Reflections: Matters of Faith

Marshall has been struggling with questions on belief, faith and religion. He is a vulnerable and precocious teenager who explores several forms of faith to forget and make peace with the trauma of watching his close friend die before his eyes. He seems to have found the perfect girl-friend; a staunch fundamentalist who promises to help him realize the miracles of Faith. Marshall couldn’t have been more proud as he brings his questionable girl-friend Ada, to meet his family during Spring-break. Marshall’s dad seems to abhor religion and its rudimentary aspects and views Marshall’s ways with concern and skepticism. His mom tries to be the open-minded scholar, who lets her son explore options as part of an intellectual pursuit. His sister Megan is an easily swayed girl, who is severely allergy-prone and is on the cusp of being a teenager. Ada, the vegetarian, the organic-whole-food-eating, medical-intervention-hating, God-loving girl, convinces Megan to eat a cookie with a few wisps of peanuts to strengthen her immunity. She regards this as a test of faith, believing God to cure Megan of her ailment. As Marshall watches with fear, faith and horror, Megan plummets into a dangerous coma, shaking the foundations of his family and making the question of what exactly is Faith loom large.

Just a few snippets of the book’s synopsis were enough to make me hunt this book down. The angst of understanding what is Faith, and if it can exist independent of Religion, frames the story of my life, as I’m sure it does most lives. I thought the plot had all the setting - a confused boy wondering which faith to resort to even before realizing what he is searching for, an open-minded, all embracing mother, a skeptical father, a fanatic girl practising almost-barbaric things in the name of Faith, a strict Christian grandmother who believes God talks to her, and a young girl whose life depends on faith; the question is, which form of faith. To some extent, the story and the writing did analyze the different forms of faith and concludes with a reasonable explanation of what forms the core of Faith and Hope. But for the most part, I felt there wasn’t enough content with a more rigorous and thoughtful analysis on the subject - especially with the characters and the story screaming with so much potential. It could also just be due to my over-critical nature on this subject. After so many years of mulling this in my head and discussing with people, I have seen every perspective possible (or so I believe), but I just haven’t figured out what sense to make of it all. And perhaps expecting a book of fiction to wrap it all up for me is unrealistic!

The writing was quite mellow and touches on the most elusive parts of our emotions. But I also thought it meandered a bit, wallowing into details that didn’t contribute to the story. Faith wasn’t explicitly discussed except at the beginning and the end. The meat of the book was on the turmoil the family goes through and how they pull together the reins of their careening lives to reach some semblance of sanity and stability. Perhaps this ability to reach acceptance and stability has to do with the innate strength we have, to continue hoping for the best and having faith in ourselves and our attempts. Religion and prayers help to outwardly gain and manifest this strength and comfort. Rituals are guiding steps to those who fumble with finding this well of reserve within themselves. But misconstrue the rituals and take them too far from the realm of rationality and even humanity, and everything tumbles down. It’s a fine line to walk between faith and fanaticism. As discussed multiple times before, faith needs to rest on some modicum of rationality.

In all, it was a contemplative book that muffles the weight of the subject with its delicate prose.

Reflections: Ever

Fantasy tales serve as Chicken Soups for my Soul. They go down deliciously warm, soothing the chills and comforting the little girl inside me with their liberal doze of syrupy antidote; an antidote that quells the afflictions of reality. There exist no Zen principles to assuage the little girl as does a fantasy tale of magic, and miracles and most importantly, happy endings. Perhaps I'm just a recluse seeking refuge outside of reality, but sometimes, that seems to be the only cure to bolster faith. However, regardless of any deeper reason, I don't think I can ever outgrow such enchanted stories. Ever, is an endearing children's fantasy, which I would have probably relished twice as much if only I'd flown back to my childhood. Always one for mythology and stories centering Gods and mortals, this book brought me back in touch with the ten-year-old who sincerely believed in Magic.

Olus, the God of the Winds is a lonely young man earnestly flying across the skies searching for someone who would be his friend and companion instead of revering or fearing him. His parents repeatedly warn him against getting entangled with mortals, whom they allude to as soap-bubbles, due to their evanescent existence. Inevitably, Olus finds himself enraptured and in love with a pretty damsel, Kezi, whom he ardently follows, taking the role of her guardian angel. Due to the twisted mix of a debt and a careless oath pledged to the believed omnipotent and omnipresent God Admat, Kezi is forced to offer her life as a sacrifice to Admat. Olus is stricken with grief and avenges to save Kezi. As Olus begins to get much closer to Kezi, she discovers his existence and falls in love with his valiant gallantry. Together, Olus and Kezi try to resolve their conundrum. The only rope of hope is for Kezi to defy her fate and turn immortal so as to evade death and lead an eternal life with Olus.

Most fantasy books are woven with subtle themes on life, and the truths we try to seek, and this book is no exception. It is interlaced with an under current that explores the meaning of fate, destiny, and God. When Kezi realizes that Olus is also a God, she grapples with herself to define her belief in Admat, the all-knowing, all-powerful, all-pervading God, when Olus, another God doesn't even know who Admat is. It's a clever comparison of invented religions and Gods, versus the forces of Nature, who are in a more concrete sense the Gods who rule us mortals. The book also creates a nice metaphor to signify what it means to grieve, lose ourselves and fall into our own created depths of sadness and hopelessness. But Levine packs her punch by infusing generous bouts of optimism, as Kezi walks against the chosen path of Fate and creates her own destiny by holding onto her armors - strong-will and faith. The God of Fate strews Olus and Kezi to face their darkest fears, and fight their toughest battles, in order to give them a chance to alter the course of their destiny. This is reminiscent of an adage that says that God puts people through the toughest tests to hone their mettle.

It is also interesting that the God of Fate himself reiterates, "Fate may be thwarted. I long for a happy outcome." Well, how sweet are these words that spill out of Fate's own mouth? It's befitting to reflect on this and on the meaning of faith, on this very day that professes miracles and merriness.

Reflections: The Summing Up

It's a bit of a challenge to categorize this book with an overarching label. Many might argue (including Maugham himself) if I called it a memoir. Simply put, the book is Somerset Maugham's wise reflections and thoughts on what he calls as - the pattern of his life. He sums up 60 years of his professional life with interesting interludes on his insights on life, the art of writing, philosophy, religion and human psychology.

I really looked forward to Maugham's revelations about himself for it's always interesting to learn about the person behind the creative mind. And I wasn't disappointed. While some critics might be disappointed at the absence of entertaining or controversial anecdotal personal details about Maugham, I readily welcomed this approach. I'm not exactly curious about overly personal details about anybody, and this is one of the first books that steps away from baring out one's personal life through sensational revelations, which somehow create the impression of more emotional connection with the reader (and ends up as a best seller). Instead Maugham bares out his entire mind, every nook and cranny of it, and to me that is far more of a revealing endeavor than through dramatic secrets from one's personal life. But that is not to say that he completely shies away from his personal life. Personal experiences do shape thoughts, and Maugham does divulge a few details, if only to further buttress his arguments.

Having lost his mother at a very early age and being in the custody of his rather unkind uncle, Maugham struggled through childhood. Added to this grim atmosphere, his severe stammering worsened his self-esteem. He entered medical school, for that was the most honorary educational pursuit for a young English gentleman at that time. With his keen observational perspicacity, his experience as a medical student and later as a doctor, helped him immensely in being a part of and in understanding the whole range of emotions humans are capable of. It was like peering into a kaleidoscope straight into the human psyche/soul. Having witnessed intense rejoice and love at the beginning of life, and finally the sheer despair, helplessness, suffering, fortitude, fear, pain and peace when life ends, Maugham sharpened his ability to understand human psychology and give life to his characters. In essence, he says that a writer can never create a character anywhere close to reality, unless the writer himself realizes those emotions and translates them into words. It's reasonable to say that the characters developed by a writer are just collages pasted from fragments of the writer's own personality, sometimes magnified in their dimension. He does acknowledge that his popular work, Of Human Bondage, is semi-autobiographical, for the exercise of writing was therapeutic in venting out his pain, resolving his haunting issues and moving on with his life.

Maugham calls his passion to write and read to be almost compulsive. He alludes to himself as an introvert, always restless to get to his books rather than be encumbered by the company of people. He wrote with an unstoppable force; yet he humbly shares the frustration and relentless rigor that he went through to perfect his skill. It's hard to imagine that a revered writer like him could ever go through such a period of meticulous learning and revision. One of the marks of a great man is this simple humility. He goes on to define the art of writing, drawing in examples of good writers, and the criteria that define stellar writing. In his sardonic manner, Maugham distinguishes good writing from pompous writing, wherein the writer merely tries to obscure their writing through convoluted sentences and fails at communicating. This discourse was extremely enlightening to me. He later shares his professional journey as a writer, starting from his simple plays to his major works. In all honesty, his opinions and dissecting arguments about the art of play-writing and the intricacies of the theater went right above my head. Still, I was able to gather a few interesting tid-bits.

Finally towards the end, Maugham sheds his insights on the philosophical and spiritual questions that he grappled with all through his life. Having been a doctor and seen so much pain and suffering, especially in the eyes of young children, Maugham resigned his faith in an all-merciful God who helps us move mountains just through our faith. He makes a balanced argument on faith, determinism, free-will, immortality, and Karma, and as the reader waits for his final concluding remarks, he makes a characteristic cynical statement to dismiss each argument as being unconvincing to him. Perhaps another mark of a wizened mind is knowing that we know very little about the mystic universe. He attributes our beliefs and quest to find meaning in our lives, to our ego. We humans engage in a search for understanding three basic elements in our lives - Truth, Beauty and Goodness. Maugham analytically puts forth his arguments on the intrinsic value (if at all) of these basic elements. He concludes that the beauty of life is that -"each should act according to his nature and his business". Very simple words, yet this was his philosophy in setting a pattern to his life.

Needless to say, Maugham's writing shines with his mastery over the language. His writing does get tedious and verbose at times, but perhaps I'm just a philistine coping with his superior writing style. The book is a huge learning experience on the art of writing, on how to craft expert sentences to convey one's thoughts, aside all the wonderful wisdom it holds.

Squaring the Circle

And the Lord spake unto the the philosopher, "I am the Lord, thy God, and I am all-powerful. There is nothing that you can say that can't be done!" And the philosopher spoke unto the Lord, "Ok, your mightiness. Turn everything that is blue, red and everything that is red, blue." The Lord spake, "Let there be color inversion!" And there was color inversion. The philosopher then spake unto the Lord, "You want to impress me: make a square circle!"The Lord spake, "Let there be square circle", and there was. But the philosopher protesteth, "That's not a square circle! That's a square!" The Lord grew angry, "If I say it's a circle, it's a circle. Watch your impertinence!" But the philosopher insisteth, "I didn't ask you to change the meaning of the word circle so it just means square. I wanted a genuinely square circle. Admit it - that's one thing you cannot do!" The Lord thought a short while, and then decided to answer by unleashing his mighty wrath on the philosopher. (Source: The Pig That Wants to be Eaten, Julian Baggini)

What a fitting coincidence to be discussing about square circles right after reading Flatland! Before engaging in any analysis on whether faith and rationality are indeed compatible, I couldn't completely get the logicality of the philosopher's request. It's like asking for dolpho-crocodiles, a creature that doesn't exist, and if it were to be brought into existence then we can envisage such a creature to have both physical and biological characteristics of a dolphin as well as a crocodile (a dolphin face with a crocodile's prickly thick skin, maybe). Or perhaps a unicorn - which is popularly the cross of a horse and a bird. Horses don't fly, that's their property, yet a horso-bird, aka unicorn, will fly due to the added characteristics of a bird. In a similar way, why didn't "God" just produce a new geometric figure called the square circle, which is nothing but the cross of a square as well as a circle? It can have the characteristics of both a square as well a circle, yet not being mutually exclusive.

Something like those above? I mean, fundamentally, I don't understand arguing about logicality of those shapes/attributes that don't even exist! And if such objects were to be invented, who is to set the rules of their properties?! Logicality to a great part is what we define and redefine over the years. A thousand years back it was illogical to expect to talk to people disconnected over thousands of miles. Now it's mere commonsense. And if we attributed God to be omnipotent then even the basic rules of nature can be changed, yet with basic rules of logic still holding true. If the laws of nature are changed such that one can walk on water, then all subsequent laws would change accordingly, leading to a redefinition of our perception. Or else nature wouldn't survive, or would it? Something like Harry Potter's world. Despite conjuring an imaginary fantasy land of wizards and magic (that are highly illogical to us) the rules and constraints of magic were beautifully and logically formed by the author, and with these as the foundation, the story was built logically. One can hardly argue that the story was illogical, when the rules of the land were set.

Anyway, the essence of the above excerpt is to question how rational faith can be. Does faith and belief in God still conform to rationality? I recall a nice paragraph from the book, Sophie's World. If we believe that humans are rational beings, if we believe that we reason and act on our thoughts, and that every creation and act around us is due to the result of some thought process, then there should be a thought emanating from some other mind, whose result is this universe and us. As part of rational thought, we humans need to find meaning and the causal nature of everything. According to us it is irrational to have something without a meaning or cause. Therefore the thought, of the logical belief in the existence of a higher spirit, force, God, sounds rational enough to me. Just because we haven't reached the state of conclusively proving the existence of this higher force through our current framework of intellect, (and limited dimensions in which we live) it doesn't necessarily mean that the faith is irrational. One doesn't have to be irrational to believe in God. Many times faith is just the precursor to a logical deduction. Many great scientists of the world would vouch for that.

Of course the common criticisms of irrationality that stem due to a claim of rational belief in God are - 1) why does God allow all this cruelty when he is all loving, 2) Why are people punished if God is all merciful, and is the cause of all our actions? etc. But don't we still try to logically defend and answer these questions to ourselves? We seek more logical beliefs and explanations to iron out the contradictions and fill in the gaps. It is perhaps at this point that the road forks - one path taken by the rationalists who try to rationally find answers whilst holding onto a faith, and the other path being taken by those who just believe in the existence of an explanation and look no further. Is one path more rational than the other? I'm inclined to think that the rationalists' path is obviously more rational, but it might just be my ignorance. Isn't a rationalist again trying to assuage his questions with more speculations, more beliefs, however logical they are contrived to be?

In the end, faith that exists without any reason or rationality as we presently define, seems to remain just a belief, whereas faith that is complemented with some sense of reason and the need to find rational explanations holds more promise to transform from mere faith to pure knowledge. In that regards, faith and rationality can be made compatible by our own sense of reason.