a little bit of faith

The question it comes down to, even after seeing this wonderful debate, which i must add, just scratches the surface, is the question of transcendence; the idea of God the way we have culturally built it for centuries under different religions and the reason it worked then and it continues to work today is intimately related to our need to transcend; we are a bunch of primates with the amazing quality of awareness… it is precisely this awareness that makes us sensitive to the idea of a higher power, of a higher purpose, of a higher meaning;
religion is man made but is it the same with faith? ;is our faith and need of faith a matter of biological evolution? (the way scientists explain the feeling of love by a combination of chemical substances in the brain, the way you treat depression by using xanax, the way House would treat excessive generosity by a surgery on your thyroid)
if the answer is yes, then there’s nothing really higher than us, we are the ultimate outcome of the infinite coincidence; then another question comes up and that is: evolution is a fine business but to what end? evolution is a process which means we come from something to become something else; not sure, but isn’t the very definition of evolution related to becoming something more? isn’t ultimately evolution a form of material and even spiritual transcendence? isn’t knowledge (faith apart) a form of spiritual evolution?;
if on the contrary, faith is not a matter of biological evolution, then there is something that is built in the human being that makes it possible for the human being to experience transcendence;
if i try to figure out where i stand now (and i put a strong emphasis on “now”), i’d say i’m rejecting religion to be able to experience faith as a means of transcendence; i believe in the spiritual transcendence whether by faith or knowledge, or art or any other means, i believe my world (because ultimately that’s the only thing we can and we should decide on, the subjective experience), my world is a world in which I am not the product of coincidence, or random chemical combinations in the brain or any other organ for that matter, but a world in which i evolve from birth to death in both a spiritual and material way, from the clean plate of a new born baby to hopefully the wise thoughts of an old wrinkled lady that on her death bed, will not dream of heaven, but will be filled with sheer gratitude to have been given the chance to be. And I express this hope with the consciousness that I may not enjoy my current mental faculties by the very end of my life and that if i were to develop such things as dementia or alzheimer for example, my whole theory would go out on the window; but whatever my end may be, if i get the opportunity to experience even for a short moment transcendence, my purpose on this world is met;

A murit un ateu furios și de treabă. Și o dezbatere cu el despre Dumnezeu
de Cristian Ghinea
in Dilema Veche

S-a dus Christopher Hitchens. Intelectual angajat, editorialist influent, activist impredictibil dar cu argumente. De stînga în ținerețe, de dreapta la bătrînețe. Mereu incomod, mereu onest, mereu agresiv. A fascinat o lume. Am scris despre el în Dilema în 2008.

Vă recomand două articole despre el, portrete interesante ale unui om fascinant. Acesta din Prospect din 2008 și acesta din New Yorker din 2006.

Și vă mai recomand o dezbatere cu Tony Blair, în care fostul premier susține că religia este o forță a binelui în lume, iar Hitchens susține contrariul. Este virulent, are umor, este fermecător. Se întîmpla în noiembrie 2010, semnele bolii care l-a răpus acum erau deja vizibile. Publicul rîde, publicul cade pe gînduri, publicul urmărește cu fascinație doi oameni foarte inteligenți și foarte diferiți cum dezbat și se completează reciproc. Și la final votează covîrșitor cu Hitchens și împotriva religiei.

Faceți-vă timp, știu că sîntem cu toții ocupați. La dracu`, o dată moare Christopher Hitchens!

Lăsați puțin televizorul deoparte și urmăriți această oră și jumătate de discuții, veți rămîne cu ceva.

S-a dus. Să spun ”Dumnezeu să-l ierte”, l-ar enerva. Doar el a scris o carte care se numește ”God is not great”. S-ar enerva, zic, atît pentru că Dumnezeu nu exista pentru el, dar și pentru că dacă totuși ar exista, nu ar avea nevoie de iertarea Sa, a rămas mereu convins că a avut întotdeauna dreptate. ”Să-i fie țărîna ușoară” ar fi prea tradiționalist, cred că l-ar enerva și asta. Spun doar atît. Sînt convins că ateismul său agresiv, bravada sa împotriva lui Dumnezeu și mai ales împotriva oamenilor care se folosesc de Dumnezeu veneau dintr-o căutare continuă, a preferat să-și răspundă cu ”nu” pentru că misterul îl enerva. Că există sau nu Dumnezeu – Christopher Hitchens știe acum răspunsul.

(Cristian Ghinea)

About Guvidissima

I love writing stuff on pieces of paper. My little brother thought I should write this stuff down on pieces of cyberspace. He gave me my own little website. I discovered blank cyberspace looks just as frightening as a blank piece of paper and I decided to take it slowly. The title came after a while, as I was taking a test on numbers, dates and personalities. Yes, I am an enthusiast. I like to believe there’s more to it than what we think there is. And I made a quest out of this. One of my friends a while ago told me I have a serious case of colorblindness, I can only see pink for some reason. Even if that’s not as true as I’d like it to be, this blog is written in a pinkish light: there is something magic about us and life, it might not be the holy truth, nor Darwin, nor the politics or the economics of demand and offer; as a very inspired Indian writer put it, I think it is the God of small things.
This entry was posted in something else. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>