What follows is meant to contribute to the discussion in an intelligent, candid and respectful manner, not to denigrate the beliefs of any "side." Nothing could be less conducive to real discussion than to approach this subject in an combative way as, unfortunately, most discussions concerning the existence of God are engaged in the public sphere. This approach is terribly ironic when one considers that a common justification for their intensity, if not vitriol, is the idea that convincing those with contrary views will raise their existential lot. Bludgeoning a peer's views is hardly likely to endear them to your own, no matter how well-founded they may be; in the end both sides go home feeling bitter and crotchety.
With this in mind, what follows is meant to stimulate genuine thought and conversation without equivocation or dilution, but also without bombast and (silly) uncompromising snobbery. Take what you like, leave what you don't. The point is to think about the question for yourself, not to uncritically absorb or callously reject what someone else says. Only you can decide what you believe.
So, without further ado, let's rock and roll.
Many responses I have encountered to the question of whether or not a god exists somehow or other involve the linked problems of evidence and comprehension. To put it another way, for many people the notion that an omnipotent being exists seems too fantastic, even naive in the absence of irrefutable evidence. If God exists, wouldn't we have seen him/her/it by now? And if not God personally, what about other evidence alluding to the being's presence?
There are a couple assumptions embedded in these questions that are problematic for me. The first is that there is no evidence attesting to God's existence. After all, we exist don't we? Living in a society that is obsessed with understanding the causes behind the most ordinary phenomena, the fact that the origins of the building blocks that constitute the universe are seen as 'always being, always having been,' instead of originating from a transcendent force strikes me as oddly incongruous. Even if we are to allow this exception or assume their creation through other means, the complexity of the life processes within the human body -- all of them interdependent -- makes the absence of some directing force seem inconceivable. And, of course, this complexity and interdependency is extended to the environment in which we live with its own delicate ecological balance.
I do not know "how" exactly we originated, our evolution, etc. Nobody does. It just seems to me that a universe as inordinately complex and beautiful as ours cries out "evidence!"
Another assumption that I disagree with is the notion that humans would be able to comprehend the "evidence" if present as the idea is popularly conceived. Many friends have told me, for example, that they cannot understand how anyone could rationalize the existence of God. It seems to me that assuming God does exist, however, we would most definitely not be able to rationalize, i.e. fully comprehend, his/her/its existence. If an omnipotent and transcendent force creates a being whose intellect is limited and existence finite, then how can one expect the limited and finite being to comprehend the omnipotent and transcendent?
If discerning all the "evidence" of God's existence requires someone to be God then this has profound implications concerning our ability to ascertain the existence of such a being. The "problem" of evidence would not concern itself with how compelling or plentiful the "evidence" is, but our ability to perceive it. Faith is essential for believing in a god not because the evidence is lacking but because we are simply too stupid to fully understand it even when we do encounter it. Life, creativity, and moral compunction may be understood, to a certain degree, as originating from a greater motive power, and, in my opinion, to a degree that vastly outweighs doubt. Yet to fully appreciate their place in the schema of existence, one would have to be able to think on the same plane as God -- that is, if we can even describe a process of such sublimity as "thinking" in the case of God.
The evidence is abundant, the sole outstanding impediment to its cognizance being our own dogged obtuseness and myopia. I suppose that it is this obtuseness is one of the most persistent features of the human condition -- our own condition.
________
One idea floating around, and which has gained considerable current, is the conviction that humankind is on a teleological march towards reason, the end of which being the dissolution of religious faith and, by implication, belief in God. Incredibly erudite colleagues have assured me with a straight face that the triumph of "universal human reason" is inevitable, its march as decisive as it is inexorable. Religion and faith is not only outmoded but regressive they say, part of a backward and near bygone era.
What is immediately striking about this essentially millenarian belief is its unintended but, nevertheless, decidedly theological quality. Its disciples' faith in the "universality" of human reason and progress is virtually dogmatic.
But to be honest what irks me most is the insinuation -- oftentimes not discerned by the purveyor -- that those who believe in a god of some sort are backwards, or at least foolish. In fact, the most developed stream of this argumentation that I have heard argues that evolution is the motive force pushing this process forward, that is to say, leading humans towards the exercise of undistilled reason.
The implication of this near-Hegelian idealism is decidedly less sanguine. By donning the argument in scientific terminology, especially under the moniker "evolution," the "enlightened" purveyor of this ideology implicitly argues that those who believe in God are not only fools but physiologically inferior. The result is scientific racism, which I will grant was a product of The Enlightenment as students of the period very well know.
Even when scientific terminology is not appropriated by the disciples of this school of thought, the term "universal" human reason has much the same effect. Whether intentionally or otherwise, they perpetuate a racist discourse that glorifies ideas ascendant in predominately white and capitalist societies while denigrating those held by the rest of the world (the majority of which believes in a god or gods of some variety) as not up to par with their own. This generates unintended dissonance since the notion of their ideology's "universality" comes into constant friction with the reality that it is not shared by the majority of humankind. When the term "universality" is omitted it continues to negotiate powerful contradictions, seeing as the allegedly progressive ideal of "reason" clashes with its exclusive, if not racist overtones when conceived as incommensurable with faith in God.
Like the Orientalists of yesterday, they entertain pretensions to holding the correct and "objective" worldview, while wielding their supposed monopoly of epistemic prowess to derogate the worldviews of the rest of the world -- most of it under their societies' thumbs.
________
And while discussing the reality or absence of God's existence is a legitimate and important enterprise, to me the far more pressing question is not 'does a god exist,' but what type of god are we talking about? Are we speaking in the singular or plural? Is this god(s) caring, wicked, or apathetic? Does this god(s) interfere in human affairs or have a purpose for this world?
It is my belief that there is one God who is intimately concerned about the affairs of the world and desires only good for the beings he (I use this pronoun out of convenience, not with gendered denotations intended) created. To speak succinctly but clearly, I am a Christian -- but this in itself requires a bit of explanation.
Most of my friends view Christianity with pronounced skepticism, and to this I can only say that I respect their reservations. I say this because the malodorous associations that the term "Christianity" conjures up are associations that I just as strongly recoil at.
So-called "Christians" have waged crusades, committed innumerable genocides, protected chauvinistic policies, and continue to justify wars against the most vulnerable and marginalized members of human society. To support such a "Christianity" or attempt to justify it in retrospect is not only idiotic but patently immoral.
It is, however, precisely because every moral fiber in my body screams against such injustice that I am drawn to the Jesus of the Bible. For if one reads the stories about Jesus they will realize that virtually his entire ministry was spent denouncing the use of religion to justify similar antisocial and wicked behavior.
Radically breaking from the mores of his time, Jesus treated women as his social equals, freely interacted with those the Jewish establishment deemed racially inferior (the Samaritans), opposed those who extorted money from the poor by chasing them from their tables, and heaped so much criticism on the religious establishment of his day that the religious elite decided to kill him on a cross. His command for nonviolent action, i.e. to turn the other cheek if struck as well as his command to love your enemies, were so radical that many thought him crazy.
It is equally worth noting the "type" of people he spent the majority of his time serving and the circles he most frequented. By pretty much any standard he chose to hang-out with the "wrong" people: the thieves, prostitutes, tax-collectors, and otherwise marginalized or forgotten. If Jesus came back to earth in human form today I have no doubt he would be living among the homeless, drug-addicts, prostitutes and immigrant field-laborers, those who the "right" people either forget or demonize -- especially the fashionable "Christians."
In a world scarred with poverty, addiction and entropy of all kinds, the message of Jesus as articulated in The Bible is the only truly revolutionary one I know. It is certainly the only one I have found that works when practiced -- something very rare indeed. It acknowledges that humankind is finite, screwed-up and unable to extricate itself from the centripetal pull of everyday drudgery and uniformity. It acknowledges that no one has their act together and to pretend otherwise is not only to entertain a tawdry illusion but to continue to emasculate one's personhood and individuality. Above all, it offers the hope of finding truth and resolution through acceptance of the reality that we cannot do any of this on our own: only God can disentangle us from the webs we have spun for ourselves.
I suppose for some this depiction of Christianity -- a term that I do not necessarily care for -- is shocking, most of all for those who are Christians but do not entertain these same views. For some, especially those for whom "Christianity" leaves a bad taste in the mouth, my position may feel a bit synthetic or too iconoclastic to be taken seriously. All I can say to both of these responses is that this is what I believe and, just as importantly, it is what I believe to be the real message articulated by Jesus in the Gospels. It it impossible to deny that Jesus was thoroughly against the hypocrisy, corruption, and bigotry of the religious establishment of his day. Not only did he criticize them ad nauseum but the establishment elite grew so infuriated with Jesus that they chose to kill him by the cruelest means imaginable for their period.
A related though somewhat divergent point must be made at this time. To expect people who commit evil acts to justify their misdeeds by invoking evil requires Panglossian naivete. The United States, to cite one example, does not justify its wars by invoking the political expedient aims of unscrupulous statesmen, dividends for avaricious financiers, or racism of hawkish constituents. Instead they cite palatable goals like democracy, humanitarianism, or the catchall of combating terrorism. The darker the actual aim, the more selfless the professed aim they choose to invoke. I say this not to justify evil done under the name of Christianity but, far from it, to emphasize that we cannot surrender what is good to those who do not hesitate to refer to it for their own selfish ends. We cannot allow the powers that be walk over our values, no matter what values these are, in order to do wrong. Instead, we must be all the more vigilant in working to breathe these values into being: peace instead of enforced inequality, democracy instead of rule by robber barons. Above all, we cannot surrender the values embodied in the slogans and speeches of the powerful to the powerful. If this becomes the case then they have not only defeated us, but we have defeated ourselves.
_________
I suppose that I have gotten myself into a fairly good mess by this point. There is one last remark that I believe must be made and this too has to do with the assumptions embedded in questions concerning the existence of God or religion, more generally. Whether one is for against either side it is important to examine why the question has arrived at its specific form and, moreover, why you personally entertain the stance you have taken. The reason why personal introspection is important in these matters is simply this: the existential implications of your personal stance affect you foremost, your stance is a personal choice, and it is encompasses an issue in which everyone must take a position. Choosing to not address it is in itself a choice.
While prodding the question of God's existence and our own we are not neutral observers standing outside of the frame and looking in, but silly children within the frame who have already made a royal mess of the picture.
No comments:
Post a Comment