No One Can Have the Last Word on God

It's a great achievement for Islamic leaders and scholars as well as Newsweek and the Washington post to present this imperative opportunity for inter cultural and global philosophical dialogue. What's important is that by exchanging our ideas and comments regarding inter religious relations and world events that affect our views of each other as fellow human beings. Since the advent of humanity, We strove to make sense of the world we live in and the lives we've experienced. Worldwide curiosities to learn the true nature of life and our universe is an exceptionally rare virtue upon life on Earth. In other words, we're the only known species on the planet who've pursued to unravel these great mysteries and developed written philosophies based upon our understanding of the world around us.
One such philosophy that lasted throughout the ages of humanity is commonly known as religion and spirituality. Ever since our early belief in the Sky God and the God Mother from ancient Pagan times, we vigorously pursued to unravel the truth about our most profound questions. As any educated person would know that religion and their core beliefs or faith have evolved over time. Paganism, Monotheism and Polytheism have been influenced by humanity as these great philosophies have influenced our perceptions and decisions in life over the ages. Over time humanity has embraced diverse religious faiths and spiritual convictions that continue to influence our behavior in our times and most likely beyond.
What's vital for humanity's progress and even survival is to know the true nature of faith itself. To understand the true origins of faith. But most of all, is to accept the truth for whatever it may be. Each one of us will learn the absolute truth once we die. But until that time comes for anyone of us to depart this world, we really don't know the answer to God's existence nor do we have the absolute truth in regards to the true nature of God. Besides if we did possess the truth, there would've been only one religion on Earth with no diversification of any way, shape of form. There would only be one holy scripture written throughout human history.
Considering one's religious faith to be absolute, while considering others to be false would be ethnocentric at best. While collectively searching to unravel the mysteries on nature, life and the universe through sincere reasoning and serious research would be enlightening at its worst. Most importantly, we must accept the fact is that none of us have conclusive evidence to confirm our core beliefs and there's always an immanent change that our most cherished beliefs could be wrong. Our greatest challenge would be to tolerate the truth no matter what it may ultimately be. With such an open mind, we would be able to overcome any future discovery that would contradict our faith regarding the true nature of life, spirituality and divinity.
Humanity does have the ability to achieve such a social achievement. However, it's solely up to humanity and not any other entity or groups of entities to decide our destinies. Each one of us has a choice to make; either hopelessly engaging into meaningless inter cultural conflicts or combine our scientific and cultural gifts to thrive into an enlightened global civilization that could ultimately expand beyond our solar system. The choice is yours, and the time to make it is now!

"Throughout history, Jews, Christians and Muslims have all insisted that the ideas we have about the divine can never measure up to the reality itself."

I always thought Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Mormons & Sunni/Shia Muslims were pretty absolutist about their pronouncements regarding God, heaven and hell. Don't all of them say if you don't believe in their faith, then you'll go to hell? And all of them basically say that if you want to remain open-minded about your belief, then you are a pagan who will still go to hell.

In Hinduism, we believe that God created the universe out of Himself so that He is within every atom of this physical universe as well as separate and outside of it. So it is ok if pagans worship trees because God resides in those trees. It's ok if you want to worship an idol made of stone because every religious or spiritual endeavor requires concentration and that idol also has God in it. The ideal is to realize reverence for self, reverence for fellow man, reverence for animals and reverence for all of God's physical creation.

But I do think that Muslims have the last word if you burn a Koran in Saudi Arabia because they put you to death for that "crime". Muslims have the last word in Pakistan if you draw a cartoon representing Mohammad because that is blasphemy for which you get the death penalty. However as commonsense would dictate, a Hindu in India cannot take revenge or physically retaliate if someone breaks his idol. No matter how stupid someone behaves, it is still illegal to take the life of another human being so in this case, the idol-bashing Muslim can really have the last word on God that is until we naturally die and then face judgement.

"Throughout history, Jews, Christians and Muslims have all insisted that the ideas we have about the divine can never measure up to the reality itself."

I always thought Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Mormons & Sunni/Shia Muslims were pretty absolutist about their pronouncements regarding God, heaven and hell. Don't all of them say if you don't believe in their faith, then you'll go to hell? And all of them basically say that if you want to remain open-minded about your belief, then you are a pagan who will still go to hell.

In Hinduism, we believe that God created the universe out of Himself so that He is within every atom of this physical universe as well as separate and outside of it. So it is ok if pagans worship trees because God resides in those trees. It's ok if you want to worship an idol made of stone because every religious or spiritual endeavor requires concentration and that idol also has God in it. The ideal is to realize reverence for self, reverence for fellow man, reverence for animals and reverence for all of God's physical creation.

But I do think that Muslims have the last word if you burn a Koran in Saudi Arabia because they put you to death for that "crime". Muslims have the last word in Pakistan if you draw a cartoon representing Mohammad because that is blasphemy for which you get the death penalty. However as commonsense would dictate, a Hindu in India cannot take revenge or physically retaliate if someone breaks his idol. No matter how stupid someone behaves, it is still illegal to take the life of another human being so in this case, the idol-bashing Muslim can really have the last word on God that is until we naturally die and then face judgement.

I have a terrific headache from trying to follow all these erudite arguments. What was the "question of the week" again?

Cris b-

I would just say that one may certainly like to imagine there are all kinds of ways of experiencing "truth" (and find considerable comfort in it), but an electron is still an electron no matter what you convince yourself it is....

In quantum terms the illusion of ones observations aligning with certain probabilities lends to the illusion of having found a static state...an electron....when in fact the process of your observation has simply created a conveniently processable illusion of an all encompassing waveform of probability.

I think what imp trying to say is, the tiny limited spectrum of what your mind can squeeze out of the myriad of particles flying around may include all sorts of observations that vary in quality, but still are just recombinations of the same. Saying that these various observed states are somehow different is just a statement about where in that process of
particles->perception->"truth" you want to put your eyeballs, not proof of the validity of one observation over the other. Even bad ideas are real ideas(neuronal connections or whatever)

Bill K,

I enjoy your posts, you remind me of John Caputo, whom I also enjoy reading (see below). I'm not out to convince anyone, but I'm of the opinion that while Truth is Truth and a Truth anywhere is a Truth everywhere, I still, however, feel that there are multiple ways to be rational, multiple contexts within which to be rational is to come to different conclusions, to asses the relevance of evidence to beliefs according to values that change, shift, and transform over time (Thomas Kuhn is a seminal figure in the philosophy of science for persuasively arguing this point, for anyone who might be interested). Science is but one vocabulary, one style of reasoning among many for drawing conclusions and coming to obtain knowledge under the expedient pressures and for the specific purposes of the moment. To call something (e.g. linguistics, science, religion, a chess move) rational is simply an invitation to listen sympathetically.
In the end, I don't think that anyone has a juridicial knowledge, a Gods-eye view of what is the underlying deep structure of ahistorical reasoning, that is, I don't think that anyone can say anything at any time about "Reality" without using language, which is always open for being reinterpreted and given alternative significations. Likewise, we can't make any kind of judgment (a scientific one, a religious one, whatever) without using values that are historically particular and contingently justified (what constitutes "good" evidence, a "better" theory, a "sound" induction?). In other words, what principles count as rationally acceptable depends on what is presupposed in the context, and all we have to depend on is whatever historically specific and contingently held beliefs of what constitutes both truth and justified belief within our own culture (shaped by our unique histories and vocabularies). Again, I am not denying that there is no truth, or that all beliefs are equal or all interpretations justified, but such beliefs and justifications change, transform, shift, and collide over time. In the same way we view distant (spatially or temporally) cultures as "primitive" and "superstitious," in a couple hundred years our ancestors will probably feel the same about us and our beliefs. I hope this point might not be lost on the Dawkinians and hard-nosed Cartesians among us, because I think that Democracy matters, and religious beliefs and values are important when we engage in the public square (Jim Wallis' post is keen on this point).

The Derridean theologian, John Caputo, mentioned above, argues that God is Love and that anyone worth their salt loves God. He argues for a broad, non-essentialist interpretation of religion, one that includes atheists alongside the most avid of believers.
In his book "On Religion," Caputo writes:
"The opposite of a religious person is a loveless person ... I include alot of supposedly secular people in religion ... even as I think alot of supposedly religious people should look around for another line of work. A lot of supposedly secular people love something madly, while a lot of supposedly religious people love nothing more than getting their own way and bending others to their own will ('in the name of God'). Some people can be deeply and abidingly 'religious' with or without theology, with or without religions. Religion may be found with or without religion. That is my thesis."

And, in a thread of thought similar to that spun by Bill K:
"As love is the first name of God, 'of God' is also the best name we have for those who love. To love God is to love something deeply and unconditionally. But it is also true - there is no stopping this slippage or reversal - that to love deeply and unconditionally is to be born of God, to love God, for the name of God is the name of love, the name of what we love."

It is hypocritical that Karen Armstring is now stooping so low to defend her views on monotheism by quoting from the sacred texts such as, Vedanta and Brahmapurana, of the Hindu belief system.

Well, what she has quoted is right. But, her quoting the Hindu scriptures to show that all religions are essentially the same is a sham. Islam does not accord equality to other religions. Also, Islam (mostly) and to a smaller extent, Christianity suggest that there is no salvation if one does not abandon one's ancestral culture systems and submit before Allah (Islam) and God (Christianity). Hindu belief system states that every path could considered acceptable based on its intrinsic spiritual, moral and intellectual merit(s).

Muhammad preached that all religions are unbelief except Islam. So, how can Karen Armstrong, a modern day biographer of Muhammad uphold Islam and Hindu belief systems as equal ? Isn't this hypocrisy ?

The problem with Karen Armstrong's post is that it does not reflect current thinking in the Muslim world. The radicals have seized the day and the moderates are unable to silence them either because they are fearful of retribution or because they are afraid of being labeled as "bad Muslims".

If the majority of Muslims would have agreed with Ibn al-Arabi, we would not be having this problem with the Muslim world today. The majority of Muslims believe that the Koran is literally true and is the word of God. Otherwise, they are not Muslims. A Muslim believes that "Allah" is the only God and any other God must fit into their concept. So they tend to look down on "idol worshippers" like Hindus. They do not have the open mindedness to look any further or to question what is the meaning and purpose of so-called "idol" worship.

AFS :

The Resurrection of Jesus is the crowning truth of faith in Christ.

Peter and the Twelve are the primary "witnesses to his Resurrection", but they are not the only ones - Paul speaks clearly of more than five hundred persons to whom Jesus appeared on a single occasion and also of James and of all the apostles.

The first man, being from the earth is earthly by nature, the second man is from heaven and is heavenly - St Paul

Joaquim

Zero-Equals-Infinity:
The difference is that while there may be evil and wrong individuals in ANY faith (and remember the Crusaders were responding to mass attacks by Muslims on Europe), Islam is codified to conquer and kill those who are unbelievers.

For example in the case of one who converts from Islam to another religion (or non-religion), which is still being done right now today in the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

The Hadith (the body of quotes attributed to Muhammad and claimed eyewitnesses' accounts of Muhammad's life and deeds) includes statements that Muslim scholars such as Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid see as supporting the death penalty for apostasy. Only those from Sahih Bukhari, which are considered reliable by most Muslims generally are given below:

* "Allah's Apostle said, The blood of a Muslim, who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims." 9:83:17

* Narrated 'Ikrima: 'Ali burnt some people and this news reached ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'" 4:52:260

* The legal regulation concerning the male and the female who reverts from Islam (apostates). Ibn 'Umar, Az-Zuhri and Ibrahim said, "A female apostate (who reverts from Islam), should be killed. And the obliging of the reverters from Islam (apostates) to repent. Allah said: — 'How shall Allah guide a people who disbelieved after their belief and (after) they bore witness that the Apostle (Muhammad) was true, and that Clear Signs had come unto them? And Allah does not guide the wrong-doing people. As for such the reward is that on them (rests) the curse of Allah, the Angels, and of all mankind. They will abide there-in (Hell). Neither will their torment be lightened nor it will be postponed (for a while). Except for those that repent after that and make amends. Verily Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Surely those who disbelieved after their belief, and go on adding to their defiance of faith, never will their repentance be accepted, and they are those who have gone astray.' (Sura 3:86-90) Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Chapter 2, p. 42-43.

* 57. Narrated 'Ikrima: Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'" 9:84:57

* 58. Narrated Abu Burda: Abu Musa said, "I came to the Prophet along with two men (from the tribe) of Ash'ariyin, one on my right and the other on my left, while Allah's Apostle was brushing his teeth (with a Siwak), and both men asked him for some employment. The Prophet said, 'O Abu Musa (O 'Abdullah bin Qais!).' I said, 'By Him Who sent you with the Truth, these two men did not tell me what was in their hearts and I did not feel (realize) that they were seeking employment.' As if I were looking now at his Siwak being drawn to a corner under his lips, and he said, 'We never (or, we do not) appoint for our affairs anyone who seeks to be employed. But O Abu Musa! (or 'Abdullah bin Qais!) Go to Yemen.'" The Prophet then sent Mu'adh bin Jabal after him and when Mu'adh reached him, he spread out a cushion for him and requested him to get down (and sit on the cushion). Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Musa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers and one of us said, 'I pray and sleep, and I hope that Allah will reward me for my sleep as well as for my prayers.'" 9:84:58

* 271. Narrated Abu Musa: A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu'adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism." Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle." 9:89:271

References to additional hadith, that have been labeled Sahih by Sunni, from other Imams on the punishment of death for apostasy are:

* Sahih Muslim: Kitab Al-Qasama Chapter DCLXXIII When it is permissible to take the life of a Muslim

4152-4155, 898-900; Kitab Al-Imara Chapter DCCLVI, Number 4490, p. 1015 from Muslim, Imam, Sahih Muslim: Being Traditions of the Sayings and Doings of the Prophet Muhammad as Narrated by His Companions and compiled under the Title Al-Jami'-Us-Sahih, Translated by 'Abdul H. Siddiqi, Vol. III.

* Sunan Abu Dawud: 4337 through 4341 from Dawud, Imam Abu, Sunan Abu Dawud: English Translations with Explanatory Notes by Prof. Ahmad Hasan, Sh. Muhamad Ashraf Publications, Lahore, Pakistan, First Edition 1984 (Reprinted 1996), Vol. III, Book XXXIII, Chapter 1605, p. 1212-1214

* Sunan Ibn-I-Majah: # 2533,2534,2535 in Chapter No. 1 of Book of prescribed punishments. Ibn-I-Maja Al-Qazwini, Imam Abu Abdullah Muhammad B. Yazid, Sunan Ibn-I-Majah, Translated by Muhammad Tufail Ansari, Kazi Publications, Lahore, Pakistan, 1993, vol. IV.

Islam is not alone in having had terrible actions committed in its name. Remember the supression of the Cathars?

At at the siege of Be'ziers, 1209, when the military commander asked the pope's representative how he might distinguish heretics from true believers, the reply was:

"Kill them all. God will recognize His own."
- Papal legate Arnaud-Amalric

Evil is done under many banners, and has frequently been done under the name of God within religious tradition. This says nothing of God, but only of some twisted images that some men revere and use to justify the projection of their hate into violence. It is not local or exclusive to any particular tradition.

Karen Armstrong -
Here is another remark by an Islamic philosopher, one whose comments are key to the current world situation:

The classical Muslim jurist al-Mawardi (a Shafi’ite jurist, d. 1058) from Baghdad was a seminal, prolific scholar who lived during the so-called Islamic "Golden Age" of the Abbasid-Baghdadian Caliphate. He wrote the following, based on widely accepted interpretations of the Qur'an and Sunna (i.e., the recorded words and deeds of Muhammad), regarding infidel prisoners of jihad campaigns:

“As for the captives, the amir [ruler] has the choice of taking the most beneficial action of four possibilities: the first to put them to death by cutting their necks; the second, to enslave them and apply the laws of slavery regarding their sale and manumission; the third, to ransom them in exchange for goods or prisoners; and fourth, to show favor to them and pardon them. Allah, may he be exalted, says, 'When you encounter those [infidels] who deny [the Truth=Islam] then strike [their] necks' (Qur'an sura 47, verse 4)”....Abu’l-Hasan al-Mawardi, al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah." [The Laws of Islamic Governance, trans. by Dr. Asadullah Yate, (London), Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd., 1996, p. 192. Emphasis added.]

I am thrilled to have found this discussion. It is timely for me, as I have read at least six books on the subject of faith in recent weeks, brought on by my husband's return to Catholicism on his deathbed after years of doubt, like my own. I responded favorably to Karen Armstrong's History of God, but I think she is somewhat weak on her discussion of Christ's divinity. I don't feel that I can participate in the Christian faith any more because I have trouble believing in the Resurection. She doesn't off me much support, however, for my unbelief. There do seem to have been reports of it close enough to St. Paul's time to make it plausible, No?

Oops ... double post. Maybe the one expands on the other. Sorry.

My heart has become capable of every form:
It is a pasture for gazelles
And a monastery for Christian monks,
And a temple for idols,
And the pilgrim's Ka'ba.
And the tablets of the Torah,
And the book of the Qur'an.
I follow the religion of Love:
Whatever way love's camel takes,
That is my religion, my faith.
-- Ibn Arabi

This Ibn Arabi quotation pretty much sums up my feelings.

We are the emergent forms who can reflect upon the wonder that is existence. We see, we feel, we create, we think. Oh what a wonderful thing it is to exist, to participate in existence if only for a very brief span of time. The unfolding universe expresses itself in and through us, and we are a mode by which it experiences itself. Ahhhh!

I added this on the general discussion, but since I see that Karen Armstrong is quoting Ibn Arabi I will post it here as well:

My heart has become capable of every form:
It is a pasture for gazelles
And a monastery for Christian monks,
And a temple for idols,
And the pilgrim's Ka'ba.
And the tablets of the Torah,
And the book of the Qur'an.
I follow the religion of Love:
Whatever way love's camel takes,
That is my religion, my faith.
-- Ibn Arabi

The great mystery, the ground of being is not exclusive to one tradition, but expresses itself through all the diverse forms of religion, culture, life, and the universe. Whether the label 'God' is applied to it or not does not disturb me.

What disturbs me is the difficulty that many people have in experiencing the wonder that it is to be a part of the unfolding of life and the universe. Ours is to have existence, for a brief time we can participate, experience, reflect, love, create art, and in all ways be a part of this process. We may never answer the 'what' of it, but we are intimate parts of it, and we have the capacity to reflect and create, to realise what a boon it is to be. As we begin to see this within, it becomes much easier to see it without. And on such a common ground man can evolve into his potential.

Snowbeast:

I think that Love, or God as I call it, is any movement towards - whether it's another person or an idea or a career. I am not talking about Creation or the Bible, I talking simply about Love, that which moves us from here to there. Love of another, or love of art, or love of place, anything and everyone can be loved (and please don't bring up Hitler, that misses the point). Love is always what drives is towards whatever good it is we create. And love cannot, I don't think, be known the way 2 +2 can be known. And THAT, that unkown mover that moves us, that, to me, is, for lack of a better word, God. The hand that points.

Bill K

9 years ago I had a personal experience of God.
Obviously the most important event of my entire life.

In spite of being a catholic since my early days I wasn't commited with religion.

I can describe my experience as that of someone who had the privelege to be introduced to God. I felt deep in my heart the marvelous and unlimited love that God is.

Is this subjective ? Yes it is, but who really beleives that God will talk with anyone in front of a video camara ?

I'm learning to be a better human being since then. Will I be able to match this challenge ?

Joaquim

Bill K said:

>Oh, such skepticism!

>But here's a question: If you've fallen in love, say, how did you KNOW you were in love? ?

>And God is love.

If you're saying that God is akin to love -- that is, a subjective feeling -- then I, as an atheist will agree wholeheartedly. I, too, think that what people call "God" is just a subjective personal experience, but just about every theist wants to take it further than that: They want to say that God created the universe, wrote a book, sent his only begotten son, etc. When I fall in love, I don't say that my love created the universe. If the theist is willing to concede that God is a totally subjective emotional experience, then I am willing to concede that he exists. But then, the word "God" will be stripped of all the meaning it has ever had historically, and would be indistinguishable from love, as you proclaim it to be.

To step outside of my life experience and be open to the journey of another requires willingness to listen and learn.

As a 73yo fwasp, I must first admit my opinion is shaped by all I have been exposed to prior to this moment in time. Seems to me, I must come to terms with what is in my mind may be right - or - it may be self-delusion. Still I seek.

Is that not our common bond? The seeking?

I have more questions than answers.
1. Are "scientists" discovering things - or - uncovering what was set into motion before time began?
2. What is the nature of an "Infinite Invisible" many label "God"?
3. What is the nature of "man"?
4. Is it possible for me to clean out false beliefs and uncover that "mind which was in Jesus" [be it as a "way shower" or "savior"]?
5. Is there a connection to a "creator" in my DNA that I share with all that has been created?

Peace, love and light to all

I find God's discussion with Job interesting regarding man's mundane nature.

JOB 38:3-5
“. . .Gird up your loins, please, like an able-bodied man, And let me question you, and you inform me.  4 Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth? Tell [me], if you do know understanding.  5 Who set its measurements, in case you know, Or who stretched out upon it the measuring line?”

JOB 38:18-20
“. . .Have you intelligently considered the broad spaces of the earth? Tell, if you have come to know it all. 19 Where, now, is the way to where light resides? As for darkness, where, now, is its place, 20 That you should take it to its boundary And that you should understand the roadways to its house?”

JOB 38:34-37
“34 Can you raise your voice even to the cloud, So that a heaving mass of water itself may cover you? 35 Can you send forth lightnings that they may go And say to you, ‘Here we are!’? 36 Who put wisdom in the cloud layers, Or who gave understanding to the sky phenomenon? 37 Who can exactly number the clouds in wisdom, Or the water jars of heaven—who can tip [them] over,”

So God, points out to Job, that there is much he does not know, which is what you would expect of, well God.

At the same time, in the Christian faith, if I cannot know God, why would the bible advise:
John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Regarding Rich B's comment on the bible noting many god's. Don't you think this is really a comment about serving the true god exclusively.

The 10 commandments notes:
Exodus 20:1 `And God speaketh all these words, saying,

20:2 I `am' Jehovah thy God, who hath brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of a house of servants.

20:3 `Thou hast no other Gods before Me.

20:4 `Thou dost not make to thyself a graven image, or any likeness which `is' in the heavens above, or which `is' in the earth beneath, or which `is' in the waters under the earth.

20:5 Thou dost not bow thyself to them, nor serve them: for I, Jehovah thy God, `am' a zealous God, charging iniquity of fathers on sons, on the third `generation', and on the fourth, of those hating Me,

20:6 and doing kindness to thousands, of those loving Me and keeping My commands.

20:7 `Thou dost not take up the name of Jehovah thy God for a vain thing, for Jehovah acquitteth not him who taketh up His name for a vain thing.

Sounds similiar to:
2 Corintians 6:14-18 Become not yoked with others -- unbelievers, for what partaking `is there' to righteousness and lawlessness? and what fellowship to light with darkness? and what concord to Christ with Belial? or what part to a believer with an unbeliever? and what agreement to the sanctuary of God with idols? for ye are a sanctuary of the living God, according as God said -- `I will dwell in them, and will walk among `them', and I will be their God, and they shall be My people, wherefore, come ye forth out of the midst of them, and be separated, saith the Lord, and an unclean thing do not touch, and I -- I will receive you, and I will be to you for a Father, and ye -- ye shall be to Me for sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.'

So it seems that God is 'transcendent', but according to Christianity is not unknowable.

What is unknowable is what is the point Ms. Armstrong's piece?
- If I accept that I cannot 'know' God, the only rational response is - why try. Instead just make it your goal to get along with everyone.

- If I don't accept her position, then somehow I'm labeled as "self-indulgent...quarrelsome and stupidly sectarian"

Well Ms. Armstong, thanks for pointing out my stupidity.

I suspect in your view Abraham, Christ, Mohammed and any other devout prophets or believers would also be characterized as "quarrelsome and stupidly sectarian". Better that than not believing anything.

I have read some of Karen Armstrong's work, and I have one particular problem with it. It assumes a divine being before everything else. (It may be, as one commentor put it, the "unknown god" of Athens.) This is in opposition to the Bible. However, the Bible describes many gods, such as in the 10 commandments, where it says not to bow down to any other god. (This was the problem in Hosea 1 and Ezekiel 16 & 23.) The Lord always defines himself in opposition to other gods. For example in Isa 45 the Lord places himself in opposition to the idols, whom the people are worshiping.

One has to filter this reading through Neo Platonism to come up with the single god concept. You may call this unified godhead the "divine" or maybe a "spiritual feeling". However, this concept is not biblical.

So the question that arises is how does a Christian enter into debate/discussion with those who do not assume the Bible from the outset. The Christian, IMHO, must always be ready to learn. Someone might say something true that will teach us (or something false, that will teach us humility). In any case, I believe that the Bible has the monopoly on the truth, but I do not have the monopoly on what it teaches.

Karen Armstrong probably does the same thing. She assumes the God-feeling as primary. Then she will listen to any other faith to see what she can learn. Possibly, then, the main difference between her and me is what presuppositions are primary.

I accept the Bible as the authority to understand who the Lord is. While my own yearning for the divine may have drawn me towards the Bible, I accept the Bible and not my own experience as authoritative.

Mindless Twaddle? Well.

I suppose Philo is right, though, that in a way what I am talking about is mindless.

My mind has only ever been able to take me so far, and before too long, in that dread insomniac bed, it becomes a hall of mirrors, and a serpent finds its way into the corners of sleep and whispers, "How do you KNOW?" And there I fumble about with all the "becauses" and "I knew someone whos," and "it makes sense thats," but every answer turns and turns and turns me to the mirrors until I turn to a hand that points but does not light, and there I am facing a road that bends into the woods, and follow I must or turn back to the mirrors and so travel I will into darkness, fearful at times, but willing.

See what I mean?

Bill K

Did no one else notice the contradiction in the title? To assert that "no one can have the last word on God" is itself an attempt to have the last word, given the meaning of "last word" in Ms. Armstrong's piece. If she meant that no one can determine everything there is to know about God, then the statement would be perfectly defensible. However, religions do not declare every last detail about God but only advance basic claims in theologies that cannot simultaneously be true.

Ms. Armstrong's title contention seems to entail that not even basic claims about God are discernable. She's entitled to that opinion, but it's as dogmatic and narrow as any of the belief systems whose exclusivity she dismisses.

Also, the idea that the true nature of God is fundamentally ineffable (1) should lead Ms. Armstrong to be fully hostile to biblical Christianity and (2) is not insightful but ignorant even from a secular perspective.

(1) Bibilical Christianity claims that the Word is God. That means that there are some statements about God that can be made. That means Christianity claims that God is knowable, which seems largely contrary to what Ms. Armstrong believes. The ultimate reality of God is infinite, but that doesn't mean some claims on His infiniteness aren't more accurate than others.

(2) If, in an academic setting, I claimed that I could not express my thoughts in words, I would be admitting (and people would declare) that I did not know what I am talking about. Similarly, the indeterminacy and appeal to entirely unspeakable transcendance that obtains in this piece suggests that the author does not know what she is talking about. If an ordinary person claims about some subject that s/he knows--not that s/he knows something or anything about it, but that s/he knows s/he knows, then we would be confident that s/he doesn't. Why should we think differently when the same claim is made by Ananda or implied modern scholars, or when the subject is God?

From the perspective of a professor of psychology (now retired), I often pondered the question of “the limitations of our human minds”. If the mind is an emergent property of the brain is there knowledge unattainable by virtue of the brain’s material elements and organizational processes? Are we limited in some absolute sense, like Abbott's Flatland two dimension character, from domains of knowledge because of what and who we are? This is an especially germane question as I think about consciousness from both a scientific and non-scientific vantage point. If our knowledge claims are necessarily constrained due to the kind of beings that we are (the point Aristotle makes in his Metaphysics), than any claim to absolute knowledge cannot be justified. Some areas of mathematics and closely related fields such as mechanics may be epistemologically “absolute”. But I think this is a different problem and does not inform me about the issues raised by Karen Armstrong.

Mindless twaddle.
However, sentence construction, choice of words and spelling are excellent!

Wess:

Good to be on board. I don't know what Christians think when they say they love God. I'm not a Chirstian. I'm not an anything. I do, however, believe in something, for which God is as good a word as any - I think Aristotle also callled it the Prime Mover or Unmoved Momver, I like that too. But God get's straight to the point, and there are a lot fewer letters.

As for dogma, not interested, never have been. I am a church of one, and I get sick of my own dogma sometimes.

Anyway, I'm not about to try to argue you out of brain activity and all the rest. Though I doubt, as you lay down next to your one and only, you whisper: Baby, I've got some serious brain activity happening right now and I just need to tell you about it.

Science has done a fantastic job in learning the rules to the inscrutable chess game that is life. What science has not learned, and cannot learn (I don't think) is WHY life. Why did those first two cells split? Why? And scientists cannot just say, "Well, becuase life needs to live." Not enough. That's like a Christian saying, "Because God said so." Why must Life live?

And to that, my answer is Life lives towards God.

Okay. Let's keep it going, Wess, this is fun.

Bill

Bill K:
Thanks for entering into this dialogue,
I know I love someone or something because it is a series of strong attractant sensations, psychological attachment, and measurable brain activity, in other words, feelings, emotions, genetic impulses to mate, or protect (in the case of person to person) etc...I imagine that is the kind of thing you are describing when you say you love god right? no? Some chrstians say it is more than a feeling...what does that mean? I would sincerely like to hear your thoughts on this.

Others can "measure" this love by observing that I am having electrical activity in my head at the moment of experience, as well as observe the physiological results of me reacting to that sensation...raised heart rate, hormonal responses, actions of attachment and protection are some things I can think of...

More specifically, what is going on inside your head (or wherever this love resides ) that you choose to use the word love to describe? I use it in connection to all the previously mentioned phenomenon.

I experience a multitude of things but I can honestly say that a clear attraction to the biblical or koranic or greek concept of god is not one of them...I certainly feel drawn to that set of perceptions and experiences that I suspect you do to, but you choose to interpret it through your particular dogma. Is this an accurate assumption?

Oh, such skepticism!

Well, life is a little scary, after all. But here's a question: If you've fallen in love, say, how did you KNOW you were in love? How did you measure it? Or did you tell your beloved, "I am an Ape with a big brain and you and I must mate to keep the species going so our babies can mate to keep the species going . . . and here's a ring."?

Of course not. You said, "I love you." And God is love. And you will never get to taste God, or see God, or touch God, but you will know God, or love, take your pick, if you allow yourself. I am not saying get thee to a church, I'm saying accept what you already admit you cannot know but are drawn to every day. As you must. The next moment is always unkown, and yet we take another step, don't we? Good for us!

bk

I notice that many of these commentators(including Ms. Armstrong) speak as if god exists. None offer the slightest bit of proof for such existence or the need for such a thing to exist. After all, we are simply apes with a cerebral cortex. That supposedly makes us a little smarter. I just wish that we were smart enough to escape the quagmire of religion and its horrendous consequences. I fear that many of us will not survive the upcoming religious wars.

My thought on Dr. Armstrong's beautiful description of "the divine" or "zen" or " spirituality" whatever you prefer to call it, is simply an observation of sensation , albeit not that of what one many call "the five senses", is to a certain extent a apparently universal reachable human experience. My question would be: What on earth makes her think that this is anything more than neurological function? I am always a bit confused why this particular notch in the human spectrum is viewed any differently that say, our sense of humor or the thought, "I like apples.".... Perhaps because it takes some work to achieve, and therefore easily lends itself to some kind of illusionary higher nature/stature.

Thanks WP for bringing on such an articulate thinker as Ms.Strong who is able to present the complexities of all known religions in such a choerent abstract.A muslim, I believe Islam does not claim to have a monopoly over the Tuth:the Prophet Muhammed belived in the same truth that Abraham, Moses and Jesus believed in as they were in each of their relevant original and unaltered revelations and not to the exclusion of other prophets who were not all mentioned in the Quran.

The quotation from Ibn Al-Arabi seems to be compatible with the inclusive Quranic position of accepting the truths-again in their unaltered original revelation-of Judaism and Christianity.

To Peter: yes in this case Ms. Armstrong's piece would be "estoric" and difficult to comprehend by,for example, the likes of literalist Americn Evanglicals who advocate the end of world in "Armagadon"-and to a lesser extent by the likes of the Tallabn in Afghanistan who belive they can islamize the whole world. But you might want look at her other writings and books to see that she can communicate to ordinary folks.

I've admired Ms.Armstrong for a while. I don't agree with her...but I think she has at least looked to another direction ( even thought she still id using the term "god" which causes more problems than it solves) I do think there may be a state of mind beyond what is available to our daily selves. But, I think we must search for it thru scientific means. As for the tradiional religious dogma and god/beings that watch our every move.....back away from the pipe!

Scientific approach evolves over time. As our knowledge of our surroundings increase, we are able to interpret and assign meaning and purpose to our lives.

Faith assumes that at any given time and place, our scientific grasp of our surroundings is incomplete.

Without deference to our inherent limitations, we run the risk of falling short of better understanding of our "meaning and purpose".

"Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you."
Acts 17:22-23

Ms. Armstrong used a great many words to tell us how little we can say.

But more seriously, the point that renders her statement completely pointless is her assumption that a "god" exists! The plain truth is she has absolutely no knowledge of any kind about a supernatural being, nor does anyone else. There is an infinite gap between belief, or "faith", and knowledge. Ms. Armstrong has no knowledge of any kind about "the divine".
If Ms. Armstrong believes a deity exists, but she has nothing to say about that deity, that's fine. But she has absolutely no rational basis for saying that the deity in whose existence she believes is such that little or nothing can be said about it.
To say, as she does, that there is an ultimate mystery about which she can say nothing is in effect to tell the world how ignorant she is of her subject matter, and to tell us simultaneously how profoundly important her ignorance is.

In other words, Ms. Armstrong has told us she has told us nothing, and we should take her at her word.

I agree with JS. A reasonable discussion about God requires a lot assumptions. In the end, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing got it right in Nathan the Wise. Our religious commitments are a matter of context and socialization. That's why one can neither have the last nor the first word about God.

Nothing goes beyond our "mundane" experience. There is no transcendent part to the world. People can experience mental states that they think represent such things but they are just subject to self delusion.

Why is it necessary to invent some supernatural explanation for human mental states? William James demonstrated this misperception over 100 years ago in "The Varieties of Religious Experience".

Why is it necessary to keep beating the same dead horse? The mind is what we have. If we don't fully understand how it works as yet then spend more time on scientific research and less on inventing semantic arguments.

People who go around arguing that the earth is flat are either locked up or regarded as deluded, but take a similar stance on the supernatural and you can get a Ph.D. and publish "scholarly" books.
Appalling.

I have a lot of respect for Karen Armstrong. She is no doubt dealing honestly as best she can with her personal experience, as we all must do. But the bottom line with the faith debate is the question of knowledge: what can we know, and how can we know it? Faith in the absolute religious sense is not evidence for anything, but rather the notion that one can “know” an important truth without evidence or even in spite of the evidence. Is that a thoughtful way to answer the questions we have or to quell our fears? Is that a formula for uniting the world? It should be clear that such a privileged status for faith-based knowledge makes it inherently immune to correction if it is, in fact, erroneous. While limiting one’s claim of knowledge to that which fits the evidence around us does not yield absolute knowledge, it is the only sane method of approaching whatever truth there is. The “scientific approach” does require faith in one thing: that there exists at the core of things a dependable set of truths about reality, i.e., natural laws, that will be the same tomorrow as they are today. If there is no such core truth to things then all bets are off. But absolute faith adds nothing to the quest for truth. It simply arbitrarily declares some set of ideas to be valid and beyond question. Is it any wonder then that scientific knowledge converges while religious knowledge remains intransigently divisive? It is only when the faithful begin incorporating the scientific concepts of doubt and humility, as in Karen Armstrong’s writings, that they show any hope of ending the divisiveness. The problem with such a “liberal” approach to religion is that it tends to legitimize faith as a concept, which keeps the door open for all of the faith-based nonsense that we see in religion today. If faith is a valid concept, then no idea is too absurd to be sacred and above reproach.

What are you talking about Stegman?

She was speaking about the need to abandon fundamentalism in favor of a pragmatic and open minded belief system. And where do you get this nonsense about liberal lawyers?

I would suggest re-reading the piece.

This woman is doing everything in her power to make excuses for radical islam. Mark my words- we're going to see her get caught for aiding and abetting terrorists just like that radical liberal lawyer in the US was.

As much as I love Ms Armstrong's writing, I am a bit put off by her attempts to justify these religions and their ideas of God/gods and spirituality by quoting from the bible and the Qur'an, etc. The problem with all of the major western religions is the dogma that is directly extracted from all of these works, man made, regardless of what is claimed by their adherents. While the ideas of Jesus or some of the ideas of the Qur'an are indeed beautiful, there is much more that is ideologically hateful, inclusive and inevitably dangerous.

God as a metaphor for the unknown, the formation of the universe, and the genesis (although I am loathe to use the term) of life, fine. But a god who listens to the prayers of individuals and responds to them, or takes sides in any number of religiously grounded disputes? Nonsense.

"His God is his own creature and in praising it, he praises himself..."

If this is true, why have the "middle man" at all?

I disagree- no one should be able to have the "first word on God" either because it all is just a guessing game.

J.S.

Wow. What a beautiful and clarifying piece. The Dr. stated exactly what I believe but do not have the theological background to state so eloquently.

Dr. Armstrong has written an eloquent and profound piece. However, are such esoteric, mystical ideas truly known to most followers of orthodox faiths? I am inclined to say, "no," and herein lies the problem. In principle the faith of the mystic and the everyday believer are the same. But in practice, there are great differences. I am skeptical we can ever bridge this chasm.