ahearn@convex.UUCP (07/11/84)
#N:convex:45700014:000:4504
convex!ahearn Jul 11 10:33:00 1984
The debate over the existance and the proof of the existance of God
has been raging, to my knowledge, since the time of Democritus
(360-470 B.C.). I would assume that the argument is as old as man,
but my ignorance of ancient cultures prevents me from labeling
this belief as anything more than an assumption. During the long,
tedious history of this argument, many fine thinkers on each side
have advanced exhaustive arguments. I suppose we will continue here
arguing many of these same arguments here. (Don't get me wrong: the
argument is important, but it will take us nowhere.)
I find much more interesting the effects of belief systems on the individuals
who advance them. In fact, as far as I am concerned, one of the strongest
testimonies (yes, I chose that word deliberately) to the efficacy of the
"spiritual" orientation is the transforming effects of that belief.
(Read on before you flame me for alleged naivete.)
Certainly one of the strongest arguments for believing in Christianity is
the certainity and courage of the early Christians, who faced persecution
by both the Jews and the Romans. Unfortunately, I am just as impressed by
Socrates' serenity at his execution, Buddha's deathbed discussions with his
disciples, and Ramakrishna's concern for his followers as he lay painfully
dying of throat cancer. The upshot seems to be that the human spirit can
be exalted, but that this exaltation provides no proof for any particular
belief system. (In conscience, though, I must refer those who would be
atheists to the life and work of John-Paul Sartre, a man who neither lived
nor died with equanimity, and who called thorough-going atheism, the
"most anguishing work that exists" {a paraphrase}).
Even though the lives of "saints" (secular, Christian, Buddhist, etc.)
provide us with no conclusive proof of the truth of their particular
belief systems, they are inordinately interesting in and of themselves.
At this writing, I think particularly of Ramakrishna, the Indian saint,
who lived close enough to our time to be thoroughly and repeatedly
examined by men of science. When Ramakrishna entered the state he called
"samadhi," investigators frequently found that he had no pulse or respiration
for hours at a time. Yet he always "recovered" and spoke ecstatically of his
experience. (See *Ramakrishna and His Disciples* by Christopher Isherwood
for the complete story.)
Interestingly, the "mystical" tradition Ramakrishna exemplifies returns
fairly consistent results across cultures and belief systems. Thomas Merton
and others have done quite a bit of work comparing mystical practice,
results, and terminology across cultures and times and have found large areas
of common ground among the traditions. Although a writer to the net recently
characterized mystics as eccentric and incomprehensible, I believe that a
fairly good case can be made that the emergence of holy men (and women--holy
people?) is one of the most ordinary of occurences for humans. Furthermore,
most of the "mystics" I've read use very simple language to describe their
experience and to guide their followers ("The kingdom of god is within you";
"Cease to do evil; try to good"; "A virtous man has nothing to fear in either
life or death" {Jesus, Gautama Buddha, Socarates}). Granted, the "technical"
stuff can get a little complex, but I find that comprehending the ideas, not
the language, is usually, for me, where the difficulty lies.
So what do I conclude? First, I doubt that anyone will be moved far from
their chosen beliefs by the argumentation we see on the net. Second, the
real purpose of the argument is to help each of us understand our own beliefs
more profoundly. (I, for one, have found almost all the articles give a high
rate of return on the time investment.) Third, "mysticism," the origin of
all the organized religions I know of, is common, consistent, and fairly
predictable in its results. (At the risks of eliciting howls of disagreement,
I'll add that as far as I'm concerned, the "mystical" or "spiritual"
orientation has been the norm for humans until recently. See the excellent
book, *Does God Exist?*, by Hans Kung, the liberal Catholic theologian, for
a much more insightful and exhaustive treatement of this idea than I am able
to provide. Or take Patanjali at his word: sit down and meditate and see what
you find out)
I welcome comments or discussion by email, or if the topic warrants, via the
net.
Regards,
Joe Ahearn
allegra!convex!ahearn