Jolly Chriskwanukkahstice to all! It makes sense to me that as you try to carve up traditions, people just roll them altogether again. Despite all the demands for cultural identity and drawing attention to our differences, ultimately we are all very much the same. We all desperately need to believe in something.
Spirituality is another area where I have thoroughly staked out the middle ground. You see, I am neither a true believer nor an atheist. When it comes to the questions of what lies beyond our physical existence, I have an irrefutable answer – "I don’t know." Sure, I have feelings I can’t explain and desires to touch a greater consciousness, at once so simple, yet it lies far beyond anything that can be captured in writing. What that is exactly, again, I do not know. Someone once called my viewpoint "honest agnosticism". This is because, while I am conscious of my limited being and limited capability to understand, I don’t use that as an excuse to close my mind to the possibilities. I still yearn for truth and answers to the deepest questions of life (this is where the religious types perk-up, sensing an opportunity to save a lost soul).
Sure, my lack of commitment to a particular viewpoint on religion puts me on the "needs saving" and "will burn in hell" rosters, if you talk to the serious religious types; I’m no better off with the pure science folks. Their reaction can be just as alienating. I think I get credit for not being deeply mired in religious dogma, but I disappoint them when I won’t deny the existence of God outright. I would no more deny the existence of God than I would profess with certainty that I understand the nature of God or what God’s intentions are for my life.
Over time, it seems inevitable that science and technology will meet nearly every human need, but I doubt it will ever adequately answer even the most essential questions like, "Why are we here?" and, "What consciousness exists beyond our physical being?" And let us not forget, "What is the difference between right and wrong?" but we’ve discussed that one enough for now. No, my neutrality isn’t enough for die-hard atheists, many of whom seem as devoted to scientific process as any of "the faithful" are to religion. I call them sci-theists, because they get from science all of the comfort and reassurance that religion offers so many others.
You see, the sci-theists do know. They are certain of everything. In fact, they are damn certain that there is no God. You could say that they are as certain that science will give them all of the answers, as the deeply religious are sure that their path will lead to revelation. So, once again, in religion as in social philosophy, I find myself caught between two deeply divided schools of thought, neither of which sees room to allow for neutrality. You’re either all-in or all-out. There are of course those odd few who are able to fully reconcile religion with science and are deeply invested in both views on existence. They are all-in on both camps, and I suppose I am all-out.
I don’t mind really. I can take comfort in being consistent. For me the choice over doing A or doing B always includes the choice not to do either one. Sadly, that third choice is too often unconsidered, and also correct. So I tend to advocate that third way; you could say I am a champion of the "wait and see" choices. And when it comes to blind faith in religion versus blind faith in science or a combination of the two, I think my way has just as good a chance of yielding all of the same answers, at least to the most important questions.
For me, neutrality is a form of spirituality in itself. A close comparison in terms of popular philosophy would be a basic form of Taoism ("dow-ism"), well summarized in the following definition:
"…4: philosophical system developed by of [sic] Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu advocating a simple honest life and noninterference with the course of natural events…"
[ per WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University ]
I genuinely believe that shedding our attachment to the physical world and material possessions can bring us peace. Much of our emotional and psychological pain arises from unfulfilled expectations of ourselves, our loved ones, our society, even of life itself. That is really what both religion and science do for us; they give us peace of mind that we won’t have to suffer and the reassurance that everything will be okay in the end.My reassurance comes in knowing that the universe does not revolve around me, and that I am not responsible for its trajectory. Like my momma used to say, "I am gonna leave the world pretty much the way I found it." I do my work and then let go of it, hoping for the best and not discouraged by failure. I can control only the means – that is, myself. If I live with respect for the natural rights of others, then I have lived ethically and morally. These themes of diligence, tolerance and consistency between means and ends are common threads not just throughout many of the world’s religions and philosophy, but they resonate in environmentalism, psychology and elsewhere in scientific circles as well.
So why all the bickering over the holidays? We are all largely looking for the same things. I am not a Christian, per se – though my wife Pat and I have been attending services at a Friends Meeting House (Quakers) off and on – I still celebrate Christmas. Should I be offended because there is not some officially recognized celebration of East Indian traditions at this time of the year? On the other hand, as an agnostic, should I be offended by every public display that has the slightest religious overtone? That’s just silly. I am not diminished should someone wish me a Merry Christmas, a Happy Hanukkah, a Happy Kwanzaa or a Joyous Winter Solstice (perhaps the sci-theists can share this one with the pagans – it is after all a holiday based on celestial movements). It is all part of assimilating into society with each other. My East Indian, West Indian, Scots-Irish and Germany heritage all co-exists quite happily in me. What harm is there in us all celebrating life together in unity, just once every year? This is a time for coming together, not for tearing apart.
Let us come back together again, and share in the Jolly Chriskwanukkahstice Season, in love and tolerance for our differences and in celebration of our similarities.
Namaste
_________________________
Note: As of the initial publishing of this article, neither the term Chriskwanukkahstice nor the term sci-theist returned any matches in a Google search. They should be fun for a Googlewhack.
2 comments:
Again many points of agreement.
My father of 8th grade education stated that nothing in moderation was harmful.Further, anything taken to extremes was dangerous.
Life has taught me that he was a very wise man!
Jolly Chriskwanukkahstice!
Kirk - I think you would find "The Christian Agnostic," which was written by Leslie D. Weatherhead (a friend of C.S. Lewis)quite interesting. I read it years ago. Its title seemed to jump off the shelf of the local library at me. I had never seen the two words juxtaposed before, but it seemed to make intuitive sense to me even though many people would view the title as an oxymoron.
Weatherhead wrote the book for those such as yourself, who find it difficult to accept standard Christian dogma in its entirety. He believed the church should not reject those who are searching for truth because they found a particular dogma such as the virgin birth or the doctrine of the trinity hard to reconcile with their view of reality and the world. He felt the church could minister to the needs of those doubters just as the doubters could contribute to the spiritual health of the church. I found it a refreshing concept and much more inclusive than the idea of standing up and robotically reciting the Nicene creed each Sunday in lockstep.
You can see other people's reviews of this book at Amazon.
Post a Comment