Once Upon a Time, there existed a world in which war was being waged against order (good) and chaos (evil). Evil was the result of an Evil Being. Above this world there existed a supreme being -- the Creator -- who was displeased.
[fm. Wikipedia]: "The final savior of the world will be born to a virgin impregnated by the seed of [God] while bathing in a lake. [He] will raise the dead – including those in both heaven and hell – for final judgment, returning the wicked to hell to be purged of bodily sin. Next, all will wade through a river of molten metal in which the righteous will not burn. Heavenly forces will ultimately triumph over evil, rendering it forever impotent. [He] and [God] will offer a bull as a final sacrifice for all time, and all men will become immortal. Mountains will again flatten and valleys will rise; heaven will descend to the moon, and the earth will rise to meet them both."
Judaism? Christianity?? No -- Zoroastrianism, which pre-dated Father Abraham by about 1,500 years.
The Bible and Christianity are both based on one basic premise: humanity is lost and in need of rescue. How did this come to be? I am not a historian nor a Bible scholar. But I have lived a pretty long time in this Reality, and read or listened to and watched a lot of really smart people. The farthest back we can go with any certainty in recorded human history seems to be about ten thousand years.
Humans began making myths and creating heroes. Homer's Odyssey and the story of Beowulf come quickly to mind. We looked out upon the natural world and wondered at both its order and its chaos. We also looked inside ourselves and others and wondered about life and -- more importantly -- death.
People could not explain the things they saw (eclipses, night and day, storms, earthquakes, murders, theft, greed), and so they began creating other realities. Gods and demons, angels and devils, heaven and Hades. The smarter ones began to analyze things and recognized patterns in what they saw. This is a fundamental fact of this Reality -- recurring themes and cycles. Once people began to understand this, they started to progress beyond mythology as a way to explain everything.
The greatest change in modern thinking has come about due to the development of science and the Enlightenment. Men such as Copernicus, Newton, and Rousseau took much of the mystery out of the natural world, and removed humanity from the center of the Universe, while simultaneously elevating the human mind as the greatest instrument in this world.
Newton was first a man of faith, as were most of the earlier scientists. It was religion that led people to ask hard questions about the laws of nature. For two hundred years Newton's physics explained nearly everything about the nature of Reality. Most people of science were content with that, even as they continued to ask questions and experiment.
My favorite Christian apologist, C. S. Lewis, was a professor of Mythology. His good friend and companion was J. R. R. Tolkien, creator of such works as The Hobbit and The Lord Of The Rings trilogy. These men, and others such as the late Joseph Campbell, understood the role of myth in understanding the impulse toward religion. To this day, both Christmas and Easter are celebrated when they are on the calender, not because that is the actual time of these events, but due to earlier pagan "holidays" celebrating the winter solstice and vernal equinox.
In the hard sciences, Albert Einstein did away with the predictable, solid world of Newton. Now, relativity is the accepted model of reality. And as we as a species move forward, Einstein's equations have provided the light to see into the world of quantum mechanics, the reality of both the infinitely huge and the incomprehensibly small.
Just as Einstein's general theory of relativity blew away the "hard" physics of Sir Isaac Newton, so the Rationalists and Humanists such as Rousseau and Descartes placed humanity beyond the "need" for religion as an explanation for all that is mystery within ourselves and our behavior.
Someone over at Dr. Richard Beck's blog (Experimental Theology) noted the other day that the "absolutisms" of the Middle Ages have given way now to a more relativistic approach to theology and faith. And I am here going to state that the modern movement within the Christian faith, especially Evangelicalism, towards Universalism, could only arise in this environment.
I lived through the social and cultural revolutions that occurred in western societies during the 1960's. Ethics and morality, up until that time fairly well understood and defined by most people, became fuzzy and a matter of individual emotions and thoughts. Instead of basing their lives on any one creed or set of beliefs, many people began searching instead for "spirituality" as an end in itself, as in Buddhism or TM (meditation). Searching for a way to connect with The One.
Today we have the belief in the Universal Salvation of all souls based on a Good God. Hell as such is fading in the rear-view mirror. Whereas for centuries verses were culled from the Scriptures to define God as One who hates Evil, One who demands Justice, One who requires a "sinner's prayer" (ala Billy Graham), and One who justifies war and punishment (children, wives, slaves) -- now we are told that Everyone is going to Heaven!
Well, that's great news. My question is this: if we are all saved and going to heaven no matter what because there is a Loving God who would not eternally punish anyone for the finite sins committed here, why bother anymore to believe in God at all? Believers will say that it's because such belief changes your priorities here and now. That's fine, but there are plenty of people who do not believe in any god and have their priorities well-set, and they feel they are correct (the new standard, of course).
Why can't we take the final step and acknowledge that we will never know what happens after we die? The real mystery, for me, lies in that question.
I just wanted to say that I'm glad you're blogging more. I enjoy your thoughts and musings. I don't have much to contribute since science isn't my forte. I do think you would enjoy George MacDonald, as he was the myth/fantasy/faerie tale predecessor of both Lewis and Tolkien. Lewis credits him both for "baptizing" his imagination (with "Phantastes") and as his theological "master."
ReplyDeleteI wonder if I have the intellect to handle MacDonald. He comes up quite a bit over at ET. I will have to check at the library. What book would you suggest?
ReplyDeleteI could write a lot more in response to Richard's posts, but hold back since I am one of only a few skeptics over there. It's mostly true believers, as it were. It's not that I'm shy, just do not want to beat a dead horse, as I think I can come across.
Over and over people tell me I will never find what it is I am looking for. These metaphysical things can never really be "known". I think that's not true. I will know when I die -- one way or the other.
Sam, you've got a lot on me intellectually, so there's no question about your ability to handle MacDonald. I guess I'm guilty of referencing MacDonald maybe too often. I think you would love his works, and you're someone I'd love to hear what your take on his works would be. He acknowledges so much of the struggles of doubt and bad church/bad theology and just real, human experience. His life was pretty difficult. But his writing isn't draining. It's more the stuff that makes me go "wow, that makes sense. How come I never saw that before?"
ReplyDeleteI think just about anything from MacDonald is good, and there is much from which to choose. He was a prolific writer. I'm currently reading "The Lady's Confession." Even as teens, my kids loved the fairy tales: The Light Princess, Princess and the Goblin, Princess & Curdie, The Wise Woman. The adult faerie stories (Phantastes, Lilith) are a little strange. His host of novels explore much of people's natures and how religion/theology/church/society play into their lives/mindset/actions, and then there's his works of theology (Unspoken Sermons, Gifts of the Christ Child). Most of his works are available free online. Here's a link: http://www.online-literature.com/george-macdonald/
MacDonald, like Lewis, lost his mother to cancer at age 9. He lived with diseased lungs his entire life, often on the brink of death and in extreme poverty. When he was older, his family had to move to Italy for his health, and neighbors called his home "Casa Corraggio" for his great heart, because even in poverty he was generous. He was not afraid to critique churchianity and what he called "mean theologies." And he may be the only Christian that athiest Mark Twain ever called friend. On an American speaking tour, he became too ill to continue and stayed with Mark Twain's in-laws. Mark Twain's daughter, Susie, and the MacDonald's oldest son, Greville, became friends. Later, the Clemons family visited the MacDonalds across the pond, and there's speculation that they talked about writing together. They ultimately wrote similar novels (Huck Finn and Sir Gibbie).
I, for one, do NOT think you're beating a dead horse when you write. And based on comments, I don't think I'm alone. As skeptics, I think there's more company we know. I think you're right to continue to probe, ask, question, and seek answers. I think it's the reason we have minds and the ability to use them.
Well, I sense that I'm becoming a thorn to Richard. I know I dare not mention anything political again, as he tells me my sentences become "hallucinatory". And I've learned not to ask more than one question at a time, and then it needs to be simply stated. It's very frustrating.
ReplyDeleteThank you! Your summary jogged my memory just now, and it seems as though I remember my mother reading us a book called "At the Back of the North Wind". I think it's one of his.
I will check out the link.
Hi Sam,
ReplyDeleteI followed your link over from Richard Beck's blog some time ago and have finally decided to comment. I visit there daily, and it's by far my favorite Christian blog.
(First off, to let you know, I'm not the same David who leaves the snide comments over at ET.)
I've enjoyed reading your posts here and your comments over at ET, as well as those by Patricia and Dan G. The three of you seem to be somewhat kindred spirits with me in regards to our questions and doubts about orthodox Christianity,and yours and Dan G's recent comments at ET really resonate with me.
Like you, I've struggled for many years to make sense out of the Bible and Christian theology. The cognitive dissonance that arises from this is overwhelming at times. Almost none of it makes sense to me--the God of the Bible and the various doctrines which try to explain Him are inconsistent and bewildering.
I sit in church each Sunday with my wife and around 150 or so others and feel utterly alone. It's not that people aren't friendly towards me. It's because their theology makes no sense to me, and if they were to find out the extent of my doubts and questions, I fear I'd be pretty much shunned. (This may all come to a head soon, since the small group that my wife and I attend Sunday evenings has started this "share your life and testimony" thing and I'm sure my turn is coming up soon. Not sure yet exactly what I'm going to say.}
Dr. Beck made the comment awhile back that on a good day his faith hangs by a thread. Theologian Tony Jones admitted in a video he made that he wonders daily if there's a God, or if he's basing his life on a hoax. And yet at the same time both of them seem so sure of their beliefs. I really don't know how they do it. It's encouraging to me that Richard can admit to having doubts to the extent of being "ready to throw in the towel on this whole God thing." That kind of honesty about his own doubts is so refreshing to me because I've never personally known a Christian who would say such a thing.
In spite of all this, I still believe there's a God, or at least I suspect there is, and I think there's a lot more to this universe than we're able to fully perceive. I hold out hope anyway.
Well, I've rambled enough, just wanted to stop by to say I've enjoyed your writings and let you and Patricia and Dan G. know that there's someone else out here who's sharing your struggles.
Thanks, David. I know EXACTLY how it feels to sit in church, completely alone inside your own mind, and not know how to break out.
ReplyDeleteI think you should share your thoughts with your wife and your group, and I think you will find the right words. Be prepared, however, for empty rhetoric and answers. I think that you will also gain some needed support. And you will feel better, too, knowing you are being honest about your doubts.
The group can either accept your doubts as your's and real, or they can pull away from you. Either way, at least you are being honest and clear. You will be less unsettled, and the relationships you have going forward will be more open and honest.
It's horrible to be isolated as you are. But it's worse if you keep it to yourself. At least about the things that really matter.
I've never met anyone who is really certain about what they believe except those who I feel are not being honest about their underlying assumptions. The fundamentalists in my background were almost all that way. They were not capable of seeing their assumptions.
I am where you are in my own mind about God and the Universe. That is why I do this.
Hi David V, It's good to meet another who is on this same path. I'm de-churched myself. It just felt too disingenuous to keep going, paste on a smile, and act like people were my friends when, in fact, most weren't. Which became evident when I was in an accident last March and there was not even a phone call. Only one older couple has bothered to keep in touch with us at all, and they seldom attend as well.
ReplyDeleteI hear you in wondering how much to reveal. I'm in the same boat as a parent. I don't want to trainwreck my teen boys' faith, but I want to be honest with them that I have struggles and don't have the certitude I once embraced. My oldest is in college now, but my youngest is in high school. I don't want to push them any direction with over-instruction, but give both them and God room as they grow up. I also don't want to be one of those parents who doesn't ever talk about important things. What's more, my boys have TWICE witnessed their pious, Victorian Princess grandmother verbally going off on me. It says something when your own kids, concerning your own mother, tell you, "Just walk away. It's not worth it." Family and religion get pretty tangled sometimes.
Sam, I don't get involved in the political discussions over there either. In politics, I don't see any princes - just a bunch of overpaid power-toads.
You remember correctly, MacDonald wrote "At the Back of the North Wind." I also read it to my oldest when he was in 3rd grade.
Hi Sam,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your reply.
I have shared some of my doubts and questions with my wife in the past, but I don't really press much because I don't want her feeling like I'm attacking her faith. It helps I think that I'm still drawn to belief and searching for the Divine and not rejecting/ridiculing faith.
I've actually been through this 'share your faith' thing some years before and I pretty much stated that I was a 'work in progress' theologically. I still am, so I suppose I'll go with that approach again. I still feel a wall of separation between me and others though during discussions since I just don't, or it seems can't, see things like they do. You're right though, being honest with everyone, with kindness, will be very freeing for me.
Thanks again.
Hi Patricia,
Thanks for the welcome.
Yeah, I'm familiar with wearing a 'church smile' on Sunday mornings...
My wife and I don't have kids so that isn't an issue with us, but if we did I'd probably take a similar approach to yours; raise them in a church but try to keep their minds open enough to accept that not everyone experiences God in exactly the same way and that's OK.
I'm sorry to read about your accident and your church ignoring you. A church that I used to attend with my wife contacted me just once. It was to tell me that I didn't seem to be giving enough in the collection basket on Sundays. (I always put in cash instead of a check so there was no record of my giving.)
I'm sorry also about what you've had to go through with your mother. Relationships with those closest to us can seem to be the hardest to negotiate sometimes. It shouldn't be that way but often is. I suppose forgiveness is all we've really got in the end, but it sure isn't easy, is it?
Again, thanks for replying.
Hi Sam,
ReplyDeleteI thought it was time I made an appearance in your comment section. I check your blog regularly since I discovered it. I seldom recommend other blogs or sites but something about yours prompted me to mention it on ET as a place worth visiting. What exactly that is is hard to put into words.
I see in you and others who comment on ET the walking wounded of Christianity. I expect most of them are refugees from some form of conservative Protestantism from what I can gather. I haven’t any association with Christians for 30 years. My earliest years were as a Byzantine Romanian Catholic; mostly about religious rituals spoken in a language I could not understand. A brief fling with various fundamentalist or charismatic protestant types and then out into the long exile. That exile freed me to think outside the “church box” so to speak.
Perhaps you consider me one of the true believers at ET. I don’t consider myself a believer in any sense but I do lean towards being a “hoper.” Belief is primarily for the self, hope is for everyone and everything. Belief is about personal salvation, hope is for the rebirth of all things.
Hope is for the unbelievers; even if they cannot hope for themselves, I can in some sense hope for them.
Our grand, global, technological civilization is not grounds for hope at all. It is an accelerating runaway train that is in imminent danger of running off the rails with all aboard.
Your current blog post “Staying Real” concludes with, “Why can't we take the final step and acknowledge that we will never know what happens after we die? The real mystery, for me, lies in that question.” Perhaps we on this small planet are too constricted by our myopic, parochial perspective. Physicists and cosmologists tell us that we know only what 4% of the matter/energy of the universe is, the ordinary matter that makes up all the galaxies, stars, atoms and all living creatures, including us. The remaining 76% is the so-called dark matter (26%) and dark energy (70%). And that mysterious dark energy is expanding the space/time of the universe at an accelerating rate. It as if the fabric of space is being dramatically enlarged to provide a canvas for a whole new reality to be “painted” on it. I would not ask what happens when we die but what would the universe be like with no death at all. Impossible? How to we know what is possible when we only know what 4% of the universe is made of.
What is real is far more than what we know. Staying real may in fact be giving way to a new “becoming real” that will be something far more than our wildest imaginings and satisfy the longings of the most desperate hopes—especially for those who have lost all hope.
Hi Cleanslate,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your story and input. It's fascinating, actually. And I do not wish to drag in subject matter from ET unnecessarily, but I think the following exchange in the remarks posts two days ago is telling (and to your point as well):
*Elephile* asked: "Please will you explain whether you expect the universe, all creatures, as well as all people, to be completely, literally, physically, freed from death (and everything connected with it)....?
Richard, as is his wont, avoided the question until further probed, at which time he answered "yes".
It is exchanges such as this that literally leave me speechless. It's nonsense (unless I am not understanding the question), and yet NOBODY challenges it.
I tend to be a concrete thinker. I want to know what to make of the reality of the billions of people, animals, and plants who have already died. That is what is real to me, and that is exactly what is in store for all of us.
I agree with you that Reality is bigger (more, better, etc.) than we know. If we as a species survive the next few years (I see probable nuclear war between Iran and Isreal), then we shall have to deal with our machines becoming sentient, something that is right on track for about 2030.
Sam,
ReplyDeleteYou don't have to be reticent about making references to discussions at ET on my account. Some interesting stuff is discussed there so why not.
You mentioned the exchange between Elephile and Richard and said it was nonsense. Do you mean Elephile's question was nonsense or Richard's coyness in providing a direct reply?
The Nobel prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg in his book "The First Three Minutes" lamented, "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless." The eternal, steady state, universe much beloved by reductionist scientists because it did not have the awkward problem of a beginning was no longer tenable. It would expand forever and end in a heat death or contract into a big crunch. Wienberg, a reductionist, made that nihilistic observation well before the discovery of dark energy in 1998. The ultimate fate of the universe is now seen as even more nihilistic than he had imagined. The universe is not only expanding it is accelerating and some cosmologists suggest that it is plausible that time and space could end in as little as 3 billion years, not the hundreds of billions once thought. To put that into perspective; the sun was thought to have another 5 billion years of life.
I agree when you say, "I want to know what to make of the reality of the billions of people, animals, and plants who have already died. That is what is real to me, and that is exactly what is in store for all of us."
It is going to take something far more than a wistful belief of going to heaven when we die to provide a basis for hope that can stand up to the likes of Weinberg's nihilistic musings.
You mention the coming of sentient machines. That brings to mind Ray Kurzweil who is a passionate advocate for the coming singularity of the merger between humans and AI. I recommend viewing the DVD documentary about Kurzweil, "Transcendent Man" to get a good overview of this. Aside from the far out technology that he is advocating, whether one believes it is possible or not, there is more to Kurzweil than a reductionist scientist who has gone off the rails. He has a wistful hope that the singularity of AI and human merger will be able to "resurrect" the dead, namely his beloved father. It is a very poignant moment in the film and changed by previous impressions of Kurzweil completely.
Cleanslate,
ReplyDeleteI watched the Kurzweil documentary on Hulu just last week. I was thinking of his Singularity when I posted that last comment the other day.
As far as Elephile's question and Richard's answer, I say his answer is nonsense simply based on those billions I mentioned who have already died. (That's why I said I may not understand the question). Maybe Elephile is referring only to future outcomes, but it his "literal" emphasis that makes me call it nonsense, since it's already too late. Those billions have already died, and so too will we.
You and I are really much on the same page, I think, about the possibilities and potential in the Universe. My problem is my eyes begin to glaze over when we get too abstract in our thinking. The Universe and time are too vast, and we are only here for the blink of an eye. It's why I so often beg off discussions stating that I am a concrete thinker. There is just too much speculation going on.
I enjoy turning over the puzzles in my mind, but in the end I have to admit I don't know so many things. I am constantly amazed by so many things, I just enjoy the inquiry.