|
So why the contemporary return to
heresy-slash-Gnosticism, with the official sanction of so many religious
institutions? Well, it is understandable. Since no logical defense of modern
day Judaism or Christianity withstands the pressure of present day scriptural
analysis, this ‘mystical exclusivity’ is a last ditch defense of a rapidly
crumbling doctrinal status quo. Significant attrition has occurred in numerous
Judeo-Christian sects already. The remaining faithful are largely forced into
‘believing agnosticism,’ holding personal faith in the existence of God and a
specific doctrine as the approach to Him, while at the same time recognizing
that such beliefs cannot be objectively proven.
Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, Sir
William Hamilton’s Philosophy of the Unconditioned (1829), and Herbert
Spencer’s Principles (1862) laid the cellulose foundation of the
concept, and T.H. Huxley packaged and popularized it.
So, does the concept of Agnosticism have value?
Returning to the rock, which only has value to those in need of one,
Agnosticism has practicality for those who feel the need of a theological
defense system. Those who are satisfied with such theology end religious
discussions by deflecting the threat of rational argument off the shield of
Agnostic defenses. To all others, it is just a rock. It doesn’t change
anything, it doesn’t do anything. It just sits there like the impotent and
self-evident lump it is, occupying metaphysical space.
Examination of the Islamic religion fosters an
interesting thought, in this regard. The teachings of Islam were not available
in the English language until Andre du Ryer’s French translation of the meaning
of the Holy Quran was rendered into English by Alexander Ross in 1649 CE. This
first translation into the English language being notably of hostile intent and
filled with inaccuracies, it fell hugely shy of inviting objective analysis of
the Islamic religion. As the translator stated in his address ‘to the
Christian Reader,’
“There being so many sects and
heresies banded together against the truth (by which the author refers to
Christianity), finding that of Mahomet wanting to the muster, I thought
good to bring it to their colours, that so viewing thine enemies in their full
body, thou maist the better prepare to encounter, and I hope overcome
them….Thou shalt find it of so rude, and incongruous a composure, so farced
with contradictions, blasphemies, obscene speeches, and ridiculous fables…Such
as it is, I present to thee, having taken the pains only to translate it out of
French, not doubting, though it hath been a poyson (poison), that hath infected
a very great, but most unsound part of the universe, it may prove an antidote,
to confirme in thee the health of Christianity”
The translator’s prejudice clearly evident, a person
should hardly be surprised to find the translation fraught with error, and
inclined to exert little positive impact on Western consciousness. George Sale,
having been unimpressed, picked up the torch and attempted a new translation of
meaning, criticizing Ross as follows:
“The English version is no other
than a translation of Du Ryer’s, and that a very bad one; for Alexander Ross,
who did it, being utterly unacquainted with the Arabic, and no great master of
the French, has added a number of fresh mistakes of his own to those of Du
Ryer; not to mention the meanness of his language, which would make a better
book ridiculous.”
Not until George Sale’s translation of meaning into the
English language in 1734 did the Western world begin to receive teachings of
the Holy Quran in an accurate, though all the same ill-intentioned, exposure.
George Sale’s perspective is evident in the first few
pages of his address to the reader, with such statements as,
“They must have a mean opinion of
the Christian religion, or be but ill grounded therein, who can apprehend any
danger from so manifest a forgery….But whatever use an impartial version of the
Koran may be of in other respects, it is absolutely necessary to undeceive
those who, from the ignorant or unfair translations which have appeared, have
entertained too favourable an opinion of the original, and also to enable us
effectually to expose the imposture…”
and,
“The Protestants alone are able to
attack the Koran with success; and for them, I trust, Providence has reserved
the glory of its overthrow.”
The translation of Reverend J. M. Rodwell, first
published in 1861, coincided with the nineteenth century rise of oriental
studies in the scientific meaning of the term. And it was during this period
of dawning Islamic consciousness in Western Europe that Huxley presented his
proposal of Agnosticism.
Many Muslims might wonder, had Huxley lived in the
present ‘information’ age of ease of travel, broad cosmopolitan exposure to
people, cultures and religions, complete with accurate and objective
information on the Islamic religion, would his choice have been any different?
It is an interesting thought. What would a man have done who, as previously
quoted, stated, “I protest that if some great Power would agree to make me
always think what is true and do what is right, on condition of being turned
into a sort of clock and wound up every morning before I got out of bed, I should
instantly close with the offer.” To such a
man, the comprehensive canon of Islam may have been not only appealing, but
welcome.
This section began with the assertion that Agnosticism
coexists with most religions of established doctrine. Doctrinal adherents can
be divided into functional sub-categories on this basis. For example, the
Theistic (Orthodox) Christians who conceive the reality of God to be provable,
the Gnostic Christians who conceive knowledge of the truth of God to be
reserved for the spiritual elite, and the Agnostic Christians, who maintain
faith while admitting inability to prove the reality of God. The
distinguishing difference between these various subgroups exists not in the
presence, but in attempts at justification, of faith.
Similarly, most religions can be sub-divided by the
manner in which individual adherents attempt to justify faith within the
confines of doctrine. At the end of the day, however, these divisions are of
academic interest only, for the how or why of belief does not alter the
presence of belief any more than the how or why of God alters His existence.
Copyright © 2007
Dr. Laurence B. Brown; used by permission.
Dr.
Brown is the author of The Eighth Scroll, described by North Carolina State Senator
Larry Shaw as, "Indiana Jones
meets The Da Vinci Code. The Eighth Scroll is
a breath-holding, white-knuckled, can't-put-down thriller that
challenges Western views of humanity, history and religion. Bar none,
the best book in its class!" Dr. Brown is also the author of three
scholastic books of comparative religion, MisGod'ed, God'ed, and Bearing True Witness (Dar-us-Salam).
His books and articles can be found on his websites, www.EighthScroll.com
and www.LevelTruth.com, and are
available for purchase through amazon.com.
|
