Freeing God And Religion From The Confines Of Faith And Reason

Over the last six months that I've been blogging for the Huffington Post, I have written about a variety of subjects - primarily about how to find spirituality in our every day activities. Most of these blogs receive a small amount of comments, but occasionally, when I include the topic of God or religion in the blog, there is a deluge of contentious responses.

These responses usually begin with those who make an argument that religion is an invention born from humanity's ignorance, encouraging its followers to act irrationally, leading inevitable to atrocities, and that God is merely the projection of our primordial fears and childish desires, shutting down our minds, and resulting in division, hatred, and destruction. If we could only abandon the archaic notion of God, and abolish religion, they write, humanity can progress toward a rational, peaceful future.

These responses also often cite the conflict between religion and science, and the belief that faith is inconsistent with fact, quoting passages from codified religious texts that seem to endorse brutality, war, sexism, and irrationality, in order to point out the dangers of religion, and the absurdity of the belief in a Being who demands that we do such horrible things.

I've discovered that even though I note that:

1. God is not found in theory or religious doctrine, but, like love or art, is experienced

2. The Bible is not a literal account of historical facts, but must be read on a deeper level

3. Most religious people are not fundamentalists, and that religion is actually a very minor cause of war (the devastating wars of the last several hundred years, which have accounted for the vast majority of human war deaths - American Revolution, French Revolution, Napoleonic Wars, American Civil War, World War One, The Russian Revolution, World War 2, China's "Cultural Revolution", the Soviet Union's purges, Korea, and Viet Nam - were not fought over religion, except for regimes who sought to abolish religion)

those who respond usually ignore these points and return to a characteristic, literalist image of anyone who speaks of God and religion. Or, if all else fails, will question my sincerity and honesty.

At this point, another group weighs in, pointing to the slippery slope of moral relativism, warning that without the guidance of religion mankind would revert to anarchy; that there is only one way, one truth, found in the Bible and in the particular interpretation of it by a particular branch of a religion. The modern world, they argue, is filled with temptation and sin, leading man away from faith, and only by following a particular path can one find eternal salvation.

And so the debate goes back and forth.

This debate between dogmatic religion and strident atheism, which began thousand of years ago (Socrates was executed for denying the Greek gods), and reached public acceptance in the West at the dawn of the Enlightenment over 200 years, was recently re-ignited after 9/11 by a series of books that attacked religion and belief in God as inherently dangerous. Other books were soon written in response, some by credible scientists and theologians, seeking to find a middle ground between faith and science. These moderate books, though, seem only to enrage the voices from both extremes - fundamentalists and atheists - who dismiss them as pandering or equivocation. Because the extremist voices are louder, simpler, and more entertaining than those of thoughtful moderation, they are covered more actively by the media, leaving many in the public to believe that these extremist positions are the only ones possible. As William Butler Yeats wrote in his poem, "The Second Coming",

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Let's be honest; we like extreme views: Such strong, black and white positions are more exciting and accessible, especially relating to such complex issues as religion and faith. The obvious danger of extremism, though, is that it rejects any intention to find common ground and reconciliation, and holds with stubborn instance that, in fact, no common ground can be found, because those who disagree are, at best, simply wrong and, at worst... well, we've seen the horrors of such extremism in Fascism, Nazism, and militant religion. The irony here is that those who claim to speak on behalf of reason on one side, and faith on the other, must abandon the professed objective, impersonal position of open-minded rationality on the one hand, or the proclaimed compassionate, inclusive position of faith on the other, in order to remain stuck in their extreme positions

The argument between these extremists furthers the illusion of a conflict between mind and emotion, physicality and spirit, rationality and faith. This sense of conflicting dualism is at the core of human unhappiness, because when we come to believe that an inherent component of our being (say, curiosity, sexual desire, ambition, intuition, even love) is wrong and must either be controlled or destroyed, we can only conclude that there is something irrevocably wrong with us (and with others) and with life itself. We must, therefore, always on guard, anxious, vigilant for the "other" to arise. This is a futile and dangerous strategy, however, because when we try to exile an inherent part of who we are, that part simply stays buried, un-nurtured, waiting to be heard and healed, and if not examined and voiced, will eventually erupt in anger and hatred.

So, how can we move this dialogue forward? The next blog will suggest some ideas

 

Comments

[mobydog]

I love you for your ambition, and I eagerly await your resolution of this millenia old debate. Some interim observations, hwoever:
1. If God is to be experienced (as you note), any debate regarding experience is futile, as you cannot convince someone that your experience is more valid than their experience or lack thereof. Indeed, I tend to believe that, in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is not king, but rather is regarded as delusional for trying to describe sensations that are so far removed from the norm.
2. I believe the debate is not so much about religion vs science , but stems from fundamental world view differences. There are those who believe in a higher purpose, and those who see only randomness. Some prefer to believe that someone else is calling the shots, while others believe that they control their destinies. Some like rules (prefereably divine ones) in their lives, while others buckle at them. Some value analytic certainty, while others value artistic sensibility. These fundamental world views tend to form the dabate over religion vs. spirituality vs. science. I, for one, like a world where there is no single unifying vision and where we can appreciate differences and disagreement on fundamentals.

[rolodex]

How do we solve this conflict? Some say 2+2=4, others say 2+2=5. The 5'ers say simply that their answer gives you more, and more is better, right? But the 4'ers argument is just that the evidence always and only points to 4 as the answer, no more, no less, just following the available evidence.

But, don't you want more?

Those seeking a reconciliation of the conflict, that want to "move this dialogue forward" continue to try different answers, how about 2+2=4.75, or maybe 4.5, ok maybe they'll even go as far as 4.25. See, that is still more than 4, and don't you want more, more is better, right?

Here is a novel idea - follow the evidence, what is true and correct and provable, reliable and repeatable. But how about the 'more'? Well, if you follow the math correctly, then you might develop algebra, then trigonometry and geometry, then maybe even calculus. You can do all sorts of things with these advanced math techniques, which give you lots more. But you will never get there if you don't start with the simple admission that the evidence simply says that 2=2=4.

[rolodex]

Oops...

"that the evidence simply says that 2 + 2 = 4"

[kwinter]

You're one of those extremists who only wants to stick with reality!

You can only find common ground if you give up your desire to only believe what's true!

[JohnFromCensornati]

Do monkeys have transcendence hallucinations or did humans evolve them as a way to experience god?

[willowranch]

You should know all about hallucinations this evening.

[JohnFromCensornati]

That is an evasive response.

[HeevenSteven]

"...were not fought over religion, except for regimes who sought to abolish religion"

Fer instance?? What war was fought to abolish religion?

[Don Quixote]

Religion has gotten a bum rap. In modern times, when all the bloodiest wars were faught, it's nationalism, not religion, that has been the biggest cause. Millions upon millions of young men and women have willingly killed and died for their nation, not for their god.

If you're going to advocate against things that are harmful to the welfare of society, perhaps you should que challenging the construct of nation, and the even more dangerous idea of sovereignty which is what gives the sovereign powers that be the legal right to kill, exclude and expand territory.

[ancientmarinader]

But your triangulation, or fascination with the supposed reasonableness of an imagined "middle way" isnt guaranteed to be accurate either. And given that position I don't know why you start with the idea of a single male diety, That's not very ecumenical or "middle way" at all. I think you are saying that you are a blble believing christian who doesnt want to have his beliefs challenged. And that's fine.

I have no issue with middle of the road faith, the problems arise when the faithful want to change the laws to afford special status to their views. I'm for one am glad that aheists are more vocal today. If they'd been more vocal in the 1950s we might not have to have prayers on our currency, in the motto, or in the pledge.

Keep your voodoo out of my life and we'll get along fine.

[DanceroftheMysticDwarves]

"Most religious people are not fundamentalists, and that religion is actually a very minor cause of war..."
Once, when Einstein was presented with a student's paper on theoretical physics, he said: "This isn't right... This isn't even wrong." Since we know religion and culture to be inseparable it's clear that only a person of hide-bound, thought-proofed ideology could say this in the wake of the wars of the past two thousand years and think it true. Reasonable people recognize that Ideology is what drives the religiously inclined to make blunders such as this. This assertion, which seems innocent enough, lies on the same spectrum of group thought that allows societies to murder one another, each all-the-while thinking, "God is on their side." Susan Jacoby is right; this IS "The Age of American Unreason."

[Don Quixote]

One of the biggest fallacies in the anti-theist argument is that the world would be better without religion and belief in God. How can they know? Are they privy to an alternate universe with an Earth just like ours but where religion never evolved? How do they know that on that atheistic version of Earth people don't use each other as a source of food? Maybe slavery still exists. Maybe a dominant race has completely killed off all other variants. What moral code would stop a God-less world from being like this?

An equally viable hypothesis (unprovable as well) is that, as many times in history that religion has been used as justification for all kinds of injustices, a world without God would possibly, in fact probably, be much much worse.

In other words, God and religion are the only things keeping us from enslaving and/or eating each other. Otherwise, it could seem perfectly natural.

[JohnFromCensornati]

"Maybe slavery still exists."

Actually, that's a certainty.

"In other words, God and religion are the only things keeping us from enslaving and/or eating each other. "

God & religion *obviously* do nothing of the kind, but if that's what is stopping you from eating other people, please keep right on believing.

[curanipedoug]

Will there be a Christian religion in another 1000 years? Christian beliefs have changed so much over the centuries as people have become educated-hard to imprison someone for believing the sun is the center of the solar system. Even now there are conferences on how to explain the appearance of life elsewhere. Church hierarchies cling to power, grudgingly giving way to knowledge and the message of love, forgiveness, and inclusion becomes lost in the destruction of ideas and hatred for homosexuals. Hopefully there will be a peaceful resolution, but it is hard to see it today.

[Frederic]

If thousands of religions claim to be in the possession of their "unique" particular truth, truth in the religious sense must be regarded as a commodity, or a necessary but in its content arbitrary consensus of a tribe or group at best. Religious "truth" is a feeling shared by a given population of humans as a proxy for the unknown, based on some culturally conditioned invention, fairy tale, fable, but never as a truth in a philosophical or epistemic sense of knowledge and honest insight. It is admittedly "make believe", in the double sense of the word.

The whole western history is the history of religion, and even Hitler and Stalin were products of this history. Jesus most certainly was what today would be called a communist. It is therefore erroneous to negate the religious source of all the disasters of recent history.

[nellyb stl]

Wonderful blog; can't wait for your follow up. Inotherwords, everything in moderation, even Love?

[Paul David Walker - Huffpost Blogger]

Thank you Alan for your balanced views. I look forward to your next blog. It is so hard to escape the polarities of our thinking. Our egos have been programed to be right, not to reflect. The ego is a survival mechanism and it has been trained to act quickly in cases of emergency. Unfortunately, our egos have a hard time distinguishing between an emergency, and language that might be seen as a threat. For thousands of years fight or flight has been the right answer. Now our challenges are so much more complex.

Using the stories in the Bible as points of reflection, as Koans to challenge duality and find a third and higher reality is an approach that can lead our civilization to higher levels. All great profits used contradicting polarities to expand the mind beyond being right into insight. Keep up the good work.