From where does God's authority come?

This entry is in many ways a response to this essay, published in 1995. I didn't read it though until I was well on my way to finishing this post, but we certainly cover much of the same ground, come up against some of the same problems, but still think about these things in very different ways.

http://bahai-library.com/file.php5?file=abizadeh_moral_reasoning&language=All

I've only read through it once. So I don't think I've fully mastered its argument. I'll just say this. It makes me rather uneasy because I don't think it has due respect for themes of self-justifying arbitrariness in Baha'u'llah's writings.

Be forewarned. This is a long entry. It's so long I've actually added two chapter markers.

I

In Plato's dialogue, the Euthyphro, the character of Socrates asks of his companion a difficult and quite perplexing question: Is piety good because it is pleasing to the gods, or is it pleasing to the gods because it is good? This is just a paraphrase. But it conveys the clear distinction there is between two ideas that are often presented together as if they were not contradictory.

On the one hand is the notion that piety is good because it is pleasing to the gods. This means that something is not good because of any inherent qualities, but rather because they have received endorsement by the sovereign authority.

On the other hand is the notion that piety is pleasing to the gods because it is good. This means that something is good because of inherent qualities that are present in themselves. In this case, the gods are just connisieurs of goodness, a reality that exists prior to the gods and their decrees. In this case, the gods are not sovereign. Rather, the good is the sovereign authority, and the authority of the gods is only in their superior ability to discern goodness.

Socrates argued for this second position. His notion of the sovereign and unified "goodness in itself" displaced the authority of Zeus, Apollo, Athena and the rest of the Athenian pantheon. Understandably this led to a charge that he discouraged the worship of the gods of the city, and promoted new gods instead. For this he was executed, and logically so.

Though this debate within Athenian religion has long since disappeared, the stubborn difficulty of this problem has persisted. Indeed it cuts right through the writings of Baha'u'llah. Taken as a whole his writings never take decisivily one position or the other. Depending on the context he uses either of the positions outlined by Plato's Socrates to defend and justify his mission to the world. The reason I want to explore this issue is because I think it has enormous consequences for how to understand Baha'u'llah, his teachings, and how his followers should relate to his teachings and the world. In particular, this issue concerns how to explain and justify Baha'u'llah's teachings to those who are not acquainted with the faith.

On the one hand Baha'u'llah is fond of remarking that God doeth what he willeth and ordaineth whatsoever he pleaseth. Since there is no higher authority for God to appeal, his action then is justified by his own act of willing it. This of course, would make his actions arbitrary, but that's the point. Something rises above arbitrariness once it can appeal to a higher authority for its judgments. The courts fall back on the law, philosophers fall back on reason, historians fall back on their sources. But this backward citation of authority must come to an end somewhere. At this point, a thing's authority is not from something higher, but rather from its very self. This is what it means to be arbitrary. Furthermore this arbitrariness is inscribed into all judgments that refer back to that arbitrary foundational principle. When Baha'u'llah remarks that God doeth what he willeth and ordaineth whatsoever he pleaseth he declares God is the sovereign authority of all things, the measure by which all judgments are made, and the source of all goodness that can be justified as such.

On the other hand Baha'u'llah cites as his authority that his teachings are in humanity's best interest. Take this passage from the Lawh-i-Manikchi-Sahib the first line is the most important but I've quoted the whole thing just because of how much I love this passage. In fact one of the first entries of this blog was on this passage. I believe it was called the Will to Salvation.

The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and centre your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.

In this model, the manifestation of God is particularly expert at discerning the needs of a particular time and place. His authority is not so much his will, but the needs-in-themselves that he is so skilled at diagnosing. Such a model relies on a vision of the universe in which everything has within itself a true purpose and nature inherent to it. God would know his creation better than anyone, so thus he would be the most authoritative guide to these "true needs." In this way, the authority of the manifestation is based on the practical efficacy of his teachings, and their harmony with the world, and hence science. God then, would be the superior scientist.

So, as we can see the stance that God ordaineth whatsoever he pleaseth is in clear tension with his claim to being the All-Knowing Physician. I don't want to resolve this conflict as such. For one, I have my doubts that it could ever be sufficiently resolved. At the very least though, I want to highlight these issues and point out how these themes take shape as strategies for explaining the Baha'i faith to oneself and to others.

II

The rubber hits the road with this distinction when responding to the question: What's so great about Baha'u'llah? If one takes the first perspective then the answer to this question would be a proof that Baha'u'llah was indeed who he said he was, a manifestation of God himself, sent to illuminate humanity with divine instruction. Since he determines what is good without any criteria beside his own will, then there is no other need to explain the social benefit of his teachings. Their authority is in God, and all discussion would only center around whether or not such teachings do in fact come from God. This strategy clearly upholds the authority of God, rather than surreptitiously subordinating his authority to human enterprises such as science, or political ideology, a problem that will be seen with the All-Knowing Physician strategy. But one clear drawback to this first approach is that it makes religion seem quite......pointless. The temptation is to conclude that this life is just a big test to see whether or not humans will do what God tells them to do. That doesn't quite do justice to Baha'u'llah's teachings, now does it?

The other strategy then would be to show that Baha'u'llah's teachings are the greatest hope humanity has to achieve collective happiness and well-being. This of course involves a lot of guess-work, seeing as how it is is extremely unlikely, if not conceptually impossible, to see anytime soon Baha'u'llah's teachings being universally put into practice "in their purity," what ever that is. Anyway, if Baha'u'llah's teachings need to be promoted then that necessarily implies that they are in need of further implementation. Thus, any argument that somebody would make for their value is in one sense a reasonable guess, and in another sense a promise without a strict guarantee. As difficult as this strategy may be, I'm a big promoter of it. Pondering the practicality of Baha'u'llah's teachings is my biggest inspiration for following his exhortation in the Kitab-i-Aqdas to Immerse yourselves in the ocean of My words, that ye may unravel its secrets, and discover all the pearls of wisdom that lie hid in its depths.

One perplexity of this strategy is that it subordinates the authority of divine teachings to whatever is the dominant vision at the time of what is and is not rational, and the people that represent that rationality. As long as their has been thought, it has been used to respond positively to the world. So anyone who is engaged in thought is also at the same time engaged in the question of how best to live in this world. Baha'u'llah is not the only one trying to be viewed as the All-Knowing Physician. This posture and promise stands at the very heart of any pursuit of expertise, whether it be scientific, philosophical, medical, political, etc. Any community from any of these fields has their own idea of what is rational and in humanity's best interest. Their influence on thought should not be forgotten when considering the rational "merit" of any religous ideas, in this case, Baha'u'llah's teachings. It's not unreasonable to argue that any one of these expert visions are arranged in such a way as to necessarily exclude anything that does not fit into their world-view. In fact, I'd say its perfectly reasonable, maybe even tautological.

This admittedly is very difficult terrain, and worthy of a few books itself, certainly its own blog entry. Suffice to say, I'm not eager to explain Baha'u'llah in terms of the world's various ideologies. Many times its tempting to think about how Baha'u'llah would make a fine quantum physicist, post-Gramsci Marxist, or innovative humanist psychologist. But such projects are all just such prostitution in my eyes and I won't stand for it. I'm certainly not in the "it's-true-because-Baha'u'llah-says-so-crowd" (see above link). But as a godfearing monotheist, I will not tolerate subordinating his teachings to the latest whims of the gods of this world: the guardians of rationalities in the university, the think-tanks, government, and media.

Though it is crucially important to demonstrate the benefits of Baha'u'llah's teachings, one must always take into account who it is that influences our vision of what is and is not a "benefit" to the world. For this reason, I put a lot of faith in the assertion that God ordaineth whatsoever he pleaseth. With this principle, arbitrariness isn't a problem to be rectified. It's the logical basis of any justification. Coming to terms with arbitrariness is important inasmuch as it protects against colonization by whatever is the dominant vision of what is rational. In one sense this is about retaining independence and diversity. But in another sense its about protecting those things that are excluded from the contemporary status quo, but whose value will only become manifest in the future. So, a particular teaching may appear arbitrary to some inquiring mind. And that inquiring mind may think it is the most urgent priority to make that teaching "compatible with reason." Towards this end he or she will hammer that teaching this way and that until it is bent into conformity with whatever they regard as most reasonable. But this is always done in terms of self and the present moment. Little to no regard would be given to what may be beyond our understanding or how our prejudice towards the status quo may blind to us to sources of future hope. For this reason, I think that making peace with arbitrariness has a place in protecting the Baha'i faith from colonization by and assimilation into more powerful and influential ideologies in the world today. Not everything is going to make sense. But I don't think that that is necessarily a problem. Part of looking to the future is accepting that.