that their numbers increase. It is a deadly sin to kill an unwanted child, and they think that eternal life is granted to those who die in battle or execution - hence their eagerness to have children, and their contempt for death. Rather than cremate their dead, they prefer to bury them in imitation of the Egyptian fashion, and they have the same concern and beliefs about the world below. But their conception of heavenly things is quite different. The Egyptians worship a variety of animals and half-human, half-bestial forms, whereas the Jewish religion is a purely spiritual monotheism. They hold it to be impious to make idols of perishable materials in the likeness of man: for them, the Most High and Eternal cannot be portrayed by human hands and will never pass away. For this reason they erect no images in their cities, still less in their temples. Their kings are not so flattered, the Roman emperors not so honored. However, their priests used to perform their chants to the flute and drums, crowned with ivy, and a golden vine was discovered in the Temple; and this has led some to imagine that the god thus worshipped was Prince Liber, the conqueror of the East. But the two cults are diametrically opposed. Liber founded a festive and happy cult: the Jewish belief is paradoxical and degraded."
-Tacitus, Histories, c. 95AD
    I found this piece very interesting in that it sheds light on the beliefs of the pagans themselves.
    To my mind, despising other faiths because they are believed to be incorrect for concrete reasons is more rational and morally correct than despising other faiths for superstitious, bigoted, or slanderous reasons (e.g., blaming the Jews for the death of Christ, allegations about Jewish conspiracies or eating Christian children, etc). I firmly believe that tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions, and I respect those who disagree with me for the right reasons far more than those who agree with me for the wrong reasons. Someone who disagrees for the right reasons is a known variable, is a boon to the world, and, in time, can be brought on board once one's own rectitude is proven; someone who agrees for the wrong reasons is a fool and contributor to the stupidity of the world, and will do what is easy and not what is right.
    It's very interesting to consider that certain pagan practices that are repugnant and bizarre to us today - infanticide, cremation, idolatry, feasting - were, in their own time, morally correct, and wholly moral and viable civilizations were based around them. I am contemptuous of what I see as modern liberal pseudosciences such as psychology or sociology because they are fundamentally based on circular reasoning and unscientific assumptions. Their claims to be "value blind" or "scientific" are fradulent, because they provably aren't.
    For example, suicide and infanticide is considered pathological in these "sciences", even though it was a life choice with no negative implication in other, fully viable, civilizations. To call it "pathological" is nothing more than...a value judgement. Arguing that it's pathological in that it results in the death of the individual is another value judgement: the implied assumption that what is good, is good for the individual, and the inverse is also true.
    Another example is the belief that genders and races are equal, and that in a fully egalitarian society they will gravitate towards equal representation. This is an unscientific belief. By defintion, scientific theories must be testable to be valid; this is untestable, therefore it is invalid. The nature of human existence defies the definition of a control group, which is fundamental to all scientific research; in fact we cannot even establish variable groups since the definable characteristics are themselves arbitrary and intangible. Who's to say what "intelligence" or "moral rectitude" really are, in the absolute, apart from culture? Hence, all "scientific" studies on fundamentally humanist topics can really prove is the reality of our own biases.
    Furthermore, valid scientific theories cannot contradict what is known to be true by the prerequisite body of knowledge. It is known there is vast differentiation between reproductively compatible sub-species in many mammals (e.g., cats, dogs, pigs, primates), and these traits are known and measurable. To argue against a biological interpretation of the nature of humanity in favor of a humanist approach is to violate the materialist nature of science - based on observation and experimentation - in favor of a philosophical approach. When the scientific is freely juxtaposed with the irrational, as one pleases, the result is pseudoscience, and it's fundamentally bigoted because the guiding principle - when to choose the rational over the irrational - is nothing more than one's own biases.
Besides the matter of sub-species diversity being a real, observable, and objectively definable concept, there is also the well-established scientific concept of sexual dimorphism. Sexual dimorphism isn't merely a judgement or an assumption, or something observed anecdotally or empirically (although of course it is), it's actually demonstrable through experimentation and even on humans, through hormone therapy. Gene expression correlates with hormone levels. It is a fundamental assumption of the scientific theory that the world is material and rational. If this were not so, it would not be possible to create a valid scientific theory about anything, because it would be impossible to eliminate non-material externalities from rational explainations (e.g., "God made it not work"). thus to argue against sexual dimorphism on a humanist basis is to exit the realm of the scientific - in favor of one's own...values.
Now, to argue that human genders are not qualitiatively equal (in terms of statistical averages of size and other characteristics) but are quantitatively equal (in terms of "worth" or "value") is nothing more than an intrustion of value judgement. After all, how can one define "worth" scientifically? Hypothetically, if women were to be "barefoot and pregnant", wouldn't that be central to human survival, and thus to object to a profession it reduces their "worth" is nothing but...a value judgement about the "moral worth" of the profession itself!
The real coup de grace to these psuedoscientific claims made by psychologists and sociologists is this: Tacitus was a known and respected author for millenia. Many civilizations that were developed beyond their peers in their time believed him right even as less developed civilizations knew him to be wrong. Aristole, same deal: he made blatantly misogynistic claims that had no basis in scientific fact but were accepted as truth (or nearly) for a very long time, and the argument could certainly be made that those who believed it were objectively more developed than their peers.
    In every time and in every place, human civilizations always cling to their value judgements and wrap them in the mantle of institution and pedantry to give them a specious finality. Those who carry their values forward - academics - conceal the faults of their knowledge and reasoning by tying the loose ends together with circular logic. They argue that because they are great in the here and now, or at least better than anything that came before, what they believe is the ne plus ultra of knowledge: this is called hubris. And, in time, the world moves on, and new assumptions take the place of the old.
    Modern psychologists and sociologists often refute challenges to their circular logic by saying "well, you haven't read this or that 'respected' author". "Respected" by whom? Most of these individuals haven't read the myriad works that contradict what they choose to believe - hence, their connotation of these PhDs as worthy of "respect" or having proven this or that is nothing more than circular reasoning: we believe they are informed because they are informed on what we believe to be true. If this wasn't the case, their contention that it is necessary to read their specious reasonings would be debunked by the fact that they themselves are not versed on the opposing body of knowledge.
    After all, 50 years ago, pretentious sociologists argued the value of urban renewal, racial apartheid and lobotomy; how are we to believe this same school of knowledge is any more correct in its assumptions today? The only constant is the reflection of popular biases.
    Back to Tacitus: While obviously I don't have such a negative opinion of my own ancestors, I respect that he, like most great authors, does not pretend to be impartial; he does not demur to make value judgements. It is human nature to judge. If we did not judge, we could not get by in life; therefore, whoever claims to not judge, or to argue that to judge is itself undesirable, is a fool or hypocrite. By being judgemental, he enhances the value of his work. He opens it to rational inquiry and makes it valuable and useful to those who do not necessarily agree with him.
    Anyway - and this is answering Question 3 directly - I find it fascinating how he strongly implies that idolatry is really a form of humanism - "perishable idols in the likeness of man", and monotheism is "paradoxical and degraded". It makes it much easier to understand other cultures to look at them from the perspective of their own biases. I also find it fascinating how he disdains the Sabbath rest as being "lazy...indolent..." and fasting as "unhappy". To the pagans, the absence of rest was part of their moral ideal.
    It is significant that many pagans took the Yom Kippur fast far out of proportion, as references to it are made by other contemporary authors. To them, feasting was central to a morally correct faith that addressed human needs, whereas, to them, a faith that celebrated its holiest days based on fasting was cruel and unnatural.
    Thus, thinking deeply about this, it becomes much easier to consider the real significance of other cultures' practices - infanticide, idolatry, and ritual feasting.

Gretchen's Descent

Today I attended a Capstone seminar taught by one of my professors. I arrived 30 minutes late - of course she expects no better - and I sat and listened to the guest professor speak. He asked who in the audience uses Wikipedia for research; of course, everyone did, but I alone raised my hand. The professor asked me how, and I answered truthfully: usually, to gain a superficial understanding of the issue, to find sources by checking the article citation, to generally define the parameters of the topic under study. I also added that even biased articles are useful - to understand the topic in the framework of the controversies surrounding it - and that books are not inherently less biased than internet articles. The professor was overly pleased with my response, and seemed to stare at me for the rest of the class. This is a common theme in my life: people put me on some sort of pedestal, or develop an inflated estimate of my intelligence after I open my mouth for only a few minutes. It's very oppressive.

Anyway, one topic mentioned in the lecture was the editing and changing of classical works, or how they can evolve over time as their format and content is adjusted for new settings, often creating wholly new works in the process. It wasn't mentioned, but the most obvious example of this is the works of Shakespeare. I half-heartedly raised my hand, in kind of an awkward gesture - allowing the professor to discreetly ignore it and my long-windedness if he so desired (he did)...but what I wanted to mention, I thought I would mention  here, something I wrote on FUBU-BH:

..Polyphemus cried out,
"No-One is killing me by some sort of trick!"

The adventurers hastened to the sea to make froth with their oars,
When they were just offshore but still within earshot,
Odysseus called out to the Cyclops - just to rub it in:

"So, Polyphemus, it turns out it wasn't a coward
Whose men you murdered and ate in your cave,
Fool! You got your just reward in the end,
You had the gall to eat my men in your own home, and you paid for it."

The Cyclops got even angrier when he heard this.
He broke off the tip of a mountain and hurled it towards our ship.
It landed just off the prow. The sea billowed up where the rock came down.
And the wave pushed them back to the mainland, like a flood tide.
The crew leaned on the oars and strove to get the ship out of there.
When they were twice as far out to sea as before, Odysseus called out to the Cyclops again,
Even though his men hung all over the man, begged him not to:

"Don't do it, man! The rock that hit the water pushed us in,
We thought we were done for. If he hears any sound from us,
He'll heave half a cliff at us and crush the ships and our skulls,
With but one throw. He can do it, you know."

They tried, but could not persuade him - he was really angry,
His heart was set. Odysseus called back to the Cyclops again:

"Polyphemus, if anyone, any mortal man
Asks you how your eye got put out,
Tell them it was not 'No-One' who did it,
But I, Odysseus the maurader,
Son of Laertes, who makes his home on Ithaca!"

The Cyclops issued a fearsome groan, and said this in response:

"...This puny, good-for-nothing runt, has put my eye out by way of a trick..."

Stretching out his arms, he prayed to starry heaven,

"Hear me, Poseidon, lord of the seas,
If you are the father you claim to be,
Grant that Odysseus, son of Laertes,
May never return to his home on Ithaca.
But should he be fated to see his family again,
And return to his home and native land,
May he come late, having lost all his friends,
In a ship not his own, and find trouble at home."

Polyphemus then broke off an even larger chunk of rock,
Pivoted, and threw it with incredible force,
Barely missing the rudder.
They were propelled forward... 


I had cited this passage from the Odyssey in the context of a discussion about various degenerations of the name "Achilles" being assumed by DKs and FotM ret pallies played by retarded teenagers who had seen Troy and had absolutely no awareness of the Iliad, and how I personally identified with Odysseus from the original Illiad.

Initially, I Googled for a decent translation of Book IX, suitable to the audience, but most were written in the King's English, and the translation given for the class last year (which was only in paper form anyway) went to the opposite extreme: too watered-down to have impact. Book IX is actually related from a first-person perspective, which if read literally wouldn't make sense in context of comparing myself to the protagonist. So instead, I loosely transcribed the translation from the book, changing it from first to third person, abridging certain parts, but also embellishing others, to make the story more fluid and coherent. I also completely broke the pentameter, without wholly disregarding it, to focus on the story, the experience being related.

I was expecting to be trolled both for actually relating to a Homeric hero (typically Aestu superiority complex at work), and also for not only editing but adding to the classical work. As I saw it, the "creative excess" didn't matter - what mattered was I retained the theme, the substance of the story. After all, I thought, this story was originally a sort of ballad, that changed in its particulars with the teller, although the tale itself remains universal.

Had the professor decided to call on me, I would have glossed over the exact context of the discussion about the Odyssey by saying something along the lines of, "In an online context that would be very strange to most, we were discussing the Odyssey and..."