Knowledge, Intellect, and Faith...

Arguments for God’s Existence

I have briefly outlined what are considered to be classical arguments for the existence of God. In the end, of course, God's existence does not depend on our capacity to see the point of an argument.  Kierkegaard felt that while reason and intellect attempt to prove God’s existence, God Himself is absolutely different and totally beyond our comprehension and beyond our language to describe. Hence, he called for what is known as a “leap of faith.” According to Kierkegaard there is ultimately no rational justification for the belief in eternal life and God's existence. One cannot “prove” God. There is a gap between the limits of intellect and infinite reality. Only a leap of faith can surmount the gap between reason and divinity.  Faith must be just that, and in that sense is “irrational.”   The embrace of the irrational is of course risky. We have heard the aphorism, “no risk, no gain.”  French Mathematician and thinker Blaise Pascal took on the problem of the risk involved in faith in his famous wager. Faith appears to be irrational. But what is the consequence of a life without faith? Pascal’s wager asks just this question. Pascal asks us to imagine that life itself is a wager.

Either God exists or he doesn’t. If God exists and we follow a life informed with faith our reward is eternal. If God exists and we don’t we stand to lose our immortal souls. If God doesn’t exist and we live a life of faith we are no worse off.  

If God doesn’t exist and we life a faithless life, then there is nothing gained and nothing lost. Imagine that you are a gambler. You step up to the table to stake your life on the odds. If you bet on God’s existence and act in faith you win eternal life. Some risk, but all gain.  

If you bet against God and he exists, you risk your life, and there is all loss: Eternal hell.

If you bet on God’s existence and he doesn’t exist, you lose nothing: Some risk, no gain.

Bet against God, discover he doesn’t exist, you lose nothing, you gain nothing. How do you bet? Pascal refuses to let you out of the wager.  You must bet. And the stake is your life. Pascal’s argument is not philosophical, nor truly theological. It is a broad challenge to thinkers who would live an ethical life, and there is no escaping the wager.   How do you bet?

No risk. No gain: God doesn’t exist, we have no faith. A neutral position. Bet your life. Get nothing. God doesn’t exist, but we have faith. All risk: we dedicate our lives and live ethically, but gain nothing. Our reward is living well. All risk, no gain. If God exists and we reject faith, we gain eternal hell. No risk, all lost. But if God exists and we have faith, we gain everything. All risk, all gain.

Pascal’s Wager as we have said is not a rigorous philosophical position. It is a challenge; you cannot back out of the wager. Even if you don’t want to, you are betting your life. Inaction and passivity won’t do. Lack of faith is a bet. Faith is a bet. You can’t not bet.

Faith vs. Knowledge

There are things that physical science alone cannot account for. There are other forms of understanding necessary to get in touch with higher realities. Other ways of knowing are called for. The failure of reductionism and rationality demand alternatives to materialism.

Skeptic David Hume

Nietzsche the greatest skeptic

 

Limits of Skepticism: Hume and Nietzsche

Hume fails when he refuses to apply his brilliant skepticism to his own materialism. Nietzsche has more courage. He takes skepticism to a deeper level by applying it to everything. Like a powerful solvent, his acid intellectualism dissolves even materialism. Nietzsche does us a great favor, pointing out out that all philosophy is self-interested, that is, the rational thinking and argument of a philosopher justifies his own preconceived ideas. Nietzsche:

“As historical philosophy explains it, there exists, strictly considered, neither a selfless act nor a completely disinterested observation: both are merely sublimations.”

Nietzsche affirms that your worldview determines your philosophy; my worldview determines mine. All our brilliant logic and intellectualism only serves to provide arguments for what we already believe. Everyone sees the world differently and their philosophy only justifies the worldview they already have. Everyone thinks of the world with reference to one’s own selfish experience. In Sanskrit, this is called atmavan manyate jagat, “as one is, so he conceives the world.”  

Atmavan manyate jagat: Everyone sees the world according to his own position

For the poverty-stricken Marx all truth is economic truth; Marx’s world is based on money, exploitation and class struggle.  For Freud reality is the inner world. But Freud’s world is based on fear  and desire. Fear of death, desire for sex and the repressed wish fulfillment that plays out in our dreams. Darwin saw the world in terms of the “survival of the fittest.” Every give and take within the known world is an example of natural selection driving the inexorable force of evolution. For a hammer every problem looks like a nail.  Hume’s skepticism was immature, for it considered the agnosticism of science to be superior to faith. Nietzsche’s skepticism questions even scientific materialism, recognizing that it too is self-interested.

Science is a metaphysical faith: Nietzsche

In The Gay Science, the great skeptic Nietzsche says as much when he points out that science too rests on faith: “it is still a metaphysical faith upon which our faith in science rests…” In The Gay Science Nietzsche critiques the deficiencies of modern science and points out the limits of the materialistic paradigm, expressing a healthy skepticism of Darwinian “survival of the fittest” as an example of Hegelian dialectic.  The idea of constant development towards a human-defined “progress” doesn’t fit the facts, according to Nietzsche. He sees the movement of the world as less ordered than Darwin. He avoids rejecting the scientific paradigm, but expresses skepticism towards its heartless ethic and its brutal use. He finds that science is useful in defining the movement and velocity of particles, but cannot explain human behavior.

Even Nietzsche’s Skepticism is flawed

Skeptics, of course, dismiss whole sections of Nietzsche as lacking rigor. But where Hume would destroy faith with his arguments, Nietzsche aims his skepticism even at the white-coated scientists who would keep the sacred secrets of the future in their ivory towers.  Skepticism is cannibalistic: ultimately it devours the intellect that seeks truth through negation. By negating all supernatural influence we come to negate consciousness, thinking, mind, soul and even our own reality.

Beyond Skepticism is Faith

But a complete vision of reality is far subtler than our capacity for reasoning and analysis. Only a finely cultivated faith gives us the vision to see that higher reality. Skepticism is useful in eliminating superstition. But in the final analysis, skepticism is useless in uncovering the reality of the soul.

Faith and Intellect

When these questions troubled me, I consulted a saint of great faith, my spiritual mentor, Śrīdhara Mahārāja, in Nabadwip-dhāma, West Bengal.   He explained: "You see too much discussion may oppose faith. Ultimately the highest reality is adhoksaja transcendental. Krishna is adhoksaja and approachable only through faith. He is not approachable by intellect, reason, or argument. Argument is necessary to help intellectual people to a certain extent. But to want that everything must come within one’s fist is a drawback for a devotee.”

Śrīdhara Mahārāja’s Teaching on Faith

Śrīdhara Mahārāja taught that as much as possible we may try to understand God and explain Him to others according to our faith. For this task it is valuable to have some backing in philosophy and theology. But in the end, God, Krishna, is transcendental. This may be realized only through faith, and at some point we must come to the conclusion that for God anything is possible. We may have some intellectual understanding, but at the same time we must maintain within our subconscious that everything is backed by Krishna’s sweet will and that nothing can be measured. Krishna Himself explains this in the Bhagavad-gita: maya tatam idam sar­vam
(BG: 9.4) Krishna tells Arjuna, “Find my position through your intellect if you can, O Arjuna, but remember: I am everywhere; I am nowhere. Everything is within Me; nothing is in Me”

Analysing Transcendental Reality

Before analyzing transcendental reality, we must always keep this warning in mind.

Ultimately we must think, “He is unknown and unknowable, and everything in His hand. He is everywhere; He is nowhere. Everything is in Him, and nothing is in Him. He is achintya, above and beyond thought, or inconceivable.“ Superior to Rāmanuja’s views on adhokṣaja  are Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s views on Vedantic philosophy. His version is called achintya-bhedābheda: According to this understanding, Bhagavan Śrī Kṛṣṇa, God Himself, is absolute. He is not within anyone’s grasp. Everything is controlled by His sweet will. He is transcendental. He can do anything. He is inconceivable. This is the very definition of God. So intellectualism cannot penetrate there. He is above our skepticism. Śrīdhara Mahārāja taught that intellectualism doesn’t penetrate the transcendental. “Our brain has been warned in this way. We may try to discuss Krishna, but too much intellectualism hampers our faith.” Śrīdhara Mahārāja explained that God is not an academic subject matter, but the highest reality.

Philosophical argument may bolster faith…

Śrīdhara Mahārāja taught that our faith may be bolstered by intellectual understanding, especially in an intermediate stage. In this stage, called  madhyam –adhikari, there may be both realization and some remaining doubt. Philosophical inquiry and theological argument may be useful, even necessary to help one go deeper. 

And yet, in his great treatise on bhakti theology,  Kṛṣṇa-saṁhita Bhaktivinod Thakur points out that the intermediate stage of devotional realization is a dangerous one.  This stage is called madhyama-adhikari. While one is still in the developing stage of faith, some intellectualism may be helpful, especially in arguing with others or representing faith to others, in sharing our faith. But intellectualism is not absolute.

But Philosophy can be dangerous

Intellectualism and philosophy are dangerous in the sense that logic functions on the basis of negation. To know what something is, I must first understand what it is not. So, the intelligence says “not this, not this,” to arrive at the truth. This intellectualism and logical argument brings a certain satisfaction through ratiocination. It’s the kind of satisfaction we get by reading a good mystery novel,  solving a crossword puzzle, or working out the answer to a riddle. But analysis moves forward through doubt, and doubt can destroy faith.

Beyond Riddles

The transcendental character of divinity and consciousness, of Krishna and divine love, is beyond riddles. It is achintya, unthinkable, transcendental, inconceivable. And in the intermediate stage of divine love especially, when faith is still fragile, one must guard against the ego of intellectual pleasure and the doubts that come with too much analysis. The ego may delude us. It is a form of temptation. By allowing us to become deluded with the satisfaction that comes from intellectualism, Krishna, Godhead, may also forbid us from realizing perfect theism through the intermediate stage.

Cross-purposes

Intellectualism and skepticism often work at cross-purposes from the practice of bhakti or divine love. Sometimes a beginner who comes in contact with the highest realized soul  or uttama-adhikara can clearly pass over the intermediate stage entirely simply through dedication. Such a fortunate soul has no need of arguments or philosophy.  So the intermediate stage is a dangerous zone: too much knowledge is a dangerous thing. And yet philosophical analysis and intellectual understanding can bolster faith, so study and self-reflection may sometimes be necessary, to consolidate faith.

Scriptural conclusions: siddhānta

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu Himself has advised us to pay attention to the scriptural conclusions: siddhanta baliya chitte nā kara alasa
iha ha-ite kṛṣṇe lage sudridha man­asa
(Sri Chaitanya-charitamrita: CC Adi-lila, 2.117) “Do not be lazy in considering the philosophical conclusions of scriptural evidence (siddhanta) within your mind. Doing so firmly may help your faith and  attach your heart to Krishna.” So, is there a prohibition on reading books? No. We are not forbidden to read. The thing to remember is that while the intellect may support faith, philosophy may strengthen faith and make it easier to explain to others, faith alone can approach the infinite.

Analysis and the Infinite

Logical analysis, ratiocination, intellect can never approach the infinite. Only faith can give us entrance into the higher reality of transcendental love, the world of Bhagavan Śrī Kṛṣṇa.  In Sanskrit, faith is called śrāddha. Only  śrāddha can give us entrance. Only faith can help us. How much faith do we need? A tiny bit of faith can move mountains. We must come to realize that nothing is impossible in the infinite.  

Conclusions and Scriptural Evidence

Intellectual understanding is very useful. When we discuss the conclusions given through scriptural evidence, when we contemplate the positive thing, the treasure of divine love that has been given to us by our superior gurus, we must try our best to use our experience to understand its wholesome character. But trying to do this too much will disturb our faith. With too much study we may uncover discrepancies in the different versions. We may find difficulties in interpretations. We may lack the advanced hermeneutics necessary to see the world in the same way as the authors of the Upanishads. This may cause frustration. We may fail to understand the practical application of so much philosophy. The possibility for that is there. So, even while studying and trying to grasp the truths of the scriptures, tn the background we must always remember, “He is unknown, and His ways are unknowable. I cannot bring Him within my fist.”

Faith Alone

The intellect should not disregard the characteristic of Krishna that only faith shraddha can teach. The intellect should not encroach on Krishna’s divine jurisdiction. This will be dangerous to our faith. His sweet will should not be pushed. Krishna’s sweet will, His independence, should not be cornered. The intellect should not be indulged in that way. We must keep in mind that “He is all-in-all. He can make and mar.” This understanding will help us. Shraddha, faith, will help us! And faith is complemented by the good instruction of the divine master. Our guru can help us with understanding and faith. In Bhagavad-gita it is said, tad viddhi pranip­atena pari­prashnena sevaya
(Srimad Bhagavad-gita: 4.34) “Learn divine knowledge through surrender, inquiry, and service.”

Guru and sincere inquiry

Pariprashna, sincere inquiry is allowed. Questions which help one’s faith may help us. So we may put this kind of question to our guru. We must seek conclusions which help our faith, corroborate our faith. On the other hand, impertinent questions are useless. The guru is not an encyclopedia. We shouldn’t trouble him with geography questions or trivial pursuits. I have seen devotees badger Śrīdhara Mahārāja with questions about the distance between the earth and the sun, the orbit of the moon, and whether Jesus Christ made pilgrimages to India. But the guru’s advice is meant to encourage faith and guide the disciple in his journey to surrender. These are the first principles or axiomatic truths that should begin our inquiry.

Cautions against overthinking

Śrīdhara Mahārāja says, “With that caution we shall try to know anything and everything, but we should understand that we are limited and we are going to tackle the unlimited. This idea must never be forgotten at any stage in our discussion.”

-->