I think I do too (with some qualifications) [Response to James, Chris, Dolores] (Main Forum)

by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Saturday, April 28, 2012, 16:04 (390 days ago) @ Dolores

Thanks to all of you for your responses on the core question I'd put up for discussion: this question of whether or not you believe there is some "Divine Script" or "God's Plan" — for humanity, or for each individual?

My own view is that there is. But it ain't simple. A lot of my thinking derives from the sort of relationship we saw illustrated in this TED Talk by Alexander Tsiarias. The unfolding of the human embryo into a fully-fledged human being does follow some "script". There is some "relationship" there between the created and whoever thought up the script. This is perhaps not illustrated so much in the "perfect" human beings that are created but when something goes wrong with the script and some imperfect person emerges with some kind of disability. That, in turn, evokes a response from the parents and the community into which the individual is born.

The important question to me centres around the nature of that relationship once the child is born. Self-evidently the "script" continues to work at the physiological level — our immune mechanisms kick in, we learn to think and become highly cognizant, we continue to simply "grow" in obeyance to the same sort of "laws" that were causing the cells to divide right back at the very beginning. The BIG question to me is the nature of the relationship once we become fully cognizant and capable of making decisions for ourselves. How do we discern right from wrong? Even without ethical and moral considerations, how do we choose the most intelligent choices in life for our long term welfare, or the long term welfare of our family, clan, nation or the entire human community?

I think a claim could be made that the entire agenda of a religion like Christianity is essentially an attempt to answer those two questions. That's essentially what the entire Genesis script — the rise and fall and expulsion from Paradise — is trying to get its head around. And then along comes Christianity with a new interpretation of the Messiah and again it is essentially "trying to fill in the blanks" that had previously been unanswered by the ancient Judaic script.

As I've written, I'm in two minds today whether the historical Jesus actually had some "royal telephone" to his "father in heaven". I think it just as likely that the historical Jesus is as much an embodiment of the "wisdom of the ages", or the "wisdom of humankind", as much as he is an embodiment of the "wisdom of God the Father" or an embodiment of the "wisdom of the Divine". In the long run, I don't think it really matters — this is essentially the debate his early followers were trying to nut out as to whether he was "the Son of God" or "the Son of Man"; whether he was human, or divine, or both — what matters in the final analysis is whether his "script" or "way" actually works; does it lead to what he argues it will lead to?

But what is that? Is it "earthly success" or "happiness in this life" ... perhaps contentment? Often enough in the Scriptural record he emphasises that the answer is "no". Yet we crave "success" — almost the whole of Evangelical Protestantism seems built around an (abundance) theology of "pray and God will deliver to you success and a happy family". I don't think it has ever been part of the authentic Catholic vision – and in fact might be one of the things that delineates the Catholic vision from the Protestant vision and more especially the Evangelical Protestant vision (or theology) – but there seem some in Catholicism who interpret it through the Protestant vision. The "way" or "script" is essentially about emotional security in this life and that comes through the "happy family" and material success.

Authentic Christian theology though, I would argue, is essentially trying to develop an explanation, or theology, of how this "loving (and obviously genius) Creator-God" invites us into this relationship and, at the same time, he/she/it appears to also endow us with choice to contibute to the "unfolding of history" or, in more churchy talk, the "building of the kingdom". AND THE 'BIG' THING is the choice he gives us is unfettered. If we choose to make our nest, our home, or planet, uninhabitable he is not going to restrain us or step in and correct our choice. We will have to live with the consequences of the choices we make.

This is where I find myself closer to the arguments that James' advances. I don't think this "script" or "way" is communicated to us through "voices in the head", or by some script written down in places like "the Ten Commandments" or the dogmas of Catholicism, or exclusively communicated to the mind of someone like the Pope. They are not unimportant but some seem to interpret them as the only thing that is important. Creation itself has direction, life itself appears to have direction. It is not just random or without some final objective and we're just here to "eat roots and leaves" and amuse ourselves until our earthly sojourn is up. We are called into some kind of responsibility to try and discern where life, creation and civilisation is heading — we are called into some kind of responsibility to "discern the script" — and to then help contribute to life, or creation, reaching or fulfilling its destiny.

This theology of Benedict is wrong: "The Christian believer is a simple person: bishops should protect the faith of these little people against the power of intellectuals." The responsibility of the spiritual and ecclesial leaders is constantly to be lifting the "simple people and little people" above their lizard brain level behaviours and to building a more civilised, intelligent society. Similarly the agenda of Rupert Murdoch is wrong that the simple yobbo and yobboess is there to be entertained and distracted by tits and bums, sensationalism, contrived conflict and village cock-fights as a means to making some shit load of money or accruing to oneself enormous power. Both Murdoch and Benedict decry elitism (that's what essentially Benedict argues in that passage quoted above) but essentially both of them are trying to impose on a society a form of elitism — their own. You "simple people" and "little people" will follow my agenda — my interpretation of what God wants or, in Murdoch's case, what life is all about.

In both their cases I would argue society at large is today reining them in. Their "empires" are in a profound state of disintegration and collapse. They've both read "the script" the wrong way.

We're still left with the problem though — the perennial problem that has engaged the best human minds since humankind climbed out of the first embryo — what is the correct way to read the script?

Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]