Every now and then it’s good for me to go back to the question as to whether to believe in God or not. I recently revisited the question, and I still come down on the side of belief (if not by a landslide). Around the same time, I noticed an interesting article in the current Atlantic Magazine about comedian Bill Maher and his atheist beliefs (or anti-beliefs, as atheism is belief in non-belief). Mr. Maher has made a film documentary about religion (called “Religulous”), and the believers he talks with provide enough comic material as to render Mr. Maher’s jokes unnecessary. Since much of the faithful has not rethought their belief since childhood, they often don’t do very well with Maher’s signature question, i.e. “what is the difference between believing in God and Santa Claus”.
I won’t claim that my beliefs are ready for a Maher interview, but I just had some interesting thoughts regarding the more troubling challenges to belief; i.e., the problem of pain, the prevalence of randomness in the quantum world and in the process of evolution, the “trial-and-error” aspect of evolution and possibly of the reality behind the Big Bang, and the incredible hugeness of the Universe compared with the tiny specs in it where sentient life might exist. In sum, it hardly looks like there is an intelligent designer behind all this, despite Aquinas and his various rationales. It looks like something mostly accidental.
But then again – perhaps it depends on how you look at it. Pain, death, randomness, inefficiency and wastefulness; what would be the point of all that? Well – these things certainly would set a benchmark as to what God and the ultimate principal of being, goodness and awareness are NOT. What if we are somehow in a process of becoming more and more like God? If so, the stakes would be huge, the lessons involved enormous. And they could not be learned without pain, huge and mindless pain, terribly dark and crushing pain. Perhaps we have to be pushed to not-being, in order to fully appreciate being. We certainly do take our existence for granted too often. Perhaps God-ness is the ultimate awareness and appreciation of being. Most of us are hardly ready for that.
If we assume that we will always be human, even if there is life after death – which is what most religions teach – then the atheists will have a good argument. I.e., consider those ideas of heaven as a huge country club where we will be continually pampered and never bored, with God up in the head office running the place. Maher could certainly take that apart on SNL or the Comedy Channel. But if we, in our messy lives, are somehow in training to become part of God – if that’s what the stakes are – and if there is an after-life process whereby we consolidate and contextualize all of the pains and defeats and disappointments from our earthly life; then perhaps the God argument makes more sense. Perhaps one could then answer Maher’s “Santa Claus” question by saying that old St. Nick leaves temporary delights that soon break or are eventually stored in the attic and forgotten; but God is the Santa Claus of eternal being, a being that can be attained only by giving up all of the imperfect ways of being that we know, an ultimate being that is something like sex without end. Only so much more. Amen.
Jim,
I’m going to address your comments, starting from the middle. Your comment on pain and suffering in the modern world is one of the best and most coherent I have heard from anyone recently. Your thinking seems to me to be perfect–that we are ourselves becoming like God in the life we live; pain, death, etc., are part of the “becoming” process. I say a H-U-G-E!! “THANK YOU!!!”
Now we need to get the teachers of the various religions to catch on to your idea. I like it immensely; it makes wonderful sense.
Now let me address Bill Maher and his new movie (and The Atlantic article). I’ve seen Maher talk about his ideas about religion. I even read his contribution to the book published recently by the Kennedy woman on what those who are “born” Catholics think of Catholicism (the name of the book escapes me at this moment).
I must say Bill Maher has been good for a chuckle over the years; but recently, when he talks “religion” he seems to have a bitter, almost nasty edge to his approach. In addition he seems to me to have a somewhat freshman/sophomore high school approach to the subject of religion. Namely: (And how many times did I hear this one when I taught high school.) “Well, if God is ‘omnipotent’, how come he can’t make a rock he can’t lift”–accompanied by an attitude of “gotcha now.” Oh, please. How high school-ish. Maher seems to me to fall into that class with his approach to religion.
With all his obvious intelligence, I wonder that he can’t come up with some truly “smart” question, some truly intelligent questions that show he has really given some serious thought to the subject of religion–which, for instance, your answer to the question of pain and suffering shows you have pursued seriously.
I’d be interested to hear some truly well-thought-out questions from Maher, but he doesn’t seem interested in anything like that approach.
If I had to choose between Maher’s critique of religion and his answers and your serious, considered thought about religion (and the answers you propose), I’ll take your serious thinking any day of the week.
MCS
Comment by MCS — October 29, 2008 @ 3:51 pm
Jim,
I’m going to address your comments, starting from the middle. Your comment on pain and suffering in the modern world is one of the best and most coherent I have heard from anyone recently. Your thinking seems to me to be perfect–that we are ourselves becoming like God in the life we live; pain, death, etc., are part of the “becoming” process. I say a H-U-G-E!! “THANK YOU!!!”
Now we need to get the teachers of the various religions to catch on to your idea. I like it immensely; it makes wonderful sense.
Now let me address Bill Maher and his new movie (and The Atlantic article). I’ve seen Maher talk about his ideas about religion. I even read his contribution to the book published recently by the Kennedy woman on what those who are “born” Catholics think of Catholicism (the name of the book escapes me at this moment).
I must say Bill Maher has been good for a chuckle over the years; but recently, when he talks “religion” he seems to have a bitter, almost nasty edge to his approach. In addition he seems to me to have a somewhat freshman/sophomore high school approach to the subject of religion. Namely: (And how many times did I hear this one when I taught high school.) “Well, if God is ‘omnipotent’, how come he can’t make a rock he can’t lift”–accompanied by an attitude of “gotcha now.” Oh, please. How high school-ish. Maher seems to me to fall into that class with his approach to religion.
With all his obvious intelligence, I wonder that he can’t come up with some truly “smart” question, some truly intelligent questions that show he has really given some serious thought to the subject of religion–which, for instance, your answer to the question of pain and suffering shows you have pursued seriously.
I’d be interested to hear some truly well-thought-out questions from Maher, but he doesn’t seem interested in anything like that approach.
If I had to choose between Maher’s critique of religion and his answers and your serious, considered thought about religion (and the answers you propose), I’ll take your serious thinking any day of the week.
MCS
Comment by MCS — October 29, 2008 @ 3:51 pm