The Uncertain Believer

I just finished your book. All I can say is that ...

2010-05-12T14:27:13.415-07:00

I just finished your book. All I can say is that you have offered just another approach to God proliferating amongst the already many. I think you are counting too much on evolutionary theory (yes, though emprically "verified," yet still theory) and not enough on mystery. Suggesting that "God" does not love humanity and that "he" is not conciously aware of us isn't much better, in my estimation, than the several traditional views of God which I also struggle with, as you do. A valiant effort, but not a very convincing one.

I'm commenting on something other than this partic...

2009-12-04T13:42:59.170-08:00

I'm commenting on something other than this particular post and I hope that you don't mind.

I am of the mind that both the Big Bang and biological evolutionary theories are just that, theories, though there is empirical "evidence" being proferred as means of demonstrating the viability of the claim to actual knowledge beyond a mere intimation of being the actual case.

According to your view, are you of the mind that these are still theories that in the end must be appropriated through human faith along with the empirical evidence not being able to be conclusive in its support of evolutionary theory? Or do you consider these theories as actual fact (beyond a reasonable doubt), and thus base your thesis of the Uncertain Believer on them?

I am of the mind that as fascinating as Darwinian evolutionary theory is (and the Big Bang), it's as acceptable to believe the original Genesis account (which I believe is myth) as it is to set my faith on Darwin's theory. To me, both accounts of creation don't seem to hold a lot of water. I'm not too sure how wise it is to base one's faith in God in either "theory" as, to my knowldge, both can't really be demonstrated as being the case apart from some amount of faith being exerted.

When you get right down to it, isn't faith required both in the belief in God (whatever our notions of God may be) and the belief in evolutionary theory? Is it all that wise to base one's ideas on God in a theory of empirical reality that is still unproven as undeniable fact?

I know the author stuggled mightily with this conc...

2009-09-03T16:53:05.285-07:00

I know the author stuggled mightily with this concept. Yes, this unique way of thinking of God connects well to those who have gone before us. Continuing the tradition of questioning and constantly reconciling what we do know with what may be appears to be am extremely valid position. I look forward to reading this book in depth so I can search for my own definition of God.

I, like yourself, have found the traditional forms...

2009-07-28T09:05:21.245-07:00

I, like yourself, have found the traditional forms of imaging God problematic. I, however, do not necessarily find the concepts of "God as energy" nearly so problematic. The reason I do not find the concept nearly so problematic is due to the current challenges that science is wrestling with in regard to the actual composition of the universe. Of all the matter in the universe, only about 4% is composed of the "stuff" (visible matter) that we are accustomed to: protons, neutrons, electrons, and the other sub-atomic particles that we have been able to verify. Another 23% of the universe's matter is "dark matter": materials that we cannot see or apprehend or verify, other than the effect that such matter has on light. The remaining 73% of the universe's composition is "dark energy", a force that is causing the continued acceleration of all visible matter away from other visible matter. At this point in the universe's history, much of the visible matter still stays in proximity to other visible matter, a process that is believed to be a function of the cohesive effect of visible and dark matter against the repulsive nature of dark energy. However, as time continues, that cohesive effect will continue to diminish.

Both the concepts of dark matter and dark energy, though, lend - for me - the ability to apprehend and comprehend of a God who is "other", but also "with us". At the very moment that I write these comments, untold amounts of dark matter and dark energy pass through my physical being without directly interacting on the physical composition of my person. Dark matter and dark energy do not interact with visible matter in that way. However, it is just as much here as the visible matter that I interact with: my keyboard, my computer, the electrons that communicate my actions and thoughts. It is here - and in much greater abundance - than any of the other "stuff" that I am seeing and interacting with. Yet, it might as well be a million miles away due to its lack of influence on my being.

Some of the dispositive questions to such a notion would be: If it was ever possible to "capture" such dark matter or energy, would it then be possible to "capture" the "God of energy"? How can something be with us, influence the visible matter of the universe (such as bending light) and still not interact with that visible matter? Further, if God were an energy not unlike such dark energy or matter, would God have existed as such prior to the origin of the "visibile" universe, the Original Energon?

I am not prepared to dispense of "God as energy", though - as you note - I do not embrace the mystical interpretations that others have adopted in the light of science's inability - at this point - to apprehend these other energies. However, I will contend that there are mysteries which science - even for all of its advances - is unable to comprehend or confirm in a substantive way that leave me still wondering if, at least in the instances of dark matter and energy, we might not still be able to conceive of a God who is "as near to us as our own being", but as "other" from us as could conceivably be imagined.

Looking forward to delivery and reading of your book.

As Vladimir says: “Behind this veil of gentleness ...

2009-06-10T18:24:59.065-07:00

As Vladimir says: “Behind this veil of gentleness and peace, night is charging and will burst upon us – pop! – just when we least expect it. That’s how it is on this bitch of an earth.”

As POZZO says (with stage directions, which are always very important in Beckett):
But– (hand raised in admonition)– but behind this veil of gentleness and peace, night is charging (vibrantly) and will burst upon us (snaps his fingers) pop! like that! (his inspiration leaves him) just when we least expect it. (Silence. Gloomily.) That's how it is on this bitch of an earth.

"It would be a great cause for concern if we becam...

2009-04-13T12:43:00.000-07:00

"It would be a great cause for concern if we became a nation of individuals who care only about conventional success and pleasure."

But America is a nation concerned with little more than the success and pleasure of each individual. Point to any of the current social economic or social problems and look for a root cause. At the root of any of these problems are a large group of individuals who only cared about themselves. Take the failing auto industry... if that business model had been set up with any sort of moral principal it would have had a maximum as well as a minimum wage in place and not just a cut throat every man for himself type of model. In so capping both ends there would not be such an enormous disparity in the range of wages and the excess (an believe me 30Mil in bonuses is EXCESSIVE) could go into stuff like R&D (to sustain the business and grow the tech) and infrastructure support (have you seen the road in MI and looked at the medical system).

The country that has pioneered a nation built under "one god" has also lead the way for humankind to be the most selfish narcissistic pandered and irresponsible it has ever been or ever will be in it's history. You cannot turn the new on without seeing someone bitching about some problem and saying "Someone has to do something about this!" Yes they do.. if you see it happening you have a moral responsibility to try and help. But the US lacks those morals that a religion should have offered and instead you quietly walk away saying "it's not my problem."

Since the practice of using religion has OBVIOUSLY failed, what then? Stop using it as a crutch. The Constitution does allow for complete separation and it should actually enforce it. But, that said, good citizens should be rewarded. There needs to be a paradigm shift. If everyone started right now and stopped saying it's someone else's fault and bore part of the blame for the problem the country faces then perhaps in a generation the children growing up right now may have kids of their own who give a damn about something other than their own personal money and would revel in seeing the group succeed.

Labeling people does nothing for society. It just removes them one step and allows you to point a finger at them and say "they are to blame, not me."

A postscript from Anon2:Perhaps the label "Knowers...

2009-02-01T12:03:00.000-08:00

A postscript from Anon2:
Perhaps the label "Knowers" implies that believers don't know enough, which is not the intent or issue. On reflection, "Accepters" is a better term. These are people who accept facts and theories, and also accept what is not known or understood without the requirement to explain such matters. So the world is made of Believers and Accepters all with equal validity. My guess is that Accepters have plenty of room for Believers as equal in all ways, but that some Believers have no room for Accepters, and not even other Believers whose beliefs differ from their own.

Anonymous2 replies:Labels are one issue I raised. ...

2009-01-31T11:40:00.000-08:00

Anonymous2 replies:
Labels are one issue I raised. Believers with a faith versus non-believers is one set. Believers with a faith versus Knowers who are simply happy with only what is known, and require no additional explanations of where things come from or where they are going.
Separately, there is the issue of motives. Is there room for everyone, or only for the ones who think the "right" things? Reasonable people with or without faith would say "Sure." My argument is that there are plenty of Believers, though a minority, who say "No. There's only room for those who think like me." I am not aware of any Knowers who would exclude Believers. So the question is where is the negativity coming from and who shall work to stop it? In a word, it's tolerance.

To the second "Anonymous": So "Believers" don't re...

2009-01-27T15:42:00.000-08:00

To the second "Anonymous": So "Believers" don't really "know" like the "Knowers" do? And priests hold power because they tell their believers what to believe? I'm sorry, but this is simply not how faith works. Faith and science do not have to be isolated entities, and not even something like the Big Bang Theory does anything to disprove God. Actually, given the slim scientific chances of the Big Bang theory happening, one would not be totally off his rocker to think that maybe there was a divine hand behind the banging.

But that's not what I want to get into. If we address division, why not point to the little joke the reverend had at the end of his benediction? That, more than anything, serves to divide, when one group of people--whites in this case--are made a joke and made to seem inherently wrong throughout American history. If anything remotely close to this would have been said about a perceived minority in this country, people would have wanted the speaker's head.

This race issue is alot like the God issue. The real cancer in our society is not from any one viewpoint, but from this notion that our world is governed by absolutes. If a person has faith, than he doesn't know anything like the real knowers do. He MUST ignore science. On the other hand, if a person is a non-believer, he or she must be vile somehow. He MUST be destined for hell. It is silly and frankly, adolescent, to have this back and forth argument as if we come from two sides of the spectrum and nowhere in between. Is it too difficult to just let people be where they need to be in the journey of life? Too often believers are shut down in the name of another's "rights" or "tolerance," but the same "rights" and "tolerance" is not afforded to us. It's similar to the race issue because not all whites have been wrong through history, not all Muslims blew up the World Trade Center, not all Christians were Crusaders. People just need to chill the hell out, pardon the mixed metaphor, and stop trying to be the next great social activist.

One more point about faith that may or may not really fit in the above commentary: Faith is a belief in something greater than ourselves, providing hope for something better, which, if one wants to be inclusive, could provide this nation with the nice dose of humility it needs before something tragic has to happen again.

For "non-believers," it doesn't much matter how an...

2009-01-27T09:17:00.000-08:00

For "non-believers," it doesn't much matter how anyone talks about God. Such talk has the same value as chatter about the events at Roswell. Non-believers are threatening to the priests whose only power comes from telling the believers what to believe, which is why a Warren must exclude non-believers from social humanity. Even the negative term "non-beleiver" is an expression of that linkage, for the non-believer must be less somehow. Ironically, for non-believers it is believers who are routinely cheated by the Rick Warrens. I'd suggest we call ourselves Believers and Knowers instead of Believers and Non-Believers. Of course, many cannot be comfortable with only what is known, and for them belief in what is not known will have to do.

It is refreshing and inspiring to observe the conv...

2009-01-26T12:21:00.000-08:00

It is refreshing and inspiring to observe the convergence of Mr. Correia's reflections with the recent invitation from President Obama to consider wider perspectives on the role of religion. For too long have we simply assumed that this topic was off the table for public discussion. However, it is a matter of urgent global significance that we not only air the topic but find a new synthesis of unreconciled ideas in order that our world can live in peace and appreciation for other cultures. It is the highest, yet often most elusive, form of egocentric behavior to assume that our God is the only God, and that He or She is always aligned with what we perceive to be our interests. I look forward to more from Mr. Correia on this topic.

This reflects my exact thoughts when listening to ...

2009-01-26T08:02:00.000-08:00

This reflects my exact thoughts when listening to Rick Warren's invocation which set a tone that was contrary to the " we are one" message espoused by Obama.

one more question:"The logic of evolution means th...

2009-01-21T11:44:00.000-08:00

one more question:
"The logic of evolution means that humans developed through a random, undirected process, just as dinosaurs and jellyfish did. That would mean that man is not really created in the image of God, but he is simply a product of natural selection."

evolution isnt random. I will explain this to you later. =]
~Your daughter