Refuge in Nihilism

[Pixabay]

For some individuals nihilism is preferable to faith.

To make that a little clearer, some individuals prefer a view in which there is no inherent meaning or greater purpose to human existence, only a blind mechanical world in which such values are at best a contrived state.

It may seem that this would split along the lines of those which are religious or spiritual versus those who are not, but this is too simple. There are those who cannot relate to religion who sense a profound structure and meaningfulness to existence beyond any post-modern analysis or cultural meta-narratives, and there are those who identify as religious who live as if there really is no such grand vision.

Then there are those who are unable or unwilling to sit with the big existential questions except as an analytical or conceptual puzzle or hobby, and, having come up with some simple personal philosophy, go back to living without really concerning themselves about such issues in an introspective and vulnerable way. Some don't even go that far, simple borrowing a religious or philosophical outlook like a coat or hat but never really paying it any mind.

For these people, there are projects, plans, and problems to be worked on, and life is just a series of minutes, hours, days, and weeks organized around the activity these issues present. There isn't really any time or any need to be worrying about "what it all means". Just take care of what comes your way and let everything else take care of itself. Again, these people may or may not self-identify as spiritual or religious. At best, faith and its accoutrements is to some degree a commodity or accessory for many such people.

Based on my recent writing about spirituality, and about faith, and about religion, I am introducing a concept I call spiritual nihilism [1]. To be clear, this doesn't mean being spiritual but engaging in moral nihilism (the belief that there is no objective morality). It is close to what is referred to as existential nihilism, and may in fact be considered a variant of that collection of views. However, it is stripped of any romanticism about honesty or bravery. It makes no particular claims of being able to create ones own meaning, or living stoically in the face of absurdity.

Spiritual nihilism doesn't strictly deny the possibility of some greater meaning or purpose in which humans can participate, but rather an inability to personally perceive and participate in such meaning. Or to use the concepts and language of spirituality recently developed here, an inability to integrate oneself into systems and structures of meaning, regardless of their ultimate value or veracity.

For any number of reasons, then, it seems preferable or even necessary to embrace existential nihilism or one of its closely related views espousing the triviality of human existence, and in particular the individual's own existence.

Taking Faith Seriously

[Pixabay]

What does it mean to take faith seriously? Is it important?

Having recently written about notions of spirituality as well as of prayer that are primitive, that is, that precede the specific notions of particular sacred tradition, that I might have something to write about faith. But that one is much harder.

It's not hard to be dismissive of the idea, either through ridicule or through firm devotion to an unexplored and undeveloped notion of faith. Taking faith seriously is a challenge.

There's a ton of material on describing or defining faith on this blog alone. But let's keep it simple. It's a form of trust and anticipation about something or someone that cannot be explained in a strictly rational, logical, or empirically verifiable way.

That isn't to say that there aren't rational, logical, or empirically grounded reasons for faith. There may be plenty. An overabundance. But faith stretches out beyond such standards of verification and prediction. Faith is a risk that one takes, which is why it is sometimes compared to a leap into the unknown.

We all take small risks like that everyday, taking common assumptions for granted. We can call those experiences little leaps of faith if we want, but they don't require nearly as much trust nor do they engender the same level of anticipation as what we're talking about. Having a big leap of faith every so often is also common in human life, but that's not what I'm getting at here either.

In the context of spirituality (and religion), faith is a constant endeavor along a trajectory toward something far greater than oneself, however that may be conceived of or represented. It may also involve regular small leaps as well as bigger ones now and again, but it is part of a larger process or path. As you go along, you may even have to let go of the regularity and familiarity of the process. The path may seem to shift or even to disappear, requiring even greater faith. Dark nights of the senses and the soul.

What is the point of following such a path? Why bother with faith at all?

Quick Summary of Outlooks in Religion and Spirituality

English: Sadhu offering charas to Shiva, India. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Too many people in modern industrialized societies have such a limited view of what religion is that their approach to thinking about, reacting to, and discussing religion can become counterproductive. Below is a rough sketch of a brief summary of some important distinctions to show what I mean. I use popularized terms and concepts such as "right-brain consciousness" for the sake of balancing clarity and expediency (more on my thoughts on that particular notion can be found here):

Right-Brain consciousness = holism, poetic sense, and creative response.

Left-Brain consciousness = reductionism, literalism, and logical analysis.

Spirituality = emphasis on Right-Brain experience and a focus on the depth of the present moment or on an expereince beyond time, broad and inclusive sense of connection and identification, sublime emotional states, non-judgmental, open to possibilities.

Anti-spirituality = emphasis on Left-Brain experience and a focus on the past or future or the immediate moment in terms of needs and desires, narrow and exclusive sense of connection and identification, reactionary emotional states, judgmental, fearful of differences.

Mystical/Contemplative Religion = embraces spirituality and shares impressions in artistic and poetic forms, seeks balance.

Fundamentalist Religion = anti-spiritual tendencies, attempts to interpret mystical and contemplative expressions through Left-Brain analysis, seeks domination.

Mainstream Religion/Liberal Religion = attempts to reconcile tendencies and history of a sacred traditions including their more mystical and fundamentalist aspects, tend to lean more towards spirituality.

Mainstream/Conservative Religion = attempts to reconcile tendencies and history of a sacred traditions including their more mystical and fundamentalist aspects, tend to lean more towards anti-spirituality.

(One could also go on to map things such as spirituality and anti-spirituality onto to different forms on non-theism as well.)

This brief and over-simplified taxonomy has implications for how people use concepts and terms such as religion and spirituality but also those such as faith, sacred, and the like. It is worth exploring or at least having a good grasp of because if the spiritual impulse in inherently human, it is surely a good thing to guide its expression toward healthier and more beneficial forms. 

Smashing Idols With Pat Robertson

In this video clip televangelist Pat Robertson advocates for vandalism and destruction of property regarding a viewer's friend and her Buddha statue:



While I have no intention of labeling Mr. Robertson an idolator, this clip reminds me of something I wrote not too long ago--

You sometimes hear people warn against chasing after false idols, or being idolatrous, and the like. Yet idolatry is limiting the divine to a particular form and raising up that form as an icon of exclusion and ultimately intolerance. The idols become overly elaborate and demanding, serving to reinforce the existing views and prejudices of their creators. Those who can only see the divine in their own holy symbols, which they then guard jealously, are the actual idolaters.

I do think that the concept of idolatry has its uses, but it should be used cautiously and with a good dose of introspection and humility. Idolatry is a kind of hardening of the mental arteries as well as of the heart. It leads to a kind of choking, a lack of flow.

Left Brain, Right Brain -- Doubt and Opening the Heart

Image via Wikipedia

Have you ever wondered why some people seem to have no sense of "depth" to reality beyond the general appearance of phenomena? This depth is sometimes referred to spirituality, or a sense of the numinous, or by some similar terminology, including cosmic awareness or mysticism or transcendent consciousness.


Those who work in the religion of psychology, a field I confess to not being well acquainted with, have as I understand it tried to come up with scales and measures based on self-reporting and self-scoring of experiences which are associated culturally with transcendent phenomena, including what are known as peak experiences, and the effects of those who have such experiences. Ralph Hood at the University of Tennessee Chattanooga and his M-scale come to mind.

There are also students of the brain such as Andrew Newberg who have tried to identify the neurological structures and processes related to such experiences, not to mention the accounts of trained neuroanatomist Jill Bolte Taylor and her shift in consciousness after having a stroke. Dr. Taylor's stroke impaired activity on the left side of her brain, in particular the areas that discriminate and label experience as a part of our capacity for language.

While none of the work or insights by these and other researchers has come to any firm conclusions about the nature of the spiritual experience, and while the left-brain vs. right-brain dichotomy may be over-generalized, over-exploited, and potentially misleading, there does seem to be evidence for distinct ways of shaping conscious experience corresponding to neural process and structure.

And this does match some accounts by contemplatives and mystics about the nature of transcendent consciousness. Not only does this have the potential to validate the experiences of such spiritually oriented people as healthy brain function rather than delusion, it may also help shed light on why some people seem to have difficulty in recognizing, generating, or maintaining such states.

Too much or too little thinking in religion?

Image by Transguyjay via FlickrHave you ever felt that there was too little thinking among religious people? Did you know there are some who think there is too much?

It really depends on what we mean by "thinking" and how it is applied.

Naturally those who have run across religious people who are narrow-minded, intolerant and whose words and actions broadcast that faith is the antithesis of reason will be tempted to conclude that if these people would only think more, and do so critically, they would either be a more enlightened religious person or abandon religion altogether.  The outcome depends on which of those is closest to the critics own preferred self-image.

Then there are those who think that the liberating message of religion is being held hostage by the elites, which include those with more access to education and with more time to wax philosophically about the meaning of it all. They conclude that any genuine spirituality should be accessible to any sincere seeker with any level of formal education. Others feel that thinking too much on one level of analysis about religious ideas or practices can be a problem because it closes off avenues to other forms of experience.

Those who think there is too much thinking in religion and that there is too little are both right and both wrong.

Religious Experience, Meaning and the (Lack of the) Substance of Faith

Image by Express Monorail via Flickr

The phenomena that have been corralled into the category of religious experience include many of those which would be referred to as mystical experiences. Religious experience can be thought of as the cornerstone of true spirituality and genuine religious practice. Ralph Hood, a researcher who has studied such phenomena, devised what is known as the M-scale as a way to survey the degree to which people have encountered such phenomena. If we go with the premise that religious experience is an essential part of spiritual growth, then failing to have or to recognize such experiences would be a major roadblock to those seeking the depth of being, that is, the depth of their own existence as part of the overall depth of existence itself, which many cultures have labeled the Divine or God. We might expect that those who score "low" on measures such as the M-scale also have trouble personally experiencing the core insights of religions or sensing any benefit from spiritual practices. I am not familiar with such literature and if such correlations have been found, but I know two things: firstly, I score very low such measures; secondly, I have trouble personally experiencing the core insights of religions or sensing any benefit from spiritual practices.

On an intellectual level I can "get" the major insights of religion, such as are outlined by a statement from the Snowmass Conference (click and scroll down). I find that these ideas, expressed through the lenses of different faith traditions, are deeply appealing. But like most of my knowledge about such large and complex topics, it is mostly second hand. That is to say, I haven't measured every fossil or living species, but I can see patterns in the data produced by hundreds of academics who have studied millions of specimens collectively. In the same way, if I take the collective experiences of those who have written about their own religious experiences and those of others, I can similarly see intriguing patterns. I also find that many of the moral insights that those of a more "mystic" orientation have affirmed are compatible with my own sensibilities. The same can be said of the humbling and empowering and motivating revelations they convey. So, you know, I like this stuff. I am even slightly moved emotionally on occasion by some if it (though rarely). But it is, as the common vernacular would have it, all in my head. To be clear, this means it is at a fairly superficial level of reflection and integration.  It's like the difference between learning about something in a textbook and going into the lab, or even better, into the field, and getting personal, direct experience with the subject matter. The real thing is always more expansive, complex and exciting than the best generalized models and standard definitions.

Great minds think alike (so why I am I thinking like they do?)

I recently browsed an issue of Shambala Sun.  Sometimes it has nothing of interest to me, other times it has a gem of an article that I need to keep and read over and over.  This one by "Jack Haubner", in the January 2011 issue, had a quote that talked about the importance of the tension between received tradition and ongoing (personal) revelation:

More important, watching Roshi in a non-monastic setting gave me new insight into just how seamlessly he had made the Zen tradition his own--and vice versa.  An uneasy tension had always existed between my free-spirited self and the hyper-disciplined, even militaristic conventions of formal Zen practice.  But that week in the hospital I began to see that the proper relationship between an individual and a tradition is one of tension--healthy tension.  That is what produces spiritual growth, both in the individual and in the tradition itself: not the individual's solo efforts nor the tradition's overarching forms, but the two locked into a single struggle/dance, from which a new kind of person--and practice--emerges.

With the full force of the tradition behind him, my teacher searched within himself (the "backward step," as Dogen called it) and eventually broke through, turning himself inside out and taking the outside in.  The tradition became personal and the personal universal.  As the religious historian Karen Armstrong has pointed put, the tendency in our age is either to reject the traditional and remain isolated, secular individualists, or cling to religious forms and ideals and become fundamentalists.  But the truth, like all truths, lies somewhere in between: We can't do it on our own, nor can the tradition do it for us.  When the individual and the tradition are perfectly wed, intermingled and indistinguishable, a spiritual heavy hitter--a genuine master--is born, and an institution is revitalized.

In short, the tradition must be dissolved within the individual, and the individual must dissolve within the tradition.

A month or so ago I had finally picked up the classic Being Peace by Thich Naht Hanh, and in Chapter Two I came across a passage which read, "Whenever I say, 'I take refuge in the Buddha,' I hear 'The Buddha takes refuge in me.' " That kind of phrasing seemed a tad familiar to me, although we took developed it in different ways.

The benefits of letting go of God can include coming closer to God

[The following is taken from a larger conversation originally conducted elsewhere. It has been edited for congruity and sensibility, including some new text, but the integrity of its original meaning is left intact.]

People sometimes mention letting go of God. But what does that mean? Was God in your pocket? Maybe on your iPod? Did you set God out with the trash? What you let go was an idea about God. A conception of God. A way of relating to God.

People will often keep struggling to hold on to this perspective, but intellectual honesty often wins out because there were things that didn't work with their expectations and assumptions, including their interpretation of what God and religion is supposed to be and what is valid or invalid in assessing such requirements.

I cannot go into everything I've written on the matter, but I went through the same thing, as have thousands of others. For whatever its worth, here are a very few of the things I have encountered and pondered along the way:

Benediction for 10/15/10

A collection of quotes from the late Cesar Chavez

I am convinced that the truest act of courage, the strongest act of humanity, is to sacrifice ourselves for others in a totally nonviolent struggle for justice. To be human is to suffer for others. God help us to be human.

We work so hard at not being human, so hard at being something other than ourselves. The whole idea is that you have to be what you are and let other people be who they are. We don’t have to change people to change the world. Because there are enough of us; we don’t need a whole majority to do it. We have to find people and help them to act. Without action, you’re kidding yourself.

Solid rock or shifting sand?

Image via Wikipedia

How does one have faith in events such as the Christian teaching of the resurrection of Jesus?  Is it just agreeing because other people say they believe it?  Is belief in such a case solely matter of accepting or rejecting an idea?  A historical proposition? Or is it a matter of heartfelt trust and experience-inspired insight?

To try to make such an event into a mere historical fact or a mere historical falsehood or just a metaphor or any other easily accepted and comprehended label is a stumbling block because it denies or ignores the mystery at the heart of the matter.

As I am slowly coming to see it, if it were a simple thing that could be fully comprehended and conclusively decided at the level of our ordinary intellect, then it would just be an idea to reject or accept based on everyday standards for ideas. Instead, events such the Paschal mystery (including that of the Resurrection and the Ascension) are explored by living them out through liturgy and charity.

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.

Do atheists encounter God when they stop believing in God?

"In the New Testament faith means surrender to God. Those who say, 'I can't believe in this God,' usually mean, 'I cannot accept the particular tenets of the religion of my childhood. They were not something I feel I could identify with.' But that does not mean that they don't have faith. An atheist is really someone who has another religion. For them God is not God. But since God transcends all concepts anyway, it really does not matter that much whether you think of God as God or God as not God. For faith it does not matter, because even if you have a belief system that calls the Ultimate Reality by some other name or label, anything you can say about God is more unlike God than God actually is." -- Fr. Thomas Keating in  Divine Therapy & Addiction

If we take what Keating says seriously that many people are asking for something based on a specific preconception of who and what God is and how God operates. If I haven't written it somewhere before, I would expand this and say if you have experienced true joy, beauty, the thrill of discovery, freedom or liberation from shackles of the body, heart or mind, then you have awoken to/realized part of God (or your experience within God).

Take this quote by Robert Ingersoll which sums up what many agnostics and atheists feel:

When I became convinced that the Universe is natural--that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light, and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world--not even in infinite space. I was free--free to think, to express my thoughts--free to live to my own ideal--free to live for myself and those I loved--free to use all my faculties, all my senses--free to spread imagination's wings--free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope--free to judge and determine for myself--free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the "inspired" books that savages have produced, and all the barbarous legends of the past--free from popes and priests--free from all the "called" and "set apart"--free from sanctified mistakes and holy lies--free from the fear of eternal pain--free from the winged monsters of the night--free from devils, ghosts, and gods. For the first time I was free. There were no prohibited places in all the realms of thought--no air, no space, where fancy could not spread her painted wings--no chains for my limbs--no lashes for my back--no fires for my flesh--no master's frown or threat--no following another's steps- -no need to bow, or cringe, or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free. I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously, faced all worlds.

It sounds like many people may perceive (an aspect of) God but don't realize it because of their certainty about who or what God is. (This isn't an attempt to impose God on those who claim to not believe, it is a perspective that assumes the reality of God and the sincerity of atheists.)

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.

Facing doubt to find genuine faith

Excerpt from "How honesty about your doubt can save your life" by David Dark in the July/August issue of Relevant magazine. It is relevant beyond just Christianity...

I meant—and mean—to challenge the version of Christianity that says we’re called, above all, to play it safe, only letting in the thoughts and ideas that fit easily into our supposedly Christian belief grid, as if there are certain confessions of honest confusion or doubt our faith is the one which insists (or at least strongly implies) that fear is the heart of love, to borrow Ben Gibbard’s phrase. And it is this version I see critiqued most radically in the life of Jesus.

Against the psychic oppression of a Christianity that would keep us dishonest and afraid, I want to announce the good news that the God who exists, the God in Whom I believe, never calls anyone to play-act or pretend or to silence their own concerns about what’s true. I want to chase off the spirits that render us incapable of seeing truthfully for fear that we might let in the wrong information, as if God might be mad angry and insecure by an archaeological dig, a scientific discovery, an ancient manuscript, a Christ-like atheist or a good film about homosexual cowboys. If we think we have faith, because we faithfully protect ourselves from anything that might call it into question—as if God is counting on us to keep ourselves stupid, closed off to the complexity of the world we’re in—I’d like to argue that we don’t have faith in God at all. We have faith in our own faith rather than the God who transcends it, faith in a faith that will somehow save us. Not faith in God, but faith in a false god of our own conceptions, a god too afraid to entertain a question or a doubt.

More on seeking (or moron seeking?): believe, accept, act

Here is a summary of the things that I have found repeatedly in my search for clues to spiritual seeking. I'm not preaching, I'm just sharing what I've read/heard:

Believe. This is more than mere intellectual assent to a set of empirically dubious or physically untestable historical propositions or elaborate yet limiting/potentially misleading depictions of the Divine. That alone is never enough and it mis-characterizes the point of these propositions and depictions*. However, one does need to believe in the sense of accepting the reality of something, in this case, of a Higher Power that orients, inspires, and sustains us. Otherwise what is one loving, prizing, holding dear, committing oneself to, or engaging with (to use some other meanings for "belief" cherished by authors like Karen Armstrong)? In other words, assume that everything is related to everything else or that the parts or the whole are pointless or dependent solely on what any individual makes of it. Adopting this orientation appears to be a necessary initial step.

Accept. Accept that this belief confirms your intrinsic worth independent of what you have done or failed to do. It also suggests this is true of all people and all phenomena. It bestows a dignity on you and every person that cannot be taken away, and thus compels one to see oneself and others as worthy of this dignity and of having a fundamental equality. This acceptance works both to humble and inspire, an antidote to arrogance and despair. This acceptance is often hard to handle, particularly when one lacks or refuses to embrace charity and forgiveness for themselves or others.

Act. In turn, such a perspective leads one to act as if the details of ones life matter. As if all lives matter. As if all things are precious. As if the sacred is found in all. Of course, this has consequences for morality and ethics, for social justice and charity, for taking care of ourselves. Plus, behavior and belief share a two-way causal relationship. Struggling to believe and working to accept the spiritual dimension of life involves action. Prayer, devotion, contemplation, service, etc are the core of such action. Without it, belief and acceptance will always be out of reach.



-------------------
*The point of such mysteries isn't to simply ask if they are historically true or demand certainty of such things based on second-hand knowledge. You can debate them if you like, and reject them if you wish. The question is - what do they tell you? When we can't know for sure based on our own senses or physical proof, when the details are ambiguous, what does your heart tell you?

Why I am not anti-religious

(A summary of some discussions I've had recently on this topic)

I see religion is the shared, ritualistic experience of spirituality and the collected insights of a culture's attempts to deal with existential concerns. In traditional societies religions weren't separate from other spheres of life and in fact offered a blue print for living a full and meaningful life. They still do for billions of people.

If this is true, then we should hope that the basic insights of religions will be more or less the same since we are all human. (In fact, a series of meetings of representatives of various religions called the Snowmass Conference came up with a list of commonalities.) There is more to religion than doctrine, dogma, and blind faith. These things are pushed by some to try to preserve the teachings of a tradition so that they will be accurately and completely passed on from one generation to the next. But there is also the long history of people arguing for the spirit of tradition over the letter of tradition, just as people also argue over the spirit of the law over the letter of the law. This just how humans behave. The question is how to strike the right balance of structure and flexibility.

What each tradition offers (including the newer ones) is a unique story that speaks to certain people, echoing their pain, their joy, their confusion, and their hopes. Each story paints a picture and offers a path leading to surrender and transformation, complete with rituals to commemorate and reaffirm one's journey. Each tradition offers a common history and presents a vision of the future that resonates with those who embrace it. Each tradition challenges preconceptions, egos, and a self-centered view in its own way. Each tradition provides a complete working system that can assist us to see and fully embrace its received wisdom, like having a coach and teammates working toward a goal, to encourage or carry us when we are tired and when we stumble.

I have found that the reason so many things good or bad are associated with religion is that it is a fundamental structural aspect of most societies - in other words, everything by default has some religious significance. Religion is used to address the existential issues people face and in each society it lays out a map for how to live a complete life. In fact, in most cultures there isn't a separate category "religion" apart from the rest of life. It is simply a part of the whole. Hence cultural and societal values are officially accepted and made part of tradition by being incorporated into religion.

It's also why people do certain things "in the name of religion" - because they are seeking to legitimize their actions. Yet that alone doesn’t obviate the value of our spiritual impulses or religious institutions. Religions aren't just philosophies or social groups. They are living traditions. No one can be debated into understanding that. It would be foolish to try. But the truths and practices which are purely about getting closer to appreciating the Divine have been effective for thousands of years. They have molded and nourished the very saints and gurus whose spiritual wisdom many revere.

I think that sacred texts contain vital wisdom, even for those who are not religious or consider themselves non-religious. Every culture from every society has a collection of stories and rituals that address fundamental existential needs, and hence religion influences more than just those who participate in them. Their orientation towards existence and symbolism influences the basic assumptions and perspectives of everyone in the culture, even though these influences are often and may not officially labeled as religious. (I am not just talking about obvious influences, but ontological orientations of which we are not usually conscious until we encounter significantly different perspectives.) Western civilization has a debt to ancient Greece, Judaism, and Christianity, plain and simple. Hence understanding religion helps us understand ourselves in a secular sense, even if one sees no further use for it.

I see the Bible as part of an ongoing story of (a portion of) humanity's efforts to know themselves and to know God, which includes insights from when they are actually in tune with God (embracing and supporting all) and from when they are following an idol that allows them to continue in their delusion of superiority, of personal gain at the harm of another. I view the Bible and other sacred texts are about timeless insights into the human condition and helping to reveal a path to God. This path also can be found running through Buddhist sutras, through the Hindu Upanishads, etc, etc. We are already a part of God and God's creation, which can never be separated. We are just ignorant, deluded, sinful. We forget who and what we are and settle for something less. The path isn't a path to God so much as a path to remembering/awakening to God, and this path runs through the heart.

As an example, the resurrection is also part of a larger story representing our struggles with our limitations, our struggles with God, the importance of surrender of the ego in our liberation, etc. There is more to most Biblical stories than whether they are historically verifiable. They open us up to ahistorical truths about ourselves, timeless truths that need to be part of a story, not an instruction manual. I trust in the resurrection because I see it happening in the lives of people, Christian or otherwise. Those who have died to the self, who have stopped struggling with their egos, and who have been reborn to something greater than they were before - more generous, humble, confident, and optimistic. Whether they believe in God or call God by another name or no name, they are open to the Spirit. It doesn't matter to me whether we could go back in time and find an empty tomb. The basic truth of the resurrection story has been demonstrated to me. A similar understanding underpins my views on related topics such as the divinity of Jesus.

Faith is not oppressive – a blinder to the mind or a weight in the heart. It is a living energy, liberating and opening us to our fullest potential.

Jesus, the Buddha, and others tried to liberate the people of their day from overly rigid and judgmental religious customs and thinking. Prophets such as Micah proclaimed that the institutionalized religious elite and powerful rulers would be held to account for how they treated to poor and oppressed. Many of the founders and major representatives of various religions spoke of the Divine as caring for and being accessible to all, not just for the powerful and the rich. Various Hindus, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Jains, etc have followed these teachings and dedicated their lives to the compassionate service of others, even unto the death, sometimes at the hands of the less tolerant members of their religion.

Yet religion can also be used for division and oppression. One view is that humans from their earliest days would have had societies and beliefs that were tribal in nature, which is speculated to have included a distrust of those who looked, dressed, or spoke differently. These so-called "tribal" instincts are further speculated by some to still be with us today. Even if you discount that story of why we might be that way, how many of us deny that in fact we do have those tendencies? The desire to be better than others, to be more loved or to belong more than others, to possess more than others, and to distrust people who seem too different from us. Is it any wonder then that religions would acquire teachings and beliefs that cater to such instincts?

Every religion, overtly theistic or otherwise, has two major threads running through it. On the one hand we see those who claim to have experienced something Greater, vastly so, than themselves, and whose response is to see all humans as their beloved brothers and sisters. They speak of God as beyond comprehension but experienced as infinite wisdom and love. As Julian of Norwich said of how she felt in such rapture: "All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well." On the other hand, we also see another thread, in which God favors one group over another, in which God appears to order atrocities along tribal lines, and which punishment and judgment are emphasized as part of God's righteousness.

Those who (primarily) follow the thread of "God is love"/"faith, charity, hope" etc are going to tend to see and use their religion as a unifying force. Their faith focuses on giving out of acceptance and forgiveness, seeing God/Jesus/Buddha/etc in everyone they meet. Those who (primarily) follow the thread of "God is righteous"/"salvation is for the few" are going to tend to see and use their religion as a divisive force. They want to separate themselves from evil influences and those who would corrupt them, to keep to what they believe is holy, and emphasize ideas like strict obedience and separating wheat from chaff.

Of course, most (theistic) religious people are complex, being human after all, and may swing from one end to the other during a lifetime or even a single day. Yet for thousands of years, both threads have been woven into religions because they reflect the internal conflict and confusion in the human heart. Spirituality provides an exterior reflection of what is happening in the heart and religion is the institutionalization of that spirituality, reflecting the history of our existential concerns and how we have attempted to reconcile them. Hence (theistic) religion can be both divisive and unifying because of the human capacity for intolerance and acceptance, for justice and retribution and for compassion and forgiveness. The paradox in religion, then, is simply a mirror of the paradox of the human heart - our collective hopes, fears, and dreams.

To me the relevant question is which path we are going to choose and which one do we want to be representative of our reality. I believe there is only one path, the path of God, in which salvation cannot be bargained or excluded by or from anyone. The other option(s) are false choice reflecting our inability to fully trust in God and to love one another without compromise. That's what the hope is all about, as well as the part where people go out and serve to make it happen. That's what counts, and that's what I'm concerned with.

Added: If you were looking for or would like to read discussion about the objections raised by the New Atheists, I would recommend starting with this book. (6/21/09)

Holding the mystery of the faith

1 Timothy 3:9: Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.

Our life is embosomed in mystery, the universe is wrapped in a garment of mystery. The unknown infinitely exceeds the known; the incomprehensible outweighs beyond all comparison the intelligible. To some persons this is an unpleasant fact. Yet, properly regarded, it would give them great comfort. Religion conducts us to the borders of mystery. Whatever direction we pursue in our religious inquiries, we are soon brought to a pause by limits which we cannot pass. With some persons this is a special occasion of surprise, disappointment, and complaint, while it should, on the contrary, strengthen their faith and enliven their gratitude...

-from "heart opened in faith", Boston Unitarian blog

Obviously if your experience (directly or vicariously) of the meaning of faith is a weight on the heart or blinders to the mind, this passage and the rest of the essay it comes from will seem nonsensical. If you have at least heard of or considered the notion that faith is actually a dynamic vital energy and orientation that opens us to the possibilities of existence and of our own potential, a trust or grounding of the heart that is ever-blooming and isn't rooted in any fixed conception or view of phenomena, then the essay can be very challenging and rewarding.

I have, for example, argued that classic supernaturalism demonstrates the power of metaphor to open our minds and worldviews to new possibilities of existence via the tension between the seemingly mismatched elements in the expression (but not nearly as well as Gary Eberle does in his book Dangerous Words). I have also argued that other mysteries should not be automatically relegated to the being superstition (a false causal correlation/explanation). I have stated in various web postings (for examples see here and there) that what we know about the universe is almost certainly a tiny fraction of what is possible and that there are some things which we will never be able to fully perceive, grasp, or explain as human beings.

Yet it may turn out that of all my hangups and issues that I have (finished or still am) working through in terms of my former prejudice against religion, spirituality, surrender and transformation, etc, that this was a major hidden blind spot. I am thinking I am one of those folks, despite my shift towards generosity in respecting and appreciating the unknown, that somehow in other aspects of my life meet such mystery with disappointment and complaint.

Context and actualization

In conversations and discussions I have remarked that I don't believe in lazy people. That is, I don't think anyone is inherently lazy. They may not be focused on what others consider productive, but being unproductive in one area does not equate to a lack of effort in all areas. Take the person who skips class and misses work, who thinks that science and strategic planning are boring subjects. Yet this same person will work for hours on end, without resting or stopping to eat, trying to master a level in a video game. This person will explore in the game, make observations, and test different possibilities. This person will come up with a plan, and when it doesn't work, will note what went wrong and try again making a sensible adjustment, employing trial and error and experience until a satisfactory solution is found. The same areas of the brain are being used as one employs in designing and conducting an experiment or managing a planning session, so this "laziness" isn't about effort. It is about motivation.

For some, not wanting to fail at school or at a relationship, not wanting to get fired, not wanting to get yelled at, not wanting to be lonely or poor, or some other form of aversion is their primary motivating factor, but it often only gets just enough out of us to keep us from the unwanted consequences we would otherwise face. For some, praise or other kinds of reward (or at least the potential for gain) is their primary motivating factor, but greed also has its limitations in its capacity to inspire. Other than greed and aversion, the old carrot-and-stick approach, another possibility is feeling fulfilled - that you are doing something worthwhile and that it is making a difference. This is especially inspiring if you are good and what you are doing - it helps you to actually enjoy your circumstances and look forward to each new day. But one cannot simply fill out a form and expect to have their ideal circumstances for a fulfilling life arranged and delivered. Even with hard work, one may never come close to doing what they might feel they would be best suited to do.

One solution is to be happy where you are. To learn the art of gratefulness and make the best life you can out in the middle of whatever circumstances you may find yourself. The "make lemonade" approach. However, it seems like this might require the person to be somewhat grounded - rooted in something that allows them roll with the punches and stay upbeat in the face of seeming adversity. For some this is described as faith. We tend to follow that word with another - "in". Having faith in this, or faith in that. But whatever that anchor may be, what is important it is that is gives one permission to stop trying to control that which is beyond their control, to maintain a patient optimism.

So here is the rub. In the right context, we all can be really productive individuals who live up to their potential and lead deeply satisfying lives. However, we are often limited in our ability to control the context in which we find ourselves, at least in terms of our external environment. Hence to help us achieve actualization as human beings, we must be willing and able to change some other aspect of our context. But many of us aren't really sure how to do that.

I know for a fact that in some circumstances I find it MUCH easier to think of ideas, get my work done, be friendly, be active, etc, and in others I just don't seem to have the energy or will to do more than slog through the day in a numb to semi-painful fashion full of dullness and discomfort. I know that my reaction to external circumstances is an internal event, and that technically it is possible have the same reaction, the same attitude, the same mental and emotional perspective, without having to have the same external stimuli. That is, to keep that more energetic and positive attitude in a different set of circumstances. But like most of us, that isn't what happens. It's like the song says - "When you're smiling, the whole world smiles with you..."

So what is the world like when you are feeling like a pointless shadow that has no real significance?

Nor is it just a matter of rose-colored glasses. "Oh, she is an optimist so she just SEES potential." It goes the other way too! "She is an optimist so she is able to perceive potential." That is, we miss a great deal of what is going on in the world because our reality is tightly bound up in our expectations. If you don't allow for some things to be credible or possible in your perspective, you will almost certainly fail to notice them (or you may minimize them, trivialize them, deny them, etc) and fulfill your own expectations. And you cannot necessarily (ever?) force yourself to change such expectations - you have to come to genuinely believe in a new perspective. Even if you suspect or are fairly certain that you are wrong and really want to adopt that new view of existence, some small thing, some little hindrance deep in your subconscious, can hold you back. Some social and behavioral scientists have suggested people are more likely to be open to such changes if they spend a significant amount of time around people with particular beliefs - we tend to adapt ourselves to the local conventional cultural perspective - but even that does not always work.

So that raises an interesting question for those pursuing to reorder and re-evaluate the context of their lives, particularly those seeking to do so through the practice of sacred traditions. How do you generate sincerity for such practice? Enthusiasm? Or the kind of faith mentioned before? Do you need to catch a glimpse of something greater? Of a genuine depth to one's life and all of existence? That is, a glimpse of "the Divine", of "Buddha-nature", of "Christ-consciousness"? And how does that happen? Is it an act of grace bestowed on the patient seeker? Or does it sometimes strike those who wouldn't have sought it out purposefully in a million years or a thousand life-times? Or, in simpler terms often asked of spiritual teachers and guides:

How will I know?

What should I do?


(And no, I am not offering any answers...)

For reflection