(aka Bike) Part 1397 by Angharad Copyright © 2011 Angharad
All Rights Reserved. |
 |
I sat with Trish for a while until I recovered my composure enough to face the others.
“Why don’t you believe in God, Mummy?” she asked me.
“I don’t know if you’d understand my answer, sweetheart, and I’m not patronising you, it’s simply that you haven’t enough life experience to understand where I’m coming from.”
“I’ll do my best, Mummy.”
“I know you will.” I paused while I tried to express what I assumed would be a very complex argument. In the end I said, “Okay, the essence is, there is no scientifically testable evidence for the existence of God. There is no logical basis for the existence of God. The only people who believe are those who are making an emotional statement, it isn’t based on rationale, it’s based on faith–and that may or may not have formed because of an emotional experience.
“I’m not knocking other people’s experience or even their belief–that’s up to them, but there is nothing there which presses my buttons, so I have to go with my disbelief or agnosticism. I don’t know, which is the difference between me and believers. They claim to know–I claim not to know.”
“So if you’d met God or Jesus or someone, you’d believe?”
“Um–probably not.”
“Why not, wouldn’t that prove it for you?”
“No, because the mind can play tricks on us. Many people who claim visions and such were probably having some sort of emotional experience already, and their minds might have brought in whatever they experienced to make them feel better. A delusional experience, or even a dream. But we each have different standards of proof. Mine happens to require scientific standards of evidence, most people don’t.”
“Don’t scientists believe in God, then?”
“Oh yeah, loads do, Gramps does–but I don’t. I had bad experiences when I was younger through religion, so maybe my view is a trifle jaundiced. If you want to believe–you carry on, but don’t expect me to change because of it–I won’t without evidence.”
She looked perplexed. “I love you, Mummy, and I think you’re very clever. Sister Maria is also very clever, but she believes in God.”
“Which as I said is her prerogative, that she does doesn’t mean she’s right, neither does it mean she’s wrong any more than it proves my argument one way or the other. I mean do you believe in Father Christmas?”
“Only if it means I get lots of presents,” she chuckled.
“Well yes, I can see that as reasoning however ill founded it is. But that’s the same reason some people believe in God.”
“So they get lots of presents?” she looked bewildered.
“Of a sort–first, it means they’re not alone, they have their god; second, they believe in some form of life after death despite there being no evidence to support it. So, worship your god and you get to heaven instead of hell where all the unbelievers go.”
“Yes, you don’t want to go to hell, do you, Mummy.”
“I don’t believe there is a heaven or hell, so how can I go to them?”
“What if you’re wrong?”
“What if I’m right? What happens to all the people who believed in heaven and find there isn’t one?”
“They’ll be very disappointed, won’t they?”
“No, they’ll be very dead.”
“But they’ll know won’t they?”
“I er doubt it, because brain function ceases quite quickly once you die.”
“But what about all those people’s experiences an’ Jesus told ‘em he’d give them everlasting life an’ things.”
“If that’s your evidence, it wouldn’t last for long. There is no evidence there ever was a Jesus.”
“But everyone knows he lived.”
“Same as Father Christmas–you ever seen him?”
“Um, no.” She paused, “What about the Gospels? They saw Jesus.”
“No they didn’t, they were written years afterwards, some longer after than others.”
“What about St Peter, he met Jesus.”
“And he wrote a Gospel–he was an uneducated fisherman–probably couldn’t read or write.”
“Maybe God helped him.”
“Maybe he didn’t.”
“I don’t like arguing with you, Mummy, you’re too clever.”
“No, I’m more experienced. Like I said earlier, you either believe or you don’t. You could bring the Pope in here and he wouldn’t be able to convince me in a million years. He’d be able to convince me that he believed, but I doubt he’d find anything acceptable to me.”
“I don’t know what to think, Mummy.”
“It doesn’t matter, sweetheart, what matters is how you live. There are lots of people who have a religion and act like monsters, and there are some who act like saints. The same goes for we unbelievers too, some of us are nice some aren’t.
“If believing helps you to live responsibly, and to care about others–then it’s good. If it means you act irresponsibly or judgementally, then that isn’t good. So, I think it’s how you live that matters–not if there is or isn’t a God, unless that belief helps you to live responsibly.”
“Um–I don’t know what to think.”
“Just listen and read things as you go along and try and understand your experiences as informing how you live, and possibly what you believe. It’s a free country, so if you do or don’t believe is acceptable–it wasn’t always so, and isn’t in some countries today. Then again, some countries banned religion as well, which is also wrong. We should be free to choose what we believe, in the same way we should be free to choose who we are and what gender represents that best–or even none at all.”
“How can people be no gender, Mummy, aren’t we all boys or girls?”
“No, some of us are uncomfortable in both the established genders, they don’t feel themselves to be male or female rather they feel they are neither.”
“That’s weird, Mummy.”
“For you, but they might feel the same about you embracing femaleness.”
“But I am, female.”
“I know, sweetheart, I know–what I’m trying to say, is there are some people who don’t agree with you and prefer to remain genderless.”
“I don’t like that.”
“I’m not very comfortable with it either, but in order to claim acceptance we have to accept others providing they accept us. It’s being responsible for what you feel and consequently what you think, say or do. And if the most that some genderless person does is to make me think about things which are outside my comfort zone, then I have to accept them and deal with my discomfort.”
“I don’t want to think about that, Mummy, it’s too unpleasant.”
“But you see, years ago people were made to be male or female, it’s still the predominant system, but it isn’t enough to encompass all the various groups we have now. Some probably have greater validity than others, but we have to at least accept them if we want to be recognised ourselves.”
“But you look like a lady.”
“So can a drag artist, but he’s still a man, not a woman.”
“You breast feed.”
“I believe that can be arranged for men to do as well with the right hormones.”
“Did you have hormones, then?”
“Not really, no; it sort of just happened to me–psychosomatic, I expect.”
“Unless God did it.”
“Perhaps, but I don’t think I’m very happy with that argument.”
“Maybe it was the blue light, so you can make Auntie Stella’s boobs work, too.”
“I don’t think it’s that easy, Trish, goodness look at the time–I think I’d better dash out and get some fish and chips.”
“Oh yes please, Mummy, I love them.”
Comments
long philosophical discussion
with a brilliant six year old.
But really - I wish Cathy would think more about what the blue light she claims to hate has done for her and her family. How many would even be alive if Cathy hadn't been able to use that unique ability ot help them? Embrace it Cathy, your're a scientist - experiment with it. Learn it's capabilities and limits. Stop the emotional response and use your brain!
There aren't many households...
...where parents would engage in a long, philosophical discussion with their seven year old child (Trish was born on 25th March 2004 - the date was given in episode 942), let alone dig themselves into a hole requiring distraction techniques to escape!
But as you commented, it's slightly jarring that Cathy appears to believe in Shekilah and the mystical nature of BLH during her dream conversations, but stubbonly refuses to believe in the supernatural when awake. She claims to be agnostic, but she appears to be more in the "Doubting Thomas" camp - refuse to believe unless it can be scientifically proven.
For BLH and Shekilah, she doesn't necessarily need to believe in a deity - just a willingness to accept the unexplainable, and come to the realisation that you don't have to know how everything works.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't...
As the right side of the brain controls the left side of the body, then only left-handers are in their right mind!
I wish Cathy would suggest that Trish
study "Mythology." Of course she could point out that what we consider myths now were once the stories describing the people's religions. In fact, their bible. I think you come to view religion in a new light when you look at it as just another set of myths supplanting or building on the various sets that came before.
Christianity in particular...
...was very good at appropriating and repurposing festivals / celebrations derived from local cultures as it spread - which was probably one of the main reasons for its success. Instead of stopping locals from celebrating festivals, hijack them and give them new meanings.
Mythology texts might come in useful for Trish - KS 3 science texts could also be handy, as would basic guides to theology.
Heck, why not go a stage further and introduce her to the Simple English Wikipedia :)
Then again on the science front, be very wary if she asks for some aluminium powder, a magnesium ribbon, and a box of matches, then heads out to a rusty outbuilding... :)
There are 10 kinds of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't...
As the right side of the brain controls the left side of the body, then only left-handers are in their right mind!
That's a DIFFICULT...
Thant's a difficult discussion, no matter who it's with. When between two people who genuinely want to exchange ideas, it's possible to reach a mutual understanding of the other position. Otherwise, it's likely to end up with frustration (at least) and more likely angst and even anger on one or the other side.
Thanks,
Anne
There's a lot in the world ...
... we already take on faith. I've never been to Nepal, or Sweden, or Iraq. But a lot of people tell me these places exist, and show me pictures of places they CLAIM to be these places. I have to trust they're telling me the truth, or take it on faith that they would have no reason to lie to me. If i insisted on scientific proof of every aspect of my daily life in order to believe in it, I'd spend every waking moment corroborating the things I take for granted every day. That would include every story from every news organization on the planet. And let's not get started on how much of what's posted on the Internet is blatantly untrue or twisted into a lie by folks who just want to make a point, and to hell with what's really going on.
Cathy's being a bit narrow-minded about the existence of God or anything outside of what she considers the rational universe, even though she has more than enough evidence of the supernatural in the form of the blue light and the things she herself has done with it. As a scientist, her own experiences alone should make her question all her assumptions about the purely scientific nature of the universe. And, as a scientist, she should be testing the blue light, determining what energy it uses (if it's something measurable by today's instrumentation) and finding out what, if any, limitations it might possess.
As Heinlein once said, "There is no proof of life after death. On the other hand there is no proof against it either. Soon enough you will know. So why worry about it?" But Cathy has proof that the universe is not tied as solidly to the scientific method as she once believed. When faced with a miracle in progress, a true scientist wouldn't ignore it as inconvenient -- she'd measure it and weigh it and do everything she could to figure out whether it WAS supernatural, or just a part of nature science hadn't bumped into yet.
So in a way, Cathy is failing both as a scientist AND as a conduit for an arrogant goddess. Thank goodness she's such a good Mom! *grin*
Randa
I don't know if I'd go that far...
I too have never been to Nepal, but Nepal behaves exactly like other real places I've encountered over the years. It appears fairly regularly in news stories, upon maps, in atlases, there's a local community of people who claim to be Nepalese, and Nepalese restaurants quite near my home. I can legitimately believe (as a working hypothesis at least) that Nepal exists, and indeed all the evidence I'm aware of points to its reality.
There are many putative "places" that don't behave like that at all, and a scientist is expected to be skeptical of such claims.
The "evidence" Cathy has is not objective at all, but is in fact highly subjective. Some people see a blue light; the great majority don't. That very fact puts it beyond the reach of science. No matter what she deduces, she can't expose it to peer review because her results are inherently impossible to reproduce and untestable. These are exactly the hallmarks of personal belief. I may *believe* that clicking my heels together three times will magically transport me to Kansas, but I've *been* to Kansas and have no desire to return, so am unlikely to try the experiment. Most people don't believe this at all, and I'm sure that at least some have tried the experiment and failed, probably after having seen the film "The Wizard of Oz" in the cinema. I may *believe* that the film makes a compelling case for the truth of my hypothesis, but am unwilling to go through the process of experiment and peer review, so it doesn't at all matter what I believe.
Cathy is in a difficult position, because a public claim to be a conduit of supernatural forces (whatever they are) would destroy her credibility as a scientist. Where should she "draw the line?" The problem with all such claims of "objective" neutrality is that there's almost always a hidden agenda. "Of course," we can "believe" in (let's say) the Egyptian Goddess Sekhmet, but the Tooth Fairy, Wishing Wells, and the Last Unicorn are beyond the Pale. Once we accept (and attempt to test) any of these hypotheses, they all fail on the same criteria. The results are almost guaranteed either to indicate failure or to vary in random ways.
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
Ah, but there's the rub ...
... since she often has to go to great pains to get witnesses to shut up about what she's seen. The evidence Cathy has is completely objective, because it happened in the real world, and others saw it happen. It's not just her own subjective experience to put on the scale. There is physical evidence that she has cured people -- there are before and after X-rays, test results, incurable diseases fixed in hours or even minutes with medical evidence that they were there, and then gone. There are disbelieving physicians -- honest, scientifically minded individuals who have seen what she has done, and even asked her to do it again.
She doesn't want to make a public claim about any of this, and of course she doesn't have to. But as a scientist, entirely for the sake of her own scientific curiosity, she could bring in a few trustworthy colleagues to test this phenomenon. She can't make it work on command, but she could wear a monitoring device so that when it does choose to function, she can get some usable data. Isn't she the least bit curious? As a scientist, to be a part of something like this? It strains credibility that she shouldn't want to learn more about it. That's what scientists do, after all. And I know, if i were in Cathy's shoes and the wielder of a power clearly outside of the realm of what science believed was possible, I would examine it in every way I could, with every scientific device I could scrounge up. Not for the world to know or accept, since proving it to everyone would turn my life into a living Hell. But as a scientist, my goal would always be to KNOW - and she's not even trying.
And what if somehow, she discovers a way to use science to recreate it? Imagine healing on demand, in every hospital on the world. But instead, she ignores it and wants it to go away. It's just a puzzle to me. I know scientists, and every one of them would be chomping at the bit to take a shot at understanding this.
As for the existence of Nepal, yes, I can believe in it as a working hypothesis, since the effort required to create the hoax might be a bit much. I'll take the leap of faith that lets me believe in something I've never seen. On the other hand, there exist in the world great numbers of people (probably well in excess of the population of Nepal) who believe to have had some contact with God (or an emissary). So if I'm counting on the testimony of others that anyplace I haven't seen is real, or anything I haven't actually experienced exists, I still don't have any real proof that Nepal exists, any more than I have real proof that God does. Just the words of some folks who believe they are Nepalese, or to claim to have seen it.
And as for the Tooth Fairy, Wishing Wells, and the Last Unicorn? Since I don't claim to know everything about everything, I'm going to acknowledge the possibility that fairies, wishing wells, and unicorns might exist, as unlikely as they may seem. After all, to do anything else would be pure hubris on my part, since it would set me up as the arbiter for what's real and what isn't -- and I'm way too insecure to pull THAT off! *grin*
Randa
In this matter we see eye to eye
Cathy is being arrogant and presumptive to claim she knows something does not exist which by its very nature is defined as something that is unknowable.
She is her own worst enemy. However, crucially, why is Shekinah deliberately suppressing Cathy's memories of her visits?
And a double YES that she is failing as a scientist as she is not performing scientific experiments with blue light. Clearly, whether she wants to admit it to herself, she does not want to be proven wrong. She is wimping out on the possibility that she would have to radically change her world view. In doing so she fears she will have no control over her life as there would be something higher. She wants to think that all her decisions are hers and her destiny is her own.
De Nile is not merely a river in Egypt.
Kim
big difference between accepting
claims that Nepal exists and believing claims that there are invisible, all-knowing supernatural beings controlling your destiny. Even Cathy's goddess is showing more of the human characteristics of the ancient roman and greek gods than the complete separation and coldness of the christian god.
Is it really?
I really debated posting this and I know that kind of uncertainty is usually a great big sign saying "bad idea, don't reply". Discussions of faith or religion rarely remain polite on the internet and I don't want to be the one that stirs the pot so to speak. However, given that this discussion is central to this part of the story, I'm gonna speak my mind with the hope that it's understood that it's said without the intent or desire to offend.
Is it really that big a difference? Aside from knowing we exist in our own minds ("I think therefore I am"), do we truly know our senses portray an accurate account of the world around us? Some Christians would say they've experienced God (presence/miracles/etc) with the same certainty that they've experienced a sunrise or that they believe we've put a man on the moon (stupid REM song is stuck in my head now). There is no objective proof that God exists and there isn't any objective evidence that he doesn't, and I suspect there never will be in either case. Belief or disbelief is a choice. Likewise, how we perceive God (or don't) is a choice. One person may see God as aloof and yet controlling, the clockmaker that set his creation into motion and walks away. Another may say they see and feel God in everything they see or do. Which is right? Maybe neither, maybe both.
Bringing it back to the story a bit, Cathy's experiences (ignoring her dreams) would tend to suggest something beyond man is taking a interest in her, but she continually denies the possibility. Between her own biases (negative experiences with her parents' church, etc) and her stubborn refusal to consider that God might be different from the way she has defined him (and she does have a very limited and limiting definition), she effectively puts herself in a strange and somewhat irrational position. She rails against believing in something that she doesn't understand, but makes little or no attempt to try to understand it.
*sigh*... I'm tired and I'm not even sure what I'm trying to say at this point, so I'm gonna stop now.
ps. Love that you have the guts to take the story in this direction and your use of Trish as a sort of foil for Cathy.
That's true
I have been to Nepal, at least that's where they said I was when I got out of the aeroplane in what was (allegedly) Kathmandu. However I've never been to California but I'm quite sure it exists because it's easily verifiable ... the existence of god isn't. I have faith in lots of things, like (say) Ohm's Law but they're all things that are verifiable if I had time; Which particular god do you believe in? There's a lot to choose from.
Having said that, if I had Cathy's experiences with strange blue lights and mysterious beings I might be more inclined to believe in the supernatural. Unfortunately, it's all a figment of Ang's vivid imagination and written down to delight her readers.
Anyway, I'll have the definitive answer on the afterlife in just a few years - not long to go now. According to the bible I'm on borrowed time already :) I'll let you know.
Robi
It's a rough conversation!
I have had that conversation with both my daughters, and it is not very fun at all!! They wanted to know why I never went to church with them. :) I did not want to force my beliefs on them at all. Kind of weird how they both ended up!! One believes there is a god and one does not. I might of changed my mind if I had Cathy's blue light. :)
Easy As Falling Off A Bike pt 1397
Quite a discussion. Wonder what her Blue Light will think about it?
May Your Light Forever Shine
May Your Light Forever Shine
I should keep my mouth.....
Well against my better judgement here is my unwashed opinion. Cathy is hiding behind being a cynic to protect her soft parts from all of the crap laid upon her
as a child. By using the arguments she is using the monsters stay under the bed and out of her head. Having to incorporate even the positive aspect of the Goddess she opens her interior to the possibility that all of what was told, and done to her was true and she has an appointment with hell when she dies. Science is also black and white like her parents faith. Wisdom tells us that there is much more to life and there is many shades and colors that exist. In reality the universe is not made that poorly. Cathy must step up and accept there are things we can not measure but there it is awaiting to be explained or accepted as it is for the beauty of its self, like the blue light.
The only bad question is the one not asked.
The only bad question is the one not asked.
Religeon
This is a story, so I take it with a grain of salt. I do believe there is more than we can see and measure, but accept that is a hypothesis that I will get to test someday, along with everyone else. My vision of God is s/he is not petty, quite the contrary. Disinterested perhaps, but not petty.
I am still enjoying this story enormously. I write comments because Angharad and maybe 3 other people will read this, and it is my way of thanking Angharad for her work.
what matters is how you live
As Angharad writes in the story: “… what matters is how you live”. It matters if you are a good person , the “leave the world a better place then how you found it” kind of good person.
If you get that by being agnostic, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddist, Pastafarian or if you throw some mud at the wall every Wednesday evening an say “Hail to the great Smurf”. How you get to be a good person is your personal preference, do what works for you.
As probably countless wise people have said in similar words about explaining their holy books (I quote R. Hillel) “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn”
Anne Margarete