Writing blogs for the Huffington Post's Religion section -- in which I often attempt to present a nuanced, personal understanding of God, and a defense of the inherent goodness in the impulse toward religion -- has been a challenging experience. I have discovered that for many readers the terms "religion", "God", "faith", and "belief", carry such negative images, predetermined parameters, and intricate emotions that the dialogue is stopped dead in its tracks. These are complex subjects that resist short explanations, and for which words themselves are often inadequate at best, and misleading at worst. For example, in response to a recent blog, "Can The Existence of God Ever Be Proven", one person wrote,
"Humans have worshipped thousands of gods throughout the ages. Which of these does this discussion refer to? Remember, they were convinced that they had it right too. Just as you don't believe in Zeus, I don't believe in your god."
There are two assumptions in this statement that I'd like to challenge:
First, not all religious people are convinced that they have it right. That is an assumption that simply is not based on facts. Unquestioned certainty is a fundamentalist position, but is not an inherent -- or even desirable -- quality in a spiritual life, and is not the position taken by a vast number of believers or by most theologians. There is a long history of debate in all religions about the nature of the Divine, the meaning of scriptures, and the purpose of doctrines. In Judaism, for example, the Talmud records vigorous debates between the most educated and dedicated Rabbis in order to remind us that disagreements in search of truth are holy acts, that simple answers are to be questioned, and that we must resist the lure of certainty.
Second, I do believe in Zeus.
No, I don't think that there is a huge bearded guy dressed in a toga sitting in a palace on a mountain in the sky, looking to hurl his thunderbolt or abduct a beautiful human woman. Such a literal view may have been taken by some ancient Greeks, just as some today read their religion's stories literally, but this was not how the great philosophers and educated people of that time saw Zeus, and it is not the intent behind those who first described the many Greek deities. I believe in Zeus in the same way that Parmenides, Pythagoras, Plato, Heraclitus, and later, Plotinus, did -- as a poetic vision of a true aspect of the Divine. Plato makes this clear in Phaedrus, his mind-boggling treatise on the nature of the soul, where he wrote, "But of the heaven which is above the heavens what earthly poet ever did or ever will be worthily? There abides the very essence with which true knowledge is concerned; the colorless, formless, intangible spirit, visible only to mind, the pilot of the soul."
In other words, above the constructs that humans make to describe the spiritual realm is a higher, truer realm that is beyond our ability to adequately describe or fully comprehend. Zeus, Plato knew, is a symbolic manifestation of the essence of creative power, and those who followed Zeus sought to deepen these qualities, just as followers of Athena sought to partake of the essences of wisdom and judgment. These essences, Plato taught, emanate from the same Source, and are implanted in physicality. People who intuit these essences give them form, which may be human in characteristics, but these forms are not the essences. The pantheon of gods were human attempts to describe the spiritual experience in an anthropomorphic story.
Similarly, in the Hindu Chandogya Upanishad, written in the first millennium BCE, we hear, "In the beginning was only Being, One without a second. Out of himself he brought forth the cosmos and entered into everything in it. There is nothing that does not come from him." (Interestingly, this language is almost identical to the Medieval Jewish poem "Adon Olam" -- "Master of the World".) The myriad of Hindu deities are aspects of the infinite and indescribable One, Who imbues all creation. Ganesha, the human/elephant deity who rides on a mouse, is obviously not an actual physical being, but a symbol of the soul's desire to remove obstacles so that we can live free of attachment to outcomes.
Jewish mysticism teaches that the true nature of God is without limit, and completely beyond human comprehension. The Jewish mystics imagined an upside-down "Tree of Life", with roots in the heavens and branches pointed toward the earth, composed on 10 energy emanations -- "s'firot" -- such as Wisdom, Understanding, Beauty, Judgment, and Mercy. It is through these emanations that we can know and connect to God, but these emanations are not God -- only the shadow that is capable of being perceived by humans. The famous first sentence of the Tao te Ching makes this same point, "The Tao that can be named [known] is not the True Tao."
There are realms of reality for which our five senses, our frail physicality, and the current evolution of our minds are incapable of fully grasping. Access to the non-physical spiritual realm is through the gift of intuition, which is a dim remembrance of the world from which we came, and that "speaks" to us in images and metaphors. Like James Watson discovering the reality of the DNA double helix structure in a dream of intertwined snakes, we can access deep truths that appear as symbols and metaphors. There are those who, for a variety of reasons, will concretize these visions and insist that these images are literally true, but the initial vision that brought these visions to us, whether Zeus, a man/elephant, or a pair of snakes, are not descriptions of actual people of objects, but are mystical poetry that contain a truth.
In this way I believe in Zeus, as a human intuition of a true aspect of the Divine. One could ask if I also believe in Santa Claus or the Jolly Green Giant. The difference here is that every adult knows that Santa Claus is an invention to please children, and that the Jolly Green Giant was designed to sell vegetables. Now one can then say that any image of God is also an invention to appease the childish part of our nature that is confused by the world and afraid of death, and that religion was designed to sell mind control and submission. These simple bromides, though, are not supported by the facts of history or people's real experiences. No adult has come to a belief in and develop meaningful connection with Santa Claus, while countless people have come to find truth and relationship in their tradition's interpretation of the unknowable realm of Spirit. And no one has ever struggled with the obligations to be charitable and compassionate as demanded by a can of peas, while billions are elevated by and supported in a religious community and tradition that feeds the poor, cares for the ill, and comforts the bereaved.
Throughout our history on this planet, humans have known that there is an invisible, higher, truer realm that gave birth to our reality, and those that have caught glimpse of this realm have attempted to describe their vision. Zeus, like all the representations of the Divine that humans have intuited, including the God of monotheism, is partial, incomplete, and flawed -- perceived in clouded and flickering glimpses. I love and honor this search, in its halting steps, imaginings of powerful deities, yearning heroes, and colorful stories, because it represents our highest yearnings.
Yes, terrible things, like child sacrifice and abuse of women, were done as "religious" acts to appease imagined gods, but these were acts of barbaric cultures disguised as spirituality, and have been -- and are being -- eradicated as we evolve. Like the process of science, art, and culture, our spiritual intuition matures as we mature, gains intelligence as we gain intelligence, and builds on the findings of predecessors. This process has been the force driving humanity forward toward a future in which we know more fully who we are and why we have been placed here.
Of course I could be wrong.
Paul Brandeis Raushenbush: Christian Civility: The Test of Intra-Faith Relations
Comparing Christian beliefs in U.S. with those of other countries
About Religion and Religious Beliefs: Examining the Nature of ...
The second one is affiliation, the desire to be involved with other people. If they don't have that they won't reproduce and their genes will be lost. All animals which have evolved into two sexes have that.
But there is a third drive. Every civilization from the most primitive to the most complex has had, as a major feature, religion. That points to religion as being a positive force for survival. If it wasn't, it would have been lost. That means it is genetically favored and people who are religious, overall, live longer and reproduce. In my system it is called the spiritual motivator.
This article has captured that idea beautifully.
Thanks for your intelligent analysis. I agree that religion is linked to survival for an additional reason. Religion teaches us to form communities & to cooperate rather than kill & destroy each other. Witness the spirit of community that underlies the Ten Commandments. If we go around stealing from or killing each other & breaking our commitments to each other through behaviors like adultery or failing to respect & care for our elders, we don't have strong communities that function for survival & prosperity. There is such a beautiful logic & reason to religion for making our lives together & our individual lives so much safer, richer & more productive.
I also believe this research will provide more evidence to support the idea that god belief is strictly a byproduct of language development, genetics, and the rise of civilization. In other words, it's all in our heads, which is what atheists have been saying all along...
I think some of this is still going on in the name of religion.
Nice post. Thanks for mentioning that we are still evolving and that you could be wrong.
Peace
OK. Good. if it completely beyond human comprehension, then let us leave this hypothetical issue alone and focus our energies on the exploration of human condition and ways to concretely improve our lives.
Here and Now.
I'm not sure if this is born from hurt or betrayal, perhaps feeling they've been lied to. Or if it's an expression of doubt, a loud shout to cover the small voice that lingers in the back of their mind. Whatever it is, it seems terribly counterproductive to any discussion of the nature of the human experience.
Along with the shouting and derision, I often see an overconfident sense of rightness. Yet the science we so love is always open to the possibility of new findings and answers, especially for questions unanswered. An openness to investigation and discovery without prejudice is the nature of science.
To those who can never accept a notion that can only be known intuitively, I say this:
I hope you never fall in love, for you will be suspect of your own love's validity. To know one's own love, the only true proof is one's own intuition. No amount of evidence will be able to convince, cajole or reason someone into believing he or she is in love. The innate intuition of one's own emotion is all that can reveal that truth to oneself, and the only thing one can truly rely on for that knowledge
For centuries religions have worked very hard to erect impenetrable walls against unbelief. They have created strict hierarchies of authority, which in turn has created rules and taboos that they force on believers and unbelievers alike, all in an attempt to shield themselves from criticism. In effect they claim the only thing you need is intuition (guided by their authority), and every other means of evaluating religious claims is illegitimate. That's just wrong. When it comes to religious claims, intuition alone is not sufficient. It is not and should never be the sole supporting evidence (and of course, it's not really evidence at all), yet that's exactly what many religionists try to claim.
We all hear constantly from believers who KNOW ABSOLUTELY in their heart that their god exists, and NOTHING anyone says can change that. They KNOW that Jesus performed scores of miracles and rose from the dead. They have no doubts whatsoever, with nothing more than their religiously indoctrinated "intuition". That's the end result of this campaign of willful ignorance and wishful thinking that are the foundations of these thousand year old walls.
So I ask you, who's mind is closed, the believer's or the skeptic's?
I believe that you are misrepresenting what is going on in these discussions. Many atheists erect straw man arguments to seduce us believers into "feeding the beast" of your non-belief in & doubts about God. There is a perfect example in this post. You claim that we believers who are resolute in our beliefs hold these beliefs based on "religiously indoctrinated 'intuition'" & that these are based on "willful ignorance and wishful thinking." What you are doing here with these value-laden labels & statements is characterizing what you believe (your opinion) about why we believe. You are not in reality doing any sort of honest analysis or critique of our beliefs. In fact, I have never seen an atheists' analysis of the teachings of Christianity, even based on your notion of an "historical Jesus." My Christian faith is based on years of reading, study, analysis, questioning & deep inquiry. I was never "indoctrinated" into Christianity. I am not "close minded" about my faith but I have found it futile to discuss "evidence" with atheists since the response is always "That's not evidence" because admitting any evidence of God threatens the core of atheism.
My point is that it is wise and much more fruitful to continue debate and conversation. Sure, God cannot be proven as the only answer to the questions that religion ponders. And certainly there is no logical proof of God. However, it is ridiculous to postulate things in disproving God such as "I cannot believe something for which there is only intuitive knowledge." This type of statement is absolute and naive, especially in the context of our continual acceptance of something that can only be truly known intuitively: our own romantic love.
No amount of objective proof will convince someone he is in love. No brainscan, no hormone test, no observation or any evidence from outside someone will persuade him he is in love without his intuitive knowledge. Conversely, that intuitive knowledge is all one needs to prove it to oneself.
And yes, the skeptic's mind is open; the cynic's mind is not.
People either believe in magic and supernatural beings or they don't. I'm surprised that you haven't "discovered" this amazing fact before you started blogging (for free) for AOLHP.
Rabbi, this is, perhaps, the most controversial statement in your blog. That humans have "known" there is an "invisible" reality. If it is invisible how do these humans you refer to, "know" that it exists? This Is, by definition (to me) "faith" and its direct offshoot belief in a supreme being (Zeus?). To those of us who take issue with this leap of faith, the sureness of your knowing is what is at issue and provides the basis of the debate surrounding belief in an invisible being who, in some way, controls the lives of mankind. If knowing is in reality merely accepting the statement of blind faith that there is an invisible reality, then we are merely going around in circles - with one foot nailed to the ground.
While I respect your beliefs and scholarship, I do not "know" in any real way that there is any there there. What I do know is that an invisible hand (sort of like Adam Smith's invisible market hand) is nice to theorize about, but difficult (for me) to accept as reality. I opt for the Hippocratic hand (with libertiesh- first do no harm. if our leaders, elected and otherwise, subscribed to that credo we'd be much better off.
Did God really talk directly to Moses and dictate the 10 commandments? Where the 'prophets', actually prophets, or were they lying?
"Yes, terrible things, like child sacrifice and abuse of women, were done as "religious" acts to appease imagined gods, but these were acts of barbaric cultures disguised as spirituality"
Based on this, what are your thoughts about Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Exodus, where these same abuses are given?
For example, lets take Exodus. At one point Moses commands that his priest kill over 3000 of this own people, for worshiping a golden calf, Yahweh, not being satisfied then sends a plague upon the people of Israel, Where He also proclaims, "Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.".
That is, obviously, only the tip of the iceburg. Through the entire OT, god makes it clear that all other 'gods' are not only false, but evil (To include Zeus...or see Ex 22:20)
How does this fit with your current world view of pluralism and that these are all just different manifistations of the divine? And this is not even touching on the amazing number of barbaric commandments thoughout
I just honestly cant see why a fellow such as your self, chooses to promote such a 'fable', as a Rabbi. Why not find a 'fable' that better fits your actual world view?
Which is a better fable: The old testament or StarWars?
I would find it odd if anyone said that Yahweh and the bible characters were characters than Obi Wan and Yoda.
If these religions are only fables, I cant honestly see why one would choose the fable of Yahweh to base their life on, when better options are available
It is simply not true. At most humans have BELIEVED THERE IS A ...., NO ONE HAS EVER KNOWN
This endemic lack of distinction between belief and knowledge makes discussion of the nature of god near impossible.
All the best,
Alan
But the story of Abraham and Isaac is one of the most fundamental, supposedly, for understanding unshakable faith, and deference to the ultimate authority. Abraham is cited as an example. People still do horrific things in the name of religion and the problem is that this story is still hugely influential and is still invoked. Don't tell me or anybody that this is the product of barbaric cultures that has been eradicated.
Like seperating twins at birth to study if they would grow up to be similar.
Or denying syphillis treatment to almost 400 african-american men.
Or giving LSD to people without their knowledge to study how it affects them.
Or using electroshock therapy to treat the mentally ill.
Blinding a newborn studing RLF.
The injection of hepatitis into mentally disabled children to test for a cure.
Phase one drug trials on prison inmates.
Injection of live cancer cells into elderly patients.
Decontructive mind experiments on Harvard students.
Spraying prisoners with Dioxin.
Or the infamous Stanford prison experiment.
And that's just one country, the US, from 1950-1975. And that's just the headliners. Can you imagine how many smaller cases went on. All in the name of science. Should I go into the history of vivisection for you?
And how about worldwide? Since science began?
So yea, terrible things have been done to people in the name of religion in the past. But in the present it seems to me more prudent to address religions, and the people who practice them, not as enemies, but as friends who just see things differently. That way we get to work together at examining the human condition, we have a better chance of actually explaining atheism to them, and we get to have allies making sure atrocities like this no longer occur within or without a religion.
Wishing you well,
Alan
You've seen how parents of twins dress them, right? I think you got this wrong.
There, for me, is the salient point … the fact that barbaric cultures can and do use the cloak of spirituality to disguise and excuse just about anything. I have far less ‘faith’ in eradication than the good rabbi, and feel if religion came with caveats rather than gravitas many barbarians would find themselves naked and exposed for what they are, rather than idolized for their vision, leadership, conviction to belief… whatever.
More here: http://sandrahanksbenoiton.wordpress.com/2011/02/06/duck-into-church/