|
Ray,
Doesn't seem possible but you seem to be getting even
better.
Harry
Is not the belief in our own purposefulness
and freedom an act of faith? Perhaps we are just as automatic
and purposeless ultimately as the God we choose not to have faith
in? Perhaps God is really just a mirror of whether we believe
that communication is truly possible between beings that may or may not be
sentient after all.
I choose to believe in relationship between people
and all beings, including the spirits and the Gods of all of us. I
do not choose to support Gods that are destructive and willful in obviously
childish manners or who need to be assuaged of their own
ultimate impotence. The Great Mystery that I choose to
face is beyond and yet chooses to encounter Creation just as I choose to
encounter that Great Mystery. To me everything is alive and
transformation is eternal. Beyond that I'm too meager to even
speculate. But that gives me the joy and pleasure that Harry gives
his athiest and the mystery of the agnostic but it separates me from the bigotry
of the literalist who would make writing into a form of idolatry.
That's just mine.
REH
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 11:49
AM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Our mysterious
universe
Ed,
Very good.
Merton makes some points. You
say:
"He argues,
further, that what lies beyond that boundary can be treated in two different
ways, either by denial or by faith. Denial is the approach of the atheist -
there is nothing out there that we can't ultimately explain in rational
terms."
Perhaps, the problem lies in the strength of the definition.
"Denial is the approach of the atheist . . . "
Why denial? Why not a reaction of mild -- or even
strong -- interest in what may be - or perhaps it might be a fun interest, an
entertainment interest, in endless (though not always too fruitful) discussion.
Of course we want to believe there is something
"immense, eternal and purposeful" out there. Perhaps a God, perhaps an
extraordinarily advanced alien civilization. But is such thinking of primary
importance?
As I said to Keith, we know no more now than we did
yesterday, or last week, or a century ago, about the speculative mysteries
that certainly lie out there. So,
why keep talking about them -- except for entertainment.
Merton's statement is intended to separate two
classes of people, which is all right, but perhaps simplistic. Why cannot one
adopt the view that there is so little evidence one way or the
other, that combined with a
certain difficulty in finding more evidence, leads to the conclusion that discussion of
this subject is not too profitable?
You define the components of religion.
Yet, can one not have a respect for mystery and
compassion for all living things without being religious? Or, does such respect for mystery and compassion for
all living things define you.
Perhaps your quote indicates the difficulty of suggesting that God is
no more than fantasy. God betrays
no "trace of his presence". You note how convenient this is. God is proven to
exist by virtue of his absence.
I rarely indulge in this kind of discussion. I
don't want to tread on tender sensitivities. But FW contributors are a
stronger breed, which is why I entered the fray.
Anyway, you're always interesting which is why I'm
inclined to poke you a
little.
Harry
From: Ed Weick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 5:58 AM
To: Harry
Pollard; 'Keith Hudson'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re:
[Futurework] Our mysterious universe
OK, here's my take on it. It's something I
posted to a friend recently:
Ken, one of my reference points on this kind of thing
is Thomas Merton, the American Trappist monk, who argued that people have to
approach the mystery of their being by using both rationality and faith.
As ever so many great scientific minds have demonstrated, rational thought and
science can give us an enormous amount of information about the universe
and our place in it. However, there will always be a boundary between
what we can explain and understand and what we can't, and we really have no
way of knowing whether we have explained much about the state of our reality
or just a tiny bit of it. So, Merton argues, there is a boundary and, no
matter how far we push out into the unknown, there always will be. He
argues, further, that what lies beyond that boundary can be treated in two
different ways, either by denial or by faith. Denial is the approach of
the atheist - there is nothing out there that we can't ultimately explain in
rational terms. Faith is a little harder to explain.
The fundamentalist has faith, but his faith is very close to the approach
of the atheist in that he defines and delineates what lies beyond the boundary
and therefore excludes mystery. Even though I'm a deacon in a Baptist
church, my own preference and path is agnosticism. I want to believe
that there is something immense, eternal and purposeful beyond the boundary,
but of course I cannot know.
Personally, I think that the two most
important components of religion are respect for mystery and
compassion for all living beings that share the mystery with us. A book
I read while in the slums of Sao Paulo a few years ago puts it this
way:
... in a creative universe God would betray no
trace of his presence, since to do so would be to rob the creative forces of
their independence, to turn them from the active pursuit of answers to mere
supplication of God. And so it is: God’s language is silence. The Old
Testament suggests that God fell silent in response to the request of the
terrified believers who said to Moses, "Speak thou with us, and we will
hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die." Whatever the reason, God
ceases speaking with the book of Job, and soon stops intervening in human
affairs generally, leading Gideon to ask, "If the Lord be with us, why then
. . . where be all his miracles which our fathers told us of?" The author of
the Twenty-second Psalm cries ruefully, "My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me?"
Whether he left or was ever here I do not
know, and don’t believe we ever shall know. But one can learn to live with
ambiguity — that much is requisite to the seeking spirit — and with the
silence of the stars. All who genuinely seek to learn, whether atheist or
believer, scientist or mystic, are united in having not a faith but faith
itself. Its token is reverence, its habit to respect the eloquence of
silence. For God’s hand may be a human hand, if you reach out in loving
kindness, and God’s voice your voice, if you but speak the truth. (Timothy
Ferris, The Whole Shebang, Simon & Schuster, 1997,
p.312)
Hope this helps.
Ed
P.S.: Merton met his end in a most ironic of
possible ways. He was electrocuted while plugging in an appliance in a
hotel room. A great and powerful mind overcome by a toaster. Try
to explain that!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 10:48
PM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Our
mysterious universe
Keith,
I'm probably a lot closer to finding out
the truth than you are -- even with your emphysema. Yet, I find no evidence
at all for support of the myth, any myth. Even one to guide me, whatever
that may mean.
All my life I have enjoyed speculation
on the universe, and what it may
mean, if it means anything. But, always it is for entertainment purposes and
doesn't lead to much that is
important.
The major problem in discussions of
this sort is that you cannot
argue with faith. Faith requires no logical support, no significant
evidence, nothing.
The universe is in a period of
transition from what and to what nobody knows. When we are in this
transition nobody knows and we are unlikely to find out. This transition
will take 1000 generations, or one million generations, of human beings. How can we take a
snapshot of what is now and extrapolate in all directions with any
sense?
So, enjoy your myths, as without doubt
you will. Just remember they
are myths.
Harry
|
