Afloat on the face of the deep

Writing yesterday's essay led me to the realization that, in a fundamental sense, believer and non-believer are in the same boat, their only essential difference being the paddle they use to stay afloat.
    "The long, distant cry" didn't initially end with "In my own way, I too am troubled by all this suffering. Its mewing and keening continually haunt my hearing." I added that paragraph (and continued to revise it) after realizing that my continual awareness of suffering and its profound unfairness seems to amount to my being one of those "troubled people" my friend referred to. I have to admit that for some time I have been aware of a sense of underlying existential pathos. A dissonant chord continually troubles the melodic line of my life and disturbs its harmony.
    And who can say that Castaneda was free of existential anxiety¹ even when that "normal" photograph² was made?

One person's response to suffering and injustice is to believe that God exists and will put it all right. And he prays continually that it be so. Amen, he says.
    Put it all right. That is, something is wrong for the believer too. For him too it's a dog eat dog world. He feels the world's suffering and is appalled and unsettled by it. He seeks an antidote for it (or for the fact of his own future annihilation) through believing that suffering (or his coming annihilation) is just an illusion or, if not an illusion, will nevertheless be righted in the hereafter.
    Yes, something is wrong, and the believer too is troubled and suffers, however able he usually is to plug his ears against the tragic discord that would otherwise trouble the harmony of his life too.

I want to remember this. I want to remember compassion for those who stoutly resist giving up the palliative paddle labeled "God." For I seem to have been clutching a sort of paddle myself. Rather than pray and shout amen, I beat the waters and decry. And my song lately has only repeated slight variations of the same lament.
_______________

1. From Wikipedia's entry on existential anxiety:

   The theologian Paul Tillich characterized existential anxiety as "the state in which a being is aware of its possible nonbeing" and he listed three categories for the nonbeing and resulting anxiety: ontic (fate and death), moral (guilt and condemnation), and spiritual (emptiness and meaninglessness). According to Tillich, the last of these three types of existential anxiety, i.e. spiritual anxiety, is predominant in modern times while the others were predominant in earlier periods. Tillich argues that this anxiety can be accepted as part of the human condition or it can be resisted but with negative consequences. In its pathological form, spiritual anxiety may tend to "drive the person toward the creation of certitude in systems of meaning which are supported by tradition and authority" even though such "undoubted certitude is not built on the rock of reality."

2. My friend who read my paper on mentoring had said, "Carlos Castaneda's picture looks normal. Why did Thom Green say that he looked troubled?"

What's in it for YOU?

In a comment on Monday's post, I made the following offer, which I repeat here in the hope that a willing believer (or nonbeliever) will see it and would like to take me up on it:

Anyone, believer or non-believer, who would like to share what you believe (or don't believe), you are invited to do so in a comment here. And tell us what's in it for you, if you'd like to try to put that into words.

Another way of asking "what's in it for you" might be:

What is it about your beliefs or nonbeliefs that makes your life better?

What's in it for you?

A close friend is telling me he can't see anything in it for me, believing that God doesn't exist and death is final.

I mean, you've thrown away a crutch used by hundreds of millions of people on Earth to salve their fears and griefs about dying. You've yanked off your neck a 2,000-year-old talisman for smoothing everything out and helping you believe that everything's going to turn out all right, your sexy young body restored and you reunited with loved ones. And for your remaining time on Earth, you've thrown away a top non-pharmaceutical remedy for getting high. How can you give all that up?
    Plus, you've made yourself a target for evangelicals who think you're ripe for plucking. I know that annoys you, despite the interesting posts their arguments have led to.
    And what about the awkward situations you've created for yourself over major American holidays? "Not celebrating Christmas—what's wrong with you?" I mean, after awhile, what do you say to that?
    Wouldn't it be easier to just go along with it all? God exists, hears and answers our prayers, gets one day a week and special holidays, the whole nine yards.

You mean, I should just fake it?

No, no, of course I didn't mean that. Faking it would just avoid some of the awkwardness, and maybe the evangelicals. You'd still have to anticipate death without a potion, you'd have to deal with the cracks in life without putty and a trowel.

Are you serious? I have to ask. I mean, even you who are asking me this seem to realize that I'd have to believe things that I'm convinced are almost certainly not true. You don't believe them yourself! How have you answered these questions?

<He turns slightly red and giggles nervously> Uh, well, you know, I...I get unsure at times and wonder....I wish that I could overcome my reservations and stop not believing....You know?

I'm still listening.

Okay, okay. Just tell me, then. Don't you sometimes want to just get it all over with, kill yourself? How do you remain mostly cheerful? How do you enjoy life?

Ah, so you've been thinking about ending it all! Why didn't you say so? What are friends for?

First of all, yes, of course, it's awkward sometime. Especially when you forget to be compassionate. But awkwardness is a relatively small thing, momentary.
    Second, if you don't believe because you can't delude yourself, what's to be gained from beating yourself up?
    Third, take pride in your brave, independent mind and your well-earned moral discernment. You're a man, my friend, and a good one.
    Fourth, nothing else has really changed from ceasing to believe the untrue. The universe is no less amazing—maybe seems even more wondrous. Earth is no less marvelous—maybe seems even more beautiful. And life here and now is more precious for its evanescence.
    Fifth and final, don't postpone the important stuff. Love. Be constructive. There's no hereafter for making amends for hurting others.

To protect a necessary fantasy, II

The quiet, private response I quoted Sunday wasn't the last one I received. A very similar one followed on Monday, right down to one of the same Bible quotations and including the statement that "it would be great if you could ponder these thoughts in regards to the Bible." (The earlier writer had hoped "that you will think about these verses.") I wonder whether they attend the same church.
    The second writer (let's call her by the Greek letter Nu) also said:

If [the Bible] is not the inspired word of God then it is all bunk and none of it is trustworthy. Because it claims to be the inspired Word of God and Jesus says we live by these words that proceed from the mouth of God. If it's not from the mouth of God, making it inspired, then it's all a bunch of lies and Jesus is a sham. If Jesus is a sham, we don't need the Bible anyway, because He is the Reason it matters. But we know that's not true.

    I replied that I'd actually thought about the whole thing quite a bit and even had a dream about it. I gave Nu links to Sunday's and Monday's posts. And I added:

By the way, I'm afraid that "The Bible is all bunk" does not follow from the fact that some of its statements are false, including the one about its being inspired. You're claiming too much. Or, rather, making a simple logic error.

In very short order, I received a more lengthy reply, but one that made no reference whatever to anything I'd written, as though Nu might not even have glanced at my posts. She started right off with "Morris, Please carefully consider these issues in regards to the Bible...." It was, of course, most annoying that I was expected to be the one doing all of the careful considering. What was Nu doing?

Nevertheless, I bit my tongue and as calmly as possible made a thoughtful reply:

I hope (against the evidence) that you would like to understand where I'm coming from, and would be willing to look at the weaknesses in your own position in order to honor good sense and rationality. While I think that you have (or can readily obtain) all of the resources you need to do that, I'll try to help you in my own modest way by responding to each of the points in your email.

    Accordingly, I'll pair my comments here with Nu's original paragraphs (in italics):

Regarding the necessity of having God as [the Bible's] source, we can consider prophecy. Who else but God could know what would happen hundreds of years in the future? What mere human could get 300 prophecies correct about one person (Jesus) over a period of hundreds and now thousands of years? No one could have concocted fulfilled prophecy.
    It's rather easy to "fulfill" prophecy in a text written hundreds of years after the one in which the prophecies were made. As for "prophecies" that hadn't yet occurred in the second set of writings (the New Testament), it's rather easy to "predict" events if the predictions are vague enough.

The Bible’s insight into human nature and the solutions it provides to our fallen condition are also evidence of its divine source. In addition, the Bible’s honesty about the weaknesses of even its heroes is evidence that it isn’t just a human book. By contrast, we tend to build ourselves up in our own writing.
    So, Shakespeare's works were inspired by God too? My appreciation for Shakespeare grew a lot lately in the course of my reading Frank Harris's memoir, My Life and Loves (1931). He considered Jesus the greatest man who ever lived (primarily because of his teachings on compassion), and rated Shakespeare right up there with him.

As further evidence that the Bible is God’s word, we can note its survival and influence throughout the last two millennia despite repeated attempts to destroy it.
    So, Plato's dialogues and Aristotle's writings (and the writings of other contemporaries of the Old Testament and New Testament authors) were also inspired by God?
    And what about the evil influences of the Bible, the murder and persecution of Jews—the ones who killed Christ!, the slaughter of Muslims during the Crusades, the persecution of "witches," the racking and burning at the stake of heretics, the showing to Galileo of the instruments of torture to force him to recant his scientific findings, etc.? We may be seeing Muslim atrocities in our age, but the Christians had their ages too.

What Scripture proclaims about itself finds confirmation in our experience. For example, the practical changes it brings in individuals and societies are evidence that it is true.
    Ditto with respect to innumerable written works. Was Montaigne inspired by God? Spinoza? And many others....

One more note. We have the testimony of Jesus about Scripture whose resurrection is evidence that He knew what He was talking about!
    Say you.

Morris, There is much evidence that the Bible is true and that it is indeed the Word of God.
    As I've already agreed, there is truth in the Bible. But there is also falsehood, statements for which there is no credible evidence. Contradictions, both parts of which cannot be true, by definition. People have always picked and chosen what parts to believe and let guide them, what parts to ignore as stupid or wishful (or even immoral). What parts do you yourself ignore?

What proof do you have to show that it isnt the Word of God?
    I'm afraid that the burden of proof was on you, and it appears that you have let it just slide off your back [possibly with a little push to get it going]. While I don't claim that I've proved anything, over the past two or three years I've introduced a lot of moral, judicial, and scientific evidence that at the very least throws tremendous doubt on tenets of religious faith. Better yet, I've frequently cited the excellent works of Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins, who say it so much better and more thoroughly than I do. And Bertrand Russell. And even Thomas Paine. My blog is more for my own entertainment (and keeping myself alive, as I wrote on September 21) than to convince anybody else.

"One final thought for today"—I hadn't noticed that that was the subject line of Nu's note (the one with the above italicized paragraphs); she may have been saying that she hoped for no reply. I do think so now, for in the time that I've been writing this post, I've heard from Nu again, this time with the explicit opening,

This will be my final reply to you on this subject

and closing,

This requires no response, please. [italics mine]

Not having had time to carefully consider the five hundred words in between, I won't comment further on Nu's latest.

To protect a necessary fantasy

As I lay ruminating in the early morning hours of yesterday, the realization that Gamma was telling me "So there!" wasn't the only thing that came to me. I had a dream in the hour or two that followed. I can remember only two, maybe three things about it.
    Two African-seeming personages were speaking to me (I wasn't "on screen"; they faced my dreaming mind, so to speak). I understood that they were father and son, the father being the primary speaker. He was astonishingly striking (only his head was presented), his face as long as a horse's, the distance from his eyes to the tip of his nose four or five inches and the distance from there to his lips another four inches. A sort of totem pole face. [I am reminded this morning, by Wikipedia, that the totem pole derives from "cultures of the indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast of North America"—that is, Chief Seattle's people.]
    I wish I could remember the older man's words. At the time of my dreaming I understood that he was telling me there was a religious key of some sort that would unlock the mystery of the "So there!" folks I wrote about on Friday. Glad of this knowledge, I made a mental note to write about Friday afternoon's email interchanges and revisit that day's post. Yesterday I found that writing about the interchanges was enough for one post. But today....

Today I'll try to articulate the beginnings of a "religious" understanding of the "people who don't want the truth," as my old friend the judge characterizes them.
    It seems to me that whatever belief they espouse with their voices raised and their faces red (at once threatening opponents and brooking no debate) is their talisman. A talisman (from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary) is:

An object bearing a sign or character engraved under astrological influences [!] and held to act as a charm to avert evil and bring good fortune, something producing apparently magical or miraculous effects

    "The scientists [who say the evidence shows that Cameron Todd Willingham did not murder his children] are 'latter-day supposed experts'" absolves Texas Governor Rick Perry. I did not put an innocent man to death!
    "There is no global warming" averts the potential catastrophe threatening the Earth. We and our descendants are safe!
    "There is no credible evidence of evolution" wards off an unimaginable horror. We aren't the descendants of monkeys!
    "Obama does not meet the constitutional requirements of being a naturally born American" is the magical charm that might avert the evil of our having a "black" president. Obama will be disqualified!
    "The Bible is true" is a talisman with enough magic for all exigencies. Suffering will be rewarded! Evil will be punished! We will not die, but will live forever and ever!

To the people wearing these talismans about their necks, the things to be averted are to them truly evil. Unimaginably, heart-sickeningly so. To be avoided at all costs, not least the cost of the truth:

Governor Perry did put an innocent man to death. "In a clemency plea four days before the execution, Willingham's attorney raised questions about the forensics. Perry has said he examined the information. But he did not delay the execution."
    Human activity is raising global temperatures.
    We evolved from simpler life forms.
    Obama is our legitimate president (and arguably more legitimate than George W. Bush, given the extraordinary fact of his having been appointed by [a 5-4 vote of] the U.S. Supreme Court).
    Suffering often goes unrewarded.
    Evil often goes unpunished.
    We are all going to die, not to awake again.

If, as seems to be, religion is a support system for mutually assuring people's most profound protective fantasies, then a whole variety of lesser sorts of delusionary practices would seem to serve the same purpose. A pertinent project for cultural relativism would be to discover what it is about a particular culture that explains its members need for the culture's distinctive fantasy. In other words, what is it about the people who seem to need to believe, for example, that President Obama is not legit that defines their culture, over against the rest of us, who accept the fact that he is our legal, elected president?