Reach out, touch faith
I just finished reading Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation. It's a tiny tome, something one could finish on one's lunch break; however, it contains some pretty 'loud' ideas. The book is a collection of various articles containing Harris' arguments against religion (Christianity in this case) and the existence of a divine being(s).
I must say his logic is in excellent form and his tone is civil. However it's his ideas that are a stirring jolt for anyone who considers themselves religious. Let's just say my dad wouldn't like this book at all.
I've contemplated the existence of god for many years, toyed with agnosticism and atheism and good old Catholic guilt, and struggled to make sense of my reality. I'm not a big fan of organized religion. Something about it never rang true for me. I'm not much of a joiner; I've always been one to want to go off and do my own thing, preferring to explore rather than be told. However, atheism always seemed extreme to me, just as fundamentalist religious belief did. Absolutism is such a turn-off so I usually found/find myself somewhere in the middle, saddled with logic on one hand and plagued by the inexplicable wonders of the universe on the other.
I say saddled and plagued because existential thoughts are not fun to me. Don't misunderstand; I appreciate logic and reason, and I do not wish to denigrate the mystery of the universe and the life it contains, as there are true wonders to behold and enjoy. I simply find myself forever frustrated, unable to uncover answers or truths about my existence, the mysteries of life and death and the nature of reality.
Is atheism an answer for me? I don't know. Instead of religion of some sort, should I put my stock in science and a posteriori knowledge? Or rely only on what I can validate through a priori logic? Rationally, that would make sense. I haven't committed because I guess I still cling to the notion of faith and belief for the hope they provide. I need hope. I cannot survive by nihilist philosophy nor in the loneliness of a solipsistic reality. If I put my stock in a divine being, so what? Am I hurting anyone? No. If I pray, am I wasting my time? Perhaps. I have little faith in humanity but maybe that stems from the foul-ups and bad policies they make because of religion. Maybe if religion was taken out of the equation my faith in Humanity would increase?
While I appreciate Harris' perspective and I agree that fundamentalist religion causes many more problems than it solves, I don't think religion in and of itself is a bad thing. Would the planet be better off without religion? Maybe. There would still be power struggles, wars, and domination, but for different reasons. Perhaps better reasons (if there can be for such things). Suffering would still be present but perhaps less so. Hope would remain, but it would be transferred to based in belief in humanity's abilities, not that of some unseen force who may or may not be omnipotent, omnipresent, or benevolent.
So do we need religion? Yes and no. Will religion go away? It's possible, but not anytime soon. I think for the planet to get to the completely atheistic state that Harris advocates would take a very very long time. Religions are a big part of our cultures, our societies, our educations, our families. Transferring the faith the masses have in God or Allah or Gaia to faith in themselves, in Humanity, would obviously be a major shift in our reality. As we all know, humans are not fond of quick change.
17 comments:
I have not read that book, but I did read Harris's End of faith, which from what I've read is just a longer version of Letter to a Christian nation. In it, I found very little to disagree with. It's difficult for me to conclude that humans are important in the grand scheme (or lack thereof) of things, but I don't let that fact bring me down. Maybe this comic will ease your existential angst.
Also, one time I smoked some weed and got to thinking about God. Through convoluted Chronic logic, I reached the conclusion that if God was real, then I was the Messiah. Yes, it was some good weed. This is one of many reasons I no longer partake of psychedelics.
Thanks, Rup. I have to say the comic made me smile and I feel a bit better.
I found The End of Faith in our collection and just checked it out. I'll give a full report when I'm done. (I'm still reading The Genius Factory and A Wind in the Door. (Yep, I've become one of "those" people--reading more than one book at a time. Oy.)
i haven't read Harris's Letter yet, but i don't think anyone has to necessarily be one thing or the other--a full on believer of any faith, an atheist, or whatever is considered in-between.
i also think that the use of logic and reason, though often helpful, is sometimes limiting. although i'm a fan of science, and of using in the right way, not in the ridiculous "intelligent design" kind of way, logic and reason doesn't allow you answer every question out there, and probably less so the big ones about the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.
if you didn't have existential thoughts, you wouldn't be a thinking human being. and i'm not sure that ignorance is necessarily bliss, as a list of Darwin award winners might possibly attest. i think in the end, we all do what we can, and we find meaning in whatever makes sense to us. that's the stuff that gives us hope.
(just in case i can't the link above to work, here: http://www.uclick.com/client/wpc/wpopu/2006/09/17/index.html)
From HN's favorite theologian reader. . .
Put aside the issue of belief in God for just a minute and bear with me.
The Christian Church, including Protestants and Catholics, goes through trends of heavily focusing on adults or heavily focusing on children. Generation X was born into a time when adults were the focus, then matured into a time when children became the focus. Essentially, Generation X has been wholly neglected by the Church.
The Church hasn't been there for us, so we're in a generation searching for meaning (purpose in life sort of stuff) in other places. How could we not be skeptical of organized religion? And this kind of thing affects how you view God.
I personally think part of the whole Jesus thing is to live in community with each other. (I'd even say that's a natural human tendency--socialization, apart from Jesus.) If you're not finding it in the Church, you find it elsewhere--friends, family, blogs. Heck, I'm looking for it, too, in an academic setting rather than a worship setting.
Anyway, I think the Church let us down, and as we get older and have children we don't take to church, the Church is forced to face the crisis of what to do for its survival/legacy.
I have much more to say, but this is all you get from me right now.
Thanks, MV. I tend to agree --- being in the generation stuck between the Baby Boomers and the damned Millennials (don't even get me started on those coddled brats!) kinda blows. Sure, Gen Xers get labeled as the 'shiftless' generation, but maybe if the adults of the BB Generation hadn't fucked everything up with their selfishness and then their traumatized kids overcompensated with their own kids (Millennials) we wouldn't have so much existential angst? I don't know...
As for The Church's future, staying relevant hasn't really been their priority. They're much too busy telling everyone what not to do than embracing diversity and life in the 21st century. (That's a whole other blog entry or two...)
i never seem to tire of talking about and hearing analyses of Gen X. i am narcissistic about my generation.
shiftless or no, i think we can at least take comfort in the fact that we were not the generation that made
K Fed famous. what a frakking travesty.
Don't lie: you LUFF the Fed. I think you should be him for halloween.
only if you're Vincent from Project Runway.
i love how our conversations can devolve to this.
I have a Jesus action figure I can lend you so that you can "rediscover" your faith. I agree with everything you have said and have been there, done that, bought a shirt. I don't know about the Gen X thing...but I can see how that fits in.
Bottom line: if someone wants to discuss religion with you, and you don't have an answer because you haven't/won't/don't wanna figure it out (I think thinking people know it's too much to figure out and that's why they are not fans of organized religion. I think thinking people that are fans of organized religion find solace in it. I'm envious of them for I would like to find the same solace but I can not) just give them a stock phrase ala Point of No Return "I never did mind the little things." Smile, and then turn away.
Or fight. Fight them with words and thoughts. And when they play the faith card, say "well, you know I can't argue with that", smile, and then turn away.
My 42 cents. Oh jiggity.
~The Booklahver
Wow, a real actual discussion on a blog. This must be a first.
For my comments to be relevant, you'd have to go all the way up this blog post to T's third paragraph. Since moving to you-know-where, I think about faith, God, Jesus, and organized religion daily...it's hard not to. I've come to several conclusions: Faith is a constant struggle. If it was easy, it would also be unfulfilling. For faith (in anything) to be both meaningful and fulfilling you have to work at it.
AND
Organized religion is a zero sum game. For every good it does, there is a bad to balance it out...for every MLK, there is the entirety of the christian fundamentalist movement of the past 20 years.
As for Gen. X, I can empathize with TB because we are in fact, the crack generation. No, not the New Jack City kind, but that space between X and Y(is Y the same as the Millenials?) Those kids born between 1978-1981 who don't identify with either generation (despite technically being in both (according to Wikipedia entry with some decent footnotes)) because we were too young to be considered slackers and we were in college when parents were finally discovering what the fuck IM and Napster were.
today's featured article on Wikipedia is Nirvana, dubbed there as "the 'flagship band' of Generation X." they also, as some may know, take their name from the state one tries to attain in Buddhist belief.
i just think that's kind of a cool coincidence.
just in case i haven't been PoMo enough lately, the year definitions and ranges of generations are easily seen as pretty darn arbitrary.
did you kids see how inconsistent and overlapping those years are in Wikipedia's list of generations? and several of the listed articles have problems like: disputed neutrality, a lack of cited sources, or somehow are not up to their quality standards. "Millenials" aren't even listed as such, but are rather called the "New Silent Generation," based on some theory that generations are cyclical.
i think it's still worthwhile to have discussions about generations, or any other defined group of human beings--whether that be by religion or any other means. but i also still say that in the end, individuals define and find meaning for themselves, in whatever way feels right to them.
angst aside, the joy in the human experience comes to open-minded, thinking folks when and in how we share this with each other. (i don't care if this last statement is cheesy. i am after all a self-professed dork.)
A question from the HN theologian-in-residence:
For the sake of some sort of boundary, despite Wikipedia's indefinite definition, let's say Generation X consists of people born between 1965 and 1981. Something I've thought about lately is how does a generation "own" certain aspects/events of popular culture?
I'm right with you on K Fed, mind you, but how do you (personal question to HN readers, not collectively as humans) determine what parts of popular culture a particular generation "owns"? Madonna, for instance. Not a member of Generation X (or maybe on the cusp). Yet her music/videos, at least in the 80s/90s, could be considered music that "defines" Generation X. (Think: Like A Prayer video.)
Aside from the ambiguous attempt to define the years-born for a generation, how do you determine/claim what belongs to a specific generation?
(Seriously, I've been struggling with this thought in one of my classes and would love to know what you all think.)
using your Madonna example, i think that's where you could separate the artist from her products. whether or not she was born within Gen X defined, she lived and produced her art (i.e., music/videos) while they were the youth, which pop music spoke/catered to at the time. she made hits and was seemed to be a big deal to Gen X-ers collectively.
i bet most of the actors on the A-Team also were not born within most definitions of Gen X's timeframe, but we still claim that as part of our experience, too, because so many of us watched it on tv.
the same could be said of the inventors of various products like, oh i dunno, slouch socks or something--they probably were born way before us, but they created something we all used within a particular time period, and thus we identify it as part of our generation.
what links all three of these is that their cultural products became significant to members of our generation, and that's why we claim them.
that's my 47 cents.
Yeah, I don't think it's a matter of someone being a Gen Xer to be a Gen X icon or whatever. So, I agree there.
Back to religion/faith...I'm one chapter in to Sam Harris' The End of Faith. I find his reasoning against extreme fundamentalists thoughtful; however, as an avowed atheist he himself is an extremist.
I have to admit, being a lukewarm anything is a cop-out when you really think about it. So being a religious moderate is really just being a failed fundamentalist because you can't tolerate other religions if you have faith in one of them. The basic tenant of any religion is that all others are either significantly lacking or are just all-out wrong, so you can't be "tolerant" of other religions if you truly are faithful.
Maybe?
Sheesh...it's fucking late. I'm going to finish this thought later.
while i do think that being a pure, or ‘fundamental’ (if you will) atheist is extremist, i don't think that all religions essentially ask their followers to be fundamentalists.
there are faiths out there that pretty much believe: you call your god/nirvana/whatever "potato [poe-ta-toe]," and we call it "potato [poe-tah-toe]," so let's eat some french fries already. it's just that these faiths don't get as much airplay as the others, because they are usually non-proselytizing, or at least not fans of the i-will-kill-you-unless-you-agree-with-me-proselytizing. these folks can believe in their faith just as wholeheartedly as their fundamental counterparts. they're just not assholes about it.
this is actually an example of where i think logic, while useful, can also be limiting, because it's so often based on perceiving everything in oversimplified dichotomies. things are either this, or not-this. i think that idea barely describes the reality of stuff, and if we restrict ourselves within those limits, then that's all we're gonna see.
all hail the extreme relativists!
More from the HN T-I-R:
I've thought more about Baby G's mention of fundamental counterparts, as well as tossing in the idea of toleration.
I've been studying styles of faith development (based on a book Will Our Children Have Faith? by John Westerhoff). As I list the 4 styles, I'm pulling them out of a "God" context, though:
1. You grow up with the faith of the people around you (parents)--note: influence
2. You choose to belong to a community with similar beliefs--note: belonging, social.
3. You struggle with that community as it might vary from your beliefs--note: groups/institutions are not perfect, don't match your beliefs 100%
4. Owned faith. You're secure in what you believe and have tolerance and respect for the belief of others--note: maturity.
I think people can define the word "faith" in ways that do not mention God or church (or George Michael). Faith as a hope for the future, or faith as a way of making sense of incongruous events in life.
HN readers, tell me how you define the word faith?
Post a Comment