Spontaneous Optimism
is Faith. Compelled Faith is degrading to humans and blasphemous to God.
No Optimist can
supply sufficient evidence to support his position that, on the whole, future
of Mankind is bright. (Counter-evidence is more conspicuous.) But all
meaningful endeavors are meaningful under this presupposition. Statement of
optimism could be, total Existence (matter-energy, consciousnesses,
imaginations, contemplations are all included in ‘Existence’.) has an inherent
net propensity of perpetually (may be with a few setbacks) moving towards
the ‘Better’. (Does this lead to Ultimate perfection or the process would
continue asymptotically? My position is in favor of asymptote.)
Obviously, the
ideas of ‘Good’ are certainly not concurrent. But I think they are somewhat
convergent. As if it were, vector of the direction of Good for each of us will
have some deviation from each other but not more than 900 and
certainly not diametrically opposite. (This may also be a part of my optimism.)
Peace, Harmony, Justice, Health, Authentic Communication, Joy of Art,
Complementarity with non-human Nature are a few items which will occur in
almost everyone’s list. May be more convergence with richer lists will also be
one implication of the propensity.
No doubt some
individuals can sustain their optimism without involving the notion of God.
Atheism is a valid philosophical choice. However Atheism is not the only valid
choice. You don’t have to prove ‘objective existence’ of your dialogue-partner
who enriches your mental and overall life. Ardent Atheists are completely
missing the point when they make issue of God into a problem in validity of
knowledge.
God is not a proposed fact at all. He is the complementary pole of a
particular set of attitudes towards life. Of course there are multiple notions
of God and multiple attitudes invoked by them. Some of such attitudes are
deplorable but some are commendable too. Critique of attitudes lies in the
value-realm and has nothing to do with objectively provable existence of any
entity. As Gabriel Marcel has suggested it is sufficient for God to exist only
in ‘second person’ in inner dialogue. Atheists are sealing the dialogue with
all Theists indiscriminately and unnecessarily confining themselves in
ideological isolation which is detrimental to the laudable causes which some
Atheists are pursuing.
Let us focus upon
what makes Theism problematic, especially so for liberal perspective. We must
identify those features of Theism which ought to be negated for Human Good.
Amongst the Vices associated with Theism Divisiveness, Antagonism and
Authoritarianism are strong ones and inaction, fatalism and escapism are the
softer ones. It must be made clear as to which components in the notion of God are
responsible for generating these vices. Before directly expounding Pan-Theism
let us focus on the roots of vices associated with Non-Pan-Theisms. Let us call
Non-Pan-Theisms as ‘Divisive-Theisms’ for reasons we will see immediately.
Divisive-Theisms divide
Existence into Theos and Non-Theos, Divine and Mundane, Sacred and Profane, Chosen ones and Non-Chosen ones and of course, the Fidel and
the Infidel. God has to be one! But his messengers are many. Each messenger’s version
of God, God’s commands, as well as Name of God varies. There are significant
mismatches between these. But one thing is common in Divisive-Theisms is that
they demand unconditional allegiance by the followers. Still worse, the message
also contains Laws for running society/ Government in ‘this world.’ In case of
almost all Divisive-Theisms the commands of God also contain sanctions of
Rewards and Punishments, in this world/this birth as well as threats and
allurements about other worlds and/Or other births. God in Divisive-Theisms no
more remains innocent dialogue partner of Gabriel Marcel but becomes sovereign
dictator. Humans are basically sinners deserving to be tamed by God and his
representatives. What comes to human lot are fear and guilt, to be ‘overcome’
by wars and tortures/ordeals! No wonder why many a Humanists become Atheists.
But still, the
larger optimism which I mentioned earlier is captured by Divisive-Theisms
because the God is unconditionally beneficent at least in the long run. God has
rule-making power and also he can break his rules if he wishes to bestow his
Grace upon the worshiper he finds more lovable. He has an unlimited forgiving
nature and can respond to Prayers favorably unless it is the case of
infidelity.
The
Divisive-Theisms suffer from many logical flaws but a few of them are really
devastating to their arguments. Omnipotence is a self-contradiction. Whatever
you may be in a position to do you can not do otherwise simultaneously.
God will need infinite number of universes to actualize his omnipotence! But
‘we’ are trapped in only one of them which need not be the best of them. Then
comes the ultimate dilemma that how Omni-beneficence, Omnipotence and actual
Suffering of creatures can all go together?
Whether I believe in his existence or not, I would give up claim of
omnipotence rather than the claim of beneficence. If God is good but not
omnipotent he still remains worship-worthy. But if he is omnipotent and still
makes his subjects suffer then he doesn’t remain worship-worthy. For me, His
worship-worthiness is more important than his less than ‘Omni’-potence or non
existence altogether. This is because 95% of my co-travelers on planet earth
are dependant on his beneficence and not omnipotence. For worshipers it is the
beneficence that keeps their optimism alive. The agents of God emphasize
Omnipotence so that they can keep worshipers on ‘the right path.’
By mentioning 95%,
I do not at all want to indicate that what majority thinks is right. Question
is not right or wrong but the overwhelming fact that many of them are trapped
in some or the other Divisive-Theism and you can not merely declare the trap as
imagined, and then intellectually prove it and they will be liberated. Due to
Atheists’ adherence to making the issue an issue of fact (true or false) is
counter-productive. Theists’ emotional reaction to this is evasive or invasive
but not communicative. An insurmountable schism has been built. This schism has
insulated the dialogue between theists and atheists. The insulation ought to
be removed in theological idiom as it is stuck on that side. Scientific
idiom goes skew. The dialogue neither brings about convergence nor cordiality.
Skew debates are repetitive as they do not find a common plane to cut each
other.
Turning back to
the ultimate dilemma that how Omni-beneficence, Omnipotence and actual
Suffering of creatures can all go together? I repeat that forgoing
worship-worthiness is out of question. Even the Divisive-Theisms covertly give
up Omnipotence. The very fact that we can sin against his will is
sufficient to prove that He is not omnipotent. Whether our sins are limited to
those committed in ‘this’ life or accumulated through many earlier birth-lives
is a secondary matter. Even if his subjects have earned their suffering, how
could he let them do so?
Furthermore omnipotence is cascaded with Perfection
which is more of a contradiction. Most of the Theisms also believe that God is
an already perfect entity and hence they allow no room for him to
become more and more near-perfect. Finally they have to answer that his functioning
is beyond our cognitive ability or the evil and suffering that appears to us is
a complete illusion, going to the extent that world is a hallucination suffered
by God! In such case where is the basis for the optimism with which we started
the discussion? Optimism about improvement of this world is replaced by
optimism to permanently escape from this world and permanently joining the
blissful abode.
Now let us see how
Pantheism is different and more amenable to reason and more accommodative than
Divisive-Theisms. According to Pantheism there is nothing outside God. God
doesn’t have an ‘outside’. As substance of all substances, he is pervading
everything and as an emergent property of all emergent properties (divinity),
He is encompassing everything. All dimensions like space time, substance,
attribute, composite/component, concept and items subsumed under etc. are
inside God. Of course the empirical events occurring in the dimensions are
included as well.
Nothing is
profane. Sacredness may not be equally distributed. There can be higher and
lower degrees of sacredness but no room for the profane inside God. In Atheism
the very category sacred/profane is discarded so nothing is sacred. But note
that ‘everything is sacred’ is a positive note which is needed by worshipers.
The main difference is that in pantheism there is unconditional inclusion of
everybody inside God, irrespective of what he/she believes in or does not
believe in. Nobody is worth eliminating on theological grounds. There is no
devil and none is his agent. A pantheist crusade is inconceivable.
How evil does get
accommodated in the Pantheist version of God? God has not achieved
perfection. He has to evolve along with evolving matter-energy into life,
pre-programmed creatures to self-programmable creatures, savage human to civilized
human, unjust civilization to just civilization and so on. All his modicums
(we are the most crucial of them at least for his project-Earth) are always at
different stages of his evolution. By same token, all humans have not yet
sufficiently learnt the art of doing thing in a good way and hence they have to
do it in evil way. As long as evil has a function in life and it is not
successfully replaced by good, evil will exist.
But evil has no positive self-existence.
It is a lack of good rather than something opposite of it. If and as we learn
how to solve our problems without resorting to evil, God’s self perfection
process is manifested through us. It is us, who can add into the Glory of God and
Grace of God. Glory to the extent we materially progress and Grace to the extent
we morally and spiritually upgrade ourselves. God is neither going to punish
nor going to reward for simple reason that he does not want to fool himself.
Keeping people manageable by threats and allurements is our society’s way of
dealing. He can not be satisfied with inauthentic allegiance. He will deem his
project successful only, if and when, it really is. Not a false show of it. His
dream is that humans become good out of their own intrinsic value-judgment.
Managers of societies can cheat worshipers in the name of God but nobody can
cheat God. He is witnessing everything that goes on in our minds. We can trick
ourselves but not Him.
He is undergoing our sufferings and enjoying
our happiness as he is our Soul. But he inspires and suggests too. Whenever we find
that we excel unbelievably, face agony courageously, help others without any
consideration of return, we can be sure that it is manifestation of his
Becoming. In Pantheist version God
ceases to be a goal to be achieved, Master to be pleased, Immortal Joy to get
merged into. Pursuit is not for Advaita (Non-Dichotomy) for it is
already there. It is upliftment that is to be achieved. If we do our part
God will respond by unfolding new wonders. Saying by a human that I want to reach
to God, it is as stupid as a cell in our body wanting to reach a body. It is
already well-placed in it. isn’t it?
Atheism does not
divide people as Divisive-Theisms do. But Atheism lacks any transcendent appeal
for uniting. Pantheism unites all of us to help each other in learning,
pertaining to the stage one has reached. Earth may not be his only project. As
he became matter-energy to be other than consciousness, he is evolving the
other way round. He has got infinite patience. What he certainly does not want
to do is imposition. We are free to contribute in his project but he will not
reject us if we don’t. He is an appeal. He is the Hope. In our moments of
intrinsic joy it is he who smiles. In our honest and sincere endeavor, it is Him
who buttresses. Each one of us is His unique modicum of His universal essence.
His essence is not full and final. It is Becoming.
The main point is
that Pantheists can communicate with Divisive-Theists in theological idiom and
bring about a change of heart. Atheists have made themselves irrelevant by
taking the issue into an Epistemological diversion where the issue does not
belong to.
Who are the main
thinkers of Pantheism? On which points, do they converge and diverge? What are
the technical terms? How the Issue of fortuity is handled? What in us continues
after death and why? Are a few of many questions that need to be answered but
this was an attempt to show that there can be a third way.
No comments:
Post a Comment