back next
In the first lecture on divine transcendence, Dr. Hall explained the ideas of ambiguity of transcendence as well as an equivocation of transcendence, which is the exploitation of ambiguity for �nefarious� conclusions. In essence Dr. Hall described that the human understanding of the divine transcendence of God is clouded by ambiguous terminology and ideas and fostered into various misconceptions like the transcendences of heft, remoteness, and otherness.
Personally, while Hall explained how people have many incorrect notions on transcendence, I wonder about the correct view of transcendence in order to introduce a balance for comparison. Most probably divine transcendence will be elaborated upon in the professor�s other lectures. But, the other conclusion I find is that there are so many ambiguities and misconceptions that not even the very idea of transcendence can be understood.
As an example, in my personal encounters with Christianity, I know that the idea of divine transcendence is very clear in the matter of faith but altogether vague when it comes time for an explanation. Jesus Christ, the prime figure in all Christian religions, represents the pinnacle of transcendence for Christians as he bridges the gap between man and God. Yet, in most of Christ�s life, divine transcendence seems a very symbolic, vague matter, such as in Jesus�s telling of parables and the body-bread, blood-wine symbolism during the Last Supper. Even though many Christians claim that Christ�s miracles are direct manifestations of divine transcendence in Jesus�s healing power referring to his transcendent divine power, the miracles themselves seem symbolic as Jesus himself never claimed a certain �divine power� but explained that the healing was resultant of the recipients� faith, mystifying Jesus�s transcendence furthermore.
Yet, in continuing the Christianity example, I notice that the idea of Jesus Christ drives away the incorrect notions of transcendence. Though Christ is claimed to have divine power, he is characterized as a human being with the accompanying frailties, driving away notions of heft. The very idea of Jesus as both man and God drives away remoteness and otherness. Nevertheless, I fail to find the correct notion of transcendence within the example of Jesus, forcing me to conclude, like many others, that mankind can never understand the divine.
Now, recognizing mankind can never fully understand the divine, it seems that religions don�t even need a complete or correct understanding of divine transcendence as long as they don�t perpetuate the misconceptions. The misconceptions will obviously be made on part of man�s nature and desire to understand the divine but, seemingly, a properly construed religion will attempt to guide their followers to at least avoid the misconceptions in interpreting the ambiguities of divine transcendence.
Ort 2:
In another lecture by Dr. Hall, titled �What is Religion,� the professor referred to Wittgenstein�s Philosophical Investigations. Dr. Hall explained the definition of family resemblances, or networks of characteristics used to describe a term in question. Two of the characteristics of religion were the institution and the individual, two aspects often in conflict. The institution was the characteristic that exemplified organization and authority, while the individual was the characteristic that exemplified a contemplative and meditative life with intellectual freedom.
The conflict between the institution and the individual in religion seems very apparent as many factions and sects have risen out of or in response to the major religious institution at a certain time and place. In turn individuals have created different religious styles based on either the factions or the main religion or both. Take for instance Protestantism, a reaction to Catholicism. Citing doctrinal disputations, dilemmas over papal authority, corruption within the religious hierarchy, and other issues, several brands of Protestantism, inspired by disillusioned leaders, emerged, from Lutheranism to Calvinism to Anglicanism. In turn, Lutheran and Calvinist leaders, now part of legitimate institutions, antagonized other emerging factions of Protestantism like the Anabaptists and Anti-Trinitarians. Not only that, in places such as England, the hotbed of Anglicanism, several factions such as the Puritans and Quakers arose in response to the tenets or lack of tenets of the prevailing brand of Protestantism.
Aside from the historical examples of factions and derivations from major institutional religions, where the primary notion was that the institution was so unbearable that certain individuals had to break off and create their own institutions, there also more commonly exists the proliferation of individuals remaining in their religion and simply picking and choosing the aspects of the religion they wish to follow. Depending on the individual there seems to be varying degrees of dissension within followers of a religion. Some may reject so many principles and doctrines that they are rather members than followers, while others manage a healthy balance of keeping the core doctrine and personally interpreting the other aspects.
Nevertheless, the institution attempts in curbing individual opinion into acceptance of a great majority of the institution�s ideas and rules, resulting in the conflict. Some religious institutions may be more adamant and forceful than others, and some individuals may be more dissentious or interpretive than others, but the conflict seems to persist and will most likely persist as long as institutionalized religions and their followers exist.