“According to Huxley, the word was designed as antithetic to
the ‘Gnostic’ of early church history, and was intended to be opposed not
simply to theism and Christianity, but also to atheism and pantheism. He
meant the word to cover with a mantle of respectability not so much ignorance
about God but the strong conviction that the problem of His existence is
insoluble.”[1]
The tail-less fox searching for a “mantle of
respectability?” So it would seem, but who could blame him? It was
a difficult and confusing time -- given the setting, many intellectuals must
have been pretty frustrated and imagined themselves to be short not just a
tail, but both hindquarters as well. In a time and place where, as Huxley
describes, the choice, in a practical sense, was Christianity or nothing,
anybody who pondered the theological difficulties would have been forced to
reconsider the oath of membership to any of the exclusive Christian
clubs. Invention of the label of ‘Agnosticism’ was no doubt born of the
frustration of having had to deal with those whose doctrines could easily be
discredited by men and women of intellect, but in a theological void where an
acceptable alternative was not yet presented to the English-speaking
world. What could a person who believed in God, but who did not believe
in the religions of his or her exposure do? Escape was the only
alternative, and that, so it appears, is exactly what Huxley did. Huxley
coined a term which encapsulated an ages-old concept which afforded all who
claimed allegiance an escape route from the overheated, overcrowded room of
religious discussion, and into the private den of personal convictions.
Yet, although the term afforded a popular relief valve for
those who evaded the pressure of serious religious discussion in the time of
Huxley, the question arises, “Does the term have value in the present
day?” The truth of the concept remains, but the question is not whether
there is truth in the concept, but whether there is value in the truth. A
rock has truth, but what is its value? Very little, under normal
circumstances.
So on one hand, the ‘So what?’ factor remains.
Encapsulating the ages-old concept of the non-provable issue of God sounds so
neat and practical, but does the concept of non-provability change anybody’s
belief in God? A person can embrace any of the myriad belief/disbelief
systems while at the same time admitting that the truth of God cannot be
proven. Yet such an admission does not change the depth of conviction
each person holds in his or her heart and mind.
And most people know this.
Few devotees believe they can support their religion or the
existence of God with absolute and irrefutable proof. Growing challenges
by increasingly intelligent and well-informed laity have placed an impossible
burden of proof on the clergy of the Judaic and Christian faiths, in
specific. Questions and challenges, which in previous ages would have
brought charges of heresy as a practical measure for the suppression of
sedition are now commonplace, and deserving of answers. The fact that
Church responses to such queries defy logic and human experience has resulted
in clergy often having no other resort than to reverse the challenge upon the
questioner, in the form of asserting, “It’s a mystery of God, you just have to
have faith.” The questioner may respond, “but I do have faith – I
have faith that God can reveal a religion which would answer all my questions,”
only to be counseled further, “Well, in that case, you just have to havemore faith.”
In other words, a person has to stop asking questions and be satisfied with the
party line. Even when it doesn’t make sense, and even when the
foundational scriptures teach otherwise.
Hence, over the past few centuries the hierarchy of the many
Judeo-Christian sects have been driven back on their heels by God-given logic
to a teetering, bowed-back, arm-spinning posture of Gnostic ideology, which in
the early (i.e. the period of those who knew best) history of Christianity was
regarded as a no-holds barred, no doubt about it,
‘gather-the-firewood-and-plant-the-stake’ heretical sect. The
scenario is bizarre; it is like saying, “Sure, that oven was last year’s
model. The prototypes didn’t work. In fact they exploded and
everyone who used one burned to death, but we’re bringing it back anyway
because we need the money. But we promise you, if you believe -- I mean
really believe -- then we promise you’ll be OK. And if it does explode
in your face, don’t blame us. You just didn’t believe enough.” The
sad thing is, lots of people are not only buying it, they’re setting one aside
for each of their kids.
The overall scheme of things is one in which clergy
considered Christian faith to be founded upon knowledge up until the educated
laity came to know better. For many centuries laity were not allowed to
own Bibles, with the punishment of possession in more than a few cases having
been death. Only with suppression of this law, manufacture of paper in Europe (14th century), invention of the printing
press (mid-15th century), and translation of the New Testament into the English
and German languages (16th century) did Bibles become readily available
and readable by the common literate man. Hence, for the first time, laity
became able to read the Bible (where available – publication and distribution
remained limited for many decades) and present rational challenges to
established doctrines based upon personal analysis of the foundational
scriptures. When such challenges defeated the arguments of the Church
apologists, most Christian sects did an amazing thing -- they disavowed the
nearly 2,000 year-old claim that doctrine should be based upon knowledge, and
instituted instead the concept of salvation through spiritual guidance and
justification by faith. Particular emphasis was placed on the alleged
virtue of blind, unthinking (and hence unquestioning) commitment.
The modern ‘spiritual’ defenses which sprung from the new
church orientation mimic the heretical ‘mystic exclusivity’ of the ancient
Gnostics, all echoing familiar sentiments such as, “You just don’t understand,
you don’t have the Holy Spirit inside you like I do,” or “You just need to
follow your guiding light -- mine is leveled, laser-straight and Xenon bright,
but yours is flickering and dim” or “Jesus doesn’t live inside you as he does
inside me.” No doubt such assertions appeal to each speaker’s ‘aren’t I
special’ personal ego inventory, but if someone insists on belief in
spiritually exclusive pathways, then no doubt others will insist on a
discussion of the difference between delusion and reality. T.H. Huxley,
no doubt, would have been happy to chair the debate.
The problem is that claiming mystical exclusivity as the key
to guidance and/or salvation is to claim that God has arbitrarily abandoned the
‘un-saved’ of creation -- hardly a God-like scenario. Does it not make
infinitely more sense for God to have given all of humankind equal chance to
recognize the truth of His teachings? Then those who submit to His
evidences would deserve reward, while those who deny would be blameworthy for
failing to give acknowledgement, credit, and worship where due.
But unfortunately, the nature of delusion is that the ones
who are deluded rarely are capable of recognizing the errors of their
misunderstanding; the nature of the Gnostics is similar in that they typically
are too enamored with their self-satisfying, self-serving philosophy to realize
the falsehood of their foundation. And indeed, it is hard to believe the
waiter has spat in the soup when the restaurant is rated five-star, the service
refined, the presentation impeccable. Appearance and taste may be so good
as to defy reality. But it is the patron who regards the bearer of truth
as an inconvenient kill-joy rather than as a sincere benefactor who is going to
wear the sicknesses of the server home.
Footnotes:
[1] Meagher,
Paul Kevin et al. Vol. 1, p. 77.
No comments:
Post a Comment