We're still not there yet

As I sit down this Monday morning after the morning "chores," I feel that I should put some more words to paper. I know that literally no one (or only perhaps) one person has ever visited this blog, but that really is not the point of the blog. I did not set this up to be a campaign site to convince persons of the virtue of abandoning theism. I set up the blog to help me make sense of life and the world in the absence of the theistic god. Although I chose the term "atheistepiscopal" as the address of the blog, I have to admit that I regret it a bit. I wanted to be confrontational, perhaps, in the name and not shirk from what I had "done" in saying that I had rejected theism, but having read some more sites that are specifically "atheist," I cannot say that I find them universally thoughtful. There seems to be too much emphasis on "cutting down" and "ridiculing" people who follow theism or any religion at all. Furthermore, there seems to be little effort that goes into coming up with some alternative schema that will replace religious theism. It seems rather like tearing down a house and leaving the lot empty. Perhaps there is nothing that can replace a lost theism that will serve the same functions as theistic religion, but it seems too fatalist at the moment not to even try. There is a feeling, as well, of a certain "wickedness" in what seems to be taking pleasure in attacking and ridiculing religion and a cynical superficiality as well. I certainly "get the point" when these persons take the bible and "literally" read it and point up all manner of morally offensive and self-contradictory content, but they "miss the point" just as much as those who espouse so-called biblical literalism in the sense of literal innerancy. I may be an atheist in the sense of saying that I do not believe that I can any longer accept theism, but I am not an atheist in the sense that so many other people seem to be.

In the last week, I have continued reading some of Karen Armstrong's Book, The Battle for God, about the historical development of fundamentalism, but I must admit that I can only "stand" to read it in short bursts. There is a certain fatal despair that I feel whenever I pick it up. It is rather like watching one of those movies that begins with the ending, in this case a tragic one, and then doing the whole rest of the film as a "flashback" to see how the end comes about. We are living the reality of fundamentalism today, and it is not pretty. When we look back at the history, I can certainly see how it came about, and of course, can think of how, possibly, it could have been avoided, but that is "water under the bridge." Somehow, I feel that it is important that I really understand fundamentalism and the slightly-less-extreme versions such as the Christian "evangelical" movement. Certainly we all need to understand Islamic fundamentalism as well. It is just, unfortunately, that at times it is too distressing to look at for too long. It is escapist, I suppose, but I feel that I need some resting spots along the trip, or I will never finish it without suffering emotional exhaustion.

In between the fundamentalism book readings, I have also been reading Mortimer Adler's book, Six Great Ideas. The six "great ideas" are truth, goodness, beauty, liberty, equality and justice. I watched some pieces, years ago, of the public television show by the same name, and bought the book many years ago, but never got through much of it. (I am not even sure how long I have had it as it was published in 1981). I have been thinking about the definition of "good" that he derives. In short (and less convincing, I suppose, without the proof), those things are good that satisfy or answer human needs. Needs are defined as those things that humans must have to live a good life. They include biological needs such as food and shelter but also include other needs such as health, wealth, companionship, pleasure and beauty. Real goods are the things or means by which we satisfy these needs inherent to human nature. Apparent goods are those that satisfy wants in an innocuous way (meaning that they do not prevent/impair us from having what we ought nor in a secondary sense, produce deprivation in others). So far so good, I am still "on board" in a sense that what he "proves" seems reasonably true. The "trick" however, in determining what is "good" lies, however, in our interpretation of "human nature." What do humans really need. It occurred to me to ask if humans need religion, and then to ask the corollary question of "just what is religion" anyways? My computer version of the Oxford American Dictionary gives four definitions: (1) the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power; (2) details of belief as taught or discussed; (3) a particular system of faith and worship; (4) a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. Clearly, the first "definition" is simply theism. The second and third are nearly tautologies, religion is a word that describes what people do when they engage in religious practice or discourse. The fourth, however, is more interesting. Religion is "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance." This comes very close to Tillich's view of god as "that about which we are ultimately concerned."

If I accept this definition as a "working" proposition, then the question is this - what is that to which I can ascribe "supreme importance?" Furthermore, if religion is conceived of as a "need" of humans (realizing that I have not proved that human nature requires religion, of course), and religion is that with which we are ultimately or supremely concerned, then the "good" that is religion is a "supreme" good. Perhaps religion is the summum bonum of philosophy, the single highest good. The question goes back, then to the supposition that religion is a human need. Do humans need religion or do some of us simply want religion? I find it hard to come up with a firm argument that we really need religion, but perhaps we might speculate a bit. First, it does seem that humans spend a good amount of time and activity "doing" religion. If religion did not at all satisfy some sort of human need, then why do we spend so much time on it? ( I know this is dangerous. We spend a lot of time on war as well, but do we need war? ) One might speculate that we spend nearly as much time/effort at religion as we do to satisfy even our most basic "biological" needs such as food, drink, shelter, etc. Sometimes, we will even forgo access to these "basic" needs to "do" religion. Witness the gospel story of the "widow's mite." Where the poor widow placed her entire living into the temple treasury. She gave all that she had to live on for a religious reason. Secondly, if I expand "religion" to be the pursuit of the answer of the "great questions" such as illuminate a search for "meaning" of life/existence, then it would seem that a life of meaning would be preferable to a life "without meaning." We desire/want that our lives/existence should have meaning, do we not? Simply being a "being" that is self-aware, suggests that we must necessarily examine or come to terms with our most essential quality, that we "are" and that we know that we "are."

To the extent, then, that persons interpret "a-theism" to be "a-religion," then we can suggest that they are unlikely to succeed in living a "good life" inasmuch as they deny a fundamental "need" of humans. We must, however, be careful to avoid equating religion with theism, as the first dictionary definition did when it defined religion as the "belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power." Religion in the sense of a "human need" is the pursuit or acquisition of that with which we are "ultimately or supremely concerned", or the "meaning" that we find in life/existence. I think, then, I can accept, for the moment, the proposition that religion as a need and therefore a "good" as reasonably true if not self-evidently or "beyond a shadow of a doubt" true. This "broad sense" definition has somewhat of the character of an "open ended" conclusion, and perhaps an unattainable one. In theism, the "chief end of man" is to "glorify God and enjoy him forever." It has a certain point/finality to it as if the "work" is really all done. The search for meaning in existence, however, without the "end point" of a theistic God, has more about it the nature of a process. Is there a "conclusion" to this search? I do not know.

Jeffrey Shy
(Searching)
Mesa, Arizona