People sometimes argue back and forth about whether religious belief is a good thing, because it induces believers to be moral or charitable. In a big-picture sense, I think arguments of this form completely miss the point; beliefs should be judged on whether they are correct or incorrect, not on whether they cause people to do good or bad things. (If the belief is not correct, but it makes people do something good, can we say they’ve been tricked into acting that way?) Certainly, nobody is going to convince me to believe something if they admit that it’s false, but it would be good for me to believe — recommendations of that sort are usually aimed at other people, not the one handing them out. Besides which, as a matter of historical record it’s pretty clear that religion has led people to do some really good things and also led people to do some really bad things, and trying to weigh the effects on some imaginary scales seems just hopeless. Or at least, an interesting and possibly never-ending source of discussion for sociologists and historians of religion, but fortunately orthogonal to questions of the truth or falsity of religious claims.
Still, I confess to being a bit amused by the news that, in the last years of her life, Mother Teresa didn’t believe in God. (Via Cynical-C.) Letters that she wrote have now been released as part of a book project, and they are shot through with serious doubts.
Shortly after beginning work in Calcutta’s slums, the spirit left Mother Teresa.
“Where is my faith?” she wrote. “Even deep down… there is nothing but emptiness and darkness… If there be God — please forgive me.”
Eight years later, she was still looking to reclaim her lost faith.
“Such deep longing for God… Repulsed, empty, no faith, no love, no zeal,” she said.
As her fame increased, her faith refused to return. Her smile, she said, was a mask.
“What do I labor for?” she asked in one letter. “If there be no God, there can be no soul. If there be no soul then, Jesus, You also are not true.”
I’m not someone who has strong feelings about Mother Teresa either way, and it seems sad that her doubts put her in such apparent torment. (To the extent that these letters paint a reliable picture at all, of course.) And, in the department of “things that are perfectly obvious but must nevertheless be said explicitly because it’s the internet,” this is only one individual case, from which no grand conclusions should be drawn. Except the obvious: motivations for altruistic and charitable behavior can be very complicated. We should keep them separate from our attempts to understand how the universe works.
August 24th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
We should keep everything separate from our attempts to understand how the universe works! For instance, whether the speculative multiverse idea is true or whether modal realism is true, is for our to posit, not for the universe to align itself with! Whatever is out there, that’s what it is, not what we DEMAND it to be.
August 24th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Our=us
August 24th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
It’s sad that questioning the existence in god also (apparently) led her to question her labors. It’s as if one cannot do any good or have any morals without there being a god. Isn’t this one of the main stereotypes painted on atheists? but without religion morals aren’t forced on you — instead you form them yourself from your experience and keep them yourself, without the threat of punishment.
August 24th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
I’ve never cared for the term “religion”. It’s a shortcut for theistic beliefs, but theistic beliefs are but a subset of theories on “how the universe works”. I don’t believe that there is a fundamental difference in believing there is a deity out there and believing that there is not a deity out here. To me, these two beliefs are along the same lines as preferring chocolate and vanilla. (I’m referring to in your own mind, not the absolute truths or lack thereof.)
I’ve always found it odd that “religious” philanthropists always seem to get more airtime than the “non-religious”. To me, it implies that the “religious” are working towards some ultimate goal and the “non-religious” are just sorta screwing around. If someone dedicates themselves to abolishing hunger, does it matter if they’re trying to get brownie points with the almighty or if they just think it’s the right thing to do? People still get fed. It’s not the thought that counts.
To sum it up, our theories on “how the universe works” are all very internal, we all believe something that somebody wrote in a book and we should probably stop talking about it. “Religion” is a divisive force, even amongst the “religious”, an silence on the issue would just give humanity one less reason to kill itself.
August 24th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
But even if God would exist (together with the afterlife), why do stuff for him anyway? I mean, say you’re getting to keep on living in some other realm, perhaps meeting “it” along the way, so simply do good for the sake of goodness in this life, which might not be connected to that putative other life anyway!
Even if religion had a point about atheists not being able to draw their morals or what have you without God, I don’t see how can THEY do it even if his existence is not a clever ploy to scare the public.
August 24th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Stevie, I’m only guessing, but I think that maybe she was expecting a pretty direct sign from god that she never got, and she assumed that she should get this sign because of the work that she felt like she had been doning for god.
Almost like a “Reverse Flew Syndrom”…
Interesting take Sean.
August 24th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
lol Sean,
it is not only unsubstantiated religious beliefs people make people irrational.
it is not only religious beliefs or dogmas people question or disagree on.
Universes extra dimensions may be apple shaped
Holy Molly – “and a baby’s hand holding an apple” too.
I guess ultimately (undeniably?) the universe created life and humans, so that we could reveal its secrets and understand how the universe works. Will TOE or understanding how the universe works finally make us all more rational?
August 24th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
John Roach
While I agree with the gist of your message, science is not some book someone wrote years ago. We might not have all the answers, or might not have some at all (see Dawkins talk here for that: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6308228560462155344&q=richard+dawkins&total=1368&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0), but at least we do have a firm grasp on how reality functions, whilst religion is simply pure speculation borne out of an innate need for surviving death and undoing all wrongs.
If you say that we all believe what’s written in our books, then what can hold me back from believing in Lovecraftian mythology as opposed to the monotheistic & polytheistic ones?
August 24th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Morals develop from internal and societal forces. They will develop with or without religion (organized or not). Religions have at various times assisted and hindered “good acts” and assisted or hindered “bad acts.” None of these things make me think that people should view religion, in general or a specific one, as good because it attempts to dictate a specific morality, nor should they view an atheist as bad because they don’t believe in a God. The two should not be related. Personally I find acts of charity a little more honest when they are performed out of compassion instead of a desire to impress a supreme being and get into a heaven.
August 24th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Dima, when I said that we all believe something that someone wrote in a book, I mean that, for a very large part of humanity, we don’t have direct experiential evidence for what we believe. I’m certainly not questioning the validity of science; I’m stating that (to make it not personal) I believe in pulsars because someone told me about them. I never discovered pulsars. I’ve never seen one with my own eyes – a scientist (or scientists) told me about them.
I’m speaking about a personal, individual, level. John Roach believes in pulsars. I’m not saying, as I fear you took from it, “atheists are no better than fundamental religious psychos because they don’t think for themselves.” My contention is that, if we are honest, our beliefs are mostly drawn from external sources, not direct personal evidence.
And you are more then welcome to believe in Cthulhu if you want. Seriously, is it that much stranger (and harder to swallow) than most mainstream religions?
Stevie, did none of your morals come from your parents (or neighbors, or TV, etc)? Some morals, such as “do not murder” are purely neurologically based. Others, like “do not lie on your taxes” are social. I find it hard to believe that someone came up with all their morals on their own.
August 24th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
This is tangential to Sean’s point, but Teresa’s letters as quoted here seem to be poetic yearnings and philosophies and not declarations of sincere doubt. They read like psalms. I admit, though, that I haven’t read any more than what is printed here.
I suspect – with no evidence whatsoever – that Teresa’s writings and statements, taken as a whole, would give evidence of intense faith flavored with occasional yearning and doubt. I would expect that it is very rare for an individual to go through life with no crises of faith.
August 24th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
John Roach, actually, it’s not that much stranger… it’s just STRANGE in light of what science is telling us. The point you made about our beliefs being intertwined with external sources I have to agree with partly because we haven’t experienced any of it personally and we draw conclusions based on our apparatus.
Still though, it’s not strange for me to believe that there are pulsars out there, since you can just go into an observatory and see one for yourself.
My beef with religion is that not only you cannot experience anything of what they’re saying (as opposed to science), but it just sounds ABSURD. Science actually MAKES SENSE in light of the universe presented to us (small little planet earth, vast infinite space, physical laws, etc) and it bodes well with the universe I experience… with religion on the other hand, i’m supposed to believe some made-up stories (you can put any religious belief here, really, from monotheistic to polytheistic, to new-age and paranormal) that simply seem to be out-of-focus with the way I experience the universe.
Science makes sense even if I can’t experience 90% of it myself (except the usual earthly stuff), when religion simply doesn’t and honestly, I find out universe to be something much more incredible and beautiful than any religious or science-fiction story would ever attempt to depict.
It’s marvelous and it’s gorgeous, with us or without us.
August 24th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
[...] Mother Theresa Published August 24th, 2007 Current events , Religion via Cosmic Variance [...]
August 24th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
There was an interesting article in the Sunday Times last weekend on
religion and politics.
here’s a link (I don’t know if you need a password):
The Politics of God
August 24th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
John Roach,
In response to your post #4, I contend that belief does matter. Now, granted, it may not always matter. And how often a specific belief matters will depend hugely upon the properties of that belief. But, in general, belief matters, for belief gives us our picture of the world that surrounds us. It gives is, for example, the perspective from which we make moral decisions.
Consider, for a moment, a belief in heaven in hell. If you believe, and believe strongly, in the existence of a heaven and a hell, and you believe that whether a person goes to heaven or hell depends upon that person’s beliefs, then you are going to care a great deal, for example, what your children believe. You may not want them to be exposed to ideas that would cause them to question their belief. You may not want them to be exposed to alternative beliefs. All this because you are worried, due to your own belief in an afterlife, for their wellbeing.
This sort of thing has been the very motivation for a great deal of political debates here in the US, and almost certainly elsewhere. Whenever you hear the phrase, “eroding our family values,” it all ties right back to the worry that parents have that their children are going to go to hell, because they were exposed to something that caused them to believe in something incorrect.
As a result, I cannot, in good conscience, accept the idea that any belief is okay. After all, once we start saying that some irrational beliefs are perfectly okay for people to have, how are we able to draw the line and prevent these peoples’ irrational beliefs from harming others? Now, granted, thought police would be a very bad thing. But that doesn’t mean we should just consider it okay for people to be irrational. We should call them out for being irrational, make it a socially unacceptable thing to be willingly irrational.
August 24th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Jason Dick
But they have no solid underpinning to rely on in order to substantiate their beliefs. Sure, then can say that atheists erode family values and turn their kids (who may be influenced by these ideas) into hell-bound targets, but think for a moment that there is no heaven or hell and that whatever they end up believing or not believing in is just that – wishful thinking.
August 24th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
It is a misunderstanding of religious belief to assume that its summum bonum is a continual series of happy smiling thoughts buttressed by motherhood, apple pie and the American flag. Religion – and specifically biblical religion – is painful. The Bible is filled with stories of abandonment, hurt and exile. The story of Israel is the story of the chosen people of God being sold into slavery in a foreign land far from home – `by the rivers of Bablyon we sat and wept….how could we sing the song of the Lord in an alien land?’ The Christian story that Teresa lived her life in witness to is the story of the *crucifixion* of the *son of God*. In terms of divine child neglect, this would get an alpha plus.
Accounts of religious experience that ignore the content of religious belief are not sustainable. The problem with this post is that it conflates emotion with belief and joy with faith. Doubt is part of having faith. Feeling abandoned is also part of having faith. That dark nights of the soul occur is a recurring theme in Christian prayer. Faith is the act of trust that carries on through these times of doubt and abandonment. It doesn’t mean spiritual ecstasy and it certainly doesn’t mean living life with a Cheshire cat grin and a doubt lobotomy. For this reason the above does not show a lack of faith in Blessed Teresa, but rather an abundance of it.
Subject for Sean’s next post: the spiritual doubts of Jesus, who on the cross cried out “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’
August 24th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Let’s start at a basic level – is it rational to be optimistic or pessimistic?
E.g., when Mahatma Gandhi decided to take on the British Empire, and seek to remove India from British control, did it not take a irrational belief in the possibility of a good outcome to do so?
On the other hand, when Bush/Cheney set out to invade Iraq and depose Saddam did not an irrational belief in the possibility of a good outcome play an important role in their decision?
The same holds with rational decisions as well. They can lead to good or to bad actions and good or bad outcomes.
August 24th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Dima,
That’s sort of my point. The problem is that some of these people really and truly do believe such things, things which have real-world implications on their decision-making, but which have no basis in reality. Such beliefs are invariably dangerous, simply because they separate our intentions from the results of our actions. This is one reason why I believe it is my moral duty to always try to be as accurate in my beliefs as possible, because if my beliefs are incorrect, then no matter how good my intentions, I will be unlikely to realize those intentions. Of course, there’s much more to morality than simply being correct, but maintaining accurate beliefs is necessary for my morality to be as good as it can be.
August 24th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
The next thing to note is that to most people what is far more interesting than “how does the universe work” is “how do other people work”?
This means that understanding “irrational beliefs” has to be a part of our education.
___
reader has a good point, the post reveals a lack of understanding of the nature of religious faith.
___
How do we prevent people’s beliefs from causing harm? (BTW, rational beliefs also lead to harm. Remember that rationality can be judged only with respect to the information available to the person.) The answer is the same way that we prevent people’s guns from causing harm. Anyone who breaks the law because of guns or because of belief is to be prosecuted and punished.
___
August 24th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Arun
Your Iraq example is duly noted. But the Bush administration is the worst administration the US ever had. It’s practically laughing stock by now, so whether they had good intentions going to Iraq or not, they have proven to be completely unworthy to reside at the top-spot of the government.
August 24th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Yes, it’s a little like Love by Command. In fact, it’s a much simpler thing to command people to be charitable than it is to command people to love.
It’s probably also good to note that this is a little Christian-centric, and that most of the people in the world who hold religious beliefs are not Christian. It is interesting to note the societal legacy of Judeo-Christian notion of One God, One Truth, however. It is not always easy to separate ourselves from deep-running things like this, regardless of how rational we like to consider ourselves.
Oftentimes it is considered within religions a beneficial exercise to meditate upon the various iconic imagery or abstractions that exist within the story. And as much as this can hold dogma in place, it can also have a liberating quality. As with many things even outside of religion, much of the “good or bad” outcomes depend upon the degree of blind zeal invested.
In terms of compassion, within the purely intellectual, there is a difference between morality and ethics. Both have a “rule-ish” feel, and both oftentimes come with coercive components. I think it is a very good thing that even Science is subject to ethics, and that ethics is an ongoing dialog. But we also have a large number of people who are overwhelmingly challenged by purely ethical discourse. For these people, a more moral ruleset can be a “shorthand”, and is something they can trust in their desire to be good people. Unfortunately, it is also something that others, with more nefarious designs, can exploit.
Sometimes we have to believe something uncertain in order to get where we would like to be. The test is, will our egos allow us to re-evaluate our decisions in the face of challenges — and then have the courage to maintain them despite external pressures, or have the courage to change if it looks like we should.
In the case of Mother Theresa, maybe she thought, despite her crisis of faith, that devoting herself to charity was, regardless of her religion, a good and worthy thing to devote her life toward. In that sense she would have transcended simple dogma, which would make sainthood all the more applicable to my mind, looked a iconically.
It is an act of honesty to express our doubts. It is an act of foolishness to cling to what we know cannot be true. And, it is an act of carelessness to believe or disbelieve in something with no basis. The question is, can “passion” be a valid basis? In the terms of Science, I don’t think so. In the terms of “we crazy humans”, what else is there?
August 24th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Jason, I agree that there are dangerous beliefs. Some are dangerous psychologically, some are dangerous physically. And the worst are dangerous to other people.
But that wasn’t my point. My point is:
1.) Every one of us capable of individual thought has a belief system that can not be categorized by a top-level hierarchy. Because we take in so much information and process and accept it into our mental make-up, if we were explicitly characterize exactly what we believe, there would be so many hyphens as to be wildly impracticable.
2.)Given (1), there are roughly 6 billion belief systems. There is no need to divide them up any less precisely than “John’s belief”, “Jason’s belief”, etc. So labeling someone as “religious” or “non-religious” is non-nonsensical and can only be harmful to society. “Religious” people can be good or bad, “non-religious” people can be good or bad.
Really, all I care about is people harming other people. I don’t care if you believe there is 0 gods, 1 god, 12 gods or that we are all gods, so long as you leave me alone about it and don’t harm myself or my family.
Essentially, I was advocating the abolishment of the term “religion”, as it is harmful.
And no, I don’t mind if someone else’s beliefs are rational, irrational, true, false, etc., so long as they don’t harm anyone else. Morality, I would say, is based on behavior.
August 24th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Mother Theresa’s quote is rather interesting, but deserves a little explanation about the context of the Roman Catholic tradition. Her case reminds me of Saint Therese of Lisieux, a French Catholic nun of the 19th century who was canonized as a saint and declared “doctor of the church”. She was the first theologian to receive this title since the 14th century, and the last one to this date. Moreover, she is considered by Catholics as the co-patroness of France with St. Joan of Arc. So, you see she is not considered by Catholics as a minor character in the history of church (and that is an understatement!). During her religious life as a carmelite, she became ill of tuberculosis, and then temporarily suffered from “dereliction”, which is the name given by the church to an eclipse of the faith. In this state of dereliction, the would-be saint is supposed to make a heroic effort to recover his or her faith through prayer, charity, etc. Therese of Lisieux could overcome this state of deep doubt, but of course she was exceptional, and she found her own way which explains her popularity among Catholics. I recalled this story just to make clear that doubt, with its public expression by fervent religious people themselves, is a common and accepted thing in the Catholic church, even from the most exceptional of the saints. It should thus not be very surprising to read such things in letters from Mother Theresa or any other catholic celebrities. This will come as a surprise only to people ignorant of the inner workings of the Catholic religion. By the way, I am a Catholic, I received in my childhood a complete religious education, and learned this stuff during years in a Jesuit high school.
August 24th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
John Roach,
My argument is that irrational beliefs are vastly more likely to be incorrect than rational ones, and furthermore incorrect beliefs are vastly more likely to cause a person to harm others than correct beliefs (given that most people believe that harming others is a bad thing). As such, I think it does matter what others believe, and will argue against any belief that differs from my own when the opportunity presents itself. This way, if the argument is a good one, there is a chance the other person will recognize that my belief is better, or I will recognize that theirs is, in either case one of us benefits.
August 24th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
But this raises different questions (not including the question of “why the bad source?”).
Do people of faith do better acts then people without faith? http://oproject.wordpress.com/2007/06/13/american-atheists-appear-to-be-less-likely-to-vote-and-volunteer-and-give-less-to-charity/
The answer is a resounding YES. As a person without faith, this is interesting to me. When a person genuinely believes in a person’s soul and and afterlife, they do greater works of charity. I think that this is something to be respected and taken into consideration more often.
August 24th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
I must admit, I admire those who do good without believing in God or afterlife: they don’t think they’ll get any “reward” for doing it.
PS: Jason Dick (and others making similar points): Just how clear is the definition of “irrational” above and beyond strictly logical issues of syllogism and fallacy etc? Doesn’t it depend on what kind of World we have, it isn’t just something about pure insight inside the mind …
August 24th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
“beliefs should be judged on whether they are correct or incorrect, not on whether they cause people to do good or bad things. ”
Why?
Seems to me that beliefs should be chosen on their utility.
The assumption that a correct belief will have the greatest benefit seems, to me, to require the 18th century philosophical outlook that the purpose of research is to unravel God’s plan. It presupposes that there exists a perfect answer to our problems, which can be discovered through correctness.
August 24th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
So you would believe something you knew to be incorrect, if you thought it might increase “utility” (however that might be defined)? Or is this more advice for other people?
August 24th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Lab Lemming: “beliefs should be chosen on their utility”
wah? that sounds very 1984 big brother to me. the purpose of research is to understand the truth of whatever you are studying, the facts, regardless of utility or person benefit.
do you want to believe something that isn’t true just because it will make you more useful (whatever that might mean)? if no, would you give others incorrect beliefs in order to make them more useful?
anyways, utility is subjective. who decides which beliefs are most “useful?” if it is the individual, how can they themselves decide to truly believe something that they know to be incorrect? if it isn’t the individual, then is it a dictator or preacher or parent…?
August 25th, 2007 at 12:29 am
So I guess this news is taking her off the fast track for cannonization?
As for the whole belief vs religion thing… I always find it interesting when people of faith argue to me that you need to believe to have morals, because nothing is clearly stopping me from being an axe murderer if I don’t see the world per their exact world view (or something). Of course it’s obvious that what they’re trying to say is that they wouldn’t behave morally if they didn’t think someone was looking over their shoulder- in which case sure, knock yourself out, I’d rather you be a person with misguided beliefs than a psychopath.
August 25th, 2007 at 5:39 am
The CBS Evening News story that Sean cites is rather lacking in detail. The version at Time.com is much better.
From reading this, I’m not sure it’s fair to say “in the last years of her life, Mother Teresa didn’t believe in God”. What seems clear is that she stopped having visions. In 1946, after 17 years as a teacher in Calcutta, she had a vision of Christ, who called to her to quit teaching and work in the slums. Here’s an excerpt of this dialogue, which she later described to her archbishop:
This was apparently the first of a series of visions. In January 1948 she finally got permission from the archbishop to begin working in the slums of Calcutta. And then, the visions stopped.
She missed them terribly, and as time went on she began to despair. In 1953 she wrote to the archbishop: “Please pray specially for me that I may not spoil His work and that Our Lord may show Himself — for there is such terrible darkness within me, as if everything was dead. It has been like this more or less from the time I started ‘the work.” In 1956 she wrote: “Such deep longing for God — and … repulsed — empty — no faith — no love — no zeal. — [The saving of] Souls holds no attraction — Heaven means nothing — pray for me please that I keep smiling at Him in spite of everything.”
Apparently only two letters actually express doubts of the existence of god. The first is this:
The second is this:
All this seems much more like the pain of a spurned lover than any analytical questioning of the existence of god. I suspect she remained a mystic in the vein of Saint John of the Cross or Saint Teresa of Avila to the very end. In 1970, she wrote to Malcolm Muggeridge:
By the way, I’m not trying to make any sort of point about religion — just trying to shed some more light on an interesting story.
August 25th, 2007 at 7:26 am
Hi John, trying to shed ‘light’ on the subject – I like it.
maybe the english word god is a masonic acronym for gnosis of dimensions
and the higgs field is the holy trinity, One of Three separate fields.
Science does not seek or pray for miracles, but new ‘revelations’
August 25th, 2007 at 9:53 am
On This side of the veil – why not believe in things unseen – feelings – miracles – healing – If there is thunder on the mountain – a god speaks – someone is hearing!
August 25th, 2007 at 10:22 am
I expect to find people of faith doing “good deeds” in order to secure their place in the afterlife, and I expect to find “humanists” doing this because, well, there but for the grace of “luck”, go I.
So, what?
And I agree with John Baez, this is no example for atheists to hold up as an example of how wonderful they all are.
August 25th, 2007 at 10:27 am
I didn’t know this story about visions of Mother Theresa that John is reporting. But it’s interesting to note that Therese of Lisieux story, with whom I tried to draw a parallel, was very similar, and the similarity is still closer than I first thought. She had a vision of Virgin Mary when she was very young and seriously ill, and she was later convinced that she had recovered because of this vision. When her second illness was declared years later, and her psychotic father died, she was desparate that no vision hapened to her anymore. Her desparation seems to have a quite analogous origin.
About the rest of the discussion, this exchange looks very naive to me. After a traditional religious education, I studied physics, and I learned quite a bit about other sciences too, such as biology. It is clear to me that science is the only available source of reliable knowledge about the world. Previous attempts (especially indian philosophy, greek philosophy, monotheistic religions), only gave partial insights, sometimes surprisingly good ones, but never as firm as modern scientific knowledge. Genesis for instance is a rough approximation essentially saying that the world and its inhabitants had a story. Not a bad guess, but of course no sure knowledge. It is very clear to me that human beings are the random result of a blind evolutionary process, and thus can’t have a special role or status in this world. I personally do not believe that God can influence the course of particular events on earth, or wants to. In particular, I view the idea that presidents of the United States are inspired by God in their deed as completely absurd. However, this still does not make me an atheist. I think there is still room for faith, if you consider that all this could simply not exist. Human destiny is materially insignificant at the cosmic scale, but despite this smallness, humans can get some knowledge about the world and its own smallness. So there is some greatness is mankind, in some paradoxical way, which I think is related to something transcendant, which you can call God if you will. Such a faith must be completely informed of the realities of science, and courageously look above and beyond them, not below, as some people do when they try to exploit temporary gaps in our scientific knowledge (which is what proponents of intelligent desing are trying to do). I do not see why I should sacrify faith to knowledge if I am intellectually free to avoid it. As you see I am not at all a mystic type as the various Therese and Theresa saints that we discussed above.
August 25th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Sean,
in you previous post you suggested to argue
“in favor of a position with which you disagree”.
I understand that *this* post is your argument in favor of religion
and I think it is brilliant indeed.
Mother Theresa, working for the poor and struggling with God at
the same time. Can there be any words more powerfully expressing
the human desire to find and understand God, than the words of M.T.
as referenced by john above?
Can there be anything more subtle than God using an atheist to spread the word?
Just brilliant!
August 25th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Sean: “beliefs should be judged on whether they are correct or incorrect, not on whether they cause people to do good or bad things.”
You state it as if self-evident. It is not. Nietzsche spends the entire first chapter of Beyond good and evil arguing that precise point: “Suppose we want truth. Why should we not prefer untruth?”
Let me quote a particularly strong passage:
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/Nietzsche/beyondgoodandevil1.htm
Nietzsche, Beyond good and evil, 1) On the prejudices of philosophers:
“4
For us, the falsity of a judgment is no objection to that judgment—that’s where our new way of speaking sounds perhaps most strange. The question is the extent to which it makes demands on life, sustains life, maintains the species—perhaps even creates species. And we are even ready to assert that the falsest judgments (to which a priori synthetic judgments belong (3)) are the most indispensable to us, that without our allowing logical fictions to count, without a way of measuring reality against the purely invented world of the unconditional and self-identical, without a constant falsification of the world through numbers, human beings could not live—that if we managed to give up false judgments, it would amount to a renunciation of life, a denial of life. To concede the fictional nature of the conditions of life means, of course, taking a dangerous stand against the customary feelings about value. A new philosophy which dared to do that would thus stand alone, beyond good and evil.”
—
I’m honestly curious, Sean, do you have a comment or any thoughts on this particular argument?
August 25th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
I thank Dr. Baez for his clarifying statements.
Given my own biases, and my read of the facts, the story seems to support the suspicion that some human brains are prone to unusual perceptions that are interpreted as genuine experiences of the numenous. The anxiety and sense of loss Mthr. Teresa endured after the visions reportedly stopped leave me with little doubt she sincerely believed she had had them, and that they were probably of an especially ecstatic variety. This leads me to an interesting question: Why did they stop? I note from her biographies that she experienced numerous chronic health problems later in life, including several heart attacks, and actually died of a massive heart attack and stroke. Doubtlessly, she suffered numerous viral and parasitic illnesses endemic to her usual environment, and those can infrequently cause damage to the myocardium and resultant impairment in function. But we can’t rule out coronary artery disease, and her heart attacks and stroke could certaily have been caused by atherosclerotic plaques and/or thromboemboli typical of more common forms of cardiovascular disease. She was far from overweight, clearly very physically active and so I find myself wondering if she had some congenital predisposition to cardiovascular disease, like maybe hypercholesterolemia. Perhaps. As many surely know, atherosclerosis, stenosis, and infarcts can occur not only in coronary arteries, but peripheral and intracranial as well (the latter can lead to strokes and vascular dementia, among other things).
Could progressive alterations in mental function caused by local or widespread decline in cerebral perfusion explain her perceptual changes, as well as her apparently depressive emotional state later in life?
Wild speculation on my part, but I find it interesting to consider, anyway…
August 25th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
wolfgang,
I don’t see how this is an argument for Christianity. I find it incredibly sad that she did struggle so hard to find God. I have no such desire, and neither do most atheists. Is there an innate human desire to find God? I sure hope not, because there isn’t one out there. After all, given Christian theology and all the work she did, you’d think that Mother Theresa, of all people, would have found God after years of struggling. She didn’t. Why, pray tell, would God want to hide from one so pious?
August 25th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
ThM wrote:
It is clear to me that science is the only available source of reliable knowledge about the world.
If we don’t get into quibbles about what “knowledge about the world” might mean, a necessary corollary is that in most spheres of life, we must deal with unreliable knowledge. This includes
- what other people think of one
- what offer to make to buy a house
- where to invest one’s savings
- which candidate to vote for in an election
- innumerable how-tos (ranging across how to play the guitar, how to bake a cake, how to hold an audience’s attention when speaking, etc., etc)
- in many, many cases, what is wrong to do and what is right to do
(We note that in the last two examples, often science can provide knowledge about how to and what would be right/wrong to do).
One must live in a rather empty world if one must work only with reliable knowledge (and hence reliable belief). It also seems to be a rather totalitarian world to me.
August 25th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Arun, well said.
To quote another philosophical great:
“6.52 We feel that even when all possible scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched.”
- Wittgenstein, Tractatus
August 25th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
lol Jason, Why does Science continue to search for hidden things
Even after building the six billion dollar cathedral and much worshipping and praying, there is no guarantee holy ‘mass’ will force the ‘god’ particle to make an impromptu appearance.
August 25th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
ThM wrote:
It is clear to me that science is the only available source of reliable knowledge about the world.
Well, not quite, and there are problems with that perspective. First, you should include math as reliable. It isn’t really considered “science” to prove something about how to solve differential equations, however useful they may be in science. Also, it isn’t really clear how reliable scientific findings are, and their being as reliable as they are is mostly because the universe we have plays along (for whatever reason.) For example, the inverse square law for gravity has not been testing at very small distances/masses (like submillimeter, and like sizes of common matter.) Only recently, were tests done down to the mm range (and BTW held up the law, meaning some large-curled extra dimension theories were ruled out.) So, was it ever a proper, likely to be “reliable” inference, that the observed range of rules of gravitational attraction would hold up to very tiny or very large scales? Maybe. It depends on the theory, and on the “cooperation” of a universe that works like that, it isn’t inherently demanded by logic or “rationality” itself.
Many things that we routinely believe in rather firmly and consider the basis for reliable assertions are technically not accessible to true scientific confirmation. For example, the simple case of a conversation you had with someone yesterday or weeks or years ago. If not recorded, there is no clear evidence other than memory (so often fallible), and no way in practice or principle to check what was said. Yet we routinely talk about conversations without indulgence in apologies for assuming what can’t be proven. Perhaps even more importantly, few serious thinkers consider this grounds to pretend that there literally was not a distinct conversation etc. in the past – despite the violation of the (disingenuously wielded) positivist rule that meaningful claims should come with a method of verification.
August 25th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Q9,
Nobody in science uses the term the “God particle”. And we’re not even that convinced that we’re going to find the Higgs boson. All that we can be sure of is that finding or not finding the Higgs at the LHC is going to give us some very interesting insights into fundamental physics. Finding the Higgs would be yet another confirmation of the as yet most accurate theory man has yet devised, while not finding it would force us to recognize that something is deeply wrong with this theory, and we have to come up with a theory that explains this fact.
Neither worship nor prayer have any part in science. It always amuses me how the religious try to bring science down to their level. Get over it. Science isn’t a religion. Science is nothing more and nothing less than the best method mankind has yet come up with for discerning truth from fiction.
August 25th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Neil B.,
Nah, math doesn’t belong with science there. Yes, mathematics is highly reliable. As is formal logic (for the same reasons). The issue is that what he said was that “science is the only available source of reliable knowledge about the world,” which is a rather specific statement. Neither mathematics nor logic provide us with any knowledge about the world. What they provide us with are necessary conclusions given certain premises or axioms. It is up to us to discover whether those premises/axioms can be applied to the real world, and that requires science. Thus mathematics and logic become tools of science, that can be used as part of the method for finding more about the real world.
In no way am I attempting to claim here that science is somehow better, more honorable, or more useful than mathematics or logic. Mathematics and logic are very interesting fields in their own right, and have proven to be highly useful pursuits. But they don’t tell us anything about the real world without science.
August 25th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
You start out doing the possible – and suddenly – a spark – you find you are doing the impossible – How does it happen ? How does Carbon turn into life. It happens every day.
August 25th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
For years I’ve wondered how Ms. Bojaxhiu coped with hubris-inducing things like Time Magazine declaring her a “Living Saint”. Now we have an answer, seemingly more searing than St. Paul’s “thorn in the flesh”.
Special nod to ThM and John Baez for providing data here. This does make Christopher Hitchens’ allegations of fraudulence more interesting. However, to justify this post’s title and desired conclusions, one must demonstrate that she ceased to love Adonai Eloheynu with all her heart, soul, mind, and strength (see Luke 10:25-28 and what comes after). The record shows that she stayed faithful.
August 26th, 2007 at 1:59 am
Stevie says:
“wah? that sounds very 1984 big brother to me. the purpose of research is to understand the truth of whatever you are studying, the facts, regardless of utility or person benefit.”
Bullshit. The new LHC is an obvious counter example. It is being built for utility- the ability to whack protons together at energies thusfar not observed in the lab. What the theorists can speculate on what it will reveal, for the scientists building it, the most important question is whether or not it will perform at spec. A huge amount of the world’s scientific research is utility-based, and all of the “truth” searching reqinstrumentation
August 26th, 2007 at 2:16 am
Apologies for the above partial comment- aimed for shift, hit enter while editing…
Stevie says:
“wah? that sounds very 1984 big brother to me. the purpose of research is to understand the truth of whatever you are studying, the facts, regardless of utility or person benefit.”
Bullshit. Utility is a more common goal than truth. Where was the truth in the Manhattan or Apollo projects? The new LHC is another counter example. It is being built for utility- the ability to whack protons together at energies thusfar not observed in the lab. While the theorists can speculate on what it will reveal, for the scientists building it, the most important question is whether or not it will perform at spec. A huge amount of the world’s scientific research is utility-based, and all of the “truth” searching requires instrumentation that performs in a systematic and predictable manner.
But on a more basic level, I think that belief should be checked at the clean lab door with the outdoor shoes,
fh:
Seeing how Nietzche’s “philosophy beyond good and evil” actually just turned out to be a bigger badder flavour of evil, I reject his (and Sean’s) assumption that a reality-based philosophy is superior to a whimsical one.
Sean:
Belief in the absurd is something I aspire to, but have yet to perfect.
August 26th, 2007 at 4:39 am
Jason, I don’t have to get over anything.
A real scientist would say: when we have the theory of everything, and when we know everything there is to be known about the universe, ony then could we possibly claim or presume to know all things that exist. If certain things remain hidden then we clearly do not have the whole picture looks like, nor know what is hidden.
“Finding the Higgs would be yet another confirmation of the as yet most accurate theory man has yet devised, while not finding it would force us to recognize that something is deeply wrong with this theory, and we have to come up with a theory that explains this fact.”
August 26th, 2007 at 9:23 am
I have never read your blog before, but felt inspired to write. I am concerned that the secular worlds view of Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta is not understanding why she felt abandoned by God. Why she was so tortured interiorly. Yet, she remained on the outside, so good and fervent.
On the spiritual path of life there comes a time for the “dark night of the soul”. It is a time where God “apparently” leaves us abandoned. For a soul who is so near to God, a soul who by giving up their own desires in order to do only HIS will, this darkness is like an abyss of nothingness. The abandonment felt by the soul is so extreme that it is no wonder it can do anything. It is like a great depression. However, this abandonment is only apparent and it is necessary to gain the perfection of the soul. This trial by darkness is what dear Mother Teresa was feeling. Like Christ hanging on the cross in His final minutes of suffering and calling out to His eternal Father, “Why have you abandoned me!?!” And this is Jesus the Christ talking!
So, to understand why a soul suffers in darkness, searching and yearning for the truth, one’s mind must be open to the seeming paradox of life. We must give ourselves up completely in order to know God. There are not many more great examples of this than Mother Teresa. She gave up everything for love of Him!
August 26th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
As others have pointed out, saying that Mother Teresa “abandoned belief in God” is hyperbole supported by only by a couple of her letters and certainly not by the entire article at time.com. The thought that seems to have tormented her was, rather, that God had abandoned her. C.S. Lewis’s classic (and anonymously published) _A Grief Observed_ (about the death of his wife) expresses many of the same doubts, and even very briefly flirts with unbelief.
For a portrait of a religious person who has privately given up belief in God but maintains it publicly for humanitarian reasons, I recommend Miguel de Unamuno’s novella _San Manuel Bueno, mártir_. (I’m sure there must be good English translations available, although I haven’t checked.)
August 26th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
[...] Charity Without Religious Belief: Mother Teresa | Cosmic Variance [...]
August 26th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Quantum9,
That response doesn’t in any way relate to what I said. What you fail to recognize is that it is foolish to believe something strongly if there is no evidence whatsoever in favor of that something.
There is vastly more evidence to date of the existence of the Higgs boson than there is for God. At least the Higgs boson is an essential component of a rigorously-tested theory. There is no rigorously tested theory that has God as an essential component. Neither is there any direct evidence of God. Therefore, it is foolish to believe strongly that a deity exists.
Can I say strongly that no deity exists? Certainly not! I can, of course, say quite strongly that certain specific god concepts cannot exist, because those concepts are self-contradictory (e.g. an omnipotent deity). But I can’t say that [i]any[/i] god concept doesn’t exist. What I can say is that given a total lack of evidence, it is as unlikely for any god to exist as it is for a third type of electrical charge to exist.
August 26th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
No one belives in God more than the day an unexplanable and shocking tradgedy occurs. God speaks to man then in his sleep, in her dreams and in their slumber. It is then that the cold fright shakes you and you find that you are not alone in this world. Then the clamore for God begins.
Science can only explain back to a certain point in the history of time; beyond that point, the blackness of nothingness (without even a star), is something; it is space; then you have met God. Only faith can take you beyond the point of the explanable.
It is ok to doubt; God gives us the freedom to question; but not for too long. The abyss is short lived and we find that only HE can fill it….not my wife dear as she may be, not my children, not my job or my passion. Teresa is human….so was God at one point (while simultaneously remaining God).
The greatest wisdom is the realization that we are not too wise.
August 26th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Quasar9: I think the idea of a “theory of everything,” as opposed to a heuristic fairly applicable to this particular universe, is a mirage. There is no logical way to tie existing to a particular way for things to be, much less even logically define material versus conceptual existence.
Jason Dick: Your analogy is inappropriate. The philosophical arguments for God (versus folk and cultural traditions) uses interpretation of what we do know combined with advanced abstract reasoning (like modal realism, existential principle of sufficient reason) to argue for why this world (or any “world”) would not be existentially self-sufficient etc, and require grounding by something else that wouldn’t be a part of that world. It would of course then not be properly relatable to unfound objects within the world. Agree or disagree with the details of methadology or the conclusion, I “pray” for critics to at least be aware of how the mature consideration (”philosophical theology”) operates.
August 27th, 2007 at 12:04 am
i’m seeing a lot of debate on religion, beliefs, whether there is a higher power or not, and how are attitudes and actions are reflected from our belief system. faith is the conerstone of religion or any belief system. stephen hawkins belief in scientific theory does not interfer with his faith nor exclude the possibility of the creation myth prior to the big bang. the one incontravertable truth is no-one on this planet can prove the existence of God or disprove it. that is where the faith comes in. maybe we should all go the way of darwinism. survival of the fittest. the absence of any code of morals, or ethics. its kill or be killed. if there is a final judgement those who follow darwinism have some explaining to do. if there isn’t then the man with the most toys won. if thats all lifes’ about then any true meaning of humanity is lost. if someone donates money to a cause its for a tax break or being on the board not because they care about the people they help. rest assure whatever help is forthcoming carries a hefty pricetag especially on those who can least afford it.
with Mother Teresa, her altruistic intentions may not have been for the sole purpose of redemption or a go to heaven card. her purpose was to alleviate suffering, poverty, and disease for its own sake and not as a means to an end but as an end in itself. she was less worried about her relationship with god but questioned gods failure to intercede on behalf of the less fortunate. her faith was challanged and she had the honesty for introspection and questioning the depth of her faith. faith is the belief in something you can’t experience through your senses. she may have felt abandoned, but the word God kept popping up. this acknowledgement of God confirms her position on the existence of God and her need to connect with something far greater than herself. one doesn’t always have to see something before they come to believe in its existence. what about telepathy? what about proven cases of premonitions? ever put faith in psychics?
August 27th, 2007 at 6:11 am
We entered twentieth century with Tolstoy, Gandhi and others developing science of peace, truth and goodness. Totalitarian systems refused spiritual and nonviolent approach.
In the second world war democracy also abandoned nonviolence. After WWII, there was a Nurenberg trial, forming of UN, NATO, ner Redc Cross Conventions – all before 1963,”righteous among nations” were honored by Izrael, non-Jews who risked their lives to save Jews during Holocaust. They are the biggest movement of goodness ever and anywhere. Their experrience is not used internationaly
Pope John II devoted significant part of his life to peace and goodness.
Personally, coming from a Holocaust family and being a physician, I wanderred which is most evedence based tool of goodness. I used Tolstoy, Gandhi, “Righteous among nations”, Hannah Arendt, Einstein, M.L. King, Simone Weil, Frankl, … and Mother Theresa. It worked and was a powerfull way of saving thowsands of lives of Albanians, Bosniacs, Serbs, Croats and others, while UN and Europe were by far too innefficient.
We see terrorism, Middle East, Afghanistan, Iraq, Abu Graib, Guantanamo,…
Dont through away peacemakers, righteous ones, beleivers – Mother Theresa. World of 21. century needs them
Slobodan Lang, MD slobodan.lang@hzjz.hr
August 27th, 2007 at 7:03 am
Perhaps Mother Theresa’s experience will show that God shuns organized religion and that arbitrary dogma if incorrect, will block you from finding God. At least Mother Theresa was honest. Jesus can’t read your mind because Jesus doesn’t know that you exist. When Pat Robertson claims that Jesus or God talks to him, we know he’s lying. God would have talked to Mother Theresa before any of the TV preachers like Robertson, and since he didn’t talk to MT, I don’t think he talks to any of them either. They all live in darkness, they just don’t admit it.
August 28th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
On the ‘religion is beneficial to society’ argument:
Whether or not religion existed, the neurological structures for acting moral would be in place. Those cavemen who derived pleasure from being in a tribe had a higher rate of survival, and so evolution has created a population where acting moral releases dopamine and other feel good chemicals in the brain.
My point being, religion is just a justification for feeling as if we would have to act moral (since there doesn’t seem to be much rational justification elsewhere). If religion didn’t exist, people would still act ethically, they just wouldn’t be able to tell their friends why they were doing so.
August 28th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
These debates always remind me of a famous comment: “There are two types of physicists. Those who had problems with their crystal sets when they were young, and those who had problems with their God.”
August 28th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Mother Theresa saw God everyday, in the face of those she cared for.
She just didn’t see Him, she still wanted to believe in the dream of god.
August 29th, 2007 at 9:34 am
“We should keep them separate from our attempts to understand how the universe works.”
And atheists should keep their arguments against God separate from their attempts to understand how the universe works.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
A very interesting and enlightening discussion on this matter can be found at http://www.agelesswisdom.com/archives_of_radio_shows.htm , show dated 8/24/07 and entitled “Difficulties of Advanced Humans, Sages, and Saints—Mother’s Teresa’s Issues.”
August 30th, 2007 at 6:28 am
Any belief system, including science, need irrationality. A huge chunk of research in science is rationalizing (resolving conflicts between) some observations, the researcher’s expectations (which definitely depend on his a priori world view for which there may not be any rational explanation). Any theory starts with some assumptions or axioms and isn’t the choice of axioms irrational? Doesn’t the choice depend on some a priori world view? Of course axioms can be changed but aren’t the new ones again dependent on some ‘irrational’ belief that they reflect the ‘reality’? Can one propose a theory without axioms? Without axioms can one use mathematics, which is so useful a tool in science today?
“from our attempts to understand how the universe works.”
Isn’t the belief that the universe can be understood and that there is a ‘The Truth’ to be found, which is apparently what drives so many scientists to work hard, to devote themselves to science, itself irrational? If this belief is rational, why is it? If it is not or cannot be said to be rational or irrational, then isn’t science itself irrational?
In any case is there any inherent ‘value’, in a loose sense, in pursuing ‘The Truth’ as compared to other possible paths? I see no ‘value’ other than utility as defined, vaguely and of course irrationally, by the society as a whole. If then ‘utility as defined by the society’ is met by any other belief system, isn’t it as valuable as science itself?
I wish the word ‘irrationality’ is not used in so demeaning sense. Generally debates like these tend to become science vs religion. What I say is the two can coexist and if combined well can be more powerful than either.
September 4th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
I’m stunned at how many people have swallowed the myth of Teressa’s charity and goodness. The woman was a shill for the Vatican. Mike Schuler above defends her “honesty” — but her private doubts don’t make up for her public lies. And one of her last wishes was for her letters to be destroyed. John Mail claims “her purpose was to alleviate suffering, poverty, and disease for its own sake and not as a means to an end but as an end in itself” — where’s the evidence for this astounding claim? Everything she did publicly was to win converts for the Catholic Church. The money she collected for “charity” ended up in the Vatican’s coffers, not to improve the lot of Calcutta’s poor.
I’ve written more about the fraud of Teressa here and .
September 4th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Ah, my browser ate that last link.
It should be here. Sorry.
September 6th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Afterall, man created the study of science as man did the study of religion. Period.
With science it would be correct to use the words correct or incorrect. With religion it would be correct to use the terms good or bad-noting that good and bad are both the light and the dark. The things that make me feel good are usually good-maybe not charitable but certainly not agaisnt the law [of man][(most things
]). When I tend to do things bad I either feel bad or have caused a negative result.
Duh. Doesn’t everyone do this? If we don’t understand consequences for our actions doesn’t that make us psychopaths, a wrong number, if you will? We think more than an ant. A baboon will never be interested in the lenses supporting dark energy.
It is my belief that without the light you cannot have the dark, period. They coexist as one. If they didn’t we would all be lost; we would all be a lost cause uncapable of love, life, and wrong or right choices.
I am not blue funked by religion or science because they are clearly studies of a different family both with stories to tell. I do not however, when you take a man majoring in minors out of the equation, disagree with such an idea as to say religion is the adherent, adviser, alter ego, amigo, bosom buddy, of science and visa versa.
Mother Teresa, in a sense was only a victim of men majoring in minors…some feelings of good and bad are programmed by man from a person’s desire to just do good and help…little did she know that her first longing to help before any influenece of hell or guilt from the church was enough. She also said,
“If I ever become a Saint_I will surely be one of ‘darkness.’ I will continually be absent from Heaven-to [ight] the light of those in darkness on earth,”
If I lived as she lived and saw everyday what she saw I too would be on the dark side…but the dark side is like religion to science and if Mother Teresa were to be called the Saint of Darkness, it would be an honor and at the time of her supposed faithless writing she was going through something that seemed quite logical.
Church formed law. centuries turning Law abides now wether you are religious or not. A scientist who is athiest is nothing less than a superb being and not a psychopath because they aren’t out there doing bad. Some people without religion live a life of doing bad and its not good. Questions i why? ah-perhaps teh nurture nature theory? Mother Teresa by nature wanted to live a life of chariable help-her envirnment was a church with a less than respectable and powerful history and then her immediate environemnt was filled with suffering adn sadness. Is it really any wonder why she struggled with her faith when you think about it scientifically?
September 6th, 2007 at 9:43 am
Afterall, man created the study of science as man did the study of religion. Period.
With science it would be correct to use the words correct or incorrect. With religion it would be correct to use the terms good or bad-noting that good and bad are both the light and the dark. The things that make me feel good are usually good-maybe not charitable but certainly not agaisnt the law [of man][(most things
]). When I tend to do things bad I either feel bad or have caused a negative result.
Duh. Doesn’t everyone do this? If we don’t understand consequences for our actions doesn’t that make us psychopaths, a wrong number, if you will? We think more than an ant. A baboon will never be interested in the lenses supporting dark energy.
It is my belief that without the light you cannot have the dark, period. They coexist as one. If they didn’t we would all be lost; we would all be a lost cause uncapable of love, life, and wrong or right choices.
I am not blue funked by religion or science because they are clearly studies of a different family both with stories to tell. I do not however, when you take a man majoring in minors out of the equation, disagree with such an idea as to say religion is the adherent, adviser, alter ego, amigo, bosom buddy, of science and visa versa.
Mother Teresa, in a sense was only a victim of men majoring in minors…some feelings of good and bad are programmed by man from a person’s desire to just do good and help…little did she know that her first longing to help before any influenece of hell or guilt from the church was enough. She also said,
“If I ever become a Saint_I will surely be one of ‘darkness.’ I will continually be absent from Heaven-to [ight] the light of those in darkness on earth,”
If I lived as she lived and saw everyday what she saw I too would be on the dark side…but the dark side is like religion to science and if Mother Teresa were to be called the Saint of Darkness, it would be an honor and at the time of her supposed faithless writing she was going through something that seemed quite logical.
Church formed law, centuries turning- the law abides now whether you are religious or not. A scientist who is athiest is nothing less than a superb being and not a psychopath because they aren’t out there doing bad. Some people without religion live a life of doing bad and its not good. Question is, why?
ah-perhaps the nurture nature theory? Mother Teresa by nature wanted to live a life of chariable help-her environment by puberty was a church with a less than a respectable and powerful history and then her immediate environemnt was filled with suffering and sadness for-the-rest-of her life. Is it really any wonder why she struggled with her faith when you think about it scientifically?
September 21st, 2008 at 5:47 am
I just want to say WOW!