Little bits of truth in Doodle Surround Sound?

The gospel according to Stanislaw Jerzy Lec:

“At the beginning there was the Word–at the end just the Cliche.”

This is a telling reality of many churches.

It is sensationally true. 
So true that it has shaped how those outside the Church perceive those inside the church. So true that it doodles the caricature. So true that it turns up the volume on the stereotypes.

It is sadly true.
For many on the inside, there is some form of theological laziness. Instead of struggling with digging into the depths of the Story of stories found in the Book of books, there are many who would rather have someone else expend the effort and hand them the nugget of truth. Typically, that nugget comes in some form of memorable wording.

Ergo, “Cliche.”

Sadly many churches have expressed their religious dialogue and thoughtful discourse in this way. Meaning it is hardly a dialogue and seldom thoughtful. This is something of the reality within in the walls of the church.

But it is not the whole picture.

It isn’t always this way.
It hasn’t always been this way.
It won’t always be this way. 

But It is part of the picture. 

In stereotypes.
In caricatures.
In cliches.

There is a little bit of truth in such criticism. There is a little bit of truth disguised with memorable words. And I find it sensationally and sadly ironic that you made your point with such memorable words.

Memorable words in Doodle Surround Sound.

In the beginning were sounds of song and the sips of soup?

The gospel according to D. H. Lawrence:

“Brute force crushes many plants. Yet the plants rise again. The Pyramids will not last a moment compared with the daisy. And before Buddha or Jesus spoke the nightingale sang, and long after the words of Jesus and Buddha are gone into oblivion the nightingale still will sing. Because it is neither preaching nor teaching nor commanding nor urging. It is just singing. And in the beginning was not a Word, but a chirrup.”

These are bold assertions about what was believed to be happening in the beginning.

With none to witness it, assumptions are made. It is believed that it all began with chirrups of daisies and the gurgles of primordial Campbells. This is a nice thought. But it is quite incoherent with any philosophy that struggles with the tensions of life, reality, and truth.

I am perplexed by these thoughts that have not be tempered by anything other than an appreciation for the resilient beauty of nature. In considering the “brute force” that crushes, he declares these two characters representatives. Really?! Mr. Lawrence, could you not have picked some religious leaders that actually embraced some kind or any kind of “brute force?”

Jesus?!

Buddha?!

Ignorance is bliss when sitting in the garden with a bowl of chicken noodle soup. Ignorance is far from bliss when wrestling with who certain people really are what they were really all about. But even the ignorant stumble across truth from time to time.

With the sounds of birds singing and the songs of flowers there is this gentle reminder of what may linger longer than time itself. What lasts longer than the pyramids? What lasts longer than the institutions that claim to follow Jesus or Buddha? What lasts longer than this world with all of its flowers and fowl?

Life does.

There was life at the beginning. There had to have been life prior to such a beginning to bring about the life that chirruped. There will be life after these things.

It is not the resilient beauty of nature that has been noticed. It is the resilient beauty of life as noticed in nature.

Life is resilient. 
Life is full of beauty.

Would Morpheus and Optimus Prime agree with Mr. Freud?

The gospel according to Sigmund Freud:

“We shall tell ourselves that it would be very nice if there were a God who created the world and was a benevolent Providence, and if there were a moral order in the universe and an after-life; but it is a very striking fact that all this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be.”

Why would we ALL have such desires or wishes?

There seems to be at least two reasons.

Either our wishing brings about this design, or our design brings about these wishes.

The former assumes certain theories about the nature of things and concludes that the wishful thinking is what we tell ourselves in order to make things seem very nice. The latter assumes certain theologies about the nature of things and concludes that the wishful thinking was hardwired into us and that tells us something of ourselves. 

Both reasons are legitimate explanations of the way things are.

Both.

That is, both explain reality by assuming other things to be true. 

If one believes that there is no God, then God is something we have designed to meet the needs of our wishful thinking.

If one believes that there is a God, then wishful thinking is something we have been designed with to reveal our need of God.

These assumptions or presuppositions will interpret the other reasons as unreasonable in as much as they consider their own reasons as reasonable enough to convince all others.

Both reasons might be consistent with their own assumptions.

But can both be true of reality?

If you think so, 
then I wish you the best bliss ever conceived of by the ignorant masses on both sides of this matter.

If you think not,
then I wish you would think deeply about whether the answers from either side really answer the questions that reside within you.

Perhaps, there is more to reality than meets the eye and we are in need of being transformed

Perhaps, there is more to life than the matrix and we are in need of being enlightened.

Perhaps.

Perhaps not.

Perhaps both?!

“Anything less would be uncivilized” and unnoticed?

The gospel according to Aristotle:

“Men create the gods after their own image, not only with regard to their form but with regard to their mode of life.”

What of the beliefs that God is represented in other life forms?

What of the belief that man was created in the form of God?

That Aristotle would ponder something so obvious is incredible. This man of great intellect is asking his audience to consider how mankind projects himself into the deities that he worships and the religious expression he pursues. This is obvious.

Obvious to be true in his culture.

Obvious to be false for other cultures and sub-cultures.

One only has to consider the religious landscape of the world to understand the bold ethnocentricity of Aristotle’s “civilized” thought. Were all the other religious strata and substrata outside of his culture unworthy to be considered and he formulated his thought?

There are at least three categories of cultural imaging to be considered:

First, some create gods in the images other than their own. It is undeniable that other cultures have created God with the images of animals, plants, or even a perfectly balanced nothingness of nirvana. This reality is not addressed in Aristotle’s sophistry.

Second, some do create gods in their own image. This is well stated by this philosopher as he expounds on the crafting of religion in his own culture and considers the fickle nature of the residents on Mt. Olympus. Within in this cultural context, as well as others, this is quite true.

Third, some consider mankind to be created in the image of an invisible God. Though, there is considerable debate as to what this IS, some have written about what it INVOLVES. I am not so sure what the image is because I struggle with imagining that which is immaterial. But I am quite confident that the image involves a series of relationships that places mankind in proper perspective with all of reality, both material and immaterial. Though this image is not physical, it does not remain unnoticed.

Suffice to say, the task of justifying Aristotle’s statement in a way that is both culturally aware and theologically accurate is well beyond my philosophic abilities.

Perhaps, it was an error in his thought.

An error so glaring that its expression in a civilized culture would go unnoticed only if such a culture assumed the rest of the world to be barbaric.

Are all ideas of God wrong and unforgivable?

The gospel according to Marquis de Sade:

“The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind.”

Obviously, this thought reveals certain presuppositions of the one who penned the statement. It might prove beneficial to consider assumptions regarding the existence or non-existence of God. Perhaps.

But for now, let us not quibble about such things.

I would have to agree with much of why this may have been written.

Quite often, these ideas of God that mankind has come up with are disturbing. Even disgusting. But not all. Many ideas of God twist Him into a despondent, malevolent, and disconnected Being. Some ideas twist Him into the opposite. Few ideas struggle with understanding God as He has revealed Himself.

Are all of these ideas of God equally unforgivable?

Even if these are misconceptions of God?

Perhaps a question that needs to be asked would be something about whether or not our ideas of God match the reality of God. If such a reality is to be grasped.

If one is condemning mankind for ideas of God that misrepresent God, then one might say its unforgivable. Though in this scenario, there remains ample reason to forgive those who have misunderstood. If God exists as He has revealed Himself, then His existence and reality can not be fully grasp by our finite faculties. If such is the case, then it would be wise to recognize such limitations and forgive readily.

If one is condemning humanity for all ideas of the sort, then the condemnation reveals a spirit of hostility that is equally unforgivable. In part, because all perceptions of God are not the same. If God does not exist, then ideas that bring out the worst in mankind might deserve the above sentiment. 

But is it wise to group these ideas with other ideas that bring out the best in mankind?

Perhaps this idea is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive Marquis de Sade.

But I have good reason to forgive Marquis.

What?

My belief in God.

Is this sucking perspective surrounded by stink?

The gospel according to Edward Abbey:

“From the point of view of a tapeworm, man was created by God to serve the appetite of the tapeworm.”

Humor is noted.

But how does one assume such a parasitic paradigm?

Obviously, there is an undercurrent of “survival of the fittest” mentality that allows this to make any sort of sense. The tapeworm attaches to the human and sucks life-sustaining nutrients from its host. Its way of life is better in that it lazily leeches from the efforts of its host. It is higher up on the food chain than humanity, therefore we know why God created humans. The human serves it’s needs.

Interesting as it may be, does this interaction of species in any way erode or build significant arguments for or against the existence of God? On the contrary, it seems that this thought sucks life-sustaining elements from this discussion as it lazily leeches from the efforts of its better proponents.

Please allow me to tell you what you get from a tapeworm’s point of view [please forgive me this vulgarity].

Its a bunch of sh…shoved fecal matter.

Would I be inaccurate to suggest the same is true of this quote?

Is this reasoning manufactured, impaired, or under the influence?

The gospel according to Lenny Bruce:

“If you believe that there is a God, a God that made your body, and yet you think that you can do anything with that body that’s dirty, then the fault lies with the manufacturer.”

You CAN do anything with that body.

Noble or ignoble.

Good or bad.

Clean or dirty.

Why?

Namely freewill.

The Designer designed the design with self-determination. This self determination, this potential, or this choice can be said to be freewill. It is the freedom to choose between legitimate choices. The manufacturer made a product that had freewill. There are some who argue against freewill by suggesting its presence is merely an illusion.

Is this what is being said? If not, then not much is being said.

If it is true that “you can do anything with that body,” then at least one alternative [its opposite] to “dirty” must also be an option. This then becomes more of a discussion regarding freewill, would it not?  

If you believe that there is freewill, then your line of reasoning to the manufacturer’s blame becomes unreasonable.

Freewill.

Blame.

Who gets the blame for driving an auto while impaired or under the influence? Certainly not the manufacturer, but the driver who was impaired and influenced by his own choosing. 

Made with a freewill.

A free choice was made.

Let us be reasonable.

Or for that matter, you could choose not to be and blame God for it.

Did the theological chicken come before the metaphysical egg?

The gospel according to Petronius:

“Fear was the god’s begetter in this world.”

This is an interesting thought. In many respects and with many examples, this could be proven to be true for many religious systems of thought.

But in the same way, one could argue that fear of justice has been the god’s executioner in this world. In effect, we live in an age where it is claimed that “God is dead” and we dance on his coffin.

But if we were to look inside, what would you imagine that we might find?

Emptiness.

The emptiness of empirical arguments from silence.

It is argued that God doesn’t exist, that fears of all kinds brought about the necessity of the God idea. This idea or concept of God was born and then evolved into the current state of religious pluralism.

This is a reasonable assertion of how religions MIGHT have come about IF the presupposition of God’s nonexistence is true. If the belief that God is dead or never existed is true, then it is reasonable to conclude that the existence of religious belief in God has been constructed. This is how it is argued.

And by argue, I mean a presentation of cause and effect that is largely based on presuppositional bias. 

The question of whether the chicken came before the egg is taken to new heights of expression. Which is the legitimate cause to the observable effect?

This would be true of both statements.

Fear was the god’s begetter
Fear of justice was the god’s executioner. 

Both statements are reasonable, if and only if the presupposition is already assumed to be true.

The existence of fear brought about the need for God?!
If one already assumes that God does not exist, then quite naturally [and logically], his explanation of God consists of some evolutionary fabrication of man in order to deal with excessive fear of the unknown, of death, and of other significant matters.

These questions don’t matter.

The existence of God brings about the need to fear?!
If one already assumes that God does exist, then quite naturally [and logically], his explanation of fear stands in relationship to a being that transcends our ability to understand but has revealed himself in limited ways so that some things might be known of the unknown, of death, and of other significant matters.

Some questions have answers.

Obviously, either statement can only convince those already convinced of certain ground beliefs.

This begs the question, “What is at the ground of your belief?”

The metaphysical egg?
The theological chicken?

The answer to this question will determine whether you will be convinced or remain unconvinced.

Can we know anything about what the whole of creation knows?

The gospel according to Camille Flammarion:

“Men…have had the vanity to pretend that the whole creation was made for them, whilst in reality the whole creation does not suspect their existence.”

One could argue that there is vanity in asserting that creation doesn’t even “suspect” the existence of man. How can one empirically verify anything about the “whole” of creation when we can’t even confirm what percentage of the universe is presently known?

This statement is bold.

Rather, this statement is quite arrogant. In fact, I believe there is a better way to describe it. Please allow me to misquote another to suggest the better description.

“Men…have had the vanity to pretend that the whole of creation [...] does not suspect their existence.” 

Precisely, this statement is one of vanity.

It assumes something that might very well be impossible to know as a whole. Since the whole universe has not been discovered. Consequently, the whole of creation is not known. It is obvious that the author’s worldview is filling in the black holes of the unknown in order to make a statement that can not be proven. 

Without even knowning the whole of everything created, one can know some of what has been created and ascertain that much of the world [a small, but better known part of creation], not only suspects our existence, but suffers from it. This can be empirically verified. 

In fact, I would agree with the idea that creation wasn’t made for man, but for other reasons, and those reasons put mankind in a unique position unlike the rest of the known creation. I will concede that a bit of my worldview is filling in spaces of unknown as well. But I am arguing from what is known.

One additional note that I find ironic. In trying to contend that man is insignificant with respect to the entire universe [a point that might be argued at another time], this person describes it in terms of man. Creation is personified. It is given anthropological characteristics to suggest something impossible to support. The universe is described with qualities attributed to mankind, this is a bit “suspect,” if you follow.

If you don’t see the irony, perhaps I am merely reading too much into what is trying to be said. I do realize this to be a figure of speech.

There are simpletons on both sides of the proverbial fence.

The gospel according to John Stuart MIll:

“The world would be astonished if it knew how great a proportion of its brightest ornaments–of those most distinguished even in popular estimation for wisdom and virtue–are complete skeptics in religion.”

Should I be in the least bit astonished by how such a claim could even be verified? Really. How does one go about proving such a statement? 

Certainly it becomes a matter of how words are being unpacked.

Would I be “astonished” in finding out this number of God-deniers to be not so great as implied by this quote (would the quote be any less true if such was the case)? What of the categories of “brightest” or “distinguished” described in such a way that excludes many or most that are God-believers of some sort? What cultures of the world are included in this “popular estimation” that is being made? Who are these “complete skeptics” that he mentions (atheists, agnostics, or perhaps even people who distrust the church for any number of reasons)? 

One thing can be known for certain and I believe it to be a reasonable inference. Mr. Mills is wise enough not to exclude from the group of “brightest ornaments” those who do have faith and do believe in God.

This reveals a measure of reality that many atheists are quick to deny.

Embracing faith as a way of solving the riddle of life doesn’t equate to the abandonment of the mind or its ability to reason. Just as the embrace of Atheism as a way of assuming our reality to be a closed-system doesn’t equate to being any more or less rational.

The quality of intellect crosses over both sides of the fence.

Some atheists and theists make a “leap of faith.” Some atheists and theists take a smaller step into the riddle of life. There are simple-minded atheists as there are theists with the same caliber of faculties. In both of these groups, there are those who know how the car works and others who are content just knowing that it works and they can drive to the local grocery to get dinner.

There are atheists and theists in this group described as “the brightest ornaments.”