Most people would say God is “perfect,” but what do they mean? In the Old Testament, God loses his temper periodically, conveys a very human sense of jealousy, and allows innocent people to die needlessly. Recall the plagues that God heaped on Egypt to persuade the Pharaoh to release the Israelites from bondage. Each time, the Pharaoh appeared to be persuaded but he changed his mind. Finally, God sent an angel of death that killed the firstborn child of every Egyptian, from the firstborn of the Pharaoh himself to the firstborn of the “captive that was in the dungeon.” Exodus 12:29.
Why wouldn’t a perfect, omnipotent God simply change the Pharaoh’s mind? Why cause the series of plagues, which imposed suffering throughout Egypt and prolonged the captivity of the Jews? Even more puzzling, why kill the first born of even lowly Egyptians who had nothing to do with the Pharaoh’s decision? No modern reader, trying to be objective, could conclude that God was “perfect” in this story, at least by modern standards of morality. God is “perfect” in the Exodus story only in the sense that he reflects the image that the ancient Jews had of a perfect God: one that would impose massive suffering on the Egyptians in return for the massive suffering that the Egyptians had imposed on them.
We see a similar example of a less advanced culture creating its own standard of perfection in the eleventh century when St. Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury, published the ontological argument for the existence of a “perfect being.” In The Uncertain Believer, I explain the weaknesses in the ontological argument, but for now focus on the fact that St. Anselm was Archbishop during the First Crusade when innocent persons in the Middle East were slaughtered by European zealots intent on seizing the Holy Land in the name of Christianity. St. Anselm no doubt felt the perfect God sanctioned the Crusades. Today, we would say that the church tried to justify this violence in the name of God, but no “perfect” God could possibly have sanctioned it.
Three lessons emerge from these examples. The first is that humans have always decided how to conceive of God and what God stands for. That means our conception of God can change over time as we grow morally and intellectually. The second is that the essential characteristics of God reflect each society’s understanding of perfection. The ancient Jews conceived of the essential characteristics of God as including the power to impose suffering on the Egyptians. As modern humans, we can see that the essential characteristics of God have nothing to do with the power to control nature and destroy enemies. They have to do with the power to inspire us to be perfect humans beings, or as come as close to it as we can. Finally, we can see that the most sensible way to think of God is that God is the inspiration for our own perfection. In other words, it is our perfection, not God’s, that matters and it is our perfection that should be the focus of our efforts.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
Looking for God in All the Wrong Places
It can be easy to look for God in the wrong places. I have in mind the search for God in short term, intense spiritual experiences that seem to bring incredible insights when they are happening, but lose all meaning when they are over. There is nothing wrong with being carried away by music, nature, physical intimacy or any one of hundreds of pleasurable experiences (assuming the source of the experience is legal). The problem is thinking these experiences alone can bring meaning to our lives.
Twenty-five years ago, Dr. Herbert Benson wrote a book called The Relaxation Response, which described the body’s responses to a state of deep relaxation and meditation. The mind remains alert but heart and breathing rates go down, blood pressure falls, and there can be a general reduction in anxiety. Benson argued that this is the state achieved by Hindus, Buddhists and other adherents of religious traditions which emphasize meditation.
There is nothing particularly “religious” about this state of relaxation, although it can inspire reflection about one’s life, including one’s religious beliefs. Benson suggested this state could be achieved in ways that have no religious component, for example, by finding a quiet place, relaxing and reciting a sound, such as “ommmm,” that reduces distracting thoughts. The state may be similar to what is achieved in religious services, through quiet reflection, through chanting, or listening to repetitious, simple musical sounds, such as gongs, or “New Age” music that is invariably in the background at spas.
The point is not to demean these efforts to achieve a relaxed state of meditation. They can be very beneficial, if only to achieve a temporary sense of physical relaxation and mental reinvigoration. They can even be inspiring and give one a sense of direction in life, if they reinforce a framework for living that already exists. If one is comfortable and at peace with one’s spiritual life based on long-term consideration and reflection, short-term intense spiritual experiences help one to focus on these spiritual underpinnings and feel them at a deeper level.
Most of us feel a swelling of pride and patriotism when we hear the Star Spangled Banner because we believe in the basic principles on which our country was founded, even if we disagree with particular policies. In the same way, if we have found principles for living that help us rise above the day to day challenges and disappointments, we can experience them and celebrate them at a more intense level through meditation and short-term, intense spiritual experiences.
But if those principles are not there, if there is no framework for living that brings meaning to our lives, short-term feelings of spirituality disappear as surely as the fragrance of flowers disappears when we leave the garden. In that case, finding a framework for living should be the first step. Fifteen minutes of being carried away by New Age music will not get us there.
Twenty-five years ago, Dr. Herbert Benson wrote a book called The Relaxation Response, which described the body’s responses to a state of deep relaxation and meditation. The mind remains alert but heart and breathing rates go down, blood pressure falls, and there can be a general reduction in anxiety. Benson argued that this is the state achieved by Hindus, Buddhists and other adherents of religious traditions which emphasize meditation.
There is nothing particularly “religious” about this state of relaxation, although it can inspire reflection about one’s life, including one’s religious beliefs. Benson suggested this state could be achieved in ways that have no religious component, for example, by finding a quiet place, relaxing and reciting a sound, such as “ommmm,” that reduces distracting thoughts. The state may be similar to what is achieved in religious services, through quiet reflection, through chanting, or listening to repetitious, simple musical sounds, such as gongs, or “New Age” music that is invariably in the background at spas.
The point is not to demean these efforts to achieve a relaxed state of meditation. They can be very beneficial, if only to achieve a temporary sense of physical relaxation and mental reinvigoration. They can even be inspiring and give one a sense of direction in life, if they reinforce a framework for living that already exists. If one is comfortable and at peace with one’s spiritual life based on long-term consideration and reflection, short-term intense spiritual experiences help one to focus on these spiritual underpinnings and feel them at a deeper level.
Most of us feel a swelling of pride and patriotism when we hear the Star Spangled Banner because we believe in the basic principles on which our country was founded, even if we disagree with particular policies. In the same way, if we have found principles for living that help us rise above the day to day challenges and disappointments, we can experience them and celebrate them at a more intense level through meditation and short-term, intense spiritual experiences.
But if those principles are not there, if there is no framework for living that brings meaning to our lives, short-term feelings of spirituality disappear as surely as the fragrance of flowers disappears when we leave the garden. In that case, finding a framework for living should be the first step. Fifteen minutes of being carried away by New Age music will not get us there.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Should We Worry about Trends in Religious Beliefs?
The cover article in Newsweek last week was entitled The End of Christian America, by Jon Meacham. The article discusses the most recent American Religious Identification Survey as well as some other recent survey data. There are three major trends in American society, all of which track those already further along in Europe: 1) the number of people who identify themselves as “Christians” has fallen; 2) the percentage of people who do not identify with any faith has increased, and at the same time there is a general decline in those who think “religion” is the answer to social problems; and 3) the number of people who describe themselves as “atheist” or “agnostic” has quadrupled since 1990 to 3.6 million.
Are any of these trends cause for concern? From the point of view of organized religion, they certainly are. At one level, it means fewer members, shrinking donations, and less-than-full churches each Sunday. On a more basic level, it means that those who are deeply committed to their faiths and who find that it is fundamental to their lives, regret that others are unable to find this same meaning in theirs.
It would be a great cause for concern if we became a nation of individuals who care only about conventional success and pleasure. It’s not that belief in God is necessary for one to be moral. Voltaire took that position but he was wrong. It is possible to follow a highly ethical code for living without relying on any conception of God or higher purpose. In general, however, a central, unifying idea that represents the most fundamental and important purpose in life makes possible a personal commitment to this higher purpose. Moreover, it serves as a way for us as a larger community to communicate that idea to each other and reinforce it. That is why we should keep the idea of God alive, even if we give up on the traditional conception of God described in the Bible.
Although organized religion is worried, the good news for American society as a whole is that people are not giving up on their search for something more fundamental than physical pleasure and material wealth. Although an increasing percentage of people (15%, including atheists, agnostics and those with no preference) do not identify with any religion, “faith” and “religion” in the context of the survey mean organized religion, not a personal search for meaning or belief in a conception of God that is different from the one in the Bible. One striking trend is that only 69.5% of people believe in a personal God, but 12.1% believe in an impersonal higher power. I suspect many of the people who describe themselves as agnostics, or even atheists, are also looking for some way to identify meaning in life that transcends what we see around us every day.
How should we label people who do not want to give up on the idea of God but do not accept the conception of God portrayed in the Old and New Testaments? I use the phrase “Uncertain Believer” in the title of my book because we can never be absolutely certain about the nature of God. Other terms work just as well. Whatever term we use, it describes a growing number of Americans.
Are any of these trends cause for concern? From the point of view of organized religion, they certainly are. At one level, it means fewer members, shrinking donations, and less-than-full churches each Sunday. On a more basic level, it means that those who are deeply committed to their faiths and who find that it is fundamental to their lives, regret that others are unable to find this same meaning in theirs.
It would be a great cause for concern if we became a nation of individuals who care only about conventional success and pleasure. It’s not that belief in God is necessary for one to be moral. Voltaire took that position but he was wrong. It is possible to follow a highly ethical code for living without relying on any conception of God or higher purpose. In general, however, a central, unifying idea that represents the most fundamental and important purpose in life makes possible a personal commitment to this higher purpose. Moreover, it serves as a way for us as a larger community to communicate that idea to each other and reinforce it. That is why we should keep the idea of God alive, even if we give up on the traditional conception of God described in the Bible.
Although organized religion is worried, the good news for American society as a whole is that people are not giving up on their search for something more fundamental than physical pleasure and material wealth. Although an increasing percentage of people (15%, including atheists, agnostics and those with no preference) do not identify with any religion, “faith” and “religion” in the context of the survey mean organized religion, not a personal search for meaning or belief in a conception of God that is different from the one in the Bible. One striking trend is that only 69.5% of people believe in a personal God, but 12.1% believe in an impersonal higher power. I suspect many of the people who describe themselves as agnostics, or even atheists, are also looking for some way to identify meaning in life that transcends what we see around us every day.
How should we label people who do not want to give up on the idea of God but do not accept the conception of God portrayed in the Old and New Testaments? I use the phrase “Uncertain Believer” in the title of my book because we can never be absolutely certain about the nature of God. Other terms work just as well. Whatever term we use, it describes a growing number of Americans.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Overcoming Doctrinal Differences by Going Back to Basics
As the Obama Administration reaches out to Iran, it is useful to remind ourselves of the religious differences between Christianity and Judaism, the most prominent traditions in the United States, and Islam, the dominant tradition in the Middle East. To do that, we need to have a starting point for comparison. What do Christians and Jews believe? Already we have a problem because what many Christians might say is the most important tenet of their faith – the divinity of Jesus – is rejected by Jews. What exactly then is the “Judeo-Christian” tradition? Judaism arose in a world dominated by polytheism, not just Greek and Roman, but other strands from Persia and India. The great intellectual advance was to worship one God. At first, this probably meant that there is one God that is greater than all the others, but later the central idea became: There is one God period.
Jesus was raised as a Jew and probably thought of himself as a Jew when he died. The movement that came after him built on Jewish doctrine to identify him as the Messiah, but rewrote Jewish doctrine to proclaim Jesus as the Son of God, then later one aspect of God himself. Mohammed was also raised in a polytheistic culture in what is now Saudi Arabia some six hundred years after Jesus lived. He seized on this central insight that there is one God. When he wrote the Quran, he saw himself as reforming and perfecting Judaism and Christianity, not completely rejecting it. He recognized Abraham as the patriarch of this tradition as well as the prophets of the Old Testament. He acknowledged the life of Jesus and viewed him as a prophet, too.
In short, there is more that unites Jews, Christians and Muslims than divides them, if we stick with the basic principle advocated by their founders. There is one God that should serve as the core of our lives. The massive superstructure of creeds, tenets, rituals, and doctrinal differences that have emerged since then is what makes these religious traditions seems so different. That is why it is important to go back to basic principles and remember that it is humans who are responsible for the elaborate rules we associated with particular denominations, not God. Their proponents may claim support for them in the Bible, the Quran, or some other sacred document, but these were written by humans, too, no doubt inspired by their view of God but actually conceived by them.
As I argue in The Uncertain Believer, the way to overcome our doctrinal differences is to focus on a central unifying idea recognized by the founders of Judaism, Christianity and Islam: There is an ideal that is higher than ourselves, higher than day to day struggles. It is the inspiration for human perfection. It deserves our commitment and dedication. If we make that commitment, life will be the better for it, not just our own life, but all those we touch. That central idea is God. I have no doubt that President Obama and President Ahmadenijad will appeal to that same God the night before they eventually meet.
Jesus was raised as a Jew and probably thought of himself as a Jew when he died. The movement that came after him built on Jewish doctrine to identify him as the Messiah, but rewrote Jewish doctrine to proclaim Jesus as the Son of God, then later one aspect of God himself. Mohammed was also raised in a polytheistic culture in what is now Saudi Arabia some six hundred years after Jesus lived. He seized on this central insight that there is one God. When he wrote the Quran, he saw himself as reforming and perfecting Judaism and Christianity, not completely rejecting it. He recognized Abraham as the patriarch of this tradition as well as the prophets of the Old Testament. He acknowledged the life of Jesus and viewed him as a prophet, too.
In short, there is more that unites Jews, Christians and Muslims than divides them, if we stick with the basic principle advocated by their founders. There is one God that should serve as the core of our lives. The massive superstructure of creeds, tenets, rituals, and doctrinal differences that have emerged since then is what makes these religious traditions seems so different. That is why it is important to go back to basic principles and remember that it is humans who are responsible for the elaborate rules we associated with particular denominations, not God. Their proponents may claim support for them in the Bible, the Quran, or some other sacred document, but these were written by humans, too, no doubt inspired by their view of God but actually conceived by them.
As I argue in The Uncertain Believer, the way to overcome our doctrinal differences is to focus on a central unifying idea recognized by the founders of Judaism, Christianity and Islam: There is an ideal that is higher than ourselves, higher than day to day struggles. It is the inspiration for human perfection. It deserves our commitment and dedication. If we make that commitment, life will be the better for it, not just our own life, but all those we touch. That central idea is God. I have no doubt that President Obama and President Ahmadenijad will appeal to that same God the night before they eventually meet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
