During the course of a conversation sparked by an article by Sigalit, who asked why so many True Believers insist on trying to impose their religious views on others, I was accused of trying to impose my own non-religious views on a couple of my interlocutors. One of them, William Tell, said if I wanted to air my views I should write an article. So here it is.
My basic thesis is that no one religion has a monopoly on the Truth; that in fact there is no Truth (capital T) that has been handed down from some external source and therefore no justification for trying to foist it on others, whether by force or by legislative fiat. Rather, we should consider that spirituality is like a deep river, and each culture has dug its well along its banks. They all draw water from the same source, but each well is constructed a little differently, and there are lots of words for 'water.' It is pointless and divisive for members of one culture to force those of another to drink their water on the grounds that it is the only good water. That goes for the religious and the non-religious alike.
Some other thoughts:
-- Religions are derived from and used to sanctify the customs and morae of a given culture at a given time. As time passes and cultures evolve either religion gets "reformed" or just slowly and unobtrusively adapts to the new set of values. Those that fail to do this remain in place, become increasingly dysfunctional, and retard the development of society as a whole. It's like the tide: religious inspiration comes flooding in, vigorous and alive, then finally recedes, leaving a few stagnant pools behind.
--Because culture is such a powerful force, and because religion is inextricably entwined with it, members of a given culture have historically regarded outsiders as "barbarians" or "infidels" or used some other derogatory term to describe them. Therefore, the gods, myths, and values of these "others" are at best suspect, at worst so wrong as to make them fair game for conquest, forcible conversion or, even extermination. Today we see Sunnis and Shiites slaughtering each other in Iraq because 700 years ago there was a split over who was the legitimate heir to Muhammad. But of course it is more complicated than that, because there are also issues of power and politics involved.
--Which brings us to issues of church and state. In a broadly multicultural society such as ours, I believe it is especially important to have a secular space in which every individual of every faith can develop and function freely. Originally, our founding fathers insisted on separating the two because they wanted to prevent the government from establishing a state religion a la England. Lately it has operated in reverse, maintaining a wall between the government and those religious elements who would impose their parochial values on the nation as a whole using the political process. This business of figuring out what to render unto Caesar and what to God can be difficult and divisive, made moreso by politicians who, whether from political calculation or conviction, want to knock holes in that wall. Hence the "culture wars." Mixing religion and politics puts us on a steep and slippery slope.
Okay, that's enough. Those are my views – and I'm probably in the minority here. But I welcome any comments pro and con. I'd like to hear your take on these questions.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 79
Separation of church and state is a basic tenet of Christianity, and has been since Christ spoke these words:
"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's"
And indeed our own strong restrictions along these lines actually stem from these very words.
It does still appear as though you are offering little more than criticism and a skeptical note about what others believe is Truth. It is fairly easy to do this, but offers little guidance for those seeking help in arriving at a sound basis for an ethical and fulfilling spiritual life. Simply saying others may be wrong hardly distinguishes your views, anyone can say such things really.
If you ascribe to a logic that holds that no theology can be True because more than one claims to be, say so. If you ascribe to a logic that says no scripture can be valid because some that profess to hold them sacred fail to live up to their tenets, say so. If you ascribe to a logic that says there can be no God because YOU do not know of Him, say so. Then we can debate your reasoning, but there is no end to innuendo and insinuation and guilt by association.
Speak your mind please, and cease with the wordplay. You might be surprised at how easily your "solid" logical ground will shift and buckle.
I don't mean this as a strong indictment of your views, but as a reminder of just how tricky the whole business of coming to grips with human nature is. For many years I held to virtually the same stance as yourself (though not quite so firmly) and when I came to realize that God was actually present it was no small shock to my belief structure. I am reasonably well versed in science and philosophy, so adjusting to this shocking realization was almost traumatic.
What Felix is saying at the end of his comment is critical; If we start from the conclusion that God is not real, we stand little chance of discovering to what extent our own judgement is preventing us from thinking objectively about our experiences, and may be overlooking evidence in ourselves that points us toward another Truth. In the Book I study, God did not say Assume I am not, and ye shall find me
Willliam T., yes, I agree that separation of church and state is and should be a Christian tenet. My concern is that there by "embedding" religion with politics this doctrine is being weakened. I think we can agree that much of the divisiveness we see today can be traced to this trend.
Felix, I am not saying there is no truth; I'm saying we all have our religious truths, and that these arise from our cultural norms and values -- and, perhaps paradoxically, shape those values as well. They are not necessarily universal, and although we can bear witness, we shouldn't try to impose them on others. I do think there is a universal spiritual truth, though, as you will see if you read on.
John, I'm happy to have my views rebutted; it makes me think harder about them. It is, indeed, a tricky business. But I'm not saying that there are no sacred texts. I'm saying, perhaps clumsily, that each culture produces its own sacred texts, and that these reflect and shape cultural values. As you know, our major religions were formed and evolved in homogeneous societies a very long time ago. The Judeo-Christian god started out as El, a god whose duty, in return for obedience, was to protect the tribe, and whose authority did not extend beyond that tribe. The concept later evolved, changing him into a universal god, which was a major conceptual leap. It seems to me that God (Yahweh or Jehovah), or A'llah, or Brahma are just labels we have slapped onto William's One God, so there is really no need, aside from the obligations imposed by the associated dogmas, to tell a Hindu, e.g., that his god is a myth and should be replaced with ours. At bottom I am saying not that there can be no god, but that if there is a god he is so beyond the human imagination as to be unknowable. Our various gods in that case would be our attempts as humans to grasp its essence -- sort of like Plato's shadows on the wall of the cave. Too often we are led to make god very small (as a Muslim once told me) so we can be more comfortable with him.
So my purpose here is pretty limited. I guess I should have also differentiated between religious dogma and what I consider to be an actual universal truth, tapped into by every mystical tradition of every religion that I am familiar with. And that is the essential Oneness of all things. I think I wrote, maybe in that last string, that I thought Jesus expressed it well when he told us to love our neighbors as ourselves.
John, I would love to know more about the realization you mention. I went the other way: from belief to doubt. The experience that produced that effect has no doubt, as you suggest, made it hard for me to get beyond it and think objectively about this.
I do agree, most appalling.
First let me say how impressed I am by your honesty, and willingness to listen to others. These are rare qualities these days, I think.
From my point of view there are contradictions in your words that stand out very clearly, yet I can certainly understand how others might see them as consistencies. Let me take one, to illustrate my point, you say;
if there is a god he is so beyond the human imagination as to be unknowable
To me, this is a self contradictory statement. While on one level it appears you are attributing greatness to this "god", on another you are essentially stripping him of any real capabilities. This does not appear to the mind that is contemplating a theoretical god, that is to say, a god that IS an idea. But if we instead try to work with the concept of a REAL God, several questions immediately jump up. Here are a few;
IF God is real, and truly the creator of men, then why could He not make himself known within us to a substantial degree? Since He would have the power to help us form our concept of him, is it not a limit you are placing on your presumably great god, rather than a limit you're placing on man?
IF God is real, and created man "in His image", then are you not saying He is not capable of creating being with true insight but merely simpletons, not really "like" Him at all?
IF God is real, and therefor ever-present, why is His nature not something we are seeing and learning about in a multitude of ways, from science to scripture to emotions to light? While we cannot form a single image of anything complex, we can through experience and attentiveness grasp very complex things.
You see, it is only when we grant a god the powers of a God, that we free Him to do as He can do, and not as WE can do. Only by thinking about God as if He were REALLY God, does our mind work around realistic notions of an actual God, and not our notions of an imaginary god.
John, at first blush I'd say that our conceptions of what god is or isn't and the attributes he possesses or doesn't are very far apart. I've always found theological speculation so convoluted that I tend to get lost in it. I'm going to have to think about this before I answer. Thanks; I'll get back to you.
Oh...I did want to point out to you that writing something that would provide spiritual guidance for those seeking it is well beyond the rather limited question I was addressing (and from whence we have strayed), not to mention beyond my abilities. If I were to actually presume to give spiritual advice, I would tell that seeker to forget about questions of God and meditate: the answers are within. Gnosticism, anyone?
Yes, I understand the difficulties of "guidance". My point was sort of a followup on William's earlier line of reasoning, as I saw it: It's always going to be problematic to get humans to faithfully adhere to even the soundest guidance. So is it really fair to pass any judgement on something as complex as the Book? It has, after all, brought a whole lot of positive things into the world, and unless we think we could do even one tenth that much good, we should be hesitant to criticize or dismiss it.
I don't think it amazing at all that we agree on this. I agree with most all of what you've said on the matter. It merely disturbs me to hear the Word spoken of in ways that cast it as the cause of what some nitwits choose to do. I'm sure your skin crawls a bit when you hear someone deride your race or political persuasion as a whole due to the silliness of some deranged individuals. It is simply wrong I think to look for a causal link between some largely shared characteristic and the behaviour of some of those that share it. We may both be somewhat balding but I hardly think one could be called logical if I murdered someone and you were then held in suspicion because you share my hair pattern.
To call it a "line of reasoning" may be a bit of a stretch, but yes, that was what I was reacting to at one point..
Gnosis in the Greek may be translated as the knowledge to influence and control. This seems to me similar to the traditional view that the Great Knowledge is one, and it includes the universal laws of creation and how things work. Religion, science and art are all representations of one "knowledge." They reflect one reality and ways to understand and practice "gnosis."
For the Greeks "Know Thyself" was the path to gnosis. Their schools taught methods and ideas to gain gnosis. The founders of religions seem to have possessed versions of the Great Knowledge or gnosis or at least they were able to introduce ideas and practices that enabled others to found great civilizations and cultures.
"Gnosticism" in contemporary usage refers to the writings of various individuals and groups. These writings sometimes give us information of what their practices were, just as do the teachings and scriptures of various civilivizations. Knowledge was transmitted on several levels by founders and their disciples;metaphorically for most, without the keys to master the laws , the how-to "influence and control" them. It is interesting to note that science and the teachings of many ancient texts are being recognized as describing similar laws, and artists are also seeking inspiration form both of them.
"It is simply wrong I think to look for a causal link between some largely shared characteristic and the behaviour of some of those that share it. "
I'm not sure if you are referring to the sacred texts or to religious institutions or both, but in any case, I'm not trying to say that because Mohammed Atta drives a plane into a building in the name of his god, Islam should be sent to the dustbin, or because some lunatic down in Texas shoots up a fast food joint because he reads the Bible and has been told by God to mow down sinners we should burn the Bibles and close the churches. In each case, there's a lot going on that has little or nothing to do with religion.
I think human beings generally need religion and must have some kind of text to give guidance and provide a framework for their belief. But I also think that when an ineffable truth, the kind shared by a Jesus, or a Buddha, is institutionalized in a religious framework (as it must be if it is to survive) the essence of it tends to get lost in the stories, the rituals, and the intstitution itself changes as it becomes entwined with the power structure. (I suspect strongly, e.g., that much of what Jesus was really about never made it into official texts written a generation or two later...they probably weren't understood, or weren't relevant to a mass religious movement or had just gottten lost. Speculation on my part, natch.)
But I digress. As I've said (repeatedly--sorry), the connection between insitutionalized religions, war, and inter-religious persecution is a well established one because historically these institutions have been an instrument of state power (or the reverse, depending on when and where). If that is, at least in the West, not a problem today it is because that link has been broken. Today we might have to deal with the occasional murderous fatwa, but we are unlikely to have a repeat of the Inquisition and mass explusion of the Jews. I am only pointing these things out to illustrate the dangers inherent in that church-state fusion, not to say that religion is a bad thing because its adherents do terrible things in its name sometimes.
Yes, the church didn't want gnostics around. Similarly, the the Salafi's today fear the Sufis. I am familiar with Pagel's works on the gnostics and NT, in which she stresses a "do-it-yourself " approach to religion. I don't think she comes near to what gnosis teachings and teachers were about. Gnosis teachings were preserved in some of the various church teachings. The Orthodox liturgy, for example, does contain the creation story and universal laws that other sacred scriptures do. They affect people according to their understanding, as was the intention. The keys were available from those who knew them. The Roman church also preserved a lot. In the West, the teaching was transmitted in many cases outside the churches in various schools, as the alchemists.
Thanks for stirring up my pre-frontal cortex. I think the concept of a god IS theoretical, since we can neither prove nor disprove his/her/its existence. People infer it because the endocrine system is complex, or the sunset over the ocean is beautiful, or whatever, but to me (and boy, is this a minority view!) the only intellectually valid stance to take with respect to the existence of an overarching universal god is agnostic. That's deeply unsatisfying, of course, and from the start human beings have created gods in their own image according to the needs of their societies and cultures. These, I think, are the 'real' gods people worship, not some impossibly removed, unknowable, abstraction. Heck, I don't blame them in the least…we've already talked about the comfort and security they provide the believer. Toss in salvation and you've got a real winner.
I found it interesting – thanks, Clarke, for reminding me – to learn that a number of early Christians did not believe that the god of Israel was a god at all. They considered him an arrogant, ignorant demiurge who was always being upbraided by the 'true' god, which was the female principle of the universe. They didn't consider Jesus his son, and that didn't diminish Jesus one whit.
Sorry…I'm babbling on here. To get back to your comment, sure, if (the Judeo-Christian) god is real and created man in his image, he could have created beings with real insight. If you believe Genesis, though, he apparently didn't, and I wonder then why he would want to keep Adam and Eve eternally simple creatures, forbidding them to eat from the tree of knowledge.
If my unimaginable, unknowable god exists (as opposed to one of our familiar gods), and willed this universe, with its trillion-plus stars and planets, into existence, could we get at its essence by experiencing our planet, our science, our human emotions, and our human theology? I really don't know: it's such an infinitesimal slice of the whole. I think we may be back to inference.
"You see, it is only when we grant a god the powers of a God, that we free Him to do as He can do, and not as WE can do. Only by thinking about God as if He were REALLY God, does our mind work around realistic notions of an actual God, and not our notions of an imaginary god."
I quite like this point, John, but I think the operative phrase is "when we grant a god the powers of a God.." If we humans think of a god as having unlimited powers, presence, knowledge and all the rest, then everything is possible to it. The question would then become, would he be interested enough in us to bother? Or would it be the god of Vonnegut – god the disinterested. But since we seem to be defining god, we get to say. And since we humans always consider ourselves at the center of things, the answer is clear.
Apologies for going on and on. Hard to deal with these things briefly in this medium.
You almost had it for a second there, I think;
Remember, you "asked" me;
"I would love to know more about the realization you mention"
The "realization" I speak of is that you are ONLY considering one simple possibility; That an imaginary god cannot be real.
"If we humans think of a god as having unlimited powers, presence, knowledge and all the rest, then everything is possible to it"
This is a completely meaningless statement. and the fact that you can't see that, is because you're not grasping the realization you asked about. Please move in a straight line with me for a moment. Look at your first clause; If we humans think of a god as.... then... anything is possible. SAY WHAT! That is NOT what I'm pointing at. I'm saying it doesn't matter what we think.
A REAL God would be by definition totally independent of our thinking. All your saying over and over is; I can't believe anyone could believe an imaginary god could be real. You're not even considering if a real God could be real. So of course you can't understand how anyone could believe in one.
Until you take the time (and courage) to explore the possibility that God is real, you are merely playing an intellectual game. You keep bumping into your own previous assumption that god is a myth, because you keep looking for a god that is the result of human imagination. You're not even looking for a REAL God, so of course you won't find one.
You may be quite the expert on imaginary gods. You may know all about myths. But if there IS a real God, you wouldn't realize that in a million years of exploring your own imagination. He ain't in there.
>>>>
There is debate about all the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi among the main academic scholars, so it wouldn't be fair to sugggest just a few. The two pages below offer an overview. Vermes, Pagels,Robinson are among the most well-known.
From my perspective the Qumran materials from about 200 BC to 45BC are the most interesting for NT study,especially the "Teacher of Righteousness." They are deeper in content in terms of the ancient mystery/school tradition that Jesus drew on. They reflect practical teaching, whereas many of the so-called gnostics were into mysticism and philosophy , that is, watered-down. The Nag Hammadi are more varied than the selected ones Pagels' presents. Many, at least half, are anti-Christian. I guess you have read the Gospel of Thomas? This is the best , after the big four. It is also closer to mystery school tradition than most gnostic texts.
http://www.gnosis.org/library/dss/dss.htm
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhlintro.html
I thought I was asking about the process, or the trauma, or epiphany, that brought you to your realization. As for the realization itself, I think I understand what you are saying – you just don't like my take on it.
But okay, let me see if I do understand your premise. Let's drop the Ifs, since you don't mean them, and just say there is a real god out there, an overarching deity that created the universe and everything in it and is independent of any definition or limit we humans might put on him, or it. This god, this one god of the universe – can and does make himself known to us and helps us conceive of his nature and purposes; he gives us the needed insight (no Adam's Fall here) to see him and learn of his nature in every aspect of our physical world. He reveals himself to us: he is knowable and involved in our world.
Your Real God is therefore really real because you have discerned him as he has given you the power and insight to do. If I suggest the possibility of a Real God that doesn't perform as you would like him to, one who made the Big Bang but is essentially disinterested in us, then he is an imaginary god. I am thus an expert in imaginary gods.
Nevertheless, if we buy into your premise, this is a pretty elegant idea. Answers a lot of questions and, if elaborated on, accounts for many of the realities on the ground. If this is what you had in mind, I can see why you like it.
But, like it or not, we do need to account for the plethora of sacred writings, myths, creeds, and the array of gods and goddesses that our Real God has allowed human beings to know throughout the millennia. The beauty of your idea is that with a little tweaking it can explain this.
Sticking to your premise, we could say that this real god reveals himself to us in different ways at different times in different cultures to the degree that we are capable of understanding. We always have the receptors, so to speak, but they are at different stages of development. Since he is intimately involved with the world, he also lays down rules of morality and conduct according to the same criteria. That could also explain why the concept of god evolves at varying rates around the globe over time and how the texts are amended through commentaries and the vast library of theological and philosophical discourse. They change as we and our societies change because we have the capacity understand him more fully. As we gain in the knowledge of our universe that he provides, the space God needs to occupy shrinks toward an irreducible, essential core.
Well, John, that's a little blue skying. It seems to me that it fits the paradigm you are operating within, but something tells me you won't approve. Eventually, though, we'll get to the question I broached originally: how do we deal with other religious concepts?
I see by your images that you have read the NYT review on Dawkin's book and its flaws. The Economist's reviewer came to much the same conclusions.
How did you happen to become interested in these subjects?
A Testament To Change: Early Scraps Of the Bible
Rare Fragments Show Evolution of Scripture
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 21, 2006; C01
If 40 percent of Americans refuse to believe that humans evolved from earlier hominids, how many will accept that the book we know as the Bible evolved from earlier texts and was not handed down, in toto, by God in its present form?
The fossil evidence for human evolution is permanently on display at the American Museum of Natural History. Hard evidence that the Bible took its present shape over centuries will be on display for the next 11 weeks, from today through Jan. 7, across the Mall at the Smithsonian's Arthur M. Sackler Gallery.
They are rarer than dinosaur bones, these fragments of papyrus and animal skin that tell the Bible's story. With names such as Codex Sinaiticus, the Macregol Gospels and the Valenciennes Apocalypse, they evoke lost empires and ancient monasteries as surely as archaeopteryx and ceratosaurus conjure up primeval swamps and forests.
The Sackler's exhibition, "In the Beginning: Bibles Before the Year 1000," is one of the broadest assemblages of this material ever brought together in one place. "It has not happened before, and we will not see its like again in our lives," said guest curator Michelle P. Brown, professor of medieval manuscript studies at the University of London.
These are documents with the proven power to shake faith. That's what happened to Bart D. Ehrman, author of the 2005 bestseller "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why."
Ehrman was a born-again Christian from Kansas when he entered Chicago's Moody Bible Institute at age 18. After three decades of comparing ancient manuscripts in their original languages to try to determine the earliest, most authentic text of the New Testament, he is now an agnostic.
"I thought God had inspired the words inerrantly. But when I examined the historical texts, I realized the words had not been preserved inerrantly, and it would have been no greater miracle to preserve them than to inspire them in the first place," said Ehrman, now chairman of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
But if these fading papyrus leaves and purple parchments inscribed with silver ink can shake faith, that does not mean they must .
Brown, who pulled the Sackler's exhibition together in association with Oxford University's Bodleian Library, sits on the governing board of St. Paul's Cathedral in London. "That's a pretty good tip-off," she said, that she is a member in good standing of the Church of England.
"There's nothing here that's going to shape or challenge people's beliefs, except on one point," she said. "It will challenge the belief that the Bible originated in the form we have today, rather than being the result of the very complex process of a lot of people of faith using scriptures to help them live God-focused lives."
"I thought I was asking about the process, or the trauma, or epiphany, that brought you to your realization"
But you see, I have told you. I went looking for a real God.
I like your thoughts on the "plethora of sacred writings", and the evolution of man's concepts of god. I can't help but notice how productive your contemplation became as you shifted to a more "realistic" idea of God. In the end, it is only these realistic explorations that speak to the question of God's actuality. What unrealistic god's might be up to is quite irrelevant.
I doubt strongly that God is directly involved with ALL of our various "writings and myths and creeds". We are free after all. And since the dominant theme, of the text He reveals himself to me personally in, is false religion, and the End foretold is the utter failure of man to extricate himself from it, I would think he is not going about correcting every errant thought or image. Many are probably just human conjecture and wishful thinking. But, it seems quite possible that he gives a little nudge here and there to keep the path clear for all who seek Him in earnest.
As to musings on the Book and it's authenticity, no speculation outside the actual reading by an individual has any bearing whatsoever. All are based on concepts of imaginary gods. A real God has unlimited power to get his message to the receiver he targets. It is a personal letter (and at no point does He say otherwise), and is preserved for that purpose only. To think he would stifle every errant interpretation or analysis is to conclude he did not give man free will, nothing more. Scoping it out based on what others conclude, pro, con, or indifferent, are but attempts to see from a great distance. Either you read it as a child reading a letter from a loving parent, or you're just stalling.
God is not "trick-able" like a human. If he wished to be visible to experts or answer critics or otherwise convince folks, he'd form stars into a big G, or cause us all to have the same dream one night, or some such thing. If God is there, he clearly has something more personal, and meaningful, in mind.
Giving oneself over to something greater than oneself seems to me to be the best thing religion has to offer. "No-Self" allows us to open up to life. Congratulations.
Anyway, could you explain what you meant in the following statement...you lost me:
I doubt strongly that God is directly involved with ALL of our various "writings and myths and creeds". We are free after all. And since the dominant theme, of the text He reveals himself to me personally in, is false religion, and the End foretold is the utter failure of man to extricate himself from it, I would think he is not going about correcting every errant thought or image. Many are probably just human conjecture and wishful thinking. But, it seems quite possible that he gives a little nudge here and there to keep the path clear for all who seek Him in earnest.
I learned ancient languages as well as modern ones in graduate school, and read many texts in the original. Also I did research throughout SE Asia and the Middle East which varied from migrating with tribes to working on archaelogical digs.
There is a tradition of mystery schools , generally called the Magi, who transmitted knowledge to various prophets . Zarathustra was one of their pupils. Judaism and Christianity drew heavily on the Iranian teachings and ideas. The Teacher of Righteous (c.150 BC) material from Qumran strongly reflects this influence. Academics interpret this material in sharply different ways. Nothing new, but important to be aware of in this case. Jesus teaching drew heavily on the Essene, Qumran teachings, yet also represented a reversal.He was, it appears,prepared to do so by the Magi, that is , for many centuries, the ideas he was to bring and role he was to play had been planned to be introduced into history when the time was judged right: A break with the past, a reversal, intentionally executed, yet in doing so, also a recapitulation and a reworking of what had gone before.
I'll look into the exhibit in DC. Looks interesting. I liked the images from the NYTimes book review! Dawkins may be a "missing link" in a sense Darwin never thought of! He seems to have no connection to what religion is about, yet thinks he does.
Thanks for the article.
CM
Jesus teaching drew heavily on the Essene, Qumran teachings, yet also represented a reversal. He was, it appears,prepared to do so by the Magi, that is , for many centuries, the ideas he was to bring and role he was to play had been planned to be introduced into history when the time was judged right: A break with the past, a reversal, intentionally executed, yet in doing so, also a recapitulation and a reworking of what had gone before.
Can you clarify that? What was this reversal, and what do you mean when you say his role had been planned for centuries? Now, that's something I never heard before, and I'm not sure what it means.
B
http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/200503/the.world.of.his.choice.htm
I don't think it's that I'm not hearing you, I think it's that your words have much less meaning than you believe, as I've pointed out several times. Over and over you return to the same theme, which as I've shown, is based on unrealistic concepts of gods.
I get it; YOU don't believe in a real God, and you want that to be the only rational position a person can hold. But all your reasoning is circular. All depends on the premise that no real God exists.
Without that premise, there is no reason we should consider all traditions or sacred writings as equally valid. Period.
Without that premise, there is no reason to assume God could not have sent and preserved a sacred text. Period.
Without that premise, there is no reason to consider people trying to tell others of their theology as "pushing" it. Period.
Without that premise, there is no reason to think it impossible for people to have a decent grasp of God's nature. Period.
Without that premise, there is no reason to link every activity of cultures to the views of God that emerged there. Period.
And to demonstrate what it looks like when someone takes it upon themselves to read motivations into what those that do not hold their basic premise are saying, I'll offer a potential hack job of pseudo psychoanalysis of the sort you "push" with startling regularity;
It seems only natural that someone incapable of seeing themselves as less than possessing the highest wisdom, would be frightened by the notion of a real God. Naturally any such person would in their insecure delusional state keep returning to any available evidence that could be used, however irrationally, to hold those that believed in God to be foolish, and incapable of seeing the brilliance of their "neutral" position.
In a desperate attempt to forestall realizing that they had become the very thing they lambasted as rigid and judgmental, they would steadfastly refuse to see the value of any logic that threatened their basic premise that God was not real, even if they themselves had come upon that logic. When mention was made of such insight as they might have made while straying from their dogmatic paradigms, they would react by accusing the one mentioning this, of failing to see their prejudice on these matters.
So strong would their resistance to the notion of God's actual existence be, that any means necessary to disrupt a meaningful dialog would be employed, ever returning to the thinly veiled implication that only their view of reality was valid.. . even though that expressed view was that all views on these matters are valid. Such is the blindness that overtakes the egocentric visionary, who's ultimate quest is to see themselves as incapable of having overlooked their own egotism.
You are familiar with the idea of the Great Knowledge? There are many expressions of this view of history in all cultures, including the contemporary one.
A general way of describing it is that higher intelligences have introduced the Great Knowledge in different forms at different times, through working through schools of initiates. World religions originate from these schools through their chosen representatives. The leading ideas of each age change to further stages of evolution . Schools exist in various forms, often outside the established institutions, and preserve and transmit the essential Great Knowledge; they may introduce new ideas to renew and reform civilizations. The role of Jesus, the principle he was to introduce, was foreseen and described many thousands of years before. When we come to Zarathustra's time we have the introduction of the basis for the monotheistic religions and of humanity as a partner with the Creator.Jesus was chosen to affirm what went before, yet also introduce the new idea of the individual "ego." In a sense, humanity's evolution over thousands of years was heading downward deeper into the body and materialism , and he was sent to bring the counter force to meet this challenge which would play out in coming centuries. The end of this age , according to many ancient traditions, represented the completion of downward phase of human evolution, to be followed by an ascent, which will recapitulate previous ages, with human beings evolving through acquiring the powers that they had lost in the descent. In the ascent , they will have to learn to do this for themselves, without being dependent on higher intelligences as they were during the descent. The methods and practices to do this are not new, but have to be "translated" to meet the time and conditions.
As I wrote, many schools and teachings express this in various ways. I am sketching an outline. There now many "New Agey," cult etc ones. Serious schools do not give out their teachings and methods publicly. They transmit them according to merit, so to speak. The analogy might be with a lineage master of Qi kung who may have many pupils, but only transmit his full knowledge to one or two, and much of it mind-to-mind and orally.
Thanks for the link to your wife's article.
-CM
I have found the discussion fascinating. I believe I pretty well understand the positions and experiences expressed here. Some of you I have been involved with prior to this, and many are aware of my views, and many either do not understand them and/or reject them for various reasons.
There are some here (the majority commenting) that I feel would fully understand, and maybe even accept my views, were they to read my book about that/those.
As time has passed since I joined Gather, people have let a little more out, about there experiences and philosophies, each time with increased postings and comments. Thank you Liz for your latest. These personal experiences explain a lot.
In all of the preceding, I have identified very much with the author of the article, Bill. Also with Clarke, William (who has commented less here), and Liz ... I may have left someone out, it is now 0200 and I am tired, having slowly and thoroughly read through all of this just now. So I will say but little more ( I know, I have not really said anything so far) ...
Truth has been mentioned much here. Some seem to think about that, one way and another. My comment would be that I have found it, as far as I am concerned, and it is all held within the (+=-) that I call the BET (the Basic Equation of Truth).
As for 'my' idea of God, He/She/It, is beyond our present knowing, other then a theoretical concept, most involving those Omni-words. But I envision such a God as the Totality of All that Is or could Be. Being metaphorically, as is our Body to All contained within, including the energies that interconnect. In that way, we are made in the image of God, and those parts that are aware of this are then gods and/or godly. (as I proof this, it is 0237 AM, may have to explain better tomorrow after some sleep).
If one were to conceive of God as the totality of our universe in question, that would be our God. Not just outside of us, not just inside of us, but both, as we are all the parts that make up that whole. The 'connection' is spiritual and thus subjective to us. Those that deal primarily in objectivity are far less able to accept this idea.
It has been mentioned, that those that have had intense personal experience with the perceived nature of God, usually relate such to their concepts of religion/spirituality held by them at the time of such experience. Some, then later have additional experience, or just learn more about the possible ways of looking at it all, and then reform their opinions accordingly. That has been my experience also, except that I had no background to speak of in such matters and was only seeking the highest truth. I believe Truth and I found each other. That Truth is really UNconditional Love !!! When once experienced, there will never again be any doubt as to it's authenticity ! God is a Trinity, we and God's Spirit are the other two parts (metaphorically speaking). We can know of God via God's Spirit and that is found within each of us !
Please explore www.spiritcalls.us for the full story.
(it can be downloaded for free there, be purchased via links there, or if these commenters so far do not want to gamble, send me an e-mail with your address etc and I will send you a freeby).
Peace, j.
(+=-)=Trinity=Love=Truth=:-)
(+/-) =Duality=Fear=Falsehood=:-(
Just a quick initial reaction for you, John. Our reasoning is always in orbit around our premises -- no matter how absolutely true we believe those premises to be -- so "circular" reasoning is the norm for all of us. Don't think you are an exception to this. I think, though, that you coloring [your idea about] my views more black and white than they really are. I'll get back to you, but it may be tomorrow, as we are out tonight with friends.
cheers, bl
Well, John, yes and no. As I believe I've said earlier, in my view the only intellectually defensible position as to whether there is a "real god" is agnostic because it's unprovable. You seem to think that if someone doesn't accept your beliefs everything he says is meaningless and dismissible. Now, I'll readily admit that I do lean toward the atheist position, but I try to keep an open mind. It's relatively easy to do, because I don't really think it matters. At least to me.
You go off the rails, though, when you insist that I "want that to be the only rational position a person can hold." You don't know that. I mean, what if I decided that you can't acknowledge any validity in anything that runs counter to your point of view because, say, you are insecure in your beliefs and don't dare give an inch lest it all fall apart on you. Period. You would correctly complain that I don't know enough to look into your heart and mind and conclude that. (Incidentally, John, I don't actually think this, so there's nothing to defend here.)
Basically, I don't care much what people believe – call me an 'apatheist' – although I'm interested, as you can tell. But people, I assume this includes you, may experience an epiphany, some flash of insight, that they experience as proof that god exists – where else could it come from? – and that god is revealed in a particular text. Such insights are hard to grasp and harder to hold on to without some supporting framework, and our minds usually demand that we have one. If what you are familiar with is a Christian tradition (for example), it would be reasonable to expect that you would find yourself hanging your insight or experience on that framework. (Or you might just make up your own.)
Funnily enough, though, despite our conversations, I don't really know what you do believe (except that there is a real god) or what text speaks so vividly to you. Did your experience, whatever it was, lead you to embrace the Judeo-Christian god and the Bible as the text that validates that? Or…? That's an important question, I think, in trying to understand your position. Take it for granted, John, that I'm not interested in rebutting your beliefs…I couldn't even if I were brilliant and tried very hard.
As for me, I'm very impressed that all the mystical traditions from every faith – whether a Zen master, or a St. John of the Cross, a Sufi Mystic or a shaman – all seem to share a common vision. I think that this is so much more important than all our narrow, culture-dependent religious practices because it gives all mankind a common ground and tells us that we are not separate; we are one with each other and one with the universe. Religions have got to believe they possess the Truth, and, because they are human institutions, tend to be narrow and divisive even though they may strive not to be. Spiritual insight transcends all that. It is the basis for all religion, but these insights are ineffable and are easily lost when institutionalized.
I'd also love to hear your take on what Clarke and Jerry have just written.
"You seem to think that if someone doesn't accept your beliefs everything he says is meaningless and dismissible"
Not at all. What I keep pointing out is that though you say you are wed to the rational, you are not looking at the evidence you cite rationally. It is this self inconsistency that I protest.
In my last comment I listed five arguments you have made in this and the thread from which this article sprang. In each case you use the same circular reasoning. In each case you treat the evidence as though it weighed against the existence of God, but in each case, you overlook that the evidence only implies this conclusion IF we start with the premise that there is no real GOD.
IF, on the other hand, we were to begin with the premise that there IS a real God, none of the evidence you cite works against that premise. It's a matter of putting the cart before the horse. Other things you have said, that you do not handle in this way, I have not made any refutation of, whether they match anything I believe or not.
I have no objection to rationalism, but I object to arguments that pose as reasonable when they are in fact circular reasoning. Please look carefully at the list I gave, and point out any of these examples that you feel is not as I describe. Until I have some assurance that you have come to see this tendency for what it is, Why would I wish to present you with further fuel for your atheistic fire?
I am asserting that there is a common fallacy that when one is dealing with theology it is automatically more reasonable to take the 'disbelieve' position, than the 'believe' position. And punctuating that assumption with...
"the only intellectually defensible position as to whether there is a "real god" is agnostic because it's unprovable"
...displays the same offhand assumptive thinking. For surely, there could be many advantages pointed out to taking the position that God is real, in full light of the fact that it cannot be "proven" one way or the other. That, if we are trying to be rational beings, would seem to clearly render it the more "intellectually defensible position".
I understand that we are limited in how we deal with such matters, but I dispute the claim implied that I have herein used circular reasoning (of course I could be wrong, this is not something easy to see in oneself). My point is not that one should avoid thinking about these difficult questions, but that we should avoid making assumptions when doing so. We may end up with fewer assert-able arguments, but quantity never beats quality in rational thought.
Your arrival widens the discussion. I have been "eating" your book. I am sure we agree in many ways about the potential for spiritual development available for human beings. We are searching for knowledge in our individual ways. My orientation is scientific , that is, I have worked in laboratories and done cancer research for 25 years, and applied the same principles to my study of ancient texts and languages. It took me many years and the experience of living and working in traditional societies and learning their practices to begin to appreciate the knowledge and wisdom they held. The West has forgotten much of this wisdom or "school" knowledge in the past 500 years,for it once included these teachings, some within the churches. We have the mystics like Meister Eckhart, but the practices and teachings of schools are largely unknown. What we know of alchemy is mostly the symbols and metaphors, which those like Jung have interpreted psychologically (as he also did with Chinese texts). It is easy for people to use the same words and mean different things and vice-versa. When it comes to translations of great texts such as that of Lao Tzu - which I think is the most translated book in the world - people use different words to express their understanding of what are not just words but profound metaphors for what cannot be understood except through experience, which is relative to the learner.
One may work with the language and metaphors from one teaching, and another who follows a different teaching may read them and interpret their meaning as the same or different. Yet we find great teachers from many traditions who have no difficulty understanding one another because they have an understanding that is beyond the realm of symbols and metaphors. Their experience is "evidence-based." When we consider the world religions, the same principle applies. The original teachings are to "feed" all, but there are many levels of understanding (seven is often suggested) to be learned for those who seek to penetrate their meaning and are able to pay the price.
I agree wholeheartedly with your comment (as usual).
I don't really see it as "circular reasoning" to make statements following from a premise. Your premise that there is a knowable god is not somehow "better" than its flip side except that you accept it as true. All your recapitulations of the no-god premise are more or less on target: if there is no God then sacred writings and traditions arise from the needs and aspirations of the societies and cultures that gave birth to them. They are equally valid, as I have said. It is the belief that one of them is exclusively True that defines the rest as false. And this, I might add, has played a major role in the persecution and suffering that has run like a bloody river through human history. (Or am I not allowed to think that…)
"It seems only natural that someone incapable of seeing themselves as less than possessing the highest wisdom, would be frightened by the notion of a real God. Naturally any such person would in their insecure delusional state keep returning to any available evidence that could be used, however irrationally, to hold those that believed in God to be foolish, and incapable of seeing the brilliance of their "neutral" position."
Here again, I think you are way off the rails, John. You do not and cannot know this. If someone disagrees with your premises they must necessarily be insecure and delusional, convinced they have the highest wisdom? (When we know who really possesses it.) Frightened by the notion of a god? And I don't recall saying that you or anyone else is foolish to believe in a god: we believe what we need to believe. If you have an insight that convinces you there is a god and a text that, for you, captures the Truth, that's just fine. Just recognize that it is your truth. Live it, witness it, follow the logic of your premise. As an individual, there's no harm and probably a lot of good in it, until you make unwarranted assumptions about those who don't share your vision and your viewpoint. I'm not the one being rigid and judgmental here. And I'm hardly disrupting the dialogue because I didn't continue to follow your premise…I just wanted you to know I understood it. Would you be content to follow mine beyond this point?
I've enjoyed our discussion, but we've probably exhausted this subject by now, yes? I'm obviously frustrating you because I can't share the experience or insight that has shaped your belief, and there is no way that I know of to prove what is better left to belief in the first place. Let's see what Clarke and Jerry are up to…..
"I don't really see it as "circular reasoning" to make statements following from a premise."
Nor do I. But you did not present any of those statements as conclusions following from your premise. You presented them as evidence to justify the conclusion which was the very premise from which they came. That's called circular reasoning, it's not a good thing. I will demonstrate so you can better grasp the problem this form of reasoning creates:
If I said; There is probably a God - because - the origin of the Bible is uncertain, you would immediately cry foul. You would rightly sense that seeing the lack of certainty of the Bible's origin as evidence of the existence of God was poor reasoning.
What you did is exactly this form of reasoning with the opposite assumption as your premise. You said (in short); There is probably not a God - because - the authorship of the Bible is uncertain. And I rightly sensed that seeing the lack of certainty of the Bible's origin as evidence of Gods non-existence is poor reasoning.
I don't think I have done any such circular reasoning, you are welcome to produce any evidence of this not being the case. I stand by my five examples, and invite you to show how any of the "evidences" you have cited for thinking God does not exist, does not depend on first assuming God does not exist, for its...umph.
Further, to quote a paragraph which I clearly prefaced as hypothetical;
"I'll offer a potential hack job of pseudo psychoanalysis of the sort you "push" with startling regularity"
...is either disingenuous or demonstrates poor reading or memory. I'll assume you forgot the context from which you later pulled it.
Obviously I was trying to alert you to your fondness of ascribing motivations and reasoning to others in a negative and sometimes demeaning way. I note you failed to actually read the language of the hypothetical you quoted carefully, or you would have noticed that I didn't actually say any of that applied to you. I was simply parroting the style you yourself have used numerous times to "push" your assumptions about others in a less than straightforward manner. You've done this several times, and seem to think it makes such speculation peachy-keeno, but when I did it to you, even with a preface that clearly labeled it a demonstration of this technique, you could not seem to help but see it as an actual description of you.
My suggestion is, stop using thinly veiled insults...They still hurt. Prefacing derogatory remarks with phrases like "It seems to me", "History has shown", or "I think it is clear", may satisfy some technical qualification which allows them to be called "opinion", but it does little to foster meaningful dialog. It is generally just a backhanded way of belittling people. Your own response to it could be rather instructive I would think.
And of course I'll follow your premise, I do it all the time when discussing these matters with those that aren't pushing one or another conclusion. In fact, I do much of my own thinking with the premise that God may be un-real. I was an agnostic most of my life and only recently considered thinking with the premise that God was real. I'm not talking with you to push my views on you, I'm actually trying to point out some mistakes I don't believe you intended to make, and would probably rather not continue to make.
I share the bulk of your views on organized religion anyway. What I don't do (hopefully) is allow my views on this to become a barrier to having an open mind when I listen to ANYBODY. It's just not wise. It tends to cause the very people that might be drawn out of dogmatic thinking to recoil, and get more defensive. I actually want to get them free, not score points or something.
A quick look backward at our conversations tells me that we may both be making assumptions about what the other is saying. On a number of occasions you have told me (incorrectly) that I want a "No-God" hypothesis to be the only valid intellectual proposition, which should have tipped me off that you were seeing my statements as part of a larger argument designed to prove god's non-existence. You're saying I'm engaging in circular reasoning -- yep, that isn't good – is apparently based on that belief. But that has never been my intention: "unprovable" means just that. The only available proof is an experience or insight, and this kind of thing is applicable only to the individual having it and can only provide evidence FOR a god.
The example you cite, "You said (in short); There is probably not a God - because - the authorship of the Bible is uncertain" is not an argument I recall ever making, or would make. That would of course be circular reasoning, but why is this?: "Without that premise (No-God), there is no reason we should consider all traditions or sacred writings as equally valid. Period." There is no god, therefore no god gave human societies sacred texts, therefore all sacred writings are human-inspired and are therefore equally valid.
But actually I never said they were valid equally one with another. Talk about apples and oranges! What I have been saying is that these texts arise from the needs of the societies that produced them in a given time and place. Each is "sacred" to a specific society (although some made the 'majors' and spread), and can't, or shouldn't, be deemed universally True. I would also stand by my belief (and I know, that's all it can be, a belief) that a real God would be well beyond our capacity to imagine him or understand him, and all those "little" gods human societies have posited in an effort to find his essence and sacralize their own values are like the shadows on the wall of Plato's cave compared to the "Real God." I do understand your logical contention that if there is a god, he could provide a true text and give us insight; I can't prove that this isn't the case, but I believe it isn't because of what I believe about the nature of such a god. Back to belief...
In any case, if I am making statements that appear to you as thinly veiled insults, or belittling, I'm genuinely sorry. I was going through my statements in this string, though, and thought I had been rather respectful of your and others' beliefs. I suspect, though, that in the earlier part of Sigalit's string I probably came on pretty strong. There was a lot going on there, including my disgust that the Republican Party (toward which I had always leaned) had been captured by the religious right and concern that these so-called "values" issues have been inserted into the political process. I can get pretty preachy, and I greatly dislike some of the things that are going on. If in fact I have tamped that down (which I hope is true for the most part), it is partly having vented and partly your influence.
If we can get past that, what would you see as a direction for a dialogue? As you went from agnostic to believer, I went from believer to agnostic (atheist when it comes to those "little gods") . So perhaps the more critical question is, "What would it be about?"
Well, as you probably recall, I was brought here through another thread when you said you were here going to take up Williams suggestion, which seemed to be a call for you to essentially switch places to see how your beliefs would fair under serious critical examination. I have offered some of that, and responded to some matters that arose. While you have displayed some thoughtfulness I think you still rely fairly heavily on your take on other's practices for much of your comment. It is difficult to be critical of criticism, and I did what I could there. I believe you got at least some of my point about circularity, but would hope you will think on it some more, when the occasion arises.
As for your one clear statement on your perception of God, that being that God is beyond human comprehension (in a meaningful way), I note that you still insist that any that do not share that view are conceiving of "little gods". I happen to think God is great enough to create beings that can have a limited, though meaningful comprehension of His nature. From my perspective therefore it is your view that seems like a little god, since he is limited only to creating being vastly inferior to himself in cognitive ability.
I would hope you can appreciate the irony I see in God being so great that he cannot create great beings. I am not at all rigid in this position, like you, I see it as a higher God. On a practical level, I think your speaking of other's gods as little, is going to drive many deeper into dogmatic thinking, and that is precisely what I am striving to bring them out of. So while we may agree on general shortcomings of religions, I wish you could keep in mind that there are only people here, and we all need some "space" to think these things through and not be treated like cartoon images of people.
I agree with you and have cited the role of that exerience, or insight, or whatever you want to call it in coming to "know" a personal god, or a universal spirit, consciousnes, First Cause. How do you feel about meditation as a way to approach this?
I'm only using the term "little" to differentiate between the many, many gods that have been and are worshipped by people of various religious traditions the world over and a universal god encompassing this vast and complex universe. I'm not trying to be-little them. Maybe people in different societies and cultures each sense something of this universal god and do their best to figure out its nature and answer the fundamental questions we all ask. Whether this god is actively and intimately involved with us or whether it is essentially disinterested (granted, not a very happy concept) is a matter of belief or just conjecture. So I agree that such a being could do all the things you mention if it wanted to, and if this god created us in some direct way, as in the creation stories, it probably would do. If the nature of this god is not anthropomorphic and personal or not in any way as we have conceived it to be, then the question becomes,'would' rather than 'could.'
How are you trying to drive people out of their dogmatic paradigms, by the way?
"How are you trying to drive people out of their dogmatic paradigms, by the way?"
By revealing contradictions in their own concepts of God and themselves. Regardless of the degree of faith in God, if the concepts of God one has faith in are not "realistic", the result is a dead end of further development of interest in, or enlightenment about, ones own growth.
I think people are too anxious to settle on concepts that render further spiritual advancement unnecessary. Your concepts are a good example I think, and we cannot now deal with any but yours and mine. They are all you an I can we can actually work with, actually investigate. To conjecture about others is just fooling around.
If the concept of God is un-knowable, one will not make an attempt to know more. Even if just a few more steps are required to vastly expand ones spiritual growth (IN A REAL UNIVERSE WITH A REAL GOD), one will not proceed to even consider that those steps exist, let alone take them.
That is a fine position IF there is no "real" God. But it is a tragedy IF there IS a real God. Resisting the temptation to accept concepts that satisfy just one possible REALITY is not easy. but if one comes to a point where one allows their own concepts to shut off further investigation of possibilities they know might be actualities, then one has outwitted themselves. For example, you began a series of thoughts based on the premise that God (in the classic sense) was real, and though you had not reached any substantial barrier to continue that line of investigation, and had actually begun to see explanations for some of the problems you had previously seen when using a different premise, you stopped.
You stopped, and returned to your previous conclusions. You did this despite having success with proceeding based on a premise that if TRUE, could lead to a much preferred outcome of your investigation. Is this not odd? If you were simply interested in coming to understand the reality behind the possibility of a real God, or to arrive at the most beneficial outcome of your investigations, you would naturally have continued that line of reasoning. So it is logical to conclude that some other interest is more powerful in its operation in your actual behaviour. For some reason, you did not want to know if further movement in that direction would be fruitful.
You preferred to continue believing God was not knowable, which rendered further investigation based on the premise that he was, pointless by default. Not because the attempt to see the world from another perspective failed to result in rational progress, but in spite of it doing just that. That, I posit, is a form of dogmatism. It is every bit as irrational as "religious dogmatism" of any other sort.
This is an example of what you asked. It is not an indication that I have any particular skill or universal wisdom. I merely applied basic logic to what I saw. To discuss the value of doing this sort of interaction seems somewhat mute, it is valuable only insofar as the people engaging in it can observe without resorting to escaping into their previous conclusions that further investigation into these matters is pointless. If one begins such an attempt to observe such an interaction with a fixed conclusion about the matter, one cannot observe clearly what occurs next. So by pronouncing an-other's view invalid to begin with, one makes real investigation virtually impossible.
This raises some questions. The basic one is whether you can come to a realistic conclusion through a logical process if you are starting with a premise one cannot prove. You seem to dismiss the idea that "knowing" whether god is real might come from within, whereas I can't see how anyone can arrive at this conclusion based on human logic. Did you really find your way to belief based on pure rationality? Even harder (at least to me): how did you come to accept the Truth of a given sacred text based on this critierion?
Another question this raises is just who determines if the concepts of god one has faith in are or are not realistic? What does realistic even mean when you are talking about a god?
Third, you appear to be operating on the assumption that there can be no spiritual development without a corresponding faith in a god, which would have been news to the Buddha, who developed an incredibly sophisticated form of spiritual development (itself an imprecise term) in which gods were notably absent. This inextricable linkage between a god and spiritual development, it seems to me, is a rather narrow view of spiritual development.
I've experienced religious practices all over the world, and I would say that it is arguably easier for the devoutly religious to avoid the hard work of spiritual development than it is for an atheist. Believers have the stories, the lovely rituals, the idea that all one has to do is believe in one's god, the candles, incense, bells and all the rest – one can feel a-ok without a moment's reflection if that's what one wants.
If one needs to find answers to the fundamental questions that have nagged at mankind since the beginning, we might make the case that without a god and a church one is forced to look within for them. Hard work and a lifetime's slog, but I would maintain that is where the answers lie rather than in an elegant, seemingly rational logic chain.
Either one is actually seeking an understanding of God's nature, or they are not. No amount of any other action can yield a meaningful comprehension of that action. One may speculate ad infinitum about what others have said or done, but none of it can replace the actual search itself.
This is true with any number of experiences. Until you've done it yourself, you're basically just making guesses. If you wish to know about real things, you won't find out by investigating myths. If there is a real God, you're going to have to look for a real God, you won't catch Him napping in your speculation. What people here or there, recently or long ago, said or did, cannot reveal a real God. If He wanted to be revealed so easily he would simply perform any number of obvious acts since God can do whatever he wishes (that's the whole real God thing).
So obviously, if there is a real God, he does not want to be seen that easily. He wants us to come looking. If you have not gone looking for that sort of God, you have not gone looking for a "realistic" God.
It's not a question of who decides, YOU do.
If you went looking and found one, would you go ask a historian, or a scientist, or a scholar, or a guru, if it was OK for you to believe what you yourself had found?
I think spiritual development, looking within in the manner of a Zen practice or those of the contemplative orders in various religions, can only aid in the search for a god, if that is the goal. I say that because I know that over time meditation/contemplation has a transformative effect on a person which is manifested in an opening up. That implies an opening up to the possibility of god as well, although that doesn't really have to happen to make such practices valuable. Truth to tell, I find it very hard to get on board for the concept of a coy god who doesn't want to be seen easily but who, if you can believe the various dogmas out there, is ready to damn someone to an eternity of torment if he/she doesn't believe in him. I guess that's why I think religion so often just muddies the waters.
I agree completely with the value of meditation/contemplation, God or god being reality. It's rather obvious you have "trouble getting on board", and the sort of thinking you cite, being second hand, is precisely the sort I am referring to as pointless IF one wishes to actually investigate the possibility of a real God.
I will propose something softly that I think may be at the heart of your resistance to actually searching for a real God: Could it be that you are afraid of being swept away by some sort of spiritual delusion? If not, what does it matter what others have claimed about what God intends? I studied the Bible, for instance quite closely, and have no doubt that God intends to provide the overwhelming majority of human beings with eternal life.
I know full well that others do not see this, but then I don't ask the "masses" or the "experts" to assist me in figuring out a great many things. I can assure you that there is nothing dogmatic in seeking God, despite what dogmatists may have done. Such people comprise the majority of humans, in or out of religion. Finding dogmatism in a building does not mean the building made them that way.
If you are not dogmatic to begin with, you will not become so by finding God. He is very much against dogmatism in any form, and the Book I refer to makes this quite clear. Its complexity, and many apparent contradictions at first glance, are in fact I believe, in some part a means of preventing dogmatism from creeping into those that take it seriously. But even God will not force people to think, they must do that of their own free will.
For most of my life I either believed or wasn't sure about the existence of the kind of god that is described in various texts or religions. I was raised Christian and also studied the Bible, especially the passages that proved the correctness of my denomination's take on the truth. I also saw how that 'truth' periodically shifted, and the bitterness and divisiveness those upheavals caused. It didn't take me long to realize that religious truth is in fact a very subjective thing and that our concept of the nature of god, shaped by various texts and the doctrines, was equally subjective. And the more I learned about the unfathomable complexity of our world and the universe, the more I stood in awe of any being that could create and sustain it. The gods people worship all seemed to be poor, stunted imitations -- or maybe intimations is a better word -- of Reality. That is why I keep insisting that it is an inner experience or insight that brings us to god, not a rational thought process, no matter how impeccable the logic might seem. So, I suppose the answer to your question is that I'm not particularly worried about getting caught up in a religious delusion because if I had such an experience/insight, I'm sure it would not seem delusional to me (despite the way it might appear to others). I could even, I think, convince myself there is some kind of entity "out there" -- call it First Cause, Ground of Being, God, Universal Consciousness, whatever -- but I don't believe it matters, ultimately. I don't feel the need for a god to lead a moral and ethical life, and I don't feel the need to control life or the world. But if I'm on US 66 and I'm blinded by a bright light, I'll be open to that!
Well, at least you see the "circling back", and perhaps at some point you may come to see that this too is indicative of a form of dogmatism. What I hope you can realize from this discussion is that you don't know, and that is what you actually DO know. You may attempt to extrapolate that known thing into any manner of conclusion about God, or those that believe in God, but in FACT that is not really different in its basic nature from those that assume any other manner of defining a God or other humans understanding of such.
We are all in the same boat in this regard, and just as it would be inappropriate for one to seek out examples of atheists who are dogmatic or judgmental to prove that there was something inherently "wrong" with not believing in God, it is similarly inappropriate to seek out examples of those that do believe in God which behave that way, in order to prove that such believing is inherently "wrong". Neither form of belief is "wrong", but projecting onto others our own imagination IS wrong in any event.
I recently wrote a humorous piece on this sort of projecting: How to Be a Real Jerk, which might give you a better feel for what this can look like at times.
There is surely a great temptation to do this, and in both these instances it would seem that some form of insecurity lies at the heart of the urge to justify ones own position. But in truth, we cannot know what another might have experienced which led them to their position without actually having an intimate and open minded discussion with that person. To assume that others are all of a "type" we can imagine, or all involved in any sort of delusion we can see as possible, is to place ourselves in the role of a God, and this is surely not what either of us likes to bear the brunt of. In this regard I concur with you that it is rude and presumptuous for some in various religions to insist that their view is the ONLY reasonable one. But I caution that this habit is not confined to those that believe.
As for your openness on Route 66, I wrote a little poem during this discussion: Is God Hiding ? which expresses my feelings about this fairly well. And if you ever do get the urge to look for a real God, just if, you might wish to keep such a thought in mind.
I'm glad you're back. Sorry -- John and I have been at it forever, and I haven't paid attention to much else here. I went to your link, but I've been sick and traveling (not a great combination, by the way) and have got to revisit it. I don't think I understood what you were trying to say. You wouldn't have an executive summary simple enough for me to "get," would you? I'll give it another shot in the next day or so.
"And yes, I understand that one can be dogmatic about anything at all. So you see, I basically agree with you on these points. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything"
Then for Heaven's sake PLEASE stop pissing on the Bible to make a point about something we all agree on - that it's wrong to impose one's beliefs on others. Why give these over zealous "pushers" of their doctrines a way to see any that oppose them as attackers of their faith?
Hope you feel better soon.
No summary comes to mind that would be suitable, I guess that is why I had to write a whole book about it.
But I can tell by following your writings that you will not have the slightest problem understanding my concept ... you may well find it to be your own also when you come to know it.
Till later, Peace, j.
Well you've been more than patient, and I know that's not easy (as Jerry HAS attested). I think we understand each other fairly well, and I thank you for the stimulating conversation. And, as William here colorfully insists: Let's work together against those that would REALLY PUSH their dogma on us ALL.
It HAS been fun and, for me, educational: I've really enjoyed our discussion. I agree: we do understand each other pretty well.
Jerry, I'll be looking again at your link tonight.
And now for something completely different (as someone or another says):
Here's an interesting idea to chew on. A few excerpts below – the complete article is in the NY Times at
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/health/psychology/31book.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5087 &em&en=38fcee8b78add46a&ex=1162443600
Primatologists like Frans de Waal have long argued that the roots of human morality are evident in social animals like apes and monkeys. The animals' feelings of empathy and expectations of reciprocity are essential behaviors for mammalian group living and can be regarded as a counterpart of human morality.
Marc D. Hauser, a Harvard biologist, has built on this idea to propose that people are born with a moral grammar wired into their neural circuits by evolution. In a new book, "Moral Minds" (HarperCollins 2006), he argues that the grammar generates instant moral judgments which, in part because of the quick decisions that must be made in life-or-death situations, are inaccessible to the conscious mind.
People are generally unaware of this process because the mind is adept at coming up with plausible rationalizations for why it arrived at a decision generated subconsciously.
Dr. Hauser presents his argument as a hypothesis to be proved, not as an established fact. But it is an idea that he roots in solid ground, including his own and others' work with primates and in empirical results derived by moral philosophers.
* * *
Both atheists and people belonging to a wide range of faiths make the same moral judgments, Dr. Hauser writes, implying "that the system that unconsciously generates moral judgments is immune to religious doctrine." Dr. Hauser argues that the moral grammar operates in much the same way as the universal grammar proposed by the linguist Noam Chomsky as the innate neural machinery for language.
* * *
The moral grammar too, in Dr. Hauser's view, is a system for generating moral behavior and not a list of specific rules. It constrains human behavior so tightly that many rules are in fact the same or very similar in every society — do as you would be done by; care for children and the weak; don't kill; avoid adultery and incest; don't cheat, steal or lie.
But it also allows for variations, since cultures can assign different weights to the elements of the grammar's calculations. Thus one society may ban abortion, another may see infanticide as a moral duty in certain circumstances. Or as Kipling observed, "The wildest dreams of Kew are the facts of Katmandu, and the crimes of Clapham chaste in Martaban."
Sounds like an interesting book.
cheers....bl
I agree , Zen is an excellent method. Within all the traditions there are variations , which allows the individual to fit his/her practice to what works best to become centered and present to one's whole being. Sensing/feeling the body, being aware of the breathing (and letting it become natural , letting it go), watching thoughts (and letting them go, and the mind become quiet ) are elements that are easier or more difficult for different people at different times. Similarly visualization or mantras suit people differently as aids. The aim is the same : an experience, always "new," of a finer energy appearing in one's being, which is wordless and outside of time.
It sounds easy, but it takes patience and practice. Each time one begins again, for there are tensions and imbalance - our natural passivity and heaviness. We wouldn't have anything to work with without this resistance! The practice is a process. The wish for a result kills the work. "Experiences" should not become distractions . "If you see the Buddha , kill him!"). I have seen people who practice meditation for whom it becomes a "technique." It feels "good" and "right." But it has really become an in-the- head-thing: "I think, therefore I THINK I am."
It must have been interesting meeting the Dalai Lama. The Tibetan lamas are very free and direct and have been able to communicate Buddhist methods well to Westerners. They learn visualization from childhood and it is very practical for them, like a language learned in childhood . Westerners tend to learn the same knowledge in a linear form, as a system of single ideas that all relate to make a complete system. The microcosm, the macrocosm, "As above , so below," etc . One tanka (also one Persian carpet or the Chinese emperor's robe) contains the WHOLE teaching. The same knowledge, just a different approach to it. The teachings of the early Christian desert fathers and the Philokalia (Orthodox tradition) provide the same ideas and use like methods.
The mysteries of DNA are so vast that virtually anything is possible.
Scientists have "mapped" the basic structure, but a map of NYC does not a single Broadway play unfold...
In the Book I put much Faith in (which finds some credibility here and there) the "supposed" author says;
I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts
You have shown remarkable flexability, I wish all could be so open.
Good "luck" and God bless you truly.
Thanks Bill, also much appreciated. In all of the vast reading that I have done, there never has been a thing that I could completely agree with and get behind 100%, and any less of a participation would not be fitting in such transcendent matters. So I fully accept people not agreeing with me, I just like it better when they at least attempt to understand first before deciding, thanks for efforts in that direction :-)
I do believe that there is much falsehood masquerading as truth though and my whole mission is to get people to not settle for any less than their very highest truth ... as that is where God is best found in my experience.
I have read bits and pieces of the old philosophers, enough to find that I could spend a lifetime doing so in an attempt to reinvent the wheel ... being as how so many disagreed with each other. It all seemed like such a 'competition' and I did not feel I could do it all justice without comparing it all ... so I hardly started.
I did just look in my library and found that I do have Ouspensky's Tertium Organum that I evidently began reading about 6 years ago but it appears that I stopped at page 50 according to my notes and book mark in it.
I am way behind on my reading now (because of all of the time I spend here on this computer), but I will keep it handy and start it again soon. It does look very interesting.
"Yes, I think the mystical traditions of all religions (just about) have some form of meditation/contemplation. "
>>>>
I think it can be misleading to think of meditation as "mystical." It takes intense physical effort and endurance, whether sitting, walking, moving, dancing, chanting, or completing a set of ritual prayer positions (as the Greek and Russian Orthodox monks or the Muslims ( among many) do. These are all meditation practices.
I note you mentioned Gurdjieff. I have worked with many of his pupils, since the 1950's (when he was little known - he had perhaps 200 pupils at the time of his death in 1949, although his pupil Ouspensky, who split with him in the early 1920's, had a few thousand followers in the UK and US. Ouspensky had forbidden his pupils to even mention Gurdieff. But when he died in 1947 , Mme. Ouspensky told the pupils Gurdjieff was alve and to go to him. "In Search of Miraculous- Fragments of an Unknown Teaching" was in manuscript. P D Ouspensky had decided not to publish it. Mme. O. gave it to Gurdjieff and he decided it should be published. It is still the best record of the early teaching, to 1923 or so; and the the best book on Gurdjieff's ideas, after Gurdjieff's own talks and writings. Gurdjieff's teaching is a very practical and comprehensive teaching, safe and sure when rightly structured. It is best studied working with others who have experience in creating the right conditions for study, which Gurdjieff developed and designed. Much of the transmission is oral and and mind-to-mind, as with traditional teachings. However, there are no "gurus." It is not "cultish." Young and old, experienced and less experienced work together. Since the late 60's many so-called Fourth Way or Gurdjieff Works have appeared, some of them to be avoided like the plague, some very incomplete.
Jerry, you should be asking Clarke about Gurdjieff et al., actually, as he has apparently spent years seriously studying his and many others' writings, whereas I have (in comparison) dipped in and out. I read Ouspensky a gazillion years ago and can understand why you might have gotten bogged down a bit. Gurdjieff, if I am recalling him correctly, had developed a complex system having to do with musical notes, or tones, corresponding to planets or somesuch. I never really understood it, but Clarke can probably explain it. Given the work you have already done, I don't know that it would add anything, but you might find it interesting. Good luck....
In my subsequent non-stop reading up on it all, I was led down many paths, and some of them so exaggerated that I began to seriously question my own intuition about my 'standing' with Spirit. But my relationship with Spirit evolved to the degree that I gained much trust and confidence in it and then no longer concerned myself about what I call the outlandish claims of those posing as 'more' spiritual.
I now fully believe that there are multitudes of 'followers' of the spiritual path that are completely misled by the pumped up claims to the degree that these followers cannot seem to just stop and appreciate their own understandings as enough of a spiritual relationship to build upon personally ... rather than still seeking the 'rainbow' claimed (often falsely) by others.
So that was mentioned in light of your last sentence above. I am presently satisfied that I have found what matters to me. I am no longer 'searching' for additional 'improvement', yet I am more than open for whatever comes along.
Most of my reading for some time now, has been only to improve my ability to discuss things more intelligently for the purpose of helping others to think out of the box of 'normalcy'. Yet I do read some things just for the enjoyment now, where before it was mostly to 'study' (of course I always enjoyed the learning).
Peace, j.
To find out more about this check out my article entitled "Christianity vs Religion" In it, I discuss the very reasons why we claim we are the TRUTH, because we only have prophesy that has come to pass, and evidence to prove that the Bible is God's word. Only Christianity provides a way of salvation that is apart from works. Every other religion ultimately either says works+cross or they eliminate the cross and say that we can become gods by looking within ourselves.
This is in fact THE LIE that Satan proposed to Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. I thank you for this article, because it allows me to speak out on this issue in a powerful way. Please check out my article to understand more, thanks. Keep up the good work and God Bless!
A reliable, rich source for Gurdjieff's teaching and writings (and for Ouspensky and other pupils) is www.gurdjieff.org
They publish a magazine or journal, as well: Selections from many past issues are available on their website.
Steven, I was about to say that you need to learn a lot more about the Bible and how it evolved and how the canon was chosen to strengthen the institution of the early church; the varying beliefs of the early Christians, which didn't include some key elements of what Christians believe today, the many gospels that contain a great deal more of what Jesus was actually about (but were declared heretical), etc., but as I think more about it, if you believe the things you said above and it works well for you, I think you'd be better off just sticking with the things you "know." More power to you, my friend.
The essence of Gurdjieff's teaching is the Socratic method. Those who cannot distinguish between the teacher and the teaching are making "a spiritual guide" of their own egos - an obstacle to learning.
'What would Jesus do?' also consider the facts that
Jesus did not consort with high-powered lobbyists
or corporations. In fact, in the time Jesus lived
(if you believe Jesus lived) none of those people
existed. And also, Jesus did not like hypocrisy.
And he helped the poor and the sick.
He probably wasn't destitute by the standards
of the time, but he wasn't rich.