Forgiveness and hell

 More than two decades ago while studying philosophy for the first time at Yercaud, I heard this particular theory of hell (from Fr Stan), which quite startled me.  He said that there is hell, but there's no one therein!  It was quite strange for me to hear that, after a whole lifetime of hearing that all bad people end up in hell.  Surely to now imagine an empty hell was quite a task.  (Of course, in the later years, visiting the Karunapuram Shrine and viewing all the graphic depiction of people being roasted on fire by two devils, or being deep-fried in boiling oil... was quite amusing!). 

Recently reading a particular court case of a woman being tried for a hit-and-run case which took place 7 years ago, and which he vehemently denied, even after showing clear evidence for the accident, the author spoke something similar about hell.  This particular woman, kept denying the accident in the belief that God told her that she only hit a pole and not a person, and after much evidence and proof, she accepted to only hitting a homeless person (as if there was no difference between a pole and a homeless person!).  The author of the article speaks of hell as something locked up from the inside.  And that we put ourselves there and only we can let ourselves out - but often, don't!  In the case of this woman, she put herself there, her self-deception put her there, her lies put her in... and she made herself at home! 

Imitate their faith?

 The latter half of the New Testament and especially the epistles often contain this exhortation: Imitate their faith, citing the example of some of the renown Christians of the times. 

However, this exhortation has led to some confusion.  Not the exhortation itself but the way we have interpreted it - or failed to understand it.  When Paul exhorts the Corinthians to imitate the lives of the faith of the apostles, he and the people whom he is speaking to are both alive and present.  But faith is not something that is evident in and by itself!  How does one 'see' faith?  It is only words and action that one sees.  In such a scenario it is easy to 'imitate' the action rather than the unseen source that propels it.  For a first-time believer or a person interested, the curiosity is aroused primarily by what he or she sees the other say and do.  It is only much later that the person may (or may not) come to see that what actually moves the doer to say and do what is said and done!  And what if the doer himself or herself is still struggling very much with one's own grasp of faith?  Nonetheless, what one sees is the action, not faith itself. 

On the other hand, how else is faith made manifest?  There is no other alternative method either.  It is purely by one's way of life that the other sees the depth of that person's faith.  

How does one bridge this gap? How does one make the journey from action to belief? Something pragmatic to the metaphysical?  One way of looking at it purely from the human perspective, is to see this whole process as a merely human endeavour.  In such a case, it is easy to forget the role of the Spirit! On the other hand, even when we acknowledge the role of the Spirit, it does not explain everything.  Why is it that so many witness the good works but not all are led to the faith?  If the Spirit was impartial then all would be 'faithful'.  Herein comes the role of the individual.  So it is not all the working of the Spirit - alone.  

Whichever way we interpret and understand the process, as humans there is always the danger of imitating actions, rather than imbibing the faith!  If we truly imbibe the faith, actions - good ones at that - will naturally follow.  It is more like a vicious circle: faith is seen through good actions; but good actions alone do not end in faith; and even when one does have faith, one does not have any other means than good actions to bear witness to that faith.  

Doubt and faith

Came across this quote today morning.

Doubt and faith both are status of mind.  Doubt creates the darkest moments in our finest hour; while faith brings finest moments in our darkest hour. 

Appeared sound in the beginning.  But then something struck as out of place or not complete.  Both, doubt and faith, are not just related to the mind.  They have more to do with the heart than the mind.  Moreover, they compliment one another.  They feed into one another and sustain the other.  Far from being in competition or out to annihilate the other, each of them actually sustains the other.  A genuine doubt will urge you to move towards its resolution and in the process you are bound to rely on some convictions or principles.  That's faith.  Granted that at the end of the process, those principles or convictions may not any more be there or be modified.  But then you arrive at something 'better', something more profound and deeper.  Similarly true faith is not something that lacks doubt or has no place for it.  If one does not doubt, one will never experience what faith truly is.  

A heady mix

Clarity.
Doubts.
Haze.
Some light.
Confusion.
Thrill.
Flashes of insight.
Questions.
Going round in circles.

That's in gist how life has been in the past two weeks. This heady mix has been quite a bit.

A sample:
Belief = convictions not always verifiable by reason
but isn't imagination or hallucination the same?

Belief

All universally accepted 'truths' or facts were once assumptions or postulates yet to be proved. Most of what we hold as true is based on inference. And going down the line of inferences that first inference is based on, we will encounter assumptions – even assumptions that are universal and true.

Believing does not really involve any kind of judgement or knowledge – knowledge how, knowledge that, justified true belief, or other beliefs (???). When I walk I do not believe that the ground under my feet will hold my weight. I walk! I may be thinking of my interview or the journey or even my own belief in God, but believing in the ground under my feet is not one of them! … basically out of habit or regular behaviour.

(... something missing??)

Belief

Basic insights from the fundamental notion of Web of belief, by Willard Quine

• often it is the external experience that forces us to relook at our beliefs, often a contradictory one, one that does not fit in to our existing network of beliefs.
• we can choose which of our beliefs we wish to alter (peripheral, central, core).
• often we prefer to alter the peripheral, easier, less cumbersome than revamping the whole web!
• guided by conservation and purpose is simplicity.
• consistency is the ultimate aim... even if it means accommodating contradictory or differing views.
• we can never really map our whole belief system and state completely why we believe a certain thing, but we should be able to map the main reasons.

Quine talks about the 'web' specifically in the context of physical sciences and philosophy, but I think these basic principles of his theory are applicable to any belief, even religious beliefs. 

If that is the case, then are religious beliefs fundamentally the same as any other beliefs we hold in life?  If so, where and how do they diverge or part ways?  Is this point of departure also the point where religion tends to break away from life and living?  

Meaning, as criteria

Re-reading Willard Quine's Web of belief it struck me that apart from the basic point he makes about our whole belief system, as more like a spider's web rather than a neatly constructed building, one floor on top of the other, there is another aspect of importance.  Now when encountered with an experience that does not fit in with our existing set of beliefs, we can choose which of the beliefs to alter: those on the periphery, or those more towards the centre or the ones at the very core.  Then there could be a whole set of beliefs tweaked, adjusted, altered, given up, reworked... The experience that actually sets this in motion is important but not the central purpose of the whole endeavour.  The exercise is not merely to accommodate the new experience but to 'make sense' of the whole!  The belief machinery is at work primarily to make meaning of the whole web.  Until that is achieved the process continues.  Quine says the whole process is guided by conservatism and the quest for simplicity, I would say that the process is guided by meaning. 

Only then can I explain why and how I can hold very contradictory (or seemingly contradictory) views and yet carry on as if everything perfectly fits in.  It is just that in my whole web of belief the 'contradictory beliefs' are not contradictory!  The binding threads of belief make meaning as a whole - at least for now! 

Believers advantage

Sometimes I envy those who do not believe or practice any religion.  They seem to have a very 'free' life.  No compulsion of any religious obligation.  Need not make time for any prayer or visit to the place of worship.  Need not bother about following the rites and rituals of any life events (like marriage, death, first communion, confirmation, baptism...).

On the other hand, we religious have to spend so much of our time in prayer, Mass, meditation, prayer services, monthly recollections, retreats, rosary, besides catching up with all that the Pope says, the Vatican decides, the Rector Major writes, the provincial circulars and the diocesan newsletter.

However one major advantage, besides the emotional, communitarian and spiritual support believers enjoy, is the sense of purpose.  The former group does not have to bother about doing things for someone beyond.  Those who work solely for themselves sooner or later do get bored or too mired in themselves.  Philanthropists are a bit better off.  But we believers have the opportunity to dedicate our work and the purpose of all our actions to a Higher cause.  This additional vertical dimension of our purpose not only shades but adds meaning to our life and activities.  For us religious without the primacy of this dimension, we would well be mere philanthropists or altruists.

Marian message at the end of a prayer service during the retreat...

An echo chamber

Read an interesting article on Aeon today: Why it is hard to escape an echo chamber?

As I read this article all I could think, at every instance or para of it was the present grip of Mr Modi on the Indian electorate.  The BJP that is presenting itself is very different from that of the BJP represented by Vajpayee or even Advani.  The former, was distinctly clear about its agenda, course of action and vision.  It made no veiled presentation of itself.  Everyone, not just members of the party, knew what its aims and objectives were.  Not so with the present BJP.  What it has succeeded indeed is turn the Indian mind into an echo chamber.  In doing so it has not blocked itself from 'other voices', merely branded them untrustworthy, corrupted and therefore not worth anything.  Far from doublespeak, or even momentary epistemic glimpses, the echo chamber sounds rational, interested in the truth, active throughout and resonates with voices; but merely endorsing its own principles.  Even the contrary voices somehow are so manipulated (not by changing their content, but by changing the mind of the listener), that they endorse the principles of the 'ghetto'. 

The solution out of this echo chamber?  Trust!  There are numerous voices that resonate in a society.  However we know not whom and what to trust.  Unless we begin to trust a voice and that voice proves itself trustworthy, we will only further entrench ourselves in the echo chamber. 

To be more fair to the reading of the article, I can even look at my own Catholic upbringing as a echo chamber.  However, as long as one is willing to look at, evaluate and even trust other contrary sources, is open minded about the authority of sources other than Catholic sources, am willing to be won over by the goodness I observe, acknowledge and appreciate in others, especially non-Christians... I would think I'm not an ostrich in an echo chamber.  

Post-truth and trust

For quite sometime now, this notion of post-truth has been in circulation.  Ever since Donald Trump took up the presidency of the US, it has gained all the more prominence.  Perhaps that's the only rational explanation one can offer to the otherwise seemingly bizarre and totally 'wrong' things one encounters or sees others hold as right. 

The age old debate between science and religion, as to which of them is right is now no more the central argument.  Why so?  Has it been resolved? Or is it that the issue is no more relevant?  Or is there is a sort of tiredness to keep getting at one another's throat that there is now a declared 'peace'? 

Perhaps the way science has reviewed itself over the past few decades has something to do with it.  Something religion is still shy of doing or at least some feeble attempts are being made in some parts.  In 1970 W. V. Quine and J. S. Ullian in their book The Web of Belief made a strange argument:  that scientific statements are truths not because of their fidelity to external facts but due to their internal coherence and persuasiveness they share with other narratives and statements.  Our beliefs face the test of experience not as each individual compartmentalized fact but as a web or layered body.  Moreover our interaction of individual experience is only with the margins of our belief, not the core of what we hold as true.  So whenever there is something that contradicts or challenges our belief, we are prompted to restore consistency.  But in choosing what to revise or change, we are not guided by facts alone.  The central challenge is not fidelity to external facts but semblance of the entire web.  And in this process, we might end either changing one of the marginal beliefs or even the core of the web.  What plays a crucial role in this whole process is the authority we choose to trust. 

If this principle is right, then it does explain how one can have two seemingly and 'apparent' contradictory beliefs which for one person are totally opposite and for another perfectly compatible.  It is just that they both choose a different authority source.  What then of the external fact? Does that no more have a say in what holds as true or false?  It does but again, what guarantee that what you see is right?  After all, for centuries science believed in geo-centrism.  Technology experts could think of mega data storage only in terms of cabinet files and godowns. 

Well, if that is the case of observable external facts, what about non-material unperceivable realities of life?  Of values and principles?  Though the complications are multiplied, the basic argument of Quine and Ullian about a 'web of belief' still holds true. 

Etiological challenges

To be born in a Catholic family and to grow up as a believer has its own 'conditions'.  Everyone who believes, or does not, has a particular historical origin, an etiology.  An etiological challenge is when one sees some aspect of the causal origins his or her belief as problematic. 

Different spheres have different names: in religious circles it may be called a 'faith crisis'.  However, these etiological challenges help one to cultivate intellectual humility.  A necessary ingredient to avoid fundamentalism.  To be able to see that the other holds beliefs (even contrary to yours) for exactly the same reasons you hold what you believe in.

Etiological challenges also help one to constantly revise ones beliefs.  The possibility of totally giving up of ones beliefs too is not to be ruled out.  However, when done with sincerity and openness, it helps one to render ones initial beliefs more meaningful and inclusive than total abandonment. 

Another advantage is that they help one to move a state of indoctrination to and through experience.  While self-reflection is of great value, social interaction is not to be discounted.  None can avoid an etiology; but to remain ignorant or worse, deny it, is no merit - neither to ourselves, nor to others, least to our belief system itself!  

An enchanted world

One of the reasons cited by Charles Taylor (A Secular Age, p. 25) for the transition in people's belief system, from being almost impossible not to believe in God in 1500 to easily not believing in God in the year 2000, is

People lived in an "enchanted" world. 

Rather than explain the term, he then clarifies the meaning of the opposite of it, 'disenchantment'.  And he says, the modern era lives in a disenchanted mode.  Hence in comparison to this, he uses the term 'enchanted' to describe the bygone era.

Taylor is right in this diagnosis.  Today we are far less struck by wonder and amazement than the olden days.  Honestly speaking it is not because we know more or better but we think we know better.  It is not knowledge that throttles a sense of wonder but the pride or false self-esteem of 'owning' knowledge that stifles wonder. 

Just yesterday night did I learn that in Europe the use of wooden or porcelain plates for meals is a little more than a century old.  Prior to that people used bread as the base. And rich households would then throw this 'plate' to the poor or slaves! 

The more one learns, the more one realises how little one knows! 

Belief-reason rift

My basic theory that the ancient Greek philosophers did not really have a direct role in seeing belief and reason as different, least of all, as opposites, has been verified.

Philosophers from the earliest times in Greece tried to distill metaphysical issues out of these mythological claims. Once these principles were located and excised, these philosophers purified them from the esoteric speculation and superstition of their religious origins. They also decried the proclivities to gnosticism and elitism found in the religious culture whence the religious myths developed. None of these philosophers, however, was particularly interested in the issue of willed assent to or faith in these religious beliefs as such (From the IEP; emphasis added). 

The second assumption is that the elevation of one against the other happened much before the Enlightenment. Much before Descartes arrives on the scene, belief and reason are arch-rivals.  The earliest I can think of, to whom I can 'credit' the juxtaposing of one as the rival of the other, is St Paul.  But is he?  Who else? and most importantly why?

Reason-belief rift

Only today did I commence my reading directly pertaining to my doctoral research.  Among the very many things I need to initially sort out, is this question of reason and belief. I've always considered that philosophy, at least of the modern and contemporary era, distanced itself from faith or belief.  Perhaps in the same way or as a revolt against the medieval era wherein philosophy was faith-based.  So does this mean that the ancient Greek philosophy did not have this divide of reason and belief?  Was it something that did not differentiate the two, if not juxtapose one as the antidote or opposite of the other? 

I'm now aware (though not clear how and why) that Charles Taylor in a way redefined reason in his earlier writings.  His emphasis on Plato and Augustine throws open understandings of which I've not really come across. For me those two were always a sort of 'villains' and predecessors of the Cartesian dichotomy.  In comparison to Aristotle and Aquinas, they not only maintained the divide but advocated one as better and against the other: soul better than the body, faith greater than reason... At least that's the pattern of thought I came across so far.  Perhaps our 'religious philosophy' (philosophy taught and promulgated in our formation settings) is responsible for this outlook. However over the past year, listening to the various philosophies and professors, now makes me question this.  The reading and understanding of Plato and Augustine is very different in the college circles. 

So am wondering if Plato and Augustine had much more to contribute to the discussion between reason and belief, than I preferred to read or hear about?  Charles Taylor in one of his interviews challenges, the conviction that faith does not question.  He states that we have presupposed that faith does not raise questions.  That believing means not questioning.  While I grant him that, his arguments points to something much more than mere doubts and initial curiosity.  Fides et Ratio, the encyclical of John Paul II states

Faith unmoored from reason wanders into fideism and superstition.  Reason emptied of faith, collapses into skepticism and relativism. 

But this only goes to prove that reason and belief are complementary.  But when actually did belief and reason part?  At which point did belief and reason begin to be different, leave alone opposed to each other?  

Identity and conflict

Why and when do we enter into conflict with another?  In a broader sense, why war? Among the many reasons, one prominent one is the narrowing of identity.  When we human beings reduce or narrow down our identity to something specific and identify our whole selves to just that aspect, and if that aspect is questioned or perceived as under threat, then we are bound to enter into violence or conflict.  The problem is not with trying to get a clear and specific aspect of our identity.  The narrowing down of our identity to something definite or small is not the real issue.  It is the exclusion or failure to recognise and acknowledge the possibility of other aspects that make up our complex identity that really is the problem.  As human beings we carve our identity at various levels, in different ways and through diverse situations.  We belong to a family, have a certain social or economic standing, have a set of beliefs, affiliate ourselves to different groups (age, interests, work...), hold some convictions.... To convince ourselves that among all of these one of it or some of it exclusively creates our identity is the pitfall.  While one of these or some of these could influence us more than others, there is no exclusivity.  Identity formed through association is far more healthy and helpful than when done through isolation!

Religion: Public or private?

A youngster at the University described herself as a 'Catlim' when sharing about her religion.  She said, her father was a Catholic and her mother a Muslim and she grew up in both the religions and therefore, 'Catlim'.

In a recent survey at the place where I did my Master's here in UK, it was found that only 50% of the students fill in their religion while filling up the application form for the studies.  The rest prefer not to mention.  Of those, only 18% are Christian, and the rest are of various religions.  But even of those 18% not all are practicing believers.  Now there is a strong move to drop the optional question of religion in the census forms for the UK in the coming years.

More than ever, here in the UK, I see how religion is a private matter.  Though England claims to be a very Christian country in its civil and political structure - and it certainly is - the fact that practice of the religion is totally a private matter.  On the collective front there is a tussle between being called Christian, on the basis of its historical past, and being called by no religious affiliation, on the basis of its progressive future.  All the while practice of religion is purely a matter of conscience, even the choice of a child - each one for oneself.

Battling belief and truth

I don't remember a word of what the sermon this morning was!  Not because the priest was not speaking sense, but because my mind was battling some overflow of my meditation.

What would be the basic difference between belief and truth?  Now that's what I intend to research for my further studies. But it occurred to me this morning that belief is a matter of the heart. Truth a matter of the mind.  Not that they are compartmentalised but still predominantly, it is the heart that kicks in when it comes to matters of belief and faith.  I believe in something not because it makes complete sense or because it is true.  I honestly don't have logical explanations and rational proofs for most of what I believe in.  I feel.  I believe.

Now what is true (if it means abiding by the correspondence theory - that itself needs to be justified... or else how does one explain the concept of truth), need not always be the foundation of my belief or  what makes meaning.  And most often it is the mind that is most concerned with the truth (or falsity) of a reality. Now if I know something is the truth, then I cannot contest it.  Does that also mean, I'm bound to believe in it?  If not, what is the worth of calling something truthful?  In other words, can I have reasons for belief and heart for the truth?

But this whole idea of dividing the heart and mind is again Cartesian!  Can there be any other way of relating the two, without one merging into the other, each retaining its identity yet making sense to both.  I sense meaning has much to do with all of this. Yet am unable to lay my finger on it.

On the other hand, why should I be worried if there is a conflict between the two?  Isn't that a good thing?  Perhaps it is the conflict between belief and truth, between the heart and the mind that keeps me alive and going.  If not for this I'd be doing nothing, thinking nothing, striving for nothing.  But again fear this state as well: because it is a luxury only religious like me can afford.  Who else would have the time and space for sitting and thinking?!  Most of humanity is up and about working for their livelihood and some for basic survival.

Belief permeates everything

Reflection for April 27

In a theistic context, any accusation against God or His works is treated with great anger and resentment. Everyone is up in arms… do defend God. However, one needs to ask oneself, 'Does God need protection?… that too from us mortals?' Can He not stand on His own?

The apostles, when challenged by the political and religious authorities, boldly give witness to God and prefer to follow His commandments than human dictates. They were mostly true to this declaration: preference to God over human thinking. However, most of us, who take up cudgels against those who denounce God or in defence of God, are only like the dressed up soldiers at a fort, not the real soldiers. For when it comes to living by the word of that God, we fail – miserably, at times. Our whole vehement defence of God and His works, fails to inspire us to live by them, especially in our personal lives.

Belief, if true, permeates our entire being, our entire life, not merely our public life.

Man of God?

Reflection for April 7, 2017: Believe in the Father

In the movie 'Evan Almighty' there is a particular point where the protagonist, a reputed modern American politician-turned builder of the Ark (at God's command) is questioned by the reporters, “What makes you so sure that God chose you (to build the ark)?” Evan replies, “He chose all of us!” 

Most often we are so convinced that God only chooses the prophets and saints, we forget our baptismal grace by which, each of us is a child of God. That each of us have a vocation. Therefore everytime a person claims to be a messenger of God, we smirk, we frown, we mock. Jesus offers us a simple remedy to verify the authenticity claims of anyone: do the works lead me to understand and believe in the Father. Even if the answer is no, we can still take it to remind ourselves of the grace we already are blessed with: being a child of God. Or use the occasion to discern our vocation, what God really wants of us.

The truth will set you free

Reflection for April 5, 2017: If God were your father...

Freedom is a tricky issue. Most of us are convinced that if I am able to do anything, then I'm free. If not, then I'm not free. True freedom is not about doing anything. It is about doing what one ought to do. That what we claim we are, we choose to do accordingly – freedom lies in that choice to strive and be fully who we are. Jesus proves this clearly when he says, “If you claim to be descendants of Abraham, you will act accordingly… If God were your Father, you would love Him...” The trio of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego knew exactly what they believed in. They did not need Yahweh to save them in order for their belief to be confirmed. “Our God… may he save us. But even if not, know O king, that we will not worship your god or anything else.” Nothing ever binds such freedom.