Once Upon A Time There Was... God
It is synchronicity week this week, so last night I started reading Karen Armstrong's A History of God, only to wake up and find a post by La Delirante quoting two passages from Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion.
Whether or not God exists is something which does not interest me in the least. Even less so the crusade of the so-called New Atheists who seem keen on killing God (again!). This fervent anti-Gesu` Bambin tirade is undoubtedly an after effect engendered by the double whammy that The Passion of the Christ and The DaVinci Code delivered to anti-Catholics worldwide. The former celebrated belief and faith (sort of) through its detailed exposition of Christ's suffering; whilst the latter was used as the ultimate emblem of evil, most probably by the same people who championed Mel Gibson's film. And before all this, there was September 11th, which, through fear, arguably was as effective as John Paul II in uniting people under the shared umbrella of belief and prayer.
Once God was held in high regard, it was only a matter of time before someone cropped up and took it upon him-/herself to bring him back down again. This is physics, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and so on and so forth. It might not apply to divine beings but a) who knows? and b) it certainly applies to human nature, that same nature that does its utmost to erect the biggest possible monument only to revel even more when it's toppled over. And Richard Dawkins is but one of the actors holding the battering ram. There's a whole entourage, including Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Victor J Stenger and loads more that you can find simply by browsing on amazon or play. But, is God really the point?
Whether or not God exists is something which does not interest me in the very least. But faith, yes, it does. I do believe in God, the old man with a long white beard who lives in the sky. And I believe in him because I have faith. I want to have faith. I want it because I need it.
This is something that had me puzzled for quite some time. God exists because I want him to, or because he is truly out there, silent, invisible, nameless, intangible but REAL? I couldn't figure it out. Then I tried to rephrase the question: why believe in the first place? Which sent me to an alternate plane of thought.
Ever since the dawn of time, human beings were religious beings. They worshipped animals, climactic conditions, power, magic. You name it, it was deified. There was always this awe/craving for something bigger and better that had all the answers. Hence the beginning of myths (which are, ironically, divine solutions concocted by human beings themselves to address dilemmas inherent in human existence.)
Which is well and good. But as everything under and above the sun, religions have gone through the test of time. Many of these beliefs crumbled into oblivion or were transferred to Mount Fairy Tale. They became obsolete. Not so the need of faith. The demise of a religious belief almost always coincided with or was caused by the rise of another creed. Jekk mhux Cikku se jkun Peppi. U jekk mhux Peppi, hemm Pawlu.
Have you heard of the latest creation story? No answer, but the key word in that question is latest.
So one might have faith in God above or science down below. One can worship power, money, sex, food, Donkey Kong. But there will always be something or someone; whether you like it or not, you got to serve somebody. Not out there, but inside:
She also says that 'in an important sense God was a product of the creative imagination, like the poetry and music that I found so inspiring.' (Nick Cave had said that 'God is the imagination.') And there's lots more from where these came from. Her introduction to the book (which is what I've read so far) is a thinking glutton's dream.
This, for me, is an undeniable fact: brushing off faith (not belief, or religion or God - but FAITH), is brushing off an integral part of what makes us human. One must have faith in something otherwise there is no purpose in life. Values, whether good or bad, are still important.
I have no idea what Dawkins says in his book as I haven't read it, and this post must not be taken as a would-be bashing of the man or the book. As far as I know this could be the greatest book written. However I want to make sure that if I ever read it, I'll also get my hands on a copy of Jesus of Nazareth.
13 comments:
Very interesting post.
I found this particular sentence of yours particularly interesting: "One must have faith in something otherwise there is no purpose in life. Values, whether good or bad, are still important".
I just believe in the big bang, natural selection, evolution, science and how wonderful life is. I don't believe in religions or preachers. I don't need that to find my purpose in life. Values will always be important but they are not determined by religions or faith...thankfully at least in democracy. I think it is very different in theocracies however.
"Values, wheter good or bad, are still important" I don't quite understand this. Are bad values still important? Is there such a thing as bad values in the context of your sentence?
I agree with one of your point re pre-historic societies which found explanations to natural phenomena through religion but it doesn't mean that we have to stick to that especially now that we have achieved so much thanks to science and great minds such as Galileo, Kepler, Darwin, Hoyle...otherwise we would be still thinking that the earth is flat and all the mumbo-jumbo of religions...oh, well, there are people who do believe in that...still...
Again, very interesting post. It made me feel like sharing some ideas.
Have a nice week,
Oh, yes, I forgot...when you talk about faith, and you clarify that you don't mean faith in religion or a God, what type of faith are you talking about? Faith in what or who?
by faith i mean a sense of the numinous, of something grand and sacred that transcends and exhalts the material world... something that is beyond the human but is yet an integral part of existence... religion can be a part of/means to it but unfortunately ALL religious institutions ultimately end up being self-serving entities that are embroiled in their own agendas... hence the mumbo-jumbo you mentioned...
one man's food is another man's poison, so what might be good for one might be a terrible idea for someone else... that is what i mean by bad values... 'goodness' and 'badness' are both necessary as they both serve a purpose... most of the time such purpose is only seen in hindsight though... but i believe that ennui is the greatest sin... good comes out of evil but how can anything come out of nothing?...
i am not dismissing science in any way... far from it... the greatest scientists became such because they had a vision... they knew where they wanted to go but were not sure on how to get there... but they had FAITH in their work and ultimately succeeded...
the problem with dawkins is that he is as fundamentalist as the religious institutions he challenges.
The discourse on values is a very interesting one! Surely, one could still believe in good and evil without professing faith in God or in a particular religion.
I think that if one had to look at history, this has always been made up of people who got together because they shared certain values. Since there is strength in numbers, they were able to accomplish certain things. More often than not, the values were related to a specific religious faith.
During every historical era, however, there were also groups of individuals who shared different values. Some values simply clashed with others. And conflict often resulted.
Even today, although there is a great deal of talk about tolerance and freedom of speech, I believe that certain values are allowed to be supported in public as long as they do not appear to gather enough strength to topple the current system. When such a threat becomes more realistic, the publishing of certain statements becomes forbidden.
If one had to take a purely objective view of values, there is nothing written anywhere to suggest that one system must surely prevail over another. People normally decide to favour some values instead of others as a result of personal opinions. Some value systems tend to be much more prominent than others because they are given more attention in the media. Once a value system becomes dominant, the people who support it will usually do their utmost to ensure that it remains the most popular one.
Could all human beings ever live together in peace? I would really love to see that! That is why I embrace socialism. Yet, I think that all people would only be able to live together peacefully when they decide to share the same values. Could that ever really happen?
Dear erezija, I tend to disagree:
"I am no more fundamentalist when I say evolution is true than when I say it is true that New Zealand is the southern hemisphere. We believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and we would abandon it overnight if new evidence arose to disprove it. No real fundamentalist would ever say anything like that"
"But my belief in evolution is not fundamentalism, and it is not faith, because I know what it would take to change my mind, and I would gladly do so if the necessary evidence were forthcoming"
The God Delusion. 2007. Richard Dawkins. Page 320.
Fe de errata: "...New Zealand is in the southern hemisphere..."
Well, I find many problems with Dawkins. Perhaps his biggest fault is that when it comes to metaphysics, he has no idea of what he's talking about at any given minute. Same goes for Harris and Hitchens.
Besides, in my view, in the light of what we know about genetics and consciousness, (Neo-)Darwinism is no less untenable than any Catholic dogma.
I suggest you check out integral thinkers like Aldous Huxley, Ervin László and Ken Wilber.
One last point: reading your post I got the impression that your perception of things is somewhat dual: material vs spiritual; God(s) vs men ecc. Have you ever considered that perhaps there's no such thing?
la deliriante: Some questions to mull over.
Which evidence lends serious credence to Darwinian evolution? Moreover, which evolution we are talking about: the evolution of the species’ material bodies, or the evolution of consciousness?
Could a random(!) evolutionary process bring forth such a seemingly intelligent universe? Furthermore, why is it that there's something instead of nothing?
And if we admit, for the sake of the argument, that we can simply explain evolution through natural selection, how can we account for the inherently intelligent processes of this evolutionary mechanism? Is this universe truly alive? What does it mean to be alive?
Assuming that the big-bang theory is true (it is perhaps, but only partially), how do we explain the cosmological constants? Astronomers have identified up to 75 of them. If just one of them was fractionally different, no intelligent life could have been possible. If we do away with Universal Consciousness, how can we explain this fine-tuning?
Finally, what about the most important question of Philosophy, namely, the relation between mind and body/thought and being? Did our reductionist and materialist science manage to get to the bottom of this problem?
Are we just bodies? Is my body really me, or it's me who is inhabiting this shell? Am I a car itself, or just its driver? And what is this 'I' in me? Who and what am I anyway?
Why is it that the secular scientific elite always discredits any compelling evidence for paranormal/parapsychological phenomena such as OBEs, NDEs, telepathy, reincarnation, past-life regressions and mystical states of consciousness? Isn’t this reminiscent of the clergymen who refused to look into Galileo’s telescope?
Faith...
In one of his videos on youtube, a friend of mine said: "Philosophy without religion is simply mental speculation. Religion without philosophy is sentimentalism and often fanaticism." I don't think I can put it better then he.
I am aware that many people feel that faith empowers them in many ways. Personally, however, I don't find much use for it.
I believe that this should revolve around knowledge. You either know something or you don't. Mystics from all spiritual paths have attested that real knowledge of the Absolute is possible, but only through direct experience. And I don't really think that they were "deluded."
No cold mainstream science will ever get us there. But art, perhaps, might take us a bit closer... as after silence, it's the only means through which we can approach and express The Ineffable.
Galileo, Kepler, Darwin, Hoyle... But I have great respect for these gentlemen. But strictly speaking, what did they really add to ancient wisdom?
The Kabbalists had discovered the atom hundreds of years ago, while this idea has dawned on us just a few decades ago.
The shamanic cultures of South America knew about relativity much before Einstein.
Also, the Mayans and the Aztecs had anticipated Hegelian Idealism by aeons.
Darwin wasn't the first one to come up with evolution. Most ancient occultists seem to have been aware of the idea, and had already understood that it is a by-product of an evolution in Consciousness. Hence, the principle of the primacy if consciousness.
The Taoists and the Hermeticists in the East, and the alchemists in the West, had intuitive knowledge of the interconnectedness of all things decades before the birth of David Bohm and the discovery of quantum mechanics.
The self-mastery and the mind-discipline techniques developed the Vedantists, and later by the Buddhists, predate the birth of Western psychology by millennia. Besides, the Jungian archetypes are Gnostic abstractions that at least date back to 2150 BCE.
The sacred science of Yoga also happens to be an element of the massive body of Dharmic knowledge, and yet, here we are today, in the 21st century, ingesting toxic chemicals so as to feel just a bit less dreary. I could go on forever...
We seem to have this illusion that our civilisation represents the apex of human achievement. I really suggest that we get over it. Just look at the dismal state of this planet if you're not convinced.
Just a short correction to one of the comments. Evolution is not at all random. Natural selection has its checks and balances. While evolution cannot work without mutations (which are only random in the narrowest sense), these are checked by how they are suitable in the environment - both genetic and phenotypic (the outside environment). Advantageous mutations tent do propagate the changes, while disadvantageous ones tend to be selected out.
Evolution is far from random.
Yes, evolution is far from random. What I meant by random is ‘unconscious', or comatose, even. Yes I agree, evolution is it is far from random. These mechanisms you mentioned are a result of a cognisant evolution in Consciousness, without which nothing can BE, as ultimately it is all there IS. It is Existence itself; Being-In-Itself.
Matter doesn't give rise to life, least of all to consciousness. It is the other way round, and now scientists have proved this beyond any reasonable doubt. Besides, how can an unconscious universe give rise to conscious experience? As it stands this worldview is equally absurd as any literal reading of the Genesis creation myth.
Sometimes some scientists behave worse than religious bigots. These hard sciences have painted themselves into a corner by persistently ignoring this fundamental aspect. And no matter how they adjust their model to accommodate new anomalies, they will never make it as their fundamental assumptions as wrong. This is basically the same problem of Ptolemaic astronomical models. Then Copernicus finally came along and we realized that we had to start afresh.
Back in the times of Darwin it was perhaps somewhat pardonable to think that this is just a physical, unconscious and insentient universe. But in the light of what we know today this looks utterly preposterous. All this has been common knowledge in the East for millennia. When will we ever learn?
Post a Comment