As I wrote on Thursday, from the religious perspective, I am an atheist. I simply do not see any tangible evidence to convince me that there is a "god" out there. I'm certainly NOT suggesting that a "god" is an impossibility; I'm just saying that it seems like a huge improbability to me.
That said, just like almost everyone else I know, there have been times in which I fully was convinced of something that, later on, my opinion changed 180 degrees. While I certainly am not looking for a "god" to appear as something I could believe in, if enough evidence (for lack of a better word) presented itself, then my guess is that I would reaccess my current position.
If there IS something out there, I find it hard to fathom that it is anything like what current religions depict. If the god of Christianity or Islam is real, then I think the whole of humanity is screwed. In both cases, the god each has conjured up is too vindictive, petty, egotistical and violent to offer much hope to the rest of us. If we ascribe to be more godlike for these versions of god, then all we need do is to be a more destructive, out-of-balance, manic version of the selves we already are!!
If there IS something out there, I would be much more prone to think it is more in line with deist thinking. It created the world and life as we know it, then went off somewhere else to do whatever it is that beings like that do. In other words, it set everything in motion and then said, Have at it, kids!
If there IS something out there, I certainly would not presume that humans specifically are created in its image. It is not that I am down on our species; it more has to do with the fact that there are literally millions of different life forms -- many far more numerous than us. It simply seems the epitome of arrogance to assume we are looked upon as something more special than any other life form.
Finally, if there genuinely IS something out there, I think it is most likely that it is beyond all degrees of human comprehension. Nothing we say about it could come anywhere close to what it actually is. Any name we gave it or description we applied to it wouldn't begin to scratch the barest of its surface. We might come to understand it in death, but there is just as good of a chance that life or death would make no difference whatsoever.
But I don't believe a something is out there.
That said, just like almost everyone else I know, there have been times in which I fully was convinced of something that, later on, my opinion changed 180 degrees. While I certainly am not looking for a "god" to appear as something I could believe in, if enough evidence (for lack of a better word) presented itself, then my guess is that I would reaccess my current position.
If there IS something out there, I find it hard to fathom that it is anything like what current religions depict. If the god of Christianity or Islam is real, then I think the whole of humanity is screwed. In both cases, the god each has conjured up is too vindictive, petty, egotistical and violent to offer much hope to the rest of us. If we ascribe to be more godlike for these versions of god, then all we need do is to be a more destructive, out-of-balance, manic version of the selves we already are!!
If there IS something out there, I would be much more prone to think it is more in line with deist thinking. It created the world and life as we know it, then went off somewhere else to do whatever it is that beings like that do. In other words, it set everything in motion and then said, Have at it, kids!
If there IS something out there, I certainly would not presume that humans specifically are created in its image. It is not that I am down on our species; it more has to do with the fact that there are literally millions of different life forms -- many far more numerous than us. It simply seems the epitome of arrogance to assume we are looked upon as something more special than any other life form.
Finally, if there genuinely IS something out there, I think it is most likely that it is beyond all degrees of human comprehension. Nothing we say about it could come anywhere close to what it actually is. Any name we gave it or description we applied to it wouldn't begin to scratch the barest of its surface. We might come to understand it in death, but there is just as good of a chance that life or death would make no difference whatsoever.
But I don't believe a something is out there.
What do you consider the Tao to be?
ReplyDeleteMe, I look at "God" as being a humanized, bastardized understanding of such a principle as the word "Tao" points towards. Like a metaphor that people eventually forgot was a metaphor.
So the whole theist-atheist debate is muddy for me, and really, irrelevant.
But you do "believe in the notion of Tao." Is that not something? Is that not faith?
ReplyDeleteAll this talk of God-no God, something-nothing, here-there, now-then, being-non-being and on and on...is just our human way of trying to find meaning in an incomprehensible and probably indifferent universe. Only the childish "believe in" Zeus or Yahweh or Krishna as some personal guy in the sky. But there is so much literature, full of wonderful metaphor and depth to help us find meaning. It's too bad that words and images get in the way. Still, we use words, and images and practices (actions) to express ourselves.
Brandon and I are having a mind-meld!
ReplyDeleteBrandon,
ReplyDeleteShorthand for the "laws of nature."
Baroness,
As I tried to express in the post itself, I see Tao as a principle and god as an entity.
The problem with religion, in general, is what you might read as metaphor, another person reads as literal and what you might take to be literal, someone else says is an allegory.
I know of no one who takes the TTC or Zhuangzi as literal.
Another question: how does your belief in the Tao as the laws of nature square with the spontaneity that is basic to Taoism?
ReplyDeleteBrandon's question is excellent. I would answer that it is the idea of not using force or overexertion in doing things...when you do that you go against the "laws of nature." Although that is not how I interpret Tao. Insofar as "the laws of nature" are expressed in conventional physics, this would be a Tao a we CAN speak of. Quantum physics on the other hand is much closer to the Tao we cannot speak of; that's a place where the "laws of nature" seem completely incomprehensible and do lead to a kind of emptiness. I suppose you could say that in emptiness, you could be nothing BUT spontaneous.
ReplyDelete