Part II of My paper on Reason according to Augustine & Nietzche:
It interesting that both Augustine and Nietzsche, who stand at opposite ends of the spectrum would find unity in the fact that reasoning is flawed. Both of them take on a Neo-platonic perspective that there are fundamental truths external to people that provide the ground floor for reasoning to develop. They would argue that an ethic based totally on internal reasoning is flawed by the flaws of the person doing the reasoning. Nietzsche would argue that the average person may not even be capable of such reasons and is easily deluded by their limited capacities. Thus both philosophers would disagree with Kant, and with him the entrenched paradigm of the West, that morality cannot be derived through reason alone.
Nietzsche’s foundational principle is that all men are driven by the will to power. He attempts to show the reader this is his conclusion through reason. This view became the title of one of his books and was perhaps best articulated in Beyond Good and Evil:
“[Anything which] is a living and not a dying body... will have to be an incarnate will to power, it will strive to grow, spread, seize, become predominant - not from any morality or immorality but because it is living and because life simply is will to power... 'Exploitation'... belongs to the essence of what lives, as a basic organic function; it is a consequence of the will to power, which is after all the will to life. (Nietzsche, P.259)
For Nietzsche power is the underlying motivator of all actions and because of that is the supreme good. He who has the most power therefore controls morals, and can force others to abide by his convictions as well. So ultimately it is the person with power that makes the most difference. Exploitation is not necessarily wrong as it is “after all the will to life”. In his work the Antichrist he states what is the ultimate good:
“What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. What is bad? All that is born of weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome.” (Nietzsche, 1999, P.2)
Nietzsche even argues in Beyond Good and Evil that men should acknowledge there are grades and rank that “separate man from man” and that equality before God is a nonsense that weakens men and countries making them “sickly” and “mediocre” (Nietzsche, 1990, P. 69, 71). For the majority of people “exist for service and general utility” and religion is often used to buttress their ego. In fact, Nietzsche titles one of his books Human, all too Human where he argues that men should return back to their animal nature. “Error has transformed animals into men; is truth perhaps capable of changing man back into an animal? (P. 182)
Augustine, on the other hand would refute Nietzsche at every step. “When therefore, man lives according to man, not according to God he is like the devil (Augustine, 1993, P. 445)". In other words if he lives according to the animal instincts that Nietzsche would advocate Augustine would say he makes himself the devil.
For Augustine the animal instinct of men is a result of the fall of mankind away from God. What is now our animal instinct is the source of all that is evil because they are desires that are not subservient to God. As he states in the City of God “because it had willfully deserted its superior Lord, it no longer held its own inferior servant (animal desires) (p.422). As man separated himself from God, desires which used to be ordered to and subjugated to the will of God, now create strife and are opposed to God. When men disobeyed God it threw out of kilter its natural desires and “being of his own will corrupted…begot corrupted and condemned children (P.422). Augustine also sees power in a completely different light. In the City of God he states
“For to the just all the evils imposed on them by unjust rulers are not the punishment of crime, but the test of virtue. Therefore the good man, although he is a slave, is free; but the bad man, even if he reigns, is a slave, and that not of one man, but, what is far more grievous, of as many masters as he has vices; of which vices when the divine Scripture treats, it says, "For of whom any man is overcome, to the same he is also the bond-slave (p.112)."
Therefore when Nietzsche advocates raw power and a return to animal instinct, Augustine would dissent.
Here Augustine and Nietzsche enter into an intriguing debate. For Nietzsche, God is a construct built by the ordinary men in order that they can deal with their routine and powerless role in life. Nietzsche states in his book The Birth of Tragedy, “Christianity was from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, life's nausea and disgust with life, merely concealed behind, masked by, dressed up as, faith in "another" or "better" life (Nietzsche, P. 23) .” People who are powerless because do not have the intellectual strength to influence others use Christianity to find worth. While the minority, who were in power, used Christianity or God or religion, as a tool to assert power over the masses. However, in doing so they themselves at times where trapped by the same snare they were using to trap others. For Nietzsche, it was fine for the uberman (those in power) to use God as a construct to dominate the masses but not for them to be enslaved by such a “prehistoric” concept. In his book The Gay Science he declares God to be dead and gives a mandate to those destined for power.
After Buddha was dead, his shadow was still shown for centuries in a cave - a tremendous, gruesome shadow. God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. -And we- we still have to vanquish his shadow, too (Nietzsche, 1974, P108).
Religion could and would confine the use of power so therefore had to be expunged from the uberman of each generation.
The effect of this philosophy is it has given rise to the notion that truth is often used to control or manipulate people. This is a philosophy that Foucault would pick up on a century later and become a key part of his interpretation of how truth is used to assert power over the masses- a theory currently embraced by many social scientists. Such a vantage point has played a huge role in the skepticism many people have of any truth based assertions. It has helped to formulate a culture that would make everything relative in order to avoid the possible corruption of truth as a vehicle to maintain power. Sept. 11th further enforced this view in many people’s minds as they saw fundamental Muslims attack the World Trade Center because they believed their conception of the world to be superior, therefore they were trying to destroy others who did not believe like they did.
Augustine would agree that people have used truth claims in destructive ways; however, he would argue that we cannot avoid truth claims. He would state that when Nietzsche says there are no valid truth claims that in and of itself is a truth claim. Truth and faith in God are inseparable for Augustine as he states in the City of God:
“When, then, a man lives according to the truth, he lives not according to himself, but according to God; for He was God who said, "I am the truth." When, therefore, man lives according to himself -- that is, according to man, not according to God -- assuredly he lives according to a lie; not that man himself is a lie, for God is his author and creator, who is certainly not the author and creator of a lie, but because man was made upright, that he might not live according to himself, but according to Him that made him -- in other words, that he might do His will and not his own; (p.445)
This truth orders all things just as the laws of physics order the way objects will respond to gravity and force. Augustine believes that with and only with the truth of God will a person become a good ruler. Augustine then goes on to show how God’s truth would create such a person:
“if they make their power the handmaid of His majesty by using it for the greatest possible extension of His worship; if they fear, love, worship God; if more than their own they love that kingdom in which they are not afraid to have partners; if they are slow to punish, ready to pardon; if they apply that punishment as necessary to government and defense of the republic, and not in order to gratify their own enmity; if they grant pardon, not that iniquity may go unpunished, but with the hope that the transgressor may amend his ways; if they compensate with the lenity of mercy and the liberality of benevolence for whatever severity they may be compelled to decree; if their luxury is as much restrained as it might have been unrestrained; if they prefer to govern depraved desires rather than any nation whatever; and if they do all these things, not through ardent desire of empty glory, but through love of eternal felicity, not neglecting to offer to the true God, who is their God, for their sins, the sacrifices of humility, contrition, and prayer (P.178).”
This is then Augustine’s measure of a just rule one that is guided by and subservient to not an internally invented or reasoned truth but rather the revealed truth of God.
Such a definition of leadership is the predecessor of servant leadership that is advocated by Ken Blanchard and Phil Hodges or Robert Greenleaf today. Leaders that exercised this sort of power would see truth as something that does not attempt to keep people infantile but rather challenges them to grow up. It is a truth that does not seek to control people as much as to liberate them from narrow mindedness and selfish action. A person following this philosophy would not try to use coercive power unless absolutely necessary to maintain order. Instead they would restrain their own self interest for that of the greater good .
Interestingly despite these vastly different perspectives Augustine and Nietzsche echo each other about the impact that pride has on the individual and their ethics. Nietzsche states that we are too insecure to handle the truth in his book Beyond Good and Evil. “I have done that says my memory. I cannot have done that says my pride (p.80)”. When this argument occurs we revise our memory as pride always wins out. Augustine argues a similar vein when he states in his book Confessions:
“And it gratified my pride to be free from blame and, after I had committed any fault, not to acknowledge that I had done any,--" that Thou mightiest heal my soul because it had sinned against Thee;" but I loved to excuse it, and to accuse something else which was with me, but was not I. But assuredly it was wholly I, and my impiety had divided me against myself; and that sin was all the more incurable in that I did not deem myself a sinner (P.84)
The application for this ethic is both simple and hard. People are always revising history to flatter their conception of themselves. As President Kennedy, uttered famously after the Bay of Pigs invasion “Success has a thousand fathers; failure is an orphan.” Therefore as a person the challenge becomes having others that can rebuke you and hold you accountable. Making sure that when mistakes are made one ultimately owns up without attempting to blame or pass responsibility elsewhere. As a Christian owning mistake and sharing success must be a mantra.
Nietzsche ethic influenced perhaps most famously Hitler as he viewed himself as the uberman, a person whose will to power should not be restrained by conviction or guilt. However, his influence continues to pervade and influence modern culture. His ethic would justify the sorting mechanism of schools, would give credence to the idea if it “feels good do it”, and perhaps must frighteningly leads to the loss of conviction and feeling that there should be no conviction in modern morals. Augustine’s ethic perhaps is best preserved in the parts of the non-western church where many still find his insistence on revelation and his critique of reason valid.
Most of western society has followed the lead of Kant and held both Nietzsche and Augustine to be wrong in their critique of Reason. Reason is the supreme way to determine one’s course of action according to the west, the idea of revelation seems too messy to most westerners. After all whose revelation should we use? Yet, as Augustine and Nietzsche show us, that same critique could be applied to reason. Perhaps Socrates was right in that there are external rights and wrongs that lie outside a person. Perhaps a better question is if reason does not fully function as promised where can we find the foundation to build our ethic? Maybe if we seek we shall find rather then the traditional role of abandoning the search altogether. This might be the strongest legacy that a combined Augustine and Nietzsche ethical perspective gives us.
11 comments:
Although Nietzsche has brought forth for mankind many great ideas and thoughts, I believe his ideas to be truly flawed. His first flaw, is his natural elevation of man outside of the animal kingdom in the first place. He is definitely anthropocentric in regards to his starting point for his arguments. I always find it interesting how uncomfortable people get when I remind them they are members of the animal kingdom. Nietzsche is apparently no different. I don't see how it is that he believes reason would bring back some animal extinct that is suppressed. The flaw in his logic is that he is ignorance that he was already at that point long before he deemed it necessary to make it a possibility. I am not sure Nietzsche's understanding of animal nature was deep enough to make these arguments especially in regards to power. How arrogant is it to say we somehow are more carnal due to our animal nature or instinctual nature. Maybe I can go into that in more depth later.
In regards to power, Nietzsche is way off the mark, in my opinion. In my studies of science and experience in everyday living power is not the driving force for animal or human (if you feel the need to separate the two) behavior. I see safety/security as the true driving force behind behavior. This can be seen in animal behavior from primitive to very complex degrees. I think this drive for security can manifest itself in so many different ways so as to address many of the actions seen in humans (not to mention more primitive animals). Our bodies basically have stress response to the environment. Without getting into the details, our bodies must deal with the stress or find security within a time frame that the physiological response does not do extensive damage to our bodies. This very simple idea can explain so much.
Power - in monkey's for example, hierarchy leads to lower stress for those at the top which leads to fewer health problems. The stress levels of those below is high as well so in order to adjust their behaviors accommodate the hierarchy so as to establish some reasonable security. In humans this relationship exists all of the time.
More later. Have to study now.
Perhaps by saying "there are no valid truth claims" Neitzsche simply meant that given our current restraints relative to our ability to reason or some other limiting factor we cannot make a valid truth claim even though one may exist. Once again this is not an absolute claim but a thesis about our limits. It describes that truth exists but is simply not knowable where we currently stand. Because it is not knowable as of yet, no claims to know the truth are valid. People often try to spin this into an absolute claim and convoluted argument against reason itself, but I think rather it is an observation.
I think we also need to understand here what we are speaking of when we speak of truth. I think we throw this word around without an understanding of what we mean, kind of like the words God/religion/science.
A quote from a guy named Tim Keller:
Keller brought up the famous analogy of the blind men and the elephant. This is the story where a group of blind men run into an elephant and seek to describe it. One grabs the trunk and says that an elephant is long and slender like a snake. Another grabs a leg and says he is firm and round and stout and cylindrical like a tree. The other grabs the tail and says the elephant is thin and whispy. This story is used to show that all religions are like the blind man - each has a part of the truth, but none has the whole truth. Keller quotes Leslie Newbigin on this - Newbigin says that the problem here is that the story is told from the perspective of one sees the whole elephant and knows the whole truth. In other words, the narrator of the story claims to be able to see all truth, and he claims for himself what he denies to religion.
I have heard Tim Keller use this analogy. I am sure that this analogy leaves us off with any better understanding except that as soon as we think we understand we should be incredulous towards that feeling.
This analogy is very dangerous indeed for those of the likes of Tim Keller as all parts of the elephant are attached to the same elephant although all individually apparently have no relation according to the experience of the blind man. In fact, to the observer, the experiences of the blind men may be completely contradictory even if they invoke some useful outside observer. This sounds a lot like religions all leading to the same end, something I am sure Keller does not embrace.
Another problem for me with this analogy is the physical nature of the blind man's experience. Religion does not truly in a substantive way provide this experience for all to perceive/experience even in different lights.
Also, what if the person holding the tail was told by the man holding the trunk that he could not truly experience the elephant unless he could touch the trunk but at the same said, oh but wait you can't touch the trunk. You have to believe in the trunk as I do even though you don't experience it as I do. In fact, the tail you hold is really an illusion even though your are touching it with your own hands and even though it brings for you the very same benefits that the person holding the trunk uses as proof that his trunk is the real reflection of the elephant.
I realize I am taking this elephant analogy very far but this analogy is great because it contains or is representative of the contradictions between and the problems within the claims of the many world religions.
I like this quote by Calvin as it helps us see one of the many answers to the problem of pain and suffering...
Calvin - Inst. (1559 ed.) - Book III, Ch. 9, Sec. 1
. "With whatever kind of tribulation we may be afflicted, we should always keep the end in view; to habituate ourselves to a contempt of the present life, that we may thereby be excited to meditation on that which is to come. For the Lord, well knowing our strong natural inclination to a brutish love of the world, adopts a most excellent method to reclaim us and rouse us from one insensibility that we may not be too tenaciously attached to that foolish affection. There is not one of us who is not desirous of appearing through the whole course of his life, to aspire and strive after celestial immortality. For we are ashamed of excelling in no respect the brutal herds, whose condition would not be at all inferior to ours, unless there remained to us a hope of eternity after death. But if you examine the designs, pursuits, and actions of every individual, you will find nothing in them but what is terrestrial. Hence that stupidity, that the mental eyes, dazzled with the vain splendor of riches, powers, and honors, cannot see to any considerable distance. The heart also, occupied and oppressed with avarice, ambition, and other inordinate desires, cannot rise to any eminence. In a word, the whole soul, fascinated by carnal allurements, seeks its felicity on earth.
"To oppose this evil, the Lord, by continual lessons of miseries, teaches his children the vanity of the present life. That they may not promise themselves profound and secure peace in it, therefore he permits them to be frequently disquieted and infested with wars or tumults, with robberies or other injuries. That they may not aspire with too much avidity after transient and uncertain riches, or depend on those which they possess, sometimes by exile, sometimes by the sterility of the land, sometimes by a conflagration, sometimes by other means, he reduces them to indigence, or at least confines them within the limits of mediocrity. That they may not be too complacently delighted with conjugal blessings, he either causes them to be distressed with the wickedness of their wives, or humbles them with a wicked offspring, or afflicts them with want or loss of children. But if in all these things he is more indulgent to them, yet that they may not be inflated with vainglory, or improper confidence, he shows them by diseases and dangers the unstable and transitory nature of all mortal blessings. We therefore truly derive advantages from the discipline of the cross, only when we learn that this life, considered in itself, is unquiet, turbulent, miserable in numberless instances, and in no respect altogether happy; and that all its reputed blessings are uncertain, transient, vain, and adulterated with a mixture of many evils; and in consequence of this at once conclude that nothing can be sought or expected on earth but conflict, and that when we think of a crown we must raise our eyes toward heaven. For it must be admitted that the mind is never seriously excited to desire and meditate on the future life, without having previously imbibed a contempt of the present ....
Paul- A guy named Douglas Wilson I think addresses some of your previous challenges: Here is what he states:
The second thing to observe in this regard is that Christians actually do not claim that the gospel has made the world better by bringing us turbo-charged ethical information. There have been ethical advances that are due to the propagation of the faith, but that is not where the action is. Christians believe—as C. S. Lewis argued in The Abolition of Man—that nonbelievers do understand the basics of morality. Paul the apostle refers to the Gentiles, who did not have the law but who nevertheless knew by nature some of the tenets of the law (Rom. 2:14). But the world is not made better because people can understand the ways in which they are being bad. It has to be made better by Good News—we must receive the gift of forgiveness and the resultant ability to live more in conformity to a standard we already knew (but were necessarily failing to meet). So the gospel does not consist of new and improved law. The gospel makes the world better through Good News, not through guilt trips or good advice.
In your second objection, you gaily dismiss the Old Testament, "which speaks hotly in recommending genocide, slavery, genital mutilation, and other horrors." Setting aside for the moment whether your representation of the Old Testament is judicious or accurate, let me assume for the sake of discussion that you have accurately summarized the essence of Mosaic ethics here. You then go on to say that we who teach such stories to children have been "damned by history." But why should this "damnation by history" matter to any of us reading Bible stories to kids, or, for that matter, to any of the people who did any of these atrocious things, on your principles? These people are all dead now, and we who read the stories are all going to be dead. Why should any of us care about the effeminate judgments of history? Should the propagators of these "horrors" have cared? There is no God, right? Because there is no God, this means that—you know—genocides just happen, like earthquakes and eclipses. It is all matter in motion, and these things happen.
If you are on the receiving end, there is only death, and if you are an agent delivering this genocide, the long-term result is brief victory and death at the end. So who cares? Picture an Israelite during the conquest of Canaan, doing every bad thing that you say was occurring back then. During one of his outrages, sword above his head, should he have stopped for a moment to reflect on the possibility that you might be right? "You know, in about three and a half millennia, the consensus among historians will be that I am being bad right now. But if there is no God, this disapproval will certainly not disturb my oblivion. On with the rapine and slaughter!" On your principles, why should he care?
In your third objection, you say that if "Christianity is to claim credit for the work of outstanding Christians or for the labors of famous charities, then it must in all honesty accept responsibility for the opposite." In short, if we point to our saints, you are going to demand that we point also to our charlatans, persecutors, shysters, slave-traders, inquisitors, hucksters, televangelists, and so on. Now allow me the privilege of pointing out the structure of your argument here. If a professor takes credit for the student who mastered the material, aced his finals, and went on to a career that was a benefit to himself and the university he graduated from, the professor must (fairness dictates) be upbraided for the dope-smoking slacker that he kicked out of class in the second week. They were both formally enrolled, is that not correct? They were both students, were they not?
What you are doing is saying that Christianity must be judged not only on the basis of those who believe the gospel in truth and live accordingly but also on the basis of those baptized Christians who cannot listen to the Sermon on the Mount without a horse laugh and a life to match. You are saying that those who excel in the course and those who flunk out of it are all the same. This seems to me to be a curious way of proceeding.
You conclude by objecting to the sovereignty of God, saying that the idea makes the whole world into a ghastly totalitarian state, where believers say that God (and who does He think He is?) runs everything. I would urge you to set aside for a moment the theology of the thing and try to summon up some gratitude for those who built our institutions of liberty. Many of them were actually inspired by the idea that since God is exhaustively sovereign, and because man is a sinner, it follows that all earthly power must be limited and bounded. The idea of checks and balances came from a worldview that you dismiss as inherently totalitarian. Why did those societies where this kind of theology predominated produce, as a direct result, our institutions of civil liberty?
One last question: In your concluding paragraph you make a great deal out of your individualism and your right to be left alone with the "most intimate details of [your] life and mind." Given your atheism, what account are you able to give that would require us to respect the individual? How does this individualism of yours flow from the premises of atheism? Why should anyone in the outside world respect the details of your thought life any more than they respect the internal churnings of any other given chemical reaction? That's all our thoughts are, isn't that right? Or, if there is a distinction, could you show how the premises of your atheism might produce such a distinction?
Robb,
I think first you should know that your assumption that I am an atheist may be wrong. I may functionally be an atheist at times, but so are many Christians. Second, I think you mistake my efforts to point out what I see as contradictions for claims on some truth. I don't claim to understand many things. I am just pointing out what I see to be holes in these explanations that I see. Your assumption that I am an atheist is interesting because it implies that my arguments would lead a person that way. I will have to think about that. Third, I am not sure where you get these points I am making. All of these are points I have heard from atheists, but most of them are not claims I would make. I think you are trying to match up what I say with the enumerated atheist arguments. I think you should not read my thoughts as though from an atheist but as through from a person who is trying to figure things out. Four, in regards to the Old Testament. Once again, I am not making any claims on the overall Old Testament but rather pointing out what are for me peculiar happenings in the history of what is said to be connected to Christian identity. My point is as simple as this, does it makes sense for God to command his people to break the very values that He states as moral. You can respond with the who is the pot to ask the potter, but I aside from that I think the answer is no. Although the entire Old Testament is does not consist of these stories, I think the questions should be addressed. The people of the Old Testament claim that God himself told him to carry out these acts. Don't assume that I do not know the Christian take on these issues or that I am like every other atheist who didn't grow up in the Christian church.
5. I don't accept your premise that individualism is necessarily a good thing. Individualism has its place but not fully. This is one of the weakest points of evangelical Christianity. It plays on individualism which in many ways is contradictory to the message in the gospels. Individualism is why it is so hard to convince someone why they should care about children who cannot advocate for themselves.
6. I don't accept the premise that the liberty we experience today is motivated purely by Christian values. In fact, a mixture of belief was found in the founders of this country. The liberty was not to practice religion but to be free from the hand of state religion.
This is just a cursory response, I will read your response again in a day or two and respond again.
I should also add briefly. A short time ago I would have adamantly argued that I was a Christian. During that time I have always seen and struggled with the questions and what I see as contradictions that I have been addressing on this blog. It is not as if I woke up one day and was a different person. I think this is an interesting point. I am not sure fully what it means but it is interesting to think that fundamentally absolutely nothing has changed about me aside from the fact that I have questioned the name of the box I am in, not what is inside the box.
Paul- Thanks for your honesty. I am glad you are wrestling with all these questions as I think it provides the opportunity for you to have an identity that was not something just accepted because you grew up in it but something you really believe. My previous blog was a response from Douglas Wilson To Christopher Hitchens. I thought it might also help to address some of the questions you are wrestling with. Sorry- did not mean to imply you were an atheist. However, the more ambigous God becomes I think the closer a person is to an atheist in functionality. I echo your thought that many people who claim to be Christians are functional atheist as well. I think it is healthier that you wrestle with the honesty you confess.
1. I agree with you on indiviualism as something that has corrupted the evangelical church.
2. I have really wrestled with the Old Testament as well. Please do not hear me saying there are easy answers. I do think though much is taken out of context and especially cultural context when making arguments about the Old Testament. Fundamentally I believe a moral is a moral precisely because it leads one to worship God. Therefore following the morals that God has laid down in order to achieve perfection outside from God is an antithesis of morality. A Pharisee. God, breaking his own laws makes it clear that law exists to lead people to God not to create perfection. Like I pointed out eariler- ultimatley God kills everyone. Whether through old age, cancer or car wreck. So if he orders there murder earlier it is still by his decree. Yet with God since he created his creations does he not have a right to do this? A rather bad analogy but maybe helpful is we do not have the same laws for a six year old that we do for an adult. It would be bad if a six year old drove a car, drank a beer or voted. Yet there is infinitely more distance between us and God so therefore the rules he created for us cannot apply and do not apply to him.
Some great Quotes from Orthodoxy by Chesterson
That are applicable:
1. “Exactly what does breed insanity is reason. Poets do not go mad; but chess-players do. Mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom.” (17)
2. “The poet only desires exaltation and expansion, a world to stretch himself in. The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens in to his head. And it is his head that splits.” (17)
3. “The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything but his reason.” (19)
4.“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.” (48)
Robb,
Okay, I see that the entire thing is a quote. Sorry about that. I at least feel validated that I recognized this as the standard set of atheistic arguments some of which I struggle with as much as with arguments on God. I think I have listened to about every debate Hitchen's has had. I feel these debates always leave me wanting more or saying, "huh?"
Ah, the poet. I feel sorry for the poet and the artist. Embraced for their flee from reason; hated for their liberalism. Such a complicated state. The funny thing is that much of the nuance wrapped up in poetry and art are life's paradoxes and the utter struggle to live with a reasonable brain in the midst of it all.
I still don't understand though this human relationship with reason. It seems we want to embrace it only when convenient. When it fails us, those who believe in God look outside reason and say God understands it all and that is good enough. Don't worry with your questions and doubts, you have more faith than that. It will all work itself out in the end. Those who don't believe in God or at least an interactive personal one say, hmmmmm, I wonder if there is another angle or approach to this question. The search continues. The engagement continues. Let's have a look-see.
We are all atheists at some level. The statement to be "functionally an atheist"--a phrase I use frequently--is questionable. I think it is questionable because what does it mean to be functionally religious? Is this question answered only through Christian eyes? I mean to be functionally religious could look like a large number of things, right? Some religions don't require a person to look all that different from the normal shmo (what are they functionally?). I think I more functionally a normal shmo than than functional atheist:-) Anyways, it is an interesting question to keep one awake a night during the night shift!
Post a Comment