A very interesting discussion came up among philosophers last night. Someone suggested what seems to be a lack of faith among the religious at funerals. On the one hand, the faithful believe that death is a birth into a better world, and the separation is only temporary. On the other, everybody is crying their eyes out as if they believe they will never again see the departed. What gives here?
Advertisement
I am not a philosopher but have read enough to be conversant. I am a professional physicist and a ‘believing’ Christian, though don’t assume too much … I also prefer theistic evolution, less insistent truth claims, and democrats. So with those disclaimers, I will speak as one of the ‘religious at funerals’.
Not all of ‘the religious’ have a full grasp of faith (the noun of believing). Uncertainty does grips ‘believers’ at the dramatic edges. Faith implies an element of trust in uncertain things. I am a ‘believer’ in a ‘relationship with God through eternity’ (whatever that means). I have no REASON or REASONING to prove the basis of this belief, but others cannot provide a REASON or REASONING to disprove. Thus, platonist eternity is indeed faith beyond reason.
I cannot smirk at those (and myself) who waiver now and again when death is near. It is the window in the castle that no one can see out of (from Bergman’s The Seventh Seal). Fear in the faithful can be forgiven. At sometime we all cry like the father of Mark 9:24 “I do believe. Help me in my unbelief!” At a funeral more so.
One further note. I have experienced a joyful funeral. My father-in-law was a jovial saint who died at 60 of a heart attack. His faith community and believing sons and daughters held a joyous memorial service filled with upbeat songs and stories of laughter. So laughter and smiles do happen when many see light coming from beyond that castle window!
Is there always no fear for the religiously authentic atheist? That is, is there no angst when facing the uncertainty of a quiet end to self-consciousness? I would guess ‘yes’ for some ‘no’ for others.
I think everyone ought to have anxiety toward death – whether religious or atheist or agnostic. I guess I view it as the central philosophical problem: facing the fact that, at some point, you will be no more. I think the problem can be — well, not exactly solved or overcome, but faced, and that is an important component of a human life. When religious folks too eagerly embrace an afterlife, they have too often sidestepped the problem by simply trying to deny its existence. In fact, I think it is healthy for religious folks to have a kind of split-mind with regard to the afterlife. I hope that some part of them is wrestling with mortality, while another part is in search of some faithful relief.
I agree. Plato and Augustine have a strong hold on modern religiosity (Christian and Islamic). The world beyond is often too real for the religious and it overshadows current reality. The religious Platonist often ignores earthly joys and sorrows. It is a problem. Platonists must seek better balance. (Where is that religious Thomist, when you need him to bring Augustinian-Aristotellian balance?)
[...] Philosophy Soup Jump to Comments Our friends at Philosophy@Utah State have an interesting discussion going that seems related to the Epicurus discussion we had going here last month: Religious Authenticity. [...]
This seems to me a perfect example of Nietzsche’s claim that “God is dead” (even though the statement can itself be traced to Martin Luther, and Hegel as well). God is dead not because he once existed and does no longer, but because we no longer are able even to believe in him. Naturally, of course, we claim to believe, but our actions show otherwise.
What good does it do to claim that I am God, if I can perform no god-like action? Similarly, what good does it do claim that I believe in God, if I act as if I did not believe. Nietzsche’s claim, I think, is still just as relevant today. We have lost all touch with a grounding in anything beyond this world that we see. We scholars (and those of us who will become scholars), with our reason and science and our searching after Truth–we have killed God, and belief is no longer even possible. Belief has become a fad, a style, a fashion statement, but not an authentic way of living. Belief has become a tasteless, stale hypocrisy.
The Christian mourner who falls apart at a funeral is confronted with this lack of belief. It is clearly not the mourning of one who is parting with a friend whom they will see down the road, in but a few seconds, seen in the grand scheme of eternity. It is not (and forgive me if I generalize) a joyous celebration for a friend who will no longer suffer, who goes on now to paradise. The tears shed are decidedly not this. They are shed because the believer does not believe. Confronted with this reality, there is sorrow not just for the friend who has past. There is something more, for the “believer”, even than the mystery of death and dying. There is, too, the face to face confrontation with one’s own failure to believe.
Death brings the Christian face to face with their deepest convictions. Tears and mourning are a physical display of the lack between faith and knowledge. For those who parade their faith as though it were knowledge, this confrontation of hypocrisy is quite a load to handle.
I wonder though, Michael, if there ever was a time when self-identified Christians didn’t truly mourn deaths. That is, at least on this issue, maybe God always has been dead, in the sense you describe. I would say that the reality of death is so undeniable and striking that it puts aside any high-level cognitive belief in God and an afterlife; religion is always a matter of trying to deny what’s in front of your eyes, and when death comes, there’s no denying it (though many people try, of course). But I know a Christian could say that this all just shows how difficult faith is. It’s what makes Abraham so ‘unthinkable,’ as Kierkegaard says.
Michael, Huenemann,
This is a bit long, but a defense seems necessary. My ‘faith’ is reasonable.
You seem fairly certain that what we see is what we get…No God and that Plato’s ‘reality’ behind the physical world does not exist. It has been a tenent of Platonists (Christians, etc) that this other reality is ‘unseen’ and must be pursued on some non-physical level of the mind. I know the arguments of Hume against miracles, but his argument depends on the smallness of the number of encounters with the ‘Other’. Perhaps the reality of ‘the Other’ is always left as a tantalizing realm of occasional experience without a preponderance of evidence. This is precisely where Hume’s argument stands … that there is not ENOUGH evidence to make a good case, then he chooses the material universe.
I would suggest to both of you that it is not unreasonable to hold to a faith in something behind the physical universe, but I must also acknowledge that it is equally ireasonable to hold to a faith that there is nothing behind the physical universe. Pascal recognized this even as Descartes was trying to prove otherwise. As to the reasonableness of the existence of ‘The Other’, there are tantalizing concepts in modern science that suggest something beyond the boundaries of the physical realm. The concepts can be reduced to two though there is a third which is too complex to describe here. However, these concepts are not conclusive, just tantalizing. I am sure you are more familiar with these two than I am.
First Cause.
Most materialists throughout history concluded no beginning-no end to the universe. The Greek Atomists said the atoms and the void always existed. Kantian astronomers thought the universe to be infinite in extent and time. You both know the many arguments of motion and first motion from reason, but maybe have not been aware of the spiritual travail of astronomers in the 20th century over First Cause. When Hubble’s observations noted the expanding universe and when Dicke and Zeldovich observed the cosmic blackbody background from a big bang event, there was a crisis among scientists because of an observed Beginning. Most scientists were resistant to the idea. There were several well known attempts to theorize around a beginning (Einstein, Fred Hoyle, Richard Tolman) and several attempts are continuing (Stephen Hawking, Paul Davies). A First Cause is still very plausible. Robert Jastrow, one of the physicists who developed the mathematics of the big bang event, writes of this crisis in “God and the Astronomers”.
Governance
Thomas Aquinas poses that the heavenly planets are dumb objects yet they know how to move in regular, reasonable patterns, therefore there must be a Governance of Reason behind the universe. No matter how deep physicists open up the physical laws to describe away God, Michael, they must always come to an undefinable quantity that implies a Governance of Reason. Einstein recognizes the same truth as Thomas when he says “The most eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility” This is the deep truth of physics.
So Newton claims that F = ma and that mass attracts mass, therefore the planets move in orbits! Well, the undefined quantity is mass and force. What is mass and how does the earth exert a force on the moon from a distance. So Einstein says that mass curves space so other masses move along curves of space. What is mass and what is space and why do they affect each other in such reasonable ways? We have the math that describes these undefinable quantities, but the quantities and there existence is the eternal mystery.
Einstein saw the universe in the same light as Spinoza … God was the reason and will of the Universe. The pagan and the Hindu personify the universe generally as the body of the divine. The Platonist moves the Reason and the Will one step back from the Universe (Timaeus). The Christian, Jew, Muslim the same. The materialist is in the same camp as Spinoza and the pagan, but just hopes that the god is dead and impersonal. Spinoza is the materialist’s high priest (and not a bad guy at that), in that the Universe is its own reason. Sorry guys, all these camps are camps of faith. God behind the universe is dead because you wish him to be … but that is faith.
(I do agree with Nietzsche that ‘believers’ existentially kill God through their actions of unbelief. “He matters not, thus, God is dead.” )
Vince, your last (parenthesized) point was really my only contention, and it is that point which is displayed very clearly, I believe, in the actions of the overwhelming majority of Christians. Funerals are but one example.
(Another which shows itself again and again, is the habits of most “Christians” regarding the bible. Most Christians will declare readily that the bible is the Word of God. And yet, they’ve not even once read the book in its entirety. No, it’s quite clear that they don’t believe that the bible is true and inspired by God. They merely say they believe that the bible is true and inspired by God. If they did believe it, then one can only imagine the level of dedication they would put forth in reading—and living—its words.)
All of the “reasons” to believe which you mention only seem to strengthen my point (that faith is difficult, if not impossible, and very very few have any semblance of the faith they declare they have). Instead of faith, we want reasons. Instead of recognizing the fragile delicacy of faith, Christians pretend their faith is akin to knowledge. None of the arguments for God’s existence lead one to the biblical God, even if we granted them valid (which wouldn’t be very reasonable either). The difficulty of faith should be realized, not buried under false blankets of knowledge, so that Christians can lead easier, more normal lives.
If you’re going to believe, then believe. But don’t tell the world that you believe, while you sell your faith for a more comfortable life. If you’re going to cry at a funeral, then admit why you cry. If you’re not going to read your bible incessantly, then tell us why you don’t read (or know) your bible.
(I won’t get into the problem of translation or interpretation or infallibility here.)
Huenemann, I would probably agree that there likely never was a time when self-identified Christians didn’t mourn deaths. (As has been said before, and perhaps it is true in this regard, ‘the last true Christian was Christ.’) If this was the only difficulty that reared its head in the lives of believers against belief, then it would be much easier to understand, but as I said earlier, the lack of belief in the life of most “believers” shows itself again and again and again. And I have no problem with this. I have no problem chalking it up to the difficulty (and perhaps to the near impossibility) of consistently sustaining belief. But that being the case, Christians ought to recognize that difficulty and not prance about as though everyone should believe, as though faith were an easy, rational, obvious choice which they have made—and you should make too.
(As something of a side note, I find this idea that “Christ was the last true Christian” somewhat fascinating. While Christians go about declaring the strength of their faith, the rationality of their belief, and the comfort that belief brings—many declaring that they have escaped the isolation of life and hear from God on a regular basis—the last words of Christ as he died on the cross, in Matthew ch27, were a declaration of aloneness and abandonment. ‘Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?’ “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”)
Michael,
I am in awe of your sermon. It is too true. Too true. I have no counter response. I can only retreat to my Bible and pursue God in more meaningful ways.
——- not a counter response —————-
The thought ‘Christ was the last true Christian’ intrigues me, too. This is the first time I have heard the phrase. Perhaps Jesus is the only true Christian in ‘right practice’. I hope we (Christians) acknowledge our deficiencies and weep with contrite tears. Too often it is arrogance in ‘right thinking that is the defining characteristic of Christians.
There probably have been good attempts at being a true Christian in practice … but rarely. I am fascinated by humans like:
Francis of Assisi
Robert Chapman of the Plymouth Brethren
General William Booth of the Salvation Army
Albert Schweitzer
Mahatma Gandhi
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Martin Luther King Jr.
Mother Teresa
Henri Nouwen
These humans seemed to understand the real center of Christian praxeology. Perhaps they may
qualify as “nearly-true little Christians”? At least these did not murder God with their lives. The rest of us (Christians) may be pretenders merely because we have learned the right jargon.
I do note that while I agree with Nietzsche’s proposal on the existential murder of God. I think the one
common identifier of the people listed above is that they embrace Jesus’ ethics of servant-hood in one way or another. The mature (or crazy) Nietzsche thought Christian humility and servant-hood weak and disgusting. I think Nietzsche missed Jesus’ main points … but many Christians miss them too.
Michael, your exhortations to Christians are worthwhile.
Just for what it’s worth, the claim “The last Christian was Christ” is Nietzsche’s, who actually wrote “The last Christian died on the cross.” (Much more punch that way!) It’s in his “Antichrist,” which I think is a very powerful work. Indeed, I think one can sort out the interesting from not-interesting theologians by asking whether they are trying to respond to Nz’s critique in some way. It can be answered, I think, but not ignored. Barth, Bonhoeffer, Bultmann, and Niebuhr are the fellows to read, at least on the Protestant side. And Hans Kung — the first half of his “Does God Exist?” is an excellent history of philosophical theology, which culminates in Nz’s challenge.
What Michael and Vince are pointing out is exactly right, I think. “Christianity lite” is no substitute for the real thing. (This is also part of Nz’s point, I think, though he also thinks the real thing pales in contrast to his own recommendations.)
Vince mentions “camps” and specifically “camps of faith”.
It seems like a lot of people think the world is a place where you’ve got a ton of different packaged worldviews and your mission is to choose between them and pick one, put it on like a helmet with goggles and your world will forever be transformed by it. You “understand” the people with different worldviews because you understand their helmet.
Truly understanding people is quite different because each person’s view of the world is really their own. A person’s view of the world is mostly guided by things that are outside of his/her control (environment, culture, indoctrination, etc.). So understanding myself and my view of the world is a discovery process not a construction process. It’s similar when I change my view of the world. I read something or understand some new concept and can’t help but be changed by the concept.
I think some story like this is the human process and I think arguments about this camp vs that camp don’t really get anything done. So… I wouldn’t pair Spinoza and Einstein in that way and I view all people as having distinct worldviews. If I were to pair people by worldviews I’d probably be more likely to use culture as a metric. Culture seems to have a large impact on human behavior and therefore seems like something we could (should?) work on directly to make a better world. Metaphysics is largely impotent and has been for quite some time. Looking around… “American” is what defines the people I see in regard to behavior much more than Christian or Athiest or Buddhist.
choosing camps… choosing faiths… maybe those aren’t really choices we have? OR how is it that we gain that level of control over “reality”?
just my thoughts.