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]
dude, thats just a prediction… not a faith or a belief or some such universal truth that i seek to proclaim 😛
139 DQ
Just because certain things are testable doesn’t mean the tests reveal any objective truths. If there is a God, how are we to know whether he perceives the same chair to be blue? Just because we have little human tests that say it is?
–> I didnt know tests are conducted in vaccuum. I thought scientists outline a hypotheses and come up with tests to prove it. If it doesnt work, then the hypothesis isnt true. What other objective truth are you talking about ?
Given the lack of evidence for existence of God, it would be difficult for me to answer the question you asked. So, if you can please define him/her/it for me, it would be a good start. Without it, how am I supposed to find out if ‘little human tests’ are valid in ‘god’ arena ?
But do these laws reflect objective truth? Who knows. Since we can’t ever step outside our perceptions, we can’t say for sure. At least many of the faithful have the honesty to admit this. Gandhi simply said ‘I can’t give you reasons; these are my intuitions.’
–> So, when Gandhi doesnt give reasons for why his religious view is warped(not all the time of course) and asserts it is his intuition, that is honesty. A scientist endeavouring to find out what the underlying reasons are(and being open to the possibility that new evidence could force him/her to modify his/her reasoning) is not ? Maybe we should clarify the definition of honesty.
Puligore, Please stop leaving a comment for every thought in your head. This isn’t an Instant Message Window. Consolidate your comments and leave them only after you have decided what you want to write. I got a headache having to go through multiple comments by you in a row. Thanks.
Actually that statement is profound, and true. The perfect example of how “reason can be used to show the limitations of reason” is Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem. Another example is Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.
Since you agree that “the universe of human perception….may be a vast illusion”, whats the purpose of clinging so tenaciously to it? If “perception is the best tool” that keeps you trapped in illusion shouldnt you discard it if you wish to escape from the illusion? Obviously you have no interest in the Truth that may lie beyond the illusion since you see “no reason to believe anything else but our perception”.
Sathya,
I hate to say this, but you’re starting to sound a bit like my best friend on two mushies, a belly-full of MDMA and a few funny stamps when asked about the state of the universe…unless of course you’re being sarcastic and i’m missing out the joke…
If only you understood the incompleteness result and uncertainity principle, you would realize how ridiculously irrelevant and out of place it is, to quote them towards that statement here… if you don’t, then obviously I can’t do it on this forum.
An interesting tidbit of information about Mother Teresa that many are unaware of: she was an ethnic gypsy from the only muslim-majority country in Europe, Albania.
The gypsies, who are the most despised and discriminated-against minority in Europe, originated in India according to scholarly consensus.
I think the reason many of us feel a greater affinity towards Mother Teresa following these revelations is because we recognize an honest spiritual seeker in her. A stark contrast to the usual christian fakers who glibly proclaim that they have “a personal relationship with God”, when their characters and actions reveal otherwise.
There’s nothing you can know that isn’t known. Nothing you can see that isn’t shown. Nowhere you can be that isn’t where you’re meant to be. It’s easy.
What a dumb statement. Obviously I dont “realize how ridiculously irrelevant” my examples were, else I wouldnt have posted it. Equally obviously, there is nothing in this forum preventing you from showing us how those examples are “ridiculously irrelevant”. Sounds like a cop out. Why dont you just admit you are clueless?
Damn. Where’s the cheat-sheet for religion-atheism debate when I need one?
For your information, Germany was considered the most christian nation in Europe when the nazis came to power. The nazis overwhelmingly identified themselves as christians. They were baptized in church, married in Church, had christian pastors in their armies, were buried under christian crosses etc.
As for the communists they made intolerant atheism their state religion. They too stand as evidence that separation of religion and state is a worthy goal.
Hmmm … next time a scientific study appears (won’t have to wait long – they appear every few months) touting the health benefits of a certain food/drink funded by the very corporation that sells the product, that to me is honesty. Or the scientists employed by the oil companies to intentionally muddy the global warming debate, or DuPont re: ozone hole-CFC link a while ago. OTOH there’s the Shroud of Turin.
@160 Sathya,
I wouldn’t say it is a cop-out. The incompleteness theorem and the uncertainity theorem are not reasons to distrust axiomatic reasoning :).
To me the disagreement about god is what axioms are. Some of you start with existence of god as an axiom, without defining what god is. One could give such a lax definition of god that would permit a fairly broad range of consistent reasoning, but that is definitely not the all-powerful god that people usually think of.
On the other hand, some of you start with a more empirical approach—ie to say “no matter what, we will not contradict what is empirically observable”. Again, you rule out an all powerful fellow sitting on the clouds. It may permit more nuanced definitions of god, but again in a form no religious person will be probably satisfied with.
Typically however, extremely religious people who try to be logically consistent (they exist, believe me) tend to have a ridiculously restrictive axiomatic base, which is tatamount to saying “just believe me/bible/koran/whatever”, everything else is wrong. They are the ones who say god is so all powerful that he controls every thought, none of your observations are trustworthy because god can make you see what it wants, etc etc.
While there is a tendency for the religious right to see the last one as true, to me there is nothing interesting about it. It may be comforting for some. But to me, it doesn’t further any understanding of the world we live in.
On a related, but different note, it bugs me when people smugly say “some things can’t be explained by science”. True, we don’t know most of the things. Maybe they are even right—there can be no theory of everything. But the attitude—that somehow you have a way of knowing that science will be incomplete, or a “proof by calling out fancy names” which usually involves godel’s or heisenberg’s theorem is disturbing. neither godel’s nor heisenberg’s theorem rule out the holy grail of physics as yet—a complete model of the universe.
should read as:
On a related, but different note, it bugs me when people smugly say “some things can’t be explained by science”. True, we don’t know most of the things. Maybe they are even right—there can be no theory of everything. But the attitude—that somehow one has a way of knowing that science will be incomplete, or the “proof by calling out fancy names” which usually involves godel’s or heisenberg’s theorem is disturbing. neither godel’s nor heisenberg’s theorem rule out the holy grail of physics as yet—a complete model of the universe.
the above para wasn’t targetted at any of you.
158 · Sathya A stark contrast to the usual christian fakers who glibly proclaim that they have “a personal relationship with God”, when their characters and actions reveal otherwise
isn’t that because they’d admit to being “sinners”….
162 · Sathya
For your information, Germany was considered the most christian nation in Europe when the nazis came to power.
umm–Ireland….
On a related, but different note, it bugs me when people smugly say “some things can’t be explained by science”.
Most of the fathers of the modern worldview in physics – Einstein, Bohr, Pauli, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Planck, De Broglie, Jeans – rejected rigorous positivism and said exactly that! Practically all, including Einstein, were theists. Do you honestly expect to find transcendence in a test tube?
Yes, but all of those men were genius scientists. In practice most people that say “some things can’t be explained by science,” also believe in a “demon haunted world.”
It bugs you because its true and it threatens your naive yet smug faith in science as the be all and end all of knowledge. What do you think is the more fundamental aspect of existence: consciousness or matter-energy? Can you prove the existence of matter-energy without being conscious of it? See how absurd the very idea is? Yet science remains clueless about the origins and nature of consciousness, which is the most fundamental aspect of our being. The faith of scientific atheists that the material world is the only reality is unscientific, since it is unprovable and logically untenable. The Universe cannot possibly exist without a sentient observer.
Since Godel proved that axiomatic systems are either inconsistent or incomplete how do you imagine that you can trust them to represent the ultimate truth?
But having smug proof using science is better than having smug faith in religion because one can be backed up by more than just smugness.
I totally get the concept of being self-righteous when it comes to ones religious beliefs. That begs the question of proof and some level of accuracy. But it works both ways (lack of religious belief), smug or not. Just never thought I’d see the day where ‘smug’ is thrown around so casually to describe one’s belief system. I guess some people just don’t care to understand how others can appreciate beauty in the unknown, even when the other is not engaging in some overt self-satisfaction with their respective ideologies.
Abhi in #23: Parts of the Time article comments on some likely outcomes. The reason is simple and to me seems grounded in human psychology. When shown proof positive that Teresa lost her faith, others here admire her for keeping her faith. What they are really doing is holding on to their own by projecting on to her something that wasn’t there.
This, for me, really captures the essence of this story.
IMO, ‘holding on’ to faith, of the religious kind or otherwise, is actually the greatest obstacle to ‘enlightenment’ (one can define it in many ways I guess). Not that I look forward to it, but if eventually a sentient being can be created artificially, will that prove anything one way or the other? There are a number of people who believe the planet was ‘seeded’ by an advanced race – they are ridiculed by one and all, and no one finds that offensive or intolerant etc. How are those beliefs different from or inferior to mainstream religious beliefs? Yet it is instructive to witness the lionization of humans based on how dedicated they were to their faith. Nowhere has this been more apparent to me than in India and the US (from my limited experiences).
I’m a Non-Catholic Christian, but I feel that Mother Teresa’s wishes were not granted as requested and that is sadly unfair. I think the Catholic church makes only certain things public to their own convenience. How come all those pedophiles were kept a secret when they knew it was immoral? Why not keep Mother Teresa’s personal writings a secret too? That is very hypocrite from their behalf. (Before any chaos, I don’t think all Catholics are bad. It just like any other religion with some defects because of the wrong leaders that run the church)If the other illegal stuff was not of a big deal to them, then why not keep this a secret which was not causing harm to anybody. I guess that is just a way of them making money, just like the typical charlatan.
I personally don’t think she was a bad person. I think we all go through different phases in our lives. I, myself, have gone through actually doubting the existence of God, but I have already straighten that out in my life. I think important thing was that she was honest. God is the one who will judge. We are not to be criticizing or judging this woman who did many good things during her life on this earth.
As I was reading through all the comments. I see some Christians getting offended by agnostics/atheists making comments in regards to the Christian faith. Honestly, I don’t feel in any way offended, they have a mind of their own and are entitled to their own opinion whether it be sarcastic/offensive. We can’t change how they see things and they just can’t change how we Christians view God. The good thing we live in a country where you are free to worship as you desire.
We (Christians) need to learn not to take things so personally, in any case we should not feel in any way resented because as Christians, we should learn to accept,forgive, respect others regardless of their ways. We are also not PERFECT, we are just human. We make mistakes and as long as we learn from them and accept our debilities,we will eventually begin to mature in our weakness and that makes us a better person.
Unfortunately, not everyone respects other people’s believes, but that is also okay. I guess you can say I am a more open minded Christian. I have learned the hard way because I married a believer who later became agnostic. I respect his believes and he respect mine. I can’t say he is a bad person, just because we don’t share the same faith. Believe me, I have known people who are religious and do not know how to behave appropriately, which makes all other Christians look bad.
I think Abhi clarified a couple of my points. I will try to explain my position further.
Well, firstly Godel did not prove the above. Godel proved that no consistent and complete axiom set can be enumerated. It has a very precise meaning, something that is lost in translation to English.
For example, think of all possible numerical constants (like pi, 2, -2, 1.3, etc). They cannot be “enumerated” as well (it is possible to show that). Doesn’t mean they are meaningless, or that they do not exist. You can even say whether or not something is lesser than the other.
The thing is, Godel’s theorem is technical, and has a very precise meaning. Writing it in English usually destroys the meaning, and results in misunderstandings like the above.
What bugs me here is the “it is true” part. No one knows if it is true. If you read my comment, you will realize that you are just beating up a straw man—I even observed there that potentially science cannot explain everything, and that we know very little.
But religion always pretends it has all the answers. Why pretend religion has answers to everything when all it is based on is—I don’t even know how to finish the sentence—superstition of a few thousand years before and blood of millions because of the smugness that religion has answers?
And I don’t even consider myself athiest or agnostic. I just don’t believe in superstition. My philosophy starts with Shankaracharya and Ramanuja, which I keep molding/pruning based on what is known as empirically true. I will throw out anything that isn’t logically consistent.
Why is the comment even related?—dont get me wrong, I am trying to understand it. Why is the origin of “consciousness” important to make empirical statements? Do you mistrust your capability to observe? So you believe your god will only let you observe what is convenient for him/her? In which case, you fall in the third category of axioms in my comment (reproduced below).
We disagree in the axioms we start with. But you don’t think much of reasoning as well, so no one can even debate with you. But that is your problem, not mine. On the other hand, you may still convince me if you are right, just dont throw the incompleteness theorem or uncertainity principle at me. And I don’t think I am smug here, since I will abandon my position the moment I see a need to.
DQ:
This is not true at all. New theories are evolving or being refuted only at the very frontiers of science, which is perhaps 2% of the total scientific knowledge there is. There is an incredibly vast amount of scientific knowledge that has been tested billions of times and has not been refuted – ever. If scientific theories changed so fast, you would not have the modern world. Imagine taking a flight, and the pilot saying midway: “Oops! We were wrong about Bernoulli’s theorem.” Even at the frontiers science gets far far more things right than it gets wrong: black holes were predicted long before they were observed.
I don’t see how this level of skepticism leads one anywhere except complete intellectual paralysis. If all your material experiences are illusion, how do you know your spiritual experiences are not another layer of illusion too, behind which the true reality is hidden. If god plays games, who knows how many levels that game has? I do not have a problem with people’s spiritual experiences, but please realize they are no more ‘real’ than any experiences you have in the real world.
Runa:
I respect your choice to your beliefs in principle, but things are not always as simple as that. Outside internet discussion boards, religion is still extremely influential, and in many ways dangerous. I was in my village in India a few weeks ago. I visited a neighbor’s house, and there was a stick hanging above the door. I did not even ask what the stick was for, because I already knew: it was a ‘blessed’ stick sold by a local godman to ward off snakes from entering. What was I supposed to do now, respect their beliefs, or point out that its unlikely to be an effective deterrence?
Every religion (including islam and christianity) has serious problems of some type or the other and need to seriously clean up their act, and they are not going to do that if they are not kept on the backfoot about it. I know an alternative is to hate on religious fundamentalism, but that is hard to do as moderate to fundamentalist is a continuum, and its not easy to know where exactly to draw the line.
I hope you do not take any of this personally: I like and respect you as a commentator- keep fighting the DBD fight 😉 .
If you are so interested (and you happen to have the background of a theoretical computer scientist or a mathematical logician), please do yourself a favor and go read this english translation of the original paper.
(btw, its stupid to engage with u on this but just to say it, Godel’s result is not some metaphysical result as you seem to imagine. Its outrageous to think it empowers some idiot to go around quoting it as a means to undermine logical reasoning. There are some who claim that it might have a few implications to general philosophy or even to cognitive science, but even that is not a widely accepted mainstream view… forget attacking reason using godel’s theorem)
I pity how u r so arrogant despite being clueless yourself.
You are not entirely correct on that. It is said that Einstein used the word ‘God’ in some of his quotes simply as a metaphorical device. The fact is that he was hardly a religious man. As for the other geniuses, they probably had better things to worry about than pondering over the question of god or not… like doing physics. I would be surprised if any of them were deeply religious blind faith people.
I don’t actually think it’s about the Catholic Church making more money.
It appears more about maintaining accessibility to Christianity via presenting one of it’s largest symbols in the 20th Century as wrestling with faith in a human and non-monolithic manner.
As pro-active the Vatican is in regards to…well, anything, this is a calculated move. I’m quite sure that it will be translated into Spanish for the largest growing segment of the Catholic religion, South America whose countries in some ways are very similar to India with it’s various social-economic classes.
RANDOM, No personal attacks please.
“For your information, Germany was considered the most christian nation in Europe when the nazis came to power. The nazis overwhelmingly identified themselves as christians. They were baptized in church, married in Church, had christian pastors in their armies, were buried under christian crosses etc.” I am not sure how you could measure the most “Christian” nation in Europe. By whose measuring rod? More Christian than Spain? Italy? Poland? In any case, religion failed all these nations ultimately, though not all the individuals in them. If anything, what happened there was more a failure of the belief that education and progress would solve the world’s problems. Germany sprang ahead of other, more religious nations, in its advocacy of science, progress, etc. It was an industrial/scientific leader by the mid-19th century. But Germany has always identified itself more as a “race” than a country or civilization; while France has identified itself more as a culture. The difference can be subtle at times, but is widely held to be the case among students of comparative literature and culture. The Nazi’s just took this all to a pathological degree. Identifying primarily as a “race” they worshiped the gods that they believed were their own origins. Nazism was first and foremost a rebellion against any kind of restraint by a force deemed larger than man himself. You do not become a Christian because somebody pours water over your head, or drags you to church on Sunday. It was an ideology informed most heavily by Neitze, hardly a Christian. http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Nietzsche.html. The keynote of Nazism is that a true man is a superman. Allowing oneself to be restrained by fidelity and obediance to a god, is weak and foolish. It is one of the reasons they blamed the Jews–Jews, they believe, brought monotheism to the formerly proud and godless “aryans.” They were also steeped in occutism–something of which Churchill was very aware. The most esteemed relic for Hitler was a spear that supposedly pierced the side of Jesus on the cross. It was the fact that the weapon had wounded “god” that they esteemed it so. I believe it was in a museum in Vienna, though its provenance could not be verified. http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/n-s/nazimyths.html.
It is not a question of what people are born and raised as–obviously religion failed, if after all that, they chose Nazism. But the ideology of Nazism was not in any way Christian. As I admit, the organized religions of today are inadequate to inspire civilization. My argument is that they had a core of truth and raised the consciousness of the early people who accepted them. The proof is in the pudding, however, and they do not have that effect now, on societies as a whole, though they may still inspire individual lives in a positive way.
“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems.â€
Albert Einstein, 1947; from Banesh Hoffmann, Albert Einstein Creator and Rebel, New York: New American Library, 1972, p. 95.
Well, here’s some commentary on the Spinoza reference by Einstein. http://skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id8.html The man was very complex–nobody with rigid beliefs of either the atheistic or theistic persuasion, should be claiming his soul or his mind.
Sathya – You might want to read this article, especially this excerpt.
I would suggest, in summary, that there is a tendency to try to milk far too much out of Gödel’s theorem when it comes to philosophical explanations. Much the same can be said of other scientific “big ideas” that are the favorites of those who indulge in what used to be called cocktail-party physics but now might be better called new-age physics. (I think there are now even self-help and business advice books that purport to extract from Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle some lessons about managing one’s love life or business career.) The temptation is hard to resist, admittedly, even for people who ought to know better. The best illustration of this was the fate that befell one faculty member at Princeton who got the big idea that maybe there was some profound connection between Gödel’s incompleteness theorem and Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. Both, after all seemed to suggest inherent limitations in the universe on what it is possible for human beings to know. “Well, one day I was at the Institute of Advanced Study, and I went to Gödel’s office, and there was Gödel,” the professor recalled. “I said, ‘Professor Gödel, what connection do you see between your incompleteness theorem and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle?’ And Gödel got angry and threw me out of his office.”
Uncertainty in science, which is often well known and logically deducible, can definitely not be compared to the uncontested and unverifiable dogmas spouted by religion. Believe in religion, if you will, but to claim that religion’s explanations for the world are in some way equivalent to scientific theories is an egregious leap of logic.
175 sakshi
There is an incredibly vast amount of scientific knowledge that has been tested billions of times and has not been refuted – ever. If scientific theories changed so fast, you would not have the modern world. Imagine taking a flight, and the pilot saying midway: “Oops! We were wrong about Bernoulli’s theorem.”
–> Very well put.
180 amreekan
If anything, what happened there was more a failure of the belief that education and progress would solve the world’s problems.
–> If it was the failure of the belief that education and progress would solve the world’s problems, why was there emphasis in Nazi germany on scientific methods of liquidating a whole race of people ? Was it just cynicism ?
You do not become a Christian because somebody pours water over your head, or drags you to church on Sunday.
–> I hope someone informs christians of this. Some(not all) people lead their lives based on the above actions.
But the ideology of Nazism was not in any way Christian. As I admit, the organized religions of today are inadequate to inspire civilization. My argument is that they had a core of truth and raised the consciousness of the early people who accepted them.
–> I dont think people claim nazism is in any way christian but it did use symbols of christianity with active indulgence from the church.
Can you please expand on that ? What core of truth ? I thought they were all fire and brimstone and devoid of truth.
I don’t mean to interject, because I actually think it is totally unhelpful to talk about the Nazis, but there seems to be this strange “Oh but the Nazis weren’t really Christian” string of comments.
While the actions and ideology of the Nazis cannot be characterized as typical or representative of Christianity, it’s factually correct that Christianity was a central component of the nationalism and national identity championed by the Nazis in Germany. Despite their love affair with “the occult” (and the corruption and appropriation of the swastika), it would be historically inaccurate to ignore the complicity of church organizations in the rise of the Nazis as well as the Nazis’ use of Christian symbols and iconography.
Let us not all lay so much of the blame for the religious apologia for Nazism purely at the doorstep of Christianity.
Sakshi,
Well-argued points and thanks, btw, for your courtesy.
I’ll address your last point first. Abhi was making a somewhat similar point with the reference to the ‘demon world’. I would argue that both science and religion spin off these dangerous quack beliefs and/or practices. I don’t think there is much difference between the person who gets sick on ‘scientifically proven’ diet supplements and the person who believes in the blessed stick. You will argue that the first is not an example of science and I will argue that the second is not an example of religion. That will not keep us from using these examples against each other. I don’t think, though, that a realm of human endeavour should be judged by its lowest denominator. I suspect that Gandhi, Christ, the Buddha would have been equally disgusted by the blessed stick as you.
With respect to the ‘intellectual paralysis’ generated by a questioning of perception, I disagree. A clear understanding of the limits of reason doesn’t inhibit the creative or imaginative or intuitive faculties. And just because you know you can’t run more than five miles doesn’t mean you won’t ever run again. You just don’t go around saying that you can run 55 miles. Kierkegaard developed his notion of the leap of faith, Nietzsche his concept of the Superman, bearing in mind that, as an existing being, man always projects his own values and limitations on his reasoning. I think you assume that I actually asserted that all perception is an illusion. This is not the case. I pointed out that man is always going to be limited by his own perceptions – these limitations have to be taken into account.
Your second point (mid-flight interruption) is an excellent one, but I have to go now. Will address it when I get back.
Except that the latter is a canonical example of religious explanations for natural phenomena and remedies based on anecdotal or superstitious practices. And a lot of religion promotes such thinking.
187 DQ
I would argue that both science and religion spin off these dangerous quack beliefs and/or practices. I don’t think there is much difference between the person who gets sick on ‘scientifically proven’ diet supplements and the person who believes in the blessed stick.
–> A person gets sick under either case but given the differing approaches of science and religion, wouldnt science be better at remedying its error than religion ? The testable nature of science should at least help there whereas pointing to a solution as a matter of faith is of no help when it fails.
“it would be historically inaccurate to ignore the complicity of church organizations in the rise of the Nazis as well as the Nazis’ use of Christian symbols and iconography.” I must repeat: the Nazis were enemies of Christianity–they embraced the philosophy of Neitze (who was not all bad, btw), and the occult. Neitze was anti-god.
“While the actions and ideology of the Nazis cannot be characterized as typical or representative of Christianity, it’s factually correct that Christianity was a central component of the nationalism and national identity championed by the Nazis in Germany. “
Yes, they USED Christianity because it was within the comfort zone of the majority of that country, much as it is used today by those who shall remain nameless. There comes a time in every civilization when the deeply held belief system that once united it, i.e. religion, becomes all sound and fury signifying nothing of any real merit. However, if one blames the Christianism of people for their misdeeds, then one must also, logically, accept that Christianism influenced good things done, the progressive things. Yet the secular world does not want to acknowledge this–good things are done because people are innately good and would do good things anyway. Meanwhile, people who do bad things and come from a Christian background, mean that religion makes people do bad things. There is an inconsistency.
“Can you please expand on that ? What core of truth ? I thought they were all fire and brimstone and devoid of truth.” You’re joking, yes? One of the things that impressed me about studying some of the early believers was the sheer joy of their discovery. Even Augstine. But the sociopaths made inroads at an early point. All I can say is, go as close to the source as you can. Ignore claims that Christ or Buddah never existed–the individual who delivers the message is less important than the message. Approach it with an inquiring mind, an unbiased mind, and simply read it in the mode of intellecutal curiosity if nothing else. I think you will see fire and brimstone was a secondary feature if it can be detected at all. personally I’ve had it with organized religions, but the original messages of these faiths are mostly very beautiful and inspiring. I guess the closest religion to my tendency is Baha’i, but I can’t really adhere to any system very well, perhaps due to laziness. These religions would never have lasted if they did not touch some deep desire inherent in the human. Call it a biological urge if you want to reduce it, but it does exist, even atheists admit that.
Camille, as far as the thread going in a different direction, sometimes the original theme invites that–there’s only so much you can say about Mother Theresa’s doubts. Who doesn’t have doubts, no matter what their beliefs? But as for the Nazis and progress, Hitler is famous for declaring that he learned genocide from the Turkish, low-tech decimation of the Armenians (which the Turks to this day, mostly deny, possibly because Turkey is made up of different ethnicities and nobody wants to take responsibility. The Germans had nobody to point to.)
“Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” http://www.armenian-genocide.org/hitler.html So, does Islam cause genocide? I think not.
Genocide went on all through the 20th century. Every continent was affected. Naturally high-tech societies do it the high-tech way.
Interesting post Abhi, I usually really enjoy what you choose to write about. You and Anna are my two favorite mutineers. 🙂 But… your comment #23 is really bothering me. You say you are “not judging those” that interpret Mother Teresa’s letters and life differently from you – those who don’t see them as “proof positive” that she lost her faith – but you still state that “What they are really doing is holding on to their own [faith] by projecting on to her something that wasn’t there.” Hmmm…. not judging? Really? Reading a book of her letters does not make anyone an expert on what was going on in her heart and mind and soul every day of her life. I think her actions speak louder than any words she could have said or written and her life was an incredible love song to God. That aside, MT’s faith or lack thereof doesn’t affect my own in the slightest, so I’m not holding onto it by projecting my own desires on to her story. Perhaps others are seeing something different in her writings because they have experienced it themselves and are speaking from inside faith, instead of as outside observers. This sort of lamenting and crying out to God is nothing new. The book of Psalms is full of it. Reading what she wrote I immediately thought of Psalms 22 which Jesus quoted from the cross:
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning? O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, and am not silent….
I have cried out like this, I have doubted the existence of God. I know from surviving some truly difficult times in my life that these “valley” experiences actually strengthened my relationship with Jesus. I know at my very core that God is real and God is good. If that is offensive to anyone reading this, then please take into consideration how offensive some of the statements about people of faith have been on this comment thread and try to refrain from ripping me to shreds. 🙂
I’m not sure how my comment became misconstrued as Christianity –> Nazism. If that’s how it was read, I apologize, because that’s not what I meant. I tried to make sure my post laid the blame of the “hijacking” of Christianity and its symbolic use in the Nazi frameworks at the feet of those responsible for all sorts of horrific actions, i.e., the Nazis themselves. I am not saying the Nazis are paragons of Christianity, nor that they are emblematic or representative, nor that Christianity drove their disgusting ideological foundations. I think that would be a little simplistic. That said, I think there was a relatively consistent string of “oh but Christianity had NO ROLE/PART of Nazi action.” That’s what I take issue with.
Firstly,I definitely did not take any of it personally and thanks for the comment – though I hope my comments are valued not just because of the DBD perspective!
My original comment was in response to a self professed atheist using words like “nonsense” and “arbitrary ” to condemn any faith in a higher power.
Look, I am by no means dogmatic or even very religious in the usual manner.I truly belive that each individuals spiritual growth is intensely personal and I have a deep distrust of all organized religion.However, I do not understand how the same folks who would be horrified at say, a Hindu professing anti Muslim sentiments or vice versa, think it is okay for atheists to display no respect at all for anothers’ belief system .
You said:
Thats all I ask
btw, I mispelled Superman’s name. It’s Nietze, not Neitze. My bad too fast. anyway, I think I understand your point Camille.
It is truly pathetic that you actually think that these two statements contradict each other!
Yeah right. You have actually read the highly intricate proof in german and understood it better than everyone else. Dont make us laugh:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/chaitin/georgia.html
“Gödel’s original proof of the incompleteness theorem is based on the paradox of the liar:
This statement is false.'' He obtains a theorem instead of a paradox by changing this to:This statement is unprovable.” If this assertion is unprovable, then it is true, and the formalization of number theory in question is incomplete. If this assertion is provable, then it is false, and the formalization of number theory is inconsistent. The original proof was quite intricate, much like a long program in machine language. The famous technique of Gödel numbering statements was but one of the many ingenious ideas brought to bear by Gödel to construct a number-theoretic assertion which says of itself that it is unprovable.”“Gödel’s original proof applies to a particular formalization of number theory, and was to be followed by a paper showing that the same methods applied to a much broader class of formal axiomatic systems.”
“These traditional proofs of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem show that formal axiomatic systems are incomplete“
Again we see your pathetic laughable self-contradiction. Why does it bug you so much when someone says exactly what you yourself believe: that “science cannot explain everything”??
Really thick arent you? I gave the example of consciousness as one of the things that science cannot explain. Do you deny that consciousness is the most fundamental aspect of our being?
Why not? If you wish to keep your head buried in the sand, an open discussion forum is the wrong place to hang out at.
You are either confused or being dishonest about this, for:
The advaita of Shankaracharya is distinct from the visishadvaita of Ramanuja.
If you actually believed in either of their philosophies you wouldn’t be arguing so stubbornly against theism.
You wouldn’t be questioning the significance and relevance of consciousness in this debate since pure consciousness is considered the metaphysical reality in advaita.
You wouldnt be making ridiculous straw man arguments against silly superstitions, which no one is defending here.
Brazen duplicity. Mr clueless is posing as someone who has actually read and understood the highly complex original paper, when it was exposed in this very thread that he wasnt even aware of Godel’s Theorem and its profound implications. Godel showed that there are limits to mathematical reasoning, using mathematical reasoning. If you had actually even been aware of Godel’s Theorem you wouldnt have mocked the claim that “reason can be used to show the limitations of reason”. Just admit that you were clueless and cut your losses. There is no shame in being wrong. But it is shameful that you are resorting to bluff, bluster and ad hominems in a desperate attempt to save face.
By the way, here is another famous example of using reason to show the limitations of reason: the philosopher Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason”.
More arrogant duplicity and/or ignorance. Newton spent more time pondering over religious metaphysics than on physics. Schrodinger was deeply into advaita vedanta and even wrote extensively about his metaphysical beliefs. Einstein too wrote much about religion. He did not believe in the personal dualistic god of the jewish and christian Bible but was attracted to pantheism and buddhism:
“A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive.” (Albert Einstein, 1954)
“The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms – this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.” ( Albert Einstein – The Merging of Spirit and Science)
“I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.” [Spinoza was a pantheist philosopher]
“The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.”
you are beginning to annoy me now. i have been patient with you probably far more than anyone else on this thread. you have no idea what you are talking about. when i explain it out to you, you have the gall to call me pathetic. i have taught this stuff and i work among people you dig up on the internet and quote. you think i will be intimidated by chaitin?
but again, let me get this into your head: when someone in math says enumerate, it has a specific meaning. it means you can write them one after another. you cannot, for example, write all real numbers one after another, because if you do so, one can always find a number that couldn’t have been on your list. read my old comment again.
godel’s results about enumerability is similar to that. he doesn’t say axiomatic reasoning is wrong.
science and logic is not about shouting out that someone is pathetic. you have to actually say something useful. i don’t see why i should waste my time with you, and you are right in going into religion—i don’t think you have either the humility or the patience to really learn anything.
it is stupid to argue with someone whose stock debate point is “really thick aren’t you?” and “you are pathetic”, but just get this into your head. you have no idea if consciousness can be explained or not. maybe it is just biochemical. you don’t know and i don’t know. and neither does your superstition.
don’t throw them because you have no clue what you are talking about and i do.
Perhaps you have a different method of deciding who is a christian than everyone else. That germans in the time of Hitler’s rise to power were overwhelmingly christian is indisputable.
http://ffrf.org/fttoday/back/hakeem/holocaust3.html
“pre-Nazi Germany was permeated with Christianity. It is no exaggeration to say it was one of the most Christian nations in the world, if judged by the usual indexes. Just a couple of decades before Hitler started his ascent to power, 90 to 95 per cent of Germans were members of Christian churches; the Protestant church press was flourishing, publishing some 600 independent church papers with a circulation of 17,000,000; theology students numbered 5,500; and the presence of some internationally famous theologians kept interest in religious concerns prominent.
Nazism arose in the bosom of a pervasively Christian society.”
“Hitler, whose virulent hatred of the Jews he frequently voiced with frenzy, saw the killing of the Jews as a sacred mission: “Today, I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord [italics in the original].” In response to two bishops who questioned the Nazi race policy, Hitler said that he was only putting into effect what Christianity had preached for 2,000 years.”
http://nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm
“People often make the claim that Adolph Hitler adhered to Atheism, Humanism or some ancient Nordic pagan mythology. None of these fanciful and wrong ideas hold. Although one of Hitler’s henchmen, Alfred Rosenberg, did undertake a campaign of Nordic mythological propaganda, Hitler and most of his henchmen did not believe in it .”
“Many American books, television documentaries, and Sunday sermons that preach of Hitler’s “evil” have eliminated Hitler’s god for their Christian audiences, but one only has to read from his own writings to appreciate that Hitler’s God equals the same God of the Christian Bible.”
“Hitler held strong faith in all his convictions. He justified his fight for the German people and against Jews by using Godly and Biblical reasoning. Indeed, one of his most revealing statements makes this quite clear: “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”
“Although he fought against certain Catholic priests who opposed him for political reasons, his belief in God and country never left him. Many Christians throughout history have opposed Christian priests for various reasons; this does not necessarily make one against one’s own Christian beliefs. Nor did the Vatican’s Pope & bishops ever disown him; in fact they blessed him! As evidence to his claimed Christianity, he said:
http://nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm
“We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity… in fact our movement is Christian.”
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Passau, 27 October 1928
“We are determined, as leaders of the nation, to fulfill as a national government the task which has been given to us, swearing fidelity only to God, our conscience, and our Volk…. This the national government will regard its first and foremost duty to restore the unity of spirit and purpose of our Volk. It will preserve and defend the foundations upon which the power of our nation rests. It will take Christianity, as the basis of our collective morality, and the family as the nucleus of our Volk and state, under its firm protection….May God Almighty take our work into his grace, give true form to our will, bless our insight, and endow us with the trust of our Volk.”
-Adolf Hitler, on 1 Feb. 1933, addressing the German nation as Chancellor for the first time
“The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc, because it recognized the Jews for what they were”…. I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the church and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions.”
-Adolf Hitler, 26 April 1933,
“While we destroyed the Centre Party, we have not only brought thousands of priests back into the Church, but to millions of respectable people we have restored their faith in their religion and in their priests. The union of the Evangelical Church in a single Church for the whole Reich, the Concordat with the Catholic Church, these are but milestones on the road which leads to the establishment of a useful relation and a useful co operation between the Reich and the two Confessions.”
-Adolf Hitler, in his New Year Message on 1 Jan. 1934
“National Socialism is not a cult-movement— a movement for worship; it is exclusively a ‘volkic’ political doctrine based upon racial principles. In its purpose there is no mystic cult, only the care and leadership of a people defined by a common blood-relationship…. We will not allow mystically-minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else– in any case something which has nothing to do with us. At the head of our programme there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception and straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will– not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord….”
-Adolf Hitler, in Nuremberg on 6 Sept. 1938.