Punctum Saliens

This is a follow-up to my recent post No Christian should have a bank account or an IRA.

I started thinking about this and doing a little research and with the help of my trusty HP 15C calculator (which I swear is running on the same batteries since 1982) I’ve figured out the solution to all the world’s problems. Well, at least the monetary, hunger, and poverty problems.

The solution is … drum roll, please …

Do what Jesus tells you to do!

Imagine my surprise at the simplicity of it all. I mean, Christians are supposed to follow Jesus’ teachings, right? I mean that’s pretty much what the whole religion is based on, right? So, if Christians would just do what they are supposed to be doing in the first place then the world would be so much better. You can’t get any simpler than that. No extra work on anyone’s part. You gotta hand it to ol’ Jesus Christ. For being an uneducated carpenter he had a lot of foresight.

So, while I’m waiting for the Nobel Peace Prize commission to review my application and cut my check I’ll let you in on the details of the solution. Now admittedly, the numbers are approximate and some of my figures are a few years old but I do have other things to do than solve the world’s problems to the 17th decimal place and, in any case, you’ll see that it doesn’t make a whole lot of difference. So, here goes …

There are roughly 300 million people in the U.S. of which roughly 80% (or 240 million) are Christians. The average disposable income per capita in the U.S. is around $30,000. Now, the average disposable income is defined as “the income available to persons for spending or saving.” If you’re spending this disposable income it’s on things and according to Matthew 6:19 you are not supposed to do this:

Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal [Jesus Christ]

If you’re saving this disposable income it’s “for a rainy day” and according to Matthew 6:34 you are not supposed to do this either:

Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself [Jesus Christ]

And this is the real key to my solution and what makes it so attractive. Christians can solve the world’s problems without selling everything they own or leaving their family to join a convent or shaving their heads and taking vows of celibacy or anything as unpleasant as that. All they have to do is stop buying things and stop saving for retirement. But, as Jesus said, you don’t need to do those things anyway because He will take care of you.

OK, you say. Nice thought but what’s the bottom line?

Here it is … if every Christian really lived by Jesus’ teachings then Christians (and I’m only talking the Christians in the United States) would have $7,000,000,000,000 to help the world. That’s 7 trillion dollars! That’s 7 trillion dollars a year!

What could we do with $7 trillion a year? Let’s see …

• The national debt is around $8.7 trillion so in one year and about 3 months the country would be out of debt.
• To sponsor a child through Plan USA costs $24/month or $288/year. For $7 trillion, Christians could sponsor 20 billion children every year which basically means they could sponsor every single child on earth with a whole lot left over!
• There would be enough left over, in fact, for Christians to foot the bill so the U.S. could abide by the Kyoto Protocol and finally do something about all the pollution we create.

That would be an awesome start. Don’t you agree? And it costs so little! I’ll even kick in half of my Nobel Peace Prize award to get things started. OK?

I’m starting a series of posts motivated by the book Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects by Bertrand Russell (1957). I’ll tell you up front that I agree with some of what he says and disagree with some of what he says. I think some of his opinions are right on and others are ill-conceived, illogical, and totally ridiculous.

First from the Preface, written by Russell himself:

I think all the great religions of the world — Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, and Communism — both untrue and harmful. It is evident as a matter of logic that, since they disagree, not more than one of them can be true.

A classic argument. Interestingly enough, some Christians make the same claim and use it in their “proof” that Christianity is the only true religion. One oft used “proof” is the Blind Men and the Elephant analogy (also here). The claim is that everyone is totally wrong. Everyone, that is, except for the Christian citing the example and those in his camp who have the ability to somehow see the “real” truth. The problem is that he doesn’t place himself anywhere near the blind men or the elephant. He, apparently, has super powers that let him step out of the scenario, shed his blind fold, see the elephant as an elephant, and allow him to condemn all those poor, poor blind souls to hell for all of eternity. Sort of reminds me of Captain Kirk in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn when he admits to reprogramming the computers during the simulation test and, thereby, wins the unwinnable scenario. All too convenient, if you ask me.

Let me remind the gentle reader what we are discussing here. We are talking about God, Allah, Brahman, Atman, etc., etc., etc. We are talking about a being that creates entire universes by speaking. We are talking about a being that knows our innermost thoughts and feelings. We are talking about a being that is totally beyond our comprehension, our imagination. And yet one religion gets it right?

Let me use a contrived example to illustrate. You, me, and Bob are sitting around drinking some really, really good bourbon. Bob says, “I’m thinking of a number between 1 and a gazillion. Guess what it is.” You immediately shout out “42.” I immediately start screaming at you “You’re wrong! It’s not 42. How could it be 42? It’s 7427466391!” and begin flicking lit matches into your hair to simulate the eternal torment you will endure in hell because you are wrong.

That pretty much describes the situation. I can no more know what number Bob is really thinking of than can our elephant-seeing Christian really, truly, completely know God. And if he cannot really, truly, completely know God how can he say that someone else’s understanding of God is wrong?

Paul even backs me up in I Corinthians 13

9. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12. For now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

This is Paul talking. You know, St. Paul. The guy who spoke to Jesus — and Jesus spoke back! The guy who wrote a fair amount of the New Testament. He, St. Paul, said that “now I know in part.” Even St. Paul didn’t have all the answers; even he didn’t know what number Bob was thinking of. Is Zacharias really claiming that he knows more than St. Paul? If Paul only knew “in part,” then we, not having spoken with Jesus directly, can only know a fraction of an “in part” and that’s probably not a whole hell of a lot.

But what does this have to do with ol’ Bert? Russell seems to undervalue religion when he claims that conflicting religious ideas cannot both be right because he assumes that man can know god (in whatever form you want to picture god) completely enough that he is able to pass judgement on another idea of god. He also seems to overvalue man’s ability to “know”; if I don’t have the full picture and you don’t have the full picture then who’s to say that both our ideas are not two different aspects of the same, full picture?

For example, let’s assume that god is a cylinder and you and I, in our imperfect, limited, all-to-human knowledge can only see projections of god. I look at god and see a rectangle. You look at god from a different angle and see a circle. Are our two viewpoints necessarily mutually exclusive? Well, obviously not because god is neither a rectangle nor a circle — god is something beyond both our ideas.

In fact, the real answer is to combine our apparently-disjoint knowledge which would allow us all to refine our ideas of god. It’s like those SAT questions where you are given three projections of a three-dimensional object and have to pick the right shape. If you only have a single projection, there is no way you can get the right answer because you don’t see all the details of the object’s surface.

It seems to me that what we really need to do is take the most disparate religious ideas and try to fit them together for it is the disparity itself that tells us we are looking at very different parts of God or we are looking at God from very different angles. It also seems to me that the mystic religious traditions do exactly this. Mystic Christianity has a lot more in common with mystic Islam and mystic Judaism than the main-stream religions have in common with each other.