The Problem With God. (Part One)
A few years ago I found myself in a bookshop browsing through Richard Dawkin’s The God Delusion and after reading a few pages I decided to steal it- I could have paid for it, I had the money, but I thought to myself that if there really was a God I’d get caught on his all seeing CCTV camera and be punished accordingly. After all the positive side to God’s vengeance is that it is at least proof that He actually exists and for many a neurotic salvation appeals rather more than divine retribution appalls — I’d have been rather pleased if that vexed question could be be settled once and for all. I was back in the day quite a prolific shoplifter but as I came to the conclusion rather late in life that all thieving is inherently anti social, I viewed my relapse as a temporary aberration. I made my way back home actually hoping for a tap on the shoulder from either a vigilant store detective or better still an avenging angel bringing news of God’s wrath and subsequent punishment.
I imagine that Dawkins himself would be rather disturbed by what he would surely interpret as a masochistic desire on my part to submit to the prying eye of some bullying cosmic force but I will deal with that stuff further on but for the nonce I can only record that a little while later I found myself at home arrested only by Dawkin’s relentless debunking of the myths and superstitions many allege are the foundation stones of our primitive societies — Dawkins is a good writer who argues persuasively with tact and good humour against the the very notion of transcendentalism and other injurious forms of hogwash trotted out by the God fearing idiots who blight all our existences with their endless obscurantism and dishonest to goodness voodoo. I have, I confess, watched Dawkins debate many times, with holy fools and wise men but I’ve never seen him embarrassed by any man of god on the sacred texts. What must strike even the dullest reader of Dawkins full in the face is the gorgeously delightful fact that he knows his bible better than almost any of his detractors often correcting those foolish enough to quote the words of God to him. He takes his subject seriously and sincerely raising vital questions that expose many of the fault lines that lie beneath much of the loose thinking to which the devout often resort in their defence of their various faiths. Dawkins is one of the great debunkers demolishing Samson like all the pillars of belief with undisguised relish . Out of courtesy I must apologize here and now and publicly to Professor Dawkins- his well earned royalty cheque would surely make for better reading were it not for my dishonesty but for all that I could still look him squarely in the eye and tell him that I would much rather believe in God than in Dawkins himself for all his undoubted erudition and for reasons I will attempt to explain hereafter. I am not suggesting for a nanosecond that I would prefer Professor Dawkins to die so that God may live but I find it a tad frustrating that I am able to believe unambiguously in Mr Dawkin’s actual existence whereas I am far more uncertain in making the same claim for a similar status for the cosmic champion. Dawkins own take on this issue is to state boldly that God almost certainly does not exist and here I would like to interpose a hypothesis of my own : one day the non existent God is taken to court and accused of not existing; the evidence is presented before a jury of twelve well meaning people from various backgrounds; various experts are called by both the prosecution and defence lawyers and after many thousands of years of intense argument the jury is unable to reach agreement on grounds of reasonable doubt and the non existent God is told to clear off and watch his step in future (something very similar would happen if God were charged with existing, I’m certain) . Accordingly I thank Professor Dawkins for by making this minor concession suggesting that he and his fellow travellers recognize that they can not (yet) definitively prove by scientific means that God does not exist and it is this lack of absolute incontrovertible proof that allows inverted doubters like me to claim that for now atheism itself is yet another faith and will remain so until some genius is able to step forward and settle everyone’s nerves with the final solution to this most vexing of vexed questions. The God Delusion is a valuable book of our times, I’m sure, but there are one or two issues I would raise with Professor Dawkins should our paths every cross; I can not agree, for instance, that theology should not be regarded as a valid subject worthy of further study as Dawkins urges us; whether of not God exists is surely irrelevant given that men and women have through the ages acted in the belief that He did exist — it is only in comparatively recent times that atheism has begun to be taken seriously by ordinary men and women which suggests that even if isolated to an exclusively historical perspective theology would remain a legitimate area of further study. It is of no importance here that those same men and women may have acted badly because of their allegedly misguided beliefs only that those beliefs lead to momentous decisions. We would all, I’m certain, treat any well researched study of Paganism with respect so why not theology? The very notion of transubstantiation, for instance, may seem rather quaint to many modern thinkers yet for those who upheld its literalism and those Protestants who opposed it were inevitably drawn into conflicts which ultimately meant life or death for men and women on both sides of the divide.
And why no mention of Georges Lemaitre? This a glaring omission in my view; for the uninitiated the Belgian Catholic priest was the first scientist to have postulated the Big Bang theory which hypothesis was greeted with withering scorn by the overwhelming majority within the scientific community; who is this ridiculous upstart in our midst with his preposterous notion of a created universe, seemed to have been the almost unanimous response. The great Einstein himself commented that Lemaitre’s maths were excellent but his physics was lousy. (Later on Einstein generously conceded that Lemaitre’s theory was one the most beautiful things he’d encountered) My point, however, isn’t to lament Lemaitre’s treatment within his chosen field of study but rather to challenge the established notion that science and religion are forever mutually incompatible. It should be noted that Lemaitre was no tub thumping bible pusher; he seemed genuinely embarrassed by the attention lavished on him by a grateful Catholic Church; he was at all times a cautious man who seemed completely untroubled by the realization that many of the great men and women with whom he worked remained non believers. If only some of those non believers were as open minded as a priest many regarded as a member of a church notable in the minds of the enlightened ones for its intolerance and distrust of progress. Lemaitre, it seems, was eager for his colleagues within the church to embrace scientific study so that they might better understand the implications of some of the stupendous progress science was making at the time (and continues to make). It appears at no time was Lemaitre’s faith seriously weakened but for many rationalists Lemaitre’s occasional references to such outmoded concepts as salvation were signs of a confused spirit: salvation from what they might say. I daresay to the modern rational mind Lemaitre’s refusal to take the bible anything other than seriously must be damnably frustrating; here, self evidently, is a highly intelligent man capable not only of grasping abstruse scientific concepts but actually advancing them; why then this cringing need for the immortality of the soul and other such hogwash? Well I’m sure Father Lemaitre would have been able to answer that question more convincingly that I but here I can only observe that science’s insistence on observing the observable is driving at least some of its followers into an attitude of increasing philistinism; the temptation to see priests and theologians as not only ridiculous but ultimately superfluous is clearly becoming irresistible to some but a further problem arises here and that is much of our art also concerns itself with what might be termed our inner selves. Are not our lives enriched by the metaphysical speculations of our great poets and artists? Or are these people merely the self absorbed ninnies sneered at by belching fools in drinking clubs up and down the land? Let’s not be coy here I’m referring to that nasty little problem we sometimes refer to as the The Human Condition: think of that great iconic image of the twentieth century Munch’s The Scream for one of the most condensed representations of the absurdity and horror of human existence and tell me science has nothing to do with this! Absurdity itself is a by product of The Enlightenment: we live, we fornicate, we die. And that’s about it. True that we have learned to be stoical about this stuff; after all don’t we more sophisticated types laugh ourselves silly when we see Woody Allen making fun of our misery? And what of those hideous paintings Francis Bacon has given us? For Bacon things were a good deal worse than the great men of The Enlightenment anticipated : we live, we have copious amounts of sadomasochistic sex, drink an awful lot and then we die. It astonishes me that Bacon is seen as one of the very few British painters with an international reputation but let’s face it The Enlightenment began life abroad (much as we British like to claim we’ve invented everything) perhaps foreigners too get off on seeing childish depictions of the pope having having a poo? (tee hee) I do not for a moment condemn Bacon’s behaviour- he was as free as any man to do as he pleased but I am perplexed by the willful celebration of despair implied by the huge sums Bacon’s daubs invariably elicit at auctions. What, really, has science to say about our souls in the final analysis? Does it agree with the implied message writ large in every Bacon paintings that there is no such mumbo jumbo as a soul? And if that is so why does it want so wearisomely to beat its chest as men and women in their millions capitulate to a universe that has thrown out all possible means of salvation? Alright, then, let’s not use a word so loaded with religiosity and choose instead a more temporal term like explanation; we humans look to our belief systems to guide us through the difficult business of being alive. As Professor Dawkins points out the zeitgeist is forever changing but in my view he errs spectacularly if he believes that we humans are assured of a lineal march towards greater and greater progress. We may be free to choose our sexuality and even our gender, it seems, (will we be free to choose our height soon, I wonder?) but we are also free to become heroin addicts and alcoholics (and many do indeed invoke such freedoms) Call me a cynic if you will but I have yet to see anything that works as it was supposed to. How long did it take Freudian Psychoanalysis to become an object of ridicule to the educated classes? What happened to Gestalt Therapy? Why do so few people of my age no longer smoke marijuana if it was so goddamned wonderful? Where is the end to poverty that all political parties promise us at every election? Why hasn’t prostitution been eradicated? I could go on but I’d risk losing either one or the other of the two readers who read my stuff (or worse, both of them)
I am perfectly aware that Professor Dawkins and his fellow travellers will dispute my hysterical claims and counter by insisting that their only concern is to reveal the truth to us all however unpalatable it might be but what if some of us want a little more than that? What happens when the last man and the last woman have been housed and fed satisfactorily and the irritating problem the Planck Epoch has caused us is finally solved? What is left for us to do? Will some of us continue to fall in love with the wrong people? Will others drink too much or develop self destructive activities such as gambling? And yes for you educated guys out there I’m perfectly aware that I am only continuing a argument Dostoyevsky’s man from the underground started over a a hundred and fifty years ago. (The poor man was so isolated that he had to pick an argument with himself but then as W.B. Yeats has pointed we make of such inner turmoil poetry) Some of us, it seems, are more fastidious than others.
The Big Bad Bang.
Nothing can come of nothing, King Lear assured us. But something did come of nothing: everything! Everything that was, everything that is and everything that will be can trace its source back to a beginning. And before you scientists out there get cocky by telling yourselves, ‘yeah we know what this guys up to’ I’d just like to point out that some theologians were equally unhinged by Lemaitre’s theory since it contradicts the notion that God has always existed. How can there have been a time before time they might say. I know how difficult it is for some of you guys to be found in bed with some of the voodoo mongers and shamans from the dark ages but if you can only put your pride to one for side a minute or two you might find you are after all singing from a similar hymn sheet. (ok, pamphlet if you prefer) So why does the universe even bother existing is a serious question which seems to cause such squeamishness within much of the scientific community that many of them refuse to accept that is a valid line of inquiry. (Incidentally another why question frames itself in my mind and that is just why are they so eager to deprive the universe of the purpose a created universe necessarily implies.) Professor Dawkins himself correctly points out that many questions only seem to make sense on a grammatical level and certainly asking why people read the Daily Mail, for instance, and why they believe the created universe suggests purpose are only related by the complexity and baffling conclusions both questions inevitably arouse. Professor Dawkins effectively circumvents the question of divine intention by pointing out that it actually causes more problems than it solves; who made the God that made the universe he argues (though in fairness he uses far more sophisticated language than my own) and this is I concede a thoroughly relevant question to put before any believer. The problem is for the believer is that I don’t think it can be answered in any rational sense; perforce the believer has to resort to playing the faith card whereupon the rationalist will no doubt feel the agreeable sense of triumph coursing through his or her veins. It’s pointless for the theist to stumble for a rational explanation along the lines of ‘well god must have made god’- he or she will be laughed out of court. Therein lies the problem for every thinking believer: he or she is required to make the leap of faith others have described down the centuries and one of the most intimidating aspects of this momentous decision is that even God seems unwilling to help you make your mind up for the God that Lemaitre and others defend is not only a hidden God but must remain so or else He is no God at all. Besides hasn’t the very notion of God become so unfashionable these days? For some time now every generation has produced great men who have been eager to serve God His death certificate; first it was Spinoza, then Nietzche, then Sartre (apologies to the many names not listed here I have neither the time nor the inclination to include them all) Now, finally, even the postman has grave doubts about our cosmic hero. Years ago when you discussed such matters you were viewed as a mystic but now if you want to get rid of somebody who is getting on your nerves you only need to start talking religion. For all that we neurotics aren’t going down without a fight; we seize on stuff like the Planck Epoch and ask ourselves if in a millionth of a second if Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and all the rest of the voodoo was born. We also sense within the scientific community its own special neuroses as it adjusts to the bizarre notion of a beginning by postulating the possibility of several Big Bangs (they won’t let their beloved Steady State theory lie down, will they?) So keen are they to deny the God Squad the possibility of eternal life they nevertheless cling to their eternal notions of eternity.
Team No God.
An incipient chauvinism has established itself within much of the scientific community( a sort of Team No God has risen within its ranks) with one of its number telling us he is ‘bored with God’. Let’s hope that for our enlightened friend the vindictive, murderous God identified so graphically described by Dawkins does not exist - if He does then I hope He (God) doesn’t suffer a similar bout of ennui otherwise our enlightened friend is in deep shit. Team No God would not be unduly concerned by threats of divine retribution I’m sure, given their extreme conviction that all such transparent nonsense be denied headroom. You see Team No God is anxious to save humanity from its own stupidity and one of its members (sometimes all of them) can be found regularly on tv sets holding forth on matters common or abstruse as they attempt to shake the world from its superstitious torpor. Team No God is a formidable gathering of academics and articulate journalists whose line up in keeping with modern day trends is rotated regularly to keep the players fresh but its captain would seem to be Dawkins himself ably backed by such luminaries as the philosopher A. C Grayling, Sam Harris, the late Christopher Hitchens with the distinguished comedian Stephen Fry putting in telling appearances from the bench from time to time. They are proselytizers to a man(there seems not to be many women appearing in the first eleven) and seem to be enormously fond of one another if any of their regular tv appearances serve as any sort of guide. And why not? An esprit de corps is vital within any collective wishing to impose itself on the public consciousness. No matter that Richard Dawkins writes scathingly about the debilitating effects of the in group/out group psychology promoted by the holy men of God whose message of divine love is usually confined to a sort of members only approach of the various branches of the holy tree. I confess I’m being a tad churlish here since I invariably enjoy the many televised debates into which all of the leading players have been drawn; they are an entertaining and largely likeable bunch whose erudition and good humour has secured for them a large following of enthusiastic supporters but therein lies part of the problem; daily I read posts on the internet from self identified militant atheists mocking the beliefs of the god fearing as primitive and infantile. I wouldn’t mind overmuch if those doing the mocking were themselves cosmologists and scientists dabbling in quantum mechanics but sadly the truth is that many of the more zealous adherents of the New Order are every bit as ordinary as the ordinary Joe writing this blog. They typically refer to the superiority of science over superstition which is a perfectly tenable position but the fact is I’ve actually met one or two of these converts and I can report without fear of contradiction that their knowledge of scientist is every bit as shallow as my own. In other words they seem as uncritical in defence of their non religion beliefs as any of the followers of the sacred scrolls at which they sneer so scornfully. And from whence springs this superiority complex? Could it be that many have spotted Professor Dawkins report of a study which shows that an overwhelming majority of MENSA members are atheists? Surely this a sign of the inherent superiority of their tribe? But what if the most intelligent member of those canvassed was herself a devout Muslim, say? Does this invalidate the claims of the majority? So much for trial by IQ, I say. Besides having rubbed shoulders with many a bod fortunate to have an IQ that goes through the roof I can safely say that an ability to solve riddles is in no way a bulwark against stupidity. I knew a clever chap who once told me that he never had a childhood due to his hyper intelligence whereas I was of the opinion that the chap had never had much intelligence due to his hyper childishness (but I didn’t tell him that — he was much bigger than me)
It would be nice if the baiting would stop but it won’t of course- the militant atheist movement has -to use a modern day buzz word- ‘momentum’ and will likely pick up more adherents as it rolls forwards to the sunny uplands of undiluted rationalism. As for me I wish all well who are eager to expose the the absurdities of creationism and other forms of voodoo and I am forced to admit that I have had to ask myself several times during the writing of this blog whose side I’m on given how many of Dawkins diatribes I agree with quite substantially and the only conclusion I can reach is that I just like making trouble. I’d like to restate my position here by going on record as one of those rather sad people who would like to believe but I find myself unable to make that leap of faith others have made. Sadly whenever I find myself on the verge of taking the plunge I pull back for the same reasons that other people have identified time and again as they have contemplated making the same journey; as if they need naming I will nevertheless refer to the usual suspects such as God’s seeming indifference to the suffering of his children (at times he seems to be positively on the side of such monsters as Hitler and Stalin protecting them from assassination and other such misfortune) which prompts some of us to the conclusion that not only is God’s world unfair it is grossly and hideously so. There is also the troubling problem that science has saved countless millions of lives whereas God seems rather to lag behind in all manner of interventionist policy. Opposition to the interventionist God comes from those who claim that the free will granted to all His children would be compromised if he favoured one group before another (God loves us all equally, they maintain) but does not the harrowing consequence of such a doctrine anticipate the slaughter of innocent Jewish children by slavering psychopathic Nazis or other equally grim variations of that reality? Here, at last, both Christian and atheists share so much common ground that the boundaries between the two become increasingly blurred. I have no doubt many a devout Christian has passed many a sleepless night pondering the implications of the hidden God (one such person would be the poet Gerard Manley Hopkins who wrote quite movingly on the subject) and I have equally little doubt that many would be believers have been forced into the atheist camp by concluding that their choice is so limited that it makes little difference where they pitch their tents. I think it does matter, however, and I’ll address the issue further on.
Another Why Question.
Was it Voltaire who told us that if God did not exist then man would have invented him? Frankly I’m pretty sure the identity of the inquisitor isn’t of great importance since this leads inevitably to the question why man would wish to invent a cosmic creature who seems to be deeply critical of his every deed? I think the best person to consult for a personal view on this issue would be myself(obviously)- not because I think I’m any more intelligent or in any way more competent than my peers but simply because I’ve lived with myself for well over sixty years (friends often ask me how I have managed to put up with such low company) and I’m pretty sure I can answer that honestly if prosaically. Reason 1: I’m terrified of dying. And I always have been: I am a middling sort of bloke neither Sun reading nor MENSA attending. My only precocity was an early fear of death which has stayed with me all my life and now as I enter my twilight years I recognize that will probably never overcome this minor hang up. I am assured by many a cove braver than me that death can’t be all that bad; after all it can’t possibly hurt, can it? Only living things hurt, apparently. I concede this point but the problem is I’ve kind of got used to living after all these years and I’ve found I rather like it. It’s a gas, in fact. Not always, but often. I have to face up to depressing fact that my need for God may very well be predicated on a deep rooted existential cowardice which has followed me everywhere. Reader, when I die I’d like a second opinion. The idea of something wins hands down over the opposing option of nothing any old day of the week. I want more! I simply can’t stand those bullies who insist there is nothing outside of the physical world. Can’t they leave us alone? To be or not to be, what is the fucking problem? Who was this dreadful chap Hamlet with his gloomy long winded speeches which must have made Leonard Cohen tremble with jealousy? Give me all the thousand knocks that flesh is heir to any time over the coldness and silence of the grave. I would very much like an intercessor to appear on my behalf and give me a another throw of the dice. We move heaven and earth for extensions on our lousy little houses so why not one on our lousy little lives? It worries me greatly this passive acceptance of the long nothingness to come currently in vogue amongst our enlightened friends; I feel such a wimp in comparison: why can’t I just accept my fate and go gently into that good night? The very idea of inventing a cosmic tooth fairy just to avoid the immutable laws of nature! Why doesn’t he man up? I hear them say. And so I quail in my pathetic fear as the clock winds down hurrying me towards dusty death and all that nonsense. Barely a day passes when I don’t read of some heroic atheist taunting me by telling me that religion is the security blanket of feeble minded folk who really ought to go for a few beers when they feel an existential panic attack coming on. Angst? Get over it! Do you really want to be another portrait in a Munch cartoon, they goad me. How I envy those brave men and women who can look death squarely in its evil eye and stare it out. Me, I’m with Woody Allen here; I’m against it, it shouldn’t be allowed. The taunting is ceaseless from those few brave and stoical souls who are preparing themselves to quit their bones without so much as a murmur. Many of them will tell you that religion itself is a harmful by product of human cowardice and here I’m only brave enough to concede that they may well be right but in making this allegation are they not showing a rather scathing contempt for the billions who have sought such an explanation to the small problem of snuffing it? What do they tell their children when these little creatures experience their first existential crisis and ask where they come from? Do they send out for ice cream or read them Origin Of Species for their edifying bedtime story? Does it make any difference whether we go to priest or a psychiatrist with our tiny problems? At least the priest gives his bad advice for free.
Reason 2: I used to believe in God and it was nice. This was a long time ago , I freely admit it but I was once a very devout and God fearing boy. And I don’t know how this came about because I was not exposed to the sort of gloomy and oppressive childhoods that others have described in Victorian novels and the like. Neither of my parents were much given to metaphysics having much more pressing needs to address, stuff like feeding four hungry children. I remember attending Sunday School occasionally but when I did it certainly wasn’t at my parents’ urging; maybe a friend wanted some company, I really can’t remember. Even at school religious instruction was administered in small doses probably by earnest teachers who probably didn’t believe a word of it. No, I found my God by dint of being young and extremely susceptible to magic- as I suppose are most other children. I confess it I find extremely difficult to render accurately those distant memories for the obvious reason they are so distant- they seem almost to belong to some other lifetime images of which are glimpsed through a mist but I am pretty sure the magical aspects of childhood are deeply ingrained in most of us to the extent that we are not in the least troubled by the spectacle of young children treating their pets exactly as equals, talking to them, advising them, even, on how they should conduct themselves. Did I say troubled? Nay, we are delighted when we see such behaviour in children, surely? By proxy we are taken back to our own childhoods resurrecting cherished memories of tooth fairies, Father Xmas and dragons. Dull is he or she who can not be moved by Dylan Thomas’s numerous evocations of the dramas of infancy, that privileged time when we ran our heedless ways in the endless God speeded days . I don’t know who (if anyone) told me about God but He was out there, protecting me, I was sure, from the evils of the world. Sometimes I even prayed to Him, asking him for good stuff like new footballs, cricket bats and a decent catapult. He was king of the fairies, Father Christmas, a kindness beyond all kindness, a shield, a guardian: he was anything and everything I wanted Him to be. He was everything a friend could be and more! How I wish we’d remained buddies but the puzzling thing is I don’t ever remember us falling out; perhaps it was the time I discovered the delights of masturbation that caused the rift. My mother used to complain about filthy stains on the mattress at the time, I recall. I suppose that for many a horny and confused youth storm tossed between God and a good time the good time will win the day. I can only say that as the stains on my mattress got stickier so the stain on my soul carried me away from my friend and protector. And so as the soothing voice of God receded the shrill and hectoring tones of my mother replaced it. Sin had entered my life at the very moment God left it which contradicts many a popular theory that it should be the other way round. All the same I miss God tremendously and part of me would welcome Him back into my life at any time (but which part I’m not certain) I read stories from time to time of lapsed Catholics who invite God back into their lives as they crawl towards death and I wonder if I too could not kiss and make up but I’m sure I’d feel the overwhelming insincerity of such a reconciliation; I can’t think of anything shabbier in fact and no doubt any God worth His salt would see through my scam.
‘Ah!’ I hear you say; ‘so that’s it!’ ‘What lies beneath your devotion is actually a cloying sentimentality which has you clinging on humiliatingly to that pampered and cossetted period of your life when you were spared the nasty little problem of actually thinking about stuff! Grow up, for fuck’s sake. If ever we guys needed proof that behind all this spooky shit a gross and self harming infantalism is driving you all into an even deeper well of delusion then boy does this stuff confirm it!’
To which charge I plead guilty as hell. After all I was only trying to be truthful about my motives. Sure, I’d like a little magic in my life, and sure I’m a cringing coward of the worst sort but then there are so many others on my side, I’m sure. Take that beautiful poem Dover Beach, for example; can’t you see that it is at bottom a lament for the certainties of the primitive age? And before you accuse Mathew Arnold of being yet another coward I’d remind you there are countless others like him and me affronted by the brazen assault on all that is dear to us? We asked you to tread softly for you tread on our dreams but instead you seem eager to trample on them like classroom bullies. You see those of us on this side of the great divide are only too willing to recognize that you guys hold all the big guns and that our days are probably numbered but as I said earlier in the piece we ain’t going down without a fight. You should at least have the humility to see that many a gambler has got burned piling all his loot on the hottest of hot favourites; all we ask is that you quit beating your chests rather, the noise is becoming increasingly irritating. When you guys have explained to everyone’s satisfaction how quantum mechanics works then we’ll hoist the white flag. Don’t you see how our ears prick up when are told of the deeply counter intuitive notion that things can be in many places at the same time? We clutch at holy straws and look for signs but sadly God is no exhibitionist moving silently throughout the universe (if He moves at all) and one by one our vision fades as grey truth overwhelms us. How I envy those gospel choirs their God fueled joy and love of life. How moved I am when I hear one of their number Helen Baylor singing quite beautifully Dylan’s What Can I Do For You? I wish I could follow them but I am still puzzled by the memory of a hideously disfigured beggar I saw on the streets of Brussels some years ago. Where was God when I worked some time back as a carer in a hospital unit in which almost all patients were blind and disfigured? The real world seems to be governed by a callously indifferent randomness which pays no heed to any of our human fears and for those insensitive fools who wonder why weak minded simpletons like me wish for the supernatural I can only reply that the natural isn’t quite good enough. To go back to Dylan I see that something is happening here and I don’t know what it is. Surely of all the sins blasphemy is the most easily forgivable? In the relationship between God and man it’s difficult to know who is forsaking whom. I confess it’s all very confusing; all that I’m sure of is I’m not sure about anything.
God and Guilt
As we grow older our relationship with God changes even to the extent that many of us want no more to do with Him. I acknowledge with some regret that the god of my childhood has packed his bags and moved elsewhere (perhaps he has other children to comfort?) I mourn bitterly the loss of the King of the Fairies and his displacement by some moralizing, joyless patriarch. Our childhoods may seem endless but somehow they do indeed pass by. Let’s not pretend here that even children do not have their small burdens but most of them are unconcerned about such things as the size of their penis, or the shape of their breasts, or their possible mistreatment of their younger siblings many years ago or any other of the nonsense that afflicts troubled minds as we continue life’s journey. Children are innocent we remind ourselves, but innocent of what, exactly? After all if we look carefully at children’s behaviour we can not help be struck by how cruel, insensitive and utterly self centred they can be at times(now where does that come from?)but we forgive them for it seems they know not what they do. Many years ago it was customary to scare children out their wrong doing by threatening them with some awful punishment whereas the modern tendency tends to favour gentle coaxing and I am heavily in favour of the latter method. The sadistic and everlastingly harmful effects of telling a child that he or she will burn in hell of he or she doesn’t come to some arrangement with a just and all seeing God can not be overstated. I am appalled when I listen to the truly horrendous stories related to me by men and women from Catholic backgrounds of vile nuns and perverted priests; nothing in my view, is quite as nauseating as the crimes of the so called men and women of God who abuse their power so wantonly as these disgusting creeps. I seethe with anger whenever I hear of yet another child molesting priest being protected by a network of fools in pointy hats and I can easily imagine that my indignation is shared by humanists, liberals and yes even many Catholics alike. Religious indoctrination is typically much less heavy handed amongst Protestants but even here there are vestiges of the Abrahamic God of The Old testament prying into every action- how often do we hear older folk mourn the passing of religious influence as they contemplate the modern day wickedness of the young? Religion for many is synonymous with order and sadly some people crave for order at almost any price: we see the huge paradox of people bemoaning our moral degradation as simultaneously they pine for a bunch of murderers to impose the desired moral regeneration of the masses. God, it seems, inspires a revolting piety in many who mistake that condition for goodness but is it God’s fault if His worshipers skew the Christian message so utterly that such people either become actively or passively supportive of what are effectively totalitarian regimes? If God is good what good comes from God? Over and over we see so called religious wars fought between huge armies who both believe they are merely doing God’s will ; at the very best one of them has to be wrong. How is it that a tribe as absurdly intelligent and creative as the Jews find it necessary to maintain the fantasy that once upon a time God spoke to them telling that they were Chosen Ones and that He had reserved a parking lots for them all somewhere in the Middle East? And if He did make this promise He also made an identical one to an equally talented tribe concerning the same patch of land which leads, surely, to the vexing question: is God a liar? We are told that God made us in His image but surely the truth is we make Him conform to ours. The God of which these people speak is altogether human and not a very nice one at that with his duplicity, narcissism and genocidal urges. As for the warring factions out east I daresay they might claim that the cathartic practice of banging their pretty little heads against a wall is a matter of identity — it’s ‘who we are’ they will tell us. To which I can only reply with a tremendous sigh ‘well wouldn’t you like to be something better?’ The problem here is that what should be a weird little pantomime in some remote corner of the world is posing an existential threat to the rest of a planet dragged into the unending skirmish. I would pray for an end to such insanity but I share Richard Dawkin’s views on the efficacy of prayer.
So far, then, it would be fair to say that God isn’t doing very well out of this blog but (there had to be a but) there is no doubt in my mind there are many men and women who are made wiser and gentler by recking his rod (as Gerard Manley Hopkins so quaintly framed it) Submission to a Higher Power does not necessarily lead to passive acceptance of arrant nonsense or to obsequious quietism- ask many of those chronic alcoholics whose lives have been saved by their regular attendance of AA meetings throughout the land. Without question AA is bursting with a quasi religious ethos which while careful to avoid using the ‘G’ word effectively urges all the damaged souls to a state of submission to something unequivocally transcendental. AA has attracted many critics down the years who question its all or nothing approach to alcoholism (one which this blogger has rejected, incidentally) but if would take a leaden hearted bod to not be touched by the numerous accounts of former wife beaters and worse overcoming their quite vicious demons to reach a state of harmony with the world. What has this to do with God, you may say; admirable though all this may be it has nothing to do with the problem of whether God exists or not; these people may have achieved salvation by other means, surely? And here I concede your point but you seem to be missing mine which is simply to counter the slew of propaganda emanating from the usual suspects who use exactly this ad hominem method of isolating situations to further the atheist cause ; daily there are gloating reports of perverse conduct by the gullible and uneducated from the mouths and facebook pages of the wise and highly educated but really these attacks fall back in many instances on diatribes against some of the more defenceless targets. After all, having seen the debilitating effects of street orators such as Nigel Farage we should all by now be wary of the grosser forms of populism. (In fairness I should acknowledge that Dawkins only very occasionally strays into this territory.) If God really is dead then I suggest there might be genuine reasons to mourn his passing and we should at the very least show some respect occasionally. Others dispute this: Sartre, for instance, believed that even if God’s existence could be confirmed we humans would be betters off denying it (which demonstrates admirably how silly intellectuals can sometimes be, in my view) For Sartre our separation from God allows us to be heroic falling back on our own human resources and in theory this sounds quite inspirational but in practice the Godless seem to behave no better than their superstitious predecessors. Science is too much in love with itself, I contend, and would be better served by subjecting itself to careful self scrutiny; the chest beating is becoming wearisome and rather shallow. Can not science see that for all the many millions of lives it has saved and prolonged it has also given us more lethal weapons; were I a betting man I would stack my shirt on their being some kind of devastating show down somewhere further down this century’s line but being vaporized would make it difficult for me to collect my winnings; after all, has not the most powerful man in the world not lamented recently that since we have such weapons we should at least have the courtesy to use them? We humans are probably no better or no worse than we have ever been in our distinguished history but some day fairly soon we’re going to pay a price for someone’s bad mood, mark my words. Please don’t think I was carried to this rather dire conclusion by the four riders of the apocalypse- statistics not revelation oblige me to contend that it is mere common sense to anticipate that in the near future some horrendous conflict either obliterating us all or at the least a great many of us will befall us all- I don’t need to consult any of the holy scrolls for my privileged glimpse into the book of doom -I rely instead on human perversity. I hear of people discussing the future of humans in, say, fifty thousand years time and my response is always the the same: are you kidding!