hopelesshappiness.com

According to New Atheism God is no longer necessary because science now explains (or has the potential to explain) what God previously explained. If this is true, science and scientists are not doing an adequate job of explaining and/or filling the gaps. As a lay person, I certainly still have many, many questions, and I believe there are a number of transcendental truths (unknowable certainties, beyond human explanation or experience) and spiritual speculations (unknowable uncertainties) that will never be explained. To this point, it does not appear that science has explained away God; or eliminated the need to believe; or quashed spiritual speculations; or even eliminated that gray area of transcendental truth that lies between fact and spiritual speculation. (An example of a large transcendental truth would be explaining the unmoved mover in the argument of cause and effect; if the truth is The Big Bang, neither science nor religion can prove or disprove an ultimate, transcendental cause of said truth.)

While acknowledging the rational validity of scientific exploration and advancement, one must ask if the condemnation of spiritual speculation by New Atheism is valid or useful; and some may ask the same about any attempts to disprove (or prove) the existence of God.

According to many Religious Believers morality and good values depend on a belief in God; (57 percent of Americans agree). Yet there are many secular nations (including Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and The Netherlands) that consistently rate better on life expectancy, crime, literacy, economic equality, education, political stability, and a number of other measures of societal well-being. And there is some statistical support for some circumstance in which religion may actually contribute to societal dysfunction. (Statistical information quoted with supporting citations from 'The Moral Landscape' by Sam Harris.) At this point, it does not appear that religious faith has justified organized religion; or eliminated the utility of science; or advanced world-wide, synergistic Goodness; or even consistently raised societal / cultural levels of morality and good values.

While acknowledging the rational validity of spiritual speculation, one must ask if organized religion has outlived its usefulness; and some may ask the same about religious faith.

Mystery allows Scientists to research and Believers to rejoice; and both camps should be allowed to do so, rationally.

So, if New Atheists (in particular) and Skeptics (in general) could bring themselves to acknowledge 1) the existence of values (that may vary by belief but do no physical harm), 2) rational discussion of transcendental truths, and 3) the rational validity of spiritual speculation, and if Religious Activists (in particular) and Religious Believers (in general) could bring themselves to acknowledge 1) the importance of valuing simple spiritual speculation (without the excess baggage of religious dogma or physical harm), 2) rational discussion of transcendental truths, and 3) the rational validity of scientific exploration and advancement, then we have narrowed the borders to enclose a common ground and we have reduced or (perhaps) eliminated animosity.

This common ground is not a stretch for Religious Believers or Skeptics and it should not be a stretch (but rather a beginning) for Religious Activists and New Atheists; if it is a stretch for anyone, they are not practicing rational, disciplined thought, thus becoming the irrational, undisciplined zealot as portrayed by their opposite number.

Last week I ended the post 'The Art and Magic of Happiness' with "Magic is a song of fear - Art is a dance of courage." This week I heard that song of fear and I am dancing that dance of courage; it seems though, that so far this week I am not dancing fast enough, and, I have two left feet. It is interesting that some sing the song to others and(/or) some sing it to themselves, whereas the dancers typically dance alone. My impression is that at any given moment there are many more singers than dancers, and the members of the audience far outnumber the entertainers. I believe those who cannot sing well, simply don't; they sit in the audience and listen; (though we all sing in the shower). But there are many dancers who simply must dance, regardless; and it is scary to dance alone. The audience can be unkind. To dance alone often invites criticism and may create some insecurities and uncertainty. Some dancers combat this by adding song to their dance; sometimes their own - sometimes another; this is a mistake; this song of fear (as a reflection of Magic) takes away from the dance. It is best to dance through the insecurities and embrace the uncertainty.

... ... ... ...

For a couple of days I have been attempting to ignore uncertainty and I have added song to my 'now-frenzied' dance, all in search of certainty and safety. I feel uncertainty shadowing me; closely.

... ... ... ...

I am unable to ignore it, so now I have stopped singing, turned around, once again embraced uncertainty, and we are doing a slow waltz while I catch my breath.

... ... ... ...

Three days ago, I felt I had lost my moorings. While it is scary to dance alone, I experienced more fear chasing the siren song of safety and certainty. The quiescence of conformity is stifling. The potential found in this ineffable (perilous?) dance with uncertainty is preferable.

"Magic is a song of fear." Safety and certainty is a sham; a reflection of the singer's repressed fear and an illusion of hope for those listening.

"Art is a dance of courage." A dance with uncertainty; a dance of solitude; a dance of potential.

Magic: A deft manipulation of inattention and misdirection creating an expectant assimilation of myths and symbols; an avoidance of reality.

Art: A deft manipulation of attention and focus, using myths and symbols to create an ineffable awareness of Dark and Light; a confrontation with reality.

We want to believe in magic, but we are better served by art. Magic is mind-numbing; simple; pleasant. Art is thought-provoking; complex; filled with shadows. Magic is a safe-in-your-seat spectator sport. Art is a full-contact, participatory pursuit. Magic is characterized by an unquestioning desire to believe. To appreciate art requires cultivated intuition and intense skeptical scrutiny. Magic is characterized by a bureaucratic herd mentality. To fully appreciate art requires the pain of solitude. Magic is sleight of hand. Art is depth of mind. Magic is showmanship. Art is the (sometimes fluid, more often arduous) meshing of internal and external harmonies. A magician takes credit. An artist gives credit. Magic is exclusionary. Art is available to everyone. Magic takes itself too seriously. Art takes innovative risks. Magic is pedestrian. Art is spiritual. Magic has boundaries. Art is forever. Magic is a song of fear. Art is a dance of courage.

If you could take an anti-aging pill once per day to arrest the process, would you do so? Imagine the cost is minimal (say, a penny per day), and though it would not stop already-acquired advanced illness, nor preclude normal illness (flu, cold, etc.) or accident, let's assume it would take all future life-threatening disease (such as heart disease and cancer) off the table, and it would allow you to retain the overall health and vitality you currently enjoy at whatever age you decide to begin taking the pill. The only question for many would be, at what age do I begin taking this pill?

Some though, may question if they truly want to live forever. If the pill cannot reverse aging (it just stops the process when you begin taking it) then when the pill first comes available, many elderly and/or infirm may opt not to take it. Others may feel that immortality comes in a next life or through a process of regeneration and/or rebirth, and opt out based on personal beliefs. And then there is the question of overpopulation. Would we figure a way to sustain, if the mortality rate suddenly plummeted? Many people would optimistically (narcissistically) think so, and not worry.

But would we truly be happy (or Happy) with immortality? From experience, it feels that everything of value is fleeting. Life is fleeting. Health is fleeting. Happiness is fleeting. If immortality were suddenly thrust upon us, would Living lose some appeal? And some value? And how long before boredom sets in? Additionally, immortality (in this scenario) does not guarantee freedom from pain and adversity. There is no caveat for unlimited wealth; only improved health and vitality. There is no provision for sudden peace and harmony amongst all people. Can we bear an eternity of work, struggle, politics, bureaucracy, conflict, nuisance, the daily grind - not to mention poison ivy and the in-laws? Granted, there are numerous enjoyable, rewarding aspects in Life that for many far outweigh the adversity; but still, eternity is a very long time.

Albert Camus said, "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living..." The anti-aging scenario presented puts this question in terms that would be relevant to each of us. We would have to make a choice that could be presented in varying ways. Some may say you are choosing between Life and suicide. Others may say you are choosing between narcissistic youth and the wisdom of old age. And still others may look at it as a choice between health/vitality and the potential for an agonizingly slow death. I believe it is this last argument that may sway many of us; at least those under the age of 50.

So what if the pharmaceutical gods that make this pill (legally and by government edict) made 1 out of every 500,000 to induce a deep sleep and a painless, peaceful death. This provision would add some interest to the proposition of potential immortality, and some value to Living. Additionally, it would help with the aforementioned issues of overpopulation and sustainability. And it would force everyone to not only more carefully consider IF they would take it, but also at what age they would begin. If one waited too long they could succumb to an irreversible, natural, life-threatening illness; too soon and they could die young as the one out of half-a-million.

Though it has been consistently predicted to be on the horizon, science and technology have yet to provide an anti-aging pill or freedom from the threat of slow, painful, terminal illness. Some believe it will come. If it does, what decisions will you make?

We aspire to transcendence. But if we were to achieve any of these states of being - complete Transcendence... an ultimate Truth... unadulterated Purity... - we will have also stripped away our Humanity. Humanity (strongly) implies imperfection. This week I have wondered if even stumbling in the general proximity of a perfect state, or somehow achieving some semblance (or even some facade) of a perfect state, may not also take away from the experience of Living Life.

Should one's Humanity be balanced? Or should one more actively pursue an understanding of those aspects that call out?

Could active, diligent pursuit of a particular aspect of one's Humanity truly dismantle one's Humanity? Or does it just appear to others that it does so, while to the aspirant (though adding understanding through complexity and depth) the desired state appears to recede? - (i.e. The more you know, the more you know you don't know.)

Uncertainty and the Unknown are a part of our Humanity.

Fear is a part of our Humanity.

Human Interaction is a part of our Humanity.

Struggle is a part of our Humanity.

A desire for Harmony is a part of our Humanity.

A desire for Power and Control is a part of our Humanity.

Pain and Adversity are a part of our Humanity.

Synergy and Interdependence are a part of our Humanity.

Beauty and Ugliness are a part of our Humanity.

Our search for Truth and Wisdom is a part of our Humanity.

The Dark and the Light are a part of our Humanity.

To pursue a deeper, more complex understanding of all of the above is compulsory; but to achieve Perfect Understanding is not desirable. A contradiction? Perhaps; but that too is a part of our Humanity.