This is from the file of “Things progressives say.”
This sounds enlightened and freeing. But it actually isn’t.
Giving up on “why” is ultimately a commitment to the status quo—there is nothing revolutionary about it.
Gungor is opting for a more Hindu-Buddhist view of the world (meaninglessness) rather than a Judeo-Christian view (meaningfulness).
To go deeper on these questions, Join me as I start a 3 part video series on
Learning to Deconstruct without Destroying Faith.
The details:
On a day to day, therapeutic level, Micheal Gungor is giving good advice—for some people.
We can strive against the world, digging for the deeper reasons, demanding for the “why”, and the secret meaning of every interaction and incident. And that can be exhausting, even neurotic.
Sometimes we just need to step back and just let things be, receive them as they are.
People are stupid. The weather is bad. The car just broke.
Giving Up on “Why”
But Gungor is saying more than just this.
Gungor says that, ““Why?” is a way of wanting, of desiring, something other than what is.”
In the Judeo-Christian way of seeing things, humans were made to be co-creators of God’s world. Therefore, just like God created something out of nothing, we too desire to move from what is to something else, a new and more amazing world that we have contributed to.
While Gungor would have us—via his exevangelical, Hindu-Buddhist mashup—give up on desire, I would say that desire for something else is partly what makes us like God. Not what keeps us from enlightenment.
The Neuroscience of “Why”
Also, the idea that “why” is wrapped up with desire for “something other than what is” is wrong in its view of human development.
Children ask “Why?” not because they want information, or because they “desire” something else.
They ask because they are actually seeking relationship. Every question of “Why?” for a child is actually “Why is it this way FOR YOU?”, “Why is it like this FOR ME?”, and “Why does this matter FOR US.”
The Metaphysic of “Why”
Gungor says, “There is no ultimate answer to why. There is no ultimate meaning to anything other than itself.”
So let’s talk about metaphysics. The Judeo-Christian why of seeing the world states that creation does have a “why”, it is meaningful, and it is rationally organized. This caused the eventual rise of science in the Christian West in a way that didn’t occur outside this intellectual framework (ancient China and India had certain technological developments, but this never developed into what we call “science” and its breakthroughs).
And the Judeo-Christian framework claims that each individual human—made in God’s image—has meaning. And therefore political systems that don’t respect that dignity and meaning—the “why-ness” of human being—then it should be changed, altered, overthrown.
Giving up on “why” and just letting everything be “what it is” is a commitment to the status quo.
Fundamental Decision about “Why”, and the problem of evil.
Basically we have a decision about “Why?”
1) There is no ultimate meaning, and we just have make “personal” meaning as we go (not Judeo-Christian).
2) There is ultimately meaning, and the episodes of meaninglessness in our lives somehow fit into ultimate meaning (Judeo-Christian).
The second option leads toward the question, “Why evil in the world?” It allows for us to ask, to demand an answer from God, “Why do these bad things happen?” “If God is good then why is there evil?”
The first option gives up on all such questions.
If there is no meaning, then, ultimately, there is no evil.
Because the question of evil is a question of meaning, a question of “Why?”
Join me as I start a 3 part video series on
Learning to Deconstruct without Destroying Faith.