A man recently came into my office for a job interview. As we were talking, I noticed that he was distracted by one of the framed items hanging near my desk, so I turned to see what he was looking at.
"Is that a Rabbinic Certificate?" he asked. "Are you a Rabbi?"
"Yup, but only after hours," I answered.
"Can I ask you a question?" he said. "I hope that you won't be offended, but...do you actually believe in God? I mean really believe?"
Now, that's an unexpected turn, I thought.
"Actually, yes, I do," I answered. "But we need to define what we mean by the word 'God,' though."
"Really?" he replied. "Well, I suppose, as a Rabbi, you have to. But frankly, for me, belief in God is irrational. I can't believe that there is some kind of being that watches us and cares about us. It doesn't make sense. Not in this world, the way it is, with the terrible things that happen. Besides, science has proven that most of the stories in the Bible are myths. And look at all the damage that religion has caused. Faith and reason are opposites, and I am not about to abandon my reason."
I've come to learn that many people, like this man, have difficulty encountering God in a way that is consistent with the realities of their lives, the workings of their minds, and the revelations of science. Most of us have wrestled with such impediments, which can seem to be insurmountable walls, separating those who "believe" from those who question, with no apparent reconciliation possible.
Surprisingly, a story in the Bible presents impediments to understanding God, and also responds with answers that the man who came in to my office would probably find unexpected. This story is well known -- even to those who have never read the Bible. One day, the shepherd Moses wanders on to a mountain, where his life suddenly changes. The text tells us:
An angel of God appeared to him [Moses] in a blaze of fire from amid the bush. He saw, and behold, the bush was burning in the fire but the bush was not consumed. Moses thought, "I will turn now and look at this great sight -- why will the bush not be burned?" God saw that he turned aside to see, and called out to him from amid the bush and said "Moses, Moses," and he replied, "Here I am."
Embedded in these four sentences, which describe Moses' epiphany -- his awakening to the Divine presence -- are several typical impediments to experiencing God, along with associated avenues for resolutions. Below, I present these impediments as first-person statements, similar to those voiced by the man who came in to my office:
Impediment 1: I see no proof of God's existence. I'll believe when I see an obvious demonstration:
The Bible is filled with spectacular miracles, which may lead us to look for God in such spectacles. The revelation to Moses, though, comes through a little, unassuming bush that has caught fire. This little bush teaches us that God can be found when we pay attention to the everyday miracle that surround us -- the things we all too routinely take for granted: a beautiful tree, the workings of our bodies, the wonder of our minds, the gift of our children, friends and our jobs, and the life force -- "burning" but unconsumed -- coursing through the veins of a little bush. When we consciously place our awareness on these everyday miracles, the presence of the Divine is revealed.
Impediment 2: I can't prove God's existence rationally, which is the only way to knowledge:
If we can't logically prove God's existence, then isn't God just a wishful delusion, a manipulative construct of control-based religion, or a pre-rational fantasy? Moses, however, had a direct experience of the Divine presence, calling him to his life's purpose. Intellect can provide a valuable categorical framework, but, as Moses discovered, God, like love, is experienced, not conceptualized.
Impediment 3: A relationship with God will make me arrogant and/or sheepish:
To some, it may seem that those who believe in God are giving up their individuality and intellect by buying in to a packaged, unquestionable, unprovable doctrine, leading to the paradoxical combination of arrogant certainty that one has exclusive ownership of Truth, along with the abdication of personal questioning. Not a very appealing picture. Moses' response, "I am here," though, is not a surrender of individuality, nor acceptance of a religious creed, but rather a declaration of full readiness to listen, a commitment to serve, and a desire to receive guidance and wisdom. This is the true posture of a relationship with the Divine.
Impediment 4: "Spiritual experiences" are just feel-good self-indulgence:
One of the unfortunate aspects of much modern spirituality is that it can often turn toward self-involvement, based on the belief that the primary goal of such spiritual practices is to receive Divine personal reward; to be given special "powers," to be protected by life's suffering, and to have a level of clarity that raises one above others. Moses's encounter teaches us that a deep spiritual path makes us more sensitive to the needs and feelings of others, less enthralled by the tug of our egos, and propels us to socially beneficial action. Moses is called because he needs to perform a task that will eventually lead to the transformation of the world.
I wonder if these explanations would have made any impact on the man who came in to my office. Maybe not...God is not found in explanations. Maybe, though, these points would have given some direction to his search, or at least have helped him to see that the "battle" between faith and reason is built on a false foundation, and that there are ways of understanding God and religion that can dissolve his impediments, open him to new possibilities, enrich his life, and help him to find purpose as he searches for work in these difficult times.
Jeff Schweitzer: Heaven Can Wait
Thomas Moore: Updating Your 'Old Time' Religion
Rabbi Laura Geller: Technology in Temple: Spirituality in 140 Characters or Fewer
Rabbi Alan Lurie: Why Does God Hide?
you are wrong science have proven the opposite science has proven most of the stories in the bible
remember your opinion is just that an opinion. science backs me, prove me wrong. this is for the writer.
Me: There is no God.
Religious Guy (or Girl): Of course there is.
Me: Show me proof.
Religious Guy (or Girl): See that tree over there?
Me: Yes.
Religious Guy (or Girl): There you go, God.
Me: No. Tree.
I can vividly remember being about 5 or 6 and having my parents explain to me the whole God business. Even at that young age, I thought it was ridiculous.
THERE IS NO GOD. Trees however, are in abundance.
http://www.slate.com/id/2222495/
Anyway, once I get typing, I can't stop. Intervention may be needed.
It's been a fun conversation, fulled of passion!
To those who took the time to contribute, I wish all of you well.
Alan
Today while I was listening to the latest episode, I kept being reminded of some of the things discussed on this thread in the last few days. Especially about experiential evidence.
I wish some of you guys would listen to this episode (# 612), and let me know what you think.
If you don't have iTunes, you can listen here: http://huffduffer.com/norelpref/6357
The first 8 1/2 minutes are BS announcements so you can just skip forward.
I really would like some opinions on this episode.
I don't know if she listened or not, but if she did, I'd be interested in hearing her thoughts.
It's a great show. Usually there are more theists calling in, though. You should listen to some more of them, I think you'd like it.
BTW, I can't believe Carl Sagan wrote a book ... just for me ... wow, I'm honored!
Carl Sagan ... That book really put me on the path to rationality 10 years ago. I'd always been a skeptic, and thought the book would be a fun read. In a very subtle way, it really did lead me to a new path of inquiry. I think it should be a must read for everyone.
First, to the list of the "impediments" above, and the cute but unconvncing logical retorts, one can add dozens of other impediments, to which in-kind retorts can be made - I am sure of it.
Second, belief in a god in any of the flavors (Judeo-Christian, Moslem, etc) and all its attendant trappings, exists and is today prevalent to the extent that it is, is due to the generational brain-washing and forced indoctrination, if not within the family setting, in the societal and institutional drumbeat of tradition for its own sake.
Marvelling at the beauty and infinite extent of the universe is akin to taking a slow journey through an infinite version of the Hermitage or the Louvre or the British Museum - without obsessing which one person arranged all the pieces or why in such a manner.
What I meant, very simply, is that no theory, no matter how sweeping and logical and beautifully researched, can act as the source for all answers. I see this being done with evolution. In fact, it's the nature of religion threads at Huff-Po that any discussion of the actual topic (God, and/or faith) has to answer to discussions of Darwin, of the shape and size of the universe, of the nature of time, of the probability that a dime dropped from the fourth planet of another star would hit the same car as on Earth, and so on. In other words, discussions about religion defer mightily to science, philosophy, cognitive "science," Darwin, and so forth, even though no one, to date, has explained to me why religion is beholden to these topics. I mean, we don't hold the validity of Einstein's observations to the Bible--I don't, anyway.
But the reverse courtesy? Out of the question, apparently.
We didn't start the fire!
The Greeks rationalists did their share, and the RCC picked up there and spent the next 2000 years trying to reconcile faith and reason. A Sisyphean task if ever there was one, eh?
I wonder whether Sysiphus could be so bold as to, one day, after performing his thankless task for a few eons, realize the inherent insanity of his expectations, and say; "to hell with it", and let the burden roll down the hill.
How exhilarating - yet scary - and liberating when our inner Sysiphi (?) are allowed to do so.
letting the actions and
Min Sin Tax said: Only for people who take them literally.
Does this apply to the Xenu Thetan story as well? Have I taken it too literally?
Penitents Compete: Turkish Game Show's Religious Contestants Compete To Convert Atheists
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/06/ipenitents-competei-turki_n_226146.html
Robertson & Dobson are already working on an American version: Religious Contestants Compete to Convert Atheists into BBQed Atheists.
Do you think the winner will believe in the Big Brother in the Sky version of god or one of these newer, squishier models?
God is not completely unknowable according to apophatic theology. The nature of God is unknowable, but His essences (which is the theological expression of what in western Christian theology would be called His love) are knowable through direct experience. Therefore, God is not a thing to be grasped intellectually. John of Damascus said that cataphatic statements reveal "not the nature, but the things around the nature [of God]." Therefore, Eastern Christian mystics pursue(d) God by silence and ceasing to observe themselves/their minds- by silencing all thoughts. This is a type of contemplative prayer.
Part 1
-- "It surprises me that an actual personal experience of God would not change the mind of an atheist in your opinion. Why wouldn't it? If you are a materialist, would you reject your experience as misleading information about the objective reality?" --
First of all, I've never referred to myself as a materialist.
And, yes, a 'personal experience' would not change the mind of an atheist in my opinion, IF the atheist arrived at his position through extensive critical thinking.
There are some who call themselves atheists, who just never adopted a theistic belief, and never gave much thought to their position.
There are also some who simply reject religion and call themselves atheist or agnostic.
There are also those who are swayed by someone else's arguments, that they may not even fully understand.
And there are those who are variations or combinations of all of these.
These are atheists who COULD be swayed by a perceived 'personal experience'.
I've heard some atheists referred to as 'weak' atheists and 'strong' atheists. But when I've heard those descriptions used, it's been differentiating between those who have no belief in gods, and those who believe there are no gods, not how they arrived at their position.
Maybe 'passive atheist' and 'reasoned atheist'?
Argggh, too many labels!
Part 2
When people of faith refer to a 'personal experience' with a god, it is always described in some abstract way. It is usually described in terms of feelings or emotions.
When I've asked people who claim their god speaks to them, exactly what they mean, the answers are always one of the following, or variations of:
*they describe a thought that came into their head while praying, or considering a problem or question, and attribute it to a god
*they describe an incredible feeling or intuition that they follow, and if it turns out well, they attribute it to their god
*they interpret something another person says, or something they read as 'God was speaking to me through ...'
*they describe having a perceived 'void', then having it filled by a perceived 'feeling of God, or love, or peace' (they 'felt' empty, then they 'felt' filled)
*the describe a coincidence that they see as so unusual that 'it must have been God that made it happen'
These 'personal experiences' are far from sufficient evidence to change the views of a reasonable atheist. If you can give me a more persuasive (and verifiable) description of a 'personal experience of God', I would be happy to consider it.
The further examples except for the "coincidences" seem more familiar to me from my own tradition. Reading Holy Scriptures is meant to be a dialogue with Christ (although it is possible to read it also in a manner of pure intellectual inquiry). So there are many accounts even going back into Biblical times of people hearing words from another person considered sacred or reading words considered sacred and feeling they were directed at them, and they did do things like sell all they had and give the proceeds to the poor.
And, how did you , personally, determine that your personal experience was genuine/real?
I understand better where your coming from; I've read a bit of Tarnas, and others who like this view. I see consciouness as an emergent property, like all complexity, as proposing that it preexisted our being seems like a homunculus fallacy to me.
I'm still a bit ignorant about this view though, but will try to catch up. Thanks for all your responses.
Physicality and consciousness (not "thought) are categorically different. This has been the dilemma of all mystics throughout time
Consciousness is necessarily complex in my lexicon. That's why I asked how you see it. It seems that for many, consciousness is simply a substitute for the ol' ghost in the machine.
http://www.slate.com/id/2222255/
I wonder if it was intentional, for some reason, that the light beam (when the scientology logo first appears) makes the T look like a cross?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/embeliever-beware-emgets_b_226071.html