Trialogue

(148) Intervention vs. karma

Author:  JOHN
To:  Bob at first, then Steve too

Once again Bob gives us an interesting and thought-provoking piece that covers a lot of territory.  And I found the quotations from his gurus particularly interesting this time.  That’s right, Bob, gurus.  Just because they aren’t little old monks smiling at you on a mountaintop in Tibet doesn’t mean they aren’t your gurus.

I found myself agreeing with the vast majority of what both those gurus and Bob himself were saying.  In fact, about the only things I disagreed with were, as usual, his characterizations of what I myself had postulated in previous pieces.  I’m not going to waste a lot of time writing a retort to each and every pathetically mistaken interpretation (just kidding!….at least in terms of degree) he made of my propositions.  But bear with me while I at least address the worst of them:

It would never even cross my mind to think that God might have looked down on the holocaust and thought to Himself, as Bob proposes I would think, “I am so disappointed or angry with the non-Jews who allowed these seeds of anti-semitism to be sown that I’m going to teach everybody a lesson by allowing the slaughter of six million innocent Jewish people. I’m going to let innocent people get gassed in showers, burned in ovens, and the rest. That’ll show them.”

I find that scenario just as ridiculous as Bob does.  I frankly doubt Bob is actually serious, but if he is, then either I failed to make certain points clear or he leapt to some pretty far out conclusions.  Now I DO believe that the holocaust occurred at least in part because people who could have prevented it did not do what they should have done.  But I also know that God would….did….find the Holocaust an incredibly painful (I am now saying painful for Himself) event in human history.  (Remember, one thing I firmly believe is that God actually is present within each of us, and therefore actually feels both individually and in sum what each and all of us feel.  So He would have … did… suffer the agony of each and every Jew who was murdered in WWII.) 

I do not believe that God would make a conscious decision not to intervene in order for some kind of bizarre punishment to occur.  The fact that a good and just and all-powerful God does not intervene to prevent such astoundingly unjust tragedies points (in my mind anyway) to a different kind of conclusion.  What it points to is that, just as the physical universe is governed by, as far as we can tell, highly consistent laws including those having to do with light, gravity, the conversion of matter into energy, etc., etc., etc., there are also Moral (for lack of a better word) laws automatically governing Man’s behavior. 

I have said before that there are certain aspects of the Deist philosophy that make sense to me in terms of explaining how the world “works” (though they stop short of explaining, or even contemplating really, the question of why the world is set up that way).   Simply stated (if I understand it) the deistic explanation is that God created the universe to run on its own, like a complex watch mechanism, then stepped back and let it run.  (Now, I know that conflicts with an idea I also like to entertain:  that God could be continuously interceding in ways we cannot comprehend, but let that pass for now). 

As I have said several times, I find it easy to seriously entertain the belief that God set up this world more or less as a mechanism, or a “game,” or a “school,” governed by certain rules or laws.  Then into this world he placed (or allowed to develop) critters with a high degree of consciousness and also with that most important of qualities:  free will.  Under that system, the suffering that comes from human interactions, such as war, genocide, or failure to provide for or intercede on behalf of the needy, are MAN’s doing, not God’s.  I think Steve agrees with me on this.

There is a big difference between God setting up a world with certain rules and “letting” it play itself out, and his deciding to “teach everybody a lesson by allowing the slaughter of six million innocent Jewish people.”  The key point I was trying to make about the holocaust is that we could have prevented it by taking action, and we didn’t.  Because God did not intervene does not make him the cause of it!

Again, it seems to me the results of human interactions, whether on a personal or global scale, are MAN’s just desserts and not direct interventions by God.  And I find no fault with God for not interceding.  On the other hand, when something wonderful like nations coming together to minimize global warming is accomplished, MAN gets the credit for that.  The idea of karma  has to include positive as well as negative outcomes, else how could it possibly function?  And if karma is an actuality, then it would seem that the positive outcomes are what God wants and hopes for.  He has set up a world wherein we have equal opportunity to do good and to do evil, and He has left it up to us.  And perhaps if Man worked hard enough, he could bring about a heaven on earth.

Now I agree with Bob’s point that a problem with “deserved” suffering is that acceptance of this belief could have the effect of discouraging people from helping those who suffer.  In fact, in one of my pieces I made this exact comment as a reason I reject Hinduism.  As I understand it, the Hindu belief in karma has in fact led to this outcome, which is still seen today in the continued dominance (either openly or through subtle discrimination) of a “caste” system wherein the rich and comfortable luxuriate in their station and the poor and needy are looked down upon as deserving of their station, and little is done by the former to assist the latter. 

However, I would add that simply because people behave this way does not nullify the possibility that the suffering may be deserving of their suffering.  The suffering that we see may serve several purposes simultaneously:  For those suffering, it is a working out of their karma.  For those observing the suffering, it is an opportunity to do good works and thereby improve their own karma.  And furthermore, if they ignore that suffering, then they are adding to their own bad karma, and next time around may find themselves the beggars rather than the kings.  And finally, I think that when we observe the suffering of others, we are more likely to see our own lives as more fortunate (blessed, Steve would say) and develop our sense of gratitude. 

Still, I must concede that there are also many horrible events in this world that don’t seem to be related to Man’s actions.  Some of the worst are related to weather and geophysics: hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, etc., not to mention diseases, plagues, etc.  The victims of these disasters appear to us to be innocents (although fundamentalists such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell frequently ascribe these visitations to such “sins” as homosexuality, abortion, etc., so perhaps THEY would agree with Bob’s accusation.  And some Christians believe the Jews got “what they deserved” for “murdering the messiah.”) 

As for John the trialoguer, he doesn’t pretend to know the answer to why seemingly innocent people suffer such seemingly random tragedies.   But natural forces like hurricanes have always been a part of this world, and function according to natural physical laws.  So, from a deist point of view, they serve some purpose in God’s creation, though we cannot know it.  When I think of the holocaust, I admit I simply cannot imagine a justification for all that suffering.  That’s especially true when I consider the children who died. 

Still, I keep going back to the difference it would make in the ultimate meanings/purposes/effects of these sufferings if in fact we did….do…lead more than one life.  Even the most horrible tragedy that could befall a person would look very different, would it not, if we knew that person got to live more than the one life in which that tragedy occurred?   The only other “option” that occurs to me which could reconcile such tragedies is the idea that all these earthly events are not as “real” as they appear to us – they will seem as a bad dream from which we will eventually awaken.  Bob seems to utterly reject this idea, and yet in combination with the concept of karma I find it a very satisfying explanation.

So….Bob does characterize me accurately in one sense:  I am someone who likes to “try out” various theories about both the whys and the hows of this life. That’s because it seems to me that if little old me can imagine a how or a why to life that justifies or at least makes sense to me in terms of what I see happening around me in this world, then I can more easily feel confident the Creator has His reasons for “letting” them happen. My imaginings help me make the leap of faith (and is imagination not something we are endowed with….a given….and who is the Giver?).  Sure, my ideas may be wrong, but I believe in a just God (and all three of us do).  So if I am wrong, then there is simply a better explanation than my own, and until I know it, I am moved by my own theories to make a leap of faith.

As we sit here at our respective keyboards typing up our various and ever-evolving theories and beliefs about God and the meaning of life, scientists and mathematicians are doing the same thing in regard to the physical nature of the universe.  They are arguing about black holes, string theory, the big bang, etc. etc.  Like us (well, me anyway!) they are looking for a unified Theory of Everything that makes sense and satisfies. It really is a parallel kind of searching.  Steve, it seems has found his unified theory in Christ.

I continue to lean toward the theories of karma, of multiple lifetimes, and of reaping and sowing as holding the most and best answers to the questions that so trouble us, and to which we are unlikely ever to have definitive answers.   I am drawn toward a karmic deism, about which we may know next to nothing, and I suspect that very ignorance is critical for us in order truly to have the free will we obviously do have. 

Still, having said all that, you will forgive me if I leave room for God to intervene directly in our lives in ways we can never prove.  It seems to me that as long as we are ignorant of His interventions, then we live in a world that is effectively deistic, even if in fact there is supernatural intervention.  And living in a world that is effectively deistic puts the onus on us to make a leap of faith.  So it appears that faith, also, is something God desires from us…a faith that goes beyond “proof.”   

I should add that I at least try to leave room for a Christ.  I know that seems counterintuitive after all I’ve said here.  But I have also said many times that we must believe there are people who are wiser in spiritual matters than we, else how can we expect to make any progress?  I frankly don’t know if Jesus was a “messiah,” but I believe he was the most spiritually advanced person to ever live.  And if you will think on it a little, the resurrection story (which again I do not know to be true, but which I do consider a possibility) could be seen as endorsing the multiple lives aspect of my “philosophy,” could it not?   Moreover, I can think of no better example (than the resurrection) of having to make a leap of faith over an unproveable “intervention.”

Moving on, I have to admit that I agree with Bob about the Job story.  To me, it is just another Old Testament STORY, akin to myth or legend, or a Jewish teaching tale and has no basis in fact.  In fact, if it WERE true, then I would have to revise my whole concept of God to be more in line with that accusation of Bob’s about God as random manipulator or punisher!  That story pictures God and the devil (whom I don’t believe in) toying with and contesting over man in a way I find very disturbing.  However, if you believe that story, it seems to me you almost have to believe in the “everything is an illusion” theory of life, because if I remember correctly, at the end of it God more or less restarts the story, backs it up, and supplies a more generous ending wherein Job’s losses are restored. Whatyasay, Steve?

Regarding Bob’s mention of Bart Ehrman, I too have looked at his books, and I recently heard a long NPR interview with him in which he affirmed that he had basically lost his faith, laid aside his childhood Christianity, and become an agnostic if not an atheist.  (So I guess now he is Professor of Non-Religion at UNC!).  After I heard that interview, I was actually moved to write him an email.  And he actually responded.  It was a short exchange, but you may find it interesting:

Subject: NPR interview

To:Dr. Ehrman from me:

I sent the following comments to NPR about your interview, so I felt I should also share them with you.

(To Fresh Air:)

Your recent interview with Bart Ehrman revealed him to be not only highly intelligent, articulate, and sincere, but also just a very likeable guy.   No doubt some listeners will be greatly troubled by the combination of his reasonableness and the agnostic message he is currently communicating.

For me, and undoubtedly for many of my fellow Unitarians, the thing I find troubling is not his loss of conventional faith, but that he seems to have come to his conclusions only fairly recently in life.  I, for example, found my Southern Baptist upbringing completely untenable at 16 years of age, about the same time Bart felt he was being “born again” INTO a fundamental belief system.

His current point of view is nothing new, though I have to give him the highest possible marks on both his personal integrity and his persuasiveness.  Still, I want to suggest to him  that ultimately, agnosticism is a cop out -- or at least a transitional phase -- and that he should not consider himself at the end of his spiritual journey.  And I’ll bet dollars to donuts that eventually a different kind of faith will grow in the ground he has succeeded in clearing of dogmatic weeds.

Something else that struck me in listening to the interview was that in spite of his position as a religious studies professor, he admitted to never having had personal conversations about his own beliefs (or lack of them) with students, friends, or other professors.  This is not really surprising, but it speaks volumes about what is considered appropriate for sharing with other people.  How ironic that our deepest convictions, which motivate and inform our actions on every level throughout our lives, are not considered proper subjects for discussion.

There is a website that breaks this unspoken barrier, and it may be of interest to Dr. Ehrman and your listeners.   www.trialogue.typepad.com is an ongoing discussion between a former agnostic, a committed Christian, and a freethinking Unitarian.  It’s a frank, no-punches-pulled debate that demonstrates the interesting ground that could be covered if we were truly open to spiritual dialogue.

 ----John  Long

 

And here is Ehrman’s short reply:

John,

     Thanks for your note and your interesting thoughts; for what it's worth, I don't consider my journey to be at an end -- and don't know yet what the end will look like!  But, the journey's the thing.  All the best for yours as well,

-- Bart Ehrman

James A. Gray Professor
Department of Religious Studies
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

 

Ya know, Ehrman is not the first and won’t be the last highly-educated believer who has lost his faith.  I believe it is a fact that a significant number of people who feel drawn to Christian ministry ultimately find that the seminary experience causes them to lose or greatly alter rather than strengthen their faith.  It would certainly be interesting to see if Steve, were he to make the grand leap to seminary that I figure at least a part of him wishes to do, would change his opinions about some things once he was, for example, reading the Bible in ancient Greek!

Well, I’m going to end this rambling thing with a couple other observations.   This has been a strange and sad month for me.  Four people I have some acquaintance with have died, and I went to two of their funerals.  One of those was for an 87 year old woman who was an inspiration to all who knew her, and the term “celebration” was not a cliché at her funeral.  But the other was a 51 year old doctor who had run in 17 marathons before he suddenly died while on a run, leaving his 3 college age daughters fatherless.  What a contrast there was in the feelings of the funeral goers.

I was struck with one of the readings given at the old lady’s funeral, and I am going to quote it whole here:

Death is nothing at all
I have only slipped away into the next room
I am I and you are you
Whatever we were to each other
That we are still
Call me by my old familiar name
Speak to me in the easy way you always used
Put no difference into your tone
Wear no forced air of solemnity or sorrow
Laugh as we always laughed
At the little jokes we always enjoyed together
Play, smile, think of me, pray for me
Let my name be ever the household word that it always was
Let it be spoken without effort
Without the ghost of a shadow in it
Life means all that it ever meant
It is the same as it ever was
There is absolute unbroken continuity
What is death but a negligible accident?
Why should I be out of mind because I am out of sight?
I am waiting for you for an interval
Somewhere very near
Just around the corner
All is well.
Nothing is past; nothing is lost
One brief moment and all will be as it was before 
How we shall laugh at the trouble of parting when we meet again!

 ----Canon Henry Scott-Holland, 1847-1918, Canon of St Paul's Cathedral

I found that poetic expression quite moving.  I was very surprised to find that it was written nearly a hundred years ago, as its tone and format are so thoroughly modern.  Now I am wondering if perhaps Bob, in his readings, might have encountered the writer.  Because apparently he was a noted theologian (Catholic) of his day and the writer of a number of books.  But the kicker is this:  in doing a little internet research on this piece and this author, I was led to believe that he did not really believe the sentiments he expressed in this piece!  Bob, let me know if your studies have included this man.

The other thing I want to share, and close with, is an old song with which I have no doubt you are already familiar.  I have always liked it, and, like some of the lines in the reading above, I think it expresses something very similar to comments we have recently made here about suffering and reconciliation.  Here are some verses of “Farther Along”:

Tempted and tried, we're oft made to wonder
Why it should be thus all day long
While there are others living about us
Never molested though in the wrong

When death has come and taken our loved ones
It leaves our home so lonely and drear
Then do we wonder why others prosper
Living so wicked year after year

(Refrain:)
Farther along we'll know all about it
Farther along we'll understand why
Cheer up my brother, live in the sunshine
We'll understand it all, by and by

Faithful 'til death, said our loving Master
A few more days to labor and wait
Toils of the road will then seem as nothing
As we sweep through the beautiful gates

Steve, I feel certain that you agree with that notion….that “farther along” we will understand why.  I have also stated that I believe this, although I guess my statement is more like: “I have to believe this,” and I don’t necessarily believe it will be the same “I” who understands things, farther along.   Now Bob, if I understand him, has expressed a belief that his personality survives death; so I assume that he too believes it, otherwise what would be the point of anything surviving death?  What about it, Bob?

But regardless, I find this very old song very affecting because in its simple, almost primitive expression it manages to pose and address the very questions which we are constantly wrestling with, and provides a measure of comfort without exactly providing an answer!  And maybe that’s exactly what WE are doing here, too………….

(149) God's Nudging and Miracles

Author:  BOB
To:  St (John Listening)

Steve’s last piece makes three different points or assertions that need to be addressed one-by-one: (1) Bob has improperly defined free will and God’s protection as mutually exclusive, (2) God seeks to protect us by nudging people gently in the direction of good, and (3) God seeks to protect us by nudging people forcefully in the direction of good. I agree with Steve on the middle point, but disagree on the first and third points.

The “Mutually Exclusive” Issue

Steve sort of garbles the two poles which I was claiming were mutually exclusive. He interprets my point as a claim that God’s desire to give us free will and his desire to protect us are mutually exclusive. That wasn’t my point. I do think that God can and does desire for us to be both free and safe.

In Post 146, my statement was that “God cannot give human beings the free will to act, and yet control their actions.”  And I still think that’s correct – the grant of full freedom and the exercise of full control are mutually exclusive actions. I also think, though, that God could seek to achieve a certain balance between the two extremes of full freedom versus full control. In fact, that idea led me in my piece to wonder why God doesn’t let free will operate but not beyond the point where great evil or gratuitous suffering are inflicted. Yes, some lines would have to be drawn on a continuum as to when intervention becomes necessary, but the creator of the universe, it seems, could handle that.

God Nudges Us Gently in the Direction of Good

Steve goes on to conclude that God does let free will operate and “in a sense, God does allow his gift for choice to trump his gift for good.” But along the way, Steve argues that God is not on the sidelines. Steve writes that God gently nudges us in the direction of good, but not to the point of “substituting his action for our choice.”

Now, I think that this point is the strength of Steve’s piece. I agree with Steve on this issue. I like the way that he frames this as God gently “nudging” us toward good. I agree with Steve’s statement that God does not appear to substitute his action for our choice. All in all, I agree with Steve on this issue. I have long stated in this trialogue that I believe in God’s subtle presence in human beings and in the world.

However, because I have not only argued for God’s subtle presence in human affairs but also argued against the likelihood of God’s forcefully intervening presence, my position has received a pretty chilly reception in this trialogue.

God to me is… The creator of the cosmos. The creator of natural laws and the conditions supporting life. The bestower of gifts of human consciousness and intellect and conscience and creativity. A subtle source of peace and strength nudging human beings in the direction of love and compassion. The welcomer of souls to existences in other planes of reality. The guarantor of ultimate goodness in the cosmos. The One who affords hope that all things will be brought to satisfying resolution and communion.

Still, John in particular has been quick to argue that this sort of outlook makes God so puny that I might just as well go off and be an atheist!

Unless God acts to effectuate change in the external world based on our prayer, or intervenes in direct and physical ways, then it seems that John thinks believing in God is pretty pointless.

Hence, it seems consistent with his outlook and therefore not surprising that John has said more than once in this trialogue when we’ve discussed Jesus (this is paraphrased): Darn it, Bob, do you believe that Jesus performed miracles or not? Do you believe that Jesus healed people?

As a brief aside, I’d like to address this matter here … I think that John and I agree that a measure of skepticism is appropriate in dealing with miracle stories written down a few decades after Jesus’s death by proselytizing believers who were not eyewitnesses to the events described. Bishop Spong has credibly pointed out that a number of miracle stories appear to have been attempts by the gospel writers to say that Jesus is the new or greater Moses, by putting forth a series of one-upmanships. (For example, Moses with God’s help is said to have parted the sea, but Jesus does not have to part the sea, he can walk on it). Another reason for some skepticism is that we are dealing with writers who see miracles in terms like the casting out of demons or evil spirits.

It should also be noted that if we are to fully believe in New Testament healing accounts, we are not just accepting the notion that Jesus could heal people. The Book of Acts says that “many signs and wonders were done among the people through the apostles.” Acts says that the sick were brought out into the streets on cots and mats “in order that Peter’s shadow might fall on some of them as they came by”. In Acts 3:2 to 3:8, an incident is described in which Peter is said to have taken a man lame from birth by the right hand and raised him up, and “immediately his feet and ankles were made strong. Jumping up, he stood and began to walk.” Most astoundingly, Acts 9 claims that Peter brought a dead woman named Tabitha back to life. Peter prayed and then turned to Tabitha’s body, telling her to get up, and then “she opened her eyes, and seeing Peter, she sat up.” According to Acts 8, Philip was responsible for signs such that “unclean spirits, crying with loud shrieks, came out of many who were possessed; and many others who were paralyzed or lame were cured.” Paul in Acts 14 is said to have healed a man who had been crippled since birth. Acts 19 says that “God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that when the handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were brought to the sick, their diseases left them, and the evil spirits came out of them.”

The bottom line is that though I am skeptical of the miracle stories, I don’t rule out the possibility that Jesus was able to heal some people. The issue just does not have an impact on my faith or spiritual optimism, however. I do not find the miracle claims to be the most impressive aspect of Jesus as he is portrayed in the New Testament. Jesus as portrayed is one of the most incredible advocates ever gracing the planet to cry out for an ethic of love to replace an ethic of power and domination that produces injustice, evil, and social ruination. That’s impressive. He appeared to have a deep belief that this change in ethic was needed for the kingdom of God to be realized on earth, and he risked his life to promote this ideal.

God Nudges Us Forcefully in the Direction of Good

I disagree with Steve on this point. By definition, a forceful nudge is an oxymoron; but a much more important objection than the semantics is that Steve’s assertion here takes us right back into a realm in which God isn’t all-good or is an underachiever.

Steve says that God forcefully intervened in the Jonah story by sending a storm and a rescue. It seems clear, though, that a God who takes these kinds of forceful actions could help force a whole lot more good and help us avoid a whole lot more evil than this world suggests. For example, a forcefully intervening God could make sure that any number of unstable people get the emotional support or the mental health care which they need before they get to the point of killing people. A forcefully nudging God could find a way to disrupt a mother from an intent to drown her own small children in a bathtub.

Sometimes tragic events slap us in the face with the faith-challenging reality that God does not intervene in the forceful or dramatic ways which we might wish. For example, you may recall from a few years ago the incident in which about a dozen coal miners were trapped in a mine. The mine had been cited for a number of regulatory violations. However, it did not appear that the owners of the mine had been forcefully nudged by the government or by God in the direction of “good” – that is, concern for employee safety translated into much enhanced employee safety provisions and practices. During the crisis, a report reached the news media indicating that all miners but one had been found alive. The Governor pronounced this a miracle, and numerous people appeared on television thanking God and Jesus for their intervention. And then, it turned out that the reverse was true, that one miner was alive, while all the rest were dead. Talk of God’s intervention in the matter then ceased.

But should there have been an assumption of a miraculous intervention by God in the first place? I don’t think so.

 If you go down this road of crediting God with the forceful rescue of a man from the belly of a giant fish, you are also going down a road in which God merits “blame” for choosing to not rescue hapless coal miners in the belly of the earth… and you are going down a road in which God bears direct responsibility for choosing to not spare their families and friends immeasurable pain and a sense of loss and betrayal