Imagine if we treated gravity as a preference (follow this link even if you ignore the rest!). Personally, I'd rather know that gravity remains the same regardless of what I want it to be. Imagine cricket or football with no authoritative "how to play" - as each player goes about constructing their own situationally dependent rules of the game. Likewise, our western aspirations chase pleasures while avoiding responsibility, not surprisingly as that's a pleasant way to live ... temporarily. Also not surprisingly, we see echoes of this in the public face of Christian theology - new gnosticism, mysticism, and universalism. Inevitably the purpose is to put the safety catch on God and close the door to disturbing realities. Intellectual honesty in popular theology has, it seems, taken a back seat as we surround ourselves with the Bible in tweet form - selected snippets cast about to placate consciences while we un-follow the uncomfortable voices. It comes from blind acceptance of the Bible being selectively filtered for the message we desire. And when we're challenged, all we have to fall back on is a weak appeal to authority - "because the Bible said it." But why should I accept the Bible in the first place? Someone once asked me to prove there is a God without recourse to the Bible. This is where we should start ... first principle reasoning about God, of knowing the unknowable. Like Socrates (at least the one we know of) who reasoned One God. Like Anthony Flew. Then, through the account of God's interaction with a broken humanity we can find the authority of the Bible - the story of a logical yet unexpected fit with the nature of a true God. It's not at all comforting on first encounter. Throughout history people have tried to make God in their image - Gnosticism in all it's shades. Its no different today, and we see many on this crusade to reinterpret the Bible for their reassurance. Examples such as Rob Bell, Colby Martin, and William P. Young's "The Shack" are easy to come by. All filter our understanding of God into something that is safe, that plays the heart strings melodically, and leaves us emotionally comfortable while free to indulge in our preferential behavior - God on my terms. Even in mainstream theology we find threads of this desire to abdicate personal responsibility ... such as the Calvinist's retreat behind a paradoxical predestination of free will. However, if there is a God and God is absolute, and if the Bible reflects a history of God's interaction with broken people, then I need to face the reality of this God's nature and not remake my own god in my image. I don't want to have cancer and be told "its all going to be ok." Its not going to be ok, there's going to be misery, pain, and suffering, because cancer doesn't care about what I want, so I'd better do something about it. Probably the first thing I can do is recognize the decorative facade and strip it off to see what's behind. To most nominal or non-believers the popular stereotypes of God are hugely erroneous. We say "God is love, and a God of love would never harm me." But love could not ignore injustice, that would not be loving. So love must also be just. And thus perfect love must also be perfectly just. And so actions must have consequences. So my life has consequences, and what does God's love have to say about that? That's a reality that most don't want to see: the alternatives include falling into atheism (a deep faith position), agnosticism (retreat into denial), gnosticism or it's post-modern equivalent (a pink paradoxical haze of mysticism), pure modernism (the "I" is all powerful), even satanism. Or, they can grit their teeth and deal with reality where, like most seemingly unpleasant tasks, joy and satisfaction lie at the end. If I start from a position of imperfection to engage with a perfectly loving and perfectly just God (don't ever take one of these attributes alone), that's no recipe for success. In fact it sounds like a guarantee for failure. And here we see again the uniqueness of the Christian God compared to all others. Only the Christian God says "you can do absolutely nothing to remedy the situation." All others say "do this, do that, climb the mountain, empty your mind ... and maybe you can draw close to God, no guarantees though." The Christian God says: "Hmmm, logically you can do nothing, and logically because I am perfect you're a lost cause. But you are finite, and I am infinite, so hey, I know a way to satisfy perfect justice and perfect love. Of course in your tiny but lovable mind you can't fully understand how it works." You can understand enough of the amazing thing we call gravity to really appreciate it. So too you can understand enough of God to accept the solution to life's real flight, and if you do you'll know the joy of really flying - a joy that only exists because of God's gravity. Now that's reassurance.
0 Comments
Of dogs, gods, war, peace, and the soul. I have an intriguing and intermittent debate with someone on a different continent, of a different culture, different experiences, one who differs vastly with my belief on the meaning of life, and this has given me two thoughts. a) His dog died. Today, in looking at some of his writings I read the account of his dog's death. He wrote "I miss the one being to whom I was always completely honest." My dog also died a few years ago. She is now buried in the garden under my window, and so I find I have a shared experience. I now have a new dog, and a new relationship (but that is not a replacement for the old one). b) "Thinkers are terrified of this world". I read an article this afternoon that said this, and it talked of how we intellectualize in order to feel in control, because then we hold a safe and tamed perception of reality. We need a tame reality because what's out there is really very scary. On one hand there's genocide, war, poverty, famine. On the other there is corruption, hedonism, selfish individualism, and climbing the backs of others in pursuit of fantasy. The conjunction of these two - the life of a dog and a world in self destruction - is enough to give pause. I love living in my mind, but surely not at the expense of living in the world. I revel in wrestling with intellectual mysteries, but surely not to the point of losing my soul. My soul? Am I not mere biology? Simply the atoms, quarks, and the Higgs Boson? If so, then no problem ... life is simply what I deem it to be. Good and bad are for my making. Death is simply oblivion. My dog gave me a chemical response. The poverty a mere kilometer from my suburban house is ultimately no more important than what I'll have for breakfast. The debate on gay marriage has no real relevance. Abortion is a non-issue. The destitute prostitutes further up the road, shivering in winter night, can do whatever they want, why should I care? Sudan, Syria, Burundi and the rest ... all a big "so what". Wall street bankers, let them be corrupt and exploitive. How can anything be important unless I choose it to be ... its all only atoms. And if I choose a meaning contradictory to someone else's, how can anyone condemn me for that? You might not like it, but you cannot say I am wrong ... there is no ultimate wrong. Sure, you and I may feel some emotion, but that's only chemicals. Any values I might think I hold are no more than societal conditioning. And if I think enough about the right things, I can shield myself from feeling bad and simply enjoy my next personal project. All this will change only if I am more than matter - if there is meaning in life, ultimate meaning. And ultimate meaning necessarily has to go beyond the material existence. For anything material is in the universe, and anything in the universe is sub-universal, and anything sub-universal can only provide relative meaning. So, if there is even the slenderest of chances that I am more than my atoms, that's a reality I dare not hide from. And there I come full circle ... was the relationship with my dog no more that a chemical experience of the mind? Maybe. To me it was a reflection of the fact that I am inherently relational, and that relationships express value, and the value is a conscious recognition that there is a good and a bad that is not simply relative. And if there is something absolute, hadn't I better find out what that is? All I can do is interpret the evidence of experience. We all have the same pot to draw from, and we all have the same task to interpret what it means. Each and every individual has the opportunity to walk this intellectual road - some sadly do not take this journey. The amazing step is when the intellectual road has a conjunction with physical reality -- then we've stepped into a minefield with uncertain outcome. Anthony Flew died in April 2010 ... he died a deist. Until only a few years before his death he was arguably one of the leading atheist intellectuals of this age. But he also had the intellectual strength to look at the atoms, and he concluded there was more ... that there was a God. If there's a God, I have three questions:
And that takes me beyond this post and into a whole new area of trying to understand free will, good and bad, the necessity for absolute love to be accompanied by absolute justice, and how to find this God seen in the inherently contradictory and incompatible plethora of institutionalized religions? This is a therapeutic ramble (for me) - or else its work avoidance. I'm suffering from Monday Mud, especially after Sunday's soliloquy (and nobody has hunted me down for that yet). So like sweet and sour pork, Bovril and jam on toast, or chocolate steak, I need an antidote. I could simply point you to the latest xkcd which made me smile, but I recently promised not to. Or I could refer to the latest 2 minute history PhD, but that would be lazy.
Instead I'll draw on Holywood for inspiration (do yourself a favour and read Terry Pratchett's Moving Pictures - scarily close to reality). For example, the movie "Beautiful Creatures" doesn't have much to commend it, but has a wonderful description of forgiveness ... I need to rent the video because I've completely forgotten the explanation. So, sitting on a 15 hour flight recently I watched some schmaltzy movie whose title I forget. But there was a line in there which said "The power in any relationship lies with the one who cares less. But power is not happiness which is not joy". This really caught my attention, and I spent much of the remaining flight mulling it over. Our life's experience is about relationship. Some people have few relationships and live in loneliness. Others have many shallow relationships and live in fragility. Still others find deep committed relationship, and know strength. Then there are too many relationships that abuse ... physically and / or mentally. The obvious cases we know about, but there are also the all too common relationship where one person uses the other - in dating, steady relationships, the workplace, families ... How does one person gain power over another? And here the movie line becomes relevant: "The power in any relationship lies with the one who cares less". If I care about my relationship with someone, yet they have little care for me, then I give them power over me. For in my caring I would do nothing to hurt the relationship, because I care about the survival of the relationship. Instead I will do all I can to please them, and to have their attention on me. Conversely, the one who cares little for me has power, because I will not harm them, but they can treat me however they please, to their own ends and purposes (think of the movie "The Devil wears Prada"). So how about God? Does that mean I have power over God? Because certainly I care less for God than God cares for me (In the Christian religion, by definition I care less. In all other religions, it's the god that cares less ... another of those distinctive attributes of Christianity). Well, one has to ask the question, power to what end? We're talking relationship ... so power over how the relationship is conducted, experienced, and grown. So yes, of course I have power over God. He will do just about anything to draw me into relationship with him, so I have all the power of "NO" at my disposal. Of course, the flip side is that when I use this form of power, my humanity is lessened. My choice, your choice. Michael Bazemore posted another blog entry that just cries out for discourse. Although he and I share a love for scuba diving, we're on completely opposite ends of the faith spectrum - my Christianity and his atheism. Michael raises the topic of the pledge of allegiance in the USA, and the use of the phrase "under God". So I beg the pardon of any patriotic Americans who may read this. However, my background of apartheid South Africa maybe gives me a different take compared to Americans, whether they be of atheistic or spiritual persuasions. (The following may be presumptuous, or use too many big words. My apologies, normal service will soon resume) There's a lot in Michael's post that deserves fuller discussion, but having lived at one time for some years in the USA, I'm inclined to talk around a few points on the issue of "The Pledge of Allegiance, Atheism, and American Civil Religion". Do I have the right to comment, as a foreigner? Well, why not, at the very least the USA is very willing to comment on the internal affairs of my country. I would also note explicitly that I am speaking at a fundamental conceptual level ... of course pragmatisms come into play as well. So let me start by saying that I find the USA pledge somewhat bizarre, a bit like patriotism run amok. The pledge now days reads as: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." The "under God" was added officially in 1954. Interestingly the original, which did not have the "under God", was written by a socialist who was a Christian minister ... its interesting because of the current backlash against socialism by the US conservatives. Now "allegiance" is "a duty of fidelity", to be faithful, to be loyal. But to what? Is it to something determined by my ancestors as they engaged in their power-play to achieve control? It may be my perverse pedanticism, or perhaps because I grew up under apartheid, but compared to most Americans I have a weakened sense of fidelity to the concept of a "nation". And as for the more extreme form of nationalism, well, while the South African apartheid regime had something similar to the philosophy of American exceptionalism, I never could find it rational in the South Africa context, nor can I in the American context. It is an old debate about what makes a nation (as an aside, Terry Pratchett has an atypical but very interesting novel of that name). However, when my "nation" is comprised of an enforced agglomeration of pre-colonial tribes, multiple languages, conflicting values, with a history of abhorrent practices conducted by those temporarily in power (and I am not restricting myself to the South African 1948-1994 window), then on what basis is my fidelity a duty? Moreover, where some form of duty can be logically argued for, then at what scale of community and with what depth of commitment do I perform my duty, and why should I? For sure, there's common sense levels of basic social responsibility, and of community security, and virtues of charity, etc. As CS Lewis noted "Virtue—even attempted virtue—brings light; indulgence brings fog" (which has interesting implications for western hedonism). But my duty is surely not dominated by fidelity to some nebulous concept of the indivisibility of a externally defined collective we call a nation? I have inherited the society which has come from the choices of my ancestors. In that reality there is nothing spiritually or morally authoritative to compel my fidelity to this thing people are pleased to call my nation. Each generation has to learn anew the wisdom to know right from wrong, and the why and the wherefore. What I do have is community. My duty is to this community, for it is community that sustains me, and community is where I find expression of my humanity. Community is ultimately borderless. On a basic level it is those who share a structure of governance ... whereby we find the concept of nationhood. But community includes those in neighbouring countries where we may share rivers, fisheries, and air. And my community extends to include those with whom I trade, debate, and exchange cultural values. Ultimately of course, my community is all humanity. So on what grounds do I pledge allegiance to one subset over another. Is it not that when I do so, I am implicitly saying this subset is more valuable than that subset? How do I morally defend that? My allegiance, the duty of fidelity, necessarily emanates from my morality. And therein lies the rub. If my duty emanates from my morality, and if my morality is self determined, then my allegiance is consequently open to self definition. Does this mean that it is paradoxical to talk of atheist patriots, because each atheist defines a relative morality? Even where an external moral definition is accepted, can you have patriotic Christian, Hindu, and pagan citizens share a common pledge of allegiance. Because moralities differ, so at a very fundamental level national allegiance is at best a pragmatic although weak compromise, at worst it becomes an indoctrination of mindless masses. A pledge allegiance is thus automatically of finite authority, and where limits are unstated, of self interpreted value. In a country such as the USA, with its deep polarization between post-modern hedonism and cultural dogmatism, my question is, how does one then define allegiance? If morality is the basis of duty, and if for many morality is relativistic, then national allegiance is no more meaningful then a statement of temporary alliance to serve my preferences. Thus we come to the phrase "under God". On a pragmatic level I actually have no problem with this, as it provides no definition of God -- which "god" it is in the pledge of allegiance my be inferred by some, but with no prescription it means everything, anything, and nothing. We all serve a "god" of some form. It may be material or spiritual, of our own making (ourselves even?), a concept externally defined, or as experientially encountered. The old adage (that I subscribe to) is "I'm a fool for Christ, whose fool are you?" So let the USA say "under God", everyone is serving a god anyway. The problem is not with the phrase "under God", it's that without clear definition the nation-pledge is really one of serving a pantheon of gods in competition, a veritable Mount Olympus of gods. For myself, my allegiance is to God first and foremost, for only there do I find my point of reference.
http://xkcd.com/386/
(I'll give xkcd a break after this ... promise!) Dangerous spaces to be ... look around you, are you safe? 1. Writing blogs as if you know what you're talking about, or as if anyone cared. 2. To ignorant to know it. Uncommonly known as the Dunning-Kruger effect, you get a lot of this in armchair advisers, political commentators, unmarried marriage counselors, climate change denialists, and Fox news experts. Basically, too incompetent to know you're incompetent. This has the effect that you make a fool out of yourself and don't realize it (conversely, one of the signs of competence is an increasing awareness of your own shortcomings). This is also why democracy almost always elects mediocrity. 3. But I've still got questions. When you don't like something, you defend against reality with "well, that may be, but I've still got questions". Get over your pretentious intellectualism. The universe doesn't care if you've got questions, its going to carry on happening regardless. You're finite, so unanswered questions are an inevitable fact of life. Are you going to ignore gravity till you understand it. Will you avoid love until you can explain it? Will you deny your selfishness till you can defend it? You know you're in the agnostics heaven when you hear "but I've still got questions". Sitting on the fence is a painful position. 4. Casual confidence. Confidence is one of the hallmarks of western society. Built on the deception we instill in our kids that you can do anything you put your mind to, this leads to the fulfillment of Darwin's principles. It's deluding, and we find it expressed through phrases "Of course I could jump across that", "Oh yeah, anyone with half a brain knows it's really a plan to overthrow the government", or "It's my right to do what I want with my guns". How do you recognize casual confidence? If you're not embarrassed when you get found out, or simply shrug your shoulders if your lie is exposed, when you dismiss others pointing out your mistake, or you have no worries about mocking others, and you simply move on to your next epic failure. 5. Timidity and pride. People often think that humility goes hand in hand with timidity, and pride is the opposite of humility. Actually humility is best seen in realistic confidence. I know what I am, I know my limits, and I don't pretend to be less than I am, or more than I am. Timidity is believing I am less than I am. Pride is believing I am more than I am. Either way, you're living in a fantasy world that can get destroyed by any puff of realism. 6. I'm right, and yes, it's really true that I 'm right. Sometimes I may be right, actually right. Sometimes. The glorious explosion of realization that I'm finally right about something is a real blinder to nuance. Nuance is the essence of seeing the big picture. Seeing the big picture is perspective. Perspective is the beginning of Wisdom. So when I'm right, thats the time to pause and see what else I've missed. "I'm definitely right, that's the way we have to go, turn left". "Oops, sorry, I missed that there was a cliff in front of us" 7. Stepping off the arrow of time. Living in the past while the present begs you to take the opportunities. Hoping for the future and falling into the chasm of now. Are we the only creatures on the planet who live trying to avoid the instant? People say this generation lives in the present. I'm not so sure, I think they're trying to leap out of the present so fast so they can reach a fantasy future, that they miss what really lies ahead ... aging, ill-health, and inadequate retirement funds while your kids live in another city.
http://bit.ly/14pFGxh
You're labeled. You exposed your skin and now that's what everyone knows. You're strong and beautiful, just like toast, and you're from that place where "all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average" I'm a closet introvert, climate scientist, Christian, evangelical, African, biker, parent, white, scuba diver, bass guitarist, fan of Dr. Who, love debate, etc. My favorite authors are borderline catholic, yet I'm non-denominational and low-church, I believe in biological evolution, miracles, that I have a soul, and life after death. I learn a lot from atheists, I have a lot of questions. Think you know me now? What are you ... atheist, agnostic, fundamentalist, libertarian, democrat, recovering alcoholic, abused, extrovert, timid, blue collar worker, geriatric, NSA agent, politician, housewife, terrorist, freedom fighter, tree hugger, eco-nut, intellectual, vegan, carnivore, middle aged, American, patriot, socialist, feminist, lesbian, accountant, engineer, child, stupid, Fox news journalist, calvinist .... do any of these work for you? These are not me. These are not you. Labels are a tool that you and I use to make other people safe for us to deal with. Labels contain, limit, and define. They place boundaries on what's included and what's excluded. Labels are expressions of power. If I call you an aggressive overbearing misogynist, or a pathetic timid weakling, or a pretentious parochial pedantic twit - these are all part of a power game to belittle you and exert my power. Or I might equally label you as awesome, beautiful, sexy, rich, intelligent, funny. Then I'm just trying to exert influence over you by currying favor and get you to notice me. Real people are messy, with unknown histories behind a facade that's tuned to society. Real relationships are messier ... like mixing one pot of goulash with another. Exposing the real person is scary - to the person exposing themselves, and to the one seeing it for the first time. What a mess you and I really are - and if you think otherwise you're deluding yourself. I used to think that when I was grown up I would be mature, on top of things, in control. All that really happened was that I became more and more aware of my metaphysical intestinal rumination - a twisted, tortuous, tangled mess trying to extract nutrition from the experiences flowing through me. And emerging at the end ...? Churches are one of the worst places for labels. Just look at the splintering of denominations, the frictions between catholic and protestant and methodist and baptist. Churches use labels in an embarrassing and judgmental way ("hey there, you sinner"), even when they're true! So labels are useful, inevitable, practical, dangerous and limiting. Is there any label that does not constrain, does not box us, that frees us rather than controls us? Jesus looked behind the labels, except for one. I submit: "Child of God" |
Why?
Probably the best therapy is to express yourself. Why do you think psychiatrists make you lie on the couch and talk, while all they do is murmur "hmmm", "uhuh", or "go on"? Archives
May 2017
|