In his latest show, during the rules segment, Bill Maher stated "So, for myself and the other 15-20% of Americans who the majority call "non-believers," but who I call "rationalists," here is our religious test for office: if you believe in Judgment Day, I have to seriously question your judgment." Then Maher went on to define this position as "You're either a rationalist or you're not. And the good news is, a recent poll found 20% of adults under 30 say they are rationalists and have figured out that Santa Claus and Jesus are really the same guy."
While being a masterful comic, and hinting at half truths, Is Bill Mahers view rational?
I suppose we could start our journey from the stage of the theatre of the absurd. It is quite obviouse from a historical and a mythological view that Santa Claus and Jesus Christ are seperate entities. Hence we have our first distortion of logic, however it would appear that the statement was a metaphore. In this case we have actually created the symbology in Maher's view That Santa Claus is false, and that the belief in the divinity of Christ is false, and hence that they are related in this fashion.
Now while this is one view, there is another view, that will become more important as we continue. The spirit of Christmas is represented by Santa Claus, while our redemption is symbolized by Jesus Christ. As symbols, both statements evoke imagry to this extent, and so this statement is equally true with the first, which leads us back to Maher's comparison. While many reject Santa Claus as a literal entity, there is an acceptance nonetheless to the metaphorical essence of Santa Claus. The same comparison can be made to Christ.
At this point, an interesting connection can be drawn. Santa Claus, from a mythological view, visits our homes, delevering presents, or a lump of coal on the birthday of Christ. That is an remarkable parallel to the judgement day. And it is an important one.
Symbols exist because they tap into a universal consciousness. As such, many symbols, particularly ones coresponding to date relevance, have parallel signifigance. Hence, that there is a relationship between the symbology of Christ and Santa Claus is of no surprise.
While the mythological comparisons between Christ and Santa Claus are fascinating, it is time to look into the crux of the metaphysical delimna. This is the question of rationality and mysticism. At this point I should define these two viewpoints.
Rationality is based on the concept of causality, which is to say that things are related because of cause and effect.
Mysticism is based on the concept of synchronicity, which is to say that things are related because they share the same spiritual energy.
Now I would suggest that both are equally true.
The problem is that causality is percieved, while synchronicity is experienced. Hence it is easy to prove causality, while synchronicity is unprovable. Again, this statement is a half-truth. In reality, causality is equally unpovable. For cause and effect to be an absolute truth, it must always be true, and in the world of experience, there is only the probability that a cause will lead to an effect, because the world of experience is in constant flux. This is why things ultimately break down. There is always a monkey in the wrench.
And this is the crisis of rationality. As a carpenter I have been told to set a row of nails down every six inches, and it is not possible. One nail is 5 and 3/4 inches, the next 6 and 1/4. All within tolerance, and yet not precise. Such is the way with all things. The blue-print is precise, because it is designed on a-priori principle, where-as the reality is otherwise.
To this extent, we can say mathematics is as true to the world, as the world is true to mathematics.
And this is the problem with religion, and likewise, it is the problem with Maher's argument against religion. These arguments are based off of rationality. And it is to this end that I prefer spirituality to religion. For the flaw of religion, is in esscence the flaw of humanity.
It is Human nature to believe that which can be percieved. To this extent, we can hold the Bible in our hands. If we scratch the surface we can see the question of the divinity of Christ. That creates the obviouse question as to the acceptance or the non-acceptance of Christ as divine. For that matter, we can look at the Quran and find arguements as to why Christ is not divine. What is fascinating, is that both arguments are mirror images of one another. Both saying completely opposite views as to the divinity of Christ, and yet at the same time in agreement to the basic premise that Christ is the word of God.
Words are decieving, and yet a word is transpearant. And this becomes important, In the beginning was the word, not the words.
Religions define themselves through words, spirituality defines itself through the word, a single instance, in which all is made clear. It is the sound of one hand clapping.
And yet we hear all this clamor, this non-sensical debate as to whether Christ is divine, or not, as our defintion of religion, and our acceptance into paradise.
It doesn't matter. In fact, getting lost in the debate takes us further away from the truth.
And this is the crisis of rationality. There is no way to reason our way to God. Why? because, by rationality there is no truth. To be rational, one cannot either accept, or dismiss God, and this is the flaw in Maher's argument. He suggests that the dismissal of Christ as divine, is rational.
This view is as irrational as the view of religion that he suggests is irrational.
No comments:
Post a Comment