AGNOSTIC DEISM: RIZALS RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY 1. What is deism? What is agnosticism? What is agnostic realism?

And what is agnostic deism? The deist believes that after God created the universe with all the necessary laws of nature, He left it perfectly working by itself without ever intending to return to interfere with it again. The important distinguishing feature in deism is Gods nonintervention in the workings of the universe. The universe is like a perfect watch functioning with its own mechanism and the watchmaker simply left it that way (Sahakian 1970: 215-16). Comments Ernest Mossner (Edwards 1967: 327): . . . the meaning [of deism] is restricted to belief in a God, or First Cause, who created the world and instituted immutable and universal laws that preclude any alteration as well as divine immanence in short, the concept of an absentee God. The agnostic realist, on the other hand, believes that God is unknowable. Although God is inferred to exist, or the knowledge of God is obtainable through reason, the particulars regarding his nature are not within the range of human knowledge (Sahakian 1970: 215). It follows from this that Gods attributes are likewise unknowable.

2. Distinguish philosophy of religion and theology. How is the former otherwise called? How is the latter otherwise called? We can distinguish philosophy of religion from theology or what I will call theology proper. According to William and Mabel Sahakian (1970:213-14), philosophy of religion is the studyon the basis of reason, nature, or scientific factsof the existence and nature of God, the existence and nature of thesoul, the question of immortality, and the question of natural evils. Closely related to the last are the issues on miracles and the validity of prayers. These are the dominant topics of this branch of philosophy. Philosophy of religion is otherwise called natural theology or general theology. Theology proper, on the other hand, studies God and related matters on the basis of the existence of holy books like the Koran or the Bible. It is otherwise called dogmatic theology, revealed theology, or special theology. In the case of Christianity, theology deals with subjects like Christology or the study of Jesus as the Christ, soteriology or the study of the salvation of the soul, and eschatology or the study of the end of the world, among others. These two types of theology do not necessarily conflict with each other because philosophy can be the handmaiden of theology. Philosophy or reason can help explain or enlighten the dogmas of religion. Where, on occasion, the possibility of a conflict

looms, then the parting of the ways may arise. A number of thinkers have decided to become agnostics like Bertrand Russell or athiests like Rudolf Carnap. The other possible way is simply to abandon reason when the conflict becomes imminent. The basic assumption here is that God can be known only if he reveals himself to man through some divinely inspired individuals who thereby pen down these divine revelations. Reason can help in making the revelations understandable to the man on the street, but reason is not entitled to contradict them since they are assumed infallible. Otherwise, reason has to be discarded and, in all likelihood, that part of the revelation where reason fails to elaborate, may be considered a mystery. St. Thomas Aquinas (Fremantle 1954:156-58) differentiates the objects of reason and of faith. In the natural world, it is impossible to know and to believe a thing at the same time: the object of the intellect is the knowable (seen) while the object of faith is the unknowable (unseen). 3. Who is Pablo Pastells? What was his instruction to Fr. Antonio Obach of which Rizal replied? Fr. Pablo Pastells is a Jesuit priestthen twenty-nine years oldwho was the former subprefect of the boarders and the former director of a religious association which Rizal once served as secretary3 at the Ateneo Municipal. He was interested in the reconversion of Rizal to the Catholic faith since he believed that the latter went astray not only politically but also religiously because of self-love, which in the context appears to mean false pride. In a letter to Fr. Antonio Obach, the parish missionary of Dapitan, Fr. Pastells requested the latter to tell Rizal to stop this nonsense of wanting to look at his affairs through the prism of his own judgment and self-love since no one sits in judgment in his own case. 4. Discuss the various exchanges of letters between Pastells and Rizal? What are the two captivities of Rizal? Noli me tangere is the result of the first captivity while El filibusterismo, the result of the second captivity. One whose judgment and self-love have been obstructed and falsified by erroneous principles and disorderly affections cannot be guided by the light of his own judgment and conscience. According to Fr. Pastells, the lamp of this light is unreliable and no matter how wise we may be, we can never be so wise as to have no need of the knowledge of others. It is therefore necessary to be guided by the lamp of others, or to abide by the criterion and judgment of others. It is a natural lamp the knowledge of which is derived from right reason. Nevertheless, we need another lampa supernatural onethat will point to us the reefs in the sea of life and the harbor of salvation. The rest of the reply is an incursion into a discussion of theology proper which is supposed to be a rebuttal of Rizals first captivity. Fr. Pastells explains the nature of revealed knowledge as inspired by the Holy Spirit. He argues that even if faith exceeds reason, there cannot exist between them a true opposition, because God endows the human soul with the light of

reason. Since God cannot deny faith and reason, then the truth of reason cannot contradict the truth of faith. If there is an apparent contradiction, it is either the dogmas of faith have not been properly understood or the ravings of opinion are unworthily considered as axioms of reason. Fr. Pastells promises to offer a rebuttal in the future of the second captivity, i.e., Rizals separatist ideas. Rizal denies being a Protestant. He respects religious ideas but does not consider religion as a matter of convenience or the art of getting along well in life. Had he accepted Protestantism, he would now be rich, free, [and] crowned with honors, instead of being a poor deportee. The reference clearly points to the wealthy Boustead family of France whose daughter, Nellie, was willing to marry Rizal only if Rizal would embrace Protestantism (Guerrero 1974: 242). Rizal did have conversations with a German Protestant minister (Pastor Karl Ullmer) at Odenwald for a period of three months, but the discussion was dispassionate and completely free. And there was also a priest (Father Heinrich Bardorf) who joined their discussion once a month. Rizal concluded two things: (1) an idea sincerely conceived and practiced, no matter how opposite it is to ones own convictions, deserves a deep respect; and (2) religions, whatever they may be, ought to make men not enemies of one another, but brothers and good brothers at that. The minister and the priest individually did his duty and left to God the judgment who of them interpreted His will correctly. Truth may have been polarized, or obstructed and distorted, when it enters ones understanding. Reason can be mistaken and can be limited. Nevertheless, according to Rizal, it is only reason that can correct its own mistakes: reason alone knows how to get up everytime it falls as perforce it must in its long pilgrimage here on earth. No doubt, far superior to human reason is the supernatural or divine light. But who can justly claim that he is the reflector of that Light? Every religion claims to possess the truth. Moreover, says Rizal, truth is seen from different angles and therefore religious, moral, and political truths are complex and must be studied piecemeal. Nobody has the right to judge the beliefs of others, using his own beliefs as norm or criteria. It is in this fourth letter, dated 5 April 1893,5 that Rizals mature religious views are expressed. Rizal presupposes the Cartesian proof for Rene Descartes own existence: Cogito, ergo sum (I think, therefore I am). To quote Rizal: How can I doubt Gods existence when I am so convinced of my own? Whosoever recognizes the effect recognizes the cause. To doubt Gods existence would be to doubt ones own selfawareness and consequently to doubt everything else. But then, would life have any meaning at all? But this belief in God, which is the result of reasoning, is blind in the sense that it knows nothing. God is unknowable, beyond description. Rizal says: I neither believe nor disbelieve in the qualities which many attribute to God, and I can only smile at the definitions and elucubrations [sic] of theologians and philosophers concerning this ineffable and inscrutable being. I have this conviction that I stand before the Supreme Problem, which confused voices wish to unravel to me. And I cannot but reply: You maybe right, but the God I am aware of is much more grand, much nobler: Plus supra! [Far beyond!]

What about revelation? It is not impossible, and Rizal believes in it. However, he believes in Gods revelation in nature, which surrounds us everywhere, and in ones own conscience the voice speaking out through naturewhich to him penetrates our being from the day we are born to the day we die. He does not believe in the revelations which every religion pretends to possess. When compared and impartially scrutinized, those revelationsaccording to Rizaldisclose the human imprint and the marks of the times in which they were written. Rizal believes that Man makes his own God according to his own image and likeness and then attributes to him his own works. Everyone does that. Not all precepts of absolute necessity and usefulness are found clearly enunciated in nature, but God, says Rizal, has implanted these in the heart, in our conscience, which is Gods nobler temple. God kept the book of his revelation continually open for us, while his priest unceasingly speaks to us through the mysterious voice of our consciences. Thus, the best religions for Rizal are the simplest, most in conformity of nature, most in harmony with the needs and aspirations of men, like the doctrine of Christ. Rizal rejects the infallibility of the church. Like any other, it is a human institution, more perfect than others because it is managed more wisely and ably, but it has its defects and errors, its obscure points (mysteries) and naivetes (miracles), its divisions or dissensions (sects or heresies). Rizal does not believe that before the coming of Jesus Christ, all those people before him were in the infernal abyss or hell. Nor does he believe that after the advent of Christ, everything has been sunshine, peace, and good fortune, and that most men returned to the ways of the just. There were the battlefields, conflagrations, burnings at the stake, imprisonments, rapes, tortures of the Inquisition, etc. They existed at all times. Did not these evils exist when the Church was dominant, perchance during the Middle Ages? What about the contradictions in the canonical books and miracles? Rizal considers the subject a wellworn topic, too boring to go into again. He hints, however, the existence of contradictions in the genealogies and some miracles like the one at Cana which Christ performed despite having announced that His hour had not yet come. Moreover, it is unbelievableaccording to Rizalthat the disciples who had witnessed many miracles of Jesus would be incredulous about his resurrection. Rizal discards the view that God suspends the laws of nature to perform miracles. This God may not contradict himself for suspending the laws of nature at certain times to achieve certain objectives, but he would be inferior to him who can realize the same objectives without suspending or changing anything (Rizal and Pastells 1961: 80). And what about Jesus Christ? Rizal considers him only a man and not a God. For Rizal (1961: 80), the Christ on Calvary . . . reveals a man in torment and agony, but what a man. As far as I am concerned, Christ the man is greater than Christ the God. Rizal denies that this belief system is the product of the stupid pride of the rationalists. He says that the man who tries to impose ones opinions on others is more stupidly proud than the man who is contented with following his own reason. 5. Is Christ for Rizal God or man? What is Rizals view on evils and the devil, on the immortality of the soul, on miracles, and on prayers?

Problem of Natural Evils The question of natural evils is something that Rizal did not say anything in his letters. It seems that from Gods point of view there are no natural evils. If God created the universe perfectly with all its natural laws, it follows that volcanic eruptions, floods, diseases, etc., are natural happenings and God must have a good purpose for them. Gottfried von Leibnitz maintains that when God created the universe as the best of all possible worlds, everything in it could not be different from what it is, and therefore natural evils are necessary evils. Benedict Spinoza, a pantheist, argues that since God is all and all is God, then everything from Gods point of view must be good. The distinction between good and evil is therefore human and not divine. What is beneficial to man is good and what is harmful to him is bad. Rousseau the deist agrees with Spinoza. Since God for Rousseau (Edwards 1967: 332) is infinitely powerful, infinitely good, and supremely just, he could not be the author of evil. It is man who is the author: born good, he acquires vice. It is this version that Rizal adopts. Man is a masterpiece of creation, perfect within his conditions. He has everything that God has given him in order to grow in knowledge and virtue. Only that there are obstacles along the way to his perfection, to the ultimate realization of his potentialities. In the case of the Philippines, these are the colonization of Spain and the religious abuses of the friars. If man is perfect within his conditions, what then would be the status of miracles and prayers? Miracles for Rizal are unnecessary and he discards them. Reason dictates, according to him, that if God created the universe perfectly, then miracles are useless. But what about prayers? They are useless, too, if one asks God for something additional. Mans salvation lies within himself. He is by nature free, his intelligence can elevate him to perfection, progress is inevitable, and he can master nature. Rizal maintains that he prays to God to dispossess him of certain qualities which God has given him for a good purpose, like self-esteem or self-love, but God has preserved them. His last recorded prayer (Bonoan 1992:64), which he wrote in German in his diary, was in 1896, when the Spanish authorities in Barcelona sent him back to Manila to face the trial of subversion. He prayed to God that He was his hope and consolation and that he was ready to face his fate: May our will be done. Question of Immortality Associated with the existence of the soul is the problem of immortality. In his third letter to Fr. Pastells, in the Noli, and in The vision of Friar Rodriguez, Rizal says that the soul is immortal and there is life after death. Hessel (1983:49) doubts that Rizal truly believes in these.8 We should remember, however, that for Rizal (Hessel 1983: 47) God is the Intelligence who rules the machinery of the world and who shares this intelligence as the divine spark in man. It follows from this that when man dies that divine spark will rejoin God.

Miracles for Rizal are unnecessary and he discards them. Reason dictates, according to him, that if God created the universe perfectly, then miracles are useless. But what about prayers? They are useless, too, if one asks God for something additional. Mans salvation lies within himself. He is by nature free, his intelligence can elevate him to perfection, progress is inevitable, and he can master nature. Rizal maintains that he prays to God to dispossess him of certain qualities which God has given him for a good purpose, like self-esteem or self-love, but God has preserved them. His last recorded prayer (Bonoan 1992:64), which he wrote in German in his diary, was in 1896, when the Spanish authorities in Barcelona sent him back to Manila to face the trial of subversion. He prayed to God that He was his hope and consolation and that he was ready to face his fate: May our will be done. With respect to self-love or self-esteem, Rizal says he has prayed that God should dispossess him of it, but God has preserved it, knowing all the while what is best for each man. Self-love, when tempered by reason, can be used as a guide for mans perfection and integrity since it saves him from any base and unworthy acts when he has forgotten the precepts in which he has been trained. Rizal considers man as a masterpiece of creation, perfect within his limitations that to deprive him of his physical or moral component parts, like reason and self-love, would disfigure and render him miserable. Rizal informs Fr. Pastells that he sometimes prays but when he prays he does not ask for anything. He believes everything he has and whatever happens to him are Gods will, and so he does this or that as guided by his conscience because after all, God will have his [own] way.
6. What is Krausism? Is this part of Spanish Enlightenment? Explain your answer.

Krausism, a movement founded by Julian Sanz del Rio and based on the views of a minor Kantian, Karl Christian Friedrick Krause (1871-1832). Krausism attempts to orient Spanish life to the rationalism of Europe and the world (Bonoan 1994: 13). We can mention the ideas of some of the prominent deists. Mossner (Edwards 1967:32734) and Robertson (1915: 69-419) discuss several of the important British, Continental, and American deists.