On the Other Hand Clapping
I’m not quite bada$$ enough to prove it yet, but all my philosophy has led me to believe that things happen as they must, that the Uni-verse is a Uni-t, that there is unity and purpose, however obscure, to everything. You might say I philosophized myself into faith rather than out of it, for what is trust-in-the-Universal-order-of-things if not faith?
(Oh sure, some say that faith isn’t faith unless it’s faith in a theistic God, and I say pfft, the biggest flaw in the "theistic God" argument is the assumption that God is somehow outside natural law; that we "prove" hir by the times sHe breaks it — let’s have a little panentheistic* understanding here, people. The only possible way for there to even be an eternal, all-knowing, or in any otherwise infinite being, is for that being’s self to be the whole world. Say it with me now: There can’t be anything outside Infinity.** Thank you, class. Any God that I’m going to admit to couldn’t break Universal law any more than you could decide to have a different blood-type today.***)
And come on, I write stories. This may sound trivial, but nothing will give you the awe of interconnectedness like trying to stitch together an epic novel.
This whole idea, which I wish was more than an idea, leads to a way of living life that I can’t say I see any problem with: To all the hardships, one says "This is what I must face right now"; to all the past agony, one says "That it what it took to teach me"; to all the fear of the future, one says "That will be as it must be, and the greatest thing I can do to affect it is to have the proper state of mind now." It’s the perfect blend of surrender and personal responsibility; offering-up and taking-to-heart; admitting smallness while overcoming all fear. In short, I can’t see a problem with the practical consequences of that view. The logical consequences are tougher.
Even if I scrapped logic and went with my gut (and it wouldn’t be the first time), getting there is still daunting, when right now that means slogging through acceptances that really sting (right now: one that bites, one that ages, one that turns away). But what else is there? Swinging a sword at the darkness? All that gets cut doing that is you…and the only light we have to bring is our own consciousness, which means acceptance, surrender, strength — karma yoga again.
And there, I can see how having a "belief in God" in the personal-God sense would be helpful. If you could convince yourself that there’s a greater being out there that you need to worship / fear / impress / placate / whatever, then you could take the Hindu road directly — This is what God has placed in front of me to do. Rather than trusting Universal law, which is tricky and uncomforting, you could place your trust in a face and a name you’ve hung on the front of it, like Tom Hanks with his beach-ball Wilson. Strictly speaking, as a human animal, that’s lots easier. (Holy crap, have I just justified religion? …Well, not as currently used I guess, but yeah, in potentia. Woo.)
But I’d prefer not. For one thing, as I just alluded to, ain’t nobody teaching this who’s got it right that I’ve found, and if I have to do it from scratch, I’ll do it from scratch, no masks and no fake names, thank you. Too much is at stake if I find out the mask I’m talking to is hanging on the wrong door. Still, other than the lack of being comforting, this hasn’t proven very hard; stripped of the silliness that a theistic, personal-God theory demands, admitting that all is one and that things are as they must be is much simpler. All you have to do is be Socrates, and look around at what you don’t know. And as the man himself said, any idiot can do that.
Bleah. Theories. Theories, theories, theories. Sometimes they help in a pinch, but the real task of writing the program by way of which they always help is…yeah. I’m a lover, not a coder. ;)
*Not "pantheistic". Look it up.
**EDITED: Originally said "an infinity"; a few of you pointed out that this is incorrect, since something can certainly be outside an infinite (closed) set of things. I meant Infinity itself, the big one, the Eternity typically associated with God and It’s ilk. ;)
***Or any less. Rules are defined by their exceptions…
2 comments
“Say it with me now: There can’t be anything outside an infinity”
The pedant in me has to respond to this :)
There are an infinite number of integers but 2.5 is still outside of them. It is quite possible for our universe to be infinite and for there still to be something outside, just like 2.5 is outside of the integers.
There are probably in fact an infinite number of infinities, each ‘bigger’ than the last*
If there is a God, he must be subject to uni-universal laws, but that doesn’t mean he is subject to universal laws, which is probably all we can know about.
——
*The mathematician in me feels obliged to point out that I gave a slightly bad example in that the set of rational numbers (of which 2.5 is a member) is actually *the same size* as the set of integers, mathematically - even though the set of integers is obviously also a subset of the set of rationals. Such is the counter-intuitive joy of infinites! Actually you need to move to the set of irrational numbers (such as Pi) before you get to an infinity that is ‘bigger’ than the set of integers.
——-
(Sometimes I hate myself!)
Nice catch! You’re one of only two people who did. What I should have said, of course, is that there can’t be anything outside Infinity, itself, not an infinity. Because sure, there can be closed infinite sets with all kinds of things outside them.
However, the theistic argument generally places God at the pinnacle of all that exists, first and most perfect, and specifically gives God the characteristics of infinite perfection and infinite power. Those two things basically mean that God must be the biggest and most supreme of all things. Further, God is said to have “created all that is”, which, since he’s omnipotent, would mean that “he” would have power over all that is.
I see your point about the uni-Universe, but there isn’t such a thing; Universe for our purposes means “all that exists”. (We’re not excluding other dimensions, etc., as modern science tends to do since it decided that “Universe” designated a specific area and not “everything” as it used to. That would be my bad for not being clear about my terms.) The problem here, which is a really old one, is that God is either part of “all that exists” or not. If not, “he” doesn’t exist by definition. If so, then either Universal Law and God’s Law are the same thing, OR God is subject to Universal Law. The typical personal-god idea that God is somehow over and above existence itself is just a headache waiting to happen!
The panentheistic point of view just makes so much more sense than the Christian theistic one. But a deity that can “save you from the Universe”, break all the rules, oo big scary, is just such an easier sell than one who IS the Universe.
Leave a Comment