Is God the "Ultimate Reality"?
Religion is (and still is) a means whereby cultural norms are enforced through means of authority derived from "off planet". Zero-cost credits for carrots and sticks are offered to be cashed in in that alternate universe. Religion justifies the infliction of terrible punishments in the here-and-now and has sponsored genocidal wars. Religions that we generally regard as "peaceful" seldom live up to their own reputation. Good Christian folk brought their kids to watch lynchings in the US South. Buddhism is playing a key part in the genocide of Rohingya in Myanmar and a similar role in the violent suppression of the Hindu minority in Ceylon. Religious authority is behind the rape of thousands of children and the coverup of these crimes. Religious authority enthusiastically participated in the attempted genocide of indigenous people in Canada in the residential school system.
If these are the benefits of religion, we can clearly do without them. Rational human being should not only reject "organized religion" but push back hard against the claims of religious enthusiasts to exert outsized influence on the rest of society.
That said, we must also recognize and respect the fact that, for many, the religious "matrix" is as real as our own. Moreover, the religious experience is quite real and waiting around the corner for any of us.
At one point in my life, I was an enthusiastic member of the evangelical wing of Christianity. What was I thinking? All this is usually comfortably buried under half a century of skepticism but sometimes I'm pulled back at the most unexpected moments.
On my latest dog walk as I watched the trees reaching for the light in a way that reminded me of my "Roots" analogy - how we blindly reach our roots into "reality", sucking up information for our survival. The tree does not "know" about sunlight, wind, and water, yet its existence depends on all these things. What is there "out there" that is equally vital to human beings but forever beyond our ability to understand or even suspect? That line of thinking was 100% in line with the way I thought in 1977.
Back then, the theology of Paul Tillich was popular - he spoke of God as the "ground of all being". I recalled for the first time in decades the impressive Theology of wonder by G. K. Chesterton. My insight on the dog walk was not new, but perhaps more mature and articulate.
The world truly is wonderful. We do indeed reach out to a vast, unknown - perhaps unknowable Universe. What is more, we are rooted in this vastness. We rely on it for our existence. It is very natural for this feeling of dependence, combined with the feeling of awe and helplessness to be translated into what theologians call an "I/Thou" relationship. This means that we regard the other end of this relationship (the vast, unknowable Universe) as personal - i.e. God. Of course, it actually is personal. We are experiencing the Universe through our own brains which are alive and, in some sense, playing it to us on our "inner movie screen". That screen is not flat, dead and impersonal. It's created by live neurons in our heads. But our brains also create the illusion that what we see "out there" really is "out there".
"Professional" theologians will ignore the neuroscience and try to build a rather academic "Christian" theology on this slim foundation. In the same spirit, people make from the "First Cause" argument** that "proves" the existence of God to swallowing whatever version of Christian theology that appeals to them. Paradoxically, people of "faith" acknowledge our the palpable lack of ultimate knowledge but then turn this into a surprisingly long list of certainties large and small.
"Peak experiences" are often interpreted in whatever religious context (matrix) that's "in the air". Peak experiences are a real thing (I've had a few myself). In fact, my insight about the trees on my walk might qualify as a mini-peak experience. After years of such jolts of insight, I more readily attribute them to bipolar illness than any special insight.
Since the '70's we have been able to produce "peak experiences" quite reliably with a pill - LSD, MDMA or psilocybin. In the long run, that puts peak experiences and religion itself under the umbrella of neuroscience. Back when all this became a tsunami of "experimentation", we were also experiencing a much more cosmopolitan view of religion. In the end, this resulted in the invention of whole new religions and new religions under old names, such as what passes for "Eastern Philosophy" in California. For many, peak experiences could not stand on their own. If a matrix of religion were not readily available, one could be invented. Space aliens served as well as God. But whatever the psychic explorers thought about the details, we all agreed that there was another "level" to the Universe. Peak experiences were the door into this Universe.
There were other ideas "in the air" back in the 70's. At the time, I did not regard Christianity positive drag on human progress. I was quite aware of how empty dogma served as the glue to identify the "in group" vs the "out-group" (I called this the "Creedal Group" and eventually wrote a whole blog about it). But "hardcore" professional theology was not what people assumed it to be. Still isn't. For this, you need to attend a liberal Theology school (I went to Queens University in Kingston). It turns out that the musings of "professionals" about God are as dry and irrelevant as trigonometry. They have nothing at all to do with the daily life of a "true believer". For a true believer, Christianity makes life an adventure. The theory of it all is left to others or simply left out entirely.
There was something in the air called Liberation Theology This pushed many in the Catholic Church "hard left"*- to see Christianity as a champion of the poor - especially in South America, where US-backed right-wing dictatorships were slaughtering the poor by the thousands. For young, idealistic folks like myself, it married political outrage to a nascent knowledge of the Bible. You can certainly read the Bible and especially Jesus this way. Back then, the "standard" portrait of Jesus looked a lot like the standard portrait of Che Gueverra.
Being smart, arrogant and gullible is a dangerous combination. I can now see that I knew nothing about Christianity, Liberation Theology, Marxism or Che Gueverra. But sometimes a sprinkling of knowledge is precisely what you need to inspire projects to save the world. For me, Christianity, or at least Jesus (interpreted correctly) was on the right side of history. It was also more fun than Computer Programming.
I am a human being - just as likely to be trapped in a matrix as anybody else. I had been warmly accepted into an open-ended social group for the first time in my life. Our awkward questions can be put on the back burner. Sometimes permanently.
In, "Going Back to Church", I take on the same subject, looking back on my theological education and the future as a Minister that I escaped through no honorable effort of my own. I write from the pews in a modern congregation with the old ladies and my 98-year-old mother in law.
---------------------------------------------------------
* As it turned out, the Catholic Church pushed back hard against Liberation Theology and embraced the "powers that be". The Catholic Evangelical movement (of which I was part) would become a vehicle for conventional dogma. It would not be until the elevation of Pope Frances that social responsibility - or maybe not raping little kids quite so much - asserted itself at the highest level of the Catholic Church. Just a bit.
** The "First Cause" argument is something that is only offered by people who already want to believe in God and are looking for a way stop thinking about it. It is for children.
If these are the benefits of religion, we can clearly do without them. Rational human being should not only reject "organized religion" but push back hard against the claims of religious enthusiasts to exert outsized influence on the rest of society.
That said, we must also recognize and respect the fact that, for many, the religious "matrix" is as real as our own. Moreover, the religious experience is quite real and waiting around the corner for any of us.
At one point in my life, I was an enthusiastic member of the evangelical wing of Christianity. What was I thinking? All this is usually comfortably buried under half a century of skepticism but sometimes I'm pulled back at the most unexpected moments.
On my latest dog walk as I watched the trees reaching for the light in a way that reminded me of my "Roots" analogy - how we blindly reach our roots into "reality", sucking up information for our survival. The tree does not "know" about sunlight, wind, and water, yet its existence depends on all these things. What is there "out there" that is equally vital to human beings but forever beyond our ability to understand or even suspect? That line of thinking was 100% in line with the way I thought in 1977.
Back then, the theology of Paul Tillich was popular - he spoke of God as the "ground of all being". I recalled for the first time in decades the impressive Theology of wonder by G. K. Chesterton. My insight on the dog walk was not new, but perhaps more mature and articulate.
The world truly is wonderful. We do indeed reach out to a vast, unknown - perhaps unknowable Universe. What is more, we are rooted in this vastness. We rely on it for our existence. It is very natural for this feeling of dependence, combined with the feeling of awe and helplessness to be translated into what theologians call an "I/Thou" relationship. This means that we regard the other end of this relationship (the vast, unknowable Universe) as personal - i.e. God. Of course, it actually is personal. We are experiencing the Universe through our own brains which are alive and, in some sense, playing it to us on our "inner movie screen". That screen is not flat, dead and impersonal. It's created by live neurons in our heads. But our brains also create the illusion that what we see "out there" really is "out there".
"Professional" theologians will ignore the neuroscience and try to build a rather academic "Christian" theology on this slim foundation. In the same spirit, people make from the "First Cause" argument** that "proves" the existence of God to swallowing whatever version of Christian theology that appeals to them. Paradoxically, people of "faith" acknowledge our the palpable lack of ultimate knowledge but then turn this into a surprisingly long list of certainties large and small.
"Peak experiences" are often interpreted in whatever religious context (matrix) that's "in the air". Peak experiences are a real thing (I've had a few myself). In fact, my insight about the trees on my walk might qualify as a mini-peak experience. After years of such jolts of insight, I more readily attribute them to bipolar illness than any special insight.
Since the '70's we have been able to produce "peak experiences" quite reliably with a pill - LSD, MDMA or psilocybin. In the long run, that puts peak experiences and religion itself under the umbrella of neuroscience. Back when all this became a tsunami of "experimentation", we were also experiencing a much more cosmopolitan view of religion. In the end, this resulted in the invention of whole new religions and new religions under old names, such as what passes for "Eastern Philosophy" in California. For many, peak experiences could not stand on their own. If a matrix of religion were not readily available, one could be invented. Space aliens served as well as God. But whatever the psychic explorers thought about the details, we all agreed that there was another "level" to the Universe. Peak experiences were the door into this Universe.
There were other ideas "in the air" back in the 70's. At the time, I did not regard Christianity positive drag on human progress. I was quite aware of how empty dogma served as the glue to identify the "in group" vs the "out-group" (I called this the "Creedal Group" and eventually wrote a whole blog about it). But "hardcore" professional theology was not what people assumed it to be. Still isn't. For this, you need to attend a liberal Theology school (I went to Queens University in Kingston). It turns out that the musings of "professionals" about God are as dry and irrelevant as trigonometry. They have nothing at all to do with the daily life of a "true believer". For a true believer, Christianity makes life an adventure. The theory of it all is left to others or simply left out entirely.
There was something in the air called Liberation Theology This pushed many in the Catholic Church "hard left"*- to see Christianity as a champion of the poor - especially in South America, where US-backed right-wing dictatorships were slaughtering the poor by the thousands. For young, idealistic folks like myself, it married political outrage to a nascent knowledge of the Bible. You can certainly read the Bible and especially Jesus this way. Back then, the "standard" portrait of Jesus looked a lot like the standard portrait of Che Gueverra.Being smart, arrogant and gullible is a dangerous combination. I can now see that I knew nothing about Christianity, Liberation Theology, Marxism or Che Gueverra. But sometimes a sprinkling of knowledge is precisely what you need to inspire projects to save the world. For me, Christianity, or at least Jesus (interpreted correctly) was on the right side of history. It was also more fun than Computer Programming.
I am a human being - just as likely to be trapped in a matrix as anybody else. I had been warmly accepted into an open-ended social group for the first time in my life. Our awkward questions can be put on the back burner. Sometimes permanently.
In, "Going Back to Church", I take on the same subject, looking back on my theological education and the future as a Minister that I escaped through no honorable effort of my own. I write from the pews in a modern congregation with the old ladies and my 98-year-old mother in law.
---------------------------------------------------------
* As it turned out, the Catholic Church pushed back hard against Liberation Theology and embraced the "powers that be". The Catholic Evangelical movement (of which I was part) would become a vehicle for conventional dogma. It would not be until the elevation of Pope Frances that social responsibility - or maybe not raping little kids quite so much - asserted itself at the highest level of the Catholic Church. Just a bit.
** The "First Cause" argument is something that is only offered by people who already want to believe in God and are looking for a way stop thinking about it. It is for children.
Comments
Post a Comment