- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I admire your clarity in pointing out that we cannot determine the nature of existence. Many religions say exactly this about God, that God is not definable (no graven images, beyond all understanding, et cetera). Nevertheless, humans continue to make the attempt.
What difference does it make whether we describe ourselves as atheists or believers? It does not change the nature of existence. What is important is not how we model the nature of existence, but how we behave.
Perhaps the most discouraging effect of the assumed atheism of contemporary life is the insistence that this life, this reality is all there is. One need not make that assumption, however. It is equally sensible to assume the existence we can be aware of is only the finitely perceivable portion of something that is, as I like to think, more real than what we call real.
An allied assumption is that the point of faith is its effect on this life. I would say that just the opposite is true: If there is a larger realm than this, then that realm does not exist for the benefit of this one. If anything, this one exists for our benefit in learning to live in the larger one.
Many contemporary cognitive scientists are fond of saying that awareness is "just" an emergent property of the human brain. For all its popularity, this is a difficult proposition to prove, perhaps an impossible one. For me, the startling irreducible fact is the fact of awareness. In order to come to know the holy, I feel, one must learn to pay attention to awareness.
I feel, that is, that the instruction to look inward is not mere metaphorical grandiloquence, but an utterly pragmatic description of what works.
Like you I grew up as a fundamentalist in the South (my father was a Southern Baptist preacher). I have studied zen for many years, practice yoga regularly, and am very far from fundamentalism now, but still trust the statements attributed to Christ about love, appearances, faith.
It is possible to practice faith and yet not deny the claims of reason or the evidences of science. I think the contemporary schism between science and religion is an artifact of the struggle of centuries ago, and has very little to do with the contemporary situation.
Many people are suffering grief and hopelessness today because of beliefs which, though superficially "realistic," are no more provable than the theologies of the past. One wishes them solace, peace, and wisdom, and I thank you for your kind and understanding reply to this correspondent.
