Confessing to Disbelief, but not to Satanism --
shouldn't be necessary, but it seems with a near universal consensus that we all must believe IN something -- best generalized by the twelve step program's "Power Greater than Myself" (which these days could include figures as diverse as Donald Rumsfeld, Ben Bernanke, Buddha, Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, Jesus, my Dean, my mother etc.), I must admit to being a radical skeptic! But I feel after outing myself as an atheist (in absence of the Inquisition, I am happy that I risk little danger to life and limb -- for now), I do feel the necessity (at least with the older generation of believers) to insist that I believe in something like a respect for the Other, an ethical relation to life itself or some other sort of disclaimer attached to atheism that amounts to something like -- I am not a follower of Satan, -- nor am I unduly afraid of him.
By this time, the disclaimer has amounted to a kind of belief, and I have to backtrack and to insist on this -- that I actually am violently opposed to ANY system of belief that holds life, its joys and suffering in contempt. At which point, I am perhaps in a satanic position, at least of unmitigated negativity....
By this time, the disclaimer has amounted to a kind of belief, and I have to backtrack and to insist on this -- that I actually am violently opposed to ANY system of belief that holds life, its joys and suffering in contempt. At which point, I am perhaps in a satanic position, at least of unmitigated negativity....
11 Comments:
There's actually an atheistic reading of the 12 steps which reportedly works just as well for addicts as the theistic reading. The atheistic reading is that "the group" is the "higher power." I've have quite a few friends whose lives have literally been saved by the 12 steps. In the beginning it's a bit embarrassing hearing them go on and on about their "program", but after a few years you get your old friend back but without the lying and stealing and drugging and drinking. It's not a bad bargain.
One of my best friends is dry because of the twelve step program and she never really talked about the higher power, only that occasionally, she'd have to go to a meeting to re-connect with the group dynamic.
But this is the first time I have ever heard of the atheist's version of the higher power -- as the group.
Is the higher power a mask for the group?
Not sure what you mean by "mask". Is it some kind of comp. lit. term?
Here's what I know: 12 step literature advises atheists and agnostics to think of their group as their higher power.
Here is what I suspect: belief (or some variant) is the power behind all religions. Does this phenomenon lose its power once unmasked? Apparently for the atheist 12 stepper it does not.
I'm not talking so much about belief as I am about the entity in which one believes. Don't you think that there is supposed to be quite a qualitative difference between a higher power, but if belief can function with regard to both these "things" then doesn't it mean that they are in some way equivalent or at least exchangeable? And since I've outed myself as an atheist, I know that groups exist, whereas God is in my world is a "mask" or a disguise for an absence.
I am fascinated by the fact that belief can be circular, and that the believer can be completely aware of this circularity and yet still believe. In Bernard Malamud's last book, "God's Grace", the monkey teaches the other monkeys to talk by telling them that they will be able to talk if they have faith. The man asks "faith in what?" and the monkey replies "faith that they will be able to talk if they have faith."
So, I think I'm talking about belief in belief. but it's empirically verifiable that people who believe do things that they wouldn't otherwise do. So maybe it's not belief in belief, but knowledge about belief.
Sorry, this is getting way too fuzzy.
I like this idea that God is a mask for an absence.
I think Catherine already mentioned a key phrase: "Group dynamic." I think that divine beliefs are useful, especially in groups like AA. I think people in these groups 'work up' a kind of passionate expectation--waiting for something to happen, some miracle, some breakthrough. Chanting, singing, praying, twirling, beating drums--all precursors (sometimes touted as outgrowths) of belief. Does one do all this, hoping that God 'will move'? I wonder about the energy expense needed to 'work up' to a divine happening. It's as though any group can create their version of a divine breakthrough whether or not a God is believed to be involved. Healing, help, maybe a little extra money is the reward if they work at it long enough--a way to 'earn' one's healing, I suppose.
I sometimes watch the video "Divine Horsemen." It reminds me of 'group dynamics.'
Maybe God is a group dynamic, but He has been treated as much more.
I could be wrong (even if I don't believe that I am), but I've watched people grow into their religion and grow past it, whether or not they want to admit it.
That is part of my disbelief.
I've watched my family members talk and cry and petition the divine. In all that, I think that God morphs. What I mean is that He becomes what the believer needs him to be--generic and endlessly flexible. Sort of like gumby. I have to admit the concept is fascinating, especially for me, now, as someone looking back at my own religious behavior. Humans imagine an entity, bestow it with power, and it becomes all things to those who believe. It becomes the reason for living, the vehicle to acquiring, the excuse in disappointments, and the desire when dying.
Plasticity would be the quality of the Deity. A kind of infinite and transcendental malleability would seem to characterize anonymous' relatives' God. God morphs as one's beliefs change.
"It is not disbelief that is dangerous to our society; it is belief." George Bernard Shaw
it's not belief that has been the enemy, ever, not once. it has been rather when belief has hated KNOWLEDGE -- then Jor El has to send his son away, they drown ten minutes after laughing at Noah, Tesla dies penniless and so forth...
it has been the rigidification in people's MINDS of the concept of divinity. and it's funny and sad...
because i generally tend to avoid "blogh" - blogh tends to rout all thought into a few areas outside of which no one feels safe to venture opinion. it's a form of e-corralling people's minds, and as an old krusty cyberpunk i am way too hip to it, >/ (i think your view point is better than mine here but i need to stay behind a wall because geeks tend to drain the vitality out of the virtual.)
but when the divine idea is rigidified in people's heads -- it is then that people walk lurching into disasters and then say "god is an evil man that hates us."
it could be said that part of that is the fault of religion -- but the mind, the brain are infinite in capability and people who close themselves into thinking that the mind,brain, heart are finite --
they are many and oppressively moronic, "morontial" to use the true Earth tongue --
when they win, people end up thinking that they are dumb and that computers are smart. computers are not as smart as the rocks we step on...
i am glad i said something to you, yet hideously sad at the same time.
Post a Comment
<< Home