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.
