To explain where I stand regarding religion, we must go down a path that starts with me leaving the religion I was raised to believe. One of the first steps on questioning my religious path was the idea of young-Earth creationism. Although I did not leave strictly because of differences in beliefs on creation, my understanding of such still played an important role in where I find myself. The discussion of creationism may not be entirely critical to my discussion of religion itself, but it illustrates points that will be explored much further in time. Moreover there is always value in exploring truths so long as we also explore where they fit with truth on a whole.
Although I have, admittedly informally, studied evolution and cosmology, it was not purely from these that I drew my conclusions about creationism. Instead, I found if we assume that the universe has an intelligent, omnipotent creator, then we can reasonably from this assume that the nature of the creation reflects the nature of the creator. If we examine the universe around us, we find that it is mechanical and logical — the moon orbits the Earth, which in turn orbits the sun, which in turn orbits the center of the galaxy, and a multitude of other moons, planets, asteroids, stars, comets, and varied additional cosmological bodies join in this synchronous, clockwork dance. Even the multitude of things in the universe from stars to planets to people to trees to toasters are all made up primarily of different arrangements of the same three fundamental subatomic particles. Gravity and mass, light and electromagnetism, even superconductors, dark energy, and antimatter all adhere to the laws of physics (even when we yet do not fully understand those laws).
It stands to reason, then, that the creator of a mechanical, logical universe must favor mechanical, logical methods. I find it difficult to believe that any being would have created such an organized universe by magically calling it into existence — why begin with a poof of mysticism and then settle into physics and chemistry? Why would we be composed of cells instead of being mixtures of classical elements housing some sort of actual ghosts if such mysticism gave rise to us?
(Although not critical to the discussion, I also believe that there is plenty of magic in the universe, even if it is driven by the laws of physics instead of some sort of ethereal, impossible mysticism. As Lee Siegel, magician and professor of religion, said on the matter, "By 'real magic,' people mean miracles, thaumaturgical acts, and supernatural powers... 'Real magic,' in other words, refers to the magic that is not real; while the magic that is real, that can actually be done, is not real magic.")
Maintaining the assumption that the universe was created by an intelligent deity, there are three possible conclusions here: The first, and perhaps most unsettling, is that the deity is inconsistent, and does not follow the patterns or laws he, she, or it establishes. Whether the deity is whimsically waffling or intentionally manipulating things is difficult to say; this does not dictate that the deity is also dishonest, going back on promises made, but at the very least it allows the methods of fulfilling those promises to be wildly variable. Although this is not quite the territory of word-twisting trickster gods, it still seems well outside the realm of what I am comfortable devoting my life to.
The second possibility is that this deity is not omnipotent. The universe was created within certain physical laws that even the deity must adhere to. If this were the case, though, we could assume that the method of creating would also adhere to those rules, and that young-Earth creation scripture is still simply allegory, not literal narration. Moreover, such a deity limited in power contradicts the statements within the Bible — whose literal interpretation gives rise to young-Earth creationism — that "with God all things are possible."
The last — and it seems to me most likely — possibility, is if this logical and mechanical universe were created by some intelligent deity, then that deity, too, is logical, and not prone to fits of mysticism. This, of course, neither serves to provide evidence that such a God is impossible, nor to show that such a God is likely. This only serves to demonstrate conclusions that can be reached from the assumption that there is such a creator given the nature of the creation, even before we start to account for fossil records and cosmology.
One further point of interest is that, as young-Earth creationism is a strictly Biblical construct, proof of its truth would serve as proof of the existence of the Biblical God. This, in turn, would necessitate obedience over morality and call into question the old theological arguments on free will. Additionally, faith would be unnecessary, and devotion to such a God would not be — and reasonably could not be — any demonstration of such.
Moreover, it was not my personal conclusion that the theory of young-Earth creationism was inaccurate that led me away from religion, but the way the religious used it to create divisions between themselves and others. Even though I was raised as a Christian, I now find myself on the theism-atheism axis as agnostic — not because I wish to sidestep the conflict between theism and atheism, even though ultimately such conflict had its hand in driving me away from religion initially, but because there either is a God or there isn't, and my beliefs on the matter will not change that. Potentially, my beliefs on the matter could affect what happens to me, but, in pursuit of the abandonment of ego to devote my life to greater truths, I do not care what happens to me as long as I can spend my life doing good for others.
I became agnostic not over differences in beliefs, but in part to avoid the common pitfall of so many religions and religious that places theology before love. I was dissuaded that religion can so thoroughly be distracted from the idea of love by so much else — by creation mythologies, by money and politics, by finding dividing lines between themselves and other religions, or even neglecting to serve others in the pursuit of personal growth. I understand that this is a matter of the practitioners and not the practice, but nevertheless, having myself through the pursuit of objectivity and rationality concluded that selflessness is the best path, it is sometimes difficult to accept that religion, claiming to be from a higher source, does not more readily lead down the same path. Furthermore, although I admit there are many things that can be learned from studying religion, I fail to see the necessity of fully devoting myself to any single religious practice.
This does not mean I would advise anyone against accepting Jesus or becoming enlightened through Zen, only that I have chosen a different path. I would, however, advise against a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible, echoing the Zen belief that truth is not something you create, but also it is not something created by the words of others. Truth may reflect in words, but it remains something we must seek to understand fully, not accept blindly or acquire through memorization and recitation. We must be reminded that we should place the truth before us, and not rest our egos on our understanding of the truth — an understanding that is inherently limited and therein never gives us the right to place ourselves or that understanding before others.
This post is part three of an ever-expanding discussion of religion. Find part one here and part two here, and expect part four by next Monday.
No comments:
Post a Comment