by Johnny Hirschauer
In a Philosophy and Film course we were handed a sheet commenting on very generalized philosophical viewpoints and commentary. One notable piece was the notion that a theocracy's downfall is its unwillingness to foster progress/innovation because the majority of cultural advancement is measured by adherence to dogma.
This statement is not only an indictment of theocratic governments but the concept of theology in general.
The supposed need for progressivism implies the foundational dogma or underlying belief system is somehow inadaptable/primitive. It makes the lofty assumption that the belief system of the culture is not an overarching belief set but rather a momentary interpretation of surrounding events- namely, theology is a holistic product of the dawn of its societal implementation. A culture is undoubtedly shaped by the influences of the surrounding world and social movements. But an adherent theocracy need not halt progress- if it is a nation founded on the ideals of faith, it will seek to live by those larger tenets. Those tenets are, in theory, absent of time. They are ideals to be implemented to the daily condition, shaping progress in the direction of higher interpretation of sacred text and dogma. The group writing my worksheet today had taken the lofty liberty of defining progress- a concept often relegated to secular goals but all the more applicable to matters of theology. To denote faith and progress as incompatible is an unfathomably weighty statement. The statement essentially states that secular progression is the only favorable form of advancement, so by extension, faith is eternally invalid because it is doomed to antiquity.
Was their original note intended to such consequence? Likely not. Nonetheless, its accusation is wide-reaching. The achievement of higher spiritual enlightenment on the application of sacred texts is just as progressive, and likely far more so, as any secular product.
In a Philosophy and Film course we were handed a sheet commenting on very generalized philosophical viewpoints and commentary. One notable piece was the notion that a theocracy's downfall is its unwillingness to foster progress/innovation because the majority of cultural advancement is measured by adherence to dogma.
This statement is not only an indictment of theocratic governments but the concept of theology in general.
The supposed need for progressivism implies the foundational dogma or underlying belief system is somehow inadaptable/primitive. It makes the lofty assumption that the belief system of the culture is not an overarching belief set but rather a momentary interpretation of surrounding events- namely, theology is a holistic product of the dawn of its societal implementation. A culture is undoubtedly shaped by the influences of the surrounding world and social movements. But an adherent theocracy need not halt progress- if it is a nation founded on the ideals of faith, it will seek to live by those larger tenets. Those tenets are, in theory, absent of time. They are ideals to be implemented to the daily condition, shaping progress in the direction of higher interpretation of sacred text and dogma. The group writing my worksheet today had taken the lofty liberty of defining progress- a concept often relegated to secular goals but all the more applicable to matters of theology. To denote faith and progress as incompatible is an unfathomably weighty statement. The statement essentially states that secular progression is the only favorable form of advancement, so by extension, faith is eternally invalid because it is doomed to antiquity.
Was their original note intended to such consequence? Likely not. Nonetheless, its accusation is wide-reaching. The achievement of higher spiritual enlightenment on the application of sacred texts is just as progressive, and likely far more so, as any secular product.