A Look at Why We Believe What We Do

Copyright 2009 by Howard Pepper

I am starting a series of brief posts on why we believe what we do about God and ourselves in relation to God. Most religious people like to think that their views about humanity and God are the correct ones. Maybe not covering every issue, but substantially right and certainly more true than those of other religions.

In fact, the bulk of Christians would claim that Christianity is unique because it alone is based on a genuine response to God in faith that creates a connection otherwise not there. To them, other religions represent human attempts to please God or reach God, in the mistaken belief that we have to do something to earn God’s favor.

I agree with these Christians in the last part – that we need not do anything to gain God’s favor, to be loved. But I, unlike them, also take that to include that we need not even believe anything in particular about God or our need for God (even God’s existence). Still, without God “judging” us, our actions and beliefs do affect our material and spiritual well-being, so we are wise to give them both some thought…. Do you agree or disagree so far?

Now, note I’ve not tried to identify or define God here, which is part of the point! I have some ideas about who/what I think God is, developed over decades of study, contemplation, and what Christians call (as I did for about 27 adult years) a “personal relationship with God.” I’ve begun commenting on defining God in other posts and will return to it, but for now I want to keep the focus on what you may believe or are pondering in hopes of coming to know something about God.

Here are some of the factors we will explore that lead each of us to whatever views of God (or gods) we may hold, or to question whether there even is a God:

1. What we were taught as a child (culturally, in our family, church, school, etc.).

2. What kind of relationship we had with our parents (usually most profoundly our father, as American culture and religion, like most, casts God as a male figure, often even as “Father”).

3. What we’ve experienced from the religious people and institutions closest to us or who we, at some critical point, determined would best represent what God may be like.

4. Special experiences that we take to be of a religious or spiritual nature – which might be called altered states of consciousness, peak experiences (Maslow), miracles, healings, “near death experiences,” etc.

5. Study of Scripture, theology, philosophy, science or other areas which we feel lends reliable (rational) evidence to a particular view we have “inherited” or taken on later in life.

Which of these most has most profoundly influenced the view of God (or disbelief in God) that you hold to? Are there aspects of any of these that you particularly resent or seek to “undo?” Are there aspects that you are particularly grateful for and might feel you’d never want to challenge or change? Do you have a thought-out approach to updating your views of God, or would like to have one?

What is Real? A beginning statement for the “Spiritual, Not Religious”

Copyright 2009 by Howard Pepper

The following is a statement designed to help in the process of forming clear, helpful language about key concepts that describe reality in ways helpful on a number of levels.  It is neither “religious” nor “scientific” in the sense of the guiding dogmas of the main institutions of religion or science.

A few people are able to integrate both religious and scientific ways of knowing in a consistent manner, and thus create an effective “third way” of understanding reality and learning more about it.  But most people cannot, even the “best and brightest” in both religion and science.  Therefore, statements such as this one are needed.  Otherwise, science tends to operate in reaction to religion and vice-versa.  Witness the recent stirring of attack and acrimony between a few widely-read “new atheists” and religious leaders. 

But it is not new.  Both professionals and lay people within the influence circles of both religion and science avoid or deny things key to a desirable personal, societal, and global life.  These blinders also restrict individual’s and humanity’s learning of more that is vital for enhancement of life, and help to threaten the very survival of humanity.

Religion tends to split all processes of life and the universe somewhat arbitrarily into natural and supernatural categories in which God can supercede or override the natural.  (We say “somewhat arbitrarily” because the line does shift as science’s evidence of natural processes or new conclusions, such as heliocentrism centuries ago, eventually becomes undeniable on a given point.)  On the other hand, science, by self-description, deals only with natural processes, but along the way tends to reduce everything to that… denying the existence of anything that is not capable of detection or being measured by any period’s tools or theoretical structures (paradigms).  As spiritually-seeking “SNR’s” (spiritual, not religious), we find these positions and vantage points not well aligned with reality – misleading and limiting, in the cases of both religion and science.    

Here is a beginning statement on a different, unitive approach to our understanding of reality, and ongoing research.  (We invite all our readers to respond to, and offer your modifications, agreements, or criticisms.)

For all practical purposes, it appears most useful and realistic to say that everything came into being at once. If God existed prior to any creative acts by such a pre-existent God, as most religion contends, particularly in the West, it is an unknowable mystery what such an existence was like.  It is not pertinent to us. 

For the sake of communication with our religious friends, we are okay with saying there is God as Creator.  In fact, we may personify God in this or other ways ourselves at times.  (We try hard not to invoke God in any cursing!)  But we are quick to add that a Creator God does not, for us, imply a being separated in any way from everything else and from us.  Rather, we allow that “God” as “Supreme Being” or “Ground of Being” can be named while remaining consistent with the process of scientific inquiry. 

God, conceived as universal consciousness, the information inherent in all that is, and necessary for all to function, could have always existed or arisen at some “time” as consciousness, energy, etc. For most practical purposes, it doesn’t matter.  In a related way, traditional theism emphasizes both the “transcendence” and the “immanence” of God.  We contend that when these aspects are truly in balance, it doesn’t matter whether God is labeled as distinct from creation or part and parcel of it, as its knowing and guiding force.  Similarly, it doesn’t matter whether God is a “person” or a “force,” as long as “person” doesn’t imply “independent individual” and force doesn’t imply “devoid of characteristics of personality or personhood.”  (To be continued….)

What are your thoughts or suggestions? Please contribute.

Why End-Times Mania Never Goes Away

As long as history has been written, it seems there has been a significant thread of expectation for God to intervene on “our” side, or that of his “chosen people.”  And with that intervention, set up a perfected kingdom.  That has been a powerful, influencing theme through Judaism and Christianity.  I won’t trace much of that history and theology here, but quickly apply it to present circumstances.

From the beginnings of Christianity, Jesus’ Jewish disciples expected his return within their lifetimes to bring in the Kingdom of God, centered in Jerusalem.  Much of their actions oriented around the short-term-only planning consistent with that.   That got revised fairly soon, and eventually Christian leaders moved from supportiveness toward civil government to joining forces with it, and for many centuries virtually becoming it.   

But the marginalized, with visionary idealists, periodically realized even a religiously-centered, supposedly submitted-to-God society was not moving toward an ideal Kindgom.  They then picked up the recurring theme from Scripture of God’s “millennium” (1000 year, or extended period) of peace and righteousness.  This was the messianic promise that some Jews still await fulfillment of in a “first coming.”   The majority (seemingly) of Christians see partial fulfillment, for personal salvation, of this promise in Jesus Christ, and expect complete fulfillment in his “second coming.”

This second coming, in the minds of millions of American Christians, is intimately and intricately tied up with political events in Israel and that region.  Either right before or right after Jesus’ return, they believe biblical prophecy infallibly predicts a quick succession of horrific events via massive armies converged on Israel.  This will be the “Battle of Armageddon,” supposedly in the Valley of Megiddo. 

I’ve not heard this massive battle typically called World War III, but it is hard to imagine, if such a thing literally took place, that it would not amount to this, or lead to it.  But those who believe it must and will happen don’t tend to worry much about this, as they will either be “raptured” (taken up from earth) ahead of this (one interpretive scheme) or perhaps endure it as the final event of God’s earthly judgment just prior to establishing his peaceful, perfect kingdom. 

So why am I here repeating what can be found in many books, from various angles of belief or academic study? If a person is not familiar with this aspect of Scripture and how it is taken very seriously by millions and applied to today’s geopolitical situations, it is something they will now be alerted to, and perhaps determine to learn a bit about.  That is important on a number of levels. 

It is pertinent to ask seekers of public office, particularly on a national level, what their views are regarding this, and look into their church affiliations, etc.  It apparently was pertinent in the case of our last U.S. President.  It also was with Sarah Palin in her potential VP role, and will be in any possible future office-seeking by her.  This is to name only two of many.   

But it’s more than voting and creation of foreign policy, critical as that is.  It is also important to non-judgmentally explore with any religious friends or family who will do so, just what they believe regarding these things, and why.  Perhaps even the asking of some probing, though respectful questions will both educate you and allow you to help them do some deeper reflection and perhaps study.  A person may start to see the long, long pattern of similar expectations and social organization around them, sometimes leading to military action and great destruction.  This seems clearly one major factor in the 66-70 and 132-135 C.E. Jewish rebellions against Rome.  These ended in the almost total destruction of Jerusalem first, and then the expulsion, after the 2nd rebellion, of all Jews from the city, and “the rest is history.”

Along with some deeper knowledge, perhaps will come the insight that prophecies may not be divine revelations of inevitable events as much as expressions of continual inner human fears and desires.  And when enough passion is invested in both those aspects, it is possible to make prophecies “self fulfilling,” horrendous violence and all.  Yet such passion, applied in love, not fear, within the vision of an increasingly peaceful world (even as it slowly struggles to get there), will at least move us in the direction of the same biblical ideal, and safely.

What are your thoughts? You may find things to question or differ with in what I’ve said.  If so, feel free to reply.  Or if you see things similarly, please add your observations.

What We Mean by “Faith” is Important

copyright 2009 by Howard Pepper

We use “faith” in so many ways, it’s no wonder we are often confused; worse yet, sometimes misunderstand each other without even knowing it…. “Faith-based” groups, “Christian faith” (or other favorite), “leap of faith,” etc. 

There is something important about the word and the concepts behind it — trust, acceptance, relying on something or someone… things foundational to everyday life and a sense of peace.  To me, faith is an undergirding process and perspective shared by us all, regardless of religious beliefs or lack of them.  The aspect, within that, of trusting others, or God, or a “higher power” is often tough.  It’s harder for those more deeply mistreated by others, especially early in life, or those encountering really tough circumstances.  They may have “a faith,” religiously speaking, but real difficulty trusting. 

So do we grow in faith, especially the trust aspect; and if so, how? Over two decades ago, James Fowler proposed “stages of faith” in six phases.  Others, like M. Scott Peck, of The Road Less Traveled  and other popular books, had similar, if less detailed stages.  Fowler’s stage concepts are akin to, understandably, those of earlier work on stages of intellect (cognition), morality and life-long developmental tasks (Erikson).

In reviewing Fowler’s work recently, I found it interesting that in a few hundred very long interviews, he and his team almost always received heart-felt thanks and appreciation.  They regularly were told that it was very enjoyable because the interviewees “never got a chance” to talk about their faith in depth and analytically.  Could it be that few, even good friends, were interested enough to ask and listen intently? Maybe combined with a general cultural taboo?  It’s probably changed some in this Internet era, and the existence of many blogs that cover issues of faith, including this one.  It’s a positive change, though we still need face-to-face interaction on deep, important matters like this as well. 

Please share how you define faith, especially in terms of your own experience. Do you recognize any stages you’ve gone through? How would you describe them? If you consider yourself “spiritual but not religious,” are you comfortable with the term “faith” for your views?

As to reasons to live in basic trust, do you believe and feel, as theologian Karl Barth once put it, that there is “something ultimately gracious at the core of the universe?”

Growth in Beliefs and Actions

This blog is dedicated to people’s individual spiritual development as well as to family, community, societal and global issues impacted by religion and spirituality.  Of course, the two areas can’t be separated.  What we experience, and our interpretation of those experiences, combined with other beliefs, will lead to actions (or choices not to act).  What we often lack is a conscious and purposely self-directed spirituality.  Having one helps us be in control of our actions or inaction.   

We often fail to realize that we can choose to do things that will update and upgrade our beliefs and lead us into deeper experiences of life, whether we choose to label them religious, spiritual, “God thing” events, synchronicities or whatever.  We can take on regular spiritual practices (like the naps that my meditation times usually turn into) that will impact the quality of our lives.  They may give us exciting glimpses of spiritual aspects of life that would otherwise go by unseen or unexperienced with awareness.  They may simply help us de-stress, with the side benefit of kinder, more caring behavior.  And these practices usually have very little, if anything, to do with particular theological beliefs.  Their use, and our sharing about them with one another is another point of celebrating human common ground.  This can be done apart from culture, personality, or even religious beliefs, though it may involve transcendence above “daily life,” and touch things of “the spirit.”

I’ve touched, however briefly, on one of my spiritual “disciplines” (ha!).  What is one (or more) of yours? How does it help you cope with life, be inspired about life, etc.?

The Point of “Interfaith Dialog” and Seeking Understanding

With all the problems and suffering in the world,

it’s legitimate to ask, “Why talk, blog, attend

meetings and such, rather than take direct action

to alleviate suffering and create a better world?”

A part of the answer is that better mutual

understanding is part of creating a better world,

and one in which action is much more efficient.

     Of course, it needs to be a “both/and”…. both

discussion and action. 

Consider: how vast are the human and monetary

resources that could be applied to hunger,

disease, etc. if even a small portion of the energy

spent on “culture war” issues (often more

symbolic than substantive) were redirected?

And what about all the energy expended on trying to evangelize others to believe the right things about God and Christ? Or to be reassured of one’s own salvation? Or to not believe in God, because God is considered no more than a human projection by some, and a dangerous one?

What do you think are the most crucial issues to deal with to bring us all toward a place of mutual acceptance, respect and the ability to cooperate on social and humanitarian needs?  Not that we can’t disagree and present our cases to one another, but that we can at least be humble enough to admit we also have no corner on truth, and may have things to learn from people with whom we disagree but want to cooperate. 

Does this resonate with you and your values? Or do you seriously differ? Either way, please share your thoughts or suggestions.

Seven Points to Unite Christians and Other Spiritual People

copyright © 2008 by Howard Pepper 

 

The following are concepts that can be agreed upon by Christians of all but the literalist or dogmatic type and, if taken seriously, will help unite Christians with many spiritually-oriented people not comfortable in the Christian fold. 

 

1. Biblical literalism is a stage of spiritual development that can be transcended with no spiritual or moral loss.

 

2. Visualized-result prayer, done with feeling and intention, is equally effective regardless of the worldview or theology of the pray-er. 

 

3. All major religions, including Christianity, have developed in similar ways, borrowing from each other; and they constantly change.

 

4. The growth rate of early Christianity has been equaled numerous times; no mass conversions are needed to account for it, or effects that could only come from miracles or other divine intervention. 

 

5. The same motivations toward expansion and the same theology could have developed in early Christianity whether or not Jesus actually rose bodily from the dead.

 

6. Receiving the benefits of any atoning or transfoming work that may have been accomplished by the life or death of Christ does not require acceptance of any particular beliefs, including: 1) disputed claims such as his bodily resurrection; 2) abstract theology such as the virgin birth or deity of Christ; 3) future expectations such as a rapture or second coming, Armageddon, or a millennium.

 

7. The image of Jesus each of us holds is not so much a reflection of the Jesus presented in the Gospels as it is a reflection of our idea, culturally and personally, of a perfect human and activist, leading toward the ideal for ourselves and humanity.  This idealized Jesus looks different in different branches or denominations of Christianity.  However, the process works roughly equally in all.  It even works similarly among many non-Christians such as the “spiritual but not religious.”

Letting God Unite, Not Separate

Bridge atheism and theism? Impossible? Well, they are only one letter apart, for God’s sake (or no god’s sake)!

Seriously, the bridge will never be as broad as the territory on both sides, but why will so few admit that it exists? Haven’t many of us crossed it, perhaps on a fairly regular basis?  

I don’t mean switching fully from believers in God to unbelievers necessarily, or vice-versa… but don’t we have doubts? Vascillate over puzzling questions? Perhaps anguish over emotionally charged “issues” with a God we hope (or fear) may exist? 

Many “believers” (theists) are practical atheists, and many atheists are practically theists. 

The first may be devoted church-goers who live six days a week as if there were no God.  They may even pray on many of those six days, but not feel any closer to the Answer-giver far away in heaven. 

Atheists who are practically theists are those, probably in the millions in America now, who believe in God/god as more a universal field or “ground of being” than a “person.”  This view is technically not atheism, perhaps.  But it amounts to atheism from the viewpoint of a theist.  Yet such people (myself included) may find it convenient or automatic to speak to their amorphous god as if it were a person (thank God!).   Or they may speak of their god as a person, even if genderless (“Mother-Father God”).

This blog grows out of both my personal experience and my professional interest in furthering an important mission related to all this theism/atheism conflict.  As I’ve hinted, the conflict is both internal and interpersonal.   The mission is to bring together leaders (as well as followers) of diverse spiritual belief systems on their common ground, and create dynamic cooperation toward world peace and meeting human needs.  (This blog has a commercial component, indirectly, so please see www.TomorrowWillCare.com for available products and more.)

Please post a response to my intentions and comments or just introduce yourself and your interests in this subject.

 Howard Pepper