My mother died when I was four. That is the most fundamental fact of my being. Everything about who I am and what I am goes back to that moment 40 years ago when a drunk driver ended my mother’s life. Sure, I’m a big girl now and that happened a long time ago, but that doesn’t change the fact that it shaped the 40 years that followed it. Without that one event, I don’t get an abusive stepmother, I don’t have to live with an alcoholic grandmother, and I don’t have to essentially raise myself beginning at about 9 years old. Lots of things don’t happen, happen differently, or even if they happen the same way, I have a mother to help me through them. I didn’t know what that meant until I became a mom myself. I felt the hole in my life, but I never saw the magnitude. It’s what I imagine it would be to live on earth your whole life and then finally see it from space. People can claim I’m being disrespectful for saying some of the things I’m going to say here, but whatever you believe, whatever you think I’m disrespecting, using your same assumption of its reality, it disrespected me first, 40 years ago.
I explain all this, not to venture in the “Dear Diary” territory of soggy blogging, but to allow you, dear reader, to understand when I say that when it comes to looking for answers, to trying to figure out how things work, what the meaning to it all is, I guess I have as much vested interest as anyone. I have looked for the answers, in religion, mysticism, fatalism, nihilism, cynicism, dogma, karma, palm readers, tea leaves, and Elvis on black velvet. A lot of people give up on the religion they were raised on. I guess it’s kinda uncool, having Dad’s religion, a lot like driving Dad’s Oldsmobile to the prom or something. If you are a certain age, maybe you gave up on “Western” religion and sought answers in the mystic east, which, if you think about it is almost as condescending as thinking that only Western religion has the answers. I explored a lot, looking for something that could answer the fundamental fact of my being. Something that made sense, something that could say, “This is why a 4-year-old child loses a mother and goes on to having the life I’ve led.” If the big G god was working in “mysterious ways” I wanted an explanation. I spent quite of few years being really pissed off at the Big Sky Daddy because I couldn’t think of an explanation that qualified as good enough.
Enter the New Agers and their promises of ancient wisdom, untapped potential, cosmic harmony, and all the rest. Just like with religion, I was ready to believe anything that could answer me, could explain my pain, and the pain of others, because it wasn’t just about me now. How do some people get everything by being greedy, corrupt, even criminal, while kind, fair, just people are starving, dying in civil wars, languishing in poverty? Why does the Big Sky Daddy give some people miracles, let other score touch downs, but I couldn’t keep my mother? New Age belief said there were no coincidences, everything had a purpose, and everything sought balance. And best of all, the New Age said we could affect the balance in our lives, we could change it, improve it. So, I meditated, I paid attention to the coincidences in my life, I wrote things down on paper, I embraced my inner child, I healed and purified, it was practically a full-time job. The universe would take care of everything; the whole great interconnected universe was there to do for me what the Big Sky Daddy did for everybody else.
Did it work? No.
So there came a time, what we like to call a bump in the road, or a rough patch, one of those times when everything that can go wrong does and then some. Big things and little things, some that probably didn’t matter as much as I thought they did and some that to this day cause me pain. I tried everything. I prayed to the Sky Daddy, I journaled, I meditated, I took pills, I sent my thought energy out into the cosmos – something was going to make the pain stop, right? No. There, at the edge of the abyss, I realized I was waiting for something to help me that didn’t really exist. At the very brink of madness was the sudden clarity that said none of this is real. It was all created by people just as scared as I was. These were their answers to fear and pain, but they were all inventions. It’s all magical thinking. It’s all based on a desire to not be alone. It’s all based on what we want things to be and not on what they are. I stopped looking into the void seeking an answer and finally saw the void itself.
That’s what there was. Void. Nothing.
Believing in Nothing may not sound, on the surface, like such a terrific system. And it isn’t that I reject all belief without considering it. It’s funny, but I miss believing in something. But every time belief presents itself, or I find belief sneaking into my thinking, I look at it, I look in the mirror and say it out loud, I compare it what I know about life. I look at it and think about it, and I wonder if it fits the truism I tell my daughter when she gets scared of the dark at night: “There’s nothing there in the dark that isn’t there in the daylight.” The minute I sniff that there’s something supernatural to process, something that wouldn’t be there in the light of day, I retire its number and move on. But Nothing, to date, has proven 100% effective as a belief system. It’s got a better batting percentage than prayer, positive thinking, tea leaves, and Elvis on black velvet. Nothing is never wrong. It’s amazing. And there’s a kind of comfort in the reliability of Nothing, not nearly so alluring as the great interconnectedness where there are no coincidences, but a basic inner beauty. It’s so consistent and in keeping with what we know about the universe, most of space being made up of empty space and all.
In science, an equation, a theory, must account for all variables, or it is flawed. I’m not saying we should worship at the alter of science, but I think a belief system should be held to some standard of accountability. Nothing has accounted for every variable I have encountered. It’s still a theory, but it’s a good theory. Nothing says my mother died for no very good reason other than there was a drunk driver on the road that night; that these things happen. They are unfair and unjust, but we pick up and move on because there’s Nothing else we can do. And best of all there’s nothing in Nothing that points fingers. In Nothing, bad things happen because they happen, not as punishment, not as a failure to measure up. And there’s Nothing to keep each of us from trying our best to change things, to be good, fair, and just people, from falling down and getting back up again, from failing or succeeding, from being amazed at being alive, or gazing in wonder at what life offers. That’s the magic of Nothing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
That sure struck quite a few chords.
I can see people's attraction to faith - if you're life has more ups and downs than a faded popstar's career, and you're losing loved ones left, right and centre, then faith being the only constant, provides stability.
Stability is something that everyone, and especially those of us who grew up without a parent/s seem to crave. No matter how far we roam, or what knowledge we gain, something always pulls us back to that small town/place/group of people we thought we had left behind.
If having faith in some religion or entity will help me to unstick myself from this place in my head that I'm stuck in, and if it'll let me move forward then I'm all for it.
Unfortunately I just can't seem to make myself believe, simply because I always end up thinking that in the long run it makes no difference -if there is some God- like figure that will reveal all when we're dead, it doesn't really matter - We'd have already lived our lives - what's the point in knowing the answers when it's all over? It's the same as me knowing now what protons and neutrons are, but 10 years ago in my school science exam I wrote that they were 'just some things,that floated around' My knowing now makes no difference since I can't go back and change that bloody science paper.
If I was going to sit another science paper now, then perhaps it would make more sense. But then that would be stumbling into the whole reincarnation thing, and I think I've rambled enough already without getting into that.
@ Gem's comments:
Is there not some arrogance to the skeptical, agnostic, atheist approach to the idea that what we know and experience today, as we are alive right now, is the only state of existence there is?
Is it not possible that what we know, as the human animal, is simply the beginning of the journey, and that there could be a whole plane of existence we will not discover until we've passed on from this world?
As much as we don't know if there's a heaven or hell, we also don't know if there's something else after all this.
Right?
I hope Gem responds as well, but if I can put in two cents...
There is nothing at all to indicate the existence of something more after death beyond physical decomposition, and certainly nothing to indicate anything supernatural -- ghosts, reincarnation, heaven, hell, etc. Should there be some other plane of existence within a natural universe that we have not yet discovered, it is not anything that stretches over into this realm.
Is it not equally arrogant to assume that there is something uniquely special in the human animal that it does not simply die like all others? The concept of a life after life was created by man to manage the fear of death, to manipulate people into meeting someone else's idea of "good" and has been embraced without accountability.
However, if your theory is correct, I give you permission to kick my arse in the next life.
All I'm saying is it's kinda silly to assume either way....because there's no proof either way...but lack of proof does not mean something does not exist.
Correct?
I just think making an assumption either way is a typical human flaw. For we really know nothing.
Someone once said, very cleverly, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Since there has yet to be found anyway to confirm anything beyond physical decomposition, would the most sensible approach be, I don't know so I'm going to withhold judgement? The next most sensible approach would be, nothing in my experience tells me there is any reason to believe there is something beyond death, so I will not believe? The least sensible approach is to create cities in clouds or hellfire and eternal damnation, for that is the most extraordinary claim and would require the most proof.
Personally, the people who have been trying to tell me about the power of prayer, positive cosmic energy, and Elvis on black velvet have all proved the most wrong. Therefore, their theories about any possible afterlife carry the least credibility.
You're preaching to a loud and obnoxious choir member in regards to a biblical redition of what may be waiting for us after we die.
I'm not by any means saying the Bible has it right.
Just saying that there may be something else. I personally won't declare one story to be right over another. Just that we don't know. That's all.
That would be "biblical rendition" not "redition".....where's the damn edit function.... :(
I think science has the only theories we've got, since all religions and other belief systems fail to meet a basic premise of a theory, it has to be falsifiable. Religions answer? Faith. Faith is a notion that is only allowed as a valid excuse because there is a majority of believer in the world.
Imagine what would happen if religious belief had to live up to the same standards as science. We would be rid of religion tomorrow.
I can't really say I understand the lure some people see in religion and new age beliefs. But if you don't understand the reasons for all these new age beliefs spring up all the time, then you just need to look at the merchandise they try to sell you. Then you'll understand. It's nothing but a scam to get money from people. Then they evolve because someone actually believe in it.
Moto: [I]Is there not some arrogance to the skeptical, agnostic, atheist approach to the idea that what we know and experience today, as we are alive right now, is the only state of existence there is?[/I]
It only seems that way because being religious is more accepted than atheism and agnosticism.
I've always liked the quote that goes something like "I'm an atheist just like you, I just take it one religion further."
(I'm not sure any of this made sense or is coherent)
It takes faith to be an Atheist too.
You have to elaborate on that moto. What is it an atheist has faith in?
"An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings."
There is no proof...so it's simply based on faith that an Atheist can hold on to his/her beliefs.
Lack of proof does not mean something does not exist. It takes faith to believe there is no God.
But you can only use that argumentation because belief is considered the standard in this world. You lack belief in more things that you believe in, but that doesn't mean you have faith in their non-existence.
I think you understand I'm agnostic.
To me:
Nobody can prove there is a god.
Nobody can prove there is not a god.
Nobody can prove there is life after death.
Nobody can prove there isn't.
It's all open to question. At least as far as the current human brain is capable of understanding.
Um, excuse me, Moto...
I'm sure someone else can name the specific error of your argument, but I would point out a lack of proof keeps people from being convicted in a court of law. There is no proof I did something, therefore I did not do it. There is no proof of a god, therefore there is no god. In mathematics, there is no proof 2+2=5, therefore 2+2 does not =5.
Faith is belief without proof, which is how religions have managed to coral their flocks, calling those who do not believe blindly heretics or sinners and burning them or stoning them or hanging them. Have faith or else, has been the carrot and the stick driving religions for centuries.
In the New Age movement, they don't stone disbelievers, but they are no more accountable in their beliefs than any religion that came before them. My blog was meant to address the idea that for many people seeing the flaws of organized religion is simple, but their desire to believe pushes them into accepting something just as outlandish without holding it up to scrutiny because they want something to believe in. I did, but I don't any longer.
Well I guess from that view Mother I might not be better than those who accept other religions without scrutiny. I reject a lot of them without scrutiny.
And Moto, what Mother said.
If you would prefer this part of the discussion stops just say so...but I find great fault with the idea that "no proof = proof".
There's no proof that life exists anywhere in the universe other than Earth. Does that mean life does not exist anywhere but Earth?
I would never say that.
"lack of proof keeps people from being convicted in a court of law. There is no proof I did something, therefore I did not do it."
I'm calling bullshit here.
Lack of proof in court might equal not guilty, it sure as shit does not mean you did not do something.
Reasonable doubt plays into that a lot, along with burden of proof, and so much more.
"There is no proof of a god, therefore there is no god."
Fine if that's what you believe. It is a belief however.
I'm saying, there is no evidence of a god and therefore no reason to believe in a god, so I don't. That's not belief, that's non-belief and there's a world of difference. That difference is the need for faith to believe where I don't need faith for non-belief.
As someone else said at THH (not in these words), if you want proof do math, for the rest you'll only get evidence.
I'm not calling for an end to discussion. I think it could be just getting started.
There is, in logic and debate, a proper name for the flaw in your argument, but I haven't taken a class like that in more than 20 years so it escapes my aging mind. That's what I was trying to point out. I will attempt to google up the proper name.
Yes, there's a burden of proof. Exactly. Wanting to believe something, which seems to be what you are saying, does not meet that burden. From what I'm reading you are saying, "because I want to believe there is something, I'm willing to accept without proof, or at least wish, hope, imagine, without proof that there is something beyond an all natural universe."
What I am saying is I am skeptical of accepting that thinking because it is a hope, skip, and a jump from what has already, in my life, proven itself wrong time and time again with disasterous consequences.
Do you mean switching the burden of proof, mother?
I'm saying the burden of proof, to me, rests on those who are saying "thus and such we believe, or want to believe," not on those who disbelieve.
Right now, there is no evidence of the existence of supernatural beings, states of being, locations, planes of existence, and so forth. If someone wants to put across the premise of their possibility, the burden of proof is on them.
moto,
Mother and Hay have addressed your comments much better than I ever could.I'll add the following though;
I've been an agnostic for most of my adult life,but in the last few months things have changed for me -I find I no longer care and cannot bring myself to expend the effort it takes to convince myself that 'you never know'. The reason is quite simple; it makes no difference - even if there are other planes of existence beyond this one, if there is a creator or any other fantastical thing, then it still makes no difference. At the end of the day, if something does happen in the afterlife then it makes no difference to this life. So instead of wasting our life living by religious codes or wasting our energy by sitting on the fence (which takes a whole lot more energy than it would appear) we should just bloody well get on with living and making the most of the time we do have.
As for arrogance, sure it is arrogant being an atheist (I don't know if I'm a fully paid member just yet, but I'm getting there), but believing in a particular religion is also arrogant. In fact as human beings we are extraordinarily arrogant anyway.
I wonder if "you never know" is just belief in disguise? It's like playing the lottery or any other form of gambling. The odds are overwhelmingly against any particular individual winning, but people play anyway because "you never know." And based on that logic, they throw their money away.
Post a Comment