Slavof Zizek: God In Pain

[Era Might]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ3g2zS6Tuk

 

Zizek is an atheist but known for taking Christianity seriously, the video is worth a watch. I think he hits the nail on the head with his basic argument that faith in the modern world can only exist because people do not really believe, do not take Christianity seriously. To really believe in Christianity, as a cosmic story where God sends a victim to accomplish some sort of violent redemption, where angels come and go acting invisibly in the world, where saints wield miraculous powers in a mysterious zone only accessible by faith, etc. To really take all this seriously requires some kind of distance with reality, mental gymnastics and mystical leaps that keep these beliefs from really guiding life (as it did, for example, in the middle ages).

 

Zizek uses the book of Job as the real model of faith, which has no meaning, only to accept the inscrutable reality of life, not to question, only to suffer and accept. This has nothing to do with the modern Christian project of a therapeutic faith where everything has a mystical meaning, where we are here to flourish and be good stewards and basically be happy, contribute to the economy, be good citizens, etc. None of this has anything to do with the real Christianity, where God hangs on a cross and becomes an atheist: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Zizek likes to cite GK Chesterton to this effect:

 

It is written, “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” No; but the the Lord thy God may tempt Himself; and it seems as if this was what happened in Gethsemane. In a garden Satan tempted man: and in a garden God tempted God. He passed in some superhuman manner through our human horror of pessimism. When the world shook and the sun was wiped out of heaven, it was not at the crucifixion, but at the cry from the cross: the cry which confessed that God was forsaken of God. And now let the revolutionists choose a creed from all the creeds and god from all the gods of the world, carefully weighing all the gods of the world, carefully weighing all the gods of inevitable recurrence and of unalterable power. They will not find another god who has himself been in revolt. Nay (the matter grows too difficult for human speech), but let the atheists themselves choose a god. They will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed himself for an instant to be an atheist.

 

--GK Chesterton, "Orthodoxy"

 

I think Zizek's basic point hits the nail on the head, that faith today is a mask to cover our real beliefs; in other words, it is ideology, a system that we use as a way of speaking, but behind which we accept the world as it is: capitalist, democratic, technocratic, whatever. Zizek (a Marxist) quotes Marx as the basic idea he's getting at: "They don't know what they are doing but they are doing it." Christianity has become simply a way of speaking, an ideology, through which we justify our real lives which have nothing to do with Job, with Abraham's blind acceptance of the call to sacrifice Isaac, etc.

 

I think the Islamophobia in the West is the perfect example of this: we are horrified that people still take God seriously. We read the Old Testament every day, we venerate our own violent history in triumphalist narratives, but really, we don't believe it, it's just our ideology. We are horrified that somewhere in the world they haven't made that leap where faith is just an ideology to justify modern bourgeois values (liberalism, relativism, etc.). 

Edited January 18, 2015 by Era Might

[Guest]

Even if Christianity was a myth a loving intelligent creator could still exist. A lot of people I met in aa believe in God and a higher power yet don't accept Christianity or at least don't fully embrace it. Maybe it's like a new age type way of looking at God. Interesting thread will be looking forward to reading replies.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Guest

[Era Might]

Even if Christianity was a myth a loving intelligent creator could still exist. A lot of people I met in aa believe in God and a higher power yet don't accept Christianity or at least don't fully embrace it. Maybe it's like a new age type way of looking at God. Interesting thread will be looking forward to reading replies.

 

Zizek actually uses AA as an example in some other videos I've seen, as the perfect example of belief as ideology. In AA you're basically told that regardless of whether you believe or don't believe, just give yourself up to a higher power, and let that be the symbolic mask through which you accomplish the real business of AA which is dealing with addiction, etc. In the same way we speak of, for example, "the reign of Christ the king" which is just an ideological way of advancing certain conservative social structures, it is a convenient symbol that provides a cover for the reign of kings, aristocrats, bishops, etc. That's how ideology functions, not just in conservative societies, but all societies. "The dictatorship of the proletariat" would be the equivalent ideology in a communist society, a general idea around which we can hide how society is really working, through the communist party, through a dictator, etc.

 

This kind of ideology doesn't have to be malicious, AA is a good example of a more benign and maybe helpful form, but still, it is something that keeps us from asking real questions about how the world is functioning. Isn't the real message of AA not about God at all, but uses the idea of God as a kind of crutch until a person realizes the real message of AA, which is that the power is in themselves, not in a symbolic "higher power"?

Edited January 18, 2015 by Era Might

[Guest]

2.) Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him

[Amppax]

Your first paragraph, I think, completely misrepresents Christianity. I don't have time to watch Zizek for an hour, but I wouldn't call that taking Christianity seriously, if you're representing what he said accurately. 

[HisChildForever]

Isn't the real message of AA not about God at all, but uses the idea of God as a kind of crutch until a person realizes the real message of AA, which is that the power is in themselves, not in a symbolic "higher power"?

 

Actually this is not accurate. While the 12 Steps are glued together with a certain spiritual elements, members are not expected to adhere to any type of spiritual belief system at any given point on their journey. Atheists and those without much of a faith background are encouraged to define God as "good orderly direction" while the person to their left could be a devout Muslim, and still share in the wisdom and support of the group. Others approach the group with the understanding that this is their higher power-the very structure and purpose of the group itself. The "real message" of AA is that addicts require social support and guidance, as well as the insight and humility to embrace that addiction is a disease, an on-going battle, and the necessity of shifting from a self-centered worldview to combat the illness. There's an entire section in the big book that addresses this. 

[HisChildForever]

None of this has anything to do with the real Christianity, where God hangs on a cross and becomes an atheist: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Zizek likes to cite GK Chesterton to this effect:

 

The Gospel of Matthew was written with the intentions of showing the Jewish people how Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the New Testament. Jesus Himself on the cross points the people to Psalm 22, a final "do you get it yet?" as He references the psalmist's explanation of the Messiah's redemptive suffering. The triumphant ending of the Psalm is Jesus reminding the people that the dawn will come, and the Lord will be victorious over the earth. It also demonstrates to us Jesus's humanity, because He could have used any quote from that psalm to point the people in that direction, but He chose the line that verbally expressed his extreme physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual pain.

 

This is sorta basic Biblical theology...

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

Why do people go to atheists to learn about Christianity?  You might as well go to a network architect to learn about the mechanics of your car. 

 

Era why don't you learn about Christianity from, Arch Bishop Fulton J Sheen?

 

I think two books you would like a lot are:

 

1. "Life of Christ"

2. Old Errors and New Labels

[Era Might]

Why do people go to atheists to learn about Christianity?  You might as well go to a network architect to learn about the mechanics of your car. 

 

Era why don't you learn about Christianity from, Arch Bishop Fulton J Sheen?

 

I think two books you would like a lot are:

 

1. "Life of Christ"

2. Old Errors and New Labels

 

Just FYI, I didn't learn about Christianity from atheists. I have been a Catholic of the very orthodox sort, and still consider myself Catholic. I originally learned Catholicism from EWTN, Catholic Answers, etc. Thanks for the references, though, I appreciate Bishop Sheen as a religious figure.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Era Might

[Era Might]

Actually this is not accurate. While the 12 Steps are glued together with a certain spiritual elements, members are not expected to adhere to any type of spiritual belief system at any given point on their journey. Atheists and those without much of a faith background are encouraged to define God as "good orderly direction" while the person to their left could be a devout Muslim, and still share in the wisdom and support of the group. Others approach the group with the understanding that this is their higher power-the very structure and purpose of the group itself. The "real message" of AA is that addicts require social support and guidance, as well as the insight and humility to embrace that addiction is a disease, an on-going battle, and the necessity of shifting from a self-centered worldview to combat the illness. There's an entire section in the big book that addresses this. 

 

OK, but that system you are expressing is basically the definition of ideology, something broad enough to give shape but empty enough so that everyone can join in, usually by uniting them around a common focus point (for example, National Socialist ideology was broad enough to encompass all germans without much content except a common commitment to being German and focused on the common Jewish enemy).

[Era Might]

The Gospel of Matthew was written with the intentions of showing the Jewish people how Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the New Testament. Jesus Himself on the cross points the people to Psalm 22, a final "do you get it yet?" as He references the psalmist's explanation of the Messiah's redemptive suffering. The triumphant ending of the Psalm is Jesus reminding the people that the dawn will come, and the Lord will be victorious over the earth. It also demonstrates to us Jesus's humanity, because He could have used any quote from that psalm to point the people in that direction, but He chose the line that verbally expressed his extreme physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual pain.

 

This is sorta basic Biblical theology...

 

Yes, I understand the theological explanation of the verse, but Zizek is operating from a broader perspective, with the assumption that the world is not explained by pious theology. The religious meaning of the verse may be internally coherent, but when you step outside the theology, there are other explanations (psychological, mythological, etc.).

[Era Might]

Your first paragraph, I think, completely misrepresents Christianity. I don't have time to watch Zizek for an hour, but I wouldn't call that taking Christianity seriously, if you're representing what he said accurately. 

 

How did I misrepresent Christianity. Is this not the basic story: God has a son, mankind is sinful, God sends his son to die on the cross to make some kind of violent redemption (the details of the redemption have been debated over the centuries, atonement, etc. but the basic idea is that cosmic satisfaction had to be made), and the world is part of an unseen cosmic reality which involves angels intervening in human affairs, saints having special miraculous powers, etc. I think that's a pretty matter-of-fact account of Christianity at its most basic.

[HisChildForever]

Yes, I understand the theological explanation of the verse, but Zizek is operating from a broader perspective, with the assumption that the world is not explained by pious theology. The religious meaning of the verse may be internally coherent, but when you step outside the theology, there are other explanations (psychological, mythological, etc.).

 

I wouldn't call it a "broader perspective," more like he's reading it on a very superficial level. Each Gospel has a different approach to the crucifixion. Matthew specifically wanted Jewish readers to see the connections between Jesus and the Old Testament. Ergo, Psalm 22. It's just as much a historical interpretation as it is a theological.

[beatitude]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ3g2zS6Tuk

 

Zizek is an atheist but known for taking Christianity seriously, the video is worth a watch. I think he hits the nail on the head with his basic argument that faith in the modern world can only exist because people do not really believe, do not take Christianity seriously. To really believe in Christianity, as a cosmic story where God sends a victim to accomplish some sort of violent redemption, where angels come and go acting invisibly in the world, where saints wield miraculous powers in a mysterious zone only accessible by faith, etc. To really take all this seriously requires some kind of distance with reality, mental gymnastics and mystical leaps that keep these beliefs from really guiding life (as it did, for example, in the middle ages).

 

...

 

I think the Islamophobia in the West is the perfect example of this: we are horrified that people still take God seriously. We read the Old Testament every day, we venerate our own violent history in triumphalist narratives, but really, we don't believe it, it's just our ideology. We are horrified that somewhere in the world they haven't made that leap where faith is just an ideology to justify modern bourgeois values (liberalism, relativism, etc.). 

 

 

I think that having left orthodox Catholicism behind, you are now trying to create a community for yourself by persuading yourself that all Catholics really think like you do deep down - that like you, no one really believes, no one really takes this seriously. I have a lot of time for Zizek's work, but it's frustrating to see people trying so hard to cram others into boxes like this. Basically you are just trying to make other people illustrate your own worldview.

 

I also think you have a very romanticized view of the Muslim world if you imagine Muslim-majority countries to be any more faith-filled than anywhere else. They aren't. I've lived in enough of them to know. Deciding that prejudice against Muslims is rooted in people's fear of others 'taking God seriously' also means sweeping a long history of racism and colonialism under the rug, because anti-Muslim bigotry is very closely braided together with those things.

[Kia ora]

What Zizek is saying in his delightful Slovenian accent concerning the disenchantment of the world with religion is very old, of course. He's just following the general trend in diagnosing modernity as I'm sure he'd tell anyone.

 

However, I am not sure I believe him or them when they say that the world is disenchanted: that we do not believe in our religions like the people in the Middle Ages believed in theirs. How could we know? The idea that God as our anchor has been cut loose and we are adrift, that sounds like the sort of thing that could be true, but is it really true and how could we determine if it was true?