Plague Journal, God Talk
We discussed ideas from an essay by Stephen Law. Law took pains to show that the concept of language games developed by Ludwig Wittgenstein late in his career do not provide immunity for theists from the intellectual assault of those who simply cannot believe. I do not use the term “unbeliever” because it is not as if belief is a matter of choice, analogous to preferring chocolate ice cream during the week, and vanilla on the weekends. Since everyone believes in some form, what is the nature of a given person’s belief?
Everyone believes, because belief is the framework for the warehouse of facts held in our heads, things and regularities upon which our sanity depends. I would never doubt “gravity” and never anticipate floating off into the room upon getting out from under the covers in the morning. This keyboard is solid. I have no expectation that it is dissolving and in 20 minutes an end will come to the effort of this morning’s expression. My life depends upon facts and regularities of all kinds, those of human artifice and those of nature. Those facts are held, grounded by a metaphysical frame: “god.” What else could we mean by the term, “belief in god”?
When I pause to apply a common sense, ordinary language method to think and speak about gods or the God, I feel dumb. God, the principle that vivifies everything, cannot be located anywhere, is no mere fact, a known item of the intellect.
Of this I am certain, and had rather the conversation end here.
The essay discussing language game theory was interesting, but served no purpose except to make me aware of my own state of belief in god/gods. Is god all powerful? There are many events that indicate otherwise. The separation of immigrant children and subsequent incarceration in cages at our southern border comes to mind. Without doing any research I could compile a list of additional fresh atrocities that indicate the impotence of god. The “problem of evil” cannot be solved with words. You cannot balance that equation!
Is god loving, or all loving as many believe? How would one know? I have observed only the partial, conflicted expressions of love between myself and others. I can imagine of course, an abstract notion of love that fulfills the objective of support of the well being of someone or something. Dogs and cats are good candidates for love. In my imagination I can conjure endlessly about love. I know that humans, and all living things thrive with solicitude. Does dream-time experiment with the imagination have anything to do with gods/a God?
I cannot say.
Here is what I know. I know that I am not about to take the word of any holy man, priest, minister who thinks he (or she) has a “word from the Lord.” I have no idea what the infallibility of a pope or of a collection of texts from late antiquity could possibly mean. Speaking such words in my hearing is equivalent to my hearing a barking dog in the distance. Furthermore I do understand the grim calculation behind the notion that the creator of universes is so enraged at human ignorance; a parents ignorant, infantile attempt to fulfill a life through his/her children; or maybe a president who abuses an entire country; — that the deity demands the life of his own son as blood payment for guilt…….
The notion of blood sacrifice is ancient, and my ancestors did it all the time, especially when in desperate circumstances. They were wrong. I am offended that this monstrous way of thinking is still alive and well in Christianity.
I do not believe that God allowed Jesus (his own son) to die as exchange payment for anybodies sins. That is WTF thinking.
Finally I think worship-of-the-machine or better, of our global interconnected media network is also a very bad idea. That god is going to fail.
A discussion session about Wittgensteinian language games served to make me aware of my own state of belief. I believe in God. I would not know how to live otherwise. Unlike a Christian theist I have no interest in immunity from attack by militant unbelievers.
7 thoughts on “Plague Journal, God Talk”
Lots to chew on. Again, I’m going to focus on a specific aspect of today’s offering: The existence of belief systems centered around a god-like figure.
To me, the key word in all of this is “Belief”. From Wikipedia:
“Belief
A belief is an attitude that something is the case, or that some proposition about the world is true. In epistemology, philosophers use the term “belief” to refer to attitudes about the world which can be either true or false”
We live in our minds, our complex association of billions of neurons connected by highways of synapses. We rely on our senses to give these neurons information that can be processed into some sense of the world around us. In other words, we are completely dependent on nerve impulses generated by optical, audiological, olfactory, tactile, and gustatory connections to our brains. Without this input we are simply vacuous lumps of chemical reactions alone in a dark cranial chamber.
So we are completely at the mercy of this input, attempting to make sense out of all of this information that is transmitted. In the end we must either believe or disbelieve the input. In addition, we experience conflicting information, for our eyes and ears can offer very different diagnosis of information. Plus we also rely on a faulty memory along with ancestral behavior ingrained in portions of our brains, to process data and place current informational input into some kind of context.
All of this leads us to have the need to believe, to take all of this data and create a world that makes sense. Of the seven billion + humans who inhabit this planet, there are an equal number of iterations of belief systems, each one finely honed to fit the needs of each individual. That we experience conflict over these beliefs is not surprising, especially since we have cemented many of these beliefs into the realm of fact, and facts are considered to be indisputable.
What this comes down to is “Fact vs. Fiction” and there is no definitive answer as to which one defines truth. Truth is as malleable as clay on a potter’s wheel. We take what we “believe” to be the truth and make what we want out of it. So to get back to the original premise, a god (any god), as defined within a holy text, is nothing more than a ceramic pot that we have molded into something that fits our personal narrative of life. We believe our manifestation of a deity to be factual when indeed it is just another chemical mixture based on our need to make sense out of chaos. We are driven to find some semblance of meaning from all of that data being thrown into the dark chamber of our minds. Hence philosophy.
I agree that there is no bright, sharp line between truth and fiction. But, “truth” has survival value as far as our species is concerned. Animals make mistakes as well and pay by becoming a meal for a competitor. For us the stakes are just as high, and as not as obvious. Also agreed, that we are “at the mercy” of the chemical and electron flows of our nervous system, and the state of our brain. I think of our neurological apparatus as analogous to the steel rails that must be used if the train is to get anywhere. So, I hesitate to reduce our conclusions to nothing but chemistry. Indeed neuro-science is one vocabulary and grammar, and a useful way of describing what is going on…
A religious description, God-talk is a way of describing a society from the inside out. If you want to have an idea of how the Maya thought about their dependence upon the rain and sun for the growth of their crops, and how they understood the order imposing function of their government — pay attention to their religion.
I think the same approach works for us. America is a split society between hyper-rational cynical participants in global capitalism, and simple mined evangelical rural dwelling citizens who know they have been “left behind.” If you want to understand the texture of society, look at what evangelicals believe with conviction, and the sterile secular convictions of the “winners.”
Hmmm…. you noted the following:
“America is a split society between hyper-rational cynical participants in global capitalism, and simple mined evangelical rural dwelling citizens who know they have been ‘left behind’.”
I would suggest that the two factions you describe are only partial segments of our incredibly diverse nation, though my sense is that you didn’t mean to imply that these were the only two pieces of our culture. From my limited perspective, I see a growing population of inspired youth who do not ascribe to any particular established religion or political party. If I were to assign them to a specific group, it might be something like The Pragmatists. For the most part, they understand the existential threat of climate change, they are much less likely to judge a person by their look, sexual preference, ethnic background, or financial status and they are not sold on the American dream as personified by the desired upward mobility of the Boomer Generation.
In this I find what little hope I have for our species. I’m not certain that this current up and coming generation will have either the time or the wherewithal to deal with the issues facing human kind. I will not be here to witness the results, but I will do all that I can while still breathing to further their cause. It’s the least I can do.
Yes, there are many layers to American society.
I hope you are right about the up and coming youth who are pragmatic minded, who recognize that all is lost if we cannot address climate change.
And this offered anonymously by a friend:
There is nothing wrong with a belief-by-choice that does not directly contradict practical reality. A friend of mine finds comfort in speculating that people who loved her during her life still care and continue to try to look after her welfare even after they have died. She does not promote this idea to others, nor behave irresponsibly in the delusion that supernatural intervention will protect her from rash choices. But moral support is valuable even when you no longer can call its source on the phone, so betting that established love transcends mortality gives my friend confidence she otherwise might not always be able to summon. There is no downside to that.
In a non-religious manner, I agree. We leave marks upon all people we come into contact with, for good or bad. Those whom we have loved and who have loved us in return will be with us until it is our turn to depart this world. I know that what I’m about to say may not seem analogous at first, but I view it in much the same light.
I have remained in touch with almost all of my old girlfriends. Those who I am not still in touch with have chosen to remain distant. I have always felt that if you truly love someone, that love never entirely dissipates. If anything it lies dormant, most likely not to be disturbed. If the affection was genuine and not just libido driven, then it will linger. Not to the detriment of a current partner, but it remains nonetheless.
When someone we care about dies and we can no longer interact with their mortal selves, they too linger in our hearts and minds. Perhaps we knew them well enough to hear their voice and to be able to imagine their arms around us, comforting us from the brutality of the day. This is not magic or religion. It is how our minds function and I am grateful for that portion of their “spirit” that remains.
It is a generous thing to remain in touch with old friends. Time and circumstance often defeat such efforts. They have contributed perhaps unintentionally to the person we now have become.
I agree that death does not end a relationship. Relationship are durable, and we may continue to receive lessons, at the point when we are ready. We are connected in many ways to those who came before us, and have passed on.