Pastor Wimberley makes a fundamental mistake when he deducts that proof for the existence of God is the effect a belief in God has on people. For someone to belief in God and to receive solace or healing from this belief, proofs the existence of God as much as the belief that a placebo helped an ailment can be deemed proof the placebo is an effective medicine.

This is very much what I wrote about in one of my essays GOD 6.

Anyway, I decided to publish our dialogue here, if not for any other reason than that I hadn’t blogged much while I was busy with our discussion. The following story was the final chapter in our exchange …it rather well sums it up:

 

Hi John, I'm reading this book: Buddha, Zen, Tao, Tantra and I came to this story:

One day a man came up to Gautama Buddha and asked him: "Does God exists?" Buddha looked at the man for a moment and then said: "Yes." The man was baffled, because it was known that Buddha does not believe in God. Now, what to make of his answer?

In the afternoon another man came and asked the same question: "Is there a God?" The Buddha looked at him at length and finally said, "No, not at all." To complicate things more for his disciples, who had witnessed both questions and answers, in the evening a third man came and asked, "Would you say something about God?" Buddha looked at him, closed his eyes and remained silent. The man also closed his eyes and they sat in silence for half an hour. Then the man touched the Buddhas feet and said: " Thank you for your answer" and went away.

Buddha's disciples were besides themselves and demanded explanations. "In the first place," the Buddha said, "the questions were not for you, and neither were the answers. The problem is, you think about life in absolutes, that's your trouble. Life is relative. The answers to their questions were relative to the men who asked them. The first man was an atheist. He does not believe in God and I do not want to support his stupid atheism, he will just go on proclaiming that there is no God. But even if a small space is left un-explored, perhaps in that space God exists. You can only say with absolute certainty that there is no God when you have explored all of existence and not found him.

"The second man was as much an idiot as the first, but on the opposite pole. He believed there is a God and he had come to get support from me for his belief. I don't support anybody's belief because belief is such a barrier. It does not matter what belief it is, true or false. No belief is true, no belief is false; all beliefs are simply biased. I had to say to the man: "No."

"The third man had come with no belief. He had not asked me: "Is there a God?" No, he had come with an open heart, with no mind, no belief, no ideology. He was a sane man, intelligent. He asked me: "Would you say something about God?" He was not in search for somebody's support for his belief system, he was not in search of a faith, he was not asking with a prejudiced mind. I could see the man was innocent, and with an innocent person language is meaningless. He understood my silent answer: "Be silent, go inside." He received the answer that God is not a theory that can be debated, a belief you have to be for or against."

I love this story.

Carsten

My writings are in grey, John’s are in blue, we began on 04 Nov 2010

Carsten: I read a few of your blogs.  They are great.  So … I guess if you don’t believe in God because you can’t see God, you don’t believe in evolution since it is a theory we can’t totally prove one way or the other … or gravity since it is only a theory and it may turn out to be a poor explanation for the apple falling from a tree … or …    

You have no idea how much I enjoy debating these subjects.  I always get bored with a group of believers who agree on the idea of God!  Thanks for publishing the sermon. 

John

I do have an idea of how much you enjoy debating these issues, because I enjoy it tremendously myself. Alas, I have a problem: I don't get into many discussions at all about God and religion, because all my friends agree with me. I spent most days at the 2008 Catholic World Youth Day here in Sydney, photographing a lot …  http://www.sydneyphotoart.com/gallery/sydney-people-2.aspx  … but I was not able to engage anyone in a meaningful discussion about the existence or not of God, different ideas as to what God is to different people etc … so my experience is that religious people have their belief and that's it, end of story. While I agree that each belief is as valid as the next, I do find that position disappointing.

Great photos! 

Actually, I don’t believe that “each belief is as valid as the next” and I doubt you do.  Neither of us accept the belief that Nazis propogated regarding Jews, or homophobes spread against homosexuals or sexists thrust on women.  A key part of life is discerning the truth.  Now, clearly, we need to do so humbly and with caution.  However, we do have to make some judgements about what is right and what is wrong.  Personally, I think we are more likely to get it right if we make those decisions within the context of a community of people seeking the truth.  This is one of the reasons I am a member of the church.  Do we make egregious errors in our determinations of what is true?  Of course.  And corrupting group think is always a possibility.   However, there is a self-corrective force at work in groups that can help us reach an understanding of the truth.  One of the reasons I am a Calvinist is because of Calvin’s suspicion of individual deciding the truth.  He put his faith in groups.  This is why Calvinists became leaders in movements to govern democratically.  We are suspicious of power held by individuals.

At any rate, here at Western, I tell folks we are a community of seekers.  We haven’t found the truth.  We are in search of it.  I think that reminds us that truth-seeking is an open-ended process.  We don’t know it.  We are moving toward it. 

This week is our Thanksgiving Day.  It is a wonderful tradition for those who believe in God and those who don’t!

I think the purported open-ended 'search for truth' has become somewhat of a cliché. We do know what the Truth is, there is no room for negotiation. The Truth is that all humans are equal. It is humanity's greatest endeavor to realize this Truth and to live according to it. The Truth is universal, it applies to everyone, anywhere, at any time and what follows from it are our laws and ethics, with the underlying statute being the Golden Rule. This Truth is absolute, it is pointless and ill-advised - indeed criminal and evil - to denigrate it or deny it … but commentary is welcome. It is for this reason that your sermon resonates so well. 

Personally, I go one step further and assign the Truth a dimension where all of humanity is linked by spirituality (this is where all humans are one), but here I am entering the realm of belief. And that's the point: It is important to be aware that mystical truths are beliefs. Beliefs and truths depend on conditioning and viewpoints (of course there also is reality … which may or may not be expressed as a truth.) I think it is a problem when mystic beliefs are presented as truth; nothing is as persuasive - yet as manipulative and potentially as destructive (see the example of Israel below) - as a truth derived from God's revelation.

We all have to deal with variable truths daily and when we are 'searching for the truth', as you say, what we are really doing is trying to determine what's right or wrong; but the issue here is that someone's truth is another's lie. Nevertheless, we all want to do what's right, provided we are upright members of society, engaged in ethical conduct (incidentally, it is in this context that each belief is as valid as the next … as long as ethics are adhered to.)

But I think the biggest challenge we have is differentiating between belief / truth and fact / reality. Confucius said there is only one problem in the world: People don't recognize reality … and once confronted with it, they can't deal with it (Israelis say the land was promised to them by God; get real, for godsake.) (Then there's the case where George Bush insisted it was true [where in fact it was a self-serving lie] that Saddam Hussein possessed yellow cake uranium to produce nuclear weapons; but the truth [reality] was, he didn't … the movie on that subject, Fair Game, is brilliant; America's propensity for self-reflection is remarkable.) 

This brings me to our header: the question of God or no God … which actually is a query about the dichotomy of facts & reality vs beliefs & truths; it is the age old chasm of science vs mysticism.

There is a reality that in my experience is not readily addressed by churches and their representatives and I pose this question: How do you deal with the reality that there is no factual God, when addressing your congregation? That concepts of God are beliefs - and as beliefs in God go, each belief is as valid as the next (conditions apply) - but God is not a factual reality? (The definition for fact is: A thing that is indisputably the case, where undeniable proof is available; if you ask me now for proof that God does not exists, I answer with Russell's Celestial Teapot allegory, see below.) Does the question ever arise? Is the question pertinent? Is it a fact that is knowingly, inadvertently or clandestinely circumvented and avoided?

When a prominent Australian conservative politician - a church-goer and good Christian - wrote an article where he questioned a literal interpretation of God and Bible, he had strips ripped off him by the clergy in this town (like many clerics, they are in denial as regards reality) … http://www.sydneyphotoart.com/blog-can-you-believe-in-god.aspx

John, you put emphasis on 'seeking the truth.' Yet, when you talk to seekers, how do you address this reality, this truth: God is a belief, not a fact?

As you can see I too tremendously enjoy debating these issues …  here's another contribution on my blog (don't miss Einstein's letter):   http://www.sydneyphotoart.com/blog-dose-of-religion.aspx

Lots of good thoughts.  You need to understand that one of my presuppositions is that I do not attempt to defend religious fanatics whether they are Christian or otherwise.  So when a conservative politician gets ripped by biblical literalists I feel no comment.  The biblical literalists are as far removed from the truth found in the bible as are 2^nd amendment gun nuts who want to claim that the Constitution guarantees every idiot the right to own a gun.  I will only defend what I consider to be the essential tenets of what the church has taught throughout the ages (although I disagree with a few of them).

Of course belief in God is just that belief.  Kierkegaard, Kant and others wrote about the “leap of faith.”  They said that we can work our way to the existence of a loving God rationally but the final step requires not an act of logic but a leap of faith.  That being said, the same is true with most of the great truths of science.  We can logically work our way to a theory of gravity but finally, we have to take a leap of faith and assume that the apple falls for the reasons we think it falls.  Because who knows what people will discover centuries down the line about why that apple falls?   However, there is an uncontestable truth: the apple falls.  In like manner, there is another truth.  When people take the leap of faith to believe in God, we can see a concrete positive difference in the quality of their lives.  Medical studies are starting to show that folks with a strong faith in God heal faster than those who don’t.  The proof is not in the assertion that God exists.  The proof is in the outcomes in human behavior once that leap is taken. 

Of course, many would assert that much negative comes from the leap of faith.  Crusades, jihad, etc.  Certainly that is true.  But when one takes the leap of faith Francis of Assisi, Dr. King, Archbishop Romero and many others have taken, the outcome is always positive. 

This brings me to conclude that we can’t just talk about a leap of faith.  We have to talk about a leap to a faith in a God who is loving, just and peace-creating (both peace within us personally and peace collectively).  Such a leap will result in us realizing that, indeed, all people are created equal since all of us are created in the image of a loving and just God. 

I think the only real facts are those that are lived, not held intellectually.  Christianity grew originally because non-Christians observed Christians living a better quality of life than they were living and wanted the same.  Christianity is struggling today because so many Christians are negative rather than positive role models.  If Christians can’t produce the “fruits of faith” our faith will disappear from the face of the earth.

I am aware of the argument that proof of the existence of God is the fact that faith in God brings advantages, such as better and quicker healing of ailments. There are indeed medical studies that confirm this, but these medical studies also state that this phenomenon is attributed to the 'placebo' effect (TIME, How Faith can Heal, 23 Feb 2009.) 

The issue here is, if faith in God does help when one is sick, then why is this not universal but very selective? You may say, it depends on the strength of the faith, which makes the argument circular; many people with very strong faith don't have their cancer cured (they may even die as a result of preferring faith instead of traditional medicines.) Dawkins and Hitchens will tell you that the many un-answered prayers from the faithful do more damage that the answered prayers do good.

Anyway, I think you cannot put faith in God on the same level as faith in science. This is probably because I cannot perform the 'leap of faith.' There are rationality issues that won't allow this. I must admit, though, I am fascinated by the concept.

Absolutely it is the placebo effect.  If one believes that God wants one to be healthy, it increases the likelihood that one will be healthy.  Whether one does become healthy is not an indication of the strength of one’s faith or God’s concern, it is determined by the nature of one’s illness and the strength of one’s body to fight off disease.

One of the great mistakes of modern thinking is that science is built on facts and everything else isn’t.  No scientist holds such a view.  Scientists work on theories, not facts.  They get a theory that works and then build something upon it.  However, they rarely contend that their theory is factual.  Rather, it is a working hypothesis.  Gravity, the example I used earlier, is a classic point.  Most physicists think there is a more sophisticated reason for things falling.  We just don’t know it.  But in the meantime, we can get planes to fly, etc. using the working hypothesis called gravity. Science is a much a matter of faith (in one’s working hypotheses) as is religion.

But John, theories aint theories. There is a great difference between a scientific theory and 'theory' …

Scientists don't use the term "theory" in the same way that it's used in the vernacular. In most contexts, a theory is a vague and fuzzy idea about how things work — one with a low probability of being true. This is the origin of complaints that something in science is "only a theory" and so isn't credible. For scientists, a theory is a conceptual structure used to explain existing facts and predict new ones. To be considered a scientific theory by most scientists and philosophers of science, a theory must meet most, if not all, of certain logical, empirical, sociological and historical criteria.

Like I said before, "I think you cannot put faith in God on the same level as faith in science," neither can you put scientific theory on the same level as mystic theory. They are indeed, literally, in two different realms. Frankly, I think you are walking on very thin ice should you postulate that since 'sciences are based on theories' they are in the same league as beliefs about the existence of God … remember:  a (scientific) theory must meet … logical, empirical … criteria.

So now - were belief & faith on a par with science - we have to look for logical and empirical criteria, if not indeed proof for the existence of God. Because this is the deal with science: Theories are proven, no amount of argument will get us past this point … but how about a proof for the existence of God? Since this proof  is not forthcoming, people like myself say, "the absence of proof in the existence of God proofs that there is no God." Which, of course, brings us back to the - for atheists unacceptable - leap of faith.

You said before, Of course belief in God is just that belief.  For me this throws up the query: On the one hand there is belief, on the other hand reality (as far as science, logic and empiricism define it) how can the two be put on an equal standing? The point is, they can't. There is a fundamental difference between belief (based on faith) and reality (based on empiricism.)

And that brings me back to my original question, the one that I have tried to pose to clerics for years, without a satisfying answer: When you talk to seekers, how do you address this reality: God is a belief, not a fact?

I address the question as I have with you.  Faith (belief) is what the modern world is built on.  I think there is as much “logical, empirical criteria” for God’s existence as there is for an apple falling.  Indeed, I think a life transformed such as Francis of Assisi is a far more impressive piece of empirical data than an apple falling from a tree.  You can respond, “Well, but there are many reasons why Francis may have been transformed other than faith in God.”  My response:   Exactly.  And most scientists will say there are probably many other explanations for why the apple falls from the tree but we have discovered them yet. 

Discounting the empirical reality of lives changed for the better is simply not good scientific methodology.  When a psychologist uses a particular approach to help a person through a transformational process we say it was the process because we believe, rightly, that psychology is a science.  When a person of faith goes through a transformational process as a result of their faith, we need to acknowledge the factual reality of that transformation, not denigrate it as some type of mystical, unknowable, unquantifiable type of phenomenon.

Now we have arrived at a crucial point in our discussion: What you seem to say is that you put the reality of the existence of God (a belief arrived at through faith) on the same level as the reality of our existence (defined by examining empirical evidence) and I cannot agree that one's transformation through belief in God is empirical proof of his existence.

You see, I would not want to denigrate a person's transformation through faith in any way … however, I will say that this transformation is a mystical experience, not based in reality as defined by empiricism.

I would take issue with your stance that faith is what the modern world is built on … I see faith as what one's mystical experiences, transformation and beliefs are built on, but not the physical world.

And I think there is a crucial difference between this faith and the resultant beliefs as opposed to our factual reality. The existence of God falls in the realm of faith, and outside the realm of factual reality. This is where we disagree.

What do you think of statements like these …

 John Cornwell, director of the Cambridge Science and Human Dimension Project, says: “Sensible theologians, in the tradition of Thomas Aquinas, don’t understand God as an object …" 

The author and theologian Barbara Thiering wrote in 'A God for our Times': "I don't believe that anyone made heaven and earth. The Big Bang did. And 'Father' and 'Almighty' are not very good images for the tranquillity you can find in your heart if you wait for it. But ‘God’ still has a certain resonance as a name for that stillness.”  

The German mystic and theologian Meister Eckhart (1260– 1328) said: “As I preach, I speak of detachment and say that man should be empty of ego; he should be aware of the simple good that God is; he should consider the greatness God has set up in the soul, so that by those means man may realize God; as I speak of God, I speak of the purity of the divine nature.” 

 … I see them as confirmation that God is indeed an inner phenomenon we relate to in a mystical experience, but not a 'reality out there'. Having said all that, let me share this droll little story with you: 

Two priests - good friends, so they could talk about anything - stay up all night and discuss whether God exists or not. After much deliberation they agree God doesn’t exist, but in the morning the one finds the other in prayer. “What are you doing - I thought last night we had agreed God does not exist?” “Oh well, indeed - but what does that have to do with anything?”    

I’m not making myself clear (not unusual!).  I am not equating a belief arrived at through faith with something defined by examining empirical evidence.  On the contrary, I am equating something which is in both cases (science and religious teaching) defined by examining empirical evidence.  I do not see religious faith as something that is primarily mystical.  Rather, I see it as something that produces very tangible outcomes in the same way scientific faith in hypotheses produce tangible outcomes.  I see a recovering alcoholic who attributes his recovery to “giving everything up to God” as every bit as tangible as an apple falling from a tree.

As for the quotes:

Cornwell: I absolutely agree.  I think God is a power or force, not an object per se.  Almost all of the gross injustices religion has imposed on humanity are due to the objectification of God.  God becomes a male, white, heterosexual, etc.  While it is inevitable that our language will become anthropomorphic as we talk about God, we need to be inclusive in those images to avoid the objectification issue.

Thiering: Father is highly problematic (like male, white, etc) because so many people have problematic relationships with their fathers.  I tend toward the more formal descriptions of how God acts: creator, redeemer, spirit. 

Eckhart: I gave up talking the way he does when I got very responsible criticism from listeners who said, “Don’t tell me I should empty my ego.  My problem is that my ego is too weak.  I have no self-esteem.”  Indeed, Jesus describes a God who empowers us, not empties us of our egos. 

Great story.  I hope the two were drinking while they were discussing God.  It is a great way to spend a night with a friend.  If one can’t do that, then emailing halfway around the world will have to do! 

Let's see: If God is not an object but a power or force where it's (his) existence is proven by the effect it (he) has on people, then the question arise: Is this force internal or external?

If God is an internal force that creates humans' faith, then we are on the same page. This God (as described in my essay GOD 1  http://www.sydneyphotoart.com/resources/1/PDF/GOD%201.pdf  as versions 3 & 4) I am very comfortable with; there is plenty of proof (the ontological argument) along the lines of the tangible outcomes you describe.

If it is an external force (vs 2) that creates humans' faith as well as the universe (which is what Thiering, Einstein, Spinoza [Spinoza's God was a philosophical concept, abstract and impersonal … right down my alley] et al question) then our ideas divert and don't meet.

This, John, is the crux of the matter for me.

Was there alcohol involved? You bet … here's the whole story in context: http://www.sydneyphotoart.com/resources/1/PDF/GOD%204.pdf

As for ego, we must observe the crucial difference between ego and self. The self is the faculty that gives us strength (and self-esteem.) It is our core, our heart, our life-force. From here we project our loving persona, we are altruistic and generous. It motivates us to be good humans … in fact, by my definition, the self is congruent with God. The ego, on the other hand, represents our selfish self, our faculty to be human in the negative sense, from where we lie and cheat and do to others as we don't want to be done by ourselves. The ego keeps us from enlightenment.

Science teaches us that every effect has a cause.  So while I definitely think God is internal, I also believe God is external.  I can’t explain the existence of the universe (effect) without God (cause).  Science makes no pretense to explaining the creation of the universe.  It knows about things like the Big Bang theory.  But these are basically working hypotheses.  So we are still left with the same reality that caused Aristotle to conclude there must be a First Cause. 

As a result, I end up being a pantheist.  God is the creator of everything yet in everything.  This captures the internal reality of which you speak plus the external reality that so many of us have experienced. 

Interesting differentiation about the self and ego.  I would use different terminology but basically agree with the categories.  I think the ego is the heart of healthy or unhealthy self esteem.  I don’t know of any single thing more important to a happy and productive life than an ego that values itself (but not to the exclusion of others).  My parents had flaws.  But somehow they gave me a very strong sense of self.  It is the greatest gift someone can give another person. 

I am inclined to posit the negative stuff such as selfishness not internally (as someone like Calvin did) but externally.  I think powerful external forces play on us and warp us.  I believe we are fundamentally good and it requires some pretty powerful external stuff to screw up that goodness.  So, for example, the sex drive is totally a positive force.  However, the world (and too often the church) teaches us to distrust it, use it to dominate others, etc. 

This is perfectly o.k., Einstein, Hawking and Spinoza are in full agreement: The underlying force that created the universe is probably a mathematical, a physics law … if you want to call that law God, why not. It is perfectly reasonable - to my mind (and Einstein's; Dawkins disagrees here) - to call that which we cannot explain in the world, God. Hawking, incidentally, in his latest book (I haven't read it; as often, 'til now, I only had time for the reviews) makes just that point … http://www.sydneyphotoart.com/blog-god-did-not.aspx … however, at the same time he is adamant that this is not at all a convincing line of argument for the religious type of God - out there, who runs our lives, who does favours for the select few. So, this leaves us with God #1 from my essay … http://www.sydneyphotoart.com/resources/1/PDF/GOD%201.pdf  … but it won't allow for God #2. Einstein called God #2 "childish superstitions, the product of human weakness" … http://www.sydneyphotoart.com/resources/1/PDF/EINSTEIN.pdf … but he fully is in agreement with you that … God is the creator of everything yet in everything. Then, when you talk of …  the internal reality … plus the external reality that so many of us have experienced … I think you are moving on to God #3 and #4: The God who has that positive impact on humanity, that is so well documented. Is this a correct summary, or does your faith include God #2?

We have to agree to disagree concerning self and ego. Many years ago I made contact with a man in India, who became my spiritual teacher, Guru Maharaj Charan Singh Ji. 

The Philosophy of Radha Soami Satsang Beas
This philosophy, based on the teachings of mystics from all religions, has had its headquarters at Dera Baba Jaimal Singh near the river Beas in northern India since 1891. Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), with centres located worldwide, is a registered non-profit, charitable society, independent of any political or commercial affiliations. Radha Soami means ‘lord of the soul’, and 'satsang' describes a group that seeks truth. 

I used to visit a few times and once had a meeting with the Master (as the teachers are called.) In that meeting I asked this question: "I grapple with the duality of my existence, where I have wide-ranging knowledge of the positive power in my life (you, John, will call it God). But I feel, and I am aware of it all day long, a negative power … what exactly is that negative power? (In Sant Mat it's called 'Kal'.) The Master's response set me on to my path of philosophy (religion?) … http://www.sydneyphotoart.com/resources/1/PDF/Q&A.pdf … (I hope I don't annoy you no-end with my essays.)

As a result I believe that indeed all humans potentially harbour negative tendencies and evil. This is the human condition. We overcome this condition in enlightenment, where we accept and detach, and where we learn to see reality, indeed the Truth. That negative tendency that we have to contend with, I was explained, is the human mind (the ego) as opposed to the soul (the manifestation within us of God.) It is the human mind/ego, when it is stuck in its lower consciousness, that manifests evil. ONLY the human mind has that potential. Evil does not exist anywhere else; arguments, conflicts, murder, war … all stem from the human mind. Nature can be cruel - earthquakes, bushfires, floods - but never evil. We overcome the human condition when we raise our consciousness (go to, live in God, you will say). So, I do not agree with you that  I think powerful external forces play on us and warp us  I believe that evil is within all of us, until we fight it successfully (become enlightened.) (In fact, the problem is, that we only too often blame external circumstance for the evil that occurs.) But importantly, we have to fight that fight all ourselves; I do not subscribe to the Christian tenet that anyone can do it for us (Jesus? By the way, in Sant Mat we are taught to only listen to a living Master, dead ones have lost their power.) It is for this reason that we have to be vigilant at all times; and, incidentally, it is for that reason that I don't like Tolkien's Lord of the Ring: Evil there is external, armies are called upon to fight it. This is what George Bush did with Al Qaida, and what America is so good at doing all around the world (and Australia happily joins in): Evil is external, the others are evil … OMG (Oh My God) I've gone into a rave …

I do agree  we are fundamentally good  but we don't need  some pretty powerful external stuff to screw up that goodness  … we are perfectly capable of doing it all by ourselves.

I have been thinking about this subject matter a lot over the holidays … thank you for being the catalyst for this reflection; it's good to be inspired to re-define and re-formulate one's beliefs.

To re-cap: I am perfectly comfortable with the idea of God as a definition for all that we cannot explain in the world, including its formation. Furthermore, I totally agree there is ample proof for an inner God who comforts us (in prayer, contemplation and meditation) and guides our striving for social justice and compassion. However, these concepts of God are independent of religions; in fact, the notion that inner peace, benevolence and charity should be limited to religions is absurd.

I deem the 'outer' God of religions very problematic. This is the God who supposedly exists as an entity in heaven, impacts positively the lives of the few chosen ones who believe in Him and who follow His 'God-given' rules, which are imparted through revelation. This God supposedly allows for miracles, redeems the believers and condemns the infidels. It is this God who is the cause of much human suffering, in whose name atrocities are perpetrated, whose believers carry out deadly fatwas, inquisitions and witch hunts; in fact … belief in this God is responsible for superstitions, brainwashing, delusions, intolerance & bigotry, purges … murder and mayhem. At this point it is often said that as much mayhem is perpetrated by atheists. But this point is moot … atheists may well be murderous, but they are so not because they are atheists; while those on a holy quest for dominance of their religion perpetrate their atrocities because they are religious.

I think it is crucial to be aware that the good done by people because of their religion is matched by the good done by people who are not religious; who are likely to be philanthropic or charitable because of their inner God (which they may not be aware of, or unable to define). I actually think that even the outwardly religious, who have an unfaltering belief in the 'religious God out there', do the good they do due to their inner God … which, practically (wouldn't you agree?) does away with the need for an outer God.

Just quickly a quote from a book I'm reading - The Rage Against God (how atheism led me to faith) by Peter Hitchens (brother of Christopher, no less) (to me a thoroughly unconvincing tome as to why faith in God is superior to atheism). Hitchens quotes professor of law, Thomas Nagel: "… I am talking (not just) about the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods; I am talking about … the fear of religion itself …". The fear of religion! "Why would anyone fear the idea of God?" asks Hitchens and continues, "I can think of many reasons myself, usually concerned with the annoying and lingering possibility of divine punishment for unexpiated wrongdoing." (pages 150/151) The crushing, medieval condemnation meted out by (the three Abrahamic) religions, to those unfortunate enough to follow … compare this to the light and lightness of Buddhism.

My Xmas presents include a book, The Spiritual Path: Buddha, Zen, Tao, Tantra … my special areas of interest. Incidentally, all of Buddhism is acknowledged to be a construct of the mind (a philosophy). The problem is that Christians, Muslims, Jews don't acknowledge the same … they are stuck in their 'divine provenance' paradigm, much to humanity's detriment.

A few thoughts for Christmas and the precious days of leisure afterwards.

Who created the "mathematical, a physics law"?  Everything comes from something.  This is why Aristotle posited a First Cause.

The law is God; it is not created. If the question arises, Who created the law?, it is just as well to ask, Who created God? The argument becomes circular.

Everything comes from something, nothing comes from nothing, surely; but this is not proof that the first cause is God … that deduction is just a hypothesis; one that religion is based on, but one that atheists deem spurious. This cosmological argument proofs one of two things: Either God exists and is the First Cause, or God (as a law, or by any other name) is not necessary as a first cause, it just is; the contingency of this proposition (that God is the First Cause) is neither necessarily true nor necessarily false. You will insert faith now. But I see the positive resolution of the argument (that God is the First Cause) as the basis of dogma and ultimately delusion and ignorance. Harsh words, I know. But why the argument in the first place? Why do we find it necessary to construct God, the creator? This construct is cause for so much discord. Remember that Aristotle's Prime Mover was an eternal process of pure thought … how this pure thought has turned into religion's dogmas about prescriptions for our conduct mystifies me. The Enlightenment, just some two/three hundred years ago, got rid of those notions. 

Through our discussion I become more and more convinced of the rightness of the Buddhist philosophy. Reliance here is on our inner God, our inner God alone. The discussion about  first cause is just a diversion from what is important and what is real, and what we started our discourse with:  To me, the important thing is where one’s heart is and whether or not one works for peace and justice … spoken like a Buddhist, John.

I think we have both done a good job of laying out our respective positions.  More importantly, we have found the grounds for agreement that has sustained my social justice work over the past forty years.  Indeed, the important thing is the disposition of one's heart and one's work for peace and justice.  And I am glad you distinguish the two.  I have met some colleagues in the struggle for peace and justice whose hearts are as hardened as the most ruthless capitalist.  Your distinction is one of the reasons some of my best friends are Republican conservatives.  They have good hearts and we simply disagree on the best route to peace and justice.  Indeed, the more convinced someone is that their route is the ONLY route, the more leery I am.  During WWII, Karl Barth, oftentimes called the father of modern evangelical theology, was heavily criticized by his colleagues because he said the church should work with Communists to defeat Hitler.  He said that the point was beating Hitler, not being purists about who is right or wrong on other issues.

So with those thoughts in mind, I wish you much health and happiness in 2011 and I look forward to reading your thoughts (and periodically commenting on them) on your blog!  Happy New Year.

I’ve had the privilege of hearing the Dalai Lama speak twice.  He could make anyone into a Buddhist!  I loved this interaction with a questioner:

Q: You mentioned that Buddhism is a way of peace and yet many of the Khmer Rouge were Buddhists.  How do you explain their bloody actions?

Dalai Lama (he paused then got a little smile on his face):  Well, there are some very nasty Buddhists!  Just as there are some very nasty Christians, Jews, Muslims and Hindus.  But I would hope we wouldn’t judge one another by the worst of us but by the best. 

Yes, the Dalai Lama is great, I also often quote him. He's on record for saying that he wonders why Westerners feel the compulsion to become Buddhists … Buddhism is an inherently Eastern tradition, rooted in Easterns societies and customs. To truly become a Buddhist, he said, one may need to renounce the life of a householder, wear safran robes and live in a monastery environment (not unlike becoming a monk, probably), supported by alms. That of course is a very different prospect to abiding by Buddhist principles … in fact, to become a buddha is not out of reach for any one of us. Remember, Buddhism is not a religion, it is a philosophy … so there's no 'holy' prescriptions, no scriptures, no sacraments. This is my favourite Gautama Buddha quote:

In philosophical Buddhism, free-thinking was specifically encouraged by the Buddha:  “It is proper to doubt. Do not go upon what is acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition;  nor upon an axiom; nor upon rumour; nor upon what is in a scripture.” Moreover, Gautama Buddha stated that our attachment to the existence of a concept of self/soul - or indeed God - was pointless.

The word buddha means 'awakened intelligence', the word budh has many meanings, one is to awake, to wake oneself up. This is at the core of Buddhist enlightenment: To awaken to the recognition of the false as false, of the untrue as untrue. The Buddhist concept is that anyone is a buddha who is awakened, conscious and void of (the negative aspects of …) ego, who sees and lives by the truth, who is compassionate (compassion is huge for the Dalai Lama) and who strives for justice, equality, charity and peace. And to be enlightened also means to have no beliefs: The man of intelligence does not believe in anything and does not dis-believe anything (i.e no dogmas etc.) Another principle of enlightenment is to accept, detach and let go; a very powerful principle. For the Dalai Lama the foremost principle is: Compassion. To have compassion even for your enemies: "Mao ZeDong (the architect of the Tibetan holocaust) was a great teacher of mine; he taught me compassion in the face of evil."

 

The last chapter in our exchange is the story at the very beginning of this blog.