People sometimes argue back and forth about whether religious belief is a good thing, because it induces believers to be moral or charitable. In a big-picture sense, I think arguments of this form completely miss the point; beliefs should be judged on whether they are correct or incorrect, not on whether they cause people to do good or bad things. (If the belief is not correct, but it makes people do something good, can we say they’ve been tricked into acting that way?) Certainly, nobody is going to convince me to believe something if they admit that it’s false, but it would be good for me to believe — recommendations of that sort are usually aimed at other people, not the one handing them out. Besides which, as a matter of historical record it’s pretty clear that religion has led people to do some really good things and also led people to do some really bad things, and trying to weigh the effects on some imaginary scales seems just hopeless. Or at least, an interesting and possibly never-ending source of discussion for sociologists and historians of religion, but fortunately orthogonal to questions of the truth or falsity of religious claims.
Still, I confess to being a bit amused by the news that, in the last years of her life, Mother Teresa didn’t believe in God. (Via Cynical-C.) Letters that she wrote have now been released as part of a book project, and they are shot through with serious doubts.
Shortly after beginning work in Calcutta’s slums, the spirit left Mother Teresa.
“Where is my faith?” she wrote. “Even deep down… there is nothing but emptiness and darkness… If there be God — please forgive me.”
Eight years later, she was still looking to reclaim her lost faith.
“Such deep longing for God… Repulsed, empty, no faith, no love, no zeal,” she said.
As her fame increased, her faith refused to return. Her smile, she said, was a mask.
“What do I labor for?” she asked in one letter. “If there be no God, there can be no soul. If there be no soul then, Jesus, You also are not true.”
I’m not someone who has strong feelings about Mother Teresa either way, and it seems sad that her doubts put her in such apparent torment. (To the extent that these letters paint a reliable picture at all, of course.) And, in the department of “things that are perfectly obvious but must nevertheless be said explicitly because it’s the internet,” this is only one individual case, from which no grand conclusions should be drawn. Except the obvious: motivations for altruistic and charitable behavior can be very complicated. We should keep them separate from our attempts to understand how the universe works.
Jason, I don’t have to get over anything.
A real scientist would say: when we have the theory of everything, and when we know everything there is to be known about the universe, ony then could we possibly claim or presume to know all things that exist. If certain things remain hidden then we clearly do not have the whole picture looks like, nor know what is hidden.
“Finding the Higgs would be yet another confirmation of the as yet most accurate theory man has yet devised, while not finding it would force us to recognize that something is deeply wrong with this theory, and we have to come up with a theory that explains this fact.”
I have never read your blog before, but felt inspired to write. I am concerned that the secular worlds view of Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta is not understanding why she felt abandoned by God. Why she was so tortured interiorly. Yet, she remained on the outside, so good and fervent.
On the spiritual path of life there comes a time for the “dark night of the soul”. It is a time where God “apparently” leaves us abandoned. For a soul who is so near to God, a soul who by giving up their own desires in order to do only HIS will, this darkness is like an abyss of nothingness. The abandonment felt by the soul is so extreme that it is no wonder it can do anything. It is like a great depression. However, this abandonment is only apparent and it is necessary to gain the perfection of the soul. This trial by darkness is what dear Mother Teresa was feeling. Like Christ hanging on the cross in His final minutes of suffering and calling out to His eternal Father, “Why have you abandoned me!?!” And this is Jesus the Christ talking!
So, to understand why a soul suffers in darkness, searching and yearning for the truth, one’s mind must be open to the seeming paradox of life. We must give ourselves up completely in order to know God. There are not many more great examples of this than Mother Teresa. She gave up everything for love of Him!
As others have pointed out, saying that Mother Teresa “abandoned belief in God” is hyperbole supported by only by a couple of her letters and certainly not by the entire article at time.com. The thought that seems to have tormented her was, rather, that God had abandoned her. C.S. Lewis’s classic (and anonymously published) _A Grief Observed_ (about the death of his wife) expresses many of the same doubts, and even very briefly flirts with unbelief.
For a portrait of a religious person who has privately given up belief in God but maintains it publicly for humanitarian reasons, I recommend Miguel de Unamuno’s novella _San Manuel Bueno, mártir_. (I’m sure there must be good English translations available, although I haven’t checked.)
Pingback: complexitystudies » Blog Archive » Charity Without Religious Belief
Quantum9,
That response doesn’t in any way relate to what I said. What you fail to recognize is that it is foolish to believe something strongly if there is no evidence whatsoever in favor of that something.
There is vastly more evidence to date of the existence of the Higgs boson than there is for God. At least the Higgs boson is an essential component of a rigorously-tested theory. There is no rigorously tested theory that has God as an essential component. Neither is there any direct evidence of God. Therefore, it is foolish to believe strongly that a deity exists.
Can I say strongly that no deity exists? Certainly not! I can, of course, say quite strongly that certain specific god concepts cannot exist, because those concepts are self-contradictory (e.g. an omnipotent deity). But I can’t say that [i]any[/i] god concept doesn’t exist. What I can say is that given a total lack of evidence, it is as unlikely for any god to exist as it is for a third type of electrical charge to exist.
No one belives in God more than the day an unexplanable and shocking tradgedy occurs. God speaks to man then in his sleep, in her dreams and in their slumber. It is then that the cold fright shakes you and you find that you are not alone in this world. Then the clamore for God begins.
Science can only explain back to a certain point in the history of time; beyond that point, the blackness of nothingness (without even a star), is something; it is space; then you have met God. Only faith can take you beyond the point of the explanable.
It is ok to doubt; God gives us the freedom to question; but not for too long. The abyss is short lived and we find that only HE can fill it….not my wife dear as she may be, not my children, not my job or my passion. Teresa is human….so was God at one point (while simultaneously remaining God).
The greatest wisdom is the realization that we are not too wise.
Quasar9: I think the idea of a “theory of everything,” as opposed to a heuristic fairly applicable to this particular universe, is a mirage. There is no logical way to tie existing to a particular way for things to be, much less even logically define material versus conceptual existence.
Jason Dick: Your analogy is inappropriate. The philosophical arguments for God (versus folk and cultural traditions) uses interpretation of what we do know combined with advanced abstract reasoning (like modal realism, existential principle of sufficient reason) to argue for why this world (or any “world”) would not be existentially self-sufficient etc, and require grounding by something else that wouldn’t be a part of that world. It would of course then not be properly relatable to unfound objects within the world. Agree or disagree with the details of methadology or the conclusion, I “pray” for critics to at least be aware of how the mature consideration (“philosophical theology”) operates.
i’m seeing a lot of debate on religion, beliefs, whether there is a higher power or not, and how are attitudes and actions are reflected from our belief system. faith is the conerstone of religion or any belief system. stephen hawkins belief in scientific theory does not interfer with his faith nor exclude the possibility of the creation myth prior to the big bang. the one incontravertable truth is no-one on this planet can prove the existence of God or disprove it. that is where the faith comes in. maybe we should all go the way of darwinism. survival of the fittest. the absence of any code of morals, or ethics. its kill or be killed. if there is a final judgement those who follow darwinism have some explaining to do. if there isn’t then the man with the most toys won. if thats all lifes’ about then any true meaning of humanity is lost. if someone donates money to a cause its for a tax break or being on the board not because they care about the people they help. rest assure whatever help is forthcoming carries a hefty pricetag especially on those who can least afford it.
with Mother Teresa, her altruistic intentions may not have been for the sole purpose of redemption or a go to heaven card. her purpose was to alleviate suffering, poverty, and disease for its own sake and not as a means to an end but as an end in itself. she was less worried about her relationship with god but questioned gods failure to intercede on behalf of the less fortunate. her faith was challanged and she had the honesty for introspection and questioning the depth of her faith. faith is the belief in something you can’t experience through your senses. she may have felt abandoned, but the word God kept popping up. this acknowledgement of God confirms her position on the existence of God and her need to connect with something far greater than herself. one doesn’t always have to see something before they come to believe in its existence. what about telepathy? what about proven cases of premonitions? ever put faith in psychics?
We entered twentieth century with Tolstoy, Gandhi and others developing science of peace, truth and goodness. Totalitarian systems refused spiritual and nonviolent approach.
In the second world war democracy also abandoned nonviolence. After WWII, there was a Nurenberg trial, forming of UN, NATO, ner Redc Cross Conventions – all before 1963,”righteous among nations” were honored by Izrael, non-Jews who risked their lives to save Jews during Holocaust. They are the biggest movement of goodness ever and anywhere. Their experrience is not used internationaly
Pope John II devoted significant part of his life to peace and goodness.
Personally, coming from a Holocaust family and being a physician, I wanderred which is most evedence based tool of goodness. I used Tolstoy, Gandhi, “Righteous among nations”, Hannah Arendt, Einstein, M.L. King, Simone Weil, Frankl, … and Mother Theresa. It worked and was a powerfull way of saving thowsands of lives of Albanians, Bosniacs, Serbs, Croats and others, while UN and Europe were by far too innefficient.
We see terrorism, Middle East, Afghanistan, Iraq, Abu Graib, Guantanamo,…
Dont through away peacemakers, righteous ones, beleivers – Mother Theresa. World of 21. century needs them
Slobodan Lang, MD slobodan.lang@hzjz.hr
Perhaps Mother Theresa’s experience will show that God shuns organized religion and that arbitrary dogma if incorrect, will block you from finding God. At least Mother Theresa was honest. Jesus can’t read your mind because Jesus doesn’t know that you exist. When Pat Robertson claims that Jesus or God talks to him, we know he’s lying. God would have talked to Mother Theresa before any of the TV preachers like Robertson, and since he didn’t talk to MT, I don’t think he talks to any of them either. They all live in darkness, they just don’t admit it.
On the ‘religion is beneficial to society’ argument:
Whether or not religion existed, the neurological structures for acting moral would be in place. Those cavemen who derived pleasure from being in a tribe had a higher rate of survival, and so evolution has created a population where acting moral releases dopamine and other feel good chemicals in the brain.
My point being, religion is just a justification for feeling as if we would have to act moral (since there doesn’t seem to be much rational justification elsewhere). If religion didn’t exist, people would still act ethically, they just wouldn’t be able to tell their friends why they were doing so.
These debates always remind me of a famous comment: “There are two types of physicists. Those who had problems with their crystal sets when they were young, and those who had problems with their God.”
Mother Theresa saw God everyday, in the face of those she cared for.
She just didn’t see Him, she still wanted to believe in the dream of god.
“We should keep them separate from our attempts to understand how the universe works.”
And atheists should keep their arguments against God separate from their attempts to understand how the universe works.
A very interesting and enlightening discussion on this matter can be found at http://www.agelesswisdom.com/archives_of_radio_shows.htm , show dated 8/24/07 and entitled “Difficulties of Advanced Humans, Sages, and Saints—Mother’s Teresa’s Issues.”
Any belief system, including science, need irrationality. A huge chunk of research in science is rationalizing (resolving conflicts between) some observations, the researcher’s expectations (which definitely depend on his a priori world view for which there may not be any rational explanation). Any theory starts with some assumptions or axioms and isn’t the choice of axioms irrational? Doesn’t the choice depend on some a priori world view? Of course axioms can be changed but aren’t the new ones again dependent on some ‘irrational’ belief that they reflect the ‘reality’? Can one propose a theory without axioms? Without axioms can one use mathematics, which is so useful a tool in science today?
“from our attempts to understand how the universe works.”
Isn’t the belief that the universe can be understood and that there is a ‘The Truth’ to be found, which is apparently what drives so many scientists to work hard, to devote themselves to science, itself irrational? If this belief is rational, why is it? If it is not or cannot be said to be rational or irrational, then isn’t science itself irrational?
In any case is there any inherent ‘value’, in a loose sense, in pursuing ‘The Truth’ as compared to other possible paths? I see no ‘value’ other than utility as defined, vaguely and of course irrationally, by the society as a whole. If then ‘utility as defined by the society’ is met by any other belief system, isn’t it as valuable as science itself?
I wish the word ‘irrationality’ is not used in so demeaning sense. Generally debates like these tend to become science vs religion. What I say is the two can coexist and if combined well can be more powerful than either.
I’m stunned at how many people have swallowed the myth of Teressa’s charity and goodness. The woman was a shill for the Vatican. Mike Schuler above defends her “honesty” — but her private doubts don’t make up for her public lies. And one of her last wishes was for her letters to be destroyed. John Mail claims “her purpose was to alleviate suffering, poverty, and disease for its own sake and not as a means to an end but as an end in itself” — where’s the evidence for this astounding claim? Everything she did publicly was to win converts for the Catholic Church. The money she collected for “charity” ended up in the Vatican’s coffers, not to improve the lot of Calcutta’s poor.
I’ve written more about the fraud of Teressa here and .
Ah, my browser ate that last link.
It should be here. Sorry.
Afterall, man created the study of science as man did the study of religion. Period.
With science it would be correct to use the words correct or incorrect. With religion it would be correct to use the terms good or bad-noting that good and bad are both the light and the dark. The things that make me feel good are usually good-maybe not charitable but certainly not agaisnt the law [of man][(most things :)]). When I tend to do things bad I either feel bad or have caused a negative result.
Duh. Doesn’t everyone do this? If we don’t understand consequences for our actions doesn’t that make us psychopaths, a wrong number, if you will? We think more than an ant. A baboon will never be interested in the lenses supporting dark energy.
It is my belief that without the light you cannot have the dark, period. They coexist as one. If they didn’t we would all be lost; we would all be a lost cause uncapable of love, life, and wrong or right choices.
I am not blue funked by religion or science because they are clearly studies of a different family both with stories to tell. I do not however, when you take a man majoring in minors out of the equation, disagree with such an idea as to say religion is the adherent, adviser, alter ego, amigo, bosom buddy, of science and visa versa.
Mother Teresa, in a sense was only a victim of men majoring in minors…some feelings of good and bad are programmed by man from a person’s desire to just do good and help…little did she know that her first longing to help before any influenece of hell or guilt from the church was enough. She also said,
“If I ever become a Saint_I will surely be one of ‘darkness.’ I will continually be absent from Heaven-to [ight] the light of those in darkness on earth,”
If I lived as she lived and saw everyday what she saw I too would be on the dark side…but the dark side is like religion to science and if Mother Teresa were to be called the Saint of Darkness, it would be an honor and at the time of her supposed faithless writing she was going through something that seemed quite logical.
Church formed law. centuries turning Law abides now wether you are religious or not. A scientist who is athiest is nothing less than a superb being and not a psychopath because they aren’t out there doing bad. Some people without religion live a life of doing bad and its not good. Questions i why? ah-perhaps teh nurture nature theory? Mother Teresa by nature wanted to live a life of chariable help-her envirnment was a church with a less than respectable and powerful history and then her immediate environemnt was filled with suffering adn sadness. Is it really any wonder why she struggled with her faith when you think about it scientifically?
Afterall, man created the study of science as man did the study of religion. Period.
With science it would be correct to use the words correct or incorrect. With religion it would be correct to use the terms good or bad-noting that good and bad are both the light and the dark. The things that make me feel good are usually good-maybe not charitable but certainly not agaisnt the law [of man][(most things :)]). When I tend to do things bad I either feel bad or have caused a negative result.
Duh. Doesn’t everyone do this? If we don’t understand consequences for our actions doesn’t that make us psychopaths, a wrong number, if you will? We think more than an ant. A baboon will never be interested in the lenses supporting dark energy.
It is my belief that without the light you cannot have the dark, period. They coexist as one. If they didn’t we would all be lost; we would all be a lost cause uncapable of love, life, and wrong or right choices.
I am not blue funked by religion or science because they are clearly studies of a different family both with stories to tell. I do not however, when you take a man majoring in minors out of the equation, disagree with such an idea as to say religion is the adherent, adviser, alter ego, amigo, bosom buddy, of science and visa versa.
Mother Teresa, in a sense was only a victim of men majoring in minors…some feelings of good and bad are programmed by man from a person’s desire to just do good and help…little did she know that her first longing to help before any influenece of hell or guilt from the church was enough. She also said,
“If I ever become a Saint_I will surely be one of ‘darkness.’ I will continually be absent from Heaven-to [ight] the light of those in darkness on earth,”
If I lived as she lived and saw everyday what she saw I too would be on the dark side…but the dark side is like religion to science and if Mother Teresa were to be called the Saint of Darkness, it would be an honor and at the time of her supposed faithless writing she was going through something that seemed quite logical.
Church formed law, centuries turning- the law abides now whether you are religious or not. A scientist who is athiest is nothing less than a superb being and not a psychopath because they aren’t out there doing bad. Some people without religion live a life of doing bad and its not good. Question is, why?
ah-perhaps the nurture nature theory? Mother Teresa by nature wanted to live a life of chariable help-her environment by puberty was a church with a less than a respectable and powerful history and then her immediate environemnt was filled with suffering and sadness for-the-rest-of her life. Is it really any wonder why she struggled with her faith when you think about it scientifically?
I just want to say WOW!