Coming back after visiting a friend who is battling a terminal condition is always sobering. A few weeks ago I also visited the deathbed of another. I am sure you had such experience as well.
While it seems right to go alongside with people in that situation, I always struggle on what to say or even to say anything at all. We are crushed to honestly reflect internally of the immensity of the moment and while yet trying to be polite, and politically correct. At some moments during such times, like flashes, certain thoughts dogged us. Is the confidence we placed on our worldview enough? It is not about scoring points in an argument, a display of superior intelligent or just mental entertainment. Just listening to our self and maybe we need to go just another mile in our search.
Carved on a tombstone
“Here I am, there you are.
There you are...here you will be.”
Life can be hard, intolerable and very often cruel. Our existence is ephemeral and with each passing moment we march towards a certain death.
ReplyDelete"Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.
The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.
It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world.
To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known."
- Carl Sagan "The Pale Blue Dot"
"The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth...Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides"
- Carl Sagan "In the Valley of the Shadow"
In our recent trip to Bright, I deliberately took the young people to a open field to have a star gazing session at the night sky. It was absolutely spectacular as the absence of city lights makes the night sky so vivid. The Milky Way, the constellations and stars can be clearly seen and identified.
ReplyDeleteIn my younger days in rural Malaysia, I did not have any faith or believing system, but the night sky often instil a deep sense of wonder,marvel and humility about how insignificant we are as humans. I totally resonate with what was expressed by Carl Sagan as quoted by Irrational.
My spiritual search in later years has allowed me to embrace a faith system that tells me about a supreme intelligent Creator who is far above this mind-boggling, exquisitely beautiful universe.
My faith journey begins from an intellectual search into a more experiential knowing of God. I have been to many bedside of the terminally ill and the distressed. I have seek for fortune tellers that can narrate my past and witch doctors that has effectively curse someone.I have experienced miracles of healings and answers to prayer for impossible situations.
I find that my longing for a deeper meaning and the transcendent cannot be found just by using our mental faculty alone. When all the facts are set before us, we still need the will to submit to a ultimate higher being or have the intellectual integrity to admit our finiteness.
Ultimately, it is a question of epistemology – how we get our information and how we interpret them. I must admit that human existence is so complex and no one has the monopoly over knowledge. The current “big bang theory" TV sitcom is a good satire about how seemingly informed and smart people can often neglect or being inept at other facet of life.
The Jewish theologian Martin Buber introduce 2 very important concepts of relationship – The “I - It” and the “I – Thou”. I am not very articulate in English or any language for that matter, but I would like to quote verbatim a couple of paragraphs from Wikipedia to illustrate: (note: the original thesis was in German and some original flavor may have been lost due to translation)--- to be continue in the next comment...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletecontinue from previous comment....
ReplyDeleteMartin Buber's I-Thou & I-It concept..
1. (Ich-Du) I-THOU relationship
Ich-Du ("I-Thou" or "I-You") is a relationship that stresses the mutual, holistic existence of two beings. It is a concrete encounter, because these beings meet one another in their authentic existence, without any qualification or objectification of one another. Even imagination and ideas do not play a role in this relation. In an I-Thou encounter, infinity and universality are made actual (rather than being merely concepts).
Buber stressed that an Ich-Du relationship lacks any composition (e.g. structure) and communicates no content (e.g. information). Despite the fact that Ich-Du cannot be proven to happen as an event (e.g. it cannot be measured), Buber stressed that it is real and perceivable. A variety of examples are used to illustrate Ich-Du relationships in daily life - two lovers, an observer and a cat, the author and a tree, and two strangers on a train. Common English words used to describe the Ich-Du relationship include encounter, meeting, dialogue, mutuality, and exchange.
One key “I-Thou “ relationship Buber identified was that which can exist between a human being and God. Buber argued that this is the only way in which it is possible to interact with God, and that an Ich-Du relationship with anything or anyone connects in some way with the eternal relation to God.
To create this I-Thou relationship with God, a person has to be open to the idea of such a relationship, but not actively pursue it. The pursuit of such a relation creates qualities associated with It-ness, and so would prevent an I-You relation, limiting it to I-It. Buber claims that by being open to the I-Thou, God eventually comes to us in response to our welcome. Also, because the God Buber describes is completely devoid of qualities, this I-Thou relation lasts as long as the individual wills it. When the individual finally returns to the I-It, they act as a pillar of deeper relation and community.
2. ( Ich-Es) I – IT relationship
The Ich-Es ("I-It") relationship is nearly the opposite of Ich-Du. Whereas in Ich-Du the two beings encounter one another, in an Ich-Es relationship the beings do not actually meet. Instead, the "I" confronts and qualifies an idea, or conceptualization, of the being in its presence and treats that being as an object. All such objects are considered merely mental representations, created and sustained by the individual mind. This is based partly on Kant's theory of phenomenon, in that these objects reside in the cognitive agent’s mind, existing only as thoughts. Therefore, the Ich-Es relationship is in fact a relationship with oneself; it is not a dialogue, but a monologue.
In the Ich-Es relationship, an individual treats other things, people, etc., as objects to be used and experienced. Essentially, this form of objectivity relates to the world in terms of the self - how an object can serve the individual’s interest.
Buber argued that human life consists of an oscillation between Ich-Du and Ich-Es, and that in fact Ich-Du experiences are rather few and far between. In diagnosing the various perceived ills of modernity (e.g. isolation, dehumanization, etc.), Buber believed that the expansion of a purely analytic, material view of existence was at heart an advocation of Ich-Es relations - even between human beings. Buber argued that this paradigm devalued not only existents, but the meaning of all existence."
@ Jeremy Wong
ReplyDeleteI empathise with your spirituality and your quest for deeper faith. Alas! We are walking on divergent paths that would never conflate, our difference as unequivocal as the dichotomy between science and faith. For despite the many failings and inadequacy of my mental faculty, I would still prefer to operate on reason and logic alone, where religion is concerned.
You said “My faith journey begins from an intellectual search into a more experiential knowing of God”.
Experiential evidence, however vivid and powerful, is subjective and inapplicable to everyone. It is also prevalent in all religions and not at all unique to the Christian faith (in fact, believers in ghosts and aliens often cite experiential evidence). Does that mean that their experience are any more, or any less, meaningful? That their gods are more, or less, powerful based on the intensity of their experience? Furthermore, the human mind is quite susceptible to being misled, seeing, hearing and feeling things when there are none – it is not uncommon.
Interestingly, how often does one receive personal revelations from deities they have never heard of, or been exposed to? For example, a devout Hindu (presuming that he knows nothing of the Scientology faith whatsoever), receiving vision of a thetan, or a Tibetan monk encountering an apparition of Virgin Mary (again, assuming that he has no prior exposure to Christianity), or a Muslim in Saudi Arabia reporting a vision of the goddess Furrina? Very much so, religion is a contemporaneous social and cultural construct.
You then wrote “When all the facts are set before us, we still need the will to submit to a ultimate higher being or have the intellectual integrity to admit our finiteness. “
It reminds of the retort “in order to accept the argument, one must already have accepted it.” The fact that an omnipresent, omnipotent God requires his adherents to have faith to believe in him is reason enough not to, at the very least, believe in his omnipresence and omnipotence. Remember too, that religious cults, who in the past have tragically actuated mass murder or suicide, had a similar degree of conviction in their beliefs. I am sure you will concur that it does not make their beliefs any truer.
(cont.)
ReplyDeleteYes, I would readily admit that our existence is finite and that we should have the courage to confront this fact.
All in all, faith and experiential evidence are unverifiable and subjective. It requires a huge leap of faith, which may be acceptable to some, but not to others.
“ I must admit that human existence is so complex and no one has the monopoly over knowledge. The current “big bang theory" TV sitcom is a good satire about how seemingly informed and smart people can often neglect or being inept at other facet of life. “
I am only vaguely aware of this show and far from being a fan. I cannot see the relevance of this statement within the context of faith and religion, and I can only assume, judging from the title of the show, that you are taking a swipe at atheists for being inept or inadequate at other facets of life (presumably spiritually?) as they do not share your faith.
I have quoted you numerous times and if I have misrepresented your views, I stand corrected.
p/s I have no comments on Martin Buber’s philosophy of dialogue, though I fully appreciate your posting of the wiki page. I am incapable of voicing an opinion on the matter of theology, when the fundamentals of God’s existence have not been sufficiently established.
@ Irrational
ReplyDeleteThank for your response.
I was more like musing along the theme of human finiteness, death and spiritual quest. Hence my comments are not always adversarial or polemic in nature.
As the point of art of revelations and dreams, I do hear of cultures that are quite separate receiving dreams of another faith totally alien to their own. Eg, there were records of Muslims and Hindus, and atheist receiving dreams and vision of Christ producing conversion. Of course these are quite rare.
I do believe in fact that a healthy faith system should welcome critiques or scrutiny or otherwise it can develop into tyrannical mass suicidal cults.
The part about the TV sitcom Big Bang Theory is just a way to illustrate my take on Epistemology. It was never intended to make a swipe at atheists as I do have great respect for atheists in their quest for the truth. I was once an atheist too. All sincere quest and expression should be respected or this dialogue will be rendered unworkable.
I look forward to reading more from your prolific comments
@Jeremy
ReplyDeleteI do sincerely apologise for construing your comments the way it was unintended for.
When you said "a healthy faith system should welcome critiques or scrutiny or otherwise it can develop into tyrannical mass suicidal cults", pertinent questions popped into mind:
Do you interpret the Bible literally, and in your opinion, what fate awaits the non believers and heretics? Do we burn and suffer in hell in eternity as prescribed by the bible, and do you have any moral objections to this, and why?
Do you see your faith as having monopoly over the absolute Truth? Where does that leave other faiths and their claims about God(s)? Are they equally right, categorically wrong, or somewhere in between?
p/s Lest you think that I am setting up a straw man argument, I assure you I am not. I am genuinely interested in having my non beliefs challenged and examined as rigorously as I do with religion.
@Irrational
ReplyDeleteI am equally interested in the reasons and/or motivations that render one taking a theist or an atheistic view in life.
From reading your comments, you seems to be very well verse with many religious and theological arguments for and against religious faith. Perhaps you would like to share the reasons and or other motivations that cause you to arrive at your present view?
As for the concept of Biblical inerrancy & infallibility alluded by you, I think it is such a big subject that required a lot of space. Also the terminology and concepts are often clouded by much mis-conceptions and hence would need to be further defined. I prefer to leave it for another time.
The bible? I would prefer to refer to the bible as the verbal revelation of God; communicate to us through fallible human scribes. It contains accounts of the creation, the fall and redemptive history of humankind. Suffice to say that it will be limited by the medium (languages written in) and coloured by historical and cultural setting as it was a compilation of writings over many centuries. Much of it is written poetic prose and hence it is literary work not a scientific work. It is more descriptive rather than prescriptive.
However, I do embrace the authoritative self-declaration and pronouncement of Jesus such as John 14:6 "I am the way the truth and the life... "
I am keenly aware of the inherent paradox of claiming one has the only absolute truth may seem offensive to others. Let me use a Chinese illustration of the two characters (mao-toon) that were used to coin the compound word or phrase “Contradiction” . “Mao” is the word for spear and “Toon” is the word for shield. It came about when one man was trying to sell his wares in the market place – first he took up his spear and said that his spear was the sharpest ever on earth and that no object will be impenetrable to its sharpness. Next he took up a shield and said that his shield was the strongest shield under heaven and no arrows or spear known to man will ever be able to pierce through it. His audience had a good laugh at his self-contradiction.
I suppose in matter of faith, one is entitled to say his faith is the best when one has done a thorough quest and found one to be the most reasonable and true. To say something is the best is to inadvertently infer that others are inferior. I have not been able to find a way around yet.
@Jeremy
ReplyDeleteI am not a theist because thus far, there is no evidence for the existence of god(s) (on a sidenote, this is not be confused with evidence that there is no god). As it is theists (usually of the monotheistic, Abrahmic variety) who are making claims that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent God exists, the burden of proof lies with them.Thus far none of the evidence presented in the favour of God is logically convincing. In my mind atheism is the default position. Consider this, all newborns are atheists, it is only later in life that they are indoctrinated with religious ideas; which religion they are brought up in is merely a concoction of geographical and familial coincidences.
This brings me to my next point – if a Christian God does indeed exist, most of the world’s population will be condemned to hell. An omnibenevolent, moral God will not allow the fate of His subjects’ souls be determined by arbitrary factors such as geographical location. Secondly, if God is all powerful and all loving, He would not allow a thing as trivial as geography impede upon the well being of our souls. After all, it is no small matter to be tormented in Hell for eternity. These are only a few contradictions that reinforce my non belief in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. A more eloquent rebuttal of God’s purported goodness and greatness is the Problem of Evil, as framed by Epicurus as early as three centuries before the birth of Christ:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
Claiming that God is both omnipotent and omniscient is a paradox in and of itself.
“Much of it is written poetic prose and hence it is literary work not a scientific work. It is more descriptive rather than prescriptive.”
ReplyDeleteI thank you for saying this. Literal interpretation of the Bible is a worrying trend. Of particular concern is the push to include creationism in school science syllabus and the insistence that the world is less than 6000 years old despite an abundance of evidence against it. Fundamentalists’ complete disregard for, and derision of evidence, that does not fit into their worldview clears the path for extremism, intolerance and polarisation. Because if evidence, logic , rational thinking and education can’t change their mind, what can?
“However, I do embrace the authoritative self-declaration and pronouncement of Jesus such as John 14:6 "I am the way the truth and the life... "
Pray tell, how do you ascertain if one passage is truer than the other, when you have already conceded that the Bible could be a fallible document compiled over many centuries, vulnerable to mistakes? Could there not be a possibility that the pronouncement has been misinterpreted or mistranslated? Why and how is this pronouncement an exception?
“I suppose in matter of faith, one is entitled to say his faith is the best when one has done a thorough quest and found one to be the most reasonable and true. To say something is the best is to inadvertently infer that others are inferior. I have not been able to find a way around yet.”
Yes we will leave it at that.
To begin with, I must say that intellectual debate is never my forte. But I do appreciate that we all need certain reasons or justifications when we have taken a certain position.(to believe the existence of God and not to). However, I do find that most people are not motivated by intellectual arguments alone. I often find that many from Western culture have abandoned their Judeo-Christian faith due to disappointment with organised religion, either through hearing the power and miracles of old but never seen any or finding the prescriptive native of such faith stifling. The biblical God actually urges us to reflect and pursue virtues like wisdom, address injustice, appreciate true beauty and exercise creativity.
ReplyDeleteHistory of Christendom has a litany of political intrigues, corruptions and questionable moral. For me, it serves to show the total depravity of us humans rather than the goodness of God. For others, it becomes further justification for doubting in a benevolent creator.
I like the imagery of the 7th century BC prophet Jeremiah about the potter and the clay. If we take the position that it is the onus of God to prove himself real to us, it will be easy to proof or justify his non-existence. Or if he exist at all, he is not necessary a wise, just and benevolent. I prefer to humbly claim that I am just the clay and he is the potter.
Having said that, it is good to re-visit some of the favourite discourses regarding the problem of evil and its compatibility to God’s attributes.
I guess when we assume there is such a thing called Evil, we have to assume there is such a thing called Good. Otherwise we won’t know what evil is. The closest parallel to good and evil are Darkness and Light. Darkness does not actually exist; it is merely the absence of light. Just as how disorder presumes order in the first place.
It is also a fallacy that God and evil cannot co-exist, say , for a certain dispensation of time, at least for the period of human history. We are a mere speck in the vast expanse of time and space. In contrast to some Eastern religious concept of dualism, where good and evil co-exist forever and there is constant striving for balance, Biblical timeline has an end time when evil will finally ceased sometime in the future.
I think the concept of “free will” is a tremendous gift of God. “Free Will” can only be exercised through the acceptance of its un-intended consequences of evil. I don't think anyone who is familiar with all the arguments regarding problem of evil have a logical problem with it. God exists as a benevolent being if he seems to have done little to prevent certain evils.
To use an anthropomorphic example; a responsible parent who at the same time loves his child does not mind laying down some rules for his kid but would still give him his open space and judgment. But if the child went insane and shot people for fun at the first experience of handling a gun, it would be reasonable to take punitive action or at least take away any weapon from him. This may not be a perfect examples as God has to be is metaphysically distinct from human beings and superior in many ways.
I have a keen interest in comparative religions such as Islam, Eastern religion like Confucianism, Buddhism, Daoism etc. Some religions are not so benign as it seems. Interestingly, most sages and philosophers appear around the 5th century BC in contrast to the silence year of the inter-testamental period between the Old and New Testament of the bible where prophetic voices have deemed to be rather quiet for a few centuries.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, both Socrates & Confucius were of the opinion that man were born innocent or without evil, it was the corruption of the world later that make them good or bad people. But where do evil comes from? Buddha, on the other hand, was perplexed and saddens by evil and the suffering of human kind that he saw. In contrast, the concept of the “original sin” was a Judea –Christian one.
We can keep this dialogue going if you wish. I may not post every day, but I will try to find some time to return to this space whenever. I don’t need to have the last word anyway.
My take is this “Truth needs to be objectively analysed as well as subjectively experienced.”
“But I do appreciate that we all need certain reasons or justifications when we have taken a certain position.(to believe the existence of God and not to)”
ReplyDeleteI concur
“I don't think anyone who is familiar with all the arguments regarding problem of evil have a logical problem with it. God exists as a benevolent being if he seems to have done little to prevent certain evils.”
I actually do take issue with the introduction of “free will” as a means of refuting the Problem of Evil. But first things first – free will is a concept extraneous to the existence of God. For example, the statement “The Divine Pink Unicorn has granted mankind free will” does nothing to establish, or affirm The Divine Pink Unicorn’s existence – we shall overlook this for the time being. It is, however, a justifiable response to The Problem of Evil, though in my opinion it contains logical fallacies.
Free will is incompatible with an omniscient God and predestination (which I believe is a widely accepted doctrine amongst Christians?) One has to question – to paraphrase Christopher Hitchens – is free will that is mandated by God” free” will at all? Secondly, an omniscient God can see into, and influence, the future. Thirdly, even if God is only partially omniscient (if you are prepared to concede that much), He still has the power (as he is omnipotent) to produce outcomes in accordance with His desires and intentions. Where does that leave free will and how does it fit in?
“I guess when we assume there is such a thing called Evil, we have to assume there is such a thing called Good. Otherwise we won’t know what evil is. The closest parallel to good and evil are Darkness and Light. Darkness does not actually exist; it is merely the absence of light. Just as how disorder presumes order in the first place.”
By logical extension, evil deeds are merely the absence of good deed, rape is the absence of unrape, murder is the absence of unmurder, white is the absence of black, cold is the absence of hot and vice versa? These definitions are very unsatisfying, parochially binary, and do not fully resolve the Problem of Evil (though it did deflect it for a little while). If,
1) Good is merely the absence of evil.
2) More good equates to less evil, then
Couldn’t an omnibenevolent God at least increases good to diminish evil? (Here I have generously made the concession that He does not create nor condone evil)
“To use an anthropomorphic example; a responsible parent who at the same time loves his child does not mind laying down some rules for his kid but would still give him his open space and judgment. But if the child went insane and shot people for fun at the first experience of handling a gun, it would be reasonable to take punitive action or at least take away any weapon from him. This may not be a perfect examples as God has to be is metaphysically distinct from human beings and superior in many ways. “
ReplyDeleteThis is indeed a weak example, because just as you said, God has supernatural qualities, such as omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience. If these powers were exercised even at a fraction, the child would neither go insane, nor be in possession of a lethal weapon. In the case of a supernatural being, it is as if God knowingly awaits fallible men (created by God Himself) to commit a mistake, then banish them to Hell for eternity. In my mind, the more superior and powerful God is, the more he is responsible for the Problem of Evil. Spiderman’s uncle (a wise man, I must say) once said, with great power, comes great responsibility.
Our discussion today has entered the realms of theology. Being a non believer this is not, and probably will never be, my strong suit. Please correct me whenever I have misunderstood your comments.
"For instance, both Socrates & Confucius were of the opinion that man were born innocent or without evil, it was the corruption of the world later that make them good or bad people. But where do evil comes from? Buddha, on the other hand, was perplexed and saddens by evil and the suffering of human kind that he saw. In contrast, the concept of the “original sin” was a Judea –Christian one."
ReplyDeleteThe great men of antiquity have always been fascinated by Evil. As an atheist, I see evil as an inherent, unintended part of nature and never sought to explain it from a religious perspective. Natural disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis cause wanton, painful destructions; in the animal kingdom various creatures suffer cruel, mute and slow deaths; amongst humans, the supposedly sentient beings, evil men terminated the lives of too many through barbaric murder and genocide. The origins and purpose of evil can remain elusive, but our conscience cannot.
My take is this “Truth needs to be objectively analysed as well as subjectively experienced.”
Alas, there are times when subjective experience goes against objectively verified facts. Which should be favoured?
Objective first, subjective next... (Opposite of 'confirmation bias'!)
ReplyDelete