Loosing My Religion

The System of Freedom

I believe in a non-interventionist God who set the world in motion (with the big bang), and left us to it. Thus evolution and science as we know it. This is not definitively an impersonal God, as some would have you believe, nor is it the very personal, and, in my opinion, flawed God of many major religious sects. This God prioritises, above all things, our independence, our ability to make conscious choices, essentially, our free will, which forms the foundation of our world. Assuming the philosophical conception of God as the greatest possible being, or supreme being etc., and putting aside, for the moment, the problems of the omnipotence paradox etc., we know that God could interfere. But I believe he will never choose to, as any interference would be an imbalance of the system he has created. Thus we are free to live our lives as we choose, to divorce ourselves from him, or to attempt (and inevitably fail) to understand him.

A Personal Relationship

Some would argue that this does leave us in the dark about an absolute morality, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. When people believe they have some kind of access to absolute morality, they tend to enforce it on other people, frequently at the other end of weapons. For thousands of years, organised religion has been a tool of mass social manipulation, arguably outweighing all the good it has done in that time, which is yet another reason that deists typically eschew it, and promote religion as a personal relationship between you and God, a relationship no one but God (and you) has the right to tell you how to conduct.

Derived Morality

For the very reason we have free will, we don't have access to absolute morality, which necessitates a certain course of action. Good is valueless without the capacity for evil. Right is meaningless with the possibility of wrong. If God had given us a scripture, a "how to" guide, would we genuinely be able to resist it? I think not. Which is one reason (of many) that deists typically reject the notion of scripture, not just because it signals intervention, but because true scripture would be undeniable, and thus negate free will. Much greater, I believe, is a system that allows us to use our evolved characteristics, of intelligence, rationality, compassion, social interaction etc. to derive moralities and ethics from the world we see around us, not least the capacity to tolerate moralities that diverge from our own.

An Afterlife

I'm not sure what happens after we die. No one can know until it actually happens. I believe in the possibility of a Heaven, that is closeness to or even oneness with God, and a Hell, separation from God, to know that you were wrong in life and so will be eternally apart from a source of infinite love (could there be a greater punishment?). I don't know whether they exist. They need not. A system where our lives are simply observed, without punishment or reward beyond this world is not inconceivable - how many scientists set up experiments just to see what happens? How many of them punish the people or things in those experiments for defying their expectations? It's not necessary. Just because you can't conceive of the alternative (which, by the way, is called the argument from ignorance, in logical terms), doesn't make such a conception necessarily true. Which feeds back in to the concept of us having a purpose. I think our purpose it so be the best us we can be, and part of that is figuring out what "best" is. Is that so hard to believe? Even with scripture, no one agrees on the perfect Christian or the perfect Muslim or even the perfect atheist.

Satan

I don't believe in Satan. I think it's ridiculous, a nonsense idea cooked up by children for children when mankind was younger, and needed a boogey man to keep people on their toes. There's no reason or substance, logical, metaphysical or otherwise, for a being whose sole purpose is to corrupt humanity. We're more than capable of doing that ourselves, without any outside help, precisely because of our free will. Satan was invented by people who can't face up to the depravity of man and his choices, especially their own. It's a way of shifting the blame, personally and from humanity as a whole. At least, that is my belief, and it is empirically explicable.

Problematic Premises

To keep referring to beliefs, to what literally cannot be proven, as fact, is the definition of self-righteousness, the inability to question the truth of your own beliefs. And on what basis do the self-righteous do so? Books written hundreds of years ago? People who died before most of modern technology was invented? Faith is not fact. All systems require faith, science included, even if only at the fundamental starting level. But any good system requires the awareness and maturity to accept that its basic beliefs and premises might be wrong, and to phrase them as such, and then, and only then, argue logically from premises to conclusions. There are many extremely problematic premises with traditional organised religions, such as the necessary validity of scripture, the validity and necessity of the any particular conception of a supreme being, the validity of Jesus, Muhahmmad and others as prophets, that our conception of what is reasonable or fair in any way corresponds to God's etc. There are problems too with conclusions that do not follow from their premises, such as the existence of evil necessitating the existence of Satan (a classic case of affirming the consequent), or that the lack of contradictions in the Qur'an would necessitate its truth.

Belief is Not Knowledge

Those who cannot step back from their conviction and the strength of their faith and realise that no one, not they, not I, no Imam, priest, rabbi, trappist, atheist, scientist or philosopher has all the answers, will be doomed to patronise, to speak from a position of unjustified and assumed authority, to make the same logical mistakes over and over. Belief is not knowledge. No one knows that a God exists. You literally can't, it is a physical, mental and logical impossibility, provable by recourse to basic principles. I have respect for those faithful who acknowledge their own ignorance, who hold that vestige of doubt somewhere in their minds which prevents them from seeing the world in absolutes, in black and white. Those who fail to do this assume an authority to which they have no right, and the good that might come from it will be far outweighed by the bad - they will be destined to bring a bad name upon not just their particular religion, but all believers.

Zealotry and its Dangers

To believe 100%, entirely, utterly, and without even the slightest element of doubt is not belief. That is zealotry. You should only believe something that you absolutely, 100% know to be true (something I believe applies only to the cogito), and, as stated above, it is categorically impossible to know the existence of God. To show you how highly I hold the importance of doubt, even as I typed that, I considered it, wondered whether there might be some future information or logical formulation which might disprove it. But I am 99.9% confident, on the basis of my (and generally accepted premises), that it is the case. The arrogance of such belief is breath-taking - to assume that you know something which is definitively unknowable. Even without all of the dangers that brings - suicide bombings, honour killings, the death penalty, persecution, exclusivity, social manipulation, war, the ends justifying the means etc. - there can be no reasoning with someone who is that convinced of their own superiority.

Interpretation

Who's to say that our capacity for reason, be it naturally evolved (as I believe) or God-given, is not the 'guidance' God intended for us, be it sufficient or not? If you answer "because people come to different conclusions", then I will point you in the direction of the thousands of interpretations of each of any scripture. How do you know which of them is right? Is there one, unchallenged view of any holy book? Can you even side with the majority opinion for probability's sake, given the countless number of times in the Abrahamic scriptures at least, that minorities and those chosen by God are persecuted and suffer, despite being right? Do you think language is a perfect tool, that scriptures and words are never ambiguous, or contradictory? How then can you so blindly trust in a scripture, so boldly assume your or any given interpretation to be correct? If you mess up and misinterpret, would you not find yourself standing before your God, at the end of the day, and saying "I did what I thought you wanted"?

A Nation of Thinkers

So that I not be accused of simply undermining a position without proffering one of my own, I believe that, as I said, we have the ability to come to terms with God. First is choosing whether to believe in the existence of a supreme being or not. Secondly, assuming we choose the former, is trying to divine what kind of being that is - personally, I have used an amalgam of logic and faith, attempting to combine science, religion and philosophy, which lands me in the camp of deism. But this is, again, an impossible task, since a supreme being is definitively unknowable (within my premises, at any rate, which are generally accepted). Thirdly, to try and work out how such a being as we believe to exist would like us to live, and to try to live that way. You might say it's wishy-washy, indecisive, egotistical even, as open to misuse and self-justification as organised religion or any other system. But better a nation of thinkers than a colony of fools. Absolutism is usually the recourse of those who cannot see shades of grey, only black and white. It's considered dangerous for a reason. Only God can be absolute, can have access to absolute knowledge. To doubt is human - I can brook no God who could not forgive even the slightest doubt, for then he would have set us up only for us to fall down.

Action and Contemplation

I am not espousing an entirely relativist position (for I believe the cogito absolutely), nor am I saying that every single action must be analysed before being taken. But absolute belief, absolute conviction and certainty, can only lead to action, and never contemplation. And aren't there times when a little more contemplation and a little slower action might have benefited us? Can anyone honestly say they've never made the mistake of rushing in, thinking, even "knowing" at the time that they were absolutely right, and only later realising how wrong they were? That is what absolutism brings. Except real absolutism does not even cover the possibility of later acknowledging your own mistakes, a problem clearly visible with Papal Infallibility.

Working it Out for Ourselves

In short, I believe that God might exist without giving us "warnings or messengers to convey the truth", because I believe he knows, firstly, that absolute truth is inaccessible to us anyway, or that, if we had access to it, it would be undeniable, which would negate free will, and, secondly, because I believe he thinks we can and should work it out for ourselves. You might disagree, and that's your right. But at least my system incorporates the intrinsic belief, perhaps even knowledge, that I might be wrong. And the worst my wishy washiness can do is so much less than what absolutism can do. At worst, I am slow to act, or even never address certain problems. Absolutism can literally end the world.

Motherly Love

There are two main conceptions, perhaps extremes, of motherly love. There are mothers who coddle and micromanage every aspect of their child's lives, fighting their battles for them, teaching them exactly how to live and what to believe in every situation. I hate those mothers. They think they are doing what's best for their children, which is creditable, but if they took time to think about it, they would probably realise that instead, they have suffocated their child, made them dependent, clones of themselves, or smothered them to the point of rebellion.

Free Will is Fundamental

The other kind of mother works in general principles and broad brushstrokes, covering the basics, but essentially giving the child the skills they need to allowing them to develop freely, to become what they want to be, relying on the world to teach them the harsher lessons and punish their transgressions, and to be there to pick up the pieces when it does. Of course, this too is open to debate – respect for independence can easily be rephrased as negligence or disinterest, and suffocation as a deeper, more time-consuming and selfless love, depending on your point of view. But I will gladly debate the point, for I genuinely believe that the best mothers also know how and when to let go. That is the kind of mother I had, for which I am most thankful. And that is the kind of mother I believe God to be, one who respects our independence enough to allow us to make our own mistakes, discover our own paths and moralities and restrictions and rights and wrongs. Does it hurt God to see us go wrong? Of course it does. Are we always punished for it? No, not in this life, at any rate. But that is the freedom and the joy of the system he designed for us. Free will is fundamental.

God is Not an Interfering Mother

Not eating pork and shellfish and all the other absurd dietary stuff like halal and kosher made sense in the desert 2000 years ago, when there were serious health risks. But it was clearly a cultural thing that was tacked on to a religious document to give it significance and authority, which over time has come to be imbued with religious significance. A God who's going to make something edible and then tell you not to eat it makes no sense. To interfere to such an absurdly detailed level is what the interfering mother does. In short, it's a nonsense.

A Little Insight

I still ask forgiveness. When I mess up, I apologise to the people around me. And I have a pretty regular dialogue going on with the big guy upstairs - one way, of course, which probably technically makes it not a dialogue, but, if nothing else, it can help me organise my thoughts. As for right and wrong, I don't claim to have access to any absolute morality, as I've said, and I don't think anyone who does should be believed or trusted. But I do believe I have a system which follows from premises to conclusions, which accepts philosophy, science and faith, prioritising none above the others, which avoids the self-righteous excesses of absolutism and the crippling uncertainty of total relativism. I have condensed these thoughts here, from a discussion, for any who are interested. I hope you found at least a little insight.

Maybe this time (I'll win)...

So. This year's Oscar nominees have been announced. You might have been expecting my yearly rant. You still might get it, depending on who does eventually win. But for the first time in a long time, I have hope. Sure I've only seen Toy Story 3, The King's Speech, Inception and The Social Network thus far, and there's a chance that my high levels of anticipation for Black Swan and True Grit might end in disappointment. Sure there's a Danny Boyle film sludging up the nominations - admittedly, I have yet to see 127 Hours, but I doubt even my love for James Franco could redeem the typical Boyle fare: the massively overrated Trainspotting, the mediocre Sunshine, the equally mediocre The Beach, and Slumdog Millionaire, undoubtedly one of the worst films ever to win an Oscar. Sure, there's a creeping dread that Toy Story 3 and Inception feel like honourary nods, ticking the boxes, films that deserve the recognition but can't win because of the Academy's apparent disregard recently for animated films (Up, Wall-E, The Incredibles), Christopher Nolan (Dark Knight), genre films (sci-fi or fantasy) or box office successes (Dark Knight again, Avatar). But... call it a feeling, an intuition, a conjecture, if you will - a deserving film will win the Oscar this year.

As I've argued before, the Academy's bad streak runs some way back. Hurt Locker, Slumdog Millionaire, No Country For Old Men, The Departed, Crash, Million Dollar Baby - it's been an unstoppable deluge of shit. Poorly acted, poorly written, unengaging, overhyped shit, each wholly short of meriting the highest accolade the Hollywood film industry, united under one banner, can bestow. You have to go back to 2003 for the last deserving winner - Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, which, both as a film itself, and as a proxy for the entire trilogy, stood head and shoulders above its competitors that year (Lost in Translation, Master and Commander, Mystic River and Seabiscuit). But this year, I could not begrudge any of the nominees I have seen the victory, nor could I pick between them. And I hold out further hope that those I have yet to see will live up to the same standards. My major excitement is reserved for Black Swan and True Grit, which would push the number of worthy winners to 6 of the 10 nominees (assuming they live up to my expectations), perhaps even 8 at a stretch, if I am surprised by the Fighter and The Kids Are Alright. I profess to know very little about Winter's Bone, which leaves only one remaining objection, in the form of 127 Hours, which, admittedly, I have yet to see. Unfair as that might sound, it is not random - my dislike of Danny Boyle as a filmmaker runs deep, and is based on not inconsiderable viewing experience, hence my joy that he is not included in the best director nods. Based on what I have seen so far, Tom Hooper or David Fincher have equal claim to that prize, just as their leading men (Colin Firth and Jesse Eisenberg respectively) do to the best actor gong. Helena Bonham Carter and Geoffrey Rush are both thoroughly deserving of their supporting nominations, though, having nothing to compare them to as of yet, I can't make a stronger claim than that.

If I had one gripe, it might be that Harry Potter doesn't appear in any of the major nominations. Now it could be that, like with Return of the King, they are simply waiting for the final installment to serve again as proxy, and award a massive and thoroughly well deserved nod to the franchise as a whole. Which would probably be fair enough, if this hadn't been far and away the best directed, acted and arguably written installment so far. I will admit to being slightly inebriated the first time I saw it, partly by the atmosphere of the midnight showing, and partly by some actual mojitos, but it lost absolutely nothing in the second viewing a few days later, and I dare say, perhaps even improved. One can only imagine the seismic force of the cultural event that will be the finale come July 15, an epic imprint of a generational zeitgeist, a moment of which people will later say "I was there". And obviously that anticipation holds some sway, which, again, as I reiterate, makes such reasoning, if that is their reasoning (rather than the dislikes of genre and box office success I listed above), entirely understandable. But it does seem a shame, and perhaps even a minor slap in the face, to not recognise Deathly Hallows Part 1 as an accomplishment on a grand scale, a maturation and change in tone that I hitherto did not credit anyone involved to be capable of achieving, despite my enjoyment of the franchise since the 3rd film.

Regardless, tonight, I am optimistic. I will endeavour to add True Grit and Black Swan at least to my consciousness by the time the night arrives. Perhaps, by then, a stronger contender may emerge from the murky pool of my sentiments and opinions. But, as it stands, there are 4 definitely worthy winners in the running. And that alone is cause for hope.