Religious ceremony and the inner landscape

Image via WikipediaEach sacred tradition has some way of connecting what we consider to be the objective, or external world, to the subjective, or internal world. Even those which state that it is all one in God or in Mind or the like.

In Nichiren Buddhism, this is the Gohonzon, a scroll with sacred writing embodying the Lotus Sutra. One is to chant to the scroll, which is a physical representation of the Buddha-nature in the person chanting. The outer representation of the altar and scroll, recalling the Ceremony in the Air, is supposed to merge with the inner landscape of those performing this ritual.

In Shin Buddhism and in the larger realm of Pure Land Buddhism, the same can kind of association can be applied to its ceremonies and to the imagery of Amitabha Buddha and the Pure Land.

In Judaism, this externality was the Ark of the Covenant carrying the tablets of Moses as well as the tent in which it (and the Spirit of God) resided. It was also associated with the Temple in Jerusalem, and after the last demolition of the temple building, it was associated with the scrolls of the Torah itself. In Christianity, after and perhaps prior to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, this externality was transferred to the person of Jesus of Nazareth and was then extended to the Eucharist. And so on.

And I can hear some mumbling. "So what?"

Does it make sense to believe in God?

Image via Wikipedia

All "gods" in the sense that atheists use the term are in fact human-made. That is no surprise. All words reflect human mental constructions pointing to some idea or experience.

Even the lesser gods of polytheism reflect something humans perceived not only about the world outside of themselves but the world within. But if atheists think to little or narrow of God, we have theists to thank for it.

Any God that can be accepted or rejected is not God. What is accepted or rejected are images, depictions, and descriptions of God. To paraphrase Fr. Rolheiser, God's existence does not depend upon the quality of our imagination. The deep knowledge of the heart which carries an awareness of the Divine cannot truly deny or reject itself.

Instead we may ask, "Does our notion of the Divine bringing us closer to a greater awareness of the Source and a deeper appreciation of our participation in and as an aspect of It?" In this instance Source refers to what the philosopher Tillich refers to the ground of Being -- the focus of ultimate concern.

That is, God is not another thing, even the biggest or best of a category of things. God is instead freed from such limitations, even as this description itself falls short of completeness. God is allowed to be both immanent and transcendent, beyond what we can conceive and as closer than our own breath, source and sustainer of all that is.

The (non)existence of God -- more on why God isn't a superior hypothesis

Image via Wikipedia

Many  contemporary theological issues at the non-specialist level continue to swirl around the notion of God-as-hypothesis, which is derisively framed by the irreligious as the shrinking God-of-the-gaps and coincides with the idea that religion in general and theism in particular is a failed primitive science.

Is that a fair or accurate assessment?  How else might one consider this issue?

Again I am quoting a small bit from the Faith & Theology blog, because it is just that good and coincides so well with the themes I've been exploring here, albeit in a more professional and erudite fashion than my amateurish knowledge and experience can offer.   By all means for more go there and get a deeper and richer discussion of these matters, but for now:

A hypothesis is either probable or improbable – but the existence of God is neither probable nor improbable; indeed the non-existence of God is inconceivable. A deity who might not exist is contingent and therefore not worth the name of Yahweh (Exodus 3:14). Kierkegaard drives the point home: “God does not exist, he is eternal.” That is the truth behind the unfortunately named ontological argument (Anselm’s “proof” is, in fact, a prayer). At least it is for believers, who, if they engage atheists on the field of probabilities, are acting in bad faith, i.e., in either a fraudulent or downright idolatrous manner. The Creed does not begin “On balance, we believe …”

A visitor also chimed in with a quote from God Matters by Herbert McCabe:

"[I]t is clear that God cannot interfere in the universe, not because he has not the power but because, so to speak, he has too much; to interfere you have to be alternative too, or alongside, what you are interfering with. If God is the cause of everything, there is nothing he is alongside. Obviously, God makes no difference to the universe; I mean that we do not appeal specifically to God to explain why the universe is this way rather than that, for this we need only to appeal to explanations within the universe... (pg 6)

To repeat what I've written before:

All "gods" in the sense that atheists use the term are in fact human-made. That is no surprise. All words reflect human mental constructions pointing to some idea or experience.

Even the lesser gods of polytheism reflect something humans perceived not only about the world outside of themselves but the world within. But if atheists think to little or narrow of God, we have theists to thank for it.

Any God that can be accepted or rejected is not God. What is accepted or rejected are images, depictions, and descriptions of God. To paraphrase Fr. Rolheiser from The Shattered Lantern, God's existence does not depend upon the quality of our imagination. My own phrasing is that the deep knowledge of the heart which carries an awareness of the Divine cannot truly deny or reject itself.

Instead need to ask, "Does our notion of the Divine bringing us closer to a greater awareness of the Source and a deeper appreciation of our participation in and as an aspect of It?" In this instance Source refers to what the philosopher Tillich refers to the ground of Being -- the focus of ultimate concern.

That is, God is not another thing, even the biggest or best of a category of things. God is instead freed from such limitations, even as this description itself falls short of completeness. God is allowed to be both immanent and transcendent, beyond what we can conceive and as closer than our own breath, source and sustainer of all that is.

Some assume "God" is an extra layer or texture spread over existence like jam on bread. God isn't an extra or an add-on. Whatever you are aware of is your level of awareness of God. If you are only aware of yourself, don't underestimate that. There are those who plumb the depths of existence through learning, meditation, praise, etc, but they are technically not "closer" to God than you. They may be more appreciative, and that could translate into a greater benefit, but they aren't somehow more "special".

God isn't a superior hypothesis or a better idea - (seeking/experiencing) God is an entirely different orientation to existence. God isn't a thing, a being, or any other phenomena. God is like a shorthand for discussing the totality encompassing existence, its sustaining power and source.

If we assume ("choose to believe in") God, then everything is part of that revelation.

Book Recommendation: "The Shattered Lantern" by Ron Rolheiser

Subtitle: Rediscovering a Felt Presence of God.
 

It talks to the issues I have been inquiring about on the concept of relating to God. From the Preface:

"Faith is not the same thing as being able to imagine God's existence or even of being able to feel God on an emotional level. The mind is mostly unequal to the task of imagining God's existence and the heart is just as often as inept at giving us any feeling of it. But God doesn't cease to exist for that reason, nor is faith dead just because imagination and the heart have run dry."

The book covers the effects of an over-emphasis on things like pragmatism and individualism and stumbling blocks such as trying to "understand" God.

It also speakings to the dulling of the interior life in our society, which matters for everyone, not just those seeking to reconnect to a genuine sense of God.