Pulled From Rubicon2
I pulled the following from Rubicon2 because it generated a great discussion in the comments and I am hoping it will continue (Hint: Draftervoi). Please join in if you have any thoughts to add.
The original post:
Ubuntu: A New Secular Religion?
Being touted by none other than Bill "I feel your pain" Clinton, could "Ubuntu" be the next spiritual fad?
Ubuntu. That was what Bill Clinton told the Labour party conference it needed to remember this week. "Society is important because of Ubuntu."
But what is it? Left-leaning sudoku? U2's latest album? Fish-friendly sushi?
No, it's a word describing an African worldview, which translates as "I am because you are," and which means that individuals need other people to be fulfilled.
The former president, husky-voiced and down-home with the delegates, gave it a folksy flavour, describing it in terms of needing to be around others to enjoy being ourselves.
ubuntu , noun. Humanity or fellow feeling; kindness [Nguni].
Collins English Dictionary"If we were the most beautiful, the most intelligent, the most wealthy, the most powerful person - and then found all of a sudden that we were alone on the planet, it wouldn't amount to a hill of beans," said Mr Clinton.
The word comes from the Bantu languages spoken in southern Africa - and is related to a Zulu concept - "umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu" - which means that a person is only a person through their relationship to others.
And it's entered the political lexicon through the political changes in South Africa.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, in his book No Future Without Forgiveness, says: "Ubuntu is very difficult to render into a Western language... It is to say, 'My humanity is caught up, is inextricably bound up, in what is yours.'"
[It's particularly difficult to translate into American, I think.]
In his definition, it means that there is a common bond between people - and when one person's circumstances improve, everyone gains and if one person is tortured or oppressed, everyone is diminished.
["Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can, no need for greed or hunger, brotherhood of man. Imagine all the people, sharing all the world..."etc etc]
Mr Tutu's identification with ubuntu has given rise to the idea of "ubuntu theology" - where ethical responsibility comes with a shared identity. If someone is hungry, the ubuntu response is that we're all collectively responsible.
[And what of individual responsibility? Tell me, doesn't this seem a bit like old wine in a new bottle?]
There is a spiritual as well as practical dimension to this - with ubuntu reflecting the idea that we're part of a long chain of human experience, connecting us to previous and future generations.
[In ubuntu world, Leftists and neo-nazis will sing kumbaya with Zionists and we will all live happily ever after.]
Ubuntu has also entered the language of development and fair trade - with campaigners using the word in aid projects for Africa in ways that suggest this will be an African solution for African problems.
Ironically, says Rob Cunningham, Christian Aid's programme manager for South Africa, just as the word is taking off in Western society the values it embodies are in decline in the land of its origin.
"In my conversations with partner organisations and the communities they work with, and among older people, there's a deep sense of loss of ubuntu," says Mr Cunningham. "To me, it means sitting down in a Zulu hut in KwaZulu-Natal sharing scarce food and a brew and a few stories."
[I know I am a big meanie, but I am thinking, instead of sitting and sharing a brew and a few stories, perhaps they should be out there trying to solve the food shortage problem...?]
There are ubuntu education funds, ubuntu tents at development conferences, ubuntu villages, an ubuntu university - and it's now the name of an open-source operating system.
[From the ubuntu tent at the developmental conference: It takes an ubuntu to raise a village. Ubuntu loops, ubuntu cycles, unbuntu components. Let's disambiguate our centers of excellence and core competencies so that we can gain traction and incentivize via ubuntu triangulation. Perhaps if we deconstruct the parameters, we can reach the inner ubuntu, and ramp up the net-net paradigm to a point where our scalable solutions are win-win? ]
Expect to hear more from ubuntu in the future.
[AKA communism, the bad idea that will not die.]
Will prayers be offered in Esperanta?
Barbara Tuchman's "Proud Tower" reports similar ideals and fuzzy talk with urgent and important books, pamphlets, handbills, speeches and endless conversations by the Anarchists. They too believed that humans would act rationally and altruistically without governments, authority and capitalism. Communism came along and said "Yes but first you must have enlightened rulers to break a few eggs" and then the Socialist phase began. Rousseau gets the credit/blame for the idea that humanity is blessed with an inherent noble spirit and that civilization is the corrupting influence. Even the Jihady-Killers speak in the same utopian fantasy terms.
A perfect world with perfect people all giving to one another and taking only what they need keeps popping up and getting the very rich and very bored enchanted. You never hear about poor people hloding a convention and wafting about lofty idealistic sentiments because they know that they would be doing the giving and the rich folks would be doing the taking.
The Clintonian rich NEVER imagine that they themselves would not be among the elite deciding and arbitrating over the conflicts between the lesser givers and takers. No utopian ever imagines themselves to be one of the powerless in the new structure.
I love history books.
Characterizing old men sitting around the kraal, sharing a brewski, and complaining about how the modern world has gone to hell in a hand basket, as “communism” is a stretch. And what food problem? The GUY HAS A BEER, Gail, what does he need food for? All he needs is a satellite dish and the Playboy channel, and he’s in heaven.
Plus, almost ALL communities have some sort of squishy touchy-feelyism; Christian dopes tithe to their church, for example. And don’t you feel some mystical mumbo-jumbo not-understandable-to-an-outsider SENSE OF COMMUNITY with your co-religionists? Community ain’t communism.
But Clinton is wrong, DEAD WRONG, about finding yourself alone on the planet. Yeah, all your best qualities wouldn’t amount to a hill of beans. Yeah, you wouldn’t need money anymore. Your KNOWLEDGE, however, would keep you entertained. Most dopes would sit around commiserating about the disappearance of the rest of humanity.
I, for one, would dedicate my declining years to….oh, I don’t know, burning all the great works of art that I could get my hands on, for one. With no one left alive…and no one to appreciate the great classics after you’re gone, why not keep warm in the winter around a nice cheery fire composed of Vermeers? Love that color! I’d do a little demolition work down at the DMV, too. Revoke my license, will ya, ya feckless rat-bastards!
No, man, your smarts would create ENDLESS OPPORTUNITIES for entertainment, once the rest of the talking monkeys were cleared off this mudball. Ever wonder what the Eiffel Tower would look like lying on its side? Go find out! The Elgin Marbles? Grind ‘em to dust. The Amazing Adventures of Captain Gladys Stoat-Pamphlet and Her Intrepid Spaniel Stig Among The Giant Pygmies of Beckles, Volume Eight? Burn it!
Yo, world! I gots your ubunto, RIGHT HERE, pally boy!
Gail,
I think your post is very perceptive. Ubuntu thus heralded as a world answer by Clinton, et al, is indeed a de facto secular religion. It is another iteration in a long line of postmodern liberation theologies, spiritual replacements which strike at the heart of Judeo-Christian spirituality [and civilization].
Classic Judeo-Christian thought has always demanded that the individual be oriented with the divine, re-created in proper relation on the vertical axis...which then funds proper relation on the horizontal, human to human sphere.
Judeo-Christian teaching is very suspicious of the idolatry invested in the human plane, and the continual human bent to replacement deities: horizontal and socialistic spiritualities which always usurp the proper Creator/creation role.
This is the whole premise of the Law, the Torah, and the Commandments: Divine relation necessarily precedes and funds proper human relations.
Thus the first Commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." And, the first Instruction: Shema Yisrael, Adonai Eloheinu Adonai e'had.
The first four Sinai Commandments speak to this necessary Divine-human orientation -- and from this flows the subsequent understanding of human-human orientation. And thus the weight of the moral Law: a revelation [vertical breakthrough] based existence...
Revelation precedes human restoration. Humans are mere "idol factories" without revelation.
And this is where Ubuntu and all secular spiritualties depart from being true answers for humanity: they create humanity itself as the axis of salvation, in replacement or outright denial of individual answering to Creator.
It is pretended that salvation can be accessed through humanity, or, as Gustavo Gutierrez put it, "The Sacrament of the Neighbor."
Perhaps the attractiveness of Ubuntu and other similar metaphysics lies in two related streams: 1. The fact that it emphasizes the ethical obligations/relations to the neighbor [a partial truth], and 2. Then that it uses this framed relation to neighbor to deny or devalue the vertical spiritual dimension [relation to Creator]: agnosticism in moral terms.
And, in political terms, you are very keen, Gail: the heart of Liberation Theology is Marxism.
And, as other brilliant mind once said, from the inside, mincing no words: "Socialism is atheism."
Ubuntu allows all the warm emotions, the language of religious observance without the tough sacrifice of individual responsibility before Creator -- which we all flee, to certain degrees...
And, speaking of fleeing that relation...to briefly respond to DRaftervoi's characterization of "Christian dopes" paying tithes: Only when vertical relation is understood will the horizontal giving of tithes and offerings be understood. It is a derivative, communal action of one who dares to be an individual before God.
The concept comes straight out of Judaism, and is only understood from a Judaic frame of vertical revelation funding horizontal peace...
Anyway, I digress! Thanks for a great article, Gail.
Loy
Don't be deceived, pal, I throw rhetorical RAW MEAT out as BAIT all the time. AndyJ has accused me of STIRRING THE POT, which means he's probably seen through the smoke and mirrors. Nonetheless, he keeps coming back to trade barbs with yours truly. G*d knows that you'd think Gail would be sick, nigh unto a weary death of my looking at the empty sky and seeing only empty sky, but what can ya do? She puts up with me because I'm quite clear that atheists don't know squat about the nature of reality, and sure as shootin' don't have any rights to act morally superior, given that the officially atheist regimes killed more people in hte 20th century than all the religions, through all time. The sentence doesn't work in reverse: atheism does NOT equal socialism. In my case, I'm going nowhere other than an imaginary hell, so I want it all now. Yeah, sin of pride, sin of greed, but on the other five, I'm a fargin' saint.
My dos pesos is that the God-addled have a relationship with NOTHINGNESS and that mazuma spent on your mosques, or whatever you call 'em, could be better spent on, well, a donation to DRaftervoi. Cash only, some of you mooks write me checks on the Bank of Nova Scotia, which is like in, Uzbekistan, or some other third-whirled heck-hole.
Loy, I am in awe of the way you put those words together. You have eloquently described my belief and understanding of Judaism to a T. Thank you.
It seemed to me that Clinton was appealing to liberal guilt in order to promote the idea of spreading wealth more equally. It sounds nice on the surface, but it ruins the motivation of achievers to help come up with solutions for the have-nots - irrigation systems, the cure for AIDs, alternative food sources, etc. It also ruins the motivation of the have-nots to do anything other than have their hand out.
To feel sorry for others and to feed them is actually very easy. To motivate them to become strong and responsible for themselves is a lot more difficult.
I am sure I could have expressed it better than I did in the post above.
Gail,
Thank you for the kind words, and back at you. I think you expressed yourself just fine -- and sometimes the word better said becomes a word unsaid. So, thank you for saying it like you did!
And, DRaftervoi: no harm, no foul. Stirring the pot is a worthy pastime, as long as the stirrer is making better soup, and not witches brew, lol. :-)
As to why Gail welcomes your presence, I think that much is clear: you are an alternating mixture of satirical, funny, witty, intelligent and honest -- a great combination for any person. And, every thinking believer needs a resident skeptic, imo. What a blessing for Gail that hers comes in such a palatable package, lol.
MacPhee only made Ransom more, not less [cf. That Hideous Strength]!
Aside: Merold Wesphal has an intriguing take on this in Suspicion and Faith: The Religious Uses of Modern Atheism.
As to you going nowhere other than an imaginary hell: I have hopes that persons such as yourself will go to a real heaven, should you be wrong.
George MacDonald says something to the effect that a necessary part of true faith is to reject what is false in the popular packaging of God. It is more noble to reject the false and call it unbelief than to embrace the false and call it belief. And [per Westphal], sadly, many atheists are far more honest about the falsity than are "true believers."
So, that to say, I have hopes for even such as you, should you be wrong. :-)
And, regarding Jews and Christians as worshiping "nothingness" [as you put it], you are wrong.
Not that it will ever be proven to you, or that you would want it to be even if it could, but God is real -- more real than you or I...
As one poet has said, "In Him we live and move and have our being." For we are His offspring, and indeed, He is not far from any one of us -- though we believe, and seek, and find, or yet stumble in the dark.
In the end it's not so much our faith that matters, but His faithfulness...
Loy writes, "As to why Gail welcomes your presence, I think that much is clear: you are an alternating mixture of satirical, funny, witty, intelligent and honest -- a great combination for any person. And, every thinking believer needs a resident skeptic, imo. What a blessing for Gail that hers comes in such a palatable package, lol."
Bullseye once again. You are on a roll!
Debating with Draftervoi is both good for the brain and enjoyable. I respect his logic, intelligence and principles. And yes, his honesty. He says what he means and means what he says.
Not that it ever COULD be proven to me, because what we debate lacks corporeal reality (notwithstanding such mythical manifestations as human avatars and talking, flaming shrubbery). My Atheism requires FAITH, every bit as much as does your theism, because we both have the same amount of measurable STUFF to put under our mental microcopes: nothing.
As for you as Ransom and me as McPhee? Well, at least you didn’t cast me as some bodiless head attached to wheezing machines, which, given my desire to end my days as a disembodied head floating in a vat of bubbling blue goo, would have been the obvious comparison. Well played, I say! You’ve hit the ten-penny on my pointy little head, but with one difference: unlike McPhee, I know that the best chance for the long term survival of (ir)rational materialists like me in a world infested by god-addled talking monkeys is in a world dominated by Judeo-Christian ethics of the post-Enlightenment West, and I know that godless materialists like myself are adrift without those Judeo-Christian ethics, which derive from your G*d. In other words, you give me the space to stew in my secular juices. I do not fear some imaginary “theocracy” here in the West, that’s for spineless, fear mongering jellyfish.
Plus, I “dig” (as you hepcats say) your MONEY BACK IF YOU’RE NOT SATISFIED GUARANTEE. Should I bust a head gasket and convert to Judaism or Christianity in a weak moment, give it a fair trial, and decide it’s not for me, there’s not a one o’ you who would make the doctrinal claim that my life is now forfeit. Id est, I can quit your collective delusion, should I choose to do so. Yes, I get an eternal fire bath in some metaphoric magma, but you don’t make the claim that you get to beat me in the here-and-now. Not so with the Islamists. No quitting allowed, no quarter given. (Standard disclaimer that I make the careful distinction between Muslims like my Aunt Mina, who are rational, peaceful people, and guys like OBL).
DRaftervoi,
Well, I must say you just went up in my estimation, lol -- you've actually read That Hideous Strength, which places you in a pretty select class. And, you actually spelled McPhee's name right, which I failed to do... so, take a well-deserved bow! :-)
And, of course, you are spot on re: the "money back guarantee" of the Judaic and Christian families -- no argument there. You state it well.
However, per your assertion that God cannot be proven to you simply because of a lack of corporeality, I must make the humble observance that such a statement is based on the assumptions of evidentialism. Which, I humbly submit, are deeply flawed.
Only if evidentialism is right is your assertion right -- and perhaps with your mind you can easily see the flaws of evidentialism?
Or, maybe not... but I'd be interested in your reply!
Have a great night,
Loy
Yeah, yeah, attempts justifing faith by evidence are philosophically unworkable on several grounds. You guys believe because you believe, which is somewhat tautological, but it is what it is: as the great American philosopher Popeye put it, "I yam what I yam and that's all what I yam." (Cogito Ergo Dioscoreaceae)
Now, If my comment on corporeality were my only problem, you'd be right about evidentialism, but I really, truly, DO NOT SEE what you and Gail so clearly see. I've been told to look into a baby's eyes, or to look at the sunset, or to stare into the depths of interstellar space, or to ponder the complexities of the atom ad nauseum, and there I will see G*D, but I look, and I look, but I do not see what you see there. I don't demand the evidence, I'm TOLD that the evidence is there, if only I will look at it long enough. But I see nothing! No word made flesh, no guiding spirt, no anything. All I have is THE FAITHFUL telling me that they see something that I cannot see, and they FEEL something I cannot feel, and it's always confirmed by evidence just out of my reach. You ask me to take your word, and at the same time, fifty other guys ask me to take their word about Ganesha, Manitou, Krishna, L. Ron Hubbard...and they all have a pocketful of miracles to prove it. False gods, the lot o' them, along with ghosts, fairies, Madame Blavatsky, Amaterasu, unicorns, the Rosicrucians, Allah, the Loch Ness Monster, and your unpronouncable Tetragrammaton.
Oh, and you guys usually want money. G*d needs a house, or needs to pay human agents to do H*s work. I figure it's not because you're greedy, but because once people have donated money to something, they become emotionally committed and involved in it. It's harder to think clearly once you're emotially involved. Donating money is good psychological manipulation, and it's one of the things I admire about religion. You wouldn't happen to have twenty dollars I can borrow, would you? Seriously, I promise not to spend it on smack. I'm clean, really.
I fully acknowledge that my lack of belief requires just as much faith as your belief. I have to believe that my "not-seeing" is as valid as your "seeing." My best guess is that most humans are hardwired to see G*d - the evidence sure supports G*d spontaneously generating himself/herself/itself in virtually all known historical cultures. (What I wouldn't give for a chance to talk to those mooks at Lascaux...late Pleistocene ur-religion, or cave-teens showing off for the fur-binikied babes from the next cave over...? "Want to come back to my cavern and see my etchings...?") But if you're hardwired to see it, I'm not. I acknowledge that G*d(s), by their very incorporeal nature, are not subject to the laws of evidence. So we come back to Popeye, as we always do: you am what you is, and I yam DRaftervoi.
(Sidebar, counselor: Yeah, I read the Perelandra trilogy....four? five times or so, back in the 70s, and I raised my larvae on the Narnia series. Inculcating ethics and morality in my larvae has been a core task of mine. My ex is an attorney, so I have to fight against the Darkness.)
"I really, truly, DO NOT SEE what you and Gail so clearly see. I've been told to look into a baby's eyes, or to look at the sunset, or to stare into the depths of interstellar space, or to ponder the complexities of the atom ad nauseum, and there I will see G*D, but I look, and I look, but I do not see what you see there."
I can't speak for Loy, but belief is not like that for me. My belief is a hope. It's a preference for order and reason over randomness, a desire for a greatness beyond flawed humanity, and for an educational purpose to free will and suffering.
I choose to believe because I find the idea of God plausible and infinitely preferable to the alternative.
DRaftervoi,
Forgive my slow response to your quick reply... my slowness in no way indicates my appreciation for your thoughts! Just a bit busy. Will reply late tonight, hopefully.
Loy
DRaftervoi,
A couple of prelim items:
1. “…they all have a pocketful of miracles to prove it…” Miracles are not proof of religious validity. They are an expected corollary of God’s existence and claims, and are somewhat proof against rationalism, but they are not validating in and of themselves. In mathematical terms: necessary but not sufficient. Light is not the only source of supernatural; darkness is very adept at the same. Miracles stand under judgment of other criteria, more properly viewed as subsequent to faith rather than a catalyst of it. Miracles can be bolstering to a true faith, but by their very nature [miracles are miracles, not ordinaries], a double-edged sword: humans being what we are, where we are, we always want more miracles than we get. We can easily be sidetracked from intended life by seeking or seeing miracles…
2. “Should I bust a head gasket and convert to Judaism or Christianity in a weak moment…” I would say that should you seek faith, it would not be a weak moment, but your strongest moment. It would be taking the sacred Ark onto your shoulders and stepping into the Jordan River, trusting the waters to part beneath your feet... It would be of a class above rationalistic skepticism as those who stepped into the waters [without proof, only promise] were above those who might have remained on the bank laughing: “Look at Joshua! He actually expects that flooded river to give way!” The ones on the bank would have a certain level of laws on their side, limited logic and physics; the ones who stepped into the water would have another level on their side: transcending their own doubts, playing a risky hand into existential proof. Paradoxically, one only reaches such strength by admitting his own weakness, and facing it head on – submitting his weakness to higher principles and stepping out on the same…
And this admission of weakness strikes at the heart of your central claim.
You take the fact that “you do not see,” that you are “hardwired” to non-belief, as prima facie evidence that this is the way it should be. In this you are correct, that faith must be expressed: your faith is in your own person, your own reason, your own cognitive processes. This is a reasonable stance, amenable to both rationalism and evidentialism.
Here there is implicit trust of your own “hardwiring,” as you put it. Since you are what you are, you are justified in being nothing more than what you are…
And yet, Judeo-Christian thought would say that such self-trust is misguided, and for good cause.
J-C revelation clearly shows that early on, something went wrong with human hardwiring: human base-wiring is inherently flawed to varying degrees, in varying ways: one person is wired to anger, another to chemical addiction, another to compulsive behavior, another to pederasty, another to adultery, another to promiscuity, and so on… Furthermore, this flawed hardwiring is not related to creation intent, or to destiny: it actually fights against the true intended person.
To say that you are hardwired to non-belief is to say no more than what J-C revelation already says about you: your hardwiring is flawed; welcome to the human story! The issue is not so much to what degree our wiring is flawed; the issue is to what degree we allow divinity to restore our wiring to creation intent.
Merton provocatively notes that the natural self is the enemy of the true self.
That one sentence sums the secular human story of the 20th century. It exposes the various existential appropriations of rationalism. Modern humanity is all about taking what is as a point of departure for what should be, to the loss of what can be in grace.
The prophet Jeremiah says, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is exceedingly corrupt: who can know it?” When the heart, or hardwiring, is taken as point of departure, foundation for life, we lose something great, we build on sand.
Your hermeneutic of suspicion needs to extend to your own heart, your own hardwiring. It is then that knowledge of God will gradually penetrate your cognitive resources.
When you say that God cannot be proven to you, in a way you are right. If you place on God the superficial, truncated grid of the “laws of evidence” as defined in post-Enlightenment rationalism, you merely define God out, a priori. Thus your recurring appeals to corporeality, and lack of it.
But you must realize in this move that you are not seeking God, or evidence of God, whatever else you are doing. For God explicitly claims not to be of this nature: God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.
For a materialist human to appeal to “scientific method” and materialist theory as a claim against evidence of God is a contradiction of terms. It is the inversion of intelligence toward self, and away from spiritual truth. It is the killing of the true self on the altar of the natural self.
As Pascal said, there are two errors: to exclude reason [and descend into irrationality], or to admit only reason [and clasp on the freezing armor of rationalism]. Faith embraces both reason and transcendence, to revelation of the Holy.
If one would seek God, s/he must seek God where God will be found: the moral Being, found in moral seeking. Even for humans blinded in materialist, replacement deities, the Torah promises revelation in moral seeking: “But from there [materialist blindness] you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find Him if you seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul” [Deuteronomy 4:29]. Based on this passage, the prophet Jeremiah later speaks for God: “And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart” [Jeremiah 29:13].
Here is the kicker: God promises evidence, He promises finding [certain knowledge], but it relates to a certain commitment of the heart and soul. We find that the heart, the human hardwiring, is not the assumptive starting point at all; indeed, spiritual knowledge begins 180 degrees opposite: in the release of the heart and soul, commitment to divine principles.
So, you are right to say that God cannot be proven to you. He cannot, especially in the misguided canons of rationalism. However, when one steps out onto the water, on the basis of higher principles, to seek God where He promises that He will be found, God reveals himself to that person. Here it is God himself who conquers the blinded heart, with new sight. The universe is gradually seen for what it is: a moral creation, dancing in light of a moral Being.
Here, evidence is given that far transcends the paltry human materialist definition of evidence, as high as E=MC2 is above 2+2=4.
And this is why there is hope for you, DRaftervoi, an honest atheist that learns belief, a leopard that changes its spots, an old dog that learns new tricks, lol. :-)
Frankly, I find much to admire in you. You are one of the rare atheists of whom C.S. Lewis spoke in glowing terms: a dying breed, pure in thought, locked into the highest reaches of post-Enlightenment rationalism, consistent to a fault, and utterly dependable. You could never be a disembodied head: you would ever stand with civilization when darkness threatened: A McPhee, yes; a Frost, never.
And yet, for all that, such qualities may keep you from faith, if they foster intellectual pride. For pride will hinder knowledge of the Holy – only 100% of the time.
Which is not to deny a rightful pride of you, btw. You have a beautiful mind. Your words are worthy and sharp. Your principles apparently lived by… and this can be said of so few! So I applaud you wholeheartedly, but just to say: a trust of one’s own principles above the claims of Creator leads to less inner sight, not more.
And, of course, as I say that, I acknowledge that on some level you do not distrust divine claims – at least on the ethical level. There is some kind of practical acceptance of moral law in you, if not a cognitive awareness of moral Being.
Which, ironically, may make you more of a believer than many who claim cognitive belief. You actually inculcate your children – intentionally and personally – with the highest revealed ethics. This is far more than many who claim belief, sadly…
If knowledge of God is defined as far more than mental assent to propositional truth, then many who claim faith live as practical atheists, with mental assent never touching the depths of their practical actions; and yet, you, who deny mental assent, live practically the ethics of belief.
As best I can tell, DRaftervoi, you are a grand contradiction: an atheist who lives in the vector of belief!
It is my prayer that you can also reach up to the intellectual and spiritual benefits of that belief, along the way! :-)
Anyway, I better cut this off so I can grab a few hours of sleep. Again, forgive my slow response… Have a great day with many blessings,
Loy
Loy: Though you have directed your comments to Draftervoi, I'd like to interject a bit because there are some areas where Jewish and Christian belief and philosophy differ.
I will try to get back when I can to point out the differences I see and am aware of. Yom Kippur arrives at sundown, however, and I might not have a chance to do so until after it ends.
Loy: Though I'd like to believe they have more commonalities than differences, there is one subtle difference in emphasis with regard to Judaism and Christianity which I wonder about quite frequently.
A Jew can be a good Jew without being sure of his/her belief, and for us, faith is not a prerequisite to saving the soul. This allows for a couple of things:
One, the belief that there is more than one path to God and to a moral life. Following the Noahide laws makes one a righteous gentile in our belief. We are all made in God's image, we are all equal. The "choseness" of Jews does not make us better, it simply gives us a responsibility to follow additional laws. My personal belief is that Christians have shared and helped in this responsibility by spreading the Commandments so effectively.
Secondly, it allows for the thought that God has withdrawn from the world for a purpose. Rabbi Joseph Telushkin has written many wonderful books on Judaism. One that I particularly love is "Jewish Wisdom." He quotes Rabbi Emmanuel Rackman on faith and doubt:
God may have had His own reasons for denying us certainty with regard the His existence and nature. One reason apparent to us is that man's certainty with regard to anything is poison to his soul. Who knows this better than moderns, who have had to cope with dogmatic Fascists, Communists and even scientists?
So perhaps we are not supposed to believe with certainty.
Someone wrote, I don't remember who, that the simple following of God's law leads one to good, which in turn leads one to God. Being a good person brings certain benefits with it that helps one to have a better life. The more good one does, the happier he/she is, and consequently, the more one searches for ways to be better. The natural result is the search for God.
Emphasizing doing good deeds and following the law over faith and belief seems to me to lead to less fundamentalist extremism and greater tolerance of other pathways to God.
You wrote:
"If knowledge of God is defined as far more than mental assent to propositional truth, then many who claim faith live as practical atheists, with mental assent never touching the depths of their practical actions; and yet, you, who deny mental assent, live practically the ethics of belief.
As best I can tell, DRaftervoi, you are a grand contradiction: an atheist who lives in the vector of belief!"
An atheist who follows God's Commandments is a righteous person and I agree with you Loy, can be a better human than a religious one. I don't see it as a contradiction, because I don't think everyone requires religious belief to lead a righteous life.
The advantages to belief and faith are that they provide a greater reason to overcome internal inclinations toward selfishness, however, and for some of us, is the only way to believe that it is possible that they CAN overcome their internal demons. Why force oneself to be unselfish if no one else is? If all around you are giving in to their id driven desires, how does one hang onto goodness? How does one know anything better is possible unless one can visualize perfection? God is the carrot at the end of the stick that some of us strive for, hope for, when we see so much evil and suffering caused by man in the world.
Some people are capable of being good people without the carrot, and indeed, when things go well, it is easy to do only good.
In difficult times, thoughts, such as believing that we grow from pain, that one cannot appreciate the sweet until one has tasted the bitter, that life was not meant to be smooth, that we have a greater task than to simply please ourselves, are the only things that keeps many of us going when life hands us pain and disapointment.
Let me assure you, Loy, that I have a great respect for you and your knowledge, which is certainly greater than mine. I also have respect for Christianity and what it has given to humanity. Perhaps certainty of faith has its advantages as well as disadvantages - maybe people are more drawn to certainty than they are to questions, conflicted interpretations and doubt. Also, there are Jews who feel certain in their faith, and fundamentalist and extremist Jews do exist. The permission for doubt within Judaism does not mean the complete death of certainty. And we do need to draw on certainty at times when it comes to making moral judgments, lest we become mired in relativism and wishy washy values.
I am hardly a Torah scholar. But this is my personal interpretation of things, as honestly and clearly as I can state it. I do believe, and I don't. I once read someone comparing their faith to a radio station in the mountains - sometimes it fades in and out. That's been my faith as well. In recent years though, I've found the signal has grown much stronger. For me, religious belief is an evolutionary thing. I have a lot more to learn and think about and puzzle through.
In the end, I don't think God judges us for the strength of our belief, I think we are judged by our behavior toward one another. I think He would be very forgiving of our lack of belief - maybe more forgiving than humans are of one another. It is the use we make of the gift of free will in the face of human troubles, adversity, and inclination to selfishness that is the centerpiece of faith - knowing that the Creator is equally fond of all of his creations who are able to find ways to be fond and tolerant of one another.
Are we worthy of life? We are here to prove ourselves by our choices. God could very easily make a perfect world, and did, but we wanted more. Humans wanted knowledge and a chance to be more like God. We were given the rule book and told, ok, go to it. As we learn to overcome our negative inclinations, we repair the broken world and try to remake Eden. I see Biblical stories as allegories and symbols from which we derive meaning. If ever there was a miracle, Biblical wisdom seems to me to be miraculous, and would have taken much greater wisdom to have written than that possessed by man alone.
A final quote, which doesn't prove anything, but is food for thought:
Do you not realize that if ink were poured out accidentally on a sheet of paper, it would be impossible that proper writing should result, or legible lines such as written with a pen?...Now, if we find it impossible to reconcile ourselves to the idea that written forms can make themselves, how is it possible to say, when we see something more subtle in form [and] more difficult to create...that it was made without the purpose, power, and wisdom of a mighty designer? - Bahya ibn Pakuda, Duties of the Heart
Hi Gail,
I just returned from a trip, and read your post -- very nice thoughts.
I think perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been on the relation of faith and doubt.
I didn't mean to say that uniform certainty is a necessary part of belief, but rather that certainty of divine existence is a human potentiality, as God acts in self-revelation. This can be gradual or sudden or both...but the emphasis is not so much on human appropriation as on divine action. Doubt -- honest doubt that is -- functions as a necessary part of faithful spiritual existence, imo.
The point I was trying to make to DRaftervoi is that belief is not so much about human emotions, feelings or discoveries as obedience to divine command -- and that in this kind of life, evidence can become very real as God grants it to the individual [divine to human, overcoming Kantian problem].
In other words, we are saved from despair not so much by human faith as by divine faithfulness.
As to the interplay of doubt and faith, I actually agree with you.
Pascal describes faith as a necessary interplay of light [clarity] and darkness [doubt, obscurity], which must exist this way because of human pride, the fatal bent of humanity to create Babel wherever uniform certainty is found.
If there were no obscurity, man would not feel his corruption: if there were no light, man could not hope for a cure. [Pensees, 446]
God wishes to move the will rather than the mind. Perfect clarity would help the mind and harm the will. Humble their pride. [Pensees, 236]
There's a lot here... but suffice to say that I agree with you that perfect clarity is not the human lot. And if Pascal is right, this condition is necessary to the divine re-orientation of human will in the faithful.
My emphasis to DRaftervoi that knowledge of God is possible, even for the skeptic [as s/he seeks God where God promises to be found], is not intended to pretend that doubt has no place -- far from it! the place of doubt is crucial to the will. I merely want to offer the "light" part of the equation as a beacon of hope.
C.S. Lewis, a converted atheist who always maintained a soft spot for honest atheists, talked openly of the place of doubt with faith...his doubts subsequent to conversion and the part they played in his journey.
And, one of the most famous Christian prayers relates to this paradox of knowledge and lack of it:
There is a passage in the Gospels where a man brings his child to Jesus to be healed, and his faith has been shattered -- he's seen so many supposed cures and nothing changed, that he says to Jesus, "If you can do something for him, will you?"
Jesus responds, "Man, what do you mean, 'If I can?'" "Don't you know that all things are possible to him who believes?"
At this the man falls to his knees and exclaims, "Lord, I believe, help thou my unbelief."
And there, in one sentence, is the human condition, and a prayer to transcend that condition: I believe, but help my unbelief!
Like this, the whole person is placed under grace -- beliefs and doubts on the healing path: honesty in admitting lack, but also honesty in seeking answers based on the character of Him who has the answers.
Even with doubt, God promises evidence, enough certainty for life, to those who seek on His basis...
Thanks Gail, for your detailed and heartfelt post -- very honest and apt! Perhaps it can better frame my response to DRaftervoi, making it more complete and/or clear.
Many blessings,
Loy
With all due MODESTY, BLAISE Pascal was bound to turn up here (I thought). I was waiting for Gail's response, because I figured her different perspective of her G*d (as opposed to yours)will allow me to throw in William Of Occam's "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" in a vague attempt to point out that there are as many gods as there are believers ("idol factories" as Loy calls 'em), and that they couldn't all have created the universe (and I would get to sneak in a 1960's comic reference, to boot). Pascal's Wager, man, is always good for roll o' the argumentative dice.
This won't be it, however, because I have to reread what you both wrote several times, ponder the points, and craft a proper response. Henry IV will have to make an appearance, too, as will the Heptones. One of the problems of the Internet is that since everything happens at the speed of light, everybody expects everything to have already happened, but I'm going to have to write the damned thing in real time.
Ubuntu sounds like a fancy word for utopia, another one of those u words. People are always searching for perfection here on earth, for the perfect place to live, perfect person to spend life with, perfect job, perfect whatever. i know i sound like an old grouch, but regardless, perfection just can't be reached here. Not that we shouldn't keep trying to reach for it though. Good luck to everyone else in their own search, and yeah, i am one of those people who does believe that people need people (and are the happiest when they do), as Babs would say. She wouldn't sing about ubuntu, would she? :)
Posted by: MsWrite | October 17, 2006 at 11:59 PM
i have to say that i am very happy to see Draftervoi posting here, and now i am also intrigued to read more of Loy's commentary. It is late, however, and i must get to sleep. i am faced with real challenges at work these days, and i'm not getting any younger. i'm so very happy to be able to get to Gail's blog once again, and will definitely be back.
Posted by: MsWrite | October 18, 2006 at 12:05 AM
Uh...testing, testing...do I need to get a password from you to post?
Posted by: DRaftervoi | October 18, 2006 at 10:24 AM
I have a severe faith deficiency. After many years of trying to believe, of praying for the gift of the peace that passeth all understanding, of following Waugh's advice to go through the motions of belief even though I wasn't feeling it, I shrugged off the Sisyphean stone and let it rest at the bottom of the hill.
I'm pleased to know that some folks have the ability to perceive the Divine. It's a faculty that continues to elude me.
Should it turn out that there really is an Afterlife and a Heavenly Host and a Pater Noster, I shall be surprised indeed, and more than slightly miffed at having to spend Eternity somewhere rather than nowhere. It's hard enough for me to look busy during the two weeks between finishing my recons and next month's closing.
Posted by: Malibu Stacy | October 18, 2006 at 02:39 PM
MsWrite: Thanks for stopping by and commenting.
Draftervoi: A password is needed to get into Rubicon2, but should not be necessary for Rubicon3. Another reader wrote to me this morning saying that he'd been asked for a password for R3. If this problem persists, please let me know and I will...well, I don't know what I'll do, but I'll search for a remedy.
Malibu: LOL.
I have an extreme preference for meaning over randomness. I hate randomness. I want things to make sense and for life to have a purpose outside of eating, evacuating and replicating.
Would prefer not to be a cog in wheel going nowhere.
Posted by: Gail | October 18, 2006 at 03:54 PM
"If we were the most beautiful, the most intelligent, the most wealthy, the most powerful person - and then found all of a sudden that we were alone on the planet, it wouldn't amount to a hill of beans," said Mr Clinton.
This ubuntu, while an idealistic meaning, sounds like I'm okay You're okay. Well, what if I'm not okay and you sure aren't---speaking generally? And besides, Mr. Clinton, as a most powerful person, spilled all his hill of beans, so to speak, and he was surrounded by friends and media and ambitious wife. He contradicted his own statement in my totally unbiased opinion. (That was funny---laugh!) As for faith-I have a lot of it, even though at times I don't understand its depth totally, but I have nowhere else to turn. I will readily admit much of my faith stems from guilt that I 'should' and I am still unsure whether that is God or my mother guilting me. Whatever. It is a journey each day. And sometimes I am just not in the mood to travel. But I do anyway.
Posted by: alisa | October 18, 2006 at 04:36 PM
Well, let's give this a shot...I'm getting the password box, and "x"ing it closed ("Passwords? Passwords! We doan need passwords! I doan havto show you no steenkin' passwords!" - Alfonso Bedoya doing his DRaftervoi impression in "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre) and then I'm going to try and post.
If it works, it means my getting the little password box is meaningless! Like existence! It's just a random event with no deeper meaning!
Posted by: DRaftervoi | October 19, 2006 at 07:25 PM
Alisa says, "It is a journey each day. And sometimes I am just not in the mood to travel. But I do anyway." That, I think is a pretty fair summary of faith, in three sentences, lol. Thanks, Alisa.
Malibu Stacy says, "I shall be surprised indeed, and more than slightly miffed at having to spend Eternity somewhere rather than nowhere. It's hard enough for me to look busy during the two weeks between finishing my recons and next month's closing." First, lol! nice humor. Second, you may have eternal existence mixed up with eternal LIFE, which is definitely not the same thing... Thirdly, I'm sorry that the concept of faith is a Sisyphean stone for you -- but I would tweak that advice of "going through the motions of belief" [for the purpose of self-awareness of faith], instead to something like "seeking to do what God would have you do each day" [a struggle of conscience with natural desire] -- expressly not for the purpose of self-faculty, but rather self-humility on a divine path. Yours is the hard path, without many markers, and if you feel it a Sisyphean stone, perhaps too much to bear! But in divine terms faithfulness trumps faculty of faith, and herein is hope even for those who cannot believe, that day...
DRaftervoi says, "If it works, it means my getting the little password box is meaningless! Like existence! It's just a random event with no deeper meaning!" To which I say, 'Not if you know the code, Sir DRaftervoi!' lol. The little password box has an infinite variety of meaning attached to it, a little window into the soul of Gail -- for those who have the code given them! A challenging metaphor of faith, no? :-)
Great humor scattered in these various brains, lol. Thanks all for great insights...
Many blessings to you all this day!
Posted by: Loy Mershimer | October 21, 2006 at 01:43 PM
"The little password box has an infinite variety of meaning attached to it, a little window into the soul of Gail -- for those who have the code given them!"
Be careful. The munchkins and unicorns get upset if you peek without knocking first. And the elves have been known to bite.
Posted by: Gail | October 21, 2006 at 11:43 PM
"Yours is the hard path, without many markers, and if you feel it a Sisyphean stone, perhaps too much to bear!"
Well, for one thing, my reference to the Sisyphus myth was meant to convey the futility of my efforts, and not to claim that the act of belief is an excessive burden.
DRafter's remarks about "hard-wiring" for faith do have some basis in genetic research. I truly feel I am constitutionally unable to perceive the divine in much the same way that a monochromat lacks the ability to perceive color. Now, whether Dean Hamer will prove to be the John Dalton of spiritual blindness remains to be seen, but he does field an hypothesis that very neatly explains why I cannot see what seems so evident to so many.
Still, of all the various genetic defects that plague me, lack of the "spirituality gene" is by far the least troublesome. It requires much less behavioral accomodation than my dysautonomia and needs absolutely no antibiotic prophylaxis.
Posted by: Malibu Stacy | October 22, 2006 at 01:10 PM
Malibu,
It's quite interesting that you place the issue in your own [subjective] hardwiring, rather than in the objective reality.
It sounds as if you are quite willing posit the existence of God theoretically, it's just that you doubt your ability to ever be cognitively aware of that existence...
If so, my heart goes out to you -- truly, the Sisyphean metaphor is apt. And yet, it need not be the end of the story... For God has been known to do what is humanly impossible, even to the addressment of faulty hardwiring. Perhaps the only path is prayer? And yet, sometimes we need others to pray for us, when we enter conditions where we cannot pray ourselves... so if you want me to pray for you, I will.
On your other hardwiring issues, physical illness, etc. -- I trust that you are receiving enough relief to function on a level you desire...
I'd be interested to learn what you are going through and how you are treating it, if you care to email me, btw.
Anyway, have a great night and many blessings,
Loy
Posted by: Loy Mershimer | October 23, 2006 at 12:04 AM
Well, I suppose I could put it down to a bad case of "prayer tag" that has caused the Lord and me to keep missing each other. However, if He even thinks about installing one of those automated systems, "Press 1 for Hail Mary; Press 2 for Our Father; Press 3 for instructions on properly burying your statue of St. Joseph..." I'll really call it quits with Him.
Posted by: Malibu Stacy | October 23, 2006 at 01:40 PM
Proverbs 17:22 -- "A merry heart does good, like medicine..."
Keep rolling the gold, Malibu, lol. A good sense of humor is a divine gift, and so maybe the hand of God is closer than you think, lol.
:-)
Posted by: Loy Mershimer | October 23, 2006 at 11:43 PM