Belief in God… Part 1a
This is a piece from a good friend of mine which he kindly sent me after we had one of our discussions on the nature of morality viewed from a religious perspective. We had been discussing the old counter argument from Xtians in particular that without faith, one cannot possibly have a moral infrastructure.
These are his thoughts on the matter & so I thought it deserved a wider audience – let me know what you think..
Morality outside of a religious structure, is it possible? I believe so.
Just to be clear on my personal stance; although I have studied and participated in many religions, I currently do not practice in any organized religion. Also, I neither emphatically believe nor disbelieve in the existence of a God or Gods. They might be there, or they might not. Besides which, and I seriously doubt the existence of a god, but if there is an all powerful presence out there that is capable of creating or destroying the universe with a thought, I’d prefer not to have his attention.
My world view is distinctly idiocentric. I am the center of my universe. My universe consists of the concentric spheres of my influence. Those things, ideas, and people which are so important to me that I consider them to be part of myself are in my closest, or center, sphere. This is the sphere that I maintain with all of the ferocity and strength that I can bring to bear. Spheres that are less immediate reduce in importance correspondent to their proximity to myself. As life progresses, the spheres of other people; historical facts and movements; arts and ideas; all move past or touch our spheres. Sometimes these things are incorporated, sometimes they are rejected completely. This is how we evaluate the world around ourselves. This is how we grow.
Since I see life as a flow of ideas, the only things constant being myself and change, morality is mutable. Good is defined as that which is good for me and mine, at any given time, and Evil as that which is bad for me and mine.
Once you embrace this world view you will soon realize the rules have changed. The fewer items in your inner circle that you must defend, the stronger a personality you will have, since you have less to lose. This however, is balanced by a corresponding lose of humanity. The lone cowboy who rides into the sunset instead of taking the damsel in distress he desires is stronger than the average man, but he has also sacrificed (or lost) more of his humanity in order to become so.
This is not a new concept. Buddhism relies heavily on the idea of disconnecting yourself from the material world in order to make your spiritual self stronger, with the ultimate goal being a total disconnect, at which time the spirit no longer needs the flesh. The spirit then moves into a god-like state called Nirvana. Unfortunately, when the spirit leaves the flesh, the flesh dies. This makes it notoriously difficult to tell if a monk has reached Nirvana or simply dropped dead from malnutrition. According to sacred texts, The Buddha returned briefly, in a Christ-like manner, to speak with his followers, but there have been no reliable reports of any other returns from the Nirvana-state.
The problem with Buddhist principles is not that they don’t work. Granted, the very existence of Nirvana is more myth than fact, but the truth is, these principles, and other similar ascetic practices, serve little more purpose in their extreme forms, than the alienation of the practitioner. It is important to acknowledge that extreme asceticism is little more than the opposite of extreme hedonism. The extreme hedonist has no compassion for others in his quest for sensation. On a whim, he will eat, have sex, or kill anything, if it pleases him. Notice that neither extreme has any real connection to the world.
For someone who is of a healthy and sound mind, with a clear ability for self evaluation and goal-setting, it is, however, quite easy to maintain a balance. Note that this does not describe everyone. It may even describe a very small segment of the population. I would be the first to admit that the “lone wolf” syndrome that an idiocentric world view encourages is the key in creating the psyche of an assassin or any other dangerous, borderline-type personality.
Still, and regardless of it’s the dangers, I still advocate this system. Why? Society needs the type of minds that are drawn to it. Those who see the world as an extension of themselves, and whose morality has either shifted dramatically or been subsumed by this world view think differently, and it is those who “think different” that are our innovators. These individuals push us forward in all areas of science, mathematics, and the arts. These are the individuals that see the universe around them with little or no filters or preconceptions have the strength of will not to be suppressed, and have a strong enough sense of worth and purpose to keep moving toward their goals even if everyone around them considers them strange or criminally insane. I speak of: scientists such as Galileo and Isaac Newton; painters such as Picasso and Dali; and musicians such as Elvis Presley and David Bowie, just to name a few individuals.
Almost everyone has heard the story of how Albert Einstein was virtually a dropout in High School mathematics. Did you know that the reason why he stumbled so much in high school was because, instead of solving the questions as asked, his mind was much more interested in finding other ways to solve those problems. Discarding the formulas given to him, he would write new ones and still come up with the correct answers. All of these “useless” new formulae are lost forever, forgotten even by Einstein by the time he left for college, but one can’t help but wonder. Did you know that towards the end of his life Albert Einstein had 20 sets of gray suits made for him—all identical—down to the shoes and undergarments. This allowed him to invest the absolute minimum thought in getting dressed. Einstein was a genius, but let’s face it, that was not his value. His worth was that he saw the universe in ways that no man had ever done so before, and that he had the ability to articulate what he saw to others by using formulae.
Morality outside of a religious structure is not only possible, it is necessary for a society’s advancement and survival.
