In two short days --we have been snowed in -- I read Dinesh D'Sousa's new book (title above). I must admit it was a compelling read. The author asks many of the same questions as have I these many years.
I did not appreciate being labeled as "idiotic" (pg.210) due to my agnosticism, but I understand his take on metaphysical "risks". Not deciding without all the evidence is as risky as opting for Pascal's Wager, since, in essence, we will never have "complete" evidence until after we are dead. I get that.
What I found especially interesting were the author's thoughts about the mind and consciousness. He makes the assertion that human evolution is the universe's (God's?) method of creating a being which can comprehend both itself and the universe. It is the physical crafting the metaphysical over time -- the nexus of the material and the ethereal. This is the purpose of evolution. Dry "stuff" (dirt) became wet "non-stuff" (mind/consciousness). He shows in fine detail how the material world has moved from the disorganization and sterile (think Earth 3 billion years ago) to highly organized and fecund. He examines in detail empirical materialism, materialistic reductivism, and the latest findings of neuroanatomy. This last I understand due to my own independent reading of such texts as "The Spiritual Brain" and "My Stroke of Insight".
He makes a very good case for the independence (from the empirical world) of the mind, consciousness, and free will. It is in his extrapolation from what we can observe to that which we will NEVER be able to quantify where I have some argument with him. He contends that since all of science points to an afterlife (and he cites numerous sources and studies, including many philosophers as well), we are almost surely not finite, but immortal souls.
My biggest criticism is that he fails to explain why we are not conscious or aware of the "time" before our own birth. He notes plenty of arrows pointing forward toward heaven and hell, but the closest he comes to explaining the pre-existence of the immortal soul is the Eastern concept of reincarnation. This is a glaring deficiency, IMO.
Finally, in the end he gives the standard Evangelical Warning -- repent now or be prepared to spend eternity in Hell. He admits, of course, that the Church's ideas of heaven and hell are over-wrought (cherubs, harps, devils, fire) and that Hell is "where you get what you want, forever", and Heaven is (possibly) right here where we live now -- only better. He stresses that Jesus spent much of his time warning people of the ease with which MOST of humanity will slip off the metaphysical cliff, while "narrow is the gate" to the Kingdom of God. I do appreciate, however, how he emphasizes that this new world is available to all believers now, even before we give up our material form. In this regard he may have the key to our destiny.
I've been surrounded by problems including my sister, my father-in-law getting a pacemaker, and hosting a homeless man. That, and a stack of e-mails from Republicans grilling me about my "progressivism." Not really getting it at all. Whew. Politics is fun but antagonistic. Not for polite company at all. :-)
ReplyDeleteThis blog entry is so heavy. But, again, I wonder about D'Sousa's take on "hell." Which hell is he vetting here - which version?
There are five versions that I've found:
1)eternal punishment,
2)purgatory,
3)annihilation,
4)metaphorical, and
5)ultimate justice.
What is the "warning" about? Is it resolved when I accept Jesus and put on my fire-suit? Or is it something wider than that, less simplistic?
D'Sousa doesn't sound simplistic. The idea of evolutionary comprehension seems to complement the biblical "image of God" idea. Consciousness itself might be thought of as this "image," this replica of God. Even Jesus said, "You are gods."
I have never found anything in the Bible about a pre-conscious life, as is popular in Eastern thought. I'm not sure that it matters since my life goes forward from conception and doesn't regress into the past. I'm not headed into the past.
By the same token, my forward movement is blocked by death. Science doesn't give me information about this that satisfies my anxiety about it. How is it that life is both precious and expendable?
Resurrection is very strange and yet quite desirable. Reincarnation is monotonous and grueling, sometimes only making incremental improvements from life to life. But resurrection promises a new life in a new body. That might sound like Pollyanna religion; but what if it isn't?
In Hebrews, Jesus is called the "express image of God." That is, he was the new man - maybe like Neitzche's vision of the superman. It wasn't Hitler's province to create a super-race. That is the message of Christ. He is the "firstfruits" of this super-race. However, it is not an exclusive club, either. This is the destiny of man.
The details of that are both intriguing and befuddling. Will it occur all at once or through a continued process of evolution? Those ideas have been batted around. But it seems there would have to be a moment when this occurs universally. And that's weird. Would mankind have to go extinct before it could be restored? The seed must die to bring forth life?
If I read him correctly, D'Sousa's hell is about ultimate justice. As he says -- "You get what you want, which, if you reject the Christ, is eternity separated from him". No further scenery is painted.
ReplyDeleteAs for the "warning" -- it is the same as the one at all Billy Graham crusades, aka -- "the altar call". Be sorry, confess, and accept salvation, because there is no other way to avoid hell (whatever your version).
The most important idea in this book for me is his concept of the material bringing forth the metaphysical. This is, for me, a profound insight if true. Over eons of time, life began and evolved until something that was originally only empirical become spiritual. The greatest "thing" in all creation -- the human mind. Life itself slowly coming to an awareness of itself, and of the universe. The pivot point at which the merely material became at once transcendent.
The mind is greater than the sum total of the brain, even if it could successfully be analyzed and quantified in toto. The mind, consciousness, and the will are something else, something other than the body they inhabit. This is a powerful argument for immortality as I see it (at this time, anyway -- I may decide differently tomorrow or the next day).
I think you would get something from reading this book. I am a skeptic and a hard-boiled cynic so often, yet this little book said something to me, enough so that I thought it was worth passing along.
I'm currently tackling "God's Problem" by Bart Ehrman. His faith was derailed by theodicy, basically. He says he will show from scripture itself why the Bible does not resolve the problem, but makes it muddier.
ReplyDeletePoint by point:
"Eternal separation" strikes me as D'Sousa has a way to go to understand this issue. For one thing, "eternal," as we ususally read it in the NT, is a poor translation of the word "aeon." An eon is not necessarily "endless." It is a finite segment of time, usually. I also reject the translation of the Greek word "krisis," which comes out "punishment" so often. "Justice" is a better word to put in there.
Thus, the meaning of the single phrase in the KJV, "eternal punishment," is really ultimate or age-appropriate justice. Augustine overdid it. And created a lot of anxiety.
Jesus is supposed to be hope. And Calvinism is unbelievably hopeless. No wonder so many fundamentalists are so pessimistic. Think of all the people who have said, "All my friends are in hell, so I'm going there too." That's what this doctrine has produced, as well as a frightfully distorted picture of the biblical God and Jesus.
In other words, there is not a Calvinist/Augustinian "hell" to get out of. What there is is justice. Reward and "punishment" from a just God. Without that, actually, this life really is an existential nightmare (thus we get "God's Problem," as Ehrman puts it). Ehrman can't reconcile evil and God.
Calvinism has vouchsafed to us a formula for salvation. But it is a construct. It isn't in the pages of the NT. It isn't broken down that neatly or compactly. It is, however, drawn from Paul, but a misuse of Paul's words. Again, it was a doctrine of necessity. Augustine had condemned the church to be afraid of God, not simply the Jewish "fear" of God (reverence).
A good Calvinist will get "saved" and his troubles are over. But his brother or mother who is not saved are going to be whipped by the ugly stick forevermore.
I think the point about the mind as "proof" of immortality is compelling. Does the mind die? Where did it come from?
Furthermore, I think of evolution as very intriguing as a means of "creation." If God is working progressively, then it stands to reason progress never stops.
But I don't think mankind is annihilated: not even partially (as some annihilationist-hell theologians have postulated). It really makes no sense on any level I can comprehend. Purgatory makes more sense.
The Eastern Orthodox see the afterlife as progressive, as well as this life. That makes some biblical sense. Evolution, if it is a revelation from God, would tend to support that idea. Everything is still under construction, including me. And the construction goes on in the next life.
That would also mean that "hell" - which I'm translating as the negative side of justice - would include some kind of retribution for those who abused this life or participated in evil for various reasons.
So why would the answer be Jesus dying and rising again? Is that so important? If God is going to bring divine justice anyway?
The NT creates the picture that the justice comes through him, the ultimate man at the pinnacle of evolution in an expanding universe with a not-so-certain future. It is a message of security, in a way, saying, Don't get bogged down in the anxiety of this sucky world. Meet the fixer.
What we're talking about here is tied in with "soteriology" or the study of salvation. Calvin didn't nail it down. He helped a little but he also skewered a lot. The church does not yet understand fully its own salvation, and has sure befuddled millions with these murky doctrines and theological constructs. So the game, for the church, ain't over yet.
My mother (great-great-great-great-granddaughter of the Sutliffs and Bateses, some of whom were Massachusetts pilgrims) was a Jonathan Edwards Calvinist. I was reared in a Calvinist Baptist church. Then -- at age 19 -- I left their company.
ReplyDeleteBut I remember. Beyond all the altar calls there was, of course, subtle mind-control going on, esp. of all the teens.
It seems to me, based not only on my experiences then, but also on the continued "harassment" by my aunt and her allies, that THE most important concept to them is the idea that all of humanity is depraved, and that without "the formula", we are all eternally doomed -- forever consigned to a literal Lake of Fire.
Many verses are quoted to establish that Jesus is Lord and Savior, and that there is NOTHING about us that merits his salvation and love, and NOTHING that we can ever do or not do (omission or commission) to get "into Heaven". This is the paramount message of the entire Bible for these folks.
Again -- you have done far more reading and study than I, but I appear to be locked into this untenable position of cynicism and skepticism based on brainwashing that occurred 45 years ago.
I like your take on just about everything. I think what you say about all this makes so much sense, and what's more fills me with more encouragement and hope than anything that anyone else has said or written to me in, well, ever.
My wife grew up in similar circumstances to myself, at least in the religious area, and we have now been together for almost 33 years. During that entire time she has always just assumed that she is "going to hell", and it bothers her not in the least. She is one of the most self-less people I have ever known, and has led a life of service to others (FAR more than I), all without even a hint from her that she expects some kind of eternal reward. I have heard her say, however, that if how she has lived is not good enough, she's fine with being damned. The little boy in me cannot help but cringe a little.
To the best of my recollection, the most important thing I was taught was that Heaven is a Holy Place, and I am not worthy to be there unless I turn my life over completely to an invisible presence whose reality I have never been able to experience.
And sans that first-person experience, here is where I seem to remain stuck.
If we go through our lives exposed to this vision of a tyrannical, masochistic God who will punish some without ceasing forever, then what does the "joy of the Lord" even mean?
ReplyDeleteHell, as it's commonly taught, is so ridiculous that I think we can develop rationales for dealing with the absurdity and horror of it. For instance, if I am "saved" through faith, as Calvinists generally teach, then I have no more worries simply because I made the right choice. And Jesus actually says I didn't even make the choice. God made the choice for me. This makes him brutal in any sense of the word. But, hello, he suffered brutality to fix this problem. Is God impotent to completely fix it?
Apoketastasis (ultimate reconciliation) means that God is, quite simply, fixing this world (and anything that comes after it). Eternal punishment is not only a theological construction, it is irrational. "God is love" and eternal punishment cannot logically abide together. If God is simply waiting for people to accept the correct doctrine for salvation, without explaining which one is correct, then his plan is crippled at best. Your dear wife may as well accept her fate in the "Lake of Fire (LOF)."
The LOF, BTW, is found in Revelation, a disputed book that some weren't sure even belonged in the Bible canon. Most of Revelation is metaphorical, Jewish-style apocalyptic literature. And it probably was not written by the same John who wrote the gospel. The style, for one thing, is very different.
The best I can do is to offer the LOF as a picture of purging. One friend of mine says that the LOF is what we are in right now. There's more sense to this argument than the literal version of the Darbyists.
I'm reading, as I said, "God's Problem" and am not impressed with it, like I was Ehrman's book on "Misquoting Jesus." That is, I don't buy the argument that my faith is sunk because the world is evil. But I haven't finished it yet, so I hope to get more out of it. The problem of theodicy was where Ehrman got off the train bound for glory and opted for a kind of open agnosticism. But no one seems up to arguing this PhD scholar in scriptural studies back into his faith. Not even his Episcopalian wife.