Sunday, November 23, 2008

Nothing

Waiting in a strange place, approached by a friendly preacher, barely into my twenties, trying to be polite, I was forced into a wrong sort of answer.

He spoke of his Baptist faith, and asked me what I was.

Not wanting to give offense, not wanting to even answer, and never fast with my mouth under pressure, I said "Nothing."

"If you ever want to stop being nothing, you come to my church!" and gave me a card and a patronizing smile with condescending pat on my shoulder.

That's not what I meant, of course. With a lot of thought, I stopped being an apologist for the church given to me as a child, and figured all institutionalized regulations of spirituality were prone to the same limitations that estranged me from such codified definitions of the ineffable. I have never found any experience to change that basic understanding. Eastern religions seem to have more practical methods on how to experience how life works. But I will never call myself a Buddhist, for instance, because that involves accepting their dogma and ceremonies. The deep set gender divisiveness of even formal Taoism further alienates me from the idea of actual conversion.

Religious folks tell me I can't cherry-pick, faith is not a buffet. I can too. Why not? As long as I don't profess to be just one Thing, I can eclectically chose the universal ideas that fit and reject those that seem tied to their cultures.

The older I get, the more sure that I have found my way. Not that there is a path, nor that it brings me any comfort, but I am at ease with my life as it is, knowing it will end, and that is all and enough. If the stories and comforts get others through, who am I to challenge that. I have, after all, nothing more than my understanding as proof. I can hardly pin people down and demand that they define god, what can god do, not do, what is the nature of your god? Record every one, make them all listen to each other's answers and ask them to question their shared faith that probably isn't shared at all. Wouldn't change anything.

I'm not a hostile atheist, no worshipper of orthodox science. Not a matter of belief, after all. I read the data, the results of experiments, learn it, accept it as the best understanding now, and wait for more data with an open mind. I work in medicine, I know bloody well we have not got everything figured out, and eloquent arguments were long made promoting spontaneous generation*. Facts are often not discernible by reasoning and eloquence, they often inelegantly bugger up everything previously understood to be true. I love the process, gather more data, try again, and again, try to duplicate a result. A Book that says, it is written, it will always be, feels like a dead end to me. Justification not to change, in the fearful.

Religion has to be an evolutionary advantage, which I love for irony's sake. It keeps the mean and lazy from criminality in many cases. It demands obedience from those who would undermine a society. It gives glamour and aspiration to the best of us. Unfortunately, it gives corrupt leaders the entitlement to wage war and indulge bigotry, and the ignorant and disadvantaged are more than willing to relieve their distress by attacking scape-goats.

And it leaves a few of us out in the cold, disillusioned and resigned, unable to see the magic once the man behind the curtain is glimpsed. Still wanting to live a good life, be kind to those around me, gaze into the liminal spaces, see everyday miracles everywhere.

Those of you who believe in the teachings of your church no doubt think me wrong. So, if you've stopped by recently on the recommendation of a mad priest, this is my Full Disclosure Statement. Please take conflicting arguments to your own bog, feel free to leave a post saying, "I've got my response over at my site." Treat my viewpoint here as you would if I voiced it in my own home, as I would be of your thoughts in your own home. Disagree at length elsewhere, please. Thank you.






*Abiogenesis is another matter. Messy stuff, life.

19 comments:

Rosie said...

oh Zhoen, how exactly you have described my views.
Surely there must be more of us...benevolent rationalism? what would you call it? certainly not nothing...

Mrs. Chili said...

Count me in with Rosie.

I am often mystified (and more than a little horrified and, really, angered) by the vehemence with which those who would seek to "save" me go about their practice. Those who profess that their god is loving and kind haven't, in my experience, done an even passable job at living up to the example.

herhimnbryn said...

Yes!

Pepper said...

Can you please give this a name? I hate telling people that I'm "nothing."

Zhoen said...

Neo-pantheist?

Dale said...

I posted my comment on my blog, as requested :-)

Zhoen said...

Dale,

Thanks for understanding, you know my troll episode.

mm said...

Cherry pickers unite!

I have to say, I agree. Beliefs are, well, beliefs.

I cannot pretend to take them on board if I dont believe them. It comes under the category of Alice and "believing six impossible things before breakfast".

And I say this in sorrow. I am a believer in the widest sense (as opposed to an atheist). I would love to belong to an organised religion and I admire (and to a degree envy)many of those that can and do.

Udge said...

(applauds)

Quite right Zhoen.

I would agree with MM that there is a significant difference between "believing" (for want of a word, in whatever form it takes) and "following the precepts and strictures of an organized religion".

Roderick Robinson said...

As one non-proselytising atheist to another, I’ve no problem with any of the above. But I’ve been pondering a piece of candied peel in the Christmas cake called “Dribs”.

May I paraphrase? Pretty is a descriptive, neutral adjective like shiny. OK? However, unlike shiny, pretty is subjective, since your pretty is not necessarily my pretty. And I’m not sure it’s neutral. For me pretty is pleasing.

Pretty is part of a three-stage sequence by which people react to other people. I hope I’m not being sexist in choosing female stars of the silver screen as examples; I could do it – rather awkwardly – with fellas.

Pretty. Nicole Kidman. Regular face, pleasing to look at, a two-dimensional experience which ends there.
Attractive. Sigourney Weaver. Irregular face (small mouth, non-classical distribution of features), pleasing to look at, more memorable features suggest other qualities.
Beautiful. Susan Sarandon. Irregular face (nose size, mildly hyperthyroid eyes), pleasing to look at, profiting from older, therefore better defined, features, politically aware in the correct (ie, my) direction, scabrously funny when speaking off-script, etc, etc.

Not fair? Of course it isn’t. I know more about SS; extra info could promote either or both of the others. Simply then, pretty is the picture, beautiful is the whole thinking, speaking, behaving person, and attractive is ambiguity in between.

Geosomin said...

As long as there are everyday miracles, I am content...:)
I too agree with you on all of this.

colleen said...

I'm still trying to come up with the right description for that part of my life. I usually tell the door knocking J Witnesses that I'm happy with my spirituality and am not shopping.

I felt relived when I heard Joseph Campbell announce that he didn't beleive in a personal God because it said he didn't beleive like most but also didn't rule out a divine alignment. If I was ever forced to go to church I'd go to a Quaker one where they worship in silence. Tried it once but I'm not much of a joiner. I'd rather watch the birds and ponder Quantum Physics.

Relatively Retiring said...

(0)....because I need to think about this for a great deal longer. Thank you for such rich brain-food.

Pacian said...

Personally, I'm a devout Pacian.

Even the most dedicated fundamentalists cherry pick their beliefs. They have to. What isn't contradictory is often unworkable, not to mention that many of them like to trumpet war and intolerance while ignoring the peace and love.

Zhoen said...

Colleen,
Terry Waite spoke of not wanting a personal god, since that would mean his being taken hostage was also personal.

Pacian,
You win. You made me laugh a long, long time.

Lucy said...

It amazes me how you do this - the above says so much I'd like to say, but it would take me weeks to express it in such an eloquent, sensible way, and you seem to be able to voice it at the drop of a hat. I wish I'd written it.

That 'you can't cherry pick/supermarket spirituality' line seems to succeed in getting to some of us; we dislike being accused of lack of weight and conviction, lack of thoroughness. Then I stopped and thought about it and asked 'why the hell not?', why shouldn't I be able to make my own choices?

I sometimes think yes,I'd like to belong, but actually I know I'd hate it. And even without the aggressive fundamentalism, inbuilt sexism etc, I never ceased to be amazed at the petty-minded, patronising exclusiveness and snobbery which I've observed in even the most benignly practised religion, and the lacklustre, limited nature of the experience on offer. That said, some of my best friends...

Zhoen said...

Lucy,

An about 40 years of thinking about it hat drop. I too know religious people who I could actually say all this to, and they would get it, and still find comfort in their faith. I don't understand that side of it, but I accept it as a real phenomenon.

Lucy said...

Yep, sorry, didn't mean to imply you were doing it in some facile way, but it's the 40 odd years that seems to make it harder and harder for me to pull it all together. You say it all so clearly...

Zhoen said...

Lucy,
Ha, no I took no offense, it just struck me as funny.