![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Because I gotta have faith
Oct. 9th, 2008 02:48 pmYesterday I wrote about jinxes, "Call it luck, karma, superstition, whatever. I guess I'm a sucker for these arbitrary and antiquated traditions."
This would seem to dovetail quite nicely with a thoughtful discussion about religion. Unfortunately, I'm not sure such a thing is possible. Religion is a formalized manifestation of faith. Faith is an intensely personal thing. Anything intensely personal is by its very nature intensely subjective. Subjectivity breeds pride, prejudice and inquisitions.
Call me what you will; I dare you to categorize me. When recounting my religious upbringing, my stock line is this: when I was a young boy, my mother (a secular Jew) and my father (a lapsed Catholic) tried to expose me to various elements of both religions and left it to me to decide what I wanted to be. Being 12 years old and largely disinclined to extracurricular theological instruction, I deferred a decision indefinitely.
"Spending your life in guilt-ridden misery im hopes of going to heaven is like closing your eyes through a movie in the hopes of getting your money back afterwards."
- A. Whitney Brown
Ultimately, I chose not to be anything at all.[1] I can't say whether it was intellectual rationalism that led me to this decision or whether this decision set me on a path of cold rationalism. But I am unable to reconcile the notions of heaven and hell, much less the supposed sanctity of scripture, much less the existence of a supreme being.
I like a lot of things that religion has to say about charity, temperance, love and how we should treat each other. It starts to lose me when it talks about righteousness, which so often leads to self-righteousness and reactionism. It turns me off entirely when it reflexively rejects all but its fundamental precepts and descends into willful, dogmatic ignorance. And it drives me to anger when it infringes on human rights and personal freedom.
"Do all the good you can,
In all the ways you can,
In all the places you can,
At all the times you can,
To all the people you can,
As long as ever you can."
- John Wesley, Rules of Conduct
I believe in the Judeo-Christian ethic. It's definitely one of the better ethics, right up there with the Golden Rule and the Honor System. I do my best to abide by the Judeo-Christian ethic, partially because it was a byproduct of my upbringing but mostly because I enjoy the benefits of a society. To reject it would make me an outcast or an outlaw.
Religion is the belief structure that informs and surrounds the ethic, as walls make a room. It begs the question, actually: which came first? Did our rules for morality develop in primitive times from fear of a vengeful God, or did we in fact create God to justify our actions?[2]
It would make sense to me, either way. But in a modern context, a world in which we no longer sacrifice virgins or see thunder-and-lightning as a heavenly message, the adherence to a formal belief system serves a different purpose.
These are uncertain times. Prehistoric life was mysterious, but it was simple. Contemporary life is sublime but confusing. We don't necessarily fear a wrathful God anymore; our fears are more mundane but no less scary. Religion is a sanctuary from these fears.
More than that, and perhaps most importantly, it is a way of making sense of the world; a device for making order out of entropy, and purpose out of purposelessness. Faith is a powerful thing.
"We are born believing. A man bears beliefs, as a tree bears apples."
- Emerson
So we have the ethic, which is conceptualized by the religion. The church, then, is the entrenched bureaucracy that supports and enforces the religion. The religion could not survive without the strength of the church, the church would not exist without the religion and the church is responsible for the religious discipline of its followers. Put another way: the church is the father, the son and the holy ghost.
Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with bureaucracies. At their best, they provide organization and continuity and they are able to accomplish things that individuals cannot. The problem with bureaucracies is that they're terribly inefficient. And ultimately, the primary goal of any bureaucracy is its own sustenance.
When I was a child, I disliked church because I thought it was boring. As an adolescent, I distrusted church because it represented the establishment. As a young man, I deplored church because I thought it corrupt. And now, I dismiss church because I simply find it irrelevant.
That said, there is value in any institution that provides shelter, guidance and community to its parishoners, that performs good works and exemplifies the best character of humanity. The church isn't for me, but I say God bless them -- until they start trying to recruit.
"Religion - religion, at best - at BEST - is like a lift in your shoe. If you need it for a while, and it makes you walk straight and feel better - fine. But you don't need it forever, or you can become permanently disabled. Religion is like a lift in the shoe, and I say just don't ask me to wear your shoes. And let's not go down and nail lifts onto the natives' feet."
- George Carlin
In the 17th Century, French philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal argued that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should "wager" as though God exists, because so living has potentially everything to gain, and certainly nothing to lose.
But human reason has come a long way since then, and Pascal's Wager now seems more like a sucker bet. The simplest explanation for our existence is a freak biochemical accident taking place in one teeny tiny corner of the cosmos. The next most logical explanation is that this entire existence is a mirage or a dream, and the dreamer could wake up any minute.
Somewhere down the list, maybe in the 20s, is the idea that an invisible, omniscient, omnipresent man is looking down on us from another dimension, guiding and judging our every action.
Nevertheless, 71 percent of people are "absolutely certain" that a God or universal spirit exists, according to a 2008 Pew poll (h/t, Washington Post). This, I suppose, demonstrates the power of word-of-mouth advertising. Steve Guttenberg should have this guy's publicist.
"By night an athiest half believes in God."
- Edward Young
For my own philosophy, I'm not "absolutely certain" of anything. I do not propose that there is no God or gods, since that argument merely refutes foolish assurance with foolish assurance. I am neither a scholar nor a scientist, but I cannot escape the powerful gravity of reason.
The downside of reason is that there's so little magic in it -- no colorful characters, mythological adventures or solemn superstitions. Then again, I always thought Darwin's theory of evolution was a much more awesome and wondrous story than "intelligent design." (Intelligent design? Have you watched MTV recently?)
It's difficult for me to accept sometimes that a person would eschew reason for faith, but I suppose that is the essence of faith -- belief without reason. It's important for me to remember that people are entitled to their beliefs, no matter how stupid I think they are. (Tom Cruise, I'm looking in your direction.)
And it's my endeavor to believe in myself. I quote John Lennon and The Plastic Ono Band from the song "God":
"I dont believe in magic
I dont believe in i-ching
I dont believe in bible
I dont believe in tarot
I dont believe in hitler
I dont believe in jesus
I dont believe in kennedy
I dont believe in buddha
I dont believe in mantra
I dont believe in gita
I dont believe in yoga
I dont believe in kings
I dont believe in elvis
I dont believe in zimmerman
I dont believe in beatles
I just believe in me"
This would seem to dovetail quite nicely with a thoughtful discussion about religion. Unfortunately, I'm not sure such a thing is possible. Religion is a formalized manifestation of faith. Faith is an intensely personal thing. Anything intensely personal is by its very nature intensely subjective. Subjectivity breeds pride, prejudice and inquisitions.
Call me what you will; I dare you to categorize me. When recounting my religious upbringing, my stock line is this: when I was a young boy, my mother (a secular Jew) and my father (a lapsed Catholic) tried to expose me to various elements of both religions and left it to me to decide what I wanted to be. Being 12 years old and largely disinclined to extracurricular theological instruction, I deferred a decision indefinitely.
"Spending your life in guilt-ridden misery im hopes of going to heaven is like closing your eyes through a movie in the hopes of getting your money back afterwards."
- A. Whitney Brown
Ultimately, I chose not to be anything at all.[1] I can't say whether it was intellectual rationalism that led me to this decision or whether this decision set me on a path of cold rationalism. But I am unable to reconcile the notions of heaven and hell, much less the supposed sanctity of scripture, much less the existence of a supreme being.
I like a lot of things that religion has to say about charity, temperance, love and how we should treat each other. It starts to lose me when it talks about righteousness, which so often leads to self-righteousness and reactionism. It turns me off entirely when it reflexively rejects all but its fundamental precepts and descends into willful, dogmatic ignorance. And it drives me to anger when it infringes on human rights and personal freedom.
"Do all the good you can,
In all the ways you can,
In all the places you can,
At all the times you can,
To all the people you can,
As long as ever you can."
- John Wesley, Rules of Conduct
I believe in the Judeo-Christian ethic. It's definitely one of the better ethics, right up there with the Golden Rule and the Honor System. I do my best to abide by the Judeo-Christian ethic, partially because it was a byproduct of my upbringing but mostly because I enjoy the benefits of a society. To reject it would make me an outcast or an outlaw.
Religion is the belief structure that informs and surrounds the ethic, as walls make a room. It begs the question, actually: which came first? Did our rules for morality develop in primitive times from fear of a vengeful God, or did we in fact create God to justify our actions?[2]
It would make sense to me, either way. But in a modern context, a world in which we no longer sacrifice virgins or see thunder-and-lightning as a heavenly message, the adherence to a formal belief system serves a different purpose.
These are uncertain times. Prehistoric life was mysterious, but it was simple. Contemporary life is sublime but confusing. We don't necessarily fear a wrathful God anymore; our fears are more mundane but no less scary. Religion is a sanctuary from these fears.
More than that, and perhaps most importantly, it is a way of making sense of the world; a device for making order out of entropy, and purpose out of purposelessness. Faith is a powerful thing.
"We are born believing. A man bears beliefs, as a tree bears apples."
- Emerson
So we have the ethic, which is conceptualized by the religion. The church, then, is the entrenched bureaucracy that supports and enforces the religion. The religion could not survive without the strength of the church, the church would not exist without the religion and the church is responsible for the religious discipline of its followers. Put another way: the church is the father, the son and the holy ghost.
Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with bureaucracies. At their best, they provide organization and continuity and they are able to accomplish things that individuals cannot. The problem with bureaucracies is that they're terribly inefficient. And ultimately, the primary goal of any bureaucracy is its own sustenance.
When I was a child, I disliked church because I thought it was boring. As an adolescent, I distrusted church because it represented the establishment. As a young man, I deplored church because I thought it corrupt. And now, I dismiss church because I simply find it irrelevant.
That said, there is value in any institution that provides shelter, guidance and community to its parishoners, that performs good works and exemplifies the best character of humanity. The church isn't for me, but I say God bless them -- until they start trying to recruit.
"Religion - religion, at best - at BEST - is like a lift in your shoe. If you need it for a while, and it makes you walk straight and feel better - fine. But you don't need it forever, or you can become permanently disabled. Religion is like a lift in the shoe, and I say just don't ask me to wear your shoes. And let's not go down and nail lifts onto the natives' feet."
- George Carlin
In the 17th Century, French philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal argued that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should "wager" as though God exists, because so living has potentially everything to gain, and certainly nothing to lose.
But human reason has come a long way since then, and Pascal's Wager now seems more like a sucker bet. The simplest explanation for our existence is a freak biochemical accident taking place in one teeny tiny corner of the cosmos. The next most logical explanation is that this entire existence is a mirage or a dream, and the dreamer could wake up any minute.
Somewhere down the list, maybe in the 20s, is the idea that an invisible, omniscient, omnipresent man is looking down on us from another dimension, guiding and judging our every action.
Nevertheless, 71 percent of people are "absolutely certain" that a God or universal spirit exists, according to a 2008 Pew poll (h/t, Washington Post). This, I suppose, demonstrates the power of word-of-mouth advertising. Steve Guttenberg should have this guy's publicist.
"By night an athiest half believes in God."
- Edward Young
For my own philosophy, I'm not "absolutely certain" of anything. I do not propose that there is no God or gods, since that argument merely refutes foolish assurance with foolish assurance. I am neither a scholar nor a scientist, but I cannot escape the powerful gravity of reason.
The downside of reason is that there's so little magic in it -- no colorful characters, mythological adventures or solemn superstitions. Then again, I always thought Darwin's theory of evolution was a much more awesome and wondrous story than "intelligent design." (Intelligent design? Have you watched MTV recently?)
It's difficult for me to accept sometimes that a person would eschew reason for faith, but I suppose that is the essence of faith -- belief without reason. It's important for me to remember that people are entitled to their beliefs, no matter how stupid I think they are. (Tom Cruise, I'm looking in your direction.)
And it's my endeavor to believe in myself. I quote John Lennon and The Plastic Ono Band from the song "God":
"I dont believe in magic
I dont believe in i-ching
I dont believe in bible
I dont believe in tarot
I dont believe in hitler
I dont believe in jesus
I dont believe in kennedy
I dont believe in buddha
I dont believe in mantra
I dont believe in gita
I dont believe in yoga
I dont believe in kings
I dont believe in elvis
I dont believe in zimmerman
I dont believe in beatles
I just believe in me"
