Monday, February 11, 2008

Better Perception

I cannot express the real nature of my experiences. Can you?

My life exceeds the language that conveys it.

Nevertheless….

There is nothing that humanity knows about God that hasn’t been mediated by the human. This does not mean that God (or is it Brian? what's in a name?) does not exist, or that what humanity has known about God is false. It means only that humanity understands its world in human terms. Just as a donkey understands its world in donkey terms. It doesn’t follow, however, that there is only the human, or only the donkey.

Was Xenophanes back to front? It is God's accommodation to our frame of reference, not his non-existence, that underlies our anthropomorphism. If you were God, would you relate to Earthlings as a Plutonite?

Anyway, whether God exists or not does not remove the relevance of the question: What is the nature of what it is to be human. Not what does it mean to be human, but what is it to be human.

Becoming an atheist changes little. You and the universe are the same. What changes is how you understand reality, about what you orientate your being. This alteration in you has little impact on the universe in-itself, which remains as unknowable as ever. It might be that you have exchanged one idol for another.

If we were to experience God directly, as undeniably as we experience water and air, it would matter not a jot if God 'existed' or not. In such circumstances even God himandherself wouldn’t care.

'Do those who know me need to believe in my existence? Do they ask themselves that question?'

Religion happens in the absence of God, philosophy in the absence of vision. In the Kingdom of Heaven there is only joy; and no Knowledge of Good and Evil.

The point is to alter the quality of experience. Not to experience new things.

To see things as if one has seen them for the first time, as it has been said. To see things as if one has given birth to them.

T.S.Eliot: ‘It is impossible to say what I mean.”

1 comment:

Selena Dreamy said...

It means only that humanity understands its world in human terms. Just as a donkey understands its world in donkey terms. It doesn’t follow, however, that there is only the human, or only the donkey.


Very apt!

God is a metaphor. A synonym for the imagination. People are forever fashioning God in forms He never takes! To some, indeed, the idea of a personal God is to win the lottery. Others pray for a miracle. Some even bargain with Him. The perspective is decidedly anthropocentric. A criticism that has also been levelled by Richard Dawkins, Oxford professor of the public understanding of science, and author of The Selfish Gene.

But can he disprove the existence of God?

Certainly, he can disprove the existence of something created by the human imagination. But not what Spinoza called the “effecting cause of the existence of things.”
Or, as Descartes would have it: “I think, therefore I am.”

Do I find it viable that God exists? I can find no evidence to support the notion that He does not.


Dreamy