Dear Zhiming, 

Thank you for the free copy of volume 11 of OCM. Reading the dialogue between you and Shiaokong in "Life and Death vs. God and Man" and "The Recovery of Man and the Will of God", I found that neither of you addressed each other's issue. Shiaokong said, " . . . most of the time I did not understand what you were trying to tell me and you refuse to wallow with me, an ordinary man, struggling, helpless and lost in hopelessness, in despair." Why would this happen? My observation is: Shiaokong was talking from the view point of "reality of experience" while you were talking from the basis of your experience as "reality of faith". Both of you talked about your true experiences and yet you reached different conclusions. Your suffering has led you to a realization, whereas Shiaokong's did not. 

I question the genuineness of your "realization", regardless of whether it is good or bad. Realization is something that cannot be proven by experiment. The difference between the realization process and the process of experimentation is this: different individuals will have different realizations which lead to different results, but experimentation, even if performed by different individuals, will always yield an identical outcome. That is why different individuals encountering the same religion will end up with different convictions, but all people who are involved in the same airplane accident will surely die. Can a person's faith save him from being electrocuted if he touches a high tension electric wire ? No, because it is a physical law set up by God that whoever touches a high tension wire will be electrocuted. It is beyond the control of any human faith.

I therefore conclude: the "reality of theological truth" which was developed from the realization process and faith is not equivalent to the "reality of historical truth" which originated from experiment and experience. One would not doubt the existence of Emperor Chin Zehuang (the Chinese Nero), though he was a tyrant; but some would have reservations about the existence of Jehovah, though he is called the Lord of Hosts. In my opinion, this is the difference between the reality that comes from science and the reality that comes from faith. However, I have no desire to discredit other people's faith, realization or religion by scientific experiments or vice versa, for I believe both should be respected. 

The German philosopher Friedrich W. Nietzsche pointed out: Experiences, experiments and science were dug out from the world by man; whereas faith, realization and religions were stuffed into the world by man. I believe that whether something is categorized as "dug out" or "stuffed into" the world, it emanates from the common awareness of one's existence and his life experience. 

When both of you knelt down inside the Notre Dame in Paris, you were focusing on the two aforementioned separate realities. This difference in emphasis led to different thoughts and even different fates. I tend to believe all this is beyond the control of man, for man is a limited being. In other words, man does not have true freedom to choose what he wants to believe in. Some people are naturally inclined to believe in God while others cannot force themselves to believe. Also differences in one's personality and living environment will affect one's inclination toward a certain God or religion. 

You claim that a certain kind of faith or system of faith, such as Christianity, has the ability to resolve differences among people, to affect the fate of individuals or groups of people, or even to receive the great blessings promised in the system of faith which are rarely found in one's daily living. I call this the "reality of faith". Whereas Shiaokong, when he said, " . . . . the uselessness of this body. . . .", he was referring to the "reality of experience". Because of your different pre-suppositions, there was no common ground for your dialogue. However, I still believe you two can find a common focus of thought for your discussion. That is, to believe in a neutral god, a sovereign power who is neither good nor evil, neither love nor hate. This is a kind of god with whom one can identify with while living this insignificant life and yet be totally set free. People who likes to vacillate will find it hard to acknowledge, accept and revere this kind of god, but I hope you two can.

The "reality of faith" leads us to believe that God is loving and kind. However, this kind of God is not self-revealing; he must be proven through theology. Since such a god transcends the realms of experience, experimentation and science, he will naturally not be accepted by the   "reality of experience".  

The "reality of experience" on the other hand, forces us to feel the cruelty of fate which seems to mock us and is hostile to mankind. This fact is almost self-evident in our harsh human lives. With unlimited authority, it makes us cringe and tortures us with the magic wand of time. The Chinese have a saying," How cruel is heaven and the earth! It makes everything a sacrifice." 

Our reasoning ability comes from the reality of our experience. It changes as we go through life with its trials like sickness, aging and death. Sometimes we are very self-confident, sometimes we feel inferior. Based on our own experience and the understanding of the law of cause and effect, we believe that we can control our own destiny. However, the never ending cycle of birth, aging, sickness and death makes us feel that everything is so whimsical. Then our reason tells us of our own finiteness and frailty, and our utter inability to control our own fate.

However, our emotional faculty refuses to accept this hopeless state. Therefore it creates the "reality of faith". This faith tells us that the world is governed by a god who is loving and kind. This god loves us more than we love ourselves. As long as we believe in him and obey his teachings which comes to us through a savior or prophets, we will be able to transcend death and corruption and reach the shore of eternity; this kind of god is the product of theology. Maybe it is possible through psychological suggestion that this god can cause a person to adjust his life and create a better life -- and finally attain harmony between faith and science. But we know this is a subjective and not an objective god. This god is a necessity because of the goodness and love that is in us. Nevertheless, it cannot yet be recognized by science. Furthermore, in order to equate the "reality of faith" with "reality of experience", we saw the need to create Satan who is the source responsible for all evil, so that we can avoid the trap of dualism.

The "reality of experience" is different from the "reality of faith". That is why Jesus said, "Do not put the Lord your God to the test". In essence, He refused to use the "reality of experience" to affirm the "reality of faith". The question we need to ask ourselves is -- how do these two realities complement each other instead of excluding each other? Only with tolerance can we turn a life that is full of suffering and sorrow into a life of beauty. 

Last week I walked past a beautiful green meadow. There was a short wall and a tall statute of Jesus. The two trees on each side of the statute were in full bloom with red flowers. In the background were rows and rows of tomb stones stretching as far as the eye could see. I said to myself, "This is every man's destiny." Actually, it is not quite true, because most men who toil and labor all their lives, will not even be able to lay in rest in such a beautiful place. Is there life after death? Who has the answer? Those who claim they have, are they blind to their own limitations? If they are unwilling to acknowledge their finiteness, and yet talk of the things in another world, are they not going over their head ? Christians claim that human beings are chief among all creatures and have the right of rule over all of nature. Because of such thinking, the responsibility for destroying the environment and ecology of earth lies squarely at the feet of man. They regard their own will as the will of God. As a matter of fact, who in the world is able to explain the will of God? 

Two days ago, I was flying back from Boston after a speaking engagement at Harvard University. As we flew over New York City, I saw many matchbox-like houses on the ground. They reminded me of those tombstones in that cemetery. Everyday we live on the verge of death in this world ! 

Is life after death truly better than this life? I think this is a biased assumption made by some people. May I boldly say: religious organizations, like many political organizations, need to provide for the emotional needs of their group. They have their proper place and function in this world, but they also have a tendency to protect their acquired interests and bondage of traditions. It is very difficult for them to accept anything that is new. They try to act like gods. To me, this is another form of original sin. 

I think the difference between you and me boils down to this -- you are willing to submit yourself first to bondage and then free yourself from it, but I am not willing to be bound by anything in the first place. That is why you can enter into the "reality of faith" whereas I can only dwell among the tensions between the "reality of experience" and the "reality of faith" and pray to a neutral god to grant me peace of mind. Sometimes when I venture too far into the "reality of faith", the "reality of experience" will pull me back. The converse is also true. I am not convinced by either of these realities, and consequently, I have become a lonely wanderer. Nonetheless, it gives me the greatest possible room for my thinking, and that is all I am looking for.

***** 

Abridged from pg. 15, August 1995 issue of the Overseas Campus Magazine 

Mr. Xie comes from Beijing and is currently a professional writer.