Michael Sudduth is a very useful philosopher of religion. But I’m going to comment on a few of his recent statements:
I accept the orthodox formulation of the Trinity as a pragmatically efficacious human representation of the inner life of the Divine being. I don’t thereby exclude there being other pragmatically efficacious representations of the divine. I want to allow “knowledge of God” to arise from many different sources, conditioned in a variety of ways by aspects of our personality and the culture and time in which we are embedded. Again, I allow the possibility that certain representations of the divine are superior to others in some particular way.
This sounds like John Hick’s neo-Kantian pluralism. Or perhaps Joseph Campbell’s The Hero with a Thousand Faces. If that’s the sort of thing Michael has in mind, then not only is this syncretistic perspective antithetical to Biblical Christianity, but it’s also self-refuting. For we can only judge the accuracy of a theological representation to the extent that we have access to the standard of comparison.
The working title of my next book:
One with Christ: Yoga and Christian Theism
This will be a popular book that examines the extent to which yoga and Christian theism are logically compatible. This is part of my broader exploration of continuities and discontinuities between the western and eastern religious traditions. Prepare for a shocking conclusion.
Is he talking about yoga as a physical discipline, mental discipline, or spiritual discipline?
Yes, yoga aims at an altered state of consciousness. So does prayer.
I have no idea why he thinks prayer is aiming for an altered state of consciousness. Jews and Christians normally pray in an ordinary state of consciousness. The purpose of prayer is to confess sin, praise God for his goodness, thank God for his many blessings, ask God to supply our needs, and intercede on behalf of others. None of this requires an altered state of consciousness.
Michael seems to be redefining prayer as a form of mysticism, as if the supplicant is using prayer to cultivate a trance.
Our consciousness, steeped as it is in sense experience, needs to be altered to perceive divine realities, for God is spirit, and those who worship him must do in spirit and in truth.
That is, indeed, the classic mystical view, according to which the sensible world is barrier to perceiving God. But the reference to Jn 4:24 is completely out of context, and actually undercuts the mystical view:
i) Just in general, the Fourth Gospel is replete with subtextual allusions to the OT. There’s a regular interplay or alternation between the past and the present, because OT events frequently prefigure the life of Christ. So OT history is revelatory. Visible, tangible events are signs encoding God’s nature, existence, and purpose.
ii) Likewise, the miracles of Christ meaningful signs, pointing to divine realities.
So the sensible world is not a barrier to perceiving God. To the contrary, God sometimes uses the sensible world as a type of sign language to communicate his nature, existence, and intentions.
iii) In the Fourth Gospel, God is supremely revealed in the physical presence of the Son. So sensory experience is a way of perceiving God in the person of his Son–whose audible words and visible deeds disclose the reality of the invisible, intangible God.
iv) The point of Jn 4:23-24 is that we participate in the life of God insofar as we share in the Trinitarian fellowship. The Father sends the Son while the Son sends the Spirit. Each bears witness to the other. Each contributes to the salvation of sinners.
True worship is not about blocking out the senses, for God has come to us through the senses. God made the senses. God made the sensible world. That’s the theater in which God enacts redemption. We truly worship God, not by introspection or negation, but by living and believing the testimony which he has given us through his revelatory words and his emblematic deeds.
v) Jn 4:23-24 stands in polar contrast to pluralism or syncretism, for the Samaritan faith was the next best thing to Judaism, yet Jesus in this very dialogue repudiates the Samaritan alternative.
"Is he talking about yoga as a physical discipline, mental discipline, or spiritual discipline?"
ReplyDeleteHow far do you think it possible to make these distinctions in practicing yoga?
I think it's easy to use it as a purely physical discipline. But the distinction between mental and spiritual isn't easily drawn.
ReplyDeleteWhere did Sudduth make these comments at?
ReplyDeleteOn Facebook.
ReplyDelete"For we can only judge the accuracy of a theological representation to the extent that we have access to the standard of comparison."
ReplyDeleteIf that were the case across the board, how could we discover anything we don't already know? If we can only judge the accuracy of a representation against the standard of comparison (presumably the ultimate reality we are representing), then discovery is either trivial if we already have the ultimate standard, or impossible if we don't. But in science, for example, we can make progress in creating more accurate models of the physical phenomena we are studying, even without having access to an ultimate standard. It seems to me there is a dialectic between model and experience, in which influence goes both ways simultaneously. Certainly well-established models can become a standard for a time, unless substantial flaws are discovered.
"I have no idea why he thinks prayer is aiming for an altered state of consciousness. Jews and Christians normally pray in an ordinary state of consciousness."
You are right that prayer ordinarily involves ordinary consciousness, but it seems there are also plenty of examples of people in the Bible who fasted for many days and finally received a vision. You address this in your follow-up post, but I don't see how the degree of danger is any greater in deliberately cultivating altered states. In fact, sometimes the spontaneous one might be more dangerous, since you're taken by surprise, whereas some mystic trances which result from years of practicing spiritual disciplines, with full awareness of possible pitfalls and demonic deceptions, could be safer.
"So the sensible world is not a barrier to perceiving God. To the contrary, God sometimes uses the sensible world as a type of sign language to communicate his nature, existence, and intentions."
Well I agree that the sensible world is not ALWAYS a barrier to perceiving God, but it certainly can be (Chesterton's remark about the consciousness of an overweight middle-aged gentleman after lunch comes to mind, or Dale Allison's remarks in The Luminous Dusk).
"True worship is not about blocking out the senses, for God has come to us through the senses. God made the senses. God made the sensible world. That’s the theater in which God enacts redemption."
In addition to using ordinarily sensible objects, processes and events to communicate, there can be no doubt that God also uses visions, trances and special experiences to communicate as well. How about Paul being caught up to the third heaven, for example?
I'll just quote Dr. Mohler on this one,
ReplyDelete"I have heard from a myriad of Christians who insist that their practice of yoga involves absolutely no meditation, no spiritual direction, no inward concentration, and no thought element. Well, if so, you are simply not practicing yoga. You may be twisting yourselves into pretzels or grasshoppers, but if there is no meditation or direction of consciousness, you are not practicing yoga, you are simply performing a physical exercise. Don’t call it yoga."
J.D. SAID:
ReplyDelete“If that were the case across the board, how could we discover anything we don't already know?”
To complain that my statement has sceptical consequences doesn’t disprove my statement.
“If we can only judge the accuracy of a representation against the standard of comparison (presumably the ultimate reality we are representing), then discovery is either trivial if we already have the ultimate standard, or impossible if we don't.”
Suppose I study a portrait of Ninon de l’Enclos. Unless I saw her in real life, how could I tell if the portrait is accurate–or to what degree?
“But in science, for example, we can make progress in creating more accurate models of the physical phenomena we are studying, even without having access to an ultimate standard.”
Actually, verisimilitude is a controversial concept in the philosophy of science.
“Certainly well-established models can become a standard for a time, unless substantial flaws are discovered.”
That confuses accurate results with accurate representations.
“You are right that prayer ordinarily involves ordinary consciousness, but it seems there are also plenty of examples of people in the Bible who fasted for many days and finally received a vision.”
i) Are there really? I can’t think of one unambiguous example. In the overwhelming number of cases, fasting is a penitential exercise. Sometimes a vicarious penitential exercise.
If you’re alluding to the temptation of Christ (M 4:2), that’s a typological/numerological recapitulation of Israel in the wilderness.
The only example I can think of that’s close what you have in mind is Acts 13:2-3. And that association may be adventitious since this crops up again in 14:23, which suggests that fasting was fairly routine for this particular church, in differing situations.
ii) In addition, it’s quite a stretch to say fasting induces an altered state of consciousness.
iii) And you’d also have to show that yoga is suitably analogous to fasting–since that’s the frame of reference.
“You address this in your follow-up post, but I don't see how the degree of danger is any greater in deliberately cultivating altered states. In fact, sometimes the spontaneous one might be more dangerous…”
If God initiates the experience from his end, then that’s more reliable than something you try to initiate at your end. But I already noted that even spontaneous examples aren’t foolproof.
“Well I agree that the sensible world is not ALWAYS a barrier to perceiving God, but it certainly can be…”
Not in the context of John’s Gospel, which is what Sudduth was alluding to. And not in the larger context of Scripture generally.
“In addition to using ordinarily sensible objects, processes and events to communicate, there can be no doubt that God also uses visions, trances and special experiences to communicate as well. How about Paul being caught up to the third heaven, for example?”
Actually, it can be difficult in Scripture to tell whether something was an objective or subjective vision/audition. Certain passages in Isaiah or Ezekiel could go either way.
J.D. said...
ReplyDelete"How about Paul being caught up to the third heaven, for example?"
That actually undercuts your contention since Paul couldn't tell from within his experience if his experience was a case of ESP.
"To complain that my statement has sceptical consequences doesn’t disprove my statement."
ReplyDeleteIt does if we actually have more knowledge than the skeptical implications of your statement would entail.
"Suppose I study a portrait of Ninon de l’Enclos. Unless I saw her in real life, how could I tell if the portrait is accurate–or to what degree?"
A better analogy for our epistemic situation would probably be to have access to a wide variety of depictions and descriptions from several different sources, which we dialectically compare, contrast, synthesize, etc. as a coherent picture stabilizes and emerges from our investigations. Take historical method, for example. We don't have to have actually been there and seen Julius Caesar cross the Rubicon to form a historical description of that event and to evaluate the various sources for that event.
"Actually, verisimilitude is a controversial concept in the philosophy of science."
Possibly in the fairly humdrum sense that there passionate, intelligent critics of that concept (e.g. Van Fraasen), but at least from my studies the realists have the argumentative edge.
"That confuses accurate results with accurate representations."
Instrumentalists have to do some quite convoluted conceptual gymnastics to divorce empirical from representational adequacy. I can use my laptop very well for many different purposes without knowing what it's made of or how it works, but to repair it or significantly extend its capacities I would need real knowledge of its composition.
Perhaps I shouldn't have singled out fasting as the biblical method of of inducing alternate states of consciousness, but such certainly do occur and are often accompanied by specific human actions. Take Saul, for example, in 1 Samuel 10:5-6, 11. True, it was God's initiative to change Saul's heart, but it was accompanied by a group of ecstatic prophets playing musical instruments. And while Daniel's fast in chapter 9 was undertaken in a penitential context, there is no doubt that the vision came to him "in a state of extreme weariness" (9:21), and the messenger was Gabriel, whom Daniel had previously seen in a vision.
Just to be clear, I don't think that fasting or other methods to induce alternate states of consciousness is some kind of technology that works automatically to achieve spiritual insight. Even the mystics who regularly practice would say that whatever vision or illumination comes is purely a gift on God's initiative.
Second, a vision received in an alternate state of consciousness (such as a dream or trance) is not thereby implied to be nonveridical. A vision can be objective in the sense that it conveys truth emerging from outside the person's consciousness, but subjective in its mode or manifestation. Caroline Franks Davis has a good classification of the different possibilities in "The Evidential Force of Religious Experience."
First time poster, long-time lurker... this is simplistic, I know, but Peter seems to think that being in your right mind is highly advantageous for prayer... "The end of all things is at hand; therefore be self-controlled and sober-minded for the sake of your prayers." (1 Peter 4:7 ESV)
ReplyDeleteGood point, Yurie.
ReplyDeleteHere are three observations made by scanning responses already submitted.
ReplyDelete1) J. D.'s comment is overblown when he responds to your statement: "We can only judge the accuracy of a theological representation to the extent that we have access to the standard of comparison."
He writes: "If that were the case across the board, how could we discover anything we don't already know?"
However, you were indicating how to judge the accuracy of a "representation". You were not addressing the question of whether or not new truth can be discovered.
Once discovered, we can determine whether or not a particular representation of our newly acquired information and understanding is accurate.
We've got to KNOW something before we can decide the accuracy of a representation of it. (And Sudduth THINKS he knows all about God, so he thinks he also knows that a variety of representations are acceptable. For objective reasons, I am sure he is mistaken.)
2. Mohler's comments on yoga are trivial. Of course the mind -- and spirit -- are involved when we are deliberately engaged in ANY activity, but that does not mean everyone involved is conceiving the same thing or is involved for the same reason.
So someone can practice yoga without buying into an Eastern mystic worldview.
3. In the Bible, there may be -- in unusual circumstances -- altered states of consciousness within prayer and revelatory experiences. But there is no record of a prophet intentionally practicing prayer in order to have those experiences. And there is no biblical directive and instruction for how to do so.
Directives and instructions are what Eastern mysticism is all about.
J.D. SAID:
ReplyDelete“We don't have to have actually been there and seen Julius Caesar cross the Rubicon to form a historical description of that event and to evaluate the various sources for that event.”
Based on reports by folks who were there and did see him cross the Rubicon. But that’s not comparable to Hick or Campbell, where *nobody* has access to the standard of comparison.
“Possibly in the fairly humdrum sense that there passionate, intelligent critics of that concept (e.g. Van Fraassen), but at least from my studies the realists have the argumentative edge.”
From my reading, that’s not the case. But in any event, scientists have access to nature in a way that God is inaccessible according to Hick or Campbell.
“Instrumentalists have to do some quite convoluted conceptual gymnastics to divorce empirical from representational adequacy. I can use my laptop very well for many different purposes without knowing what it's made of or how it works, but to repair it or significantly extend its capacities I would need real knowledge of its composition.”
That’s not the comparison I’d use. But to play along with your illustration, you use letters and numbers on your keyboard to issue commands to the computer. That’s translated into electrical signals.
The letters on the keyboard, and the order in which you type them, is correlated to certain electronic signals. However, the letters on the keyboard don’t resemble the electronic signals. The keystrokes correspond to electronic signals, but the keystrokes don’t describe electronic signals. Perceiving the lettered keys isn’t the same thing as perceiving the electronic signals. It doesn’t show you what they are like.
“Perhaps I shouldn't have singled out fasting as the biblical method of of inducing alternate states of consciousness, but such certainly do occur and are often accompanied by specific human actions. Take Saul, for example, in 1 Samuel 10:5-6, 11. True, it was God's initiative to change Saul's heart, but it was accompanied by a group of ecstatic prophets playing musical instruments.”
Are you suggesting the musical instruments were the trigger? The text doesn’t make that connection. And Tsumura argues against the ecstatic interpretation. However, I don’t think that matters much one way or the other.
The larger point is that nothing in the text endorses artificial techniques to jump-start an altered state of consciousness.
“And while Daniel's fast in chapter 9 was undertaken in a penitential context, there is no doubt that the vision came to him ‘in a state of extreme weariness’ (9:21), and the messenger was Gabriel, whom Daniel had previously seen in a vision.”
i) The purpose of the fast was not to induce an altered state of consciousness. Rather, that was part of his corporate confessional prayer. A token of contrition.
ii) His fatigue rendered him physically unfit to receive the revelation. That’s why Gabriel had to “touch” him, in order to renew his strength for the visionary ordeal. So fasting would be a counterproductive exercise in that respect.
“Second, a vision received in an alternate state of consciousness (such as a dream or trance) is not thereby implied to be nonveridical.”
I never said it was.