This has been a long
time coming. Largely this is because this is dealing with a large topic. And a
topic that seems to have travelled from something you just didn’t talk about to
something that people won’t shut up about. And no, it’s not homosexuality.
I refer to religion.
When I were a lad, it was one of those topics you didn’t discuss. Largely this
was due to social niceties, but also a recognition that religion and belief was
a deeply personal issue and perhaps one that defied conversation. Now of course
it is the topic of best sellers, TV shows, political rallies and more. This may
well be healthy in some ways but it has also unleashed a wave of ignorance,
anger and intolerance. And not all
from the religious nutters.
That some Christians
fail to live up to their ideals is not new. In fact, it’s one of the central
ideas of Christianity, that life is a struggle to live up to those ideals. Of
course, some of the failure has been spectacular, deliberate and evil.
Christian churches, and others, have been responsible for some awful and
distressing activities both as an institution and through actions of individual
members.
That some liberals
fail to live up to their ideals is less well-recognised. The intolerance,
arrogance and plain rudeness of some louder atheists is astonishing, more so
for their own failure to recognise it in themselves. They cry ‘hypocrite’ but
forget their own. In Baudelaire’s words (via TS Eliot) “You hypocrite reader!
My double! My brother!” (My translation but I think it’s right.)
So virtue and faults
are on both sides. Sure, atheists haven’t killed nearly as many as believers
have but thanks to the Soviet Union and Red China, the Khmer Rouge and many
others, they’ve done the the best they can to catch up. A friend of mine
suggested they killed believers because of their ideology so they weren’t
really atheists. That their ideology was explicity atheist didn’t seem to
bother him. On the other hand, it allowed me to develop another theory. No-one
who kills someone else for their beliefs can be said to be living up to the
example of Christ, so no Christian has ever killed anyone. Phew! That’s a load
off my mind.
This is supposed to be
a book blog. Here’s some thoughts on books I have read lately.
I’ve long thought that
looking for a scientific proof of God is like looking for a mathematical
formula for Hamlet. It’s a silly thing to do to start with, and has nothing to
say about maths or drama. No-one would dream of looking for a mathematical
proof for Hamlet but those who think there should be scientific proof of God
include some luminaries as the Fundamentalist churches, Isaac Newton, Richard
Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. Even the intelligent are not immune from
stupid ideas. Of course the fundamentalists and Ditchkens (in Terry Eagleton’s
phrase) come to rather different conclusions, but it's a question simply not worth asking.
Terry Eagleton is an
atheist and a Marxist and his book Reason Faith and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate is a book that will
bring comfort to neither atheists of the Ditchkens variety or believers. “Ditchkens”
is his expression of views that Dawkins and Hitchens hold in common, just to
save himself typing ‘Dawkins and Hitchens’ all the time. He is very careful to
note where they vary, most notably of course in the quality of writing.
Hitchens, it goes almost without saying, is the better writer. He finds their
arguments for atheism shallow and poorly argued, and explains why.
Mind you, he is no
less harsh on the Christian churches. The first sentence of the book is
“Religion has wrought untold misery in human affairs.” He also recognises the
positive role the Church as played, pointing out, for example, that the Church
was the only organisation offering education and health care for the people for
centuries. However, he says the
Church has betrayed the essentially radical message of Jesus, becoming part of
the establishment to which, he maintains, Jesus was opposed, perpetuating the
evils Jesus was trying to destroy.
While this book is
slim, it holds some big ideas. His discussion of the nature of God is
breathtaking. The book can be read with some ease, although some sections do
require strong concentration. It is well worth it though, no matter what your
beliefs are.
Karen Armstrong is a
former nun and former atheist. Her writings on God and religion are dense,
well-researched and well-written. However, they are not light reading. In her
introduction to The case for God: What religion really means, she replies to those who describe one of her books
as “really hard,” with “Of course it was. It was about God.” Her opening
sentence is a telling one as well: “We are talking far too much about God these
days and what we say is often facile.” Religion and theology is one of those
topics that those who have done no reasearch into feel that they can comment on
intelligently. It is a topic that deserves more than catchphrases and cheap point scoring, which is too often the way, from both sides.
The main thrust of
this book is that we have lost contact with the orignal idea of God and tried
to reduce him (or it – it is difficult to know what words to use) to a
domestic, human creature that should share our ideals and values. In fact, she
said, it is possible for a believer to say God does not exist, not in the sense
that you or I exist. God is beyond our words, our minds. The Bible is not to be
taken literally and it is only a recent idea that it should be. It is a book
that needs to be continually reinterrogated. As a series of books written by
multiple authors over the course of centuries, you’d think that would be an
obvious thought but too many believers and atheists want to think of it a
monograph. It was never meant to read as a novel. Both Jewish and Christian
tradition involved the continual discussion of the Bible and its meaning, a
tradition sadly lost in mainstream Christianity.
The word, the idea,
that she thinks we need to rediscover is apophasia
– that God is beyond definition, beyond our language. Instead, God is an idea
that we should continually contemplate, question, and meditate upon. A residual
of this idea, the contemplation of the ethereal, can be found in the Catholic
Mass with its music and rhythmic chants of prayers, moving away from everyday
language. Other religions have held on to this idea more strongly and more
explicitly. It is an idea that appeals to me strongly I must admit. If there is
a God that can create universes, what on earth makes you think you should be
able to understand how God thinks?
On a lighter note,
(thank God you might be thinking – even you atheists by now) is Peter Manseau’s
Rag and Bone: A journey among the world’s holy dead, a combination travelogue and exporation of the world of relics:
those bits of the revered dead or their possessions that are still in the hands
of their followers and fellow believers. The book is irreverent without being
disrespectful, and discusses relics from Christian, Muslim and Buddhist
temples, (Judaism has no tradition of relics) that range from preserved bodies
to a whisker from a beard. He ponders their provenance, their use and their
meaning, both in themselves and what they mean to those that travel to see them
or dedicate their lives to protecting them.
Relics are an odd
business and always have been. Manseau notes the three skulls of John the
Baptist that were doing the rounds for some time, as well as the sheer amount
from the foreskin of Jesus (who must have been impressive, if you get my
meaning). Mary apparently had the foresight to preserve breast milk for future
generations. Other relics are more likely, including those with more recent
provenace. But it is an interesting topic and Manseau writes well.
I have been to San Pietro
in Vincoli (St Peter in Chains) Church in Rome, and in a glass case there are chains
that are said to be the ones that held Peter when he was imprisoned. It’s
possible – he was an important figure before he died, he may well have had
followers among the jailers or at least people who knew where he had been held,
and once the prison was demolished or altered, perhaps the chains were kept. Is
is plausible? I don’t know. Does it matter? I suspect not. Go to the church
anyway when you go to Rome. Michelangelo’s Moses is there, and well worth
seeing. It’s only a stone’s throw from the Colosseum.
Perhaps those that say
we should get rid of these things that divide us and have brought much misery
hatred division and horror into the world, no matter what good it may do or how
well intentioned it may once have been, are right. But politics will always be with us.
Man, they say, is a political animal. I think he is a religious animal too.
No comments:
Post a Comment