Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Start With Skepticism, Seek Harmony
Q:What makes the best 'case for God' to a skeptic or non-believer, an open-minded seeker, and to a person of faith and Why?
1) The message of scripture?
2) The scientific evidence for an Intelligent Designer?
3) The 'words' that God has 'spoken' - Torah, Jesus, the Qur'an?
4) A compassionate lifestyle?
5) Personal, subjective experience?
-- Karen Armstrong
First of all, skepticism is a valid approach to most prevalent beliefs about God. Even theologians admit they actually know very little that can objectively ground their concepts, so they depend primarily on faith. While faith can be a useful tool and have positive consequences, it can also be very problematic and end up generating some extremely negative tenets. These include the belief that forcing others to convert to one's own particular religion or belief system is justified and necessary for them to be "saved" or that killing non-believers will help the murderer attain Paradise.
In elementary school, I was taught a variety of concepts about God, such as "He" is all-loving, all-compassionate, all-knowing, everpresent, etc. However, I was also told that God only allows good Christians into Heaven and condemns everyone else to Hell, where they will be tortured for eternity! Thus, we must obey and fear him, and I surely did, at least the fear part, especially since I was often warned by my Catholic nuns that I would likely end up in Hell. What was actually worse was that my best friend was Jewish, and the nuns frequently warned me to avoid him since he was surely going to hell because he was not Christian. As I grew older, I found myself seeking distance from "that" God. After all, who would want closeness to an entity that seemed distant, narrow minded, cruel, and so ready to condemn innocent people to the eternal torture chamber? Granted, that approach to understanding the Christian God may not be as common now as it once was, nevertheless, it reflects many of the biases and distortions that continue to exist in aspects of various religious traditions.
Once I let go of the concept of a Divinity that is male (a female would be far more consistent with a God as a giver of life), Christian (or of any religion for that matter), mean, jealous, violent, revengeful, etc., I essentially became an atheist with respect to such theological beliefs. Still seeking a deeper understanding of life and of a deity, I gradually began to associate the beauty that was apparent in nature, in humanity in general, and in life as being divine. It was obvious that some entity or some form of intelligence far beyond any I could conceive of had surely created an amazing universe, one in which there is beauty, connectedness, and harmony.
I stopped looking for a God as some powerful and perceptible being or person, and instead came to believe in an all pervasive consciousness that seems to be the glue keeping the universe together, harmoniously, and functioning quite well. All the natural forces we see are but traits of that universal reality. Because beauty, harmony, and connectedness are also divine traits, humans who express these in their lives reflect divinity in the process. On the other hand, ignorance, hatred, and violence reflect a lack of connectedness with that divinity.
Clearly, many see the positive traits above as but human superimpositions on a chance universe. That may be, but more and more theoretical physicists see a patterned and harmonious connectedness that transcends and yet is the root of all that we perceive as reality. The work of physicists like David Bohm are relevant here. Patterns and harmony suggest consciousness and knowledge, not chance.
As my search led me to various India-based theological concepts, I found much broader views that were not limited by gender, form, human conceptualization, and also not limited as to which humans can experience that divinity or be "saved." Although some orthodox Hindus believe in the spiritual relevance caste, theirs is a narrow and prejudiced approach that is not held by millions of others. Moreover, the Hindu teachers from whom I learned flatly rejected all external criteria, including sectarian affiliation, gender, or caste as having any ultimate relevance.
Learning a variety of conceptualizations about the Divine, it became obvious that there is no one particular belief about the divine that is absolute and to which everyone must adhere. Instead, one's understanding of the divine should be influenced by one's personal inner searching and experience over and above preconceived theories and notions of others. One teacher said that to him being a Hindu meant being an individual who, on seeing violence (hinsa), experiences sadness and suffering (dukha). If we actually took a view like this and put in to practice, we would have a much less violent world.
In a recent essay in the Christian Science Monitor, Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, the first elected president of the Islamic Republic of Iran after the 1979 revolution who now lives in exile, wrote a scathing criticism of the violent theology that is currently dominant in fundamentalist Islam. In its place, Bani-Sadr argues that the Muslim concept of tawhid actually rejects that violence and presents "The whole of existence is a single living and conscious organism, possessing will, intelligence, feeling, and purpose. This encompassing existence is damaged by conflict and by separation from others."
Such a concept of the divine does not divide into religions or sects or castes, does not promote violence and hatred against those who believe differently, does not attack and destroy innocent lives. Such a concept reflects what my Hindu teachers expressed to me so often about the nature of the divine, and can be found in the beliefs of mystics of all religious traditions. Unfortunately, few people of any religious affiliation seem to either understand or adhere to it these days.
Any concept of God that gives people only one chance for salvation, demands affiliation with the right organization (or even the right denomination within that organization), and requires a narrow belief that excludes most people from being among the "chosen" should be met with extreme skepticism. Believing in God, any God, is not mandatory nor necessarily beneficial. After all, not all believers are like Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King. It all depends on how one's beliefs become interpreted and acted out in one's life. Being compassionate and forgiving, on the other hand, is mandatory if we want a world of less violence and more harmony, and these traits are not solely or inevitably the product of a theological belief.
Personally, I would much rather associate with "atheists" whose lives express beauty, harmony, and connectedness than with "believers" who are too busy trying to get everyone else to think and behave like them and who feel justified in condemning those who don't.
By
Ramdas Lamb
|
October 10, 2009; 12:45 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: To Know God, Taste the Sugar |
Next: A Nobel Message to America
Posted by: edbyronadams | October 14, 2009 11:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Hello Edbyronadams,
This last post that you wrote I quite like.
"Intertribal warfare is a legacy of human evolution. It is a problem of the dark side of human nature itself, not a product of a set of religions."
It does not matter the religion or region of the world that one belongs to, warfare and exclusivity and greed and hatred are common human burdens. All tribes seek adherence to their world view in some measure, and violence it a legacy of each one. Religion is an extension of human nature in it's attempt to align with something felt that is greater than itself. It is subject to both the beauties and wretchedness of the human nature.
As a note, Farnaz1Mansouri1 was not "laying the blame for the history of bloodshed upon the doorstep of the children of Abraham...", though a case could be made that the 'dark force is strong in them', and they have towed the line on more than their own fair share of violence enacted in the world. "Children of Abraham" includes, indeed begins, with Jews, and she spends no bullet on her own kind, which is a validation of this tribal alignment and loyalty, and intertribal warfare. Farnaz saves here ire for others, and especially blames Christians, and seeks opportunities to do so, 'more than any other'. Tribal, not universally or humanly oriented in approach or perception.
I appreciate knowing that you are Buddhist, as you say. I did not know that and would not have taken that from your posts.
Posted by: justillthennow | October 12, 2009 12:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
As a buddhist, I find it interesting that you speak so darkly of human nature.
Human nature is profound. We are largely peaceful, caring, loving species that provided evolution a natural peak of social cooperation.
I know, I know, there is bad out there and in here. But despite the wars, despite the struggles, the vast majority of humans want to love their family and their friends, the want to do their own thing and let you do your own thing, etc. etc.
It is the ideology that drives people to believe in dark and light. It is ideology that confuses the nirvana and the maya. You are correct to say it is not entirely due to the christo-islamists. But it is entirely due to the misconstruction of maya by ego forms on the reality and those ideas that make claims on the mono-ideological valuation of that reality. - The egotistical megalomaniacs tell you this is what you have to believe but are unaware that their own ego is what led them to that conclusion (not true truth perception). And yes, that kind of behavior is largely supported by the ideology of one right way, one right prophet, one right book, one right god... - the christo-islamists.
hariaum
Posted by: Navin1 | October 12, 2009 11:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Farnaz1Mansouri1 wrote:
"That God, god the Accuser, God the murderer, God the Excuser of Christians has brought us two thousand years of bloodshed."
This is unfair. I am a Buddhist but laying the blame for the history of bloodshed upon the doorstep of the children of Abraham is too much. The problem is not them but us. Intertribal warfare is a legacy of human evolution. It is a problem of the dark side of human nature itself, not a product of a set of religions.
Posted by: edbyronadams | October 12, 2009 9:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment
On the Iranian Revolution: Khomeini's vision was the only one permitted, but it never quite succeeded.
Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | October 10, 2009 5:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Any concept of God that gives people only one chance for salvation, demands affiliation with the right organization (or even the right denomination within that organization), and requires a narrow belief that excludes most people from being among the "chosen" should be met with extreme skepticism.
-------------
Amen. Kindly relate this message to the Vatican and all prominent figures in other Christian denominations, to "God's people," as it were.
Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | October 10, 2009 5:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
After all, who would want closeness to an entity that seemed distant, narrow minded, cruel, and so ready to condemn innocent people to the eternal torture chamber? Granted, that approach to understanding the Christian God may not be as common now as it once was, nevertheless, it reflects many of the biases and distortions that continue to exist in aspects of various religious traditions.
---------------------
Are you kidding? That God is the typical Christian God, not only in Catholic schools all over the world, but in Protestant schools, including Lutheran churches,etc.
One can see that Christian God everywhere in the Jew hatred that permeates the anxious, doubting/believing Christians/Catholics who post everywhere on any matter, in Haiti, Poland, South America, New York, during passion plays, etc.
Pleez. That God, god the Accuser, God the murderer, God the Excuser of Christians has brought us two thousand years of bloodshed.
Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | October 10, 2009 5:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
"As a buddhist, I find it interesting that you speak so darkly of human nature."
Buddhism is in no way at odds with the idea of evolution. Tribalism is key to human development and the xenophobia that comes with it is part of our nature. Without the closely held genetic nature of our early tribes, altruism as a human behavior makes absolutely no Darwinian sense.
That evolution led to a species with true free will. We have the choice of which of our dual natures we embrace. Do we embrace compassion and altruism or paranoia and distrust. The choice is not an easy one because we live in a world in which abandoning all paranoia is death. Even Bodhisattva Never Disparaging was careful to stay clear of the stones that were hurled his way.