to believe or not to believe

annie dillard writes in FOR THE TIME BEING-

An English journalist, observing the Sisters of Charity in Calcutta, reasoned: "Either life is always and in all circumstances sacred, or intrinsically of no account; it is inconceivable that it should be in some cases the one, and in some the other."

i begin this post with this quote as a response to my viewing last night of a three part program aired by PBS...i watched the last installment

jonathan miller is a thinker and writer whom i have come to respect over the years
he hosted this program and to my sense
used it as a milieux for his serious expression of atheism
the program was sponsored by
the Humanist Fund
and other organizations which promote the human program

without going into the details of the program
and in fact i only viewed the final show
i can say that it was a rather typical modern argument
against the rise of christian fundamentalism (and religious fundametalism in general) and
an "apology" for the "enlightened" thought which came out of
19th century europe
based as it were
on the thinking of thomas paine jeremy bentham sigmund freud
percy bysshe shelley
but finding it's fullest expression in the "positivist" thought of france
with auguste comte' as the primary prophet

i am trying to focus my thoughts here

i will focus on the "ideas" stated by jonathan miller
and not so much on the various strands of atheism
which arose and did much to form the cultural malais of the 20th century

miller stated more than once
that he felt no need to believe in a god
he has nodding respect for the lithuanian jewish heritage
of his family
but is content to accept that this life is all there is
and when it is over that is all there is

at one point
in an effort to display some
gentleness in the world of humanist ethics
he visits a hospice and has a chat with
a clear minded elderly woman
who is obviously waiting out her last days on earth
in their conversation
he evokes from her her wish to see herself
as a young girl again
and she maintains a hope that the ecstacy of death
will give her that wish
she submitted to the interview on the condition that her face
not be shown

at another point toward the end of the show
miller confesses that he has some mild anxiety
related to the fear of mental anguish
which might be a part of the death process

but through it all he maintains that
darwins' theory of natural selection
and the description of the evolutionary process
have all but debunked the notions of a divine intelligence
and a "design" in the known natural world
and therefore notions like "fear of god"
"humility before god" "reverence for god"
"awe before god" are nonsensical at best

he has a brief chat with richard dawkins
and with the irish philosopher brian mcginn

thus it is... the humanist doctrine proposes
that accepting the "non-existence" of god
carries with it the obligation to state a whole new
set of principles
including an ethical program and a moral philosophy
with which to deal with social life as we have it
in our world today--
--there is no such thing as the immortal soul
so the problem is confined to matters relating to
the given immediate existence of every human at any given point in time

my sense is always that this then amounts to
a "management program"
using the tools of science and primarily the human sciences
to attend to the many problems ensuing from the
fact of human life in it's many and varied expression in our world

i will state emphatically--
the freedom sought naturally by the human mind
is impossible to attian without giving oneself over to the
discipline of faith
it is a discipline of accepting mercy

another argument miller states more than once
has to do with the historical atrocities stemming from religion
which is more than enough in his and his colleagues minds alive and dead
to completely compromise the energy given over to
a life in faith

he gives little mention to the atrocities
stemming from the rise of atheism the fullblown expressions of last century
hitler's 8 million
lenin and stalin's 20 million
mao tse tung's 50 million
the ransacking and burning of religious houses
all over france and england and germany
and the million's anihilated by abortion in our time
(of course it would be argued that this practice has
given everyone else more room.)

little seems to be understood about the
cultural gifts bestowed upon humanity
by the countless souls devoted to works of faith
from medical care to art to libraries to education for all
and social reform movements to boot ( st francis for instance...
dorothy day....st ignatius of loyola...mother theresa of calcutta)

what do i want to say...in an effort to sum up and counter this position?

for a sceintist and a thinker
my sense is that miller falls short of wisdom
he appears to me to be a victim of the english utilitarian ethos
of decency and common sense
as values sufficient for life
wisdom (in this context) is the accumulaton of knowledge within the
objective efforts of science
one's thinking then is limited to the inspiration from the "facts"

and i would further argue that he conveyed no sympathy
for the efforts to create beauty to give expression to the movements of the heart
nor do many of his cohorts such as dawkins
cristopher hitchins sam harris and the like

to put the "human" at the center of all consideration
is to face continual disappointment

it is as if to say
"who needs bach's solo cello sonatas...we have the work of michael jackson!"

the other aspect that makes me uncomfortable in a world evermore designed
by the humanist ethos is the usurpation of religious intuition by psychology

we are surrounded by the endless babble of people presuming to know human
behaviour and the subtleties of mind and heart
"who needs confession when you can hear oprah winfrey everyday?"
"why bother with prayer...dr phil will address your every need?"
"you've got a problem...there's a self help book or twenty on the shelf for you!"

what most boggles the mind for me
is the ignorance expressed in the apparently
comprehensive remarks of these new humanist thinkers

they are conversant with darwin and freud
but they know precious little of st augustine
they betray no knowledge of thomas aquinas and the
lively tradition which continues into our own day
the philosophical dialectic between faith and reason
where faith can utilize the dictates of reason
reason can be energized by the challenges of faith
they seem to know nothing of jacques maritain
of henri de lubac
of romano guardini
of karol woytila
of hans urs von balthasar
of pierre teilhard de chardin
of joseph marechal
of karl rahner

it is a simple digging in of the philosophical heals
it is a simple "no"
which more or less does away with the considerations of
metaphysics
and thereby must be considered a narrow
and constricting epistemology-
man's intellect sufficient unto itself

it is an ignorance of insights into "mind"
more or less begun by aristotle
--a most useful legacy of thought
which includes a rather honest expression
of humility in the face of the unknown

it seems then that annie dillard hits upon
an essential question
(and i realize belatedly that she is making this case throughout her whole book)
how are we to perceive the human person...be she
deformed...retarded...near death...morally derelict...insane?

either she is a sacred expression of god
or she is intrinsically of no account

how are you going to chose your side?

my ultimate argument tonite has to do with
practicality--
given the stakes
to view the earth with the wonder of a child
seeing a flower for the first time
seems a terrible thing to lose

any science which compromises the "wonder" inherent in everything
from the striations of rock in a cliff
to the markings of a butterfly wing
seems to me a vicious crime

i've thought more than once that it is remarkable
how some give themselves over so readily to
the doctrines of darwin
and this really amounts to an act of faith
no one has witnessed evolution
or natural selection for that matter
this is not a mechanism we can observe
(much damage has come about by attempting
to force the issue of natural selection)
we presume now that it happens all the time
but we do not "see" it
a few scientists have been involved in the "genome"
project and we all seem to be so convinced that
this is the truth happening for us
we give ourselves over in faith
(have you ever seen DNA?)
some do
i do not

and to view human life as anything but sacred
is to give into the arrogance of human manipulation
and manipulation of the natural world
of which it would seem we've encountered enough
in the last century alone
to give us pause

i intend to give my next 5 posts over to the stating
and discussing of the 5 proofs for the existence of god
of my immortal mentor the angelic doctor