What language do you believe (in)?

A recent Guy Deutscher New York Times Magazine article asks “Does Your Language Shape How You Think?” Deutscher considers whether Benjamin Lee Whorf’s once-highly-regarded-but-now-generally-dismissed theory of language (often called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis) has any remaining purchase. We’ve probably all heard that ‘Eskimos’ have many more words for snow than we do. Clearly their experience with snow is more sophisticated than ours! Alas, that’s an urban legend, but it nonetheless illustrates the significance of Whorf’s point. We nutmeggers have seven words for humidity and fifteen for traffic jam.

Whorf argued that the metaphysical implications of languages ‘picture reality’ and thus fundamentally determine how people experience the world. If your language has no future tense, Whorf argued, your sense of futurity is undeveloped or non-existent. Whorf’s bolder claims fell to the scrutiny of common sense and empirical examination, Deutscher reports. A language that contains no past tense does not prevent its speaker from thinking about the past, only from referring to it in language. Native hearers know the difference and can use locutions to communicate. The ancient Hebrew language lacks words to communicate comparative preference, and thus God 'loves' Jacob and 'hates' Esau. That is, he loves Jacob more. Still troubling, in some respects, but less so than God hating Esau.

Deutscher’s article explores linguist Roman Jakobson claim that “languages differs essentially in what ... [their speakers] must convey” to show that Whorf was onto something. A French speaker must reveal the gender of a companion to refer to him or her, whereas an English speaker does not. Speakers of the Guugu Yimithirr language have no equivalents for words to indicate spatial directions such as left, right, and behind. They still have to communicate about where things are and hence use cardinal compass points to refer to the location of objects. “Honey, where’s my sweater?” one might ask. “On the east side of the table, just south of the pile of books you left their last night, sweetheart,” could be the reply.

The late historical theologian George Lindbeck (of Yale Divinity School) referred to the “cultural linguistic” approach to religion. Lindbeck’s view, set forth in a 1984 volume entitled The Nature of Doctrine, is that religious experiences are secondary to doctrinal grammars, to cultural-linguistic codings. ‘Nirvana’ and the ‘Triune God’ are not the same thing and are not various ways of referring to an underlying common experience. Lindbeck’s approach takes differences among religions more seriously than experience-oriented liberals generally do. A similar line of thought is pursued in Stephen Prothero’s God is not One.

The work at RITN seems to vindicate the notion that religious languages fundamentally shape experience. That is, religious languages construe the world’s significance, tell us what to value, how to act, what sorts of consciousness are valuable, and the like. As such, religious languages contain the world. (One can consistently maintain that intense experiences lead to ‘doctrinal’ development. The point is that all future ‘re-experiences’ will be conditioned by, and indeed called forth, by doctrinal or cultural-linguistic precursors.)

The question, for deliberation in another evening’s blog post, is what to think about religion in the news if religious languages and their grammar’s fundamentally shape experience. Are translations possible? Are religious discourses essentially incommensurate? Are their bridge points between the various ‘language games’ that constitute the world religiously?

Let's prepare for this thinking by considering Friedrich Nietzsche's claim that

In its origin language belongs to the age of the most rudimentary psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language — in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere reason sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things — only thereby does it first create the concept of "thing."...

"Reason" in language — oh, what an old deceptive female she is! I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar (Twilight of Idols, "Reason" in Philosophy, 5).

'Ground zero mosque': Worldwide, Muslims bemused by mosque controversy - latimes.com

The so-called Ground-Zero mosque is again in the news. The L.A. Times reports that 'Ground zero mosque': Worldwide, Muslims bemused by mosque controversy. The debate in the United States over our core principles is reverberating around the world. Some Americans, Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama among them, say we should hold steadfast to the idea of religious tolerance. Others say, not this time. The latter group sees Ground Zero as an open wound and Islam--more or less directly--as its cause. RITN commented previously on the issue of this mosque, first in May and then again in August. In this blog, we will consider a few more dimensions of this emerging conflict.

On the whole, Americans are a tolerant people, but American-style (liberal) tolerance requires the censure of absolutism, especially when it is politically or violently expressed. From the perspective of tolerance, it is perfectly consistent to denounce acts that too directly fuse religious and political actions. The events of 9/11 did that and thus outraged the deepest sensibility of Americans about religious truth. When considering how outraged Americans may be about the Islamic community center and mosque, it is worth remembering that in the wake of 9/11 America committed to two wars, at a cost now exceeding a trillion dollars. The shocking imagery of 9/11 was essential to gaining support for these wars.

Of course, not all Muslims share the guilt of the 9/11 perpetrators, but many Americans now see Islam through the lens of 9/11. Many good and tolerant Americans, who in the past didn't know anything about Islam, now believe it to be a major menace. Presidents Bush and Obama have tried to claim that the U.S. sees Islam as a peace-loving religion that was distorted by the perpetrators of 9/11, but most Americans view the matter much more simply. They find a poisonous fruit falling from a poisonous tree.

When a group is harmed, its memory of that harm becomes a new 'fact' in history. The 9/11 event forever changed the New York City cityscape, and it forever changes how Americans view not only Islamic radicals but Islam as a whole. Building this mosque and community center is likely to cause ongoing controversies, since it will provoke (and be used by some to provoke) memories of the 9/11 attacks.

On the other side, Muslims around the world feel the sting of American dominance. U.S. military might is a thumb in the eye of good Muslims who hold that God's sovereign power dominates history. God's providence itself is denied, in their experience, by the exercise of U.S. might in defesne of our interests around the world.

Further, Muslims are treated as aliens among the cultured secularists of Continental Europe. Turkey is held at arm's length. French Muslims are second class citizens. Yet here in America, Muslims tend to be well integrated and, by comparison to the rest of the world, wealthy and happy citizens. The events of 9/11 did significant harm to American Muslims, and building the mosque can be viewed as a sign of their confidence in being full participants in American life.

In spite of their successful integration, U.S. Muslims are a little understood minority. American Muslims are simultaneously at risk and viewed by many as a threat. With little imagination, one can sense Americans wondering what sorts of activities will be going on in the so-called Ground Zero mosque. In this context, even prayer is viewed as seditious, especially when it rings out in Arabic.

The more principled among us will wish these things were not true, but the pragmatists among us will realize that they are true for a lot of people. Building the mosque and community center near Ground Zero is a precarious and dangerous thing to do. RITN recently spoke with Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and he opined that building this community center is unwise, since it is too near a place of harm. It will dishonor the families of the victims.

As we consider the proposed building of this mosque, that's worth thinking about. It's also worth thinking about the tolerance we can sponsor; it may be that we are unable to adhere to our highest values. If that is so, score a point for bin Laden.

Obama CSMonitor Reflection

Why doesn’t Obama wear his religion on his sleeve? - CSMonitor.com

Here, if you needed it, is further proof that people broadly sense this recession is the result (not the cause) of a profound realignment of things we hold dear. Obama is thought to be a Muslim by some, the anti-Christ by others. To be fair, some also believe he's the messiah, or something quite close to it. He's none of these, of course, but he's all of them insofar as they represent the fears and wishes of many.

As the Monitor opinion piece points out, Roosevelt also was pegged as anti-Christian. He was a Jew, it was held, because of his social concern. The American anti-Semitism of Roosevelt's day was as or more powerful than the Islamophobia of ours. More importantly, Roosevelt presided over a profound change in the American social structure and the structure of global relations. From an American perspective, the outcomes were astonishingly positive. The middle classes grew. Organized labor claimed decency in work standards and pushed back against the overlords. Management itself gained in prestige and affluence. The USA became at first one of, and is now (however briefly) the sole superpower.

Obama, surely one of the most gifted politicians of recent memory, presides at a time when the global economy is in an upheaval. The deep recession illustrates that we are situated in an economy so large that we cannot control its outcomes. Some resurgence in spending here may simply create more production opportunities in China, leaving job growth flat or negative. Obama is in no position to fix that, and the never-ending Republican suggestion to cut taxes evidences no understanding of this larger shift in the global economy.

Obama also presides during a time of war, one in which the stakes are terribly high. On the one hand, non-state actors may gain weapons of mass destruction. If they gain these weapons, there is no leverage to prevent them from using them. Our attempt to eliminate that threat--our global war against terror--runs the risk of soiling our moral commitments. On the other hand, our struggle with non-state actors may be perceived by Muslims worldwide as an assault on Islam. This requires constant impression management.

How these issues will look in fifty years is anyone's guess. How we perceive them now--dimly, fearfully--registers in our varied impressions of President Obama.

Reverend Terry Jones and Rabbi Abraham Cooper

Join me at Creedible, for a discussion of the Dove World Outreach Center's plan to burn the Koran....

Reverend Terry Jones and Rabbi Abraham Cooper

Pop Theology

RITN readers,

Check out Pop Theology. This site contains an exciting and interesting array of topics. Highly recommended!

Mosque at Ground Zero, May to August

Back in May, I posted a blog about plans to build a mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero. I saw storm clouds brewing on the horizon. Though we frequently claim that the role of religion in public life is a settled issue in America, clearly it is not. Since the attacks of 9/11, Islam has been a particular source of questions and worry for many and Muslims have been viewed with heightened suspicion.

Protests over the plans for Ground Zero have been loud and forceful. Even the Anti-Defamation League signaled its opposition.

Today, Laurie Goodstein reports in the New York Times that 'Across nation, Mosque projects meet opposition.' Mosques proposed for construction in Tennesee, Wisconsin, and California have been protested by Republican candidates for office, Christian ministers, and members of the Tea party. Some of the protesters fear that Muslims are trying to replace the Constitution with Shariah Law, though some (such as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg) have argued that building mosques is protected by the American way of life and the First Amendment to the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This same Amendment protects the speech of those who are criticizing the plans to build mosques. Tolerance is required as a matter of fundamental law--the federal government must be neutral toward religions--but intolerance is a right of citizens.

The fight for religious liberty used to be more difficult to fathom. Michael Servetus and Jan Hus burning at the stake, the witches of Salem, the trials by ordeal, the silencing of dissent--those were conclusively behind us. Our traditions of free speech, tolerance, and pluralism settled the issue once and for all.

Now we can see that our traditions are not as robust as we believed. In part our traditions followed from our sense of invincibility and dominance. The fallen Twin Towers remind us constantly that we are not invincible. Freesom of religion has become a harder thing to support.

What is at stake is whether we prize freedom more than security, and whether we continue to recognize that freedom provides for more security in the long run than the suppression of freedom to enhance security. This is not to say that absolute freedom is desirable. To have more secure airports, it is worth taking our shoes off and having our luggage scanned for explosives. But the public square is served by articulation of multiple viewpoints: mosque, church, synagogue, ashram, meditation center, atheist think tank, and the like.

The cause of religious freedom is served when religious communities exercise discretion. (Read Paul's treatment of eating meat offered to idols in 1 Corinthians 8.) If something is likely to be inflammatory, then it can (and should) be set aside, at least if something less inflammatory can accomplish the same purpose. It is worth asking whether building a mosque at Ground Zero is a provocation, but surely the proposed mosques in California, Tennesse, and Wisconsin are not. Those protesting these mosques claim to be defending America, but they do so by forsaking American values.