I am a Quester

[pjthompson]

I have been struggling and thinking and trying to formulate for months a way of explaining my odd admixture of rationality and belief. Most notably (and in long-winded fashion), here. It’s been itching at me ever since someone accused me of being irrational because I refused to slam the door shut on the existence of extraordinary possibilities. “No, that’s not it,” I wanted to say, but everything I came up with sounded defensive.

Then I heard a piece on NPR back in December that really nailed it for me. I’ve been meaning to blog about it ever since, but things have a way of getting away from me these days. I revisited the piece today, and Eric Weiner says everything I’ve wanted to say, only far more eloquently and succinctly than my own flailings. I urge you to read (or listen) to the entire brief essay. But here’s the encapsulating bit for me:

The debate between faith and reason is a false one. Science and religion don’t occupy the same turf. Saying, “Now that we have science, there is no reason for religion” is like saying, “Now that we have the microwave oven, we have no use for Shakespeare.” We need both, of course. Only then can we lead fully rounded lives.

—Eric Weiner, “A Quest To Seek The Sublime In The Spiritual,” National Public Radio, December 20, 2011

With all due respect to my atheist friends, I am never quite convinced by the arguments of people like Christopher Hitchens (and especially not Richard Dawkins). (And no, atheist friends, I don’t want to debate this with you. Use your own pulpit to preach your message.) What these gentlemen fail to comprehend is that religion is just the excuse for people to behave badly. If people didn’t have religion to use as a rationale for their prejudices and hatred, they’d find something else. The rise of environmental terrorists and animal activist terrorists proves this. Any cause will do if you are of a mind to create destruction and chaos and think your point of view trumps everyone else’s.

I don’t consider myself religious. I have no religious affiliation—although I have incorporated the views of many religions into my worldview. I consider myself spiritual. I consider myself a quester. I am comfortable with doubt as a part of my spiritual makeup. I think doubt is a healthy thing, and quixotic questions the ultimate spiritual guide. I accept that the universe doesn’t always make sense. It is a quantum paradise, with a seething mass of complicated questions that no facile answers can ever fully address. I am content that it should be so.

Mirrored from Better Than Dead.

Comments

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

Related, an interesting link I found a few months ago:

http://www.quora.com/How-can-one-believe-in-science-and-religion-at-the-same-time

[pjthompson.livejournal.com]

Thanks for that!

[kmkibble75.livejournal.com]

I think it'd be foolish to completely close the door on possibilities we can't disprove or comprehend, so in that we agree. For the other point... to my pulpit!!

[pjthompson.livejournal.com]

Lol--and a bully pulpit I'm sure it is. :-)

[kmkibble75.livejournal.com]

I honestly tried not to be bully about it! But it's one of those topics that just bring about the full-force of my personality to the subject (to put it politely).

[pjthompson.livejournal.com]

I didn't mean bully in that sense. I meant it in the Teddy Roosevelt sense: "This term was coined by President Theodore Roosevelt, who referred to the White House as a "bully pulpit," by which he meant a terrific platform from which to advocate an agenda. Roosevelt famously used the word bully as an adjective meaning "superb" or "wonderful" (a more common expression in his time than it is today)."

[kmkibble75.livejournal.com]

Ah, gotchya. I should be more learned than I am. :-/

[darkspires.livejournal.com]

I don't think there are any hard answers. Sometimes things can be proven, and other times it takes a leap of faith.

There is a very good scientific explanation of how the Red Sea managed to part for Moses. There are also things that can't yet be explained in science.The dh got asked a question in his Oxford master's degree and he did his research, found he didn't agree with various published papers and came up with his best shot. The lecturer then fessed up that there wasn't an answer and R's answer might well be one that was on the right track. Science is constantly evolving. What was once the right answer is now outdated.

Faith is more esoteric. How can a person know something is going to occur before it happens? But some people do. People can regress to past life experiences. There are things that cannot be explained and must be accepted or ignored. I tend to have an open mind to all. Wouldn't the world be a boring place if everything were known and proven?

[pjthompson.livejournal.com]

Yes, there are always unanswered and (currently) unanswerable questions. It's the utmost arrogance for any one camp to think they have all the answers. I love science because it has improved mankind's lot immensely and because it's so fascinating, but I love the esoteric stuff that can't be proved or disproved, too. I don't think the two are irreconcilable.

[asakiyume.livejournal.com]

a quantum paradise--I like that.

Our existence, yes, it's a mystery. Every single thing said about it, whether from a religious or a scientific point of view, pales beside the actuality of it. The voices I like best that speak about it are those that are reverent, whether from a religious or scientific point of view. That's why I liked Carl Sagan's Cosmos. He was reverent in how he approached existence, the universe, and all the marvels within.

Sometimes people coming at things from a scientific point of view roll their eyes when you mention reverence, as if they think that what you mean is woo-woo, gosh! magnets! a mystery! But no: it's that even if you can understand a mechanism for how something works, it's still a marvel. Sagan recognized that: he marveled.

... And it goes without saying that I can't stand viewpoints that shut down, prohibit, censure, mock, or deride. So yeah, a lot of religious polemicists lose me there, but so do folks like Dawkins.

[pjthompson.livejournal.com]

Yes! That reverent quality makes all the difference, and I loved Sagan because of it, too. I heard hard scientists speak in derogatory terms of him being a "popularizer," but what the hell? That's an important function. Besides, as you say, whether we understand a mechanism or not, it's still pretty marvelous!

And Dawkins...he uses some pretty shaky or dodgy arguments to bolster his own belief system: scientism.

[helios137.livejournal.com]

I have always found it funny an ironic that atheists tend to be as evangelical about speading the WORD of their non-belief as any fundamentalist would about world view of the Bible.

What is your current spiritual quest?

[pjthompson.livejournal.com]

Yes, I've often thought that was true about certain atheists. I know others who are as tolerant as more moderate believers. I count them as friends and have no problems getting long with them. Too often, however, strident atheists (I'm thinking of Richard Dawkins and certain professional magicians, among others) can't seem to debate the point without being insulting, equating believers with being morons, delusional, or no more mature than three-year-olds--their version of "foul unbeliever you will burn in hell."

My current spiritual quest? Changes all the time, as fascination takes me. Currently, I am pursuing Carl Jung's theory of the active imagination down the rabbit hole. Maybe some day I will have formulated enough to even blog about it. :-)