7. In God, we trust?

7. In God, we trust?

            Spirituality and organized religion have slightly different functions although they both  tap into the human desire for connection to something beyond ourselves.  If one were to guess spirituality’s origin, the most obvious one is our relationship to our parents. As children, we view our parents initially as all powerful, all knowing, and even all good. As we grow older, we are sadly disappointed that this is not the case.  So we are essentially left with a void.  So can it be that as adults, we have invented Gods that pretty much take over that parental role. 

            But I believe spirituality has its roots in something broader than just one’s family dynamics.  The extra-ordinarily complex nature of human society requires that our minds yearn for a connection to a community outside of ourselves.  This yearning manifests itself in our affinity not only for family, but our friends, villages, and nations. Extending beyond this point would be in the realm of spirituality. We can see this especially in indigenous cultures where nature and earth itself is viewed as manifestations of god.

                        Some studies have shown that there may be regions of our brain that specifically control a sense of a connectedness to a higher being.  When subjects were electrically stimulated at these regions in the right parietal lobe, they each described a sense of well being and a presence of a protective figure.  Many cases have been documented where those afflicted with seizures have experienced similar sensations just preceding their grand mals.  A famous example is Fyodor Dostoyevski, who often wrote of his transcendent religious experiences.  There are some cases where patients have become permanently enraptured by a blissful state of spirituality following head trauma. So it very well may be that some of us have underactive “God” regions of our brains and no amount of prayer or sermons can turn it on. 

            But this again begs the question of why humans have this region of the brain to begin with.  There must be some evolutionary adaptation for this area being such a universal development in the average human brain -  since all cultures have religions in one form or another.  Perhaps focusing on what these beliefs have in common may lead us to an answer.  It is striking that almost every religion rewards its dutiful followers with everlasting life.  It may be interesting to see whether religions may lose its popularity if this one aspect was removed from all the various scriptures. 

            Humans are undoubtedly burdened with extra fears not suffered by other living creatures – especially the worries about our own demise.  Perhaps some would disagree and propose that animals may be capable of pondering future realities, but surely, the extent and degree to human capabilities in this area are immense by comparison.  To a large extent, the ability of forethought is one of the key factors, besides problem solving, creativity and language that have allowed Homo sapiens to thrive.  The human capability to plan for future calamities, natural and otherwise, have helped societies combat many a challenge.

            It is however, a double edged sword.  Our imaginations can torture us with thousands of dreamt up disappointments, pains, and even horrors.  And one fear that maybe be universally greatest among the vast majority of people is the fear of death.  It frightens many to imagine the possibility of non-existence, or worse yet, punishment in hell.  Our consciousness evolved to survive , like all other sentient beings, and coupled that with an immense imagination, we peer into the void that is beyond our understanding.

            Perhaps the human brain evolved the spiritual part of the brain to counteract this terrifying awareness of our mortality.  It must not be a mere coincidence that societies in every corner of the world had invented gods – even those that became isolated from other cultures. Why would our brains have this need, were it not some evolutionary adaptation?

            Organized religion on the other hand has a slightly different function than satiating our spiritual desires.  Spirituality may be experienced on a personal and individual basis, but religious activities involve society.  Religion takes this desire of spirituality and constructs it into a system of social stratification.  Hence, we see religion’s role in reinforcing the social class structure among people in a given society. In most religions, there is a codification of the ranking of humans according to God’s view.  There is always a chosen few – and they are the ones who deem which classes the others belong to.  It is not surprising then, that kings and royalty have often used religion to justify their rule, as in the Eqyptian pharaohs, Aztec kings, and European Monarchs of old.

            In Buddhism, the monks pray all day and are fed by the common populace who must work strenuously to eek out a living in harsh mountainous terrain. In Hinduism, there lies the tradition of the caste system.  In Christianity and Islam – according to text and practice – men are held as the upper classes over women.  The fall of mankind is even blamed on womankind.  In many faiths still today, women are not allowed to become priests or imams, as if the souls of women are not deemed as pure as men. The latest controversy  involved the gay community seeking acceptance in various religious denominations.

                        For those who are religious, faith in God can solve a lot of problems.  Not only does faith offer hope for an afterlife and solace in desperate times, but their lives are automatically imbued with a prepackaged meaning.  Religion also served utilitarian needs such as written codes of societal behavior before the advent of civil laws.  It has also been an inspiration to help others in need as well as spur societal struggles against injustice.

            However, we also know about the dark uses humanity has had with religion.  For all the positive contributions listed above, we can list as many negative effects it has had on society.  Although the medieval monks preserved classical texts during the Dark Ages, there is a long history of religion impeding almost every great scientific revelation – from Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin, advent of human dissection, Stem Cell Research, etc.  For every person inspired by religious fervor to help others in need, we see that same ideology drive inquisitions, crusades, and persecution of those not of their faith. 

            For all that can be said about religion’s unifying  influence on community, we can see how they divide and alienate people from other communities.  The sheer number of denominations in the Christian religion alone – Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Seven Day Adventists,  Baptists, Presbyterians, Puritans, Catholics, Shakers, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodist, Christian Scientists, etc. -   should tell us something about this phenomenon.

            The reader at this point may presume that I am an atheist from the mention of evolution.  However, that is not the case.  An intellectually honest person, religious or not, must admit that there is no evidence either way for the proof or disproof of God. This is the Agnostic’s stance.  This logical requirement escapes many of those on either extremes on the debate as to the existence of god. 

            The problem is one of literalist interpretations on both sides.  When religious scriptures are viewed in any other lens than an allegorical one, logic and faith seem hopelessly and mutually exclusive.  I use the Christian examples below because that is my upbringing in attending catholic school as a child.  However, these arguments apply to most theistic religions where God is considered all good, all knowing, and all powerful.  There are forms of religions such as Buddhism that do not fit exactly into this analysis – but even among these – the challenges between logic and faith rears its head.

            The main problem lies in the limitations of our human language and perception.  What does it mean to associate God with words like good, fatherly, loving, merciful, and patient – when humans can only understand those words in relation to human experience.  Let us take the description “loving” as an example.  In what human context can we say that the killing of millions of people can ever be rationalized as a loving act.  Yet, when God unleases a 40 day flood and does exactly this – human vocabulary seems rather inadequate to explain such an act.  For the words that do exist are excluded by a requirement for God being loving – “genocidal”, “vengeful”, “proud”, “dictatorial”, “narcissistic”, “murderous”.  This is because these words only apply to the actions of men, not Gods. Yet this exclusion is not applied to words like “loving”.

            Religious literalists may try to get around this dilemma by viewing the harshness of God’s actions as moral tests of free will.  The logical problem with this interpretation comes about when confronted with two other traits of God that most theists will not relinquish. One is that God is all knowing of the future.  Second is the notion God is all powerful.  To accept that God is limited in either of these traits, would mean that there are laws of the universe that God did not create – a force above God that is even higher and precedes God.  This is a condition that most theists do not allow for.

            Humans again are limited by our language and experience.  Although we certainly understand the concept of a test, we also know an unfair test when we see one.    These two attributes, all powerful and all knowing together are not only inconsistent with the possibility of human free will, and hence, culpability in sinning against God’s wishes, but also to the possibility of a benevolent god.

         Let's look at the fall of man in the book of Genesis as a case in point.  God wants to test Adam and Eve so he places the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden.  He threatens them with the dire consequences of death and suffering if they disobey.  With Satan’s goading, they eventually bite the apple – which is the explanation for why human history is forever riddled with disease, wars, famine, and all varieties of human suffering. Makes sense doesn’t it? Not really, unless one suspends all logic and throws out all of our associations to the meaning of words.

            If God knows the future, then he knows that Adam and Eve will fail the test.  He in fact knows this as soon as he created Adam.  If God is all powerful, then he could have made a perfect Adam – one without the ego to disobey God.  If God was all good and indeed forgiving – he would have forgiven Adam and Eve by the time they had died, because according to the bible, they lead a reverent life after the banishment from Eden.  This illogic not only applies to Adam and Eve but to every single one of us- their descendents.  God knows every souls destiny – whether one will accept God or curses him. 

            So not only does the concept of a test lose all meaning but also that of free will. If there is a God that knows the outcome of all our decisions, it is impossible for one to defy God’s predictions.  God is all powerful and perfect according to theists – so our decisions can not contradict God’s prophesies. This leads to yet another conundrum.  Why does God become incensed at  his creations’ missteps when he knew of them the moment of their creation.  Why put the tree of knowledge in the Garden in the first place. 

            What’s most troubling of all is the degree to which God punishes millions of future born descendents of Adam and Eve.  Disease, war, famine, natural disasters, and slavery await the future of mankind, all to pay for disobedience.  Christians often point to the New Testament as an answer to this harshness apparent in the Old Testament.  The sacrifice of God’s son, Jesus, apparently offers conciliation and entrance again into heaven for our previously cast out souls.

            Aside from the fact that this completely makes no sense – why the son of God being killed by god’s creations somehow appeases god’s anger towards the creations is beyond reason.  But even if we agree that the sacrifice makes sense, the circumstances have not changed on earth even after this sacrifice.  The same punishment on earth continues to kill 45,000 children a day around the world.  The very meaning of forgiveness loses meaning as a result.

            It can even be said that a select group of people in human history have shown more courage and self sacrifice than Jesus.  Whereas Jesus knew that he would ultimately return to his throne next to his father, there have been those rare humans who have sacrificed for others without any assurance of  reward nor afterlife.  Albert Camus  and Jean-Paul Sartre risked their lives against the Natzis as part of the French resistance, without the belief in a God to fortify them.  Mothers have willingly sacrificed for their children without the requirement of conditional love and praise. 

             But perhaps we can find some common ground where both the atheist and theist may agree.  In that middle ground lay the roots to which both sides struggle to overcome – the unknown future.  How does man rationalize the whims of fate that tosses us like dolls in a hurricane?  The God of the Christian Bible has the same unyielding characteristics of mother nature – powerful, cold, and beyond human coaxing.  But even against mother nature, we have tried our best to fortify our lives – be it technologically, intellectually, and spiritually. We have built dikes and set up international tsunami alerts.  We have sacrificed animals for the rains to come.  We have attempted to placate the volcanoes and the mountains with our own children.  Perhaps all that philosophy, science, and religion ends up being – at the end of the day – is an attempt to delude ourselves that we are in control of what happens to us.  The stalwart atheism of the scientist and the faithful reverence of a theist shake in the awesome power of the universe and their own miniscule helplessness within it.

            The religious talk about God working in mysterious ways.  The scientists talk about the limitations of the human senses in observations. But both delude themselves that somehow, we can manipulate the Universe or God , into being something that conforms to what we want of it – sense, order, and absolute meaning. As the religious strive for the mind of God, the scientist strives for the theory of everything – when in the final scale of things, we are just ants mesmerized by our little hill.

     This desire…. or curiosity…. or evolutionary adaption ….or tragic flaw is ultimately – uniquely human.  In this regard I don’t claim to be any different.  And although I can’t agree with the steadfast conviction of the theist, I am awed and humbled by the immensity of the unknown we.  In that immensity I seek a meaning -which I suspect even the most religious find hard to sustain.  And perhaps, one secret to achieving happiness in an unknowable world, is to accept that there is meaning in the very questioning itself, and not in the attainment of answers.