|
“According to Huxley, the word was
designed as antithetic to the ‘Gnostic’ of early church history, and was intended
to be opposed not simply to theism and Christianity, but also to atheism and
pantheism. He meant the word to cover with a mantle of respectability not so
much ignorance about God but the strong conviction that the problem of His
existence is insoluble.”
The tail-less fox searching for a “mantle of
respectability?” So it would seem, but who could blame him? It was a
difficult and confusing time -- given the setting, many intellectuals must have
been pretty frustrated and imagined themselves to be short not just a tail, but
both hindquarters as well. In a time and place where, as Huxley describes, the
choice, in a practical sense, was Christianity or nothing, anybody who pondered
the theological difficulties would have been forced to reconsider the oath of
membership to any of the exclusive Christian clubs. Invention of the label of
‘Agnosticism’ was no doubt born of the frustration of having had to deal with
those whose doctrines could easily be discredited by men and women of
intellect, but in a theological void where an acceptable alternative was not
yet presented to the English-speaking world. What could a person who believed
in God, but who did not believe in the religions of his or her exposure do?
Escape was the only alternative, and that, so it appears, is exactly what
Huxley did. Huxley coined a term which encapsulated an ages-old concept which
afforded all who claimed allegiance an escape route from the overheated,
overcrowded room of religious discussion, and into the private den of personal
convictions.
Yet, although the term afforded a popular relief valve
for those who evaded the pressure of serious religious discussion in the time
of Huxley, the question arises, “Does the term have value in the present day?”
The truth of the concept remains, but the question is not whether there is
truth in the concept, but whether there is value in the truth. A rock has
truth, but what is its value? Very little, under normal circumstances.
So on one hand, the ‘So what?’ factor remains.
Encapsulating the ages-old concept of the non-provable issue of God sounds so
neat and practical, but does the concept of non-provability change anybody’s
belief in God? A person can embrace any of the myriad belief/disbelief systems
while at the same time admitting that the truth of God cannot be proven. Yet
such an admission does not change the depth of conviction each person holds in
his or her heart and mind.
And most people know this.
Few devotees believe they can support their religion or
the existence of God with absolute and irrefutable proof. Growing challenges
by increasingly intelligent and well-informed laity have placed an impossible
burden of proof on the clergy of the Judaic and Christian faiths, in specific.
Questions and challenges, which in previous ages would have brought charges of
heresy as a practical measure for the suppression of sedition are now
commonplace, and deserving of answers. The fact that Church responses to such
queries defy logic and human experience has resulted in clergy often having no
other resort than to reverse the challenge upon the questioner, in the form of
asserting, “It’s a mystery of God, you just have to have faith.” The
questioner may respond, “but I do have faith – I have faith that God can reveal
a religion which would answer all my questions,” only to be counseled further,
“Well, in that case, you just have to have more faith.” In other
words, a person has to stop asking questions and be satisfied with the party
line. Even when it doesn’t make sense, and even when the foundational
scriptures teach otherwise.
Hence, over the past few centuries the hierarchy of the
many Judeo-Christian sects have been driven back on their heels by God-given
logic to a teetering, bowed-back, arm-spinning posture of Gnostic ideology,
which in the early (i.e. the period of those who knew best) history of
Christianity was regarded as a no-holds barred, no doubt about it,
‘gather-the-firewood-and-plant-the-stake’ heretical sect. The scenario is
bizarre; it is like saying, “Sure, that oven was last year’s model. The
prototypes didn’t work. In fact they exploded and everyone who used one burned
to death, but we’re bringing it back anyway because we need the money. But we
promise you, if you believe -- I mean really believe -- then we promise you’ll
be OK. And if it does explode in your face, don’t blame us. You
just didn’t believe enough.” The sad thing is, lots of people are not only
buying it, they’re setting one aside for each of their kids.
The overall scheme of things is one in which clergy
considered Christian faith to be founded upon knowledge up until the educated
laity came to know better. For many centuries laity were not allowed to own
Bibles, with the punishment of possession in more than a few cases having been
death. Only with suppression of this law, manufacture of paper in Europe (14th century), invention of the printing press (mid-15th century), and
translation of the New Testament into the English and German languages (16th
century) did Bibles become readily available and readable by the common
literate man. Hence, for the first time, laity became able to read the Bible
(where available – publication and distribution remained limited for many
decades) and present rational challenges to established doctrines based upon
personal analysis of the foundational scriptures. When such challenges
defeated the arguments of the Church apologists, most Christian sects did an
amazing thing -- they disavowed the nearly 2,000 year-old claim that doctrine
should be based upon knowledge, and instituted instead the concept of salvation
through spiritual guidance and justification by faith. Particular emphasis was
placed on the alleged virtue of blind, unthinking (and hence unquestioning)
commitment.
The modern ‘spiritual’ defenses which sprung from the
new church orientation mimic the heretical ‘mystic exclusivity’ of the ancient
Gnostics, all echoing familiar sentiments such as, “You just don’t understand,
you don’t have the Holy Spirit inside you like I do,” or “You just need to follow
your guiding light -- mine is leveled, laser-straight and Xenon bright, but
yours is flickering and dim” or “Jesus doesn’t live inside you as he does
inside me.” No doubt such assertions appeal to each speaker’s ‘aren’t I
special’ personal ego inventory, but if someone insists on belief in
spiritually exclusive pathways, then no doubt others will insist on a
discussion of the difference between delusion and reality. T.H. Huxley, no
doubt, would have been happy to chair the debate.
The problem is that claiming mystical exclusivity as the
key to guidance and/or salvation is to claim that God has arbitrarily abandoned
the ‘un-saved’ of creation -- hardly a God-like scenario. Does it not make
infinitely more sense for God to have given all of humankind equal chance to
recognize the truth of His teachings? Then those who submit to His evidences
would deserve reward, while those who deny would be blameworthy for failing to
give acknowledgement, credit, and worship where due.
But unfortunately, the nature of delusion is that the
ones who are deluded rarely are capable of recognizing the errors of their
misunderstanding; the nature of the Gnostics is similar in that they typically
are too enamored with their self-satisfying, self-serving philosophy to realize
the falsehood of their foundation. And indeed, it is hard to believe the
waiter has spat in the soup when the restaurant is rated five-star, the service
refined, the presentation impeccable. Appearance and taste may be so good as
to defy reality. But it is the patron who regards the bearer of truth as an
inconvenient kill-joy rather than as a sincere benefactor who is going to wear
the sicknesses of the server home.
|
