Читать книгу The Devil Wears Nada - Tripp York - Страница 6

That’s nonsense. I invented electricity. Ben Franklin is the Devil!

—Mama Boucher

“Be careful what you wish for,” cautioned Brother Ray, “you just might get it.” Brother Ray, whose name (along with a few others in this book) has been changed to protect him from possible evil repercussions, was dutifully concerned with the scope of my project. “Why on earth,” he asked, “would anyone in their right mind want to find him?”

I immediately recorded the first observation in my research: Satan, it seems, has testicles.

Before I could respond, he added, with a touch of baffled sincerity, “Good Lord boy, what’s wrong with you?”

I looked at this man who had lived a hard life of some sixty-plus years (and whose sideburns suggested a slight obsession with the King of Rock & Roll) and replied, “What’s wrong with me? Brother Ray, like so many other people on this rotating rock, I just want to find God.”

An occasion for nuance may be in order. I’m not claiming that some ontological personality referred to as Satan is God or is even a god. Despite the deification of Satan by religious people of various stripes, this was not my point. I have simply decided that my research should take a more indirect approach. So much of what passes for a person’s search for God tends to be located in one of two frameworks: personal experience or apologetic precision.

In regards to the former, it is important to note that many people across a variety of cultures, times, and places have stressed one-on-one experiences with something referred to as the divine. Of course, countless scholars have constructed countless theories for such a phenomenon. Regardless of their validity, or lack thereof, I have no interest in repeating such theories here. At this point it may simply be enough to point out that the biggest problem with this form of knowledge is the limitations of anything self-referential. Everyone’s personal experience is just that—his or her personal experience. How such an experience is helpful for me is never quite clear, as what makes something subjective is, well, its subjectivity.

We also run into a serious quandary if one’s faith in God is predicated on his or her personal experience. Such predication lacks any means of negotiating the differences between a Hindu’s experience with Shiva (or any of the other 329,999 gods), a Jew’s experience with YHWH, a Muslim’s experience with Allah, a Christian’s experience with Jesus, or an animist’s experience with river nymphs. Since I’m not an imperialist, I refuse to chalk all of these experiences up to the same thing. Though Western pluralists fancy themselves tolerant and inclusive in their suggestion that all religions are manifestations of the same reality, I can think of nothing more exclusivistic than the claim that Muslims, Christians, and Shintoists, for example, adore the same reality. Try telling that to any devout practitioners of these traditions and they will certainly not find such a claim to be tolerant, but exceedingly pretentious. After all, what lofty philosophical mountaintops would one need to occupy to make such a judgment? How would anyone possibly verify the truth of such a claim?

Getting back to one’s own subjective knowledge, let it be known that I know people whose personal experience reading a well-written comic book was enough for them to warrant belief in God. Granted, the works of Gaiman, Moore, Eisner, and Vaughn are quite good, but perhaps not that good. Speaking for myself, I have probably never been surer of the existence of God than when West Virginia University beat the University of Kentucky only to be thoroughly pummeled by the eventual champions of the NCAA Basketball Championship of 2010, the Duke University Blue Devils. This reconfirmed my suspicions about the existence of God from a previous experience when I was on Duke University’s campus in April of 2001. Again, for greatness is repetitive, we had just won the NCAA Basketball Championship, which not only proved the existence of God, but also God’s denominational affiliation—Methodist.

Indeed, the major flaw I see in people’s personal experiences (mine included) as the decider or arbiter in belief in a benevolent deity is that feeling good (or blessed) lends itself to Feuerbachian criticism. The eighteenth-century philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach argued that humans were not created in the image of God; rather, we created God in our image.1 Humans, Feuerbach argued, merely project their desires, needs, and wishes onto an imaginary deity that proceeds to fulfill such desires, needs, and wishes. One does not need to be an atheist to see the potential truth in such an argument. Historically, Christianity has rightly criticized the same thing and, to a point, agrees with Feuerbach. Many people’s understanding of God often coincides with the kind of deity they most desire. In this rubric, God, coincidentally, just happens to bless the kind of life we already wanted to live. God makes us feel good, and it makes us feel good that the God of all creation wants us to want what we already wanted. What a wonderful deity to be so concerned with our feeling good about our self-appointed lives! Of course, to paraphrase the religious psychologist William James, if merely “feeling good” could decide the authenticity of our truth claims, then drunkenness would be the supremely valid human experience. You will therefore have to forgive me for my reluctance to base my knowledge of God on your personal experiences.

In the case of the more apologetic believer in our midst—where knowledge of God comes, perhaps, from philosophical precision—I find even less hope. To speak crudely, the god of the philosophers is rarely the god of any of the so-called world religions. The god whose existence is proven and disproven by academicians is rarely the god anyone actually believes in. The god criticized in the cosmological argument or the god who “intelligently designed” the cosmos has little to nothing in common with, for example, the God of Jesus worshipped by Christians. What passes for proof and disproof seems to just miss the point altogether.

Take, for example, the argument from design: Even if you concede that the universe is far too complex to have evolved via adaptation and natural selection, and, therefore, you find it necessary to posit the existence of a creator, such a proof tells you nothing about the creator. What am I to worship—the Intelligent Designer? Well, what does that look like? Such a proof tells me nothing about the character of the deity proven to exist. It is the same thing with the cosmological argument. The cosmological argument claims that all things are contingent upon something else for its existence, yet if we assume a beginning in time then there must be one non-contingent being, and that one non-contingent being is God. Even if this were to convince an unbeliever that God exists (and arguments for the existence of God have the uncanny tendency to convince only those who need no convincing), this does not tell me anything about the non-contingent being proven to exist.

The Greek philosopher Aristotle referred to this non-contingent being as the Unmoved Mover. Well, that’s just great. How am I supposed to worship the Unmoved Mover? What shape or form would such worship take? Does the Unmoved Mover punish people for certain actions or reward others for other actions? Does the Unmoved Mover grow angry when I massacre my time, and brain cells, watching Days of Our Lives? Or, is the Unmoved Mover genuinely concerned with “Bo” and “Hope” finding true happiness? How would I possibly ever know?

The problem with such arguments is that if they do convince you of God’s existence they only convince you of what you already were going to be, or needed to be convinced of in the first place. Taken on their own terms, they tell you nothing about the kind of deity “proven” to exist. For that reason alone, I just cannot muster any interest in such arguments.

So, what am I attempting to do by saying I am looking for God by looking for Satan? Are the subjective experiences and the philosophical arguments for God so bad and uninteresting that I would be willing to confront the Prince of Lies (therein making my search paradoxically problematic) in order to learn of God’s existence?

Yes. I honestly think they are that bad and uninteresting.

I have spent quite a few years teaching at a private liberal arts university, as well as at a much larger public university, and have grown quite weary of how utterly predictable every argument, claim, and comment my students make about God turn out to be (no offense to past or present students—it’s not your fault). The god so often discussed and assumed by many of my students, taught to them by their parents, rabbis, imams, priests, preachers, politicians, and marketing consultants, is a god of banal platitudes who apparently exists for no other reason than to make them feel good about decisions they were already going to make. This god is a god who wants all of us to be wealthy and healthy and to find the perfect soul mate.

Pretty swell deity—albeit a thoroughly pagan one.

Of course, this should not be taken as criticism against the possible existence of God. It is not that at all. Rather, it’s because I truly hope that, if the God of Judaism, Islam, and/or Christianity is real, then such a God would have to be far more compelling than the trite and mawkish god I am informed—through the channels of whimsical personal experience and logical reasoning of others—exists. So you see, I am not challenging the existence of God, I am challenging the god thought to exist.

The Wager:

Why Tommy No Longer Works on the Docks

Perhaps that last comment belongs in a book that I will one day write. This is not that book. At least, I don’t think this is that book. What I wish to do is attempt to capitalize on a particular conversation held in one of my Introduction to Religious Studies courses that inspired me to search for Satan as a way of knowing God.

My class was working through some of the arguments I was previously alluding to (argument by design, cosmological argument, etc.), and we were criticizing not only the arguments for the existence of God, but also the arguments against the arguments for the existence of God. The class was moving in a manner that seemed almost pre-programmed.2 Then, a strange thing happened; something new began to develop between two of my more fervent students. They were discussing whether or not one could really know, and I mean know in the sense that I know I am typing these words on paper, that God exists. It was, at first, a polite conversation, but it suddenly took a turn for the unexpected. The believer refused to relent on the notion that one can know that God exists despite not being able to articulate how others can know as she knows. It was at this point that things became a little more interesting. I will attempt to paraphrase the conversation as best as my memory will allow. For the sake of anonymity, I will refer to the two students as Tommy and Gina (with heartfelt apologies to Bon Jovi):

Tommy: Do you believe in Satan?

Gina: Of course.

Tommy: Do you think you can prove the existence of Satan?

Gina: Well, I’m not sure why that would be necessary . . .

Tommy: I’m just wondering: if your proof of God’s existence is based on your experience with God then is it also necessary for you to experience Satan in order for you to know that Satan exists?

Gina: If you are suggesting that I have been possessed then I don’t appreciate such a . . . what did you call it Dr. York?

Professor (that’s me.): I think you are intimating that Tommy is attempting to engage in an ad hominem argument. That is an attack against the person as opposed to their argument. We agreed, at the beginning of class, that out of respect for one another we would avoid such attacks.

Gina: Right.

Tommy: No, that’s not what I’m doing. I was just asking how you can know that a supernatural being like Satan exists if in order to know that God exists you must have a personal experience with God.

Gina: Well, I know Satan exists because I know God exists.

Professor: A sort of knowledge via association?

Gina: Sure. If I believe that God exists then I have to believe the things God says, and Scripture makes it clear that Satan exists. It seems pretty obvious.

Tommy: It does to me, too. So, since we are incapable of proving, at least to my satisfaction, that God exists, do you think it’s possible to prove that Satan exists, therein requiring me, via association, as the good doctor put it, to believe in God? I mean, Christians are always warning one another to be on the lookout for the Devil, so if I had an experience with Satan, or if I were possessed by Satan, then I would have to believe in God, right?

Gina: You may be possessed for even thinking that way.

Professor: Now Gina, as quick and witty as that comment was, and everyone here knows how much I appreciate “quick and witty,” that was an engagement with the very tactic you were accusing Tommy of employing.

Tommy: Thanks Doc. Look, all I’m saying is that you Christians are seriously worried about Satan tempting you to do bad things, and possessing you, and all that, right?

Gina: Right.

Tommy: So, it must not be that difficult to come under Satan’s influence, right?

Gina: No . . . I don’t think so.

Tommy: Do you think Satan would come into my heart if I asked him to?

Gina (who hesitantly answers such an oft-putting question): Yes. But why would—

Tommy: Because then I would know! Isn’t that genius? Then I would know that God exists, because I know that Satan exists! It would so be worth it. Totally worth it. So, what do I have to do to have an experience with Satan?

Gina: I think you’re having one.

Professor: Gina.

Gina: Sorry. (This next comment is directed toward me.) It’s just that, the more I think about it, the more I believe I am quite fond of ad hominem arguments.

Professor: Actually, me too. I have always insisted that you should not be able to separate the argument from the person attempting to embody the argument, but for the sake of common courtesy, you are not allowed to use them. They must be saved for political campaigns and graduate school.

Gina: Fair enough. (Turning back to Tommy.) I don’t know. I’ve never tried to summon the Devil, but it seems that all you have to do is want him to rule your life and he will do it.

Tommy: So, what do I do, I mean, specifically?

Gina: I said “I don’t know.” How would I know? I guess just ask him to possess you and he won’t be able resist.

Tommy: Then I’ll do it. Fifty times a day for as long as it takes. Doc, can you schedule an exorcism if necessary?

Professor: Hold on a second. Let it be clear that I am neither approving nor condoning this experiment—.

Tommy: Oh, come on. I have the opportunity to know that God exists, and if God is who everyone says he is then he can rid the Devil from me and then I’m golden. I’m doing it. And then, when it doesn’t happen, when this demonic being that your tradition feels like it has to constantly pray to God in order to resist does not possess someone wanting to be possessed, then I will know that this is all nonsense. (Extending his hand to Gina.) Come on, shake on it. I’ll risk possession in order to know that what you claim to know is knowable. (He thinks about that for a second.) What did I just say? Was that right?

Professor: Sounded good. It was very poetic. Nicely done.

Tommy: Thanks. And if I don’t end up being possessed, you have to admit that I’m right, and no one can know whether or not God exists, and that actually this may be an argument against the existence of God. Deal?

Gina: No . . . no, wait, that’s crazy, because Satan knows why you’re doing it, and since Satan doesn’t want you to believe in God then he won’t make himself known to you.

Tommy: Let me get this straight: you can be possessed by Satan because you believe in God, but because I don’t believe in God I can’t be possessed by Satan? Sounds like you’re the one getting the raw end of the deal. (Touché Tommy, touché.)

Gina: No, you can be possessed . . . you can, all right? You just won’t be. I’m just saying that because of your reasons for it, Satan will not do anything to prove his existence.

Tommy: Oh, this is so typical. First you claim you have to beg to keep Satan away, but yet if I go looking for him he disappears. Maybe I should be an exorcist.

At this point the conversation fell into a stalemate. We reached an impasse by which neither student was capable of convincing the other of the superiority of their reasoning skills. If I had been keeping score I would have awarded Tommy the victory. Gina, I imagine, would protest, claiming that Tommy may have won this battle, but he would surely lose the war.

After a day or two I forgot about their argument. A few weeks went by and, for some reason, I suddenly remembered Tommy’s proposal. I asked him, outside of class, if he went through with it. He told me that he gave it a shot on the first night, but was called away on more pressing matters.

I think it had something to do with an Xbox 360.

Like most college students, his interest in thought experiments outside the classroom quickly dissipated. Perhaps that’s a good thing.

Maybe it was divine intervention.

Yet, the more I think about it, the more I am convinced it is not a half-bad idea (which means, admittedly, it is only a half-good idea). Not that I want to be possessed by the Devil, assuming such an entity exists, it is just the idea that with so much emphasis some religious traditions place on this creature’s ability to wreak havoc in the world, then perhaps there is something to Tommy’s wager. Perhaps traditional pursuits of God are not the most efficient. What if we went on a search for Satan in order to shed light on the existence, and, possibly, the character of God?

“So Brother Ray, that’s all I’m doing. That’s why I need you to help me come to terms with this Satan character.”

Appearing rather offended, he asked, “Well, why in the world would you think I would be of any help in that department?”

“I’m glad you asked,” I told him. “I was thinking that since your sermon, stellar by the way, mentioned Satan as many times as it mentioned Jesus—Jesus received seventy-eight honorable mentions, Satan ninety-six . . . give or take a few—I thought you could help me make a connection. What do you say?”

“Son,” stated a flabbergasted lamb-chopped Brother Ray, “I’m afraid you might already be under his influence.”

For some reason, I thought of Gina.

1. See Ludwig Feuerbach, trans. Alexander Loos, The Essence of Christianity (Amherst: Prometheus, 2004).

2. It’s inevitable. No matter how many times I cover this material, my so-called free-thinking and hyper-individualistic students unfailingly rehash the same old stale arguments.