Lord, my God, who am I that You should forsake me? The Child of your Love–and now become as the most hated one–the one–You have thrown away as unwanted–unloved. I call, I cling, I want–and there is no One to answer–no One on Whom I can cling–no, No One.–Alone … Where is my Faith–even deep down right in there is nothing, but emptiness & darkness–My God–how painful is this unknown pain–I have no Faith–I dare not utter the words & thoughts that crowd in my heart–& make me suffer untold agony.
So many unanswered questions live within me afraid to uncover them–because of the blasphemy–If there be God –please forgive me–When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven–there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives & hurt my very soul.–I am told God loves me–and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul. Did I make a mistake in surrendering blindly to the Call of the Sacred Heart?
–[By Mother Teresa] ADDRESSED TO JESUS, AT THE SUGGESTION OF A CONFESSOR, UNDATED [Link]
<
p>Upon her death in 1997 it was revealed that Mother Teresa had asked that her private letters and confessions to her confessors (apparently she went from one to the next like a person in search of the right therapist) be burned so that they would never see the light of day. The Church, probably recognizing Teresa’s importance as the holiest woman in the world, overruled her request. They were also aware that any surviving notes or correspondence might be a useful part of the background investigation needed for her potential Sainthood (which there now is). Those letters have finally been revealed to the public in a new book titled Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light. They are so startling in their rawness that many are now wondering if anyone really knew Mother Teresa. Time Magazine has a great dissection of the revelations in the book and indicates how Teresa might now become a saint to both the faithful and those who don’t believe in God.
On Dec. 11, 1979, Mother Teresa, the “Saint of the Gutters,” went to Oslo. Dressed in her signature blue-bordered sari and shod in sandals despite below-zero temperatures, the former Agnes Bojaxhiu received that ultimate worldly accolade, the Nobel Peace Prize. In her acceptance lecture, Teresa, whose Missionaries of Charity had grown from a one-woman folly in Calcutta in 1948 into a global beacon of self-abnegating care, delivered the kind of message the world had come to expect from her. “It is not enough for us to say, ‘I love God, but I do not love my neighbor,'” she said, since in dying on the Cross, God had “[made] himself the hungry one–the naked one–the homeless one.” Jesus’ hunger, she said, is what “you and I must find” and alleviate…Yet less than three months earlier, in a letter to a spiritual confidant, the Rev. Michael van der Peet, that is only now being made public, she wrote with weary familiarity of a different Christ, an absent one. “Jesus has a very special love for you,” she assured Van der Peet. “[But] as for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great, that I look and do not see,–Listen and do not hear–the tongue moves [in prayer] but does not speak … I want you to pray for me–that I let Him have [a] free hand…” [Link]
<
p>Reading some of her confessions was deeply moving. It seems that the more success that Mother Teresa saw in her work in Calcutta, the darker and emptier her soul became, and the farther she drifted from the light of her God’s love. Far from being a “Saint of the Gutters,” she seems to use the perpetual darkness within her to drive her forward like some sort of “Queen of the Dammed.” Some theologians in the Time article use an analogy that describes her as a jilted lover who still carries a torch for a man (Christ) who she knows is never coming home to her.
How can you assume the lover’s ardor when he no longer grants you his voice, his touch, his very presence?… [Link]
<
p>As you can imagine, these letters are a gold mine for theologians, atheists, psychologists, Nihilists, Existentialists, etc.
Psychologists have long recognized that people of a certain personality type are conflicted about their high achievement and find ways to punish themselves. Gottlieb notes that Teresa’s ambitions for her ministry were tremendous. Both he and Kolodiejchuk are fascinated by her statement, “I want to love Jesus as he has never been loved before.” Remarks the priest: “That’s a kind of daring thing to say.” Yet her letters are full of inner conflict about her accomplishments. Rather than simply giving all credit to God, Gottlieb observes, she agonizes incessantly that “any taking credit for her accomplishments–if only internally–is sinful” and hence, perhaps, requires a price to be paid. A mild secular analog, he says, might be an executive who commits a horrific social gaffe at the instant of a crucial promotion. For Teresa, “an occasion for a modicum of joy initiated a significant quantity of misery,” and her subsequent successes led her to perpetuate it. [Link]
<
p>That last bit I highlighted has similarities to Hinduism, especially in the Gita where Krishna continually warns Arjun that even ill thoughts may result in bad karma. The central themes found in Teresa’s writings remind me a lot of some poetry by another “saint.” Especially her references to the dark night within her soul.
A night full of talking that hurts
my worst held-back secrets. Everything
has to do with loving and not loving.
This night will pass.
Then we have work to do.-Jelaluddin Rumi
<
p>
It was when Mother Teresa finally accepted that the darkness would never leave her that she embraced it:
I can’t express in words–the gratitude I owe you for your kindness to me–for the first time in … years–I have come to love the darkness–for I believe now that it is part of a very, very small part of Jesus’ darkness & pain on earth. You have taught me to accept it [as] a ‘spiritual side of your work’ as you wrote–Today really I felt a deep joy–that Jesus can’t go anymore through the agony–but that He wants to go through it in me.
–TO NEUNER, CIRCA 1961… [Link]
Of all of the quotes included in the Time article, the following one touched me the most. Although she did not realize it, what she was actually saying mirrored the central idea found in the Bodhicharyavatara, written by 8th century Indian scholar Shantideva:
“If I ever become a Saint–I will surely be one of ‘darkness.’ I will continually be absent from Heaven–to [light] the light of those in darkness on earth,” she wrote in 1962. [Link]<
p>Theologically, this is a bit odd since most orthodox Christianity defines heaven as God’s eternal presence and doesn’t really provide for regular no-shows at the heavenly feast. [Link]
Compare this to the idea of a Bodhisattva:
Another common conception of the bodhisattva is one who delays his own entering into Nirvana in order to save all sentient beings out of his enormous compassion. He is on a mission to liberate all sentient beings, and only then will he rest in his own enlightenment. [Link]
<
p>
It begs the question, was Teresa really a Mahayana Buddhist at heart? It shows you how human thought can ultimately converge on some universal themes.
<
p>
But really, we shouldn’t know any of this:
Please destroy any letters or anything I have written.
–TO PICACHY, APRIL 1959… [Link]
my bad. read a little to fast I suppose.=)
Whatever one thinks of Mother Teresa, it’s clear that a halo was built up around her by various parties that wanted to milk her saintly stature. Successive West Bengal/GOI administrations, for one – while actually doing nothing to help the same communities whose suffering was supposed to be at the centre of it all. And then the church of course, with all this beatification nonsense.
Attacking atheists about gloating over the revelations is the easy way out. Devout Christians were suprisingly silent when they were being taken for a ride by the church with all the talk of ‘fast tracking’. In any case, saints seem to have it either way – either they are unflinching in their belief (MT before these letters were published) or, they are wracked by self-doubt and darkness and pull through nevertheless. Believers are on slippery ground when they attack the likes of Hitchens, liberals and Dawkins on this episode, or for that matter for anything that challenges basic assumptions.
I’m bowing out of this thread now. I don’t want to offend anyone and I certainly don’t want to have to explain or defend my devout Christian self. I’m not even Catholic, but I know I’m going to be affected by what might be said.
Abhi, thanks for a great post– the comparisons with eastern scripture had me thinking all day. Ruchira, so did your point about questioning why we need religion as a vehicle to do good.
I agree with Abhi. These revelations make MT more complex, more human, and at the same time greater. She’s not a spiritual barbie doll anymore. I don’t know how any sensible being can hold her misery against her.
With respect to the ‘abandonment’ of Christ – is not the very power of Christ the fact that he has great faith and yet feels ‘abandoned’? Is that not what it means for God to become man? I’m not a Christian, yet I’ve read few more powerful passages than Kierkegaard’s analysis of Christ’s repeated ‘Do you love me, Peter?’ The same craving for love and fear of betrayal/abandonment is evinced in these letters. It’s the frailty, the doubt, the insecurity of a Christ which make him human as well as God – no?
A N N A, I completely agree that the wishes of the dead should be respected, and its sad that the Church chose to ignore hers. Aside from that, though, why do you think she will be undermined for having doubts in her faith? Unquestioning doubt is what makes a person dogmatic — having the courage to face your doubts and live an examined life makes your choices stronger. I think the fact that she didn’t have an unshaking belief in a preordained plan for how she should serve the world (as dictated by the Church as an institution, I’m not saying that all Christians believe in a Calvinist type of “fate” or something), and the fact that she still chose to live in such a way and spend her whole life battling inequality and poverty shows the depth of her character, and her commitment to the people she served.
Also, it seems to me that recognizing that she also needed support at times, felt lonely, had doubts, etc. helps us to remember that she was human, which makes her acheivements seem so much more meaningful. She had to overcome a lot to do what she did, it wasn’t that she magically a better person or something. If more people identify with her rather than idolize her, they might understand that all of us can choose to work for the causes she embodied (or at least a fraction of it).
The letters are beautifully written. She seems to have had a writerly bent. They’re a gift.
Wow! I had no idea. (of course)
As I read of her doubt, and internal religious/spiritual turmoils, I just find it so amazing that she insisted on helping others to the degree she did. Lay folks can get completely messed up in real life when facing internal conflicts of this magnitude, but I am in awe of her ability to carry on, and it strikes me that she truly was saintly in acting to relieve others’ pain regardless of her own.
Keep it civil, please.
Maybe I am off my rocker speaking as a non-Christian, but I don’t think MT’s feelings of “abandonment” or doubts regarding her faith detract from the work she did. They just humanize her. It’s hard to imagine anyone who could work day in and day out in areas with truly severe poverty who comes through without questioning faith or the existence of a higher being. Oh, but speaking more broadly, I’ve said this before, and I’ll repeat myself. I believe that most religions, faith traditions, and religious people are very similar. I think the larger question is not so much “is she Buddhist at heart?” but rather the broader question that Abhi framed: Are they themes of universality that bring us all together? In the context of service specifically, I would say absolutely.
This post is fascinating; thanks Abhi. [also, how much am I loving the Rumi? A lot.]
As an atheist now, find this quite close to my experience when i began questioning His existence. The darkness & void still exists but i simply don’t care for something to be there. Yet curiously i owe it to my religion that led me to this path – that culture of seeking the ultimate truth which is the mainstay of Vedas. The mother remains an extraordinary human being whatever her thoughts about faith.
The dark feelings of abandonment are a standard trope in mystical and metaphysical literature (in autobiography and in art), especially by figures who became saints or whose work has been championed by the Catholic and other Christian churches. The list is long, going all the way back to St. Augustine. Thumb through the pages of St. John of the Cross (he coined the phrase “dark night of the soul”), Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, John Donne (Anglican priest in addition to metaphysical poet), Thomas Merton, Flannery O’Connor, Walker Percy. In fact, such ideas are part and parcel of modern Catholicism. In her expression of spiritual anxiety, she is pretty normal, even if it seems odd that a nun and “saint of the gutter” would express such things.
It is interesting to see that a majority of Christians and non-christians alike (on this blog and other fora) seem to think this takes nothing away from Mother Teresa’s stature. While that is a hearty development, it is also important to remember that to a lot of people she was a living deity and she did associate herself with certain religious causes that Hitchens alludes to, which did not exactly come across as enlightened. Given that she was herself tormented on the question of belief, the conviction with which she took up those causes is surprising.
I will not speculate on why she wanted the letters to be destroyed, but why deny the masses the same scope for doubt and torment and self-discovery?
After hearing about Mother Teresa’s letters, I can only suppose that the people who determined to override her wishes to publish them believed (hoped?) that the overwhelming depths of despair in her writing would somehow be comforting to those who likewise dwell in despair.
Often, for vanity’s sake or self-suppression in the name of holiness, we Christians fail to communicate personal expressions of humanity, instead choosing to present an image of relentless, triumphant faith. Some people do this merely to tow the line while others feel that expressing struggles lessens the cause of Christ. I imagine Mother Teresa’s theological beliefs placed her in the latter group.
That belief–aside from the fact that she spent her life in an minimalist atmosphere of poverty, suffering, injustice, sickness and death–is enough to send any believer into deep depression and subsequent questioning of faith. At the same time, as I believe previous commenters have alluded to, the struggle does not determine the conclusion. Faith is a decision of the will. Mother Teresa’s actions showed the bent of her will.
(Furthermore, would you really write a letter addressed to a person you don’t believe exists? I mean, really?)
While what you say is true, Preston, the vast majority of these revered Catholic Saints and Christian theologians eventually “embraced” God or were able to reconcile their struggles with the ‘darkness’ to seek a stronger bond with God. St. John of the Cross believed that to take on a saintly life and to embark on a life of higher spiritual attainment was to accept the existence of Satan and ‘demons’ who will test their faith more than any common person. It is the very nature of metaphysical thought for them, that with good comes evil. The anguish such Saints suffered for expressing their religious struggles were only part of an often self-proclaimed journey to strengthen their faith in God. I don’t want to say they were more optimistic, but to St. John, for example, he sought to assert a basis upon which to categorize such levels of scrutiny in order to determine which tests were from God versus Satan versus the self. To look at it from a rather detached/more critical point of view, such religious scholars were either ultimately unwavering in their faith and were able to see through their anguish or they were too fearful to truly express the depths of their contemplation (as of course the times were much less forgiving of expression of self-doubt).
I wouldn’t consider Mother Teresa to be amongst that cateogry in terms of those you mentioned because, to the extent of the excerpts given, she had a much darker battle with her beliefs and through her writing expressed them with much more freedom. It’s not so much that she is the Saint of the People that makes it surprising- for me, at least. It is more the timeline and the degree to which she struggles with herself and with God that makes such an impact. At times it seems as though she has come to a lasting understanding of Jesus’ suffering, but then makes conflicting statements.
My point here is not to scrutinize her words to shreds, but to appreciate that which we know for a fact. Despite her pains she provided hope for millions of people and selflessly devoted herself to the cause of the masses and ultimately knew that to be her salvation. Whatever else we try to gather from her writings is purely speculation on our parts as she was far too emotionally, psychologically, and physically involved for words to even articulate.
thank you, abhi, for posting that. i’d never really considered Mother Teresa seriously before, mostly because she’s become such a 2D byword in popular culture. but reading those passages makes me want to get that book and to immerse myself in all the other texts you referenced.
though one thought, as i play devil’s advocate: my understanding is that the Church authorised the publication of this book? to what extent then can that this book has been pruned? i mean, i would feel less concerned about issues of authenticity if it was an independent publication. am i the only one who feels this way?
and now i have belatedly read everyone’s comments and i feel like my question is out of place here.
Re #23
the one example at the top of my head of a mystic who lost faith and began to deeply doubt himself is al-ghazali. he writes about this in great detail in his “deliverance from error.”
Of course, I am with you on the fact that the ‘god talk’ doesn’t deserve much respect (exception for the FSM :P) but my contention was just that a ‘good person’ would still be a good person even without any of his/her religious beliefs. In that sense, I meant religion is irrelevant to altruism and hence the magnification effect you spoke of, is not really present for things like ‘altruism’ at least, in my opinion.
I AM talking about an average person… do a thought experiment yourself: take an imaginary religious person X of high moral values and create a situation where X loses his/her faith abruplty. How likley do you think it is that X loses his moral values just as easily as he lost his faith?
She was known to be a very pious woman. Although, in my openion there should be no doubts in religion. She strongly held on to her faith and did not let it go, which was a great thing on its own.
“While that is a hearty development, it is also important to remember that to a lot of people she was a living deity and she did associate herself with certain religious causes that Hitchens alludes to, which did not exactly come across as enlightened. Given that she was herself tormented on the question of belief, the conviction with which she took up those causes is surprising.”
I’m with Nanda. It’s strange if she had religious doubts, but not moral doubts about some of the causes Hitchens mentioned in his critical books about her (no intention here to cause offense to ANNA or any other christian).
People have been critical in this space about Gandhi too, so I don’t think it’s picking on christians to have some critical views expressed about Mother Teresa.
Abhi: Great post. To quote from Rumi’s translation by Coleman Barks: It may be that the clarity Rumi calls “reason” is a brilliant lawfullness that ecologists and astronomers examine as the coherence in any system, and that the mystic and the scientist both attend the same layered intelligence: the grand and precise artistry of existence. Mother Teresa – whether she is declared Saint or not – was a great human being. It took Lord Krishna to straighten out Arjun’s dilemma. I remember an old movie song by Mohhamad Rafi from film “Amar” that went something like this:
Aaana hey to Aa raah mein – Kuchh der nahi hey Bhagwan ke ghar der hey – Andher nahi hey ! Kahne ki Zoorurat nahi – Aaana hi bahut hey Eis der pe tera shish zukaana hi bahut hey !
Mother Teresa was not only honest but rather bold to express her true feelings. To thy own self be true !!
Human “animals” someone said? So that’s it? You’re sure of that? Four billion years or more of earth and that is the sum of its fruits? I see there are quite a few atheists on this board. No problem for me, but I do think I have to take up for religion a bit. It’s not atheists that undermine religion. It’s the so-called religious hypocrites.
But the irreligious have done as much or more in the way of evil. Religion has produced–or rather inspired–great music, art, literature. If this inspiration was a mere chimera, it was one of great power for good as well as evil. We say smugly that ethics precede religion, but how many of us have deeply studied societies during their pre-religion days? Who’s been there?
How ethical were the Communists? The Nazis? Pol Pot? Sadaam? Mao? Stalin? All these groups were led by an ideology which rejected any idea of an individual being held accountable for his/her deeds. They answered only to themselves, using religion where it was necessary to fool people, otherwise laughing at it, and destroying it.
Religion has been an expression of the people who have breathed it in. It took a different form in India than in England, in China than among American Indians. But everywhere the idea of a spiritual force bigger than ourselves was the source of inspiration. What culture has communism produced? Pol Pot? Stalin? Hitler? Sadaam? Bush? The last name may surprise you, but those who use religion in name and whose behavior is so cognitively dissonant–this includes most of today’s leaders who not outright atheists–does far more harm to religion than any open enemy. As far as I know, no other species has the spiritual angst to which human flesh is heir, but perhaps I underestimate chimps and cows (and I’m an animal lover btw). As far as MT’s doubts, no real surprise. Perhaps the adulation bestowed upon her encouraged egoism, but she was one who actually did work–hard, grueling work–for others. The adulation came much later and was in no way guaranteed. At any point during the 40s, 50s, 60s, she could have dropped dead, unknown and unmourned except by those she helped. It’s fashionable to concentrate on the bad things religion has done–contrary to popular opinion, the media is not controlled by religious people, quite the contrary. The missionaries gained converts more often because they did things for potential converts that their own “people” would not do for them. In their early, glory days, religions have uplifted people–some Arabs were burying their daughters before Mohammed. Islamic people raised a high degree of civilization before petrification set in. But as time goes on, religion does not move with the times. Humans are not static and neither can religion be the same forever. You could reduce the missionaries to egoists pushing their agenda, but then there’s that crux of the grueling, often dangerous work. If you haven’t done it yourself, don’t snark. The execrable Hitchens swills his booze and collects money for being the snarky adolescent so many of us secretly or not so secretly envy being–it’s that sense of being 16 again and rebelling against all that is held holy. Sometimes this is appropriate and good, if what is holy is not. More often it is simply gratuitous. What might his legacy someday be? That he secretly had doubts about his atheism? Who will care? Who will he have helped? other than giving us a few chortles over his “outrageousness?” Mother Theresa at least DID something positive during her tenure on this sphere of matter. Did a lot of something positive. If there is a heaven, it is not singing in the clouds (except for the occasional concert maybe), but moving on developmentally, into another dimension. Kudos to her, whatever her doubts.
“Religion has produced–or rather inspired–great music, art, literature…”
Thats because Religious institutions had the dough to feed the artists, or are you sayin’ religious music and art is superior to secular art?
“But the irreligious have done as much or more in the way of evil…” They were evil not becuase they were irreligious but because they were evil in nature, they may have been irreligious because they were evil but not all irreligiousity bares out of evilness. What about George Bush calling “Axis of Evil”, flaunting “American Mission” and “Crusades”, that “God wanted me here”, and under his leadership backed up by the evagelicals has brought religious bloodbath in “secular” Iraq.
MT in my eyes is great for her work, and even greater, now that I find out, for questioning her motivation, the trait that is more akin to humans than the animals.
Abhi, thanks for the post.
One thing about a journal is that it doesn’t typically give a balanced portrait of a person – often it’s a safe place to let off steam. It’s not a memoir or a biography. So these papers might be giving disproportionate emphasis to this aspect of her psychological landscape.
I am incredibly uncomfortable, and daresay offended that the Catholic church overruled Mother Theresa’s desire to keep her correspondences private. As someone who keeps journal entries of my most private thoughts, I would be absolutely horrified to know that in my death, my private thoughts–of the most intimate and controversial kind (that we all have) were published and spread throughout the world.
I actually can’t get past this huge breach of loyalty. So much so that I wouldn’t patronize this book or Time magazine.
The guarantee that the struggles Mother Theresa speaks of is something every single religious leader must go through–if not in print than in their minds.
This expectation to be “perfect” in the eyes of God must be torture to live with. My heart goes out to Mother Theresa, and I hope her soul continues to rest in peace even with the knowledge that her wishes were completely abandoned. =(
I miswrote something above, the following line:
Should have read:
If all religious people had the same amount of doubt and willingness to question their religion, they would be better people and the world would be a better place.
As an atheist, I don’t want a world full of atheists, just a world with less bigots.
Abhi, fantastic post.
SM Intern–looks like a troll alert to me.
especially with the spelling–I’m bad but this is unacceptable.
I’m joining in late, but nice post, Abhi. I too find these “doubts” of MT’s increase my respect.
Another analog to what MT discusses in her letters: Sita abandoned by Rama. Especially in lines like this:
I’m intrigued and relieved that MT hasn’t been attacked for comparing her struggle with Christ’s, and identifying with Christ as a way to move forward. Is it because she’s a certified saint, and therefore granted such license, or because Christians actually approve of relating to Jesus? I’m no saint, and I’m regularly attacked for relating (in my small flawed way) to Sita. Once I was also lambasted in an SM thread for drawing comparisons between Sita’s story and Christ’s (I’m not a Christian either, but living in the US I’m fairly steeped in Christian mythology, like everyone else here). I’ve also been attacked for reading relgious stories “universally” (when did “universal” become an epithet?) but MT’s letters remind me that if anything is universal, it is loneliness and pain. Even atheists have that.
Amreekan,
as hitchens has detailed in the past–these regimes all tended to replace the official state religion, or traditionally dominant religion, with another more amenable to their needs. I don’t see any point being made here.
I think the problem that atheists have with god-men (and god-women), is that they’re generally portrayed as people above and beyond all criticism. There is a valid critique that has probably yet to be made, with regards to the efficiency of her operation. All aid organizations can be judged by how many cents actually make it to the needy parties out of every dollar donated and how effective the volunteers are (by rates of disease, etc among the treated parties).
there is a vast difference between those who go purely to help with some tangible project (i.e. clean water, solid housing, education) and those who plant churches, seed bibles and then leave. It is when the tangible work and proselytizing are concurrent, that the debate becomes truly interesting.
I wish to see an analytical lens trained on MT and her charitable work, as it would serve to contextualize this discussion in actual empirical categories of efficacy, transparency, etc. It would be foolish to wonder whether she would have been more effective as a secular humanitarian–the only thing I can think of is the contraception issue. i don’t think it would take too much field work to prove that her target areas would’ve benefited from anti Catholic-dogma organizational policy on education about birth control, etc.
you may not want it, but thats what it eventually will be… religion is a legacy of the medieval times… when humans were absolutely clueless about things… It probably took a lot to have the conviction to be an atheist 500 years ago. Now, there are so many of them. Its obviously a natural transition of the human society from its dark ages, and 500 years into the future, I genuinely feel that a non-atheist will be considered a crackpot by the mainstream population. I know the views expressed here might sound radical, but I think its the truth.
As for the post by amreekan, all your arguments are the standard religion ppl arguments whose flaws have been clearly explained over and over by a number of people (dawkins, mainly)
ThePope @ 75. Speak for yourself.
I thought that the Catholic Church, especially, held sacred the communication between the congregant and spiritual adviser. Thats what I find most shocking about having these letters published -isn’t it equivalent to a priest revealing what was said at confession? Any catholics out there – please clarify for me .
I always admired Mother Theresa and have had an opportunity to see the work of the Sisters of Charity closely via one of her orphanages in India. Regardless of whether it was faith or doubt that propelled her forward, the kind of impact that she had was amazing. She cared for those whom no one cared about.I always admired her but seeing this more human side of her ironically makes me think of her as more of a saint, not less.
anna,
a sensible proposition, which you wouldn’t be hard pressed to defend. However, as in our celeb-obssessed culture where courts have established that the price of fame and exposure is constant harassment by the paparazzi, it does figure that the title of ‘saint’ would be accompanied by the same kind of rabid, morbid curiosity about items which most of us would want kept private. MT is just a victim of how we treat all people accorded the same exposure. The Dalai Lama, among others, has been a target of this kind of sensationalism (although those critiques are grounded in substantial evidence, and have significance for his constant message of “peace.”)
SkepMod, well said.
I’m an atheist who grew up Presbyterian. I agree that this makes her easier to relate to; it’s the religious folks who never, ever have any doubts at all who scare me. Seems like really deeply thinking through your beliefs, whatever they are, will always bring up doubts and questions. I came up with enough of them as a teenager to abandon my religious beliefs; MT struggled through them instead. She was human.
Nina,
Just wanted to say thanks for posting that adorable video of little white kids acting out the story of Rama! They got soooo into it.
does anyone else have a problem with claims of “miracles”. does that set off any alarm bells?
well, the decline in required conviction required to be an atheist probably has more to do with the rise of civil liberties and good governance more than the rise of our unerstanding of the world around us. take away a few of those liberties, and it will take the same kind of conviction to be an atheist again. science wou;ld still advance, but you wouldnt want to talk about not believing in xyz holy book too loudly.
“explained over and over by a number of people (dawkins, mainly)”
and apparently we “religious” people have to explain over and over again that dawkins’ “explanations” are themselves pretty warmed over, and do not convince everybody. But then, atheistic arrogance is equalled only by that of the fundamentalist religionist
But then, atheistic arrogance is equalled only by that of the fundamentalist religionist…
But then, atheistic
arrogancearrogance backed by truth is equalled only by that of the fundamentalist religionist backed by faith.<
blockquote>But then, atheistic arrogance backed by truth is equalled only by that of the fundamentalist religionist backed by faith.
<
blockquote>
To state that your truth is the only truth is the very definition of arrogance…
If as a believer, I can respect your choice to be an atheist and not try to convince you otherwise , why can’t you respect my choice to believe?
i never got why peoples arbitrary beliefs need to be held up as equal to well thought out scientific theories backed up by empirical evidence. like intelligent designe guys saying that their “beliefs” shold carry as much weight as darwins theory of evolution. I dont think it should. one is backed up by evidence. the other is a belief. peoples beliefs arent based on anything, really.
no one is arguing against anyones right to beileve whatever nonsense they want. but, the problem occours when one trys to act like their beliefs are logically founded.
Puli, You do not belive in miracles I take it. Fine. Because you have not experienced any and I would never attempt to convince you otherwise.
What if my experience is different? What, for example, if the power of prayer has worked for me ? Will you write this off and deny me the choice to believe in what I want to believe because it does not fit your frame of reference( which requires a detailed scientific explanation for everything) ? Is that not intolerance?
I do not proselytize my faith, I do not expect you to follow it. But to dismiss as arbitrary others’ beliefs smacks of intoleranc and arrogance.
I understand now why Anna said earlier that this thread makes her uncomfortable and why she chose to leave it.
i will not deny you the right to believe in whatever insane ideas you want….its not my place.
“Thats because Religious institutions had the dough to feed the artists, or are you sayin’ religious music and art is superior to secular art/”
Yes, I must admit I think Bach and Mozart are better than Britney Spears or any other pop dreck you could offend the airwaves with. I even think they are better than Philip Glass. A combination of mathematical genius and spiritually inspired melody. I just don’t know enough about Indian music to comment in depth on that, although it too has roots in the desire for spiritual communication.There has been good music created during the 20th century, but I do think this culture is on the downslide, all things considered. Happens to everyone. It’s inevitable.
And it wasn’t always “religious institutions” who came up with the “dough”. In Italy for example, it was often powerful families who paid the artist to paint them into pictures. The Medicis were famous for that. In any case, what comes first, the chicken or the egg? Observe the edifices considered most important in a given era: in the middle ages, Cathedrals. They were the biggest and most complex. During the “mercantile” era, 16th-18th centuries, it was the palaces of kings and doges; during the 19th century, they were railrways and factories and the private homes of robber barons; during the first half of the 20th century, they were banks. The Empire State building. The banks even had religious sounding slogans carved in their state-of-the-art-deco decor. The money declared: in God we trust. 21st century? Who knows. Again, although I used Europe as an example, analagous examples could be found in any culture. Can you imagine the Taj Mahal being built today? I know it commemorates a departed and lamented wife, but it is built as a sort of temple to her memory. It does not look “secular” to me. People thought in terms of connecting with some entity higher than themselves. Then the ancient temples of India: who would build them today?
“What about George Bush calling “Axis of Evil”, flaunting “American Mission” and “Crusades”, that “God wanted me here”, and under his leadership backed up by the evagelicals has brought religious bloodbath in “secular” Iraq.”
im not denying that your prayers work. im just saying just because prayer works for you doesnt mean that there is a god listening to your prayers. i also am not denying your right to do whatever you want.
93 · Puliogre i never got why peoples arbitrary beliefs need to be held up as equal to well thought out scientific theories backed up by empirical evidence
Puli, Why, then, do you cling to the illogical cultural practice of not drinking, when science has conclusively demonstrated that a glass of wine a day has net health benefits? Just sayin’–glass houses, and all that….
i dont drink because i have a propensity for addiciton and obsessive behavior….