Humanity has been dividing into two irreconcilable sides for a long time. Over recorded history (and likely before) there have been those who believe in a soul that persists beyond death and those who believe that the life we can see/hear/touch/smell/taste is all that exists.
If there is a soul, then it must exist independent of anything else as some individually-identifiable and separately-existing entity. One doesn’t have to look very hard at life to see that there is nothing that exists that doesn’t not depend upon something else for it’s existence. White does not exist without black.
Once cannot break off one end of a stick. If you try, you find yourself with two sticks and four ends. The original stick still has two ends. It is impossible to separate the ends of the stick from the stick itself. The ends depend upon the existence of the stick and vice versa. One cannot have a stick without two ends.
If our human lives are actually just meta-phenomenons of a complex system of physical processes, if consciousness is nothing more than an accidental by-product of a series of chemical reactions which organized themselves without design to produce it, then how do you explain that you can see a seagull in the picture at the top of this post? That a mosaic of hexagonal images of things that are not a seagull. There is no seagull in that picture. What do we see?
People argue for the evidence of God the same way. They “see” God in the same way that one sees that seagull. The notion is that altruism, kindness, generosity, compassion and selfless love, all things which one can definitely see, form the outline and shading for God and/or the human soul that we can’t see. They are just as convinced of the existence of a God/soul from the actions and interplay of humanity as you are of the existence of seagulls from this photo mosaic, which has no representation of a seagull anywhere in it. God, and another’s soul, is “seen” in the same way.
Seagulls certainly exist. One could recognize a seagull for the first time if they had only seen this mosaic beforehand.
How would you be able to recognize a seagull if all you’ve ever seen is this mosaic which has no pictures of seagulls? Why would human beings be kind, compassionate, generous, and altruistic if there is no organizing principle or design at work? These are essentially the same question.
One might argue that the mosaic becomes a picture of a seagull when one pulls back from it far enough. Ok, keep pulling back. At some point, the seagull disappears, just as it disappears when you move close in to take a look at the individual images that comprise this illustration. Where’s the seagull again?
This has never been resolved because there is no way to reconcile these views. Many deal with this by arguing that it is best to have no views at all about this question, like many people regard politics these days.
I’ve got news for you, that is also a view. Ignoring politics is a political position born of privilege.
So, what do you do? How do you decide what is really going on? Is there a God or not?
Maybe there is and isn’t. Maybe both things are true, which means both things are also false. Why is that so unsatisfying?
We want certainty. We want wondering about things to be over. It never will be. It is best to develop a posture of mind that allows for uncertainty. This is not knowing you can’t know. It’s not knowing. Maybe you can know. Who knows? Be open, be uncertain.
I think it is wise to develop this posture of mind now in particular.
But how do you live without knowing? Doesn’t one need to know things in order to make moral judgments and other nuanced decisions? How do you decide to love someone if there’s not a soul within you that loves the soul within them? Who are you loving? Is it not better, as the song goes, if you can’t be with the one you love that you love the one you’re with? What is love then?
Republicans and Democrats face the same dilemma. Republicans believe they have ended up with a bad leader, but abdicating their power and position seems dangerous and unwise to them. Some honestly believe that Trump’s complicity in realization of economic policies and judicial appointments is going to be better for the country in the long run. They fear that emasculating him politically will undermine the progress they’ve made. They argue that the wealth that’s been created will ultiamtely be more beneficial than the cost of the harm done to social programs which they believe are structurally flawed.
I believe they are wrong, but I do not believe they are insincere, as so many do. I have been sincerely wrong about many things over my life, national policy among them. I thought Bill Clinton was the victim of Monica Lewinski for some time, something I cringe to even mention now Why am I permitted a mistake if they aren’t?
However, at the same time, I think it is abundantly clear that Trump and the powerful men who support him might unwittingly end our form of government out of incompetent myopia. I am as certain of that as I am that the removal of Bill Clinton from office during his second term might have prevented the appointment of George W. Bush as the 43rd President of the US by the Supreme Court.
We would be in a much better place with regard to climate change if that had happened, which might actually end up being the most important failure of humanity during my lifetime. So, Bill Clinton’s removal from office might have saved humanity from extinction. That’s a lot to get one’s mind around.
I keep this in mind when I find myself flummoxed by Moscow Mitch these days.
I just don’t know, but I’m also not going to act that way. There certainly appears to be a correct course of action—vote out Trump and every other Republican possible. It appears that they have actually done nothing to advance humanity, and much to set us back.
However, if I was a friend, or a member of the familes of Tynice Hall, Crystal Munoz, Alice Johnson, or Judith Negron I would regard Donald Trump as the apparently the only just and compassionate person in government. I would be willing to tolerate just about anything else he did, arguing that what the country needs is more like him.
Think about that the next time you want to drown the 30-40% of the polling population that continues to support Trump.
It’s difficult, no one knows, but I do know that we need to heal as a people. Our survival depends upon finding a way to join hands with those on the other “side.”
Certainty isn’t going to help.
Listen to the Podcast for this post on Buzzsprout. Or…