The passing of Pope John Paul II, though ignored and ridiculed by many outside the Catholic Church, is a sad event. His religious convictions and beliefs notwithstanding, John Paul actively sought inter-religious reconciliation and spoke openly about social ills of the day, even those not related to Catholic dogma or doctrine. His humble and diverse upbringing in pre-war Poland exposed him to the various ideals and lifestyles that shaped his unique image of the world and humanity. His open support of the common man in the face bureaucratic despotism and his compassionate social conscience will be missed. John Paul recognized the advances of modern science while sitting atop the largest and most powerful religious institution in history, displaying an intellectual honesty rare in such dogmatic circles. He was as much an man of his age as he was a steadfast follower of his faith.
He was a man whose story is worth knowing, for the vastness of his experience and the compassionate nature of his personality. Though I am an atheist, I admired those qualities in John Paul II, and I mourn the loss of their possessor. There will always remain my eternal skepticism and undaunted criticism of religious values and doctrine, but there is no doubting John Paul’s sincerity and open heart, and where true compassion reigns, the other differences can easily be set aside for finding common ground. The world was made a little bit better for having John Paul II in it. May all humanity find it in their hearts to follow John Paul’s message of dignity, compassion, and reconciliation.
“The chief rights are the rights of existence and self-determination.”
“Husband and wife are equals. The differences should be respected, but not used to justify the domination of one by the other. In collaboration with society, the Church must collectively affirm and defend the rights of women.”
6 Comments:
"Though I am an atheist, I admired those qualities in John Paul II",
and later:
"There will always remain my eternal skepticism and undaunted criticism of religious values and doctrine"
I wonder how you reconcile being an atheist with being a skeptic. The way I see it, skepticism leads to agnosticism, because atheism implies a certainty that is lacking in the skeptic, who is characterized by doubt.
Regarding your main points, isn't it remarkable that among frum yidden, there can hardly be found an individual who is nearly as universally respected? It would be high time for Jews to take a look at themselves and learn from the Pope that compassion and social consciousness transcend tribal and religious boundaries.
Who better than Jews, with their prophetic traditions of social justice and morality, to embrace a universal vision for humanity. Looking at heimishe yidden today, you'd never guess that the great story of Yonah was about exhorting *goyim* to do teshuva.
HR,
Thanks for your comments. You ask the good questions!
Re: I wonder how you reconcile being an atheist with being a skeptic.
Skepticism is the method. Atheism (or something very close to it) is my conclusion.
Every scientist is a skeptic, but not all scientists or skeptics are atheists (though I wonder why that is.) When speaking to agnostics, I get mixed signals as to how they justify the apparent lack of any evidence for a deity with their ‘middle of the road’ mindset. For some the emotional need may be considered, and for others they rely on “Pascal’s Wager”, hedging their bets until death reveals the truth. My skepticism has none of the emotional or philosophical undertones to dilute it, though I engage in philosophical debate for entertainment, and I believe this makes the essential difference between the atheist and the agnostic.
There is also a question of the reliability of human knowledge. The agnostic will focus more on what we do not know yet or what we cannot know for certain, whereas the atheist looks at discovery and science and sees what we have confirmed with all possible certainty and is willing to rely on testing and observation, more than a philosophical argument over what man can or cannot perceive. It is akin to the analogy of the glass being half-full or half-empty. If you prove without any doubt that there is a God, the atheist will become a fervent believer. The agnostic, no matter how much proof you offer, will always remain an agnostic not because he doubts God, but because he doubts man’s ability to know anything for certain.
Turns out, the agnostic is less likely to change his beliefs than the atheist and, in my mind, this is fundamentally a more stubborn approach to the issue. I guess the answer hinges on what one is skeptical of.
Hope this helps.
Kol Tuv
Good points, Shlomo. Although I wonder if it's sufficient as a response.
Unless there's a valid alternate definition not commonly used, I don't think agnostics doubt "man’s ability to know anything for certain." Rather, agnostics doubt God's existence since, as in all matters spiritual, it is not provable to human observation, i.e. in a labaratory. Therefore, it does not follow that "no matter how much proof you offer, will always remain an agnostic." If solid, convincing, scientific proof can be offered (which, of course, is quite unlikely), agnostics will have to accept it, just like they accept other scientific conclusions.
Another important point is that the existence or non-existence of God is a totally separate matter from religion. I am therefore surprised that people would show emotion, and even more, that they'd invoke Pascal's wager. Of course, some agnostics might confuse the issues, but a dispassionate discussion of agnosticism, (the belief, not the individual who believes), should not involve religion, obligation, or any of that baggage. Religion does not say merely that God *is*, but that God is also concerned with humanity. And that is a whole other discussion.
Of course, all the above is merely an intellectual exercise, since without discussion of religion we get nowhere practical. But it's all within the solid Jewish tradition of beating a dead horse.
At least when beating a dead horse there is no tza'ar ba'alei chayim.
AGNOSTICISM: It is impossible to know if there is a god or not. The thesis denies the human ability to know, regardless of whether or not the possibility of such a being is feasible. That is the formal definition of agnosticism. Skepticism, in its earlier forms, provides the basis for an agnostic veiwpoint. The Greek Skpetics felt that since there was no way to know any truth, one might as well stop looking for it and relax.
SKEPTICISM: One who continually questions matters that are generally accepted. The modern skeptic (myself included) does not doubt the sciences. He finds a methodology and reliability, that while no doubt still imperfect, has provided a reliability and testability powerful enough to establish some 'truths'.
We question any and all religious doctrine or dogma, psychism, nationalism, etc.; any commonly held belief that science cannot substantiate we simply dismiss. With the advent of modern scientific method in the 1700s, under the influence of Positivism and Empiricism, the skeptic became the scientist, too.
RE: Another important point is that the existence or non-existence of God is a totally separate matter from religion.
Right. Yet, knowing that the former may be impossible to assert, and having to defend one's beliefs out of self -perservation, the morality or pragmatic argument always comes up.
Kol Tuv
Shlomo,
Tonight I stumbled upon your blog. After seeing your picture and reading your poem about how you were brought up in Crown Heights, I was intrigued to read further.
I enjoyed your description of the difference between an athiest and an agnostic. Specifically, I like how you point out that, in fact, the athiest is merely someone who has concluded, based on known scientific discoveries and common, daily life, that G-d does not exist. Since G-d is not visible or his existance certifiably provable, then a belief in G-d is unfounded.
Interesting.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home