Agnostic

I am understanding that my “disbelief” in personified gods, including the Christian God, can be described as “agnostic” in a more general sense: I do not make distinctions about God to personify it (Him) because I believe that the divine transcends all distinctions and personalities.  People make distinctions about the Divine and worship personified gods for the sake of being able to more easily relate with the divine and to have mental focus to direct their emotions and will.

I am trying to understand how to wade through this agnosticism for the sake of utilizing these entities for mental focus to direct my will into reality, a spiritual magic.

Why it isn’t “God”

Here is a dictionary definition of “God:”
the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the Supreme Being.
What is a “being?” One definition is “a supernatural entity.”
What is an “entity?” A thing with distinct and independent existence.
By this chain of logic, do I believe in God? No. I do not believe in an independent entity that supersedes us. Is there a supernatural? To me, “supernatural” is only what exists in nature that’s beyond our comprehension. Some religions explain it with an entity, a tangible idea to make it easier for them to understand. I believe in interdependence, that all life and particles are connected. The perception of independence is a product of egoism.

*Aug. 17 2011.  I am understanding that my “disbelief” in personified gods, including the Christian God, can be described as “agnostic” in a more general sense: I do not make distinctions about God to personify it (Him) because I believe that the divine transcends all distinctions and personalities.  People make distinctions about the Divine and worship personified gods for the sake of being able to more easily relate with the divine and to have mental focus to direct their emotions and will.*

One time, in trying to understand how so many different religions and world views can exist simultaneously in the same world, I dabbled in the belief that there is no absolute truth.

Absolute: a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things.

However, I have heard Christianity make a legitimate argument against the possibility of no absolute truth, that there has to be a singular cause, force, or meaning behind our existence. If life is without meaning than we shouldn’t have ever come to find out that there is no meaning.
Rather than there not being an absolute truth, I say it is intangible, that there is no adequate means of conveying it through literacy or speech.

There is an ultimate reality underlying all phenomena. The term for this passed down from the Hindu tradition is “Brahman” (not to be confused with a member of the highest hindu caste). I do not believe that this ultimate reality is a being that Christianity calls “God.” What else could it be?

The wisdom of Lao-tzu conveyed in the Tao Te Ching makes reference to the Eternal Way, which he calls the Tao. He opens with “The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name.” This philosophy backs the notion that it is something indescribable by earthly means. “The mystery itself is the doorway to all understanding.” To best summarize how to act in harmony with the Tao is the Chinese term “Wu Wei,” which most literally means “non action.” This does not imply that one is to never conduct any behavior, but rather to behave or act effortlessly so that one may be in natural accord.
One may ask, “what am I to be in accord with?” “Is the Tao internal or external? Is it imminent or transcendent?” To make such distinctions is not the Tao.

Where in our existence do distinctions play a role? (discussion for later)

Consciousness in its subjectivity can be a powerful thing. I believe that in many different religious paths people make conscious contact with the ultimate reality or the sum total of all phenomenon. One may call this God, but I have problems with the distinctions that Christianity makes.

In my own religious or spiritual path, I actively accept the wisdom from and the paths of many different religious traditions. I accept the wisdom of Jesus Christ where he does not arrogantly put himself before all else. (“I am the way.”) He is not the only way. I believe that the path of the Buddha, which has been summarized by the Dali Lama as “an-atman,” or non-self, is a power framework for eradicating egoism and to actualize our interdependence and oneness with the world around us and the sum total of all phenomena.

peace or conflict

Many people grow up in specific religious traditions. Most people learn to categorize and compartmentalize things and ideas in life, particularly in regards to religion.
How important is it to understand how your religion is different from another’s?
How important is it to understand the similarity in the potential of different people’s religion?

To some people, the most important thing is to put one’s own beliefs over another’s. More specifically, I think we see conflict when people view their religion as a team, a division that is more right than another. There is conflict when you attach to your religious team and fight to be heard as more right, like a debate contest.

Rather, it is important that we not view religions as teams or sides. We should view our religious traditions we originate from as sources of wisdom and guidance in our lives as opposed to incontrovertible truths. It is important to view our religion not as something absolute and concrete. Stagnation is not an option, as the world and everything is transient. Some things will remain the same, though the only real truth does not lie in words, but in the silence where we find peace.

it’s my religion

I kind of originally wanted this blog to be as objective as possible.  However, it might be better use of this blog for me to give some insight on my particular take on religion.  It could be debated that no matter how much I think I’m objective about religion, there will be people that will disagree with my analysis of religion.  As one person in a Bible study said to the group onetime: “I don’t look at Christianity as “religion.”  To me, it is the truth and the way.”  -And then I would say she’s at the opposite end of “narrow-minded.”

As I’ve said before, I view religion as the expression of spirituality with discipline.  Spirituality is something that any person probably has.  Some people don’t fuel it.

My being a member of organized religion probably helped me with human/spiritual development.  I don’t believe that any specific religious tradition is an absolute reality in itself.  To come to this conclusion required much studying of religion that most people don’t have the time, resources, or know-how to do.  Some religious traditions are better defined than others, however, you will always find variations within traditions.  This might lead others to believe that maybe they are frameworks of thought/belief.  Are some frameworks more correct than others?

I would consider myself pluralist. This is not a religion.  You could say I have my own religion, as I partake of “spiritual goods” and wisdom from many religious traditions.  I was raised to believe that it is wrong to create your own religion.  I don’t expect my religion to be a religious tradition of it’s own.  I understand that it is dynamic to fit my worldview and needs at the time.  After all, one of my beliefs is life is transient, and so are people.  This comes from the Buddha.  I would like to think that I would never contradict myself, however, maybe there is harmony in contradictions?  That’s a talk for another time.  Fact of the matter is, there is an infinite amount of knowledge in the world and I am finite.  Different pieces of wisdom will give me insight into living life and managing my existence as this dynamic life… and brain… unfold.

Christianity/monotheism and I:
I was raised Catholic. I rubbed shoulders with and studied protestant Christianity. I am bored with Christianity. I’m opposed to the incontrovertible nature of monotheism. “God” is an idea. To quantify it is to belittle it. Our descriptions of it help us to relate to it on superficial levels. Our descriptions of it are not the ultimate reality. The “Bible” is not the only book. It is not the center of the universe. I believe the old testament is a story about the history of a specific lineage of followers of Yahweh. Yahweh is not the ultimate/universal reality but a description. Jews did and do have a real relation with this idea. It is a force in their lives.
I believe Jesus was a Jew with temporal lobe epilepsy. I believe his condition gave him particular insight into life. I can choose to believe his lessons without believing he’s the monotheistic universal/ultimate reality, even if he said that he is God.

“Thus, as a mother with her own life guards the life of her own child, let all embracing thoughts for all that lives be thine.” Metta Sutta of Buddhism

Sigmund Freud says religion is an illusion. The Buddha says life is an illusion.

Perhaps our distinctions between life and religion are an illusion.

Religion as ritual.

Religio: to be bound to…

-Attachment to ritual.

– Individuals conduct routines to enact their understanding of their place in the cosmos, and communities synchronize their behaviors for the sake of harmony amongst themselves.

Religion as expression of spirituality.

Religion: the expression of spirituality, often done in the form of tradition.

Spirituality: the connection to something larger than oneself; the acknowledged human inclination to connect with something larger than oneself; transcendence of finite, temporal, and material based existence.

The problem with this definition is it says what it is not as opposed to what it is.  What is larger than oneself?  It is negativistic as opposed to positivistic, which is contrary to western scientific thought.

The conscious experience

If one’s existence is based on his consciousness, which is subjective and individualized, what is reality?  What is the same about every person’s experience?  What is the same about the world to every person’s senses?  It would seem that we come to understand reality by way of our mind, where it is observed and interpreted.

In statistics and research, there are two dimensions for understanding the soundness of a study: validity and accuracy.  Validity is the dimension of the how well the study represents reality.  Accuracy is the dimension of how well the study can produce consistent results.  The field of science works on the assumption that there is an absolute reality, that there is no mystery, only the unexplained, that there are sound objective empirical ways of measuring it, and hence everyone can understand the same truths about the world.  I would argue that even though a group of scientists are using the same method and external lens to understand an absolutely real truth, there is an internal lens that can cause the individuals to experience this truth differently.  This absolutely real truth becomes phenomenon, a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen. This means that just because it is observed, does not mean that it is absolutely “proven.”  This subjectification of the phenomenon may not be seen sheerly due to language.  The words they use to communicate about and describe the fact or situation are the same, but not perfectly descriptive.

This lens individuals use to observe, perceive, and understand the world is the mind, or consciousness.  It isn’t perfect, but it’s who we are.  Our thoughts are restricted to the limited amount of space inside our head.We know that the nature or the size of the universe is infinite.  Our understanding of that goes as far as our ability to understand what is at the end of infinity.  By all means, it is irrelevant to our earthly finite nature.  The consciousness is invalid because we cannot possibly know everything of universe nor the everything of the next person’s conscious experience.  It is inaccurate due to the lack of correlation between different people’s experiences and the lack of consistency in a given individual’s experience.  The individual’s understanding of the world is never the same and always changing.  Individuals forget facts and events and memories are distorted or manipulated by similar but different stimuli.

Take into consideration an eye witness who saw a car wreck scene.  Five minutes after the event when asked to  describe the scene, the individual did not describe broken glass on the ground.  A few days later in a court room when asked if there was broken glass from the wreckage on the ground after being described the intensity at which the cars collided, the witness says “yes” in reasonable understanding that nasty car collisions result in glass on the ground.  Was there broken glass on the ground?

It is true that through the methods and language of science, there is a high level of agreement on most earthly phenomenon.  However, some of the big life questions, the “why” questions, aren’t as easily agreed upon.

“Cogito, ergo sum.”

René Descartes said “Cogito, ergo sum,” or “I think, therefore I am.”  This became a foundational element of western philosophy.  I would reword this as, “I am conscious of my existence, hence I exist.”  I say this with appreciation that my consciousness is the foundation of me, my existence, and the ego.  It is how I know everything.

We would not ask the question “do I exist?” if we didn’t.  Higher level order thinking or abstraction is a product of our consciousness.  Humans have developed this through evolution, divine intervention, or whatever.  It is what allows us and consequently compels us to seek the answer to big questions.  As C.S. Lewis said, “If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe, and therefore no creature with eyes, we should never know it was dark.”

What is Religious Studies?

“Religious Studies” is commonly misinterpreted as Theology or Seminarian Studies.  A short definition I like to give is “The academic study of religion without devotion,” like taking a step back and analyzing it and philosophizing about it in light of all the dimensions that influence it and are influenced by it.  Here are some mission statements of some fairly prestigious Religious Studies departments:

“The Religious Studies program at Franklin & Marshall seeks to help students understand the nature of religion. Since religious traditions cannot be studied in isolation merely as a set of beliefs, students gain a thorough understanding of how religious beliefs interact with and are shaped by culture, art, politics, philosophy, and science. This multidimensional approach sets this program apart from most others and provides our students with a broad and deep understanding of the entire realm of religious issues.“

“Religion is an essential part of humanistic studies in a liberal arts education. The study of religion is one way to establish a view of reality and of the meaning of human existence as individuals and as social beings in relation to ultimate reality.

The goals of the department are to help students:

-understand the nature of religion

-understand both Western and non-Western religious traditions

-develop critical and analytical skills for examining the various religious systems offered in a pluralistic society

-examine their own religious perceptions.”

“The overarching purpose of the religious studies department is to introduce students to the academic study of religion using a variety of methodological and theoretical approaches. The department educates students to be responsible global citizens by emphasizing the key role religion plays in history, politics, culture, and the human search for ultimate meaning and values.”

“To encourage an interdisciplinary perspective to analyze religion’s complexity

To train students in the application of the key interpretative approaches in religious studies

To provide a broad understanding of religion as a human phenomenon

To comprehend the interaction of religion with society and culture

To promote independent study and research to prepare students who are interested in continuing in the field of religion.”

Once again, it is very vague in understanding where religion is and where it isn’t in the human experience, which makes the study very broad and diverse.  Pursue “What is Religion?”