God. Yes, that word. That concept that causes acts of devotion and love among his/her/its believers. Some of the greatest acts of love are done because of a god's name as evidenced by the many religious charities found in the world. However, it cannot be denied that religion is also responsible for the greatest atrocities the world has seen: the Inquisition, Crusades and the list goes on. Love and hate all because of a supernatural entity.
In this post, I delve into the intellectual reasons why I turned god-less. Let's start it with my journey towards godlessness.
It was during my 3rd year of being a student at the Ateneo that we had to take up our 2nd Theology class (we have 4 classes). And, because of my pride I picked the chairperson of the ADMU Theology department no less for my professor. Not to mention, he is a legend in his own right. I almost failed. But that's not the reason; my decisions, at least the major ones, are not based on something so petty.
Anyway, it was during this time I happened upon "Dune" by Frank Herbert. I read the narrative of Paul Atreides, of how he became the Fremen "Muad-Dib", as foretold by their religion. The irony of it was this religion was implanted by an order of highly skilled women called the "Bene Gesserits" due to their "Missionaria Protectiva". In short, they manufacture religions for their distressed Sisters to use when the situation calls for it. Reading it, I was struck by how easily manipulated the Fremen were by accepting a highly-skilled boy. Well, Paul Atreides was the Kwiswatz Haderach, what the Bene Gesserits called a man who can see both places at once. To keep it simple, let's just say; the Kwiswatz Haderach was a male who possessed great power. Safe to say, without the Bene Gesserit's "Missionaria Protectiva"; Paul Maud-Dib wouldn't have risen to great power even with his powers. And what was damning was that the novel was alluding to an earlier conflict that was partly driven by religion: the Butlerian Jihad.
And relating that narrative to the Church's early history of conflict; there wasn't any difference at all. Sure the characters changed but that doesn't make the butchery done in the name of religion any less real. But, because of Catholicism's insistence upon its doctrine of love and all that; I was still hooked.
However, while also taking that Theology class; I was also taking up Philosophy of Religion taught by another legend, a disciple of a legendary Jesuit. Here we were taught the inherent inconsistencies of Catholicism. For instance, we read the Proslogion by St. Anselm. If you wanted a definition of mind-fuck then this is the reading. Like, it talked about how a god was both just yet merciful. Compassionate, able to feel for others, yet beyond passion, because, after all, a god is a supernatural being and without a body. For St. Anselm, despite the inconsistencies of this god; he accepted him/her/it nonetheless. While me, I couldn't. I suppressed that part of me because still a bit devoted to the faith and taking up a class.
And while we were at it; we took up Theodicies, ideas that try to explain why there is evil in the world yet at the same time there exists a benevolent and omniscient god. And somehow, the answer to that was in the Book of Job. For those who are familiar, yes, he was that guy who got tormented by the Judeo-Christian god but got rewarded in the end by his devotion despite said god's torment. However, what we're not taught is that there is a 2nd part to that story.
After being rewarded by the Judeo-Christian god, the devil approaches god and tells him that his servant Job was devoted because he was sure that he, the Judeo-Christian god, was going to reward him in the end. So the devil proposed a challenge: to make Job suffer some more without any reason whatsoever. The idea being that Job will loose his devotion. So the Judeo-Christian god takes said challenge and inflicts further suffering (remember the 1st part of the story where he was already tormented). So Job looses his sons, daughters, slaves, property and wives; as in totally everything. When it got too much; he asked the Judeo-Christian god why. And the answer of said god can be simply summarized into: "who are you puny human to question ME, the all-powerful god who existed even before you!".
So, not really an answer, and in fact, in modern Psychology, said god can be classified as a sadist but let's not let modern Science ruin the fun.
So how did I survive that class? Well I cheated. Not in the Sotto-sense because its impossible to cheat for a Philosophy class; it's all essays and oral exams. I cheated by creating my answers based on this single premise: In the end, it doesn't matter that these inconsistencies are inherent; rather what we do despite these inconsistencies. Sure, I passed but if it was a debate I would have been berated by resorting to the "moving the goal-posts" fallacy. Notice, how I haven't addressed said inconsistencies of faith and resorted to deflecting it towards living an ethical life.
And now, Medicine proper. If some doctors have their faith strengthened by studying the intricacies of the human body; I lost mine along the way. For instance, some doctors would say that the human body is a wonderful piece of art. Sure, I agree but what they don't say is that it has some inherent imperfections. I'll list some (don't worry, I've dumbed it down. If I use medical terms; I'll translate. And, some points are not even from Medicine proper but from Biology).
1. Why can't we synthesize Vitamin C from glucoronate given that some animals can do it endogenously? (The glucoronate pathway is carbohydrate metabolic pathway that is responsible for producing glucoronides that is responsible for making toxic substances water-soluble.)
2. Why does the recurrent laryngeal nerve take such a long route (the left recurrent vagus nerve has to loop at the arch of the aorta) instead of going directly towards the cervical region? (the recurrent vagus nerves are responsible for innervating the muscles of the vocal cords, hmm can't remember exactly but safe to say; it innervates some muscles found at the neck region).
3. How do we account for the plantaris and palmaris longus muscles (both are vestigial muscles found in the leg and forearm respectively)?
4. Why does our DNA contain introns and exons, more especially more introns? (introns= non-coding part of DNA basically "junk DNA" and exons= coding part of DNA, can produce proteins)
5. Why is there reverse transcriptase present in our cells? (Reverse transcriptase is a useless enzyme that is responsible for converting RNA to DNA. Transcription is done DNA to RNA. And in fact, because of said enzyme; it is responsible for some viruses to infect us.)
6. In terms of infections, sometimes it is the own body's physiological responses that kill the patient instead of pathogens. (Example: Inflammation is basically to be avoided because it can block nasal passages, as what happens in anaphylactic shock. Basically, some medical interventions are done to avoid the inflammatory response. And in diarrhea, it is the gastro-intestinal tract's excessive motility, in an attempt to flush out pathogens, that kills the patient through dehydration not the said pathogen).
See, I can list so many more; so if theists are advancing for an intelligent designer, they will not find it in Medicine. In fact, I invite them to study Medicine itself and see for themselves how the human body is not perfect. Don't get me wrong; still think the human body is beautiful (I'm not asexual) but as for it being 100% perfect...hmmm not really.
I really tried holding on to my faith; believe me. But given the facts that were facing me and given the fact I am a scientist; couldn't anymore ignore these simple facts. Looking back at it right now; was already behaving like a godless person (not yet decided if I'm an agnostic or atheist or I'm an atheist, I don't know what scale I am at this point. Yes, there is a scale.). Like, I wasn't going to mass every Sunday. And as for Roman Catholicism's claim to provide a superior moral system; unfortunately, I couldn't buy it anymore after being introduced to Emmanuel Levinas, Gabriel Marcel, Jean-Paul Sartre, Edmund Husserl, Maurice Merleau-Ponty and other thinkers.
Yes, I'm aware that the first 2 were religious, Levinas was a Jew and Marcel a Christian, but the point was they weren't the usual thinkers associated with Catholic dogma. The usual candidate would be St. Thomas Aquinas and his Summa Theologica. And if there is a thinker that is close to my heart and influences my openness and provides a very succinct explanation of any philosophical point he was ranting on about, it would be Paul Ricoeur. He writes with a respect and openness that I really hope I'm channeling.
Anyway, that's it for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment