Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

"Why hast thou forsaken me?" Lent ponderings.

61 replies

Threadworm · 04/03/2009 11:04

We spoke earlier on the Lent reflection thread about that moment when Jesus cries out 'My God, why hast thou forsaken me?? I mentioned that it was important to me that at that moment Jesus did feel entirely bereft of God. And I said that his desolation at that point was a symbol of the experience of atheism, of a universe empty of God.

I still want to talk about that, but I don?t want to clog up the Lent thread, which has moved on to other themes this week.

I want to mention a small but rather joyful experience that I had while walking the dog on this bright spring morning. As usual I was admiring the spontaneous joy my dog has in so many things. He doesn?t stop to ask why he chases a stick or a rabbit. He is simply acting out his instincts and experiencing the pleasure that evolution programmes into the activity.

We are different. We ask ?Why, what value does it have?? for all of the actions we perform. We are reflective beings, and reflection is ?desacralising? (is that a word?) ? desecrating (that?s a word). That is, it takes the value out of the action: it places it in the reason for the action. So that the value of everything becomes dependant on the discovery of some ultimate, something which is of value in itself.

And once we are deprived of the ancient myths and mesmerizing traditions that give traditional societies clear (illusory) answers about ultimate value, we ? or many of us ? come up against the absence of any compelling answer. Why live? (?What value does our living have??) We have all our instrumental aims ? we work to feed the children, etc. But what actions have intrinsic value?

That question is a separation. My dog is immersed in what he does. I have been torn apart from what I do.

And not only from what I do, I?ve been torn apart from everything ? the bright spring morning. What value does that have? When we reflect on anything we take it as the object of our understanding. We stand apart from it. And reflection on the bright spring morning, on the material universe, teaches us causes but it does not teach us reasons for its existence. So again, it is desacralising, desecrating.

Our thoughtfulness, our intellect, destroys a happy union with ourselves and our surroundings. And that of course is what is conveyed in the story of the Garden of Eden. The evolutionary significance of our intelligence is that it makes us highly adaptive ? it gives us choices so that we can shape our survival techniques to a variety of situations. It gives us free will. If my dog asked ?Why chase sticks?? he would be thrown out of Eden too.

I haven?t got to my small joyful experience yet but the post is already too long. I?ve only got as far as indicating that Jesus? desolation in the cross is the encapsulation of an awful separation that we are doomed to as a species. The absolute loss of value, loss of sacredness. Christianity has the immense value of stating that loss. And the next question is whether and how it redeems it.

Is anyone interested in pursuing this further at all?

OP posts:
thinkingaboutdrinking · 04/03/2009 11:23

Wow! yes interested but short of time so just marking place - but I do find myself every so often questioning things - as in their value - and then I try not to as it seems to sit uncomfortably with my faith (which did have a big wobble a couple of years ago - another story but probably the reason why I don't want to dwell on questioning too much).
Not sure if that makes much sense but will hopefuly return later - and definitely tomorrow.

interregnum · 04/03/2009 11:23

Don't throw sticks for your dog , it can be dangerous
news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Throwing-a-stick-could-kill.4829487.jp

justaboutindisguise · 04/03/2009 12:49

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Threadworm · 04/03/2009 13:17

I have read that trilogy, and I do like it. And yes the dust is free will / intellect -- but does that not make it also sin, or the occasion of sin, since it is in our freedom that we fall?

I very much like it that for Pullman we achieve redemption by a 'second fall' -- Eve's Lyra's loving sexual union with the boy.

I find that trilogy so odd in that it speaks of 'the republic of heaven', i.e. it dethrones god (which in a sense I feel is proper since I imagine that there is no god other than the enlightened and humane union we hopefully achieve through spirituality) but it keeps all of the supernatural furniture, and more, that we might hope to be able to do without when we dethrone god. It is humanism spirituality without god but it employs vast ranks of angels and other supernatural crowds to state itself.

It is a humanist myth, with all of the creations that myth is invested with. Perhaps conventional religion is that too.

OP posts:
mersmam · 04/03/2009 13:28

Great post Threadworm!

Firstly though, I don't think Jesus did experience the COMPLETE absence of God when he said those words. He still KNEW God was there, but he was frightened because he could not feel his presence.

I actually find it quite comforting to think that even Jesus experienced a time when he couldn't feel comforted by anything, even God! He never doubted God's existence though as he was still talking to him and asking him a question, whereas somehow I think an atheist wouldn't bother somehow!

Regarding the rest of your post, I've thought about this before and I see a distinction between happines and joy. Happiness is something very transient and simple that can be experienced by man or beast - for instance the feel of the sun shining on our faces or the taste of some really good chocolate! Happiness is dependent mainly on our emotions and it can also be artificially induced through drugs/ alcohol etc... - but it doesn't last.

Joy, I think, is something more unique to humans. It involves intellect as well as emotion (and other things too). It takes work to acheive it (like the feeling you get doing well in an exam that you've studied hard for). It is always real and never artificial. My belief is that we never experience 100% joy in this world (perhaps not even 50%) but we just experience traces of it... I hope heaven might be experiencing it 100% all of the time.

I think it helps to separate the two, joy and happiness, and realise that (like your dog!) you can be happy in the bright spring morning, but it's probably not going to bring you lasting joy.

Just my ideas anyway!

mersmam · 04/03/2009 13:32

Philip Pullman - would not allow any of his books in my house!
I believe that him and Unquietdad are really the same person (and I doubt UQD would have a problem with me saying that!!)

Threadworm · 04/03/2009 13:46

Yes Mersmam, I think the distinction between happiness and joy is a good one (whatever words you use for the terms of the distinction: 'happiness' and 'joy' are good ones but I'm sure there have been others).

I wanted to say loads more than I got round to in my OP but ran out of time and steam. But my 'joyful experience' was a little thing. Just this:

I felt for a moment that heaven, or knowledge of and unity with god, was simply performing every action with a sense of its intrinsic value, making every action sacred.

Traditionally we might have thought it to be sacred because god created us as active beings, or because he commmanded it. I can't come to believe in a god that pre-exists and generates intrinsic value.

But a life lived as if every right action (leaving aside the definition of 'right' for now) is possessed of value would or could be one in which we experienced a joyful unity with the world and our actions and other people. It could generate certain spiritual values in the course of enacting moral and aesthetic values.

None of these values needs to be one whose existence requires the concept of a god -- you can endorse morality and beauty without believing in god. You can know their objective truth.

But religion might come into the picture because of the inadequacy of knowledge. It needn't be constituted by further knowledge of further (supernatural, non-scientific) truths of the sort that Dawkins et al disparage.

It is the experience of joyful unity that comes from a life lead well (a life that strives to enact value fully in each of its actions). God just is that joyful unity.

That doesn't make god 'just a metaphor'. Blue is not a metaphor -- it is the experiential correlate of certain light refractive properties. It is real but embedded in experience.

Similarly, the experience of striving successfully (or as well as possible) to realise intrinsic value in our lives and in the universe, is the experiential correlate of the existence of certain objective values in the world -- morality, beauty, and so on.

It isn't quite as satisfying as a god who is wholly other than us, but perhaps it is enough?

OP posts:
Threadworm · 04/03/2009 13:53

oh you won't like what I said then, mersmam (if pullman makes you angry I mean). Because I think my heaven might seem a republic to you, like his.

He isn't a UQD though. Because he doesn't seem to require that religion stands or falls on its capacity or otherwise to substantiate scientifically certain claims about what exists.

OP posts:
KayHarker · 04/03/2009 13:56

God as 'ground of being'.

Right now, I think my understanding has taken an absolutely radical shift, and this may be due to a deeply unpleasant dip into depression, but there it is.

I think we personalize because whatever God is, the 'relational' aspect of Him, in our limited understanding, needs for Him to be a 'person' for us to actually understand the intimacy. Because 'God' isn't just the physical proximity of, say, our lungs - 'God' is intimacy in a way much more akin to intimacy between humans - the other and the same coming together.

I think that atheism and theism are roughly two sides of the same picture - the acknowledgement of our aloneness.

Thoughts are tumbling rather incoherently right now, but I think that's how I understand your analogy of reality rooted in experience. It's all very quantum, to be a bit of a ponce about it.

Threadworm · 04/03/2009 13:59

Yes! Yes! Yes! Kay.

And you begin to give me an insigh tinto why we personalise and whether we can keep that (deeply satisfying but very 'needy') personailisation of god.

OP posts:
Threadworm · 04/03/2009 14:07

(But I don't know what 'God as ground of being' is, and this is where I need hlep from all you good people who actually know theology.

OP posts:
mersmam · 04/03/2009 14:13

Must admit that I'm probably a bit out of my depth here as I do not have a PhD in philosophy I do find these posts very interesting though.

Am I being realy dim, but isn't Jesus the personalisation of God? Weren't we all created in God's image? So surely we are all close to God to some degree - I don't see that theism, the acknowledgement of God, can mean the acknowledgement of aloneness when what we are is God's image...
(Feel free to say 'Yes - you are extremely dim' but please tell me why and explain further as I do want to learn!)

KH - I'm sorry you're going through a rough time, I do hope things improve soon.

Threadworm · 04/03/2009 14:18

I hope Kay comes back because I don't know how to answer these questions, mersmam. (And I hope I don't offend you by my almost-godlessness)

Jesus is clearly personal in a way that God the Father is not, but the latter is personal too, isn't he? He talks, acts, wills, approves, disapproves?

Re Jesus I suppose I would have to say that the story of Christ enacts aesthetic values and illustrates moral and spiritual values -- and that that is its whole significance. In other words, he was not supernatural, not the son of god, not resurrected.

OP posts:
mersmam · 04/03/2009 14:24

threadworm - to be fair i do not know enough about Philip Pullman to criticise his books, I read one ages ago and thought it was OK, but them heard him in an interview saying that he was trying to provide children with 'an antidote to Narnia' and decided I'd have no more of him

I don't have too much of a problem with what you say above though. I think I agree that ''knowledge of and unity with god, is simply performing every action with a sense of its intrinsic value, making every action sacred.''

I certainly think that if we do what is 'right' it will ultimately bring us joy - this makes me think of St. Francis who has been described as having 'pure joy' - I'm sure a lot of his actions did not make him very happy...

I don't think heaven can be described as a republic, because that is something of this world, and heaven is a whole new ball game! Perhaps i could descibe heaven as 'a republic with a leader'

Certainly relieved to know that P. Pullman and UQD are not one though !!

Threadworm · 04/03/2009 14:28

It is very like Narnia (it even begins with Lyra hiding in a wardobe). But I can't help but see it as deeply beholden to religion -- an evolution of religion rather than a rejection of it. And I think he must have a love of Christianity, even if he hates organised religion, even if he hates God.

OP posts:
mersmam · 04/03/2009 14:31

Threadworm - you certainly do not offend me - your posts are great!

Yes, I suppose God the father is 'personal' and the holy spirit is too - they are defined as three 'persons' after all! I suppose I mean that Jesus is the HUMAN rather than the personal face of God.

I think the way you view Jesus, as a kind of guide and teacher, is very useful. I think viewing him as resurrected and supernatural is a choice you make (As UQD would say - we have no proof!!!!) - but it does offer us a bit of hope and 'spring sunshine' in a world that often seems to lack those things... so why not make the leap of faith and try to believe it?

(and I echo - come back Kay!!)

KayHarker · 04/03/2009 14:31

'ground of being' is just a philosophical way of summarizing some of what you've been articulating, Threadworm.

mersmam, I guess what I mean is that theism acknowledges that humans are alone - it just takes that in a different direction than atheism does. Atheism says 'we are alone' and deals with that bare acknowledgement. It's best expression is humanist - taking the 'alone' and forming relationships purely on a human level, dignifying humanity in that way.

The theist says 'we are alone' and then says 'but this is not the way it should be', and forms the relationship with deity, or infinite, or whatever, and humanity is dignified in relation to deity. Now, in Judeo-Christian belief, at base, it's because this alone creature is a broken image of the divine. Other theistic beliefs talk about inter-connectedness and so on.

Right now, I'm feeling totally forsaken, swinging between believing I have been utterly deluded about the existence of God in the first place, and believing that God is real but actually a monster.

mersmam · 04/03/2009 14:32

Hmmm... it's a good job I have to go and do the school run before you convince me to read Philip Pullman threadworm

mersmam · 04/03/2009 14:36

Kay - will have to study your post properly before responding and am in a rush... but just wanted to say that I've been through similar times, and God has shown me in the end that he's there - I'm praying for you, that he will do the same for you.
It is the hard times that make us stronger in the end I think.

Threadworm · 04/03/2009 14:41

Kay, I'm so sorry that you are feeling low. Depression is the loss of the sense of oneself as good and worthy of love. So it is not surprising that it challenges your faith. Try to ride it out and separate depression from your thoughts about god (not that I do)

And since I have already been a total ponce on this thread, can I take my ponciness to a whole new height by quoting Hamlet, Prince of Depressives.

To me, what he says below, as well as being about the experience of depression, is also about what I spoke of before: the inadequacy of knowledge. Hamlet lacks the experience of a world rich in value. He knows that the world is good and beautiful -- or how could he describe it in such eulogising tones. But he experiences himself as separate, apart form that beauty and apart from the experience of it as beautiful.

Depression is the state of being forsaken, thrown out of the experience of a value-rich world. Religioun is the transcendance of that separation. It adds no new knowledge. Hamlet knows that the world is most excellent, majestic, and that people are angelic. But he is cut of from experiencing it as such.

"I have of late?but wherefore I know not?
lost all my mirth, forgone all custom of exercises; and indeed,
it goes so heavily with my disposition that this goodly frame,
the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory; this most
excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave o'erhanging(305)
firmament, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire,
why, it appears no other thing to me than a foul and pestilent
congregation of vapours. What a piece of work is a man! how
noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving
how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in(310)
apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world, the
paragon of animals! And yet to me what is this quintessence
of dust?"

(Sorry if this is poncey. I don't mean to be. I just am.. Please don't say anything sarcastic because this stuff makes me cry it really does.)

OP posts:
KayHarker · 04/03/2009 14:48

It's not poncey, and it enables me to have cheering flashbacks to David Tennant in a red t-shirt, so I don't mind at all.

Hamlet is an astonishingly good play to explore this sort of thing. The 'prayer' that Claudius prays while Hamlet decides whether or not to kill him is such a real description of the wrestling of conscience.

But your quotation is the very nub of this, isn't it? Is God real because we are able to experience it so, and when we cannot experience it, is God any less real?

EachPeachPearMum · 04/03/2009 14:49

Just marking my place to read later...

Are you saying essentially humans cannot be happy without the belief in the existence of god because we think too much?

Threadworm · 04/03/2009 14:51

When I say 'religion adds no new knowledge' I mean that it doesn't add to our account of what exists. It doesn't need to demonstrate that there is a god other than the god that is identical with the experience of union and value.

Of course it contains knowledge of how to live well, how and why to seek joyful union. How to strive.

OP posts:
Threadworm · 04/03/2009 14:54

"Is God real because we are able to experience it so, and when we cannot experience it, is God any less real? "

I think that the reality is secured by the objectivity of moral and aesthetic value. So our sought-after experience of a joyful union achieved by enacting a valuable life is grounded -- like the experience of blue is grounded in certain light-refracting properties in the world. Blue exists even for a colour-blind person, though she will sadly not experience it.

OP posts:
Threadworm · 04/03/2009 14:57

I will look for the Claudius quote.

(The untranscendable tragedy is that Doctor Who doesn not exist.)

OP posts: