"Why do people have to be this lonely? What's the point of it all? Millions of people in this world, all of them yearning, looking to others to satisfy them, yet isolating themselves. Why? Was the earth put here just to nourish human loneliness?”
― Haruki Murakami, Sputnik Sweetheart
Just to be sure, I define that phrase by examining its etymology. The word “atheistic” is composed of the suffix “a-“ which is used to mean “absence of”, “theist” which comes from “theos” which was the old Greek for “god” (probably the origin of the Latin, “deus” as in “deus ex machina”), “-ic” which is a suffix used to mean “to have characteristics of”. The word “agnostic” uses “a-“ in the same way, and “gnosia” which means, “knowledge” (hence we have the Gnostic gospels) and the “-ic” suffix which means “to pertain to”. Therefore I am “absence-of-god-characteristics-of-absence-of-knowledge-pertains-to”. Rearranging that
to be more sensible to the English language paradigm, I am one who claims no knowledge
on gods and act as though were was none.
With that aside, I’d like to begin sharing my unsolicited reflection.
After listening to Gangnam Style for the nth time, I asked a friend what the hell the song was really about. He explained that it was a guy who is describing his ideal girl. Hearing the word made me go into a musing on its meaning and implications while rudely spacing out from my friend’s conversation. I was fortunate that he did not notice and I just nodded and said “Yeah.” When I was finally alone, I decided to put my thoughts into order and here’s the result.
What does ideal mean? I’ve been asked countless times to describe my ideal girl (and on certain strange occasions, guy). Each time, I’ve given almost the same set of answers. Of course, the qualities I give are distinct and would not be the same for everyone else. We all have our individual notions of an ideal partner. For that matter, we all have our individual notions on what an ideal world is. Some would say it’s a world with no taxes, a world with no wars, a world where everybody shares their resources, a world where nobody is ever friend-zoned, etc. But an important thing to note is how these notions came from individuals, people with perceptions. I tried crafting my own ideal world in my head but at some point I randomly thought on what a caveman’s notion of an ideal world would be, or that of someone from an ancient civilization or of the medieval era. The notion of a perfect world changes as ways of living change. My notion of a perfect world would probably be crude to a person who lives centuries from now. Who am I to construct a set of ideals for an ideal world that would encompass all things discovered and undiscovered, and that has
happened and has yet to happen?
Despite all of my disagreements on Descartes premises, I have to admit that perhaps this was what he was trying to say when all ideas are mere simulacra to their source. Our ideas are affected by our perceptions, which are affected by various things like values and the zeitgeists we belong to and cannot account for things unknown in the span of our existences. And Descartes himself was subject to this. So now I arrive at my notion of a God. I abandoned my Catholicism for several reasons but the primary one being that as human beings with limited perception, I believe we can never absolutely know anything, especially the existence of a supernatural being that is omniscient and omnipotent. One of Richard Dawkins’ famous quotes is “We are all atheists about most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.” A friend of mine disagreed with the statement, saying Zeus and Thor were not Gods. However he
confuses gods with Gods (and that is with the big letter “G”) in that they were not omnipotent and omniscient.
So here we see how the notion gods of the ancient Greeks evolved into the God of Judeo-Christians. A characteristic that remained however is the intervention in human affairs. I’d love to divulge into the reasons for my disagreement for this by expressing my opinion of the mimetic nature of religions but that’s a discussion (not debate) for another place and time. Suffice it to say that I do not agree with it. I am, however in agreement with Carl Sagan when he said, “The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.” But to me, it extends beyond these physical laws (which I am sure Sagan did not limit to those known only in his time), my God includes each and everyone person, (That’s right, you’re my God, part of it at least) myself included. My God is this amorphous, (every)thing, not in any way singularly sentient. You could say that for me, the universe is God and not the other way around.
This is what I believe is what David Foster Wallace called “the mystical oneness of all things deep down.” and if I’m not mistaken, what Heidegger was referring to as the “sophon” and that as I continue my studies in philosophy (because I lack the confidence to say that I’m truly philosophizing), I find a way to connect to this oneness. Maybe it’s the buzz from the coffee while listening to Georges Cziffra play Franz Liszt’s “Liebestraume” but I want to connect to all those people I see outside my window, know their stories, their hopes and dreams, and serendipitously make friends, fall in love, and make this world a world a better
place, even a bit. So now I’ve given my Miss Universe statement, where do I go from here? And where do you go from here? Well, go ahead and pick up whatever you can from this and do whatever you want with it. Throw it away, throw it in my face, or keep it and make it grow. The choice is yours. As for me, I still have several questions left unanswered and I don’t think there’s anything substantially final on this little blog post. I guess it’s time to continue my loving struggle. If you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go lazily look up pantheism on Wikipedia.
I like the way you think—that the universe is God and not the other way around. I am in this position wherein I believe in God, but it's not enough because a part of me thinks that since humans are *quite* helpless at times, we need the 'guidance' of a supernatural Being to make us feel a little bit safer and a little less lonely in our lives. What do you think? :))
ReplyDelete-Catherine Sison
By virtue of existing, we have the trace of God in us, and so one can say that, in a way, the universe is God. However, the God that reveals himself to us is definitely more than some world power that is in everything and is merely in immanence. God is the universe, but he is more than the universe. God is in this world, but he is also beyond this world. God is in us, but he is also above us and beyond us. In a sense, this God that we believe in is a God that is always beyond what we think he is. In other words, God is transcendence pure and simple.
DeleteI want to especially take note that the Christian God is not an evolution, so to speak, of the Greek Gods. If you are going to read the Acts of the Apostles, we will see that St. Paul reveals the Christian God as the "unknown God" of the Greeks whom they have known and worshipped, different from the Gods of Olympus. Rather, the Christian God is the LOGOS (Remember John 1:1? If you haven't, read it) who is made flesh. The pure transcendence (who is also immanent) who became even more immanent and revealed a new face of the Divine: as a human being, as a person.
I was actually a devout Catholic in the past. My doubt for Catholicism (and religion in general) began when I contemplated that it was a byproduct of a need to have something to hold on to. Incidentally, I explored this notion even further while reading something for Theology 121. Part of it went,"Critics of religion both ancient and modern have dismissed it as a mere human creation, a fire around which people who can’t bear to imagine a cold and indifferent universe huddle." (William Portier, Tradition and Incarnation) Regarding my opinion, I think the desire for something to be true, no matter how grand or profound the need, does not constitute a truth. To me it's like saying that a girl likes me back despite all the signs that she doesn't because I want her to like me back. (Disclaimer: This is a purely arbitrary example. hehe)
DeleteRichard Dawkins (a great influence to my world view) explores this concept along with various other possibilities on religion as a human construct, factoring in memetic qualities of religion, psychological inclination towards having an intentional stance, dualism, and teleology.
I believe that Dawkins' criticism has, to a certain extent, valid. But it does not exhaust religious experience in its totality. Google his debate with Sir Anthony Kenny and Archbishop Rowan Williams. It's worth listening to, believer or unbeliever alike. Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac
DeleteI'm not an atheist or an agnostic, but I really liked this.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, I'm not in the right state of mind to say anything more than that.
^^ The same goes for me too. I find it good that people are able to share their feelings about their God or the lack of it. It is helping me think about things and enriches the "healthy doubt" that Dr. Garcia talks about.
ReplyDeleteI remembered something about how religion is both personal and communal. Christianity emphasizes how our own relationship with your God is something deeply personal. However, on the surface, religion seems to go against this idea of individuality. I guess it's like another one of those opposites that somehow make sense we always talk about in class.
On the contrary, it is Christianity which served as the seedbed, at least in the Western world, of individual rights, dignity, and conscience.
Delete^ I'd like to add to this and say while I don't believe Christianity necessarily was the root of the advancements in the Western zeitgeist, it definitely served a great role in it. As sir said, it acted as a seedbed. Martin Luther was among the first questioning the status quo and moved to bring the lay people into a chance at interpreting texts. I think we can see here the significance of allowing for discussions from all perspectives. That way, nothing is set in stone. As they say in Assassin's Creed, "Nothing is true, everything is permitted."
DeleteThe changes of morality were clearly not derived from the Bible alone. I believe St. Augustine's Confessions tackle this issue. Rather, the transformation of the zeitgeist is brought about by discussion, often spearheaded by people brave enough to take stands. (See: Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., the philosophes of the 18th century, etc.)
I'd like to begin with a short story that originated from India-the story of the blind men and an elephant. It begins with a group of blind men who touch a nearby elephant in order to learn what it is like. One man touches the elephant's tail and says "Oh the elephant is hairy!", another man touches the elephant's tusk and says "Oh the elephant is smooth and rigid!" and the last man touches the elephant's trunk and says "Oh the elephant is callous and muscular!". At the end of the day the three men compare notes and find that they are in complete disagreement. They argue until a sighted man passes by and tells them that they are all correct-that an elephant can be hairy, smooth, muscular, etc.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm getting at here is that I agree with you when you say that our humanity limits our perception of the grand being that is God. He transcends us in every possible way and thus, with our puny understanding we 'limit' Him, we contain Him within the bounds of our imagination in order to try and understand Him. Therefore our understanding of Him becomes subjective and biased as we are unique individuals with different experiences and yet they carry the same weight be you Christian, Jew, Muslim, Pagan, etc.
-Nadine Viray
PH101 C