I was thinking about that, and I realized that it's true in a very devious way.
Every individual has their own conception of what the Divine is... even those who choose not to recognize any form of a Divine presence at all, still choose to conceive of Divinity as non-existent.
So, even a complete atheist recognizes that there could be a Divine presence, but they are choosing to follow a set of facts, evidence and beliefs that imply that there is no Divinity.
In this recognition of the possibility of Divinity, we see a deep seated expression of humility.
Even the most staunch believer or disbeliever in God will have to acknowledge that at the end of the day, we do not know. One who does not believe in God would have to say that nothing is completely certain, and they cannot disprove God's existence (the null hypothesis cannot be fulfilled), even if hundreds of pieces of anecdotal evidence point towards their set of beliefs. Conversely, a believer, even one who is completely staunch in their beliefs would have to agree that they can never comprehend God. God is far beyond the human psyche, God extends past what any individual mind can conceive, therefore, one can believe in God, but one cannot rule out the possibility of God not existing, simply because God cannot be conceived of by the human mind... therefore, anything pertaining to the existence of God, would also be beyond the comprehension of the human mind.
with me so far?
Thinkers from the era of the Fatimids (a Muslim Dynasty that ruled Egypt and area extending from North Africa to Sindh about a thousand years ago) worried about this contradiction as to the human definition of God. How could the human mind think on God without a definition? How could God be defined with the limits of language? Could God be proven?
Ultimately they settled on a simple definition called the Theory of Double Negation. It states that, God is Not a thing (i.e. does not exist), and (that's the inclusive and for my logic speaking friends) God is Not Not a thing.
That was the best that the brightest minds of the world could come up with.
Looking at this and going back to the beginning we see that humility abounds in this.
If we cannot prove or disprove God's existence, then the existence of the concept of God serves it's own purpose. It shows us that we are NOT infallible, that we are not perfect, that with some things we will never have all the answers.
If we don't have all the answers, then isn't that the perfect expression of humility? The simple concept of God, acts as a shield against our own pride. We cannot prove or disprove God, we can never truly know. Just as we can know the position of an electron but not it's speed (and vice versa), similarly, we won't know about God.
So, what if we're wrong? What if there is no God and we believe? ... well, as long as each faith tradition is lived fully and truly and one recognizes the importance and sacredness of human life and ethical living... it doesn't hurt to bow down in any way that we see fit.
And the other way? What if there is a God and we don't believe? ... well, if God is truly as merciful as He claims to be, I'm sure He won't mind us using the gift He gave us, our intellect in a way that we see fit.
Just as long as we think about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment