Agnosticism claims
that human understanding has no access to notions such as the Divinity that are
beyond direct experience and the scientific method. Many thinkers agree. Mythologist
Joseph Campbell defines God as "a metaphor for that which transcends all
levels of intellectual thought.”
The difficulty with
the notion of God is that, due to its abstract nature, every religion has its
own version of Him, and its followers eventually develop their own personal
profile of their Creator. (Every devotee, of course, considers other faiths’
gods as fictitious and mythological). Likewise, atheists should also have an accurate
idea of the god they are rejecting; before denying something we should have a
representation of it—you cannot say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a puzzling question.
There should not be such
confusion. Dictionaries generally have only one entry on the ‘Almighty God’:
"the Supreme Being worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe.” The interpretation
of God, however, is dynamic. As belief systems disseminates to other societies
or they are enforced on them, they change the mores of the conquered culture but,
in the process, the newly converted also adjust the invading religion to their
own habits. Consequentially, there are many versions of every creed.
Christians and Muslims worship one single God but their numerous branches have remarkable differences in their saints and angels as well as in their beliefs and rituals. Hindus are amazing: They can be monotheists, polytheists, atheists or agnostics. What brings Hinduism together is their principle of unity in all existence. Could such principle correspond to the God of other faiths? The Hindu spiritual leader Mata Amritanandamayi Devi says, "God is pure Consciousness that dwells within everything.”
There is no possibility
of agreement on what Divinity is. Some definitions are less rigid. For
architect Frank Lloyd Wright, God is "the great mysterious motivator of
what we call nature"; for novelist Leo Tolstoy, "that infinite All of
which man knows himself to be a finite part”; for philosopher Baruch Spinoza,
"the orderly harmony of what exists”; for biologist Stuart Kauffman,"
the ceaseless creativity of the universe.” You have to accept, atheist friends,
these interpretations are rich points of view.
If we are to argue about
the notion of God, we must first delimit the subject to discuss. (Right up
front, agnostics, say, "we pass"). Religious wars start out of
non-sense because the God of each cult is ‘the only and absolute truth’ for His
followers.
Religions originated
both from our curiosity about the remote start of everything (where did we come
from? how did all this start?) and from the fear of our uncertain end (where will
we go when we turn off the engine?).
According to
cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin, among many other scientists, before the big
bang that supposedly started the universe, there was nothing—neither matter nor
energy nor space nor time. With apologies to the atheists, for me to accept
such statement is an act of supreme faith. (The math involved is beyond my
brain’s skills.) Musing over so huge mystery, American science journalist Steve
Nadis suggests that, while the universe itself may have resulted from nothing—
explain, please!— the laws of physics had to be in place beforehand “to govern
the something-from-nothing moment that gave rise to our universe and the
eternal inflation that followed”. These laws of physics, I add, could well be
another definition of God, quite different from all the previous ones.
No comments:
Post a Comment