Quite obvious, it is not.
Apart from the fact that Pope Francis, humble and
gentle a man as he may be, nevertheless embodies doubtable world views and
stances, Catholicism (and, all considered, organized religion as such) has
anyway long lost its exclusive claim on common people’s faith. The heedless
hooray of some of the media and the papist fan pilgrimage may echo for a while,
but it is not the sheer idea of the Jewish-Christian God it is rebounding.
On the other side, enraged by a staging like the papal
election and of course even more by the countless incidents of child abuse,
radical atheists throw the baby out with the bath water and proclaim the ultimate
and definite end of God, blessed be Nietzsche.
The common folk, regardless still burdened with the
plights of living, and dying, is somewhat caught in the middle. It seems that
it is either faith and God, with a mind-suppressing system called church being
integral part of the package, or, as the other option, cold rationality providing
no comfort at all.
Again, it is not.
Quite unnoticed since subtle, both parties, the
dogmatic church people as well as the likewise dogmatic atheists, are playing
the same game. Said game is called “as if”, acting as if God was something that
could either be ontologically substantiated or, as the other extreme, something
that could be rationally disproven. This dubious battle has now been fought for
centuries, and wherever it strikes, common sense and everyday experience are its
first victims, a side-effect that seemingly pays.
Actually many humble scientists do claim that the idea
of god is something that needs not to be explained but rather to be experienced,
and they say so not although but because they may, say, be natural scientists. Likewise,
many churchmen may admit that while scripture provides a way of finding God
within our lives, it does not provide THE way and it does not literally
comprise the words of God. Voices like these usually dwindle in the boisterous
clash of dogmatic stances.
Anyway, theological ingenuity and philosophical subtleness
on both sides of this perpetual encounter, entertaining as they may be, do not contribute
too much to our everyday struggle. The Jewish-Christian ethic is still a mighty
foundation of our values, secularized as they may be today. Ignorantly
discarding them because we intellectually reject the package they come in won’t
do our society any good, in the same way that petrified hierarchies, idolatry
and stubborn denial of modernity do not serve the purpose. The cultural
heritage of Christianity and its values are not exclusive possessions of the
Vatican, the religious right in the US or any other group or institution
holding up the claim; they belong to each and every one who feels they do.
A more modern and helpful approach on faith and God
worth consideration may be a generalized idea of divineness which neglects both
extremes, an idea I daresay many people share in any case, just without being
explicitly clear on the fact they do. Avoiding material, ontological statements
on any assumed “nature” of God (which actually is, worth a footnote, the way
the Old Testament calls for), but still implying that being human is more than
just being. Such a position provides guidance for our quest for meaning while
neither forcing the individual outcome nor denying its purpose as such.
Paramount for understanding this approach is figuring
out the difference between faith and superstition, two concepts that have been
confused much too often. Throughout history, superstition used to be something organized
religion loathed while in the same way nurturing if not even embodying it. The
old Puritans, e.g., were fond of rooting out any kind of superstitious
behavior, while in doing so they accredited superstitious rituals with an
actual might they – being consistent at least in that point – feared a lot. To
put it short: If you consider witchcraft nonsense and humbug, you don’t burn
the witch out of fear she might put a spell on you. The same is true for the
Catholic Church which battles the seepage of old heathen rituals on its fringes
while at the same time it already constitutes the world’s main provider of
idolatry and root-abandoning ritualization. Nobody can blame atheists or
whatsoever rationalists for criticizing such practices, however they neglect
that these do not constitute the very core of faith.
So what exactly is the difference between faith and
superstition? Superstition is believing in supernatural forces interfering with
everyday life, faith is having trust in life without attaching childish
fantasies. Superstition fogs the mind and forces us into a dichotomy, harshly
separating our need for comfort and being one with existence from our intellectual
and empirical experience. Faith, on the other hand, deals with the unfathomable
by knowingly accepting the mystery of God’s ways. Superstition claims we have
to believe because it is true, faith becomes true because we choose to believe.
Superstition makes us passive and dependent, faith is demanding choices. Superstition
is plump and palpable, something we can easily have; faith is fragile and
abstract, something we must acquire by living and embodying it. Superstition is
seeing a new miracle every day; faith is seeing the miracle in every new day.
Once we have made friends with the idea that there are
no angels but us, that we are God’s hands here on earth, it doesn’t matter
whether we individually and silently embrace that insight or celebrate it with
others, or maybe even frame it with some baroque stuffing. Traditions, rites
and formal gestures are not the enemy of faith as long as we are reminded that
they are means of visualization and socialization. As far as traditions are
concerned, of course our Western heritage is not the sole source, but it is still
the one most people in the western world grew up with. Disgusted from churches
and mass religion as we may be, yet it is not mandatory to look to the East for
sources of faith. Of course a twist of Eastern philosophy is rewarding anyway,
but for an idea of faith rooted in its very soil, surrounded by the feasts most
of us in any case celebrate within the year’s circle, we need to reclaim the
concept of God that was taken from us by self-appointed authorities.
Time will show whether the old institutions, stewards
of traditions and places of visualization and celebration as they may be, are actually
willing to adopt for a more modern faith or whether they will be abandoned and
faith will become a solely individual matter – with both possibilities bearing
advantages and dangers all the same for our society. Only one thing remains
certain: As long as mankind persists, there will be faith, and it will go by many
names.
Prove all things, hold fast that which is good.
1Th 5:21 (King James Version)
