Prophet(as defined by Wikipedia): A prophet (or prophetess) is a person who has directly encountered the numinous or the divine and serves as an intermediary with humanity. A prophet is seen as a person who has encountered, and speaks as a formal representative of; God.
Now that definition seems pretty accurate, and I think most of us can agree that it matches our own. I am not going to challenge it. What I want to do, however, is attempt to expand it.
"The only Good is Knowledge, The only Evil is Ignorance" The Soc
There seems to be little room in our view(or view from our room) of this concept for anybody non-religious. A prophet seems to not only be the "intermediary" between humanity and the divine, but also somehow tied exclusively to organized religious thought. Whether one wants to admit it or not, science has opened our eyes to the ACTUAL way the world in which we live, pray, and play works. Physics, Mathematics, Biology, Geology and other like sciences along with social concepts like: Sociology, Anthropology and Philosophy have revealed the mechanisms inherent to everything that plays a role in our existence. If Jesus and Mohammad inspired the masses with ground breaking revolutionary ideas about love and respect for your fellow man, then Darwin and Newton painted the blue print of the world where these concepts could be applied. Should we only recognize visionaries that attempt to offer us super natural ROI's, and subsequintly shun those minds that make sense of the tools that God uses to make it all possible? It seems that if our demands for eternal gratification are not met by explanations of what this world is, and how it works, then we can CHOOSE whether or not to legitimize those explanations. I find that not only troubling, but unfair.
"In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals because they succeed in adapting themselves best to their environment" Chuck
A prophet translates the word and message of God for the rest of us. Based on that translation, we make sense of our world and our place within it. But if God is "All Knowing", then he/she must also be.... multilingual. Isn't mathematics the universal language? If so, then obviously God is fluent in math. And since we know now that our world is governed by some fundamental physical laws, then physics too must be a language that God is writing his manuscript with. Can anybody legitimately discredit and disprove modern medical practices? If your leg is hanging on by a thin sheet of skin, who else but a surgeon would you trust to reattach it? So it seems that God also speaks biology. Why are we where we are today with these concepts and discoveries? Is it not because we were lucky enough to have Newton hurt his dome via an apple, or Einstein fatefully filling files at the patent office, or Darwin revisiting his vacation spot by the beaches of the Galapagos? Did they not reveal to us, and translate for us, some of the chapters in God's autobiography?
"Tact in the knack of making a point without making an enemy" Isaac
Now what about Philosophy, a school of thought that many bill as the anti-Godtrine? Should we fail to recognize Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato among others, as prophets because they ask hard questions? Questions that seem to take God out of the equation almost entirely. Take the famous Euthyphro dilemma, where Socrates asks this seemingly simple question:
"Do the gods approve an action because it is pious, or is it pious because it is approved." Morality and God are deemed to not be mutually exclusive here. A revelation that contradicts the main pillars of virtually every religion. Because of thoughts like these, philosophy has been referred to as nothing more than an anecdote, an optical illusion even. But why? The origins of Philosophy predate the common era by centuries, in fact even influencing the creation of religious thought and societal laws. Were talking about people here who spent their entire lives studying and seeking out knowledge, and contesting conventional thought. What a crime to suggest that God works in more mysterious ways than we could possibly know. To suggest that God has the Awesome power to create infinite worlds, to emphasize morality so much that even he/she couldn't alter it. Suggestions that should be quieted, and burned at stakes, and hung in town squares. Should we not recognize these philosophers as prophets for defining and creating some of the most fundamental social ideas?
If blasphemy exists as a form of libel for Christianity, Islam, Judaism and other religions, then it should also exist for Biology, Physics, Mathematics and even Philosophy. This double standard is out dated, and hypocritical. Even if you don't believe in God you can't argue that Darwin, Newton and Aristotle were not channeling and serving as an intermediary between the typical human and the divine. How you chose to define these terms is up to you.
Waking Life Excerpt:
Evolution Through Homer(Not The Philosopher):
Tunes About God:
The Thermals- Here's Your Future
The Thermals- An Ear For Baby
The Thermals- I Need You To Kill
The Hold Steady- Cattle And The Creeping Things
14 comments:
a "ghorbati" q: whats ROI?
Return On Investment
YOU DO MAKE A VERY INTERESTING POINT WITH EXPANDING YOUR DEFINITION OF PROPHET. HOWEVERE, I BELIEVE THAT THERE'S ANOTHER ELEMENT TO BEING CALLED A PROPHET: YOU HAVE TO BE A "SAINT". YOU HAVE TO LIVE AN EXAMPELARY AND SIN FREE LIFE. YOUR SOUL HAS TO BE SPOTLESS AND PURE. YOUR ACTIONS NOT YOUR WORDS WILL GUIDE THE FELLOW HUMANS. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT WITHOUT THE AMAZING INVETIONS, DISCOVERIES AND ARTISTIC CREATIONS OF THOSE GREAT SCIENTISTS, PHILOSOPHERS, POETS, AND ARTISTS, OUR WORLD WOULD NOT BE AS ADVANCED AS IT IS NOW. BUT HAS ANYONE EVER DONE AN EVALUATION OF THEIR MORAL CHARACTERS? WHEN WE THINK OF SAINT-HOOD, DO WE THINK OF PLUTO OR THE POPE? OUR SOULS NEED NOURISHMENT JUST AS OUR BRAINS NEED CONSTANT UPGRADES. PROPHETS ARE CRUSADERS OF DIFFERENT CALIBER FROM SCIENTISTS. THEY EACH FULL-FILL A DIFFERENT DIMENSION OF HUMANITY AND ITS PURPOSE ON THIS PLANET. THERE HAS BEEN AND WILL ALWAYS BE A NEED FOR BOTH THE SAVIORS OF THE SOULS AND OUT OF THE BOX THINKERS.
I guess we should first attempt to define "Sin". There is, and has always been, differences between cultures conception of right and wrong. Whats wrong in one society, could very well be the norm in another. Complicate it even further by adding diff. eras to the mix, as well as diff. faiths. Then lets consider the matter of belief. If Mohammad serves as a persons prophet, then why couldn't Darwin serve as one to another? If humans are inherently sinful, as certain religions believe, then their own prophets can't be exempt. The terms "prophet" and "saint" are defined by religion, I think that that is a monopoly. If someone believes that religion is man made, then it is far from flawless. In fact it could be argued that Jesus and Mohammad were driven by nothing more than political gain and/or selfish motives. You make a good point about the issue of character, but the only accounts about the lives of religious prophets are biased to say the least. Interestingly enough, I believe Darwin, Socrates, and Newton to be the saviors of souls, and Jesus and Mohammad as out of the box thinkers. Since one can't prove the divinity of religious prophets, one can't disprove the divinity of certain non-religious people. It's just a matter of faith, and belief.
Nader!! Your thoughts seriously make me think....love you!
Love the blog Naderz! Keep it up. What are you doing this summer? Iran maybe?
I HAVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS WHOLE PROPHET THING, AND STILL CAN'T CONVINCE MYSELF TO TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU. MAYBE I LIVE IN A BOX, OR RATHER DON'T THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX. I TAKE COMFORT IN THE FACT THAT THERE'S A GOD AND MIRACLES DO HAPPEN, I MEAN THE KINDS THAT WE CAN'T EXPLAIN TO OUR SATISFACTION. HUMAN RACE IS INDEBTED TO THE LIKES OF VIRGIL, POE, BELL, NEWTON, AND THE SUCH, BUT FOR DIFFERENT REASONS. WE ARE PUT ON THIS EARTH FOR A REASON, I'M YET TO DISCOVER MINE...
Leyla -- First and foremost, please lay off the caps lock key. It's already annoying enough to read your naive comments on religion... must I endure them through your brash ignorance of internet etiquette as well? Act accordingly. Secondly, there has never been and never will be a need for "saviors of the soul." Religion is a fallacy. Its purpose has been long outdated and I refuse to believe that humanity – in this day and age – is still in need of moral guidance. However, the purpose of Nader's entry was not about the validity of religion and I surely won't be able to convince you otherwise anyway. So, let's discuss the merits of your comment: those whom have helped the human race achieve great things, be it science, the arts or general knowledge are prophets for their contributions. Not their moral righteousness or the integrity of their character.
Furthermore, it's equally important to realize that morality can be defined in many ways. The notions of "purity", "sin" or "sainthood" are idealized and heavily simplified representative models. To live a noble life in today's culture is very different than what some may have expected many scores ago. To live a noble life in the United States is very different than to live a noble and morally appropriate life in, say, the islands of Papua New Guinea (among Trobrianders).
Your thoughts are dangerous because it leads people to, for example, impeach a President for infidelity yet are pleased with one whom has forever tarnished a nation's name on the international stage and has been directly responsible for the deaths of thousands, if not millions. Morality is undeniably important but morality – as defined in the biblical sense – is by no means indicative of a fruitful or significant life and therefore should not be called into question.
Nader -- I love the blog. I put a link to it from my own. I apologize for reprimanding your faithful readers (pun intended) but alas this is a topic that I am quite passionate about. Normally I write much more light hearted and, well, humorously. Cheers.
Adieu. Navid.
Thanks for commenting Navid. You make a very good case for your claims. I agree with you on all but ONE major thing, and that is this:
Rebutalls to any and all comments, be it mine or anyone elses, must be and can only be done with humility. I don't want to see any kind of "jab-cross" thrown at anybody here who choses to voice their individual opinions, no matter how viciously one disagrees with them.
I am very glad that you like my blog, and hopefully you'll stop by often, but please don't be-little my other readers. That goes for everybody. There are ways to get your point across while simultaniously respecting the voices of others.
Thanks
From this very post:
"Tact in the knack of making a point without making an enemy" Isaac Newton
NAVID, YOU ARE NOT IN ANYWAY OBLIGATED TO READ MY COMMENTS. IF YOU FEEL SO INCLINED TO GIVE LESSONS ON ETIQUETTE,YOU MAY WANT TO LEARN AND TAKE NOTES OF SOME LESSONS BEFOREHAND...
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR BELIEFS AND OPINIONS AS I AM TO MINE, THERE'S NO NEED TO TAKE A PERSONAL STAB AT ME JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T AGREE WITH MY POINT OF VIEW. HOWEVER IF NAME CALLING OTHERS BOOSTS YOUR SELF-ESTEEM...
I THANK YOU FOR TAKING TIME OUT OF YOUR SURELY VERY BUSY SCHEDULE TO READ MY "NAIVE" COMMENTS.
Dear Leyla,
Thank you for your prompt response. To be honest, I am quite bewildered at your sharp retort as I surely didn't mean to offend you in any way shape or form. I am further surprised that you believe I took any personal stabs at you. In fact, I don't even know you. How could anything I say be taken personally?
Regarding the CAPS issue, I was simply indicating that in accordance to internet etiquette (known as netiquette); it is frowned upon to write in entirely uppercase letters (source). It clearly states, "Contributors should avoid the use of all CAPITAL LETTERS in posts. All CAPS is considered "shouting" and causes readability issues." I take the time to ensure there are minimal grammatical errors in every comment that I post and only express an interest in others to do the same. Otherwise, it will become difficult to continue a healthy and proper debate on what will inevitably become a heated discussion topic.
It simply may be that we started this internet friendship off on the wrong foot. To that end, I apologize but not without an adequate explanation. On what grounds do you believe I was name calling? I went ahead and reread what I had written and couldn't quite figure out where I was insulting or demeaning.
I do agree with you regarding the entitlement of opinions and that's what makes the conversation interesting. But, by the same token, I too have the right to hold the opinion that your comments are naive. Isn't that true as well? Tit for tat. You did a fantastic job of attacking the delivery of my comment but didn't touch its content. That's a childish strategy analogous to cursing due to a limited vocabulary.
Maybe I came off much harsher than I intended though I did clearly disclaim the notion that I am generally a fictional writer. Hence, my interest in religion. You should see my blog as it is riddled with satirical and humor posts. You shouldn't take this stuff so seriously. It's reasonably unhealthy to do so. And, for the record, please note that my self-esteem need not be boosted any further. It's already reached maximal capacity. Lastly, I am still unsure what that bit about my "busy schedule" was about though.
Adieu,
Navid
NAVID, PLEASE REFRAIN FROM CALLING ME DEAR.
I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO REPEAT YOUR COMMENTS, SO PLEASE READ YOUR POST ONE MORE TIME, SLOWLY. I'D BE A HYPOCRITE TO TREAT YOU WITH THE HARSH SENTIMENTS THAT YOU TREAT ME WITH.
YOUR POINT OF VIEW LOST ITS LUSTER AFTER I READ THE FIRST SENTENCE. THE FOCUS WAS SHIFTED AND THE SPOTLIGHT WAS NO LONGER ON THE CONTENT. YOU CAN ALWAYS EXPRESS YOURSELF WITHOUT OFFENDING YOUR READERS. PLEASE RE-READ YOUR POST ONE MORE TIME AND DON'T LET PASSION RULE YOUR PEN TO THE POINT OF OBLIVION.
I'D LOVE TO READ OTHERS' POINT OF VIEW AND EXPAND MY SCHOOL OF THOUGHT, BUT NOT WHILE I'M UNDER FIRE AT EVERY TURN. INSTEAD OF GIVING YOUR COMMENT ITS DUE CONSIDERATION, I HAD TO THINK AND RE-READ MY OWN COMMENT TO FIND OUT WHERE I WENT WRONG OR HOW I COULD'VE IRRITATED AN UNKNOWN READER.
ONCE AGAIN THANK YOU FOR TAKING TIME FROM YOUR BUSY SCHEDULE TO READ MY "CHILDISH" AND ELEMENTARY POST.
Maybe the problem is that one of you is SUNNI and the other is Shia.
Post a Comment