It's too long for the NPR series by the same name, but it remains true none-the-less. I'll be interested to hear any commentary.
-- GID
------
I self-identify as an atheist. I also tell other people I'm an atheist. But I'm not. Not really. It's just that what I believe about the nature of the divine isn't easily expressed in terms of a single symbol, or even a bumper-sticker-length catch phrase. So I fudge it a little bit, but as far as most people are concerned, it's close enough.
The thing is, I approach the question of god in the same way I approach questions I come across in computer science : logically, methodically, always with an eye on the fundamental principles which can be used to solve every problem I've come across so far. Computer Science consists of learning a set of basic skills, and using them to construct complex systems which can do things like simulate the collision of galaxies. The end result may be stupendously sophisticated, but the path is always built using the same blocks you learned in your freshman CompSci class. What you learn is really a WAY to think about big problems, and not a WHAT to think. You learn to break things down into smaller and smaller parts until you get a piece you know how to cope with, and then you work on that. If you keep doing this, you eventually can solve everything, given enough time, patience and discipline.
So, here is my thinking on god.
God is given 4 aspects : Eternal, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient.
Eternal : God has always existed, and will always exist. There is no point at which God has not existed. God is the sum total of the past, present, and future.
Omnipotent : God is all-powerful. This doesn't just mean that God has all the power in the universe, it means God *is* all the power in the universe. God is the mover of all things, the stopper of all things, the cause, source and destination of every action. You cannot say God didn't cause the hurricane – this means that some other power did, which means that there's power in the universe outside of God's, which violates God's Omnipotence. God is the mover of the heavens, the burning in the suns, the metamorphosis, the photosynthesis, all processes, all energy.
Omnipresent : There is no place God is not. God is in old candy wrappers and on the moon; God IS the moon, and all the space between the moon and the Earth; God IS the Earth; God is in every molecule, every atom, in all of the universe, God is located in them all. God IS them all.
Omniscient : All knowledge is God's. The reason for all things is known by God. All possible outcomes of any given set of potentialities are known by God.
Most atheists will tell you that an entity containing all of these aspect doesn't exist. The thing is, I can think of exactly one. It's the only possible entity that encompasses all of these concepts, and I know for a fact that it exists. What is that entity?
The universe.
Call it “everything,” if you like. All-that-is. The infinite Unity. The sum total of all places at all times and everything that happens therein. We live in it, with our limited life spans, so we are part of it – part of God. The divine lives in all of us – we live in the divine. God is everywhere, so that means I'm part of God, and God is part of me. God is every-when, which means last Tuesday, tomorrow, and right now. God is every action, which means all that I do is expressing the divine. This is crucial : the divine is an expression of my self. God knows everything, which means all that I know, and a whole lot of stuff that I don't. But I'm reaching for it. The knowledge is out there somewhere, if I have patience, discipline, and curiosity enough to ask, and can overcome the fear to take the risk.
So what about Jehova, Allah, Baal, Zeus, and so on? Maybe they exist, I don't know. But I know they aren't God. If they do exist, they're nothing more than super-powerful entities with their own limited lifespans, their own limited understanding, and their own limited power. This puts them far ahead of me on the food chain, so maybe they can affect my life. But it seems to me that if Jehova is up there toying with us all, and he has a plan, and he's proceeding according to his own whim without regard to our desires and dreams, then that's not benevolent, that's just being mean. And if his purpose for me crosses my own desires for my life, without reason or explanation, then he's nothing more than a pathetic bully for doing it. And we all know this truth from our childhood : bullies rule through fear, not love.
In fact I find the idea of a God like this thoroughly depressing. The very idea of it pales in my heart, in comparison to the possibility that we're all responsible for one another, that we're supposed to be taking care of one another as best as we can. For in the end, WE are the ones expressing the divine – and the divine does not express itself to us except through the actions of others. So if we are evil, then God is evil; if we love and care for one another, then God truly is love. There's no external bogeyman forcing you to make the decision, or threatening you with punishment if you aren't good. YOU are the one responsible for how you exist in the world – it's your own power, your own knowledge, your own actions that creates God every moment of your existence.
For if you believe in Jehova, or Allah, then make no mistake about this : what you express through your belief has nothing to do with your God, but with YOU. If you hate homosexuals, it's not because God does, it's because YOU do. If it's your opinion that women are inferior it's not because God thinks this, or because it says so in your scripture, it's because that's what YOU think, and you're using your religion as an excuse, as a crutch, as a way to disavow responsibility for your own actions. Conversely, if you love everybody, and reach out to others and do good things, then that's not Jehova, that's YOU being a good person. YOU are the benevolent God. You need no proxy to claim your goodness, you ARE your own self-expression.
So, my question to you is this : How do YOU express God to others?
I agree with the idea of taking full, absolute, searching and relentless responsibility for oneself to the greatest extent possible and then doing as much good in the world as you possibly can.
ReplyDeleteI haven't really thought about religion as a means to avoid this--there are simply so many methods people use to avoid taking responsibility. It's something one has to learn, usually because it is rarely taught. I think it can easily go either way. Many religions require looking honestly at oneself and this alone is an important piece of taking responsibility. But there are ways people will evade responsibility that they can work into virtually any belief system.
I don't think honest, reflective people who are religious use their faith this way. One thing worth thinking about is forgiveness. Because along with responsibility comes remorse and there's something to be said for just letting go of the past at some point once there is full acknowledgement, going forward, and so on. In my mind, many of these insights are available in religion or distorted in religion depending on how ethical the particular people want to be. Religion just grapples with these particular problems of being human in various respects, it doesn't cause them and it doesn't solve them.
Remorse is an interesting topic within the context of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Supposedly if you sin, you simply confess, are absolved, and have a clean slate until you sin again (probably 15 minutes later). Where's room for remorse in such a lifestyle? Why should I concern myself with regret when I know that my cosmic slate is clean every week no matter what I did? Why should I apologize to YOU for shitting on your lawn when I already apologized to God, for Pete's sake?
DeleteAs you say however, many people I know who are religious don't use their religion this way. That is to say, they don't view their religion as a tool to be used to gain some sort of spiritual (or, let's face it, social) superiority. I would argue, however, that this has everything to do with the specific person and nothing to do with the specific religion. People who are kind, decent, caring people will tend towards exhibiting those traits regardless of their religious upbringing; those traits are part of our psyche, our soul, if you will, whereas religion is a social/political construct into which we learn to fit our predispositions, however they occur in our hearts.
It's sort of the exact opposite view of that divinely-inspired moral absolutism which suggests that all moral correctness stems from the idea that we're good because of some God's commands rather than any intrinsic goodness we ourselves possess. I find the idea that we must rely on external sources for our moral certitude extraordinarily depressing...
Great article, GID. I really like your description of God in his four aspects ("his" -- let's set aside any gender question for later). When I was in college one of my psychology professors said, "Religion isn't sick, but sick people will have a sick religion." You're right that a lot of Christians have gone way off track, and use their religion as a way of promoting their own hatreds and prejudices. But doesn't the possibility of a middle ground exist? I don't want to be associated with most Christians... and yet, I'm drawn to Jesus. It appears to me that he described God in ways that are very, very close to your description.
ReplyDeleteInasmuch as atheism is no more or less of a belief than any other belief (but it is NOT, it must be pointed out, a RELIGION, not by ANY definition), I think it's entirely possible that there's a middle ground wherein kind people can find a place to coalesce around the principles of decency, gentleness, goodness, love for all mankind. In the end, I'm pretty sure I don't give a flying fuck why you're nice to people. Just be nice.
ReplyDeleteHowever, honestly compels me to admit that I've been reading about a growing body of research which is concerned with the idea that Jesus isn't a historical figure at all, but rather a composite of several other characters from other religions and folklores, designed to be palatable to all. In that regard, from a contextual basis for kindness I think we are destined to part - see my post above in response to the Mighty Ozma for more about this topic.
And, thanks for stopping by, and for your kind words! This kind of discussion is always fascinating to me when it's able to happen without dogmatic tripe dominating the conversation. :)
Nicely said!
ReplyDelete