Sunday, October 23, 2011

The First Post: G-O-D and Our Big Ideas

I'd like to begin by saying that I am completely new to this seemingly well-established blog scene, and so the fact that I am writing this under the notion that other people will be reading it makes me feel kind of funny, though not in a bad way. Truth of the matter is, nobody will very likely see this except close friends, and even then, I shouldn't let the idea of someone reading every word of this affect what I say and the way I say it. So on that note, let's begin.

The idea to make this came about last night, actually, during a conversation with a friend about his own blog (and once I get more hip to this blog thing, I'll figure out how to link his site here). This particular individual used to be a fairly devout Christian, hailing from the land of milk and honey: Texas. Coming to college in Vermont, he's given up his evangelism for a more "rational" approach to life, i.e. Atheism. His blog mainly deals with questions of faith and the religious mindset as he sees it from his perspective (and thanks to his Christian background, he is what I'd like to call a "knowledgeable Atheist").  The argument made in his blog and during the course of our conversation was that unerring faith in a God-figure is simply unsubstantiated, doesn't make sense.  And of course, being the contrarian that I am, I felt a kind of discomfort when I tried to land on that conclusion as my stopping point. To understand where I'm coming from, let me give you some background:

I was raised in an Episcopal household, the majority of my family being relatively involved in the Church-life.  Both my father and mother, as I grew older, became increasingly involved in that scene, and when I reached the proper age, they began sending me to youth group. Now, like I said, I've always been the kind of person that finds some point on which to disagree, no matter where I am. So, as my parents urged me into the kind of life that so many young people my age were embracing pretty wholeheartedly, I instead pushed back. I didn't take to the youth group "lifestyle" - a bunch of early-teens who somehow felt totally cool with the idea of falling on their knees in divine worship. I felt like an outsider there, needless to say. So I finally ditched that once my parents gave me permission to decide for myself. What made it worse was that, because my folks were so involved in that whole thing, and because I once was too, people from the Church would always be asking about me, asking when I'd come back to youth group, asking why I never came to church. Meanwhile, I was never home. I was off with my friends playing loud music in basements, smoking pot, and involving myself in all manner of delinquent activities. It was at this time, with the aid of marijuana and other such "poisons" that I discovered for myself an authentic sense of the "religious" or "mystical" experience. I put those adjectives in quotes because I know that for so many people, drug-induced experiences are not authentic experiences, nor is the knowledge taken away from them. My feeling on that matter should be clear already. I was a changed person, and I found myself willingly picking up books about Buddhism, Hinduism, mystical Christianity, and so on. So, I found myself in a strange dilemma. On the one hand, my parents and a whole slew of folks down at the local church were waiting for me to "see the light", while on the other hand, I almost felt like I had, in a way. But, again, being the contrarian that I am, I rejected what I found to be such a "restrictive" spiritual path, and continued to study, on my own time, the wisdom of the Ancients.

So here I am, close to graduating college with a degree in philosophy and religious studies, and I still can't confidently put into words my feelings about God. One thing I've learned for sure here in college is that it's much easier to feel like you know what you're talking about. It makes life so much simpler when you feel like you understand it, when you have a solid belief (whether that belief is scientifically substantiated or not) about the life you're living and where it's going. On the one hand, all the people I know that are devoted Christians, that tell me that they know in their hearts that Christ died for them, they seem happy. They seem like they've got something figured out. At the same time, the people that I've met in my life that don't believe in God, that are pretty damn sure that there's no bearded man on a cloud recording our every misdeed (and I see what they mean), they too seem like they've got something figured out. As for me (and I don't want to sound like I'm complaining or pitying myself, because that brings up all kinds of questions about the Self and who I am, and I've yet to really feel good about that one either), I've never been able to feel confident about either position, God or no-God. Where does this leave me? Well I've noticed for one that it leaves me in a place of not being very contributory during those big deep God-conversations that college student like to have. Perhaps one way I could reconcile that is by taking the time now to try to put into words my feelings about God. Here goes:

First off, assuming there is a God, I don't think God is a man. I don't think "he" has any human qualities whatsoever, and would be better referred to as an It. Even then, placing a discriminatory designation such as "it" on something that is always referred to as infinite, omnipresent and eternal kind of seems like trying to fit the ocean in a teacup. If one is to try to understand what the concept of God really means, one has to inquire about its genesis as an idea (pun intended). What was it that that first human being really experienced when he or she came away with an understanding of an underlying Power, a Force prior to any created thing? One must really examine the institution of religion itself to really understand what God is. As human beings, the most complex creature on the planet Earth, we have created these different paths, religions, all of which are centered around the search for and the understanding of a principle that is fundamental and prior to Life itself, prior even to the material world around us. What is more, just about every "path" that can be called a religion makes the claim that it is the only true way to this Principle. Each religious institution orbits around that Principle, although it is described very differently by each, yet aren't all things described very differently depending on what corner of the globe you find yourself? I have heard a few nice analogies for this. Everyone on the Earth must drink water. Here in America and other English-speaking countries, we all know it as Water. Yet, if you find yourself in another part of the world, it is called Wasser, or Acqua, or Wai, or Voda, or Vatten, or Eau. If an English speaker found himself in France and demanded a cup of WATER!, he would be looked at like a lunatic. It is not that these people don't drink water, or don't understand what water itself is, they just refer to it as something else. Likewise, the vast array of different religious paths have arisen out of deep cultural heritages that influence almost everything that we understand today about different religions. The fundamental question, however, is this: what is it that all of these religious paths are trying to find their way towards? The Buddhist calls it Buddha-nature, Christians call it the trinitarian God, Muslims call it Allah, Jews call it Adonai, Hindus call it Brahman (or any of the other hundreds of names given to the principle of Creation and Destruction). The list goes on, and we, being creatures defined by culture, are sure that God is a man with a son named Jesus. But this story has been replayed countless times in the cultural imagination of humanity - the idea that we are beings destined for communion with a Force greater than ourselves if we can only widen our view to see it.

So what is God? I don't know. But one thing I think I can be certain of, if nothing else, is that whatever God really is cannot be defined and conditioned by cultural influence, cannot be succinctly delineated with a word. Trying to do so, like I said, is similar to scooping up water with a teacup and claiming to have the ocean. For me, the great search that every individual must come to terms with should not be limited by name and form, cultural tradition and the preconceived ideals contained therein; rather that search should be defined by an effort to understand That which comes before everything.

7 comments:

  1. Hey Petey,

    Wow man. First off, welcome to infamous Blogosphere. I have to say that I really enjoyed reading your first entry. You're a natural, kid.

    For the thousands of readers who don't know, I'm that Texas-Athiest kid Peter was talking about up there. A couple of passages stood out to me, and I'd like to comment on them specifically.

    Firstly, let me throw out a working definition of god and see how it feels: a conscious agent or power which creates, oversees, and/or facilitates the processes of human beings and the universe. What do you think?

    I’m interested as to whether you were bothered by conscious. Maybe god is a force which is doing all of this stuff without realizing it – it’s a kind of disembodied flow of energy that drives all of our natural processes. Well, okay. That’s basically just Pantheism, the whole “god is nature” idea, and that’s fine. It’s just a really loosey-goosey term for god, which is allowed, of course. It’s just annoying in a way because that person doesn’t believe in a more traditional view of god any more than me, yet we seem at odds when get lost in the semantics.

    Also, I wonder if you might have winced a little when I said that this power or energy creates or does other things. I see this a lot and I’m puzzled by it. Why do so many people want to use the word god to refer to something that is basically nothing? If god is not really a thing of any comprehension and doesn’t really do anything and just this highly esoteric way of talking about what we already know about the world, then what’s the point? To me, the word god is best reserved for people who are actually using it label something otherworldly divine, rather than use it as a way to describe a worldly thing as divine. You know what I mean?

    The more I think about it, this whole issue really brings about an interesting question to ask oneself: what has made me develop my definition of god and why? Am I trying to make it more convenient for myself? Why do I presume that god is actually what I’d like to think it is (or isn’t, for that matter)? I think most people want god to be something, and so, naturally, they try to convince themselves that notion of god is actually, really-really real for their reassurance. But that’s… kind of… well, I’ll finish that up later...

    ReplyDelete
  2. ...Another interesting point was your analogy of water. I think it works for what you're getting it, but I'd like to steal it for a sec to suggest something different. I'm not convinced that all of these different religions are using a different word for the same thing when they practice their faiths. I lean toward them being very different - empiricist versus essentialist, I guess (Just in case MJ reads this).

    Maybe at the most basic level, their initial impulse might be motivated by similar-sounding mystical experiences, but consider this: they are causing people to develop faiths that, yes, may have general similarities about the nature of God or the divine, or yes, about matters of ethics, but they are also grossly different when it gets down to certain details. And those details aren't just fluff – they end forming a much more nuanced theology that shapes culture just as much as culture shapes them.

    Let's not forget that certain religious sects have attempted to (and some still are trying to) kill off those who believe differently. Obviously to them, this unifying sense of all-encompassing wonderment isn't what's really apparent. And as much as I'd like to see them ignore their differences and make peace, their respective dogmas don't allow them to do it.

    So what's my point then? By seeing Buddhahood or the presence of Jesus as the same thing, we’re belittling what these holy men thought to be unique and specific forms of enlightenment as basically a different type of seasoning on the meat that is spiritual experience. And I don’t think we’re all eating the same meat.

    I also don't think we can afford to view various religions as a different way of talking about the same thing because it's detached from the reality of our world. So, what good does it do to sit around and talk about what's so similar about these faiths when it's their differences that have the most relevant place in public discourse? Maybe that's something you can address in a future blog…

    Also, I know what you mean about this daunting feeling you get when you think about the big questions (pun also intended). It's almost as if the universe is whispering in the back of your head, "Really? You, this one guy, is going to try and contemplate all of this?". Or maybe I’m just crazy and hear voices.

    I think that you and I have realized the value in admitting this fault, and I actually think most people do as well. Whoever claims to feel comfortable or confident about the nuts and bolts of the universe *cough, cough Blake* is fooling themselves. What I think some of us might feel comfortable with, ironically, is knowing that we’ll never have a solid idea about some of these big questions. So that sense of confidence or happiness you may see in people (that you mentioned in your blog) may not stem from the fact that they everything figured out, but rather from the realization that they don’t.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lastly, I just want to remind you that Atheism is a way of maintaining don't-know mind in a way that makes sense to me. It's not that I know there isn't a god. It's just that, as of now, given what little I know, I haven't seen any convincing evidence that there is one. And on top of that, there isn't much of a reason to. And even if there was, and god is real, most conceptions of god are notions that I don't like very much. And as we've talked about before, I'm not really interested in inventing my own make-believe story of who or what god is and then actually believing it.

    I would argue that I'm pretty tolerant of religious people despite being a critical atheist, but for those who just believe whatever they want to make themselves happy, well - that's nothing more than what we do to children to dry their eyes and make them think that the world is nicer than it is. We're supposed to grow up, remember? And for me, at least, part of growing up was realizing that this notion of god was something that I wanted in my life, not something that I actually thought was there. What about you?

    Peace and love,


    -Chad

    P.S. Yes, I’m embarrassed about the length of my response.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Chad thank you for your dissection of my post. This is the stuff that I need to keep me thinking and writing more posts. I think when it boils down to it, and I'm sure you'll agree, what really matters is what you feel to be the truth, given your experiences. This is true for everyone. And a huge part of this is being willing to examine and criticize beliefs that we hold that may not necessarily be backed up by what we really experience, and I think this is what you are emphasizing.

    To touch on your definition of God, I think it's interesting that you said conscious. In my post, I mentioned that I don't feel like "God", the fundamental purpose of life and death, the first principle of the universe, can logically have any "creature-ly" qualities, consciousness being one of them. Yes, I understand that in all of the Christian accounts of what God is like, he is referred to as having human qualities like consciousness and a will, but if we are going to make the point that we are "making up" a conception of God by calling him a formless ethereal principle, we'd also have to acknowledge the fact that in many religious accounts of what "God" is like, God is indeed described that way. For example, Brahman is the "god" of Vedanta Hinduism, the formless, imageless, source of the universe. Similarly, Sikhism describes god as being a genderless point of worship and thanksgiving, as being the principle of creation and destruction. By thinking of God in any of these ways that may sound foreign to a fundamentalism Christian, I would not be "making up" an idea of God that I like anymore than a Christian is "making up" his or her idea of God. So I guess it comes down to the simple idea of God, where it comes from and why we have it. But I feel like its unfair to ignore other the fact that God is described in many ways all over the world. What have all these holy men experienced? Did they all have totally separate experiences of totally separate entities? Or were countless individuals all over the Earth from the beginning of recorded history just simply insane, and experiencing a insubstantial hallucination with no meaning? Personally, I think there's something to be said about that experience of what has been called God. Yes it has differed so greatly from holy man to holy man, but I think its interesting to note that these differing experiences have all been the same TYPE of experience, and that's pretty undeniable. But who knows. I guess I'm just what old MaryJane likes to call an essentialist :]

    ReplyDelete
  5. Another analogy for what I am trying to say was actually spoken by Zen Master Seung Sahn. "Americans eat with forks and knives. Chinese eat with chopsticks. Koreans eat with chopsticks and a spoon. Indians eat with their hands. Which one is correct?"

    You're saying that to think about separate religious conceptions of God as being different ways of saying the same thing "belittles" the holy men that believed that what they experienced was unique. But if we look at that in light of the analogy Seung Sahn gives, it's like saying "To think of all these separate ways of eating as being different methods used to accomplish the same thing belittles the individuals who first devised chopsticks, or forks." Do you see what I'm trying to say? I know the analogy may be stretching it a little, but I think it does a nice job of explaining my point. Plus, the way Seung Sahn delivers it is classic.

    "Which one is correct?"

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Chopsticks," I say. "As they encourage small bites and a slower, healthier pace while eating." Then I bow and leave...

    Just kidding.

    While I do love Zen Master Seung Sahn's point, I think this is what's different about our views on this: your analogy assumes that one religion is to eating with chopsticks as another is to eating with a fork and knife. I'm suggesting that they're not even both eating. I think that they are fundamentally different things. I know they're in the same category, but in totally different ways which means that the experiencers end up doing different things with their spiritual convictions, even if they may have stemmed from a similar feeling. Ultimately, they're different in how they externalize themselves, which is why I said that their differences are more relevant in my first reply.

    Also, you know that I know there are countless conceptions of what god is, but what I was getting at in my response is that I'm not sure they're all equally valid. I know that's a ballsy statement, because it seems like I'm giving myself the authority to discredit one's religious experience, and that's precisely what I don't mean to do. I just think that when people talk about god as a "the formless, imageless, source of the universe", that were not really saying anything. We've made god unclear, unimportant, and ultimately, we've made god less.

    I'm fine with that, obviously, not being a believer and all, but it just puzzles me because there's no implication of god being some floating force. It's just a descriptive observation that doesn't really have any impacts on our lives. At least that I'm aware of. What's the point in realizing god might be some mindless floating something or other if it's not going to give us anything new or better ourselves in anyway? Other conceptions of god claim that realizing what god is DOES have a huge impact on your life; these, then, become the more compelling cases to examine – for me, anyway. There's just more at stake.

    Also, I think that solidifying what one means by "god" is crucial to an experiment like this blog of yours. It doesn't need to be an ultimatum, or a prescription for everyone else, but what do YOU mean when you say it? And then ask yourself why you chose it that way. Mind you, I'm not asking you to relay which conception of god you like the most or think is the coolest. I'm asking you to choose a conception of god that you think is actually true. You see what I mean?

    As for the whole "making up" thing, unless I misunderstood you, it seems like you're admitting that when holy persons put forth their view, they're not doing anything different than would I could make up off the top of my head. If that's the case, then following a religion becomes nothing more than engaging in collective make believe with your peers – and that sounds like the dumbest activity I've ever heard of... oh wait... nevermind.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You said that you feel like when people describe God as formless, they aren't really saying anything. Well what does that say about the individuals who claimed they'd had religious experience of a god that WAS formless and imageless? It seems like thinking in THAT way belittles the holy men who've claimed to have religious experiences. What makes you say that certain conceptions of God aren't as valid as others? If it's hinged on the impact that that conception has on morals, it is a little presumptuous to say that conceptions of God as formless don't compel people to change their lives for the better. That would be ignoring entire religious populations that feel like they HAVE improved their lives for the better, and their god isn't a conscious entity like Judeo-Christian god.

    ReplyDelete