Gospel & Universe ⏯ Systems
Mere Religion?
Frameworks - Hopeful Systems - Laws on Earth as They Might Be in Heaven
⏯
Frameworks
Many atheists feel compelled to treat religions as if they were merely a waste of time, a wrong direction, and a scattering of mutually incompatible paradigms. Many feel that the disintegration of religion is a good thing, and that it's a measure of atheism's superior truth.
Agnostics, on the other hand, have greater leeway and greater inclination to see in religions the formulation of large and complex understandings. Religions provide frameworks that help people conceptualize a meaningful place in the universe. This meaning isn't diminished if one explores multiple frameworks, a point that ecumenicals appreciate more easily than fundamentalists. The possibilities of religion or theism, of gods and souls, don't have to be framed with dogma or laced with angst or absurdity. Nor do they have to be steeped in certainty. Rather, religion can be seen as the yearning for an ideal. Not just the ideal continuation of our lives on earth, but the ideal of a larger and more solid understanding of space, being, morality, and law.
Although formulated before Modern geology, geography, and astronomy, the great religions attempt to explain the spatial and ontological dimensions of the world and the universe. While Dante's cosmic scheme is inaccurate geographically and cosmologically, and while it's clearly idealistic from theological and philosophical perspectives, it nevertheless supplies a big picture of existence, a big Plan into which the otherwise alienated individual might find meaning.
The practice of fitting an individual into a larger, coherent framework of time and space may seem like an exercise in delusion to many skeptics, yet it's also a valuable exercise of rational and imaginative faculties. Once our brains get accustomed to using one large framework, they can contemplate other large frameworks. They can develop or entertain all sorts of structures and scenarios which transcend ego, family, clan, city, region, nation, and civilizational realm. The trick, as the agnostic sees it, is to keep this ability to construct larger frameworks without getting stuck in one of the constructions.
This is one reason why I use the writing of Jean Bottéro, especially in the preceding chapter, The Currents of Sumer. Despite his love of the Bible, Bottéro sees the systemic nature and the deep historical and moral value of Mesopotamian civilization. Instead of seeing it as inferior — let alone as the whore of Babylon! — he sees it as a first grand attempt to systematize complex human arrangements, from numbers & commerce to writing & epic literature.
⏯
Hopeful Systems
One of the big differences between early Mesopotamian, Jewish, and Greek religions and later belief systems is that the early ones presented a grim view of the afterlife, while the later ones presented a far more optimistic picture. The main exceptions here are Hinduism and Egyptian religion, which held out the possibility of eternal life very early on (although the Egyptian afterlife was initially reserved for the upper classes). For agnostics, however, all these versions of the afterlife are speculative. Perhaps we go to some grim obscure existence, as per the early Mesopotamians, Greeks, and Hebrews. Or perhaps, after being judged, we have the chance to enter Paradise. Or perhaps we go nowhere at all.
From an agnostic point of view, later belief systems are generally hopeful systems, that is, they're systems that provide people with various types of possible meaning to their lives. A big part of this meaning is the possibility of an afterlife, for how much meaning can people feel if their lives are soon swallowed up in oblivion? Atheists argue that the meaning we gather (or create) in our short lives is all the meaning we'll ever get. But they may or may not be right about this. Perhaps we do live after we die. Who really knows? The jury may unanimously agree that there's proof of a dead body and that there's no proof of a risen spirit. Yet the jury's still out when it comes to the ontological question of whether or not the body had a spirit, especially if spirit is by definition not dependent on the body. Agnostics argue that there's a reasonable doubt about the existence or non-existence of such a spirit. And if there was a spirit when the body was alive, the spirit may well live on after the body is dead.
While it may sound odd initially, I would argue that agnostics doubt, atheists believe, and theists hope and believe. Atheists assert that there's no God and no soul, yet they can't prove it and hence it's a belief. It’s an exceptionally hard thing to prove something that by definition isn’t material. Atheists simply believe that this immaterial ‘essence’ doesn’t exist. They may be right or they may be wrong, but no amount of positivist skepticism can decide that matter. While atheists believe in the negative statement, God and soul don’t exist, theists believe in the hopeful, positive statement, God and soul do exist. Agnostics don't argue that their hope is realistic or logical, but rather idealistic. They don't see this hope as merely an illusion or a wrong direction philosophically, psychologically, or sociologically, even if it may turn out to be an illusion ontologically. Religion may be beneficial in terms of conception, morality, and law, even if it doesn't end up being true in the sense that our beings have an essence and that this essence will continue to exist after our bodies die.
⏯
Laws on Earth as They Might Be in Heaven
Religions may have been helpful in formulating two large frameworks of morality and law: 1) systems of universal justice, which involve detached afterlife judgments of human behaviour, and 2) systems of grace, which involve partial afterlife judgments, that is, afterlife judgments that are qualified and even superseded by forgiveness. It isn't difficult to see why our legal codes and societal norms require both of these systems, that is, solid laws as well as humane interpretations of these laws; heavy penalties for heavy crimes, yet the possibility that if criminals reform (or repent), they can see light at the end of the tunnel.
While atheists and theists see human law in opposition to religious law, this may be an over-simplification that fosters unnecessary antagonism. Such a binary opposition leads many secular people to shy way from looking closely at the positive elements in religious frameworks. As a result, only the deeply orthodox spend much time in the interpretation and exploration of religious legal frameworks. Their interpretations are of course deeply orthodox, and therefore make religion look even less worldly or practical. Many agnostics are ideally situated to enter into this arena, since they are profoundly secular and they are also open to appreciating some of the theological models and debates that many non-orthodox people have rejected.
Some argue that it's better to leave the old religious systems behind. Yet two problems follow from this: 1) the societal divide between believers and non-believers gets wider, and 2) non-believers lose the chance of recuperating aspects, from metaphors to mythic and moral frameworks, that can provide depth and richness to their materialistic lives.
I'm of course taking for granted that religions have also played a negative role in the advancement of critical thinking and science. I go into these problems in detail elsewhere, especially in Cities of God and Believe it or Else. Yet here I want to suggest another side of the question: the degree to which theists have played a positive role, despite (and at times even because of) their dogmatic convictions.
⏯
Next: Systems of Dread & Hope
Table of Contents - Annotated Contents - Layout - Core Beliefs