Bruce recently did a post about God. He is another in a long list of people that are redefining God from the character of our various holy books and folk superstitions to something even atheists believe in. Bruce steers the God question in the direction of goodness.
Clarity is one of my highest values so naturally Bruce's God game won't do for me. But let us not single out Bruce. There are many bloggers that play this game as well.
XGH has tried dealing with God by making that word a reference to Meaning, Morality, and Spirituality.
B. Spinoza redefines God as Reality.
And other skeptical bloggers struggle with God. Some, like Orthoprax, have "given in" and now are quite willing to answer in the affirmative when asked the question, "Do you believe in God?"
What struck me as intriguing is what appears to be the uncontrollable human need to make something of the idea, belief, or even just the word "God." What is it that is so compelling, that makes the belief in God practically mandatory for normalcy? Why do people go through such great lengths to avoid the taboo that is an atheist? Even I will only hesitantly declare that I am an atheist. I'd much rather say something dishonest like "I believe in Einstein's God," even though I feel that using God in such a way is like calling the atmospheric discharge of electricity, Zeus.
But there are two values that come in to conflict for me, concerning God.
1) Clarity and Honesty
2) Social Cohesion and steering clear of confrontation
Fact of the matter is, many Americans think atheists are immoral scum. Everyone believes in God except people like Stalin and Mao, right? But it certainly won't do any good to continue to sweep the God question under the rug for all eternity, will it? Perhaps it is a good idea to simply allow the God notion to evolve as it has and continues, from the vindictive sky daddy to the unknowable abstract concept promoted by the your average monotheistic theologian. Now panentheism and other abstract and objectively meaningless understandings of God are being copied and spread amongst believers. Surely there is no need for ME to ruffle feathers. But what about clarity and honesty, my other beloved values? Don't they obligate me to ask for a definition? But is that even practical? Everytime I talk about God, must I clarify that and say... oh I don't know... the God that writes books and answers prayers. Even these things are being redefined in abstract and meaningless ways. God didn't actually write the bible per se. God was the inspiration that caused it's authors to strive for meaning, morality and spirituality through it's text. And God doesn't answer prayers or wreak supernatural miracles. Rather we gain insight into ourselves by the glory of nature and speaking out our minds to... well that doesn't really matter. It's the working things out by speaking that is what prayer is all about.
Now of course, some people believe that God is most accurately described in their particular terms, whatever they may be. They honestly don't see themselves as playing word games. I, of course, would rather do without the headache. I don't feel any attachment to God as a being, belief or word. I'd rather just talk about goodness, reality, meaning, morality, spirituality, and inspiration or whatever the next thing for which we use God to be a synonym.
I want to thank all those who were so kind to share their thoughts so extensively in my previous post, AgnosticWriter, Michael Fridman, e-kvetcher, B. Spinoza, The.Signifier, and Da Candy Man. I look forward to hearing more from you. Anyone else, don't be shy. You probably know far more than I do ;o)
I'd like to summarize what we've discussed and I've discovered through this conversation. Any comments on this too would be appreciated.
1) There can be passion and fervor outside of religion, (thank goodness!) inspired through art, poetry, oratory, music, athletics and dance, contemplation and study of the universe and human nature, culture, human interaction and social activism, mysticism and meditation, ideologies, and mass movements.
2) There can be religious experience and passion, even in a religious setting (i.e. UU ) without the dogmatism. Though I do find UU to be a HUGE step in the right direction, it's not for me as superstitious and primitive beliefs are not criticized. Though I am open and tolerant toward everyone no matter what their personal beliefs may be, I reserve the right to remain critical of the dogmatic, irrational, superstitious beliefs themselves.
3) Religion is multifaceted and very difficult to define. Different personalities will be drawn to different aspects. The facets of religion are in short: worldview, ideology, philosophy, ethics, aesthetics, mysticism, community, social and political structure.
4) There may be dangers to a religious type of fervor. It seems that a healthy skepticism could keep this horse in reins. Perhaps these dangers should be fleshed out a bit more.
5) I am still a little fuzzy on the quantity and quality of this type of fervor that is available to the skeptic in particular. Will someone who once was motivated by religious belief be able to capture the same fervor once it is rejected? AW, mentioned this and I'd like some more clarity and suggestions.
6) Art, mysticism, and community seem to have reoccurred throughout. I am especially interested in mysticism. I'm wary of community because of the influence of group-think and social constraints. I like art but it's not "my thing," as they say. However, I do NOT mean to shut down these other parts of the conversation as I feel that discussing these ideas will keep me open and help me to understand and relate to others. (Always selfish, aren't I? ;-)
7) It has been suggested that mysticism transcends beyond culture, time and place in a particular way, perhaps better then or in ways unavailable to secularism, and to complete what may be an incomplete scientific, materialist worldview. Though I want this to be true, I am still very skeptical. It seems too vague and frankly, too good to be true. What is its relationship with science and what is it's function for the individual and humanity? I hope to get more clarity on this as well.
Finally somewhat summed up in AW's three questions,
1. (How) Can we reap the benefits of religion, without planting its lying seeds?
2. (How) Can we find deep engagement outside of religion?
3. (How) Can we find deep meaning/mission outside of religion?
Religion, the thing that anthropologists study, is a human universal and seemingly fills critical human needs and functions. I have no desire to fall back into it's superstition and false ideologies or in being a part of a particular religious community in the traditional sense. I wish to move beyond strict cultural\religious boundaries. Yet I do not wish to deny myself of any benefit or fulfillment that may be rescued from religion.
Just a triple bypass heart surgery is all. Join in the fun!
Well can you?
Reading goes ever so slowly with me. I can't just read a book. Mulling it over and thinking about a book's ideas, reading tends to be a very emotional experience for me and thus a slow process. Unfortunately, this does little for my memory, as I forget almost as soon as my eyes leave the page. The reason I mention this is because often I feel what I can most accurately describe as religious euphoria while reading certain books. Not too long ago, I read Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature" and my mind was blown and I was ecstatic so often while my eyes feasted on its pages. Not seldomly, the book would lie on my lap closed, with my finger in it so as not to lose my spot, as I shook my head, then stared blankly, reveling in exultation at the ideas to which I had just been introduced. This is a common experience for me, especially when reading books of the scientific milieu.
Orthoprax introduced me to pantheism and I was immediately enthralled. I read several articles about it and was especially keen on Paul Harrison's outlook on the matter. It seemed to be the gateway back into religious fervor and awe, without having to sign a bill of divorce to my newly beloved scientific skepticism. But emotionally, the scars were too fresh from the thorn of religious belief that had finally been removed from my side. I swiftly returned to my quest to make it known to whomever would listen that religious beliefs were false and bad for humanity. This quest was reactionary and all but futile. It does little good for my well being and is largely unnecessary, as my views on religious belief as evil and the recognition that there are millions of false beliefs polluting the consciousness of humanity, many of which are FAR worse, have been treated by time with temperance.
So the question that arises is that which the title of this post purports. Can you have Religious Fervor without Religious Beliefs? And secondly, and perhaps more importantly, can Religious Fervor be a co-wife with Scientific Skepticism? I have some thoughts of my own but I would like to hear what my readers have to say on these questions. Please comment uninhibitedly.
OK so it's only for a minute or two but you have to hear this.
Starting at 1:57 and continuing for the next minute or two.
Update: I thoroughly enjoyed this talk and would recommend it if you have the time to sit for nearly an hour and a half. Most of the talk is about physics which is by far the most magnificent, awe-inspiring field of science. What I wanted to mention in particular was that in the 7th video of the series, both Dawkins and Weinberg get all soft and emotional about religion. I've heard Dennet do the same thing in some random interview that I can't recall right now. Dawkin's reveals his favorite book of the Bible, and it happens to be the only book of the Bible that I've read since I got out of yeshiva. But you'll have to watch it to find out.
For those of you that are interested in my views on morality and the discussion I was having with littlefoxling you are going to have to check out his blog and the comments there.
Also, turns out Daganev and Chardal are Post Modernist believers. Chardal and I got into a conversation on Holy Hyrax's blog. Check out the comments between Chardal and me starting here.
Though I can't help but laugh at the basic philosophical underpinnings of PoMo, it's certainly an improvement (practically speaking) on fundamentalism. I had no idea that there were so many believers that were PoMo... I find this oh so fascinating. It's like they are playing leap frog with philosophy. Medieval Philosophy and the Rambam? I can dig that. Enlightenment and the Haskala? No way! Post Modernism and Rav Kook and Rav Tzadok? Hells yeah! What's the common denominator? It fits my religion!
All this Post Modernism... I hope I don't have to get conversant in this nonsense.
Religion is made of up Theology, Mythology, and Virtue.
Tip o' the Hat to Michael Fridman for having an awesome blog with copious amounts of awesome links.
Note: This analogy is made with tongue firmly inserted into cheek.
Earlier I posted Obama's now two year old speech about religion and politics. I was very impressed. You can read it here.
Recently James Dobson, big mucky muck in the Christian Right, has attacked Obama as "deliberately distorting the Bible," "dragging biblical understanding through the gutter," "willfully trying to confuse people," and having a "fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution." Read about that here.
But now, another Christian named Jim Wallis, a left wing Evangelical leader, is shooting back at Dobson as being un-Christian. That you can read here.
All this sniping is entertaining but the moral of the story is, if Obama can bring his liberal Christianity to this country, we'll be taking a huge leap in the right direction. Tolerance, open mindedness, religion that translates itself to a language that everyone can speak. Change, in which we can believe. Yes. We. Can.
Nowadays, when someone says that they believe in God you have no idea what the heck they are talking about. Do they mean a higher self, like the New Agers? Do they mean the sky God waiting to zap you, like the Catholics? Do they mean the God that cares if you have ice cream after your burger, like the Orthodox Jews? Or do they mean the It that set off the big bang, never to be heard from again, like Thomas Paine? Or do they mean the laws of the Universe, like Stephen Hawking?
When atheists get all riled up about God, generally they are referring to personal God, one that answers prayers and writes books as a guide for humanity, the one most people believe in.
When atheists get riled up by New Agers it's usually because of their pseudo-scientific methods of healing, like crystals, reiki, and their ideas about psychic powers.
Why do we get upset by these things? Because they are demonstrably false. Prayer doesn't work, and God's books for humanity are a sham. "Alternative Medicine" is like "Intelligent Design," a nice word for a crock of crocodile crap. If it don't work, then it don't work. If it's bunk then it's bunk.
Moving onto the re-definers of the word God... why? I mean if God is energy, or nature, or the laws of the universe, then why used the word God? It's terribly misleading. When most people use the word God, they mean the type that writes books and answers prayers. It's like changing the word Bible to mean the metaphorical book of the best science, ethics, and philosophy currently known to man.
So anyhow, if you believe in a metaphorical higher self, or some ultimate being that started the big bang, or if you like to look at the laws of the Universe, Nature and Energy in a poetic sense, do humanity a favor; don't call it God. It only causes confusion.
Unless of course you can convince everyone else to refer to their gods by their first names. Jews refer to YHWH, Christians to Jesus, Muslims to Allah, and everyone else's mythical all powerful beings by their proper names.
Doesn't everyone want world peace? I hate to sound like I'm auditioning for the Miss America beauty pagent, or a one-too-many-acid-trips hippy but don't we?
Ever since my faith in God was removed, I've been all the more concerned about morality and unity. Gora, the noted Indian Atheist said, “Because morality is a social necessity, the moment faith in god is banished, man’s gaze turns from god to man and he becomes socially conscious. Religious belief prevented the growth of a sense of realism. But atheism at once makes man realistic and alive to the needs of morality.”
Sam Harris has spoken out against using the labels, like "atheist." I am forced to agree with him. The more labels, the more division. Labels point out our differences when the similarities are so much greater. I just don't believe in God or the divinity of any books. I have no reason to believe in the supernatural but there are many things that we can all agree on. It's our similarities, our common goals and aspirations that can bind us together.
This polarity, with the believers clinging to religious dogma, and the non-believers clinging to science will get us nowhere in the end. Few will cross over and the wall will just keep getting harder to cross .
It is only the unfounded, unevidenced dogma of religion that I reject. However, as Sam Harris said, "A kernel of truth lurks at the heart of religion, because spiritual experience, ethical behavior, and strong communities are essential for human happiness... Clearly it must be possible to bring reason, spirituality, and ethics together in our thinking about the world."
We are all connected by the mere fact that we are all humans experiencing this world. Ethics and Morality naturally lead one to go beyond yourself through spiritual experience. Feelings of love and unity greatly enhance contemplative arts which in turn enhance those feelings. Spiritual experience is an empirical fact. It has nothing to do with proving religious dogma and everything to do with enhancing and better understanding human experience. These experiences can be meaningful without the irrational dogmas that so often accompany them.
Perhaps it is here in the realm of unique human experience and spirituality, the point between religious dogma and the cold facts of science that we can find a common ground to build on.
I still reserve the right to criticize religious dogma, don't misunderstand me. Ultimately, religious dogma and superstition must be erased from mankind. It can only continue to divide us and hold us back from personal, social, and scientific progress. Inter-faith relationships are certainly admirable but appear to be mere band-aids covering an immeasurable gap. The graphic above can only work long term when those symbols represent a culture or historical point of view, not a dogma.
However, I'm writing this now because I've been reading "Varieties of Religious Experience" by William James as well as some articles about rational mysticism and religious experience from a psychological and scientific viewpoint. Kudos to arama, EJ, and the gang at XGH's blog for showing me the light. Empirical facts are undeniable. Admit to the truth when you see it.
I heard about the "Harm Principle" while reading some comments on some post on some blog from 2007 sometime. "The harm principle is articulated most clearly in John Stuart Mill's On Liberty." from Wikipedia. It is related to "The Ethic of Reciprocity." It piqued my interest and I started doing some research. The first thing I noticed is that it's something that has been around and advocated by the most influential religions from millienia ago. The Harm Principle takes up similar forms.
Confucius say, "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself?"
Analects XV.24, tr. David Hinton
Do not do unto others what angers you if done to you by others. -Isocrates 436-338 BCE
Hillel was challenged by a potential convert to Judaism to teach him the whole Torah while he stood on one leg. Hillel replied, “That which is hateful to you, do not do to others.”
Jesus said in Matthew 7:12, Luke 6.31 said, "In all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so unto them."
This is the sum of duty: do naught to others which if done to thee would cause thee pain. -The Mahabharata (Hindu)
Hurt not others with that which pains yourself. -Udana-Varga (Buddhist)
No one of you is a believer until he desires for his that which he desires for himself. -Hadith
He should not wish for others that which he doth not for himself, nor promise that which he doth not fulfil. -The Book of Certitude (Bahai)
"An it harm none, do what ye will." Wiccan Rede
Steve Pinker said,"...the inexorable logic of the golden rule: The more one knows and thinks about other living things, the harder it is to privilege one's own interests over theirs. The empathy escalator may also be powered by cosmopolitanism, in which journalism, memoir, and realistic fiction make the inner lives of other people, and the contingent nature of one's own station, more palpable—the feeling that "there but for fortune go I.""
Originally, the name of this post was going to be "Religions that ain' t that Bad" but one of the comments I had from Al Knight and after trying to understand the fascination that XGH and other's have with EvanstonJew I decided to write this preface.
When I say that I'm Fed Up with Religion, I am referring to a very specific definition of religion, the one with which I was born and raised. It includes, but is not limited to, the idea that there is some being above and beyond conception that created the universe. This same being is one and the only one yet he is highly jealous and will severely punish those that deny his existence or acknowledge the existence of other similar beings. He did not reveal himself to mankind and waited millennia for a man named Avram to figure out that he existed. Later, Avram's descendants were forced to
God lead them out of
49 days later, God decides to have us sign the contract that would bind us and our future generations till the end of time. This contract included 613 laws that included laws to commit genocide on the Amalekites, how to keep slaves, laws that did not allow husbands and wives to cohabitate or even touch each other during certain times, and asked us to slaughter animals to give him a sweet smell. This contract was delivered with some very awe-inspiring natural occurrences and Moshe told us the God gave us a sneak peek of 10 commandments of more that were to come. According to tradition, we accepted.
Now, the written Torah left some things unclear including how to keep some of these mitzvoth. So hundreds of years later, our spiritual leaders let us know that there was an Oral Torah that filled in the blanks and otherwise explained the written legacy that Moshe Rabeynu had left us. You thought you had 613 commandments? B b b Baby you just ain't seen nothing yet! Here's something you never should forget. But this Oral Torah was too complex to make it through yet another exile and the Oral Torah that was never to be written down was, by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his students. Ladies and Gentleman I present to you the Mishna.
But the Mishna too, left a lot of unanswered questions and intentionally so. So a few hundred years later the Mishna was combined with an extremely complex commentary known as the Gemara, which formed the Talmud. Around this time, Jewish spiritual leadership was separated in
It seems that the Torah's assumed shorthand influenced our writings because we never could or perhaps never wanted to write a book that expressed exactly what God wants from us. Differing opinions multiplied in worldwide Judaism from its philosophy to its law. However, in the 1200s, there was a brilliant thinker by the name of Moshe ben Maimon that attempted to set the record straight. The Rambam's effect on what is now Orthodox Judaism cannot be underestimated. Though he was, and is, argued on by just about everyone, this shows his influence; if you want to say something in Jewish Thought or Law, you have to contend with the Rambam.
Since the Rambam, there has been a plethora of books from thousands of authors each attempting to explain and interpret that contract we made with God on
It is this view and others like it, of God and what he wants from us that I am not only fed up with but vehemently oppose. Religious belief has made unfulfilled promises, exaggerated historical claims and unverifiable, unfalsifiable assumptions. It has stifled opposition and is self sustaining by forbidding and cutting off heresy. I no longer care to be part of Orthodox Judaism or any other movement that lies to itself about its fundamentals and doesn't allow for critical thinking. Those that are deceived themselves have deceived me and this is where I’ve drawn the line.
There is something that religions give that atheism and free thought cannot give you and that is a ready-made historically tested way to live a fulfilled, meaningful life. Personally, I am uninterested in buying a such a guide to living life and I would encourage everyone everywhere to use the tool of free thought wherever life may lead them. I am very greatful for a healthy, young mind and I wish to use it to develop a tailored understanding of life and the universe. I’ll draw on truth where it can be found and try to apply it to my daily life. But for those that have social and familial reasons or simply a personal inclination, with this preface I will bring a listing of religions that aren’t that bad.