Publications
Partners
I think, therefore I am... or “cogito ergo sum” (Renè Descartes 1596 – 1650 – Google him if you wish)
I am a late subscriber to the debates raging on this forum. Not because I did not have anything in particular to say, but because I wanted a healthy debate to be played out before I submitted my own thoughts. Alas, the kind of discussion that I was looking forward to has not exactly been forthcoming and therefore I will be submitting my own thoughts in what hopefully can be contained a nutshell.
I have a particular inclination towards objectivity, and frown upon that which I perceive to be subjective. This must have originated when I studied law, which in essence should be, and most often is not, about establishing truth in an objective, and not subjective, fashion. The Oscar Pistorius trial is a prime example. We all hold our subjective views as to whether he is guilty or not. But the prosecutor is bent on destroying his credibility, trying to prove the State’s case grasping on what I consider to be straws, while the defence is merely attempting to establish reasonable doubt, in order to set their client free. In this conundrum the objective of establishing the truth is lost. It has been said that courts of law are the places where truth is least likely to be found. And I would agree with that assertion. The same goes for this News24 platform, to some extent.
Inherently, I consider myself to be an agnostic, which implies that I’m neither a theist nor an atheist. I am uncertain, as I think many of us are. I have, momentarily, been swayed to both sides of the spectrum on account of the arguments being posited here. One could say that I have been swung from being a true believer, in the Word of God, to one that would reject any form of deity, back to one who is still extremely uncertain about where the Truth lies. And, l would assert, the Truth is something we all yearn for. Hence my fascination with the numerous comments being posted on this forum, prompting me to make my own contribution.
An objective in posting this article is to address arguments such as why the presence/absence of God has to be the topic of such fierce debate. It is a question often asked by the theists on this forum. I hold that we are all seeking to establish truth. This is the reason why some of us take the time to contribute thoughts on this platform. We all wonder whether this life is all that there is. Is this as good as it gets? None of us wants to be fed a fart. And, like Descartes has claimed, we have been endowed with reason. Even according to scripture mankind has been blessed with reason, setting it apart from all other forms of life. And further, again according to scripture, mankind has been put in charge to reign over that which has been deprived of reason. Therefore, if one’s basic premise is the Scripture of the NG Kerk (which I have to confess determined my points of reference at an early age) we are allowed to think and to contemplate life as we know it. Had God’s intention been that we should only ponder life in a limited manner, it (note the gender neutral way of referencing the deity), would have placed limits on our ability to think. Yet it has not. Therefore I think. Because I am. Or is it the other way round?
To some extent my obvious and, I maintain inherent, inclination to THINK has been kick-started by my two lizards: Awie and Angelique. I have the luxury of time to contemplate life in general on a stoep that has a wonderful view. I normally do so with an alcoholic beverage in hand. Awie and Angelique are self-maintaining units that have a happy-go-lucky attitude in the vivid sunlight on my stoep, chasing after small insects such as crickets, wasps, flies, worms and all other kinds of unmentionables. I have observed Awie, being the bulky one with an oversized beer-tummy and therefore the one I assume being the male, to singularly commence a chase on a whole sparrow which landed on my lawn, in order to protect Angelique, who at the time was sunbathing on the disconnected sprinkler head of my hose-pipe. Or rather, I assumed that Awie tried to protect the luscious Angelique from becoming yet another victim in the ecological chain. However, on another occasion I witnessed both of them scrambling towards a delicious morsel in the form of a detestable spider (I hate those with eight legs and16 teeth) whilst trampling on each others’ heads in order to snatch that which was necessary for their survival. I consider this to be a metaphor on so many levels, including morality, reason, animalistic behaviour and what not. I doubt whether the two lizards are able to reason, yet the likely morality of Awie trying to shield Angelique from harm is a possibility that I cannot ignore.
I hold that morality is possible without any form of deity. Being deprived of God or reason does not by implication translate into lawlessness, depravity or the yearning for Satan (as the embodiment of evil). Morality, in my view, is something that is acquired, not necessarily only by divine inspiration, but also by the man-made laws of the land. Our legal system which is essentially based on Roman law (and do not forget that the Romans had their own gods far removed from the One which is pronounced to be the Only True Trinity God) has the capability of maintaining morals in a secular society. We all know that it is wrong to steal, not only because the bible or God says so, but also because we will end up in prison if we do. I have been brought up with both sets of “morals”; both that which, when transgressed, is immediately punitive and also the kind that will lead to damnation in hell. From a very early age, I could have acquired morals from only being taught that certain things are wrong, whether from a legalistic or religious or even some other perspective.
Siding for a moment (remember that I consider myself to be agnostic) on the flank of the atheists, I have the following fundamental questions: How could evil, embodied as Satan, originate in the presence of God, the Creator? I remember the scripture (too lazy to research this) saying something along the lines of “where God, being the representation of all that is good, exists, evil cannot be”. That would make sense to me, as similarly science would tell us that heat represents the absence of cold and that they cannot co-exist at the same time. So how could God allow Satan to come into existence, pre-creation? Lucifer, according to my understanding, had been an angel created by God but who nevertheless became rebellious, thus introducing the first concept of sin (Satan must at least have displayed a biased attitude towards that which is good, for it to become rebellious). Unless, of course, God, who is proclaimed to be omniscient, had a “cunning” plan. A plan along the lines of “I am going to create an evil being, but will subsequently introduce the notion of free choice for those with reason who I am going to create after Satan”. Does this make sense at all? Of all the creationist models (I would even call it constitutional models) available to God, why would it choose this fallible one? I say fallible, because that is my observation of reality. I cringe upon reading in the media of how cruel man can be towards one another. How violent. How children can be dragged along a high-jacked car to suffer the most unimaginable kind of violent death. How babies are raped. How old people can be tortured by having boiled water poured over them or being burnt with irons. Or women being shoved into the boot of a car and being driven off and raped and tortured for a period of three days. I imagine that Christ, having purportedly been crucified over a number of days, has not endured the kind of suffering that some of those who are the recipients of creation have had to endure. If God is a god of love, how is this apparent? And remember that I said earlier that we have been endowed with reason and therefore the capability to question things and to form rational opinions. To me this does not make sense. I can easily conceive of a creationist model that would take away man’s suffering and make God’s love evident yet still allow for free choice, if that is the mantra that has to be observed at all times. Are some of us God’s blue-eyed boys? Is that what the rapture, and probably the Jehovah’s Witnesses, are all about? Is that why sports men and women sometimes give praise to God upon winning a contest, despite their counterparts, who may also be believers. having lost the game? I find the current series running on Mnet, called “The Leftovers”, touching upon the notion of the rapture, to be extremely thought-provoking.
On the side of those who profess God, whether it be the Trinity-God, the Abrahamic God or Allah or any other form of deity, to be the ONLY real saviour and creator of all that is, I have to confess that I find the notion of life coming into existence on the grounds of science to be somewhat unpalatable. To me that is my own missing link. According to my understanding life could, thus far, never have been replicated in a laboratory under controlled circumstances. Not even given the correct amount of organic materials, the right temperature, sunlight and what have you. I know that they are growing skin, for transplants, but in all probability they are merely building upon life that ALREADY is. I am unaware of scientific successes based upon kick-starting life. But I may be wrong. I’m sure the non-theists will alert me to my lack of scientific prowess in this respect. But having said that, and possibly yielding towards the existence of a creator, I would still pose the question as to who or what, if there is a creator, created the creator? And who or what created that creator? And so on and so on. The answer “God is”, is not satisfactory to me. Having posed these questions a long time ago already, I usually got the following answer as written in Corinthians: “For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” I fully understand the concept of dimensions. If you hold a sheet of A4 paper in such a precise manner that you can only observe its thin side, hiding the remainder of the sheet, you will only see a very thin line. That does not mean that the rest is not there. Is heaven, or hell for that matter, something that cannot be observed because it is contained in a different dimension? If so, I would at least like to have a glimpse of its thin side.
I am impatient, and I want to know the answers to my questions now. Because I’m human. Because I am. Because I think. But so far, the answers to my questions have not been forthcoming in a way that made sense to me.
To conclude:
1) I consider atheism not to be a belief or religion, but merely the lack of belief of in any form of deity. That is not tantamount to an alternative belief system. Atheists do not detest, hate or mock God, because one cannot detest, hate or mock something that, according to their view, is non-existent.
2) I am yearning to experience the love of God. I have thus far not encountered same, despite my whole family and some friends praying for me over a number of years. I am in special need of love, having been orphaned and divorced at the age of thirty-something, which left me in a love vacuum, so to speak, for a significant period of time already. But facing the reality in this country, with violence, poverty and corruption being rife, I am sad to say that God’s love has been evading me. I think I am not one of the blue-eyed boys.
3) To those on this forum who evidently feel so free to denigrate and mock others on account of their belief system or lack thereof, especially by using de-humanising labels such as idiot, imbecile, moron etc etc, let me say that I consider that to be indicative of a lack of emotional maturity. And if not that, at least a lack of respect. As someone without a definitive moral compass, except for the laws of the land, I still propagate respect for the views and rights of my fellow man as entrenched in the SA Constitution. If your aim is to persuade someone that your argument is better, sarcasm and denigration will definitely not do the trick. You are welcome, of course, to critique my input as reflected above, but if it is done in a negative or patronising or “know it all” manner I will not respond to your comments.
4) Quoting verses from the bible will not sway me. I have a fundamental difficulty with the existence of both God and Satan (regarding the latter my thinking is akin to that of Thinking Ape), and if I question the validity of the so-called Word of God, on account of this basic premise, any bible verses will most likely push me further away from the notion of any deity/creator.
I notice that I have departed from my intention to contain my thoughts in a nutshell. But so be it. The only certainty that we have, I assert, is the great uncertainty.....
