I’ve been struggling for a while to understand why God is still relevant for us. Why so many of us continue to believe in him and why so many of us struggle to demonstrate he doesn’t exist. Why so many of those convinced he doesn’t exist blame him for so many of our own follies…
Because we’re ‘escape artists’!
So many of us continue to smoke. Since not everybody who smokes develops a cancer or dies of COPD – Chronic Obstrusive Pulmonary Disease, those addicted to nicotine find ways to rationalize their habit. For it’s simpler for them to hope they are among the lucky ones than to accept the fact that they’ve acted foolishly for so long. I know what I’m talking about, I’m one of these people.
Similarly, it’s a lot simpler to use God as a scapegoat than to accept full responsibility for your destiny. The less control/resources you have, the simpler it is to ask for God’s help. To lay your fate in his hands.
‘He must have had his reasons. The fact that I don’t know what they are doesn’t change anything. He’s in charge, I can do nothing but accept my fate!’
Same thing for the disbelievers. It’s simpler to blame (a) God, or (a) religion for aberrant/abhorrent behavior than to accept that human beings can be manipulated – in certain conditions – into such behavior. Into such inhuman behavior.
‘If they could have been manipulated in such a manner then I might be manipulated in the same manner. This is not acceptable. It’s their God/religion which is at fault. Something like this cannot happen to me. I don’t belong to any religion – or to a different one, so I’m immune to all this.’
I’m not going to discuss the veracity of the above. Which is true, in the sense that this is how we determine whether an organism is alive or not. My point being that in order to perform this, the organisms – each and every one of them – need to act as if they are able to make the difference between ‘in’ and ‘out’. Besides the fact that they need to discern between ‘food’ – which is to be ‘imported’ and everything else. Which everything else must be kept on the outside.
See what I mean when I speak about the difference between ‘in’ and ‘out’?
In this sense, organisms – from the very beginning – have a certain ‘dimensional awareness’ of the world. Of their environment, more exactly. And, as things have become more and more ‘complicated’, the dimensional awareness has become more and more sophisticated. Plants act as if they know the difference between up and down, animals are indeed able to find their way when foraging.
The advent of consciousness has added a new layer to that awareness. Now we speak about ‘self-awareness’. We, conscious beings, are not only aware of the difference between our own ‘inside’ and the rest of the world but we’re also aware of our consciousness. We are aware of our selves. Our selves are aware about themselves. Our selves are able to think. To consider things.
Previous organisms have been able to react – according to ‘ingrained procedures’ which have been, in variable degrees, honed by ‘learning’ – while we are able, on top of our own reactivity, of careful consideration. Of making the difference between ‘fight’ and ‘flight’. Not only to choose one on occasion – all other ‘competitive’ animals do that on a regular basis – but also able to actively consider the difference between the two concepts. Previous organisms have been able to choose between when to fight and when to flee in an ‘instinctive’ manner. For some, granted, those instincts have been honed by ‘learning’, but their decision making process has continued to remain ‘procedural’. Very little, if any, ‘active consideration’. Very little, if any, ‘originality’.
Consciousness – our ability to actively observe and then examine/discuss our own observations – has opened a vast field of opportunity. Being able to actively observe a situation and to actively consider the circumstances/consequences before making a decision adds a fourth dimension to the already ‘three dimensional space’.
Life, per se, has no direction. Evolution only helps life to survive. To adapt itself to adaptable changes in the environment. Life, per se, has no direction. No direction and no meaning. Life, simple life, takes place in a space with three dimensions. Three parameters. In/out, abundance/scarcity, food/poison. An organism, any organism, continues to live for as long as there is ‘enough’ ‘food’ ‘inside’ it. And not enough ‘poison’ to kill it. But ‘simple’ organisms have no plans. No ‘future’. The more sophisticated among them display a behaviour we associate with ‘feelings’ – which apparently help them, evolution wise – but still no ‘future’.
Biological time is as bland as physical time. It flows according to rules ingrained in the already-existent. A star will ‘function’ according to pre-existent rules, a microbe will live according to the information inscribed in its DNA, in the context of all other ‘natural laws’, while an orangutan will be able to add very little to the above. If you consider things dispassionately, there is a continuous chain of events from the shiny stars in the sky to the orangutans roaming the Indonesian jungle. And no individual agent was needed in order to successively latch causes into the chain which led to the present set of circumstances. According to what we presently know, anyway…
Until a short hundred of years ago… When Man ‘invented’ the palm oil. When Man had purposely invented the industrial process through which palm is transformed into edible oil. When Man had used his agency to ‘improve’ his lot. And carelessly destroyed the habitat of the orangutan.
In this sense we may consider that the orangutan continue to live along a linear time – individually and/or collectively the orangutan remain unable to pro-actively determine their fate – but time itself is no longer linear. Since the advent of Man, time no longer flows according to ‘objective’ rules. According to rules contained into the very fabric of things. Currently, and ‘locally’, the flow of time is increasingly influenced by the agency of Man.
Self-conscious organisms, in order to satisfy their need for meaning, attempt to make sense of what they are living. To lead a meaningful life, they need to ingest not only portions of where they live but also as much information as possible about where they live. As much information as humanly possible…
I argued earlier that truth is a convention. And that the Truth exists but will never be known. Not in its entirety, anyway.
Then what are we left with? How can any of us decide what is true and what is not?
First of all, any convention needs three things. The two convening parts and the object of their convention.
‘So, you want us to believe that truth is a make-believe?!?’
That it can be, yes!
And the further from the real truth – from reality itself, that convened about truth is, the worse the fate the believers will eventually have to face.
The first example which jumps to my mind is the fate of Bernie Madoff and ‘his’ investors. Bernie and each of the investors had convened a truth. That his investment fund was sound. Consider what happened to each of them. To each of the investors and to Bernie Madoff himself.
Christians call it fate while Buddhists call it karma. Christians’ main goal is called salvation while Buddhists’ is called nirvana.
And no, these are not exactly the same thing. Not different enough to separate them easily, not similar enough to consider them the same thing.
Fate depends on what God has in mind for you while karma depends exclusively on what you have decided all along your life.
Salvation is even more complicated. Catholics believe that each individual can obtain it, regardless of what they had done until that moment, by simply acknowledging ones sins and by repenting before God/priest. Protestants, on the other hand, believe that individual salvation is entirely at God’s mercy. Mortal individuals can do nothing more than putting their faith in God’s all encompassing love and waiting for it. Meanwhile, since Buddhists don’t have a God, they believe that accomplishing nirvana is the responsibility of each individual… All somebody has to do in order to achieve this goal is to transform their inner self. There is no outside, objective (?!?) benchmark to be reached here… no other arbiter to please…
Yet fate and karma are not that different either… Life experience in Asia may be different from that in Europe but the differences aren’t huge enough to consider them two different things. Not to mention the growing number of Buddhists living in the Euro-Atlantic region and the burgeoning number of Christian converts in Asia….
As for salvation versus nirvana… the man made Catholic one is almost similar – even if a lot easier to obtain, to the Buddhist nirvana while the Protestant one is just as dis-similar from it’s Catholic equivalent as it is from the Buddhist nirvana. Yet, again, is it really possible for peace of mind to be that different on the opposing ends of EurAsia? Peace of mind experienced by very similar human individuals…. The only difference between them being the culture they have grown into….
Which brings us to chance.
Rationally minded people – scientists, economists, etc., are convinced that any decision can be perfect… If only people were diligent enough to educate themselves properly, to think with their brains instead of allowing their hearts to take over…
‘Rationally minded people…’ But how rational is to expect a human being – an animal, first and foremost, to behave in a perfectly rational manner? How rational is to expect a human being to overcome all emotion AND all biases? Known and unknown…. How rational is even to expect a human being to ‘diligently’ research all available data before making a decision? How much time would that take? When should someone be satisfied enough with the information gathered about a particular subject?
How much is each of us indebted to Lady Luck about the place we’ve born into? Christian Europe or Buddhist Asia? About the time of our birth? Before any of Christ/Buddha had preached or after? How much is each of us indebted to Lady Luck about the amount of opportunity each of us have had to decide about during our lives?
My last question was a tricky one, indeed. OK, Lady Luck is responsible for many things. For the place and time of our birth. For the fortunes of the families we’ve been born into and for the mental and physical each of us enjoys. Or lacks…
Only we do share in the final responsibility for our fate/salvation/karma/nirvana!
Our decisions are equally shaped by the circumstances in which we’ve reached those decisions AND by our diligence in making them. Each of our decisions opens up some new doors and shuts down others. Or, at least, turns our heads towards new openings and away from others.
‘And your point is?’
Don’t blame others for your bad decisions and don’t praise yourself too much for your good ones. Don’t blame others for their bad decisions. Are you sure they had a real alternative for the situations you found them in? Mind you, not whether there was a real alternative! Did THEY had access to that alternative? Extend a helping hand. You’re not responsible for saving everybody else but to see somebody in need and not offer your help sets the stage for you needing help and everybody else passing by without noticing you. Don’t overdo it. When you see someone drowning, get them out to safety. That’s enough. Don’t lecture them about the dangers of getting into water. Firstly, you don’t know how they got in and, secondly, if they are not able to figure this out by themselves you’re wasting your time. Don’t prevent everybody else from getting in simply because somebody had (nearly) drowned. You’re not God. You don’t know everything. You just happened to be there when somebody was drowning and you was strong and brave enough enough to save them. That’s all there is to it.