God is a koan.
People say they believe, but what exactly do they believe?
If they can define it, clearly and concretely, that is most certainly not god.
The way that can be defined to death is not the way to life.
If they cannot define it, simply making an "of course" as a premise, they are begging the quesiton.
I don't believe in the bible, the koran, the book of mormon, the bhagavad gita, nor suttas, as fact. They are all the fiction of their cultures, holding truths about the human condition, pointers toward wisdom and theories about correct behaviour, striving for joy and compassion. As such, useful.
But they are too often used as coercion, government, graven words to be worshipped literally. Those with a cruel axe to grind wield those books. Excluding whomever offends with the twisted words of their gods. I know this is wrong, though I do not claim to know the right way for anyone save myself. And even I do not know, I only walk on.
Assuming an all powerful, all knowing force, without due consideration, is mindless and foolish. Assuming there is no all knowing, all powerful force, without due mindfulness, is merely argumentative.
Atheists, as used today, are Believers of the first water, along with Evangelicals. Right along with virulent Skeptics and uncritical UFOlogists.
I don't believe in a concrete god, or a saviour god, or a personal jesus who is my friend who lends a hand, or sends me to hell. Neither do I reject all that is liminal and mystical and all the damned data. I am not a believer. I observe, assess, consider. Science, gathering first hand information, hard numbers, theories that fit the best possible data, is what I accept as the most useful method to comprehend the world. Science is a process, not an answer, which confuses the Believers, who only want answers. Science goes wherever it goes, Belief is baffled when the road takes a U-turn.
Joseph Campbell offers the awkward, 'god is the word we use to describe the transcendent.'
I trust more the inarticulate than the certain. I trust more the action than the easy words. I trust more the small quiet hints than the bombast and assumptive.
By their works shall you know them.
12 comments:
That's pretty close to my own feelings on the subject. To me, science is always provisional whereas religion never is — doubt seems unacceptable in any religion I know of. On the other hand, science is only one way of understanding the world (in the broad sense) — a good poem can help me understand more about the world than a rigorous study (although I suppose the rigorous researcher might deny my understanding was meaningful).
I could be wrong, though.
I suspect a lot of scientists are also poets.
Science is about asking questions. Religions are about giving answers and expecting obedience.
But some scientists get confused about this as well. As have, Science teachers who get too wrapped up in just giving answers.
I do know people who consider themselves quite religious, but who also believe in the provisionality of all statements and assumptions. There's a growing movement now within liberal Protestant Christianity that has as its mantra "living with the questions." To say nothing of the Jewish Renewal movement. But this is just another caveat to append to the list here; I certainly wouldn't argue (much) with anything in the post.
I know folks who live within a religious framework, who are also open minded. They treat their religion as their path, not as the only objective truth. While I can't quite see how they do it, I acknowledge that they do, and respect that they are on their own, honest, well considered way. They transcend the regimentation.
But I still wonder if it would matter to such people what religion they chose, or if they chose any. And if the limits may well keep them from the deepest insights. I don't know, because that was just my experience of childhood catholicism, and may well not apply in a different situation to different people. All I know is that I can only choose for myself, and would not presume to choose for anyone else.
Certainly the Unitarians say "we are all seekers," and yet even there are the dogmatists. I don't know how they mange that either. Consistency was never really a human trait. (To quote from Harold and Maud.)
Yes. That's all I can say. Yes.
I don't find Joseph Campbell's statement awkward at all. Quite hits the mark for me.
I'm pretty much with you here
(tangent) Harold and Maude! Oh what a great film that was, thank you for reminding me.
Another great post, Zhoen. Is this the religion rant you promised/threatened us with with?
Yeah, that's it. I'm far less a hostile radical in my middle age. Still, I will not tolerate religion induced stupidity. I just don't want to be one of those radical atheist assholes.
Harold and Maud was wonderful and influential, but it didn't age well, sadly. Still love the quotes from it, a big part of who I am. Living best in memory, not so much in re-watching. Still, Cat Stevens soundtrack, life well lived and all that.
[delurking]
Religion-induced stupidity indeed, Zhoen.
But how do we tell the difference between religion-induced stupidity and evolution-induced stupidity? And besides, isn't the former just a subset of the latter? I mean, we don't see tadpoles and great apes chanting like zombies or attending sunrise services led by males (and now females!) in cheesy costumes, do we? Cockroaches and tigers never don white shirts and ties to go door to door on bicycles. Crayfish and horses don't twist themselves into pretzels and spout silly injunctions ("Be present in the moment!"). So it seems clear that religion can only be the product of evolution...if there even is such a thing.
Right, a quick look around confirms that intelligent design obviously isn't. But if we're to believe that evolution is more than speculative fiction, don't we have to agree that its trajectory is indisputably downward? Because which species is more destructive, less focused, more pointlessly aggressive, less organized, more annoying (okay, besides mosquitoes), less likable, more ridiculous, less cooperative, more certain to self-destruct, yet more evolved than Homo sapiens sapiens?
Evolution: 4.6 billion years and all we have to show for it are these ~6,636,725,750 friggin' morons! :-)
[relurking]
Mariko,
Interesting points. But then, evolution is a hoarder. We keep hold of old genes and destructive diseases that are stuck next to useful ones. I have heard dogs described as 'superstitious', as well as many animals behaviour as 'ritualized.' Certainly ceremony has a place in the human psyche, habits can save us, perhaps slightly more often than constantly conscious choices. It's a matter of fine balance.
All I know is that taking the word of anyone who says their authority comes from the mouth of god is, for me, in this individual life, the wrong action. You bring up a much bigger can of Leviathans than I was proposing.
Good, all good.
Post a Comment