Is There A Big Guy In The Sky?
Reading through "Conversations With God" (book two), I have become increasingly aware that Neale Donald Walsch is not talking to God, but is deluding himself that he is. It strikes me as obvious that Walsch has had a keen interest in New Age ideas and that he is well read in them; and that the "God" that he is channelling is in actual fact his own creation. Nowhere is this more apparent than when he praises George Bush senior as being "wise", "visionary" and "courageous". I'm pretty sure that God - if he, she or it exists - would disagree there (but then again, that would be my own interpretation, because I am convinced that Bush is a seriously nasty piece of work).
I am interested in Walsch's delusions - and in the delusions of many New Age acolytes - because there seems to be a fundamental need in human beings for there to be some sort of Big Guy In The Sky. Now that the old religions are discredited, new religions (of a kind) are being constructed in their wake. It is - for many people - completely unacceptable that there may be no reason for or meaning of life, that there may be no underlying intelligence behind it all, that maybe when we die we just die: end of story.
Personally, I am agnostic, rather than an atheist. I am inclined to believe that there is no "God" and no afterlife; that this is indeed all there is. I could be wrong; and I would like to be wrong. I really would like to be convinced otherwise. It would be nice to imagine that somewhere beyond this terrestrial dimension there is a timeless, placeless place where we all exist in a big, fluffy ball of love. Many New Age thinkers believe this heaven - this nirvana, this whatever you call it - exists and that in a dimension beyond time and place, we are ALL actually already there. Philosophically, I have no argument with this possibility. What I have difficulty with is simply this: if nirvana or whatever exists, why the fuck bother acting out this weird psycho-drama on this rather fucked up planet? So far, no-one has offered me up any kind of plausible explanation. A typical argument is that we "need" to experience separation to truly enjoy togetherness. Que? That's a bit like saying you need to experience eating boiled cabbage (assuming you don't like boiled cabbage) in order to be able to enjoy cake (assuming you like cake); that you wouldn't enjoy cake if you hadn't tasted cabbage. I think that's a bollocks argument.
I am struck that New Age thinkers are struggling just as much as Christian theologians ever were with the thorny question of what exactly is the point of this life, if there is this wonderful pie-in-the-sky other life we could be enjoying instead; and personally, I find their ideas almost as ridiculous as those of Christian's. I am yet to read anything that can convince me that there is a purpose to it. And because of that, I am inclined to think there can be NO purpose.
In a way, I am sad to come to this conclusion, because I'd rather like to experience that big fluffy ball of love which is promised to us after this life (or, after many lives). It seems a shame that it should all end in nothingness... but I guess, if that is the case, I won't really know anything about it.
It is anathema to many folk to think that at the end of their lives they will die and that will be it, end of story; and they desperately strive to have it confirmed to them that it isn't actually the end of the story. They want there to be a "God", for there to be an afterlife of some sort; and thus blindly seek some sort of confirmation that there is. For me, nowhere is this more apparent than in the millions of people who follow Sai Baba. For those of you who don't know about Sai Baba, he's an Indian guru who is most notable for "miraculously" manifesting vibhutti (sacred ash) and also little rings with a portrait of Sai Baba on them... which, for starters seems remarkably vain for a "man of God". Sai Baba's followers believe that these manifestations are indeed "miracles". They are so desperate to believe in miracles that they overlook the possibility that Sai Baba may well be no more of a miracle man than David Blaine or Paul Daniels. Logic would dictate that Sai Baba's manifestations are no more miraculous than any other magician's. If Paul Daniel's can manifest a rabbit out of a hat, I see no reason why some smart Indian chancer couldn't manifest rings or ash to a bunch of credulous and desperate Westerners.
The question that Sai Baba leaves me is, if he really is a holy man and has the power to manifest things out of thin air, why doesn't he manifest something that couldn't be hidden up his sleeve, like a house or a car or a camel? If he wanted to prove he was divine, surely he could do something seriously miraculous, something that couldn't be questioned by cynical cunts like me? I'm surprised that rings and ash are enough to convince Sai Baba's myriad followers. I guess it just goes to show how desperate people are to believe in something.
So, until I see Sai Baba - or someone else - make a castle appear before my eyes I remain blissfully agnostic.
I am interested in Walsch's delusions - and in the delusions of many New Age acolytes - because there seems to be a fundamental need in human beings for there to be some sort of Big Guy In The Sky. Now that the old religions are discredited, new religions (of a kind) are being constructed in their wake. It is - for many people - completely unacceptable that there may be no reason for or meaning of life, that there may be no underlying intelligence behind it all, that maybe when we die we just die: end of story.
Personally, I am agnostic, rather than an atheist. I am inclined to believe that there is no "God" and no afterlife; that this is indeed all there is. I could be wrong; and I would like to be wrong. I really would like to be convinced otherwise. It would be nice to imagine that somewhere beyond this terrestrial dimension there is a timeless, placeless place where we all exist in a big, fluffy ball of love. Many New Age thinkers believe this heaven - this nirvana, this whatever you call it - exists and that in a dimension beyond time and place, we are ALL actually already there. Philosophically, I have no argument with this possibility. What I have difficulty with is simply this: if nirvana or whatever exists, why the fuck bother acting out this weird psycho-drama on this rather fucked up planet? So far, no-one has offered me up any kind of plausible explanation. A typical argument is that we "need" to experience separation to truly enjoy togetherness. Que? That's a bit like saying you need to experience eating boiled cabbage (assuming you don't like boiled cabbage) in order to be able to enjoy cake (assuming you like cake); that you wouldn't enjoy cake if you hadn't tasted cabbage. I think that's a bollocks argument.
I am struck that New Age thinkers are struggling just as much as Christian theologians ever were with the thorny question of what exactly is the point of this life, if there is this wonderful pie-in-the-sky other life we could be enjoying instead; and personally, I find their ideas almost as ridiculous as those of Christian's. I am yet to read anything that can convince me that there is a purpose to it. And because of that, I am inclined to think there can be NO purpose.
In a way, I am sad to come to this conclusion, because I'd rather like to experience that big fluffy ball of love which is promised to us after this life (or, after many lives). It seems a shame that it should all end in nothingness... but I guess, if that is the case, I won't really know anything about it.
It is anathema to many folk to think that at the end of their lives they will die and that will be it, end of story; and they desperately strive to have it confirmed to them that it isn't actually the end of the story. They want there to be a "God", for there to be an afterlife of some sort; and thus blindly seek some sort of confirmation that there is. For me, nowhere is this more apparent than in the millions of people who follow Sai Baba. For those of you who don't know about Sai Baba, he's an Indian guru who is most notable for "miraculously" manifesting vibhutti (sacred ash) and also little rings with a portrait of Sai Baba on them... which, for starters seems remarkably vain for a "man of God". Sai Baba's followers believe that these manifestations are indeed "miracles". They are so desperate to believe in miracles that they overlook the possibility that Sai Baba may well be no more of a miracle man than David Blaine or Paul Daniels. Logic would dictate that Sai Baba's manifestations are no more miraculous than any other magician's. If Paul Daniel's can manifest a rabbit out of a hat, I see no reason why some smart Indian chancer couldn't manifest rings or ash to a bunch of credulous and desperate Westerners.
The question that Sai Baba leaves me is, if he really is a holy man and has the power to manifest things out of thin air, why doesn't he manifest something that couldn't be hidden up his sleeve, like a house or a car or a camel? If he wanted to prove he was divine, surely he could do something seriously miraculous, something that couldn't be questioned by cynical cunts like me? I'm surprised that rings and ash are enough to convince Sai Baba's myriad followers. I guess it just goes to show how desperate people are to believe in something.
So, until I see Sai Baba - or someone else - make a castle appear before my eyes I remain blissfully agnostic.
posted by Dee Rimbaud @ 6:39 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home