My last post addressed to the atheists who frequent the HuffPost Religion section triggered nearly 800 comments, many of them properly taking me to task for seeming to suggest that all atheists share certain less-than-congenial traits that some exhibit. But one put forth a query that I now address: "So, Eliot, what do you believe?" Okay, here goes:
First, it's not about "beliefs" for me. It is about experiencing God. For many, beliefs are somebody else's statements about the purported actions of God and/or the agents of God that "believers" now apparently adopt as their own. For them, giving credence to these passed-down statements is tantamount to a relationship with God and provides what they consider to be their "faith." Although my three years in a theological seminary familiarized me with such beliefs, they are largely irrelevant to me except as poetic expressions of others' direct experience of God. They may be a pointer, but they're not a portrait. And many deserved to be abandoned and superseded generations ago and would have been, during the pre-literate era when perceptions of God were transmitted orally, enabling the routine abandonment of no-longer-relevant stories in favor of fresher perceptions. (See my 9/30/11 HuffPost piece for more on that issue.
Instead, I give credence to the notion of "God" because of my own direct, multifaceted experience of God.
I remember as a collegian taking the famed Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), a psychological inventory which included a yes-or-no question that gave me a laugh and a shudder: "I have heard the voice of God." I wondered at the time just how long it would take the men in white coats to swoop down and cart off to a padded cell anyone who checked "yes."
But since then I have heard the voice of God. Twice. In my early 50s I elected to leave my role as co-founder and co-CEO of a quite successful company in order to experience new challenges, including a possible return to college chaplaincy which I had done in my 20s. Some weeks after pulling the plug and with no ideas or prospects in mind, I was beginning to feel very anxious. Would I find a satisfying outlet for my gifts? Had I trashed my role as father, husband, provider? How long would our money last? As I sat in my study at home one day with my head in my hands, God said, "I will take care of you." If there had been a tape recorder running at the time (or if I had been wired to EEG channels or a PET scanner, as contemporary researchers do it), I swear it would have been detected. That voice spoke. My brain registered the exact words. Clear. Unmistakable. Unforgettable. And, given the content of the message, from whom else could those words have made any sense whatsoever? I will take care of you. Maybe only my father, but he was long dead.
Later, during that same transition, I was on a plane from NY to LA. I had divested our more costly indulgences (e.g., cottage, boat, clubs) to free myself to entertain relatively low-pay positions such as chaplaincy and teaching, but none panned out. Now I was aloft in first class again, en route to seal a deal that would in all likelihood generate an unseemly amount of wealth for me. It felt like I was abandoning the impecunious do-gooder roles I'd just been trying to adopt. I was mulling this when God spoke to me again, this time in a voice every bit as clear but now tinged with a hint of asperity: "Just go do what I'm sending you to do."
I must add one disclaimer here: despite my experience of God's speaking to me in my daily life, I am far, far from convinced that God intervenes in the physical universe to change the outcomes of forces that have long since been set in motion. Even though I have had some tantalizing experiences that could conceivably persuade me otherwise, I still don't believe God occasions fate-changing or physics-changing "miracles" in human affairs, whether wrought by a Tim Tebow "Hail Mary" pass in the fourth quarter or a group of believers in passionate prayer to reverse a lethal cancer. (But I give far more credence to the latter possibility than the former; our understanding of those dynamics are ridiculously primitive, and I am open to considering almost anything in this electromagnetically entangled universe.)
I couple these specific mid-life experiences with my lifelong daily wonder at Creation. I have always delighted in the universe, and in love, and in others, and in my own abilities. Every single day I marvel at the blessings I experience. I receive them as a gift. At the same time, I cannot explain "the problem of evil" and the inexplicable pain in the world (or in my own life), but they do not invalidate my enduring, inexpressible wonder.
At the heart of the blessings (and even the pain) is this question: Are all these just freak occurrences? I'm reasonably well read about the Big Bang and have the benefit of occasional conversations with some of the world-class scientists who are friends and neighbors here in Princeton. I think scientists are doing a splendid job of tracking down the physical origins of Creation.
But they are not tackling the questions that are of much more interest to me as a human being: 1. Where did the stage, the combustibles, and the spark come from? 2. Why?
As to the first question, I respectfully submit that, while the tools of science ca. 2012 are wonderfully advanced compared with those of, say, 1012 or 1512, they are laughable compared to the tools and understandings that will be readily available to scientists in 2512 or 3012 who will smile indulgently at our lack of understanding of the mechanisms of ESP and hypnosis and myriad other phenomena utterly beyond our ken today. These future scientists will have rendered today's definition of "natural" unthinkably inadequate and obsolete; today's dismissive epithet "supernatural" will have been rolled over and buried by the ongoing tide of scientific revolutions, as Thomas Kuhn has so well documented and predicted.
But I suspect that even these future geniuses will continue to encounter the phenomenon that theologian Paul Tillich noted in his "method of correlation": that is, as our questions and understandings about God become ever more penetrating and well informed, the mysteriousness of God becomes precisely that much more impenetrable and inexplicable. And that defines, of course, exactly the essence of "mystery." For God to be God, God must forever be beyond capture by the most exquisite tools of understanding which God's creatures are capable of inventing. As much of a fan of science and scientists as I am, I (contrary to many atheists) do not imagine the day when their tools will comprehend it all, including both the first question and the second: "Why Creation?"
As for that "Why?" I keep pretty well abreast of the arguments of the atheists and others who attribute all our meaning-making to physiological and psychological and sociological phenomena. All three of my degree programs and much of my subsequent learning has featured study in these fields. And, fortunately, the seminary I attended (San Francisco Theological Seminary) eagerly brought to campus all manner of critics and cynics from S. I. Hayakawa to Ken Kesey who cheerfully assured us we were wasting our time and did their best -- which was often very good indeed -- to explain why our pursuit of these illusions was a fool's errand. And of course in recent years I have been engrossed with the new research and literature exploring brain function, cognition, and the formulation of thoughts and decisions.
But I have yet to encounter concepts or debunkings sufficient to invalidate my own lifelong sense -- or call it an active understanding -- that I am on purpose. That you are on purpose. That Creation is on purpose. Not a curious accident. On purpose.
Can I prove this? Oh, come on. It is neither provable nor disprovable -- no more subject to unequivocal, conclusive evidence than either a) my conviction that I love my wife or b) any doubts you may harbor about that. No more provable than the assertion that a certain painting or poem or concerto is exquisite, not ugly. And trying to nail it down definitively is truly a fool's errand. But more to the point, it ignores the essence of "faith."
The word "faith" is used pretty variously. Some use the word to denote a set of religious beliefs. Some use it to denote unquestioning credulity for tales that are highly improbable (e.g., virgin births and walking on water).
For me, the essence of "faith" is choice, and the key quality is "nevertheless." Faith is the very tension between yes and no, between reliance and rejection, and is the occasion for making an utterly personal decision all by yourself, all for yourself.
It works like this:
On the one hand, I really, honestly, do see, hear, and experience everything that atheists adduce as evidence that God is an illusion. What is more, as a former executive in a brain-monitoring company I understand perhaps better than most of them the scientific basis for their argument that there is no "there" there beyond some intracranial synapses creating an illusion some call "God".
On the other hand, I also see, hear, and experience in my everyday life what I just as really, honestly, understand as God.
This brings me to a free choice: I can choose to live my life according to either one depiction or the other: without God or with God. The act of "faith" is choosing one over the other "nevertheless." The nevertheless means I don't deny, dispute, or dishonor the evidence and the argument to the contrary; it simply means that I choose not to adopt it as the definitive guide for my own thinking and feeling and actions during what poet Mary Oliver calls my "one wild and precious life." Perhaps the same process holds true for those atheists who acknowledge that there really are two sides to this issue: they, too, see some evidence on both sides, weigh it, and choose the alternative instead (although I can imagine that calling this decision an act of "faith" might not be very palatable to some).
NB: In closing, let me point out that none of the foregoing addresses "religion." Naturally I share many atheists' abhorrence of the crimes against humanity that have been and still are committed in the name of religion. Like the quest for money and power or even for bread and water, religious fervor has driven many human beings to brutish behavior. I do hope that responders to this post will avoid conflating the experience of God with the experience of religious mayhem. To suggest that the very existence of the former inevitably and necessarily results in the latter is akin to suggesting that the existence of money inevitably and necessarily creates greed.
More widespread receptivity to the life-giving God I know and to that God's well-articulated yearnings for a peaceful and generous human community might well obviate both the mayhem and the greed.
Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
God Would Be An Atheist / The Atheist God
There is a God, leading atheist concludes - World news - msnbc.com
An Atheist Meets God - YouTube
Atheists: No God, just whining | Charlotte Allen | Comment is free ...
please see below a link to current times of prophecy: a green pale horse appears in the crowd of riots in Cairo Egypt in FEB 2011 Prophecy is actually happening!!
When the lamb broke the second seal, a red horse appeared who brought horrible war and death on the earth (Revelation 6:4). He was followed by the black horse of famine and scarcity (Revelation 6:5–6). Finally, the pale green horse of pestilence and death is brought forth as the fourth seal was broken (Revelation 6:7–8).
here is the news to live news reporting this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UKz3GVrHI8
please understand i gain nothing from this except peace in knowing if you chose to believe that Jesus Christ is coming soon and even though it is hard to believe ... i myself have been through so much but when i accepted Jesus into my heart the amount of peace that came over me was overwhelming ... it doesnt matter now if i were to die i have salvation.... love the answer is love...." For God so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son that who ever believe in Him shall not perish but have eternal life!" John 3:16
"FORGET ABOUT TRYING TO DISPROVE GOD AT THIS POINT"
Why?
... the proof is all around us...
Where?
JUST if you read the book of revelations speaks to all the prophecies written in the Holy Bible are now being completed....
Like?
please see below a link to current times of prophecy: a green pale horse appears in the crowd of riots in Cairo Egypt in FEB 2011 Prophecy is actually happening!!
Really? Where are the photos? Where was the news coverage of the pale green horse?
"When the lamb broke the second seal, a red horse appeared who brought horrible war and death on the earth (Revelation 6:4). He was followed by the black horse of famine and scarcity (Revelation 6:5–6). Finally, the pale green horse of pestilence and death is brought forth as the fourth seal was broken (Revelation 6:7–8)."
Right. The Bible quotes come out again. Why am I not surprised?
Nonetheless, I have always respected others' desire to seek meaning for their lives through religion and will ardently defend their right to do so. I know that we are all too limited in knowledge and perception to ever be able to state with certainty that we have all the answers to the great, overarching questions that humans have wrestled with down through the millennia.
What I, and it seems so many of my fellow non-believers, have trouble with when it comes to the religious is their insistence on not according me the same respect I grant them. Since they believe so passionately and completely in their theology, they feel comfortable in condemning me for not accepting the "truth" as they see it. For a view of a religious person whom I admire and who seems to embody the potential that a worthy religion holds, I highly recommend "Father Joe," by Tony Hendra.
1. "Frankly, I don't know why there should be so much furor over things of spiritual matter particularly as it pertains to God."
Because you make it so. Atheists do not have a problem with someone wishing to profess a relationship with an unknown being, or believe every word in a book written by illiterate goat-herders some 3000 years in the past. We DO, however, have a problem with you trying hard to force it upon US.
2. "Atheists are people whose spiritual armor have been destroyed and dead to links from the spiritual realm."
Atheists do not HAVE "spiritual armor." Nor do we need any. If YOU need some to get through the day, more power to you, but don't presume to effect that we "need" the same.
3. "It may sound unbelievable, but there is the spiritual realm that controls the earthly nature; NOTHING ever goes on in the earth without a spiritual dimension to it."
Prove it.
4. "The lives we live and how we live it may look as we as human beings originate everything which is wrong."
Prove it.
5. "Our thoughts and perceptions may be our own, but the resultant actions is like a plot in the overall play of humankind that has a spiritual underlining."
Prove it.
6. "Atheists can choose to believe nothing, but we as Christians or whatever religion we choose believe the author of life is God and is our access to things spiritual."
Very true, but you can't leave that be, can you. You HAVE to try to convince "the heathens" to "see the light" and "develop a relationship with Jesus." That is, after all, one of your basic tenants, isn't it -- missionary. Therein lies the problem.
How much would you have to hate someone to not to try to lead them to Jesus. In the mind of the Christian, Jesus is the way the truth and the life. To me, it would be a pretty cold thing to believe you have the power to prevent someone from going to hell and deciding not to tell them.
As Stenger has stated, personal testimony of a religious experience is not evidence for a supernatural event.
You demand a higher burden on scientific proof than its falsification, but yet fall for even the meager-est of explainations for the existence of gods, why the hypocrisy?
Where a naturalistic explanation encompass the data, instead you jump to the supernatural. What is more likely, that believers have a direct channel to the creator of the universe or that local processes in the brain, the consensus of cognitive science, account for observed phenomena?
Believers claim supra-normal cognitive ability (talking to god), but yet there is not 1 "verified" instance of precognitive prediction, for instance why didn't your god "warn" believers on Sumatra of the impending tsunami? An omniscient god would know beforehand about hurricane Katrina and New Orleans, surely with enough lead time he could have insured the levies were up to snuff and prevented unnecessary suffering simply just "talking" to someone?
Over the past 150 years there is no empirical evidence that voices in the head are anything other than normal or abnormal brain processes.
Polytheism = the belief in more than one god.
Monotheism = the belief in one god.
Getting closer to the correct number all the time...
However, I think everyone has an obligation to be well-informed about important topics. If atheists wish to argue about religion, then they should be well-informed about religion (and not just the historical inaccuracies or bad parts, but what believers actually think and practice).
One major problem with religious debate is that both sides are ill-informed about the other. There are too many "former Christians" who left because of the imperfection of humans, and too many born-Christians who have no idea what atheism/Judaism/Islam/Hinduism/deism/etc. really means.
And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.
Atheists do not believe God exists and so they do not seek Him.
mystic ~ A person who practices mysticism, or a reference to a mystery, mystic studies or the occult.
I draw comfort and a sense of wonder as I contemplate the infinite along with the sorrow of missing this dear woman that is so precious to me and I know that life is eternal and I believe the promise of an afterlife.
As fellow people of faith contact me with condolences I feel the support of their words of encouragement and I have felt it strengthen my beliefs as it also comforts me.
I'm truly sorry for those who can't or won't feel the connection that I feel as this time in my life and I simply wish them the best and try to show them what my belief has done for me.
"...I know that life is eternal and I believe the promise of an afterlife."
You THINK that life is eternal.
You BELIEVE that life is eternal.
You do not KNOW that life is eternal.
State it correctly next time please. Otherwise, please provide me with the proof (not belief) you have that life is eternal.
One thing is left out is that while religion has been used for inhumane action. There are plenty of non-religious vehicles and modules for such inhumanity to man as well. We don't need religion to mistreat others, that can be accomplished quite well without it.
The key issue is that mistreaters ( I know I made that word up) mistreat. It's their nature. The religious will use religion. The a-religious will use "enlightenment" and reason as their whip.
Awww...but you do SO well with it!
You on the other hand do wonderfully without it as evidenced by your comment above. LOL