Peter
Hart (GB)
There is a certain sense in which this question
of questions — which inevitably admits of no certain answer — has become frayed
at the edges. Or at least we may say that a considerable degree of boredom sets
in as soon as we realise that the only certainty is that there is no certainty,
and that not a single proof exists. I mean, you might as well
tell a child that God lives in the attic. And, when she consistently reports to
her mother that every time she has climbed into the attic and looked around it
is empty, what will her mother say? ‘Ah, my dear, you must believe in
God.’ Well, it will hardly wash. The attic will remain as empty as any church
in the small hours, and the girl may well begin to think that her mother has
taken leave of her senses. Worse, she too may take up worship of the ‘God of
the attic’. Does that sound frivolous? Well, ‘Staggering and terrible is the
power of the human mind to invent the supernatural: still more startling its
power to believe in what it has invented.’ (John Cowper Powys, In Spite of.)
Well, we have had enough of the super–subtle
arguments of the philosophers and the theologians: they play by the rules, and
for the most part ignore the highly inconvenient questions that children tend
to ask in the playground, (and why should we not start from ground
level?). ‘Well, where’s ’e [God] live then? I ain’t never seen ‘im.’
‘What’s ‘e do all day?’ And then, at sixth form college: ‘So you say that God
watches us all day. That’s so not cool — what a pervert and voyeur!’ A few
months ago there was a bright yellow poster on a full–sized hoarding on the
north side of Hills Road Railway Bridge. The wording was something along the
lines of Jesus came to save us from our sins. I happened one day to be
on the top of a bus, sitting next to some students from Hills Road Sixth Form
College. They looked at this poster with bemusement — as something quite
irrelevant to their lives, and strictly beyond their comprehension. I drily
remarked to them that I ‘hadn’t seen him [Jesus] around for some time.’ They
cracked up with healthy laughter...
But, in all seriousness, we should ask
ourselves: ‘Quite what the point was in creating a planet — such as the earth —
and then populating it with humans simply [sic] to see how they behaved
towards one another in the somewhat bizarre conditions in which they find
themselves placed?’ Even had it pleased such a supernatural being to create a
world devoid of evil and suffering, we might still put it to ourselves: ‘What exactly
would be His/Her/Its purpose in doing so?’ Admittedly, this would be a very
considerable improvement on the prevailing conditions — to put it mildly — yet
it would still seem to be the strangest possible exercise. And then to go to
such immense trouble: some 4.6 thousand million years of development, before
the appearance of humans sufficiently intelligent to praise Him/Her/It for the
original act of creation! I begin to think that the signal inefficiency of this
process is perhaps the cause of the eternal shtoom that God keeps.
On the other hand, I ask myself, could it be that He/She/It has died of the
sheer boredom of omniscience: the indescribable ennui of living a
life in which there is not a single aspect of drama or
wonder. Not to mention the sheer drudgery of monitoring the every act and
thought of millions of humans (logically impossible, even for God, by the way),
most of which — by comparison to the supernatural vision of God — must seem
unendurably petty and monotonous. God, what a life! Situation Vacant, most
likely…
Endnote from Xenophanes of
Colophon, flourished circa 530 BCE
Indeed, there never has been nor will there ever be a man
Who knows the truth about the gods and all the matters of which I speak.
For even if one should happen to speak what is the case especially well,
Still he would not know it…
Xenophanes Translation by Robin
Waterfield, from his book The first Philosophers, Oxford (2000)
NOTE Apparently Xenophanes was
essentially a believer in a single god. However, he seems to have envisaged a
kind of irreducible ‘one’: something along the line of Plotinus’ beliefs.
Whatever that might precisely mean, it is a decided rejection of polytheism and
of gods with human characteristics.
We are not made in God’s image; we have made God in our own (idealised)
image. And try as any of us might we cannot shift this image from our minds:
Michelangelo’s mighty father figure — whose will is inscrutable, and from whom
we have never heard a single word.
***
Thanks to Contemporary Literary Horizon, Bucharest, Romania.
Peter Hart about himself:
I’m not sure I can write anything that
will give anybody the remotest idea of what I am like! For example, I went to
Hastings School of Art in 1959 at the age of 15, but this fact tells you
nothing about the atmosphere of that institution. Like most people who go to
art schools, I never did anything professionally related to the subject. After
working as a security guard, a hospital porter, and a hospital floor cleaner, I
started working in a bookshop. I then worked as a bookseller until retirement,
and now work two days a week on the computer records of the Children’s
Intensive Care Unit at Addenbrookes, Cambridge, UK. In other words, back to
hospital work!
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen