10.23.06
Marilynne Robinson on Dawkins
The God Delusion
Marilynne Robinson
Richard Dawkins is an Oxford professor and the author of a series of best-selling books that popularize a version of evolutionary theory. According to Dawkins, evolution is driven by “replicators”—genes, and also “memes,” viruses of the mind that spread and persist in human populations. Those genes and memes that replicate most effectively become dominant, with every consequence for the natural world and for civilization and history. The usefulness of this notion, which does have the virtue of simplicity, is a question obscured by the demands Dawkins has placed on it. By his lights this is the universal etiology, a fully sufficient refutation of religion in every form and the basis for a new view of humankind. Under the name of Darwinism it has been thrown into the rhetorical wars that seem, to the combatants, to pit science against religion. As argument it has taken on the character of this environment, getting lost in the miasma of its own supposed implications.
It is never a surprise to find Dawkins full of indignation. In his new book, The God Delusion, he has turned the full force of his intellect against religion, and all his verbal skills as well, and his humane learning, too, which is capacious enough to include some deeply minor poetry. Truly this book is a sword which turneth every way, to judge by the table of contents at least. There is no doubt in Dawkins’s mind that the evils of the world are to be laid at the doorstep of the church, mosque, and synagogue, and that science must be our salvation. It is the “God delusion,” which has afflicted almost everyone almost anywhere through the whole of recorded time, that has made us behave so badly. And Science (by which he really means his version of Darwinism) is our potential rescuer from this vale of tears. We need only to become more Dawkins-like in our thinking. This is a fairly cheery view of things beside others on offer, at least as regards the ongoing life of the planet, which he seems to assume.
Still, it is a difficult thing to set reason aside, and the habit of critical thought, and the sense of the past, not to mention the morning news. While I was reading this hook, I noticed an article about a speech the British physicist Stephen Hawking delivered in Hong Kong. In it he said that the early colonization of other planets would be necessary to save humankind from extinction, given the likelihood of disaster that would render Earth uninhabitable. He mentioned nuclear war and biological weapons as probable agents of catastrophe. Another scientist, when asked for his view of Hawking’s remarks, noted that Hawking was speaking outside his area of expertise. Much better, said he, to think in the short term about burrowing under Antarctica.
I have never seen the suggestion anywhere that the threat of imminent catastrophe on a “biblical scale”—a phrase favored by journalists— which has hung over the world for more than half a century, might have consequences for the stability of the global public mind. Is it really any wonder so many people turn to mass-market apocalyptics? It is amazing, when the movers and shakers of the so-called postwar have devoted so much effort and rhetoric to policies with names like Mutual Assured Destruction, that anyone could be surprised to find some significant part of the populace reading up on End Times. But here is Richard Dawkins to dispel the clouds of fear and gloom — that is, religion. He is by profession a dedicated promoter of the Public Understanding of Science. In his view, understanding is clearly not to be achieved by looking at history, or at present or potential consequences of science and its practice for that same Public. I note these omissions because Dawkins implicitly defines science as a clear-eyed quest for truth, chaste as an algorithm, while religion is atavistic, mad, and mired in crime.
Since Dawkins’s declared intention in this book is to hearten the many atheists who, he is sure, exist, but who conceal their convictions for fear of disapproval or rejection, no doubt his tendentiousness is meant to be enjoyed by the like-minded, as is so much that is called “objectivity” in these fulminating times. Yet Dawkins is in earnest in presenting himself as a man in possession of liberating truth — another characteristic of the genre — and his readership is sure to be much wider than the crypto-atheist community. So it seems fair, if not strictly possible, to take him as seriously as he takes himself.
These are, certainly, troubled times. The tectonics of culture are suddenly active, and all the old rifts and stresses and pressures that seemed to have fallen dormant have awakened at once, with a great deal of portentous rumbling and spouting. The God Delusion is another instance of this phenomenon. Like so much of the contemporary clamor, it is out to name and denounce the great Satan, which in this case is religion. This view is commonplace now, in part because the institutions of religion, like the institutions of journalism and government, have done a great deal to trivialize or disgrace themselves lately.
The gravest questions about the institutions of contemporary science seem never to be posed, though we know the terrors of all-out conflict between civilizations would include innovations, notably those dread weapons of mass destruction, being made by scientists for any country with access to their skills. Granting for the purposes of argument that Dawkins is correct in the view that the majority of great scientists are atheists, we may then exclude religion from among the factors that recruit them to this somber work. We are left with nationalism, steady employment, good pay, the chance to do research that is lavishly funded and, by definition, cutting edge — familiar motives of a kind fully capable of disarming moral doubt. In any case, the crankiest imam, the oiliest televangelist, can, at his worst, only urge circumstances a degree or two farther toward the use of those exotic war technologies that are always ready, always waiting. If it is fair to speak globally of religion, it is also fair to speak globally of science.
There is a pervasive exclusion of historical memory in Dawkins’s view of science. Consider this sentence from his preface, which occurs in the context of his vision of a religion-free world: “Imagine . . . no persecution of Jews as ‘Christ-killers.’” In a later chapter he condemns Jews for discouraging “marrying out” and complains that such “wanton and carefully nurtured divisiveness” is “a significant force for evil.” It is of course no criticism to say that he values the tradition of Judaism not at all, since this is only consistent with his view of religion in general. He seems unaware, however, that there was in fact significant intermarriage between Jews and gentiles in Europe as well as secularism and conversion among the Jews, and that this appears only to have fired the anti-Semitic imagination. While it is true that persecution of the Jews has a very long history in Europe, it is also true that science in the twentieth century revived and absolutized persecution by giving it a fresh rationale — Jewishness was not religious or cultural, but genetic. Therefore no appeal could be made against the brute fact of a Jewish grandparent.
Dawkins deals with all this in one sentence. Hitler did his evil “in the name of. . . an insane and unscientific eugenics theory.” But eugenics is science as surely as totemism is religion. That either is in error is beside the point. Science quite appropriately acknowledges that error should be assumed, and at best it proceeds by a continuous process of criticism meant to isolate and identify error. So bad science is still science in more or less the same sense that bad religion is still religion. That both of them can do damage on a huge scale is clear. The prestige of both is a great part of the problem, and in the modern period the credibility of anything called science is enormous. As the history of eugenics proves, science at the highest levels is no reliable corrective to the influence of cultural prejudice but is in fact profoundly vulnerable to it.
There is indeed historical precedent in the Spanish Inquisition for the notion of hereditary Judaism. But the fact that the worst religious thought of the sixteenth century can be likened to the worst scientific thought of the twentieth century hardly redounds to the credit of science. To illustrate the point: Dawkins tells the story of Edgardo Mortara, the Italian Jewish child taken from his family by the police in 1858 and reared by priests because he had been secretly baptized by a maid in his parents’ house. A terrible story indeed. And how might it have been worse? If the child had fallen, as in the next century so many would, into the hands of those who considered his Jewishness biological rather than religious and cultural. To Dawkins’s objection that Nazi science was not authentic science I would reply, first, that neither Nazis nor Germans had any monopoly on these theories, which were influential throughout the Western world, and second, that the research on human subjects carried out by those holding such assumptions was good enough science to appear in medical texts for fully half a century. This is not to single out science as exceptionally inclined to do harm, though its capacity for doing harm is by now unequaled. It is only to note that science, too, is implicated in this bleak human proclivity, and is one major instrument of it.
The nineteenth-century abolitionist, feminist, essayist, and ordained minister Thomas Wentworth Higginson made the always timely point that, in comparing religions, great care must be taken to consider the best elements of one with the best of the other, and the worst with the worst, to avoid the usual practice of comparing, let us say, the fatwa against Salman Rushdie with the Golden Rule. The same principle might be applied in the comparison of religion and science. To set the declared hopes of one against the real-world record of the other is clearly not useful, no matter which of them is flattered by the comparison. What is religion? It is described by Dawkins as a virtually universal feature of human culture. But there is, commingled with it, indisputably and perhaps universally, doubt, hypocrisy, and charlatanism. Dawkins, for his part, considers religion wholly delusional, and he condemns the best of it for enabling all the worst of it. Yet if religion is to be blamed for the fraud done in its name, then what of science? Is it to be blamed for the Piltdown hoax, for the long-credited deceptions having to do with cloning in South Korea? If by “science” is meant authentic science, then “religion” must mean authentic religion, granting the difficulties in arriving at these definitions.
I wish, then, to speak of science in the highest sense of the word, as the astonishingly fruitful human venture into understanding of the world and the universe. The reader may assume a somewhat greater admiration on my part for religion in the highest sense of the word, though I will not go into that here. Science thus defined does not claim to understand gravity, light, or time. This is a very short list of its mystifications, its inquiries, all of which are beautiful to ponder. These three are sufficient to persuade me that conclusions about the ultimate nature of things are, to say the least, premature, and that to suggest otherwise is unscientific. The finer-grained the image of reality physicists achieve, the more alien it appears to every known strategy of comprehension.
The odd thing about Dawkins’s work, considering his job description, is that it does not itself seem the product of a mind informed by the physics of the last century or so. A reader might find it instructive to start with his last chapter, in which he does acknowledge the fact of quantum theory and certain of its implications. This chapter is an interesting lens through which to consider the primary argument of the book, especially his use of physicality and materiality as standards for determining the real and objective existence of anything, along with his use of commonplace experience as the standard of reasonableness and — a favorite word — probability. He does this despite his awareness that the physical and the material are artifacts of the scale at which reality is perceived. For us, he says, “matter is a useful construct.” Quoting Steve Grand, a computer scientist who specializes in artificial intelligence, he offers these thoughts on the fluidity of matter: “Matter flows from place to place and momentarily comes together to be you. Whatever you are, therefore, you are not the stuff of which you are made. If that doesn’t make the hair stand up on the back of your neck, read it again until it does, because it is important.” Earlier, Dawkins attributes the origins of the illusion that we have a soul to the persistence of a childish or primitive tendency toward dualism — “Our innate dualism prepares us to believe in a ’soul’ which inhabits the body rather than being integrally part of the body. Such a disembodied spirit can easily be imagined to move on somewhere else after the death of the body.” Yet the image of deeper reality invoked by him here suggests a basis for the ancient intuition of the persistence of the self despite the transiency of the elements of its physical embodiment.
I do not wish to recruit science to the cause of religion. My point is simply that Dawkins’s critique of religion cannot properly be called scientific. His thinking is reminiscent of logical positivism. That school, however, which meant to carry out a purge of language it considered meaningless, specifically metaphysics and theology, by subjecting statements to the “scientific” test of verifiability, plunged into all sorts of interesting difficulty, as rigorous thought tends to do. Dawkins acknowledges no difficulty. He has a simple-as-that, plain-as-day approach to the grandest questions, unencumbered by doubt, consistency, or countervailing information.
The chapter titled “Why There Almost Certainly Is No God” reflects his reasoning at its highest bent. He reasons thus: A creator God must be more complex than his creation, but this is impossible because if he existed he would be at the wrong end of evolutionary history. To be present in the beginning he must have been unevolved and therefore simple. Dawkins is very proud of this insight. He considers it unanswerable. He asks, “How do they [theists] cope with the argument that any God capable of designing a universe, carefully and foresightfully tuned to lead to our evolution, must be a supremely complex and improbable entity who needs an even bigger explanation than the one he is supposed to provide?” And “if he [God] has the powers attributed to him he must have something far more elaborately and non-randomly constructed than the largest brain or the largest computer we know,” and “a first cause of everything.. . must have been simple and therefore, whatever else we call it, God is not an appropriate name (unless we very explicitly divest it of all the baggage that the word ‘God’ carries in the minds of most religious believers).” At Cambridge, says Dawkins, “I challenged the theologians to answer the point that a God capable of designing a universe, or anything else, would have to be complex and statistically improbable. The strongest response I heard was that I was brutally foisting a scientific epistemology upon an unwilling theology.” Dawkins is clearly innocent of this charge against him. Whatever is being foisted here, it is not a scientific epistemology.
Evolution is the creature of time. And, as Dawkins notes, modern cosmologies generally suggest that time and the universe as a whole came into being together. So a creator cannot very well be thought of as having attained complexity through a process of evolution. That is to say, theists need find no anomaly in a divine “complexity” over against the “simplicity” that is presumed to characterize the universe at its origin. (I use these terms not because I find them appropriate to the question but because Dawkins uses them, and my point is to demonstrate the flaws in his reasoning.) In this context, Dawkins cannot concede, even hypothetically, a reality that is not time-bound, that does not conform to Darwinism as he understands it. Yet in an earlier book, Unweaving the Rainbow, Dawkins remarks that “further developments of the [big bang] theory, supported by all available evidence, suggest that time itself began in this mother of all cataclysms. You probably don’t understand, and I certainly don’t, what it can possibly mean to say that time itself began at a particular moment. But once again that is a limitation of our minds.. . .”
That God exists outside time as its creator is an ancient given of theology. The faithful are accustomed to expressions like “from everlasting to everlasting” in reference to God, language that the positivists would surely have considered nonsense but that does indeed express the intuition that time is an aspect of the created order. Again, I do not wish to abuse either theology or scientific theory by implying that either can be used as evidence in support of the other; I mean only that the big bang in fact provides a metaphor that might help Dawkins understand why his grand assault on the “God Hypothesis” has failed to impress the theists.
The God Delusion has human history and civilization as its subjects, inevitably, considering the pervasiveness of religion. Dawkins dwells particularly on Christianity, since he is most familiar with it, and because its influence is and has been very great. On the one hand, he professes a lingering fondness for the Church of England and regrets that familiarity with the Bible, a great Literature, is in decline. On the other hand, he finds the Old Testament barbarous and abhorrent and the New Testament mawkish and fairly abhorrent as well. His treatment of these texts depends to a striking degree on a “remarkable paper” by John Hartung, an associate professor of anesthesiology and an anthropologist. The paper, titled “Love Thy Neighbor: The Evolution of In- Group Morality,” originally published in 1995, is available on the Web. Dawkins and his wife are thanked in the acknowledgments. Curious readers can form their own impression of its character. A sympathetic review by Hartung of Kevin MacDonald’s A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, with Diaspora Peoples is also of interest. These are murky waters, the kind toward which Darwinism has often tended to migrate.
Dawkins says, “I need to call attention to one particularly unpalatable aspect of its [the Bible's] ethical teaching. Christians seldom realize that much of the moral consideration for others which is apparently promoted by both the Old and New Testaments was originally intended to apply only to a narrowly defined in-group. ‘Love thy neighbor’ didn’t mean what we now think it means. It meant only ‘Love another Jew.” As for the New Testament interpretation of the text, “Hartung puts it more bluntly than I dare: ‘Jesus would have turned over in his grave if he had known that Paul would be taking his plan to the pigs.” Pigs being, of course, gentiles.
There are two major objections to be made to this reading. First, the verse quoted here, Leviticus 19:18, does indeed begin, “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people,” language that allows a narrow interpretation of the commandment. But Leviticus 19:33—34 says “When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. . . . You shall love the alien as yourself.” In light of these verses, it is wrong by Dawkins’s own standards to argue that the ethos of the law does not imply moral consideration for others. (It would be interesting to see the response to a proposal to display this Mosaic law in our courthouses.) Second, Jesus provided a gloss on 19:18, the famous Parable of the Good Samaritan. With specific reference to this verse, a lawyer asks Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus tells a story that moves the lawyer to answer that the merciful Samaritan—a non-Jew— embodies the word “neighbor.” That the question would be posed to Jesus, or by Luke, is evidence that the meaning of the law was not obvious or settled in antiquity. In general, Dawkins’s air of genteel familiarity with Scripture, though becoming in one aware as he is of its contributions to the arts, dissipates under the slightest scrutiny.
Nor is Dawkins’s argument from history impressive. He cheerfully posits a “Zeitgeist” that wafts us to ever higher states of ethical sensitivity, granting lapses, specifically those associated with Hitler and Stalin: “We are forced to realize that Hitler, appalling though he was, was not quite as far outside the Zeitgeist of his time as he seems from our vantage-point today. How swiftly the Zeitgeist changes — and it moves in parallel, on a broad front, throughout the educated world.” Dawkins fails to note that the racial anti-Semitism that arose in Germany in the later nineteenth century had appeared to recede, until Hitler and others revived it. The article on anti- Semitism in the 11th Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, published in 1911. describes the movement as a German “craze” that had “shown little activity since 1893.” According to the article, “While it remained a theory of nationality and a fad of the metaphysicians, it made considerable noise in the world without exercising much practical influence.” So, although Dawkins’s Zeitgeist might seem a harmless fudge, a spiritus ex machina meant to rescue his Darwinian atheism from the charges of bleakness and emptiness, it excuses his consistent inattentiveness to history. It is precisely the swiftness with which the Zeitgeist can change that makes it profoundly unworthy of confidence.
If the only bad effect of the notion to yield a highly selective reading of the past by dismissing the modem horrors as anomaly, that in itself would he grounds for objection. But it enables a misreading of the history it chooses to acknowledge. For example, Dawkins quotes a passage from an essay by T. H. Huxley, Darwin’s contemporary and champion, in which Huxley says the black man will not “be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival [that is, the white man], in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites.” Dawkins cringes at this, but, he says, “good historians don’t judge statements from past times by the standards of their own.” He finds evidence for his advancing moral Zeitgeist in the crudeness of Huxley’s racism: “The whole wave keeps moving, and even the vanguard of an earlier century (T. H. Huxley is the obvious example) would find itself way behind the laggers of a later century.”
But *was* Huxley in the vanguard? The essay from which Dawkins quotes, “Emancipation — Black and White,” published in 1865, is an explicit rejection of the belief in racial equality active in America before and for some time after the Civil War. Huxley dismisses “standards” that had long been salient among his contemporaries. He is saying that emancipation may well prove to have very mingled consequences — “emancipation may convert the slave from a well-fed animal into a pauperised man” — and that the egalitarian hopes the movement inspired should be rejected. This was the crucial period of Reconstruction and of the ratification of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which established the full rights of citizenship to everyone born or naturalized in this country. Its passage was the work of emancipationists, and it was meant to create meaningful political equality for African Americans, among others. The vanguard in the period in which Huxley wrote were those Christian abolitionists whose intentions he dismissed as, of course, at odds with science. Huxley’s racism, like Hitler’s, is not a standard from which ineluctable progress can be inferred but instead a proof of the power of atavism.
Dawkins allows that our upward moral drift is a “meandering sawtooth” — he is admired for his prose — but he seems not to be alert to historical specifics. The United States never suffered a more grievous moral setback than when it allowed thinking like Huxley’s to make a dead letter of the 14th Amendment. As for the lesser issues of justice that arose in the wake of slavery, Huxley had this to say: “whatever the position of stable equilibrium into which the laws of social gravitation may bring the negro, all responsibility for the result will henceforward Lie between Nature and him. The white man may wash his hands of it, and the Caucasian conscience be void of reproach for evermore. And this, if we look to the bottom of the matter, is the real justification for the abolition policy.” No, he wasn’t joking.
Finally, there is the matter of atheism itself, Dawkins finds it incapable of belligerent intent — “why would anyone go to war for the sake of an absence of belief?” It is a peculiarity of our language that by war we generally mean a conflict between nations, or at least one in which both sides are armed. There has been persistent violence against religion —I n the French Revolution, in the Spanish Civil War, in the Soviet Union, in China. In three of these instances the extirpation of religion was part of a program to reshape society by excluding certain forms of thought, by creating an absence of belief. Neither sanity nor happiness appears to have been served by these efforts. The kindest conclusion one can draw is that Dawkins has not acquainted himself with the history of modern authoritarianism.
Indeed, Dawkins makes a bold attack on tolerance as it is manifested in society’s permitting people to rear their children in their own religious traditions. He turns an especially cold eye on the Amish:
“There is something breathtakingly condescending, as well as inhumane, about the sacrificing of anyone, especially children, on the altar of ‘diversity’ and the virtue of preserving a variety of religious traditions. The rest of us are happy with our cars and computers, our vaccines and antibiotics. But you quaint little people with your bonnets and breeches, your horse buggies, your archaic dialect and your earth-closet privies, you enrich our lives. Of course you must be allowed to trap your children with you in your seventeenth-century time warp, otherwise something irretrievable would be lost to us: a part of the wonderful diversity of human culture.”
The fact that the Amish are pacifists whose way of life burdens this beleaguered planet as little as any to be found in the Western world merits not even a mention.
Yet Dawkins himself has posited not only memes but, since these mind viruses are highly analogous to genes, a meme pool as well. This would imply that there are more than sentimental reasons for valuing the diversity that he derides. Would not the attempt to narrow it only repeat the worst errors of eugenics at the cultural and intellectual level? When the Zeitgeist turns Gorgon, the impulses toward cultural and biological eugenics have proved to be one and the same. It is diversity that makes any natural system robust, and diversity that stabilizes culture against the eccentricity and arrogance that have so often called themselves reason and science.
© 2006 Harper’s Magazine Foundation
Zak Kilhoffer said,
January 13, 2007 at 3:17 pm
“The fact that the Amish are pacifists whose way of life burdens this beleaguered planet as little as any to be found in the Western world merits not even a mention.”
Dawkins didn’t argue that the Amish are as harmful as fundamentalist Christians and Muslims. He only pointed out that diversity is a sorry reason to deny yourself of the conveniences, pleasures, and medicines of modern life. Furthermore, though a note-worthy fraction of Amish children leave their communities in their teens, the majority have been sufficiently brainwashed to the point that they never even LEARN about modern ways of life.
The Amish people aren’t a burden on our society, but have they done anything to contribute to it?
I find it humorous that Robinson tried using the Bible to justify tolerance. This is just ridiculous, as is anything you try to support with Biblical reference. No matter which version of the bible you read (original Hebrew text, NIV, King James, etc.), you can find material to support virtually ANY feelings you have. Just look at the Westborough Baptist Church for a modern example. When you find seemingly irreconcileable verses, you must choose one or the other to live by. Take enough of these scenarios, and you’ve got your own personalized religion. If the Bible were clear-cut, then why are there (to my knowledge) hundreds of denominations?
Ben Dueholm said,
January 31, 2007 at 11:15 am
Furthermore, though a note-worthy fraction of Amish children leave their communities in their teens, the majority have been sufficiently brainwashed to the point that they never even LEARN about modern ways of life.
Most of us live substantially the lives our parents raised us to live–with all our “conveniences, pleasures, and medicines.” We don’t leave. Are we ‘brainwashed’?
Dan Wilkewitz said,
February 8, 2007 at 1:24 am
I sat and read about a quarter of Dawkin’s book in B&N and searched for some rebuttal and found Marilynne Robinson’s article here. I appreciate her response to what I see as Dawkin’s clearly selective reasoning in his positioning of religion as the great evil - fully delusional. To be an atheist is a deep convenience. How refreshing it must be to be in charge of the universe. Dawkin’s arrogance is his high business and this business runs by its own rules, only vaguely resembling the science he holds so passionately dear. I agree with Ravi Zacharias who said (in paraphrase) that atheism is not a rational decision, but rather a moral one. It’s prime focus is to remove external constraints so that one can live as one wishes, without true regard to an authority. Dawkin’s imagines himself as a liberator. In reality, he is a proponent of the first lie told.
David Charlton said,
February 20, 2007 at 3:01 pm
The Amish people aren’t a burden on our society, but have they done anything to contribute to it?
In reply to this statement - must every group justify a contribution to society? And what, exactly, constitutes a contribution? The Amish are people of peace, which seems to me to be a tremendous contribution in our war-torn world. They are environmentalists, although I don’t know if they would use that word to describe themselves. Amish farms are a model of sustainability and taking care about reliance upon chemicals. They are not materialistic and debt-ridden, as so much of our society. So it seems to me that a peace-loving, environmentally sensitive, economically sane group contributes a tremendous amount to our society.
Andrew Krause said,
March 6, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Robinson’s critique of Dawkins is perhaps the most intelligent and apparently rational I’ve seen. However, it was ultimately unsatisfying and unconvincing by virtue of its glowing omissions and twisted semantics. The most egregious material error she makes is to dismiss Dawkins’ strongest argument on God’s plausibility (God must be greater and hence more improbable than His creation) by giving a reasonably good attack on his secondary weaker co-argument based on evolutionary tautology. She then dismisses the whole thing without addressing the main point simply stating it has “failed to impress theistsâ€. Only those caught in irrational dogma could fail to acknowledge the power of this argument. It also predates Dawkins and has never been definitively countered by any theist or philosopher without resorting to faith or dogma.
As a scientist, my main objection to Robinson however is her implicit labeling of science as a de facto religion though she never so states explicitly. She does that to give herself license to level her perceived good and evil in each. She would have us believe that science is no better than religion as both are responsible for dangerous theories and destruction. This is where she so skillfully twists and contorts semantics. Science is not the atom bomb or eugenics. Science is the process that produced both of these and in the later case, also overturned it, as science often does its conjectures.
Yes, one can make the argument that science has parallels to religion. They both have principles, products, icons, and priesthoods of a sort I suppose. The product of science is technology – often misused. Some scientists can form an influential priesthood for awhile it seems, obscuring the search for truth. But in science truth eventually prevails because the core and definition of Science is the scientific method. And this is nothing more than reason and logic skeptically applied to the development of testable hypotheses about the universe. This is at the heart of Robinson’s obfuscation.
Science, in proper contextual contrast to Robinson’s argument at least, is not it’s technology, it’s practitioners, or it’s facts and theories. There is no such thing as “bad science†in this context. There are bad scientists, dangerous technologies, and false theories (temporary unless codified by religious/governmental dogma). And I might add that what is bad about these things is usually how they are used and manipulated by those in power, who tend to believe in god(s).
Robinson purposely, I believe, refuses to acknowledge Dawkin’s core thesis, namely, that reason and skeptical inquiry (at the core of science) are good and faith (as he defines it) and dogma (at the core of most religions) is bad. If we were only to discard the delusion of faith without evidence and replace it with reason and skeptical inquiry we would be far better off as a species.
Blackblade said,
March 9, 2007 at 11:08 am
An interesting conversation would be, I think, to ask ‘why are so many of the world’s great scientists atheists ?’. Were they brought up in theistic or atheistic environments ?
Statistically, there are a far higher percentage of scientist atheists than the norm for the population.
Therefore, since they are derived from the host population, something must have rendered them more atheistic than the norm.
Could it be that ‘the Scientific method’ (Science is simply latin for knowledge, it is meaningless unless accompanied by an area Physical Science, Biological Science etc etc), an approach which treats claims/hypotheses/derivations sceptically, starts them questioning the tenets of their religion, whichever one it may be, and that under sceptical and detailed testing the claims of any religion can be shown to be contradictory, illogical and, in some cases, provably fallacious.
From there, it’s a very simple step to realise that if the fundamental rationale for a religion is faith and that there are no provable elements then the claims of one faith look remarkably like the claims for any other.
Is Christianity ‘correct’ and Islam ‘incorrect’ or vice versa ? There is no logical answer to that question only one based on belief. So, whose belief is correct ?
Casiano P. Mayor Jr. said,
March 9, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Marillynne Robinson has cleanly exposed Richard Dawkins as a charlatan in science in the same sense as the Christian televangilists who preach that the Bible should not be interpreted but taken literally are in religion. Dawkins is not searching for “truth” but is just another fanatic on the other side of the cultural divide.
Blackblade said,
March 12, 2007 at 12:06 pm
I have to say Casiano that I don’t see it that way. She distorts what he says and then points out that the distortion has fallacies - but they’re ones that she adds herself.
As has already been said in this thread by several individuals (including me) science is a method, nothing more. It is not in and of itself truth and Dawkins very honestly highlights this; pointing out several cases where heretofore ‘certainties’ have been abandoned and holding this out as laudable.
The scientific method, as has been pointed out, does not always work from fact to hypothesis but, frequently, the other way around. This is seized on by some to contend that science (usually with a capital S) is the same as a faith.
However, that ignores one major difference. Both faith and science use hypotheses and then endeavour to see if the facts fit them, true. But, faith will not permit the abandonment of the hypothesis if new facts emerge which don’t fit the hypothesis. The scientific method does.
Paul H. Andrews said,
March 16, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Andrews said,
March 16, 2007, at about 10 o’clock
Richard Dawkins’ book about the God-delusion is a collection of learned (and
not so learned) ideas, clear (and not so clear) thinking, convincing (and
unconvincing) arguments–allegedly about God. The key terms used both by
Dawkins and his critics, however, such as “God,” “science,” and “faith,” are
not defined clearly enough to make extended intelligible arguments–one way
or the other. Clear language is the first problem to be solved. As Socrates
–or was it Plato?–long ago demonstated, issues become much clearer when
key terms are defined. In this case, I suggest that each person who wants to
participate in the discussion about the “God delusion” start with his/her
linguistic clarification of the term “God.” Such a start may surprisingly reveal
that this intense argument is not primarily about God after all and that apparent
disagreements tend to dissolve or metamorphose.
Casiano P. Mayor Jr. said,
March 19, 2007 at 8:29 am
I was glad to find out Saturday that somebody has commented on my comment. Well, thanks Blackblade for giving me the opportunity to elaborate on it. I wrote that comment at almost 12 midnight, Saudi Arabian time, and was in a hurry to post it and opted to make a two-liner.
I have taken notes on your comments and those of Andrew Krause that Marilynne Robinson distorted some of Richard Dawkins views. I won’t give any word on this particular observation because I haven’t read Dawkins’s book, The God Delusion. Here in Saudi Arabia, where I work as an office employee, books like it are not allowed to come in.
But surely I see glaring flaws in some of Dawkins’s arguments. Among these is his idea about “our innate dualism.†I zero in on this because Robinson quoted him on this particularly case and, considering Robinson’s reputation as a writer, I presume she won’t misquote Dawkins just to suit an “insidious†end.
Let me repeat the quote here for analysis. “Our innate dualism prepares us to believe in a ‘soul’ which inhibits the body rather than being integrally part of the body. Such a disembodied spirit can easily be imagined to move on somewhere else after the death of the body.â€
That’s “hocus pocus†logic. Dawkins conveniently dismisses the idea that the ‘soul’ is a separate entity from the body and postulated that it is an integral part of the body as if it were a mathematical given or constant like a logarithm. But come to think of it, how did he arrive at the conclusion that the soul is an integral part of the body? There is no concrete evidence for both ideas and, ergo, there could be no definite conclusion that one is right and the other is wrong.
I am aware that much of the conclusions made in science are based on inference. For instance, scientists have inferred gravity from the observation that objects in earth fall instead of soaring up. It is likened to a magnet, although we have seen magnets but none of us – including Isaac Newton – has seen gravity. Simply put, gravity is defined as a “downward pull†of an object but can’t be described like a magnet or other physical objects.
In the case of the ‘soul’ how can we infer whether it is a separate entity within the body or an integral part of the body?
There are books that deal on the subject of the ‘soul’ like “Embraced by the Light†and “A Glimpse of Eternity.†Pardon me for forgetting the names of their authors, but they tell about their “near death†experiences during which the claim to have seen their bodies being mourned when their souls traveled in “astral space†after they were pronounced “clinically dead.†But, of course, science will not even raise a brow to investigate such claims simply because their testimonies can’t be subjected to lab tests. That’s the same case with the paranormal or psychic phenomena.
Also, there have been cases of people with cancer being cured by “pray over†and faith healing after doctors pronounced their illnesses to be terminal and had given them definite time to live. But science does not seem to care investigating such cases as if do not happen at all. Worse, many men of science would immediately dismiss such incidents as hoaxes and then give armchair explanations.
So I beg to disagree with, Blackblade, when he said that “… faith and science use hypothesis and endeavor to see if the facts fit them, true. But faith will not permit the abandonment of the hypothesis if new facts emerge which doesn’t fit the hypothesis. The scientific method does.â€
When other “realities†like psychic phenomena occur, science – or more appropriately physical science - does not abandon its “materialist†hypothesis (I prefer to call it prejudice) to accommodate the idea that there are “realities†that go beyond science and human reason.
Andrew Krause made the observation that Robinson failed to address Dawkins’s “strongest argument on God’s plausibility (God must be greater and hence more improbable than His creation) by giving a reasonably good attack on his secondary weaker co-argument based on evolutionary tautology.â€
Krause added: “She then dismisses the whole thing without addressing the main point simply stating that it has ‘failed to impress the theists’â€. I can empathize with Robinson on this, simply because Dawkins has been so dogmatic in his argument that God should be made part of the evolutionary process, leaving no room for such idea of God being outside space and time. Dawkins’s Science, to quote Robinson, is “his version of Darwinism.â€
Dawkins is not the first atheist intellectual to ruffle the feathers of religion, particularly Christianity. In the 19th century, German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche challenged the foundation of Christianity and predicted its demise. Then came Bertrand Russell. But despite Nietzsche’s bold prediction, Christianity has stood the test of time, so the speak. Why?
The answer is articulated by Dan Brown, author of the Da Vince Code, that there are people who undergo “religious experience†that change their lives completely. I suppose this is the same experience that made C. S. Lewis turn to religion from atheism and Charles Colson, especial counsel for former president Richard Nixon, to abandon politics and take up his ministry for Christ.
My own “religious experience†prompted me to go back to Christianity where I found peace of mind after undergoing a tumultuous past that turned me into an alcoholic when I lost God while I was studying in a secular university in Manila where I took anthropology as an “elective†subject, i.e. not required.
It was a long, painful struggle back to the faith, particularly because I was initially repulsed by Christian books, including those of Norman Vincent Peale. I gradually turned to God after reading the book “Peace of Mind†by Jewish psychoanalyst Joshua Loth Liebman. The change was gradual and then firmly rooted when I learned to – in Lewis’s words – make faith a habit.
I have read Stephen Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time†and, as far as I can remember, he has not shut the door on the possibility of God’s existence. Einstein himself believed in God, who “doesn’t play dice,†although his belief on the divine is much influenced by Baruch Espinos’s idea of “indefinable†God.
I agree with Krause that there are “bad scientists†but not “bad scienceâ€. But I should add that science should be made a tool to pursue “knowledge,†regardless of where it will to, instead of shutting itself to things that can only be proven in lab tests. Science has its own limitations and it is inevitable that where science ends, religion begins.
A few days ago, I read in the online edition of The New York Sunday magazine about “dark matter†and “dark energy†which suggests that science is in its infancy. Indeed, I believe that science is still a baby in a cradle and should not be taken as a new “god†to be worshipped. I also believed that science and religion are two different tools with the same purpose and should not be pitted against each other.
Blackblade said,
March 20, 2007 at 6:53 am
Interesting post Casiano - thank you.
I would strongly agree with some of your postulations; science is definitely in its infancy - our knowledge of the universe is tiny and the more we seem to discover the more we discover there is to find out. I find that unbelievably exciting but, I know, others find it deeply disturbing. science is NOT something to be worshipped - indeed, since it is simply a method that would be bizarre and illogical. science cannot, now, explain everything; our knowledge, for example, of all the mechanisms of the human body is limited and, in some areas, very crude.
However, where I differ, is in my view that what now appears unprovable and ‘magical’ may be perfectly amenable to investigation and examination in the future. For example, Einstein predicted the behaviour of Bose-Einstein Condensate (a state of matter that occurs very very close to absolute zero) long before the technology existed to prove or disprove it in the lab. Once the technology to actually measure and test this was developed it was then possible to prove that he was right but, equally, if that had shown he was incorrect then the theory would have been abandoned.
The existence, or otherwise, of a ’soul’ can’t be proven currently. It may be possible to do so in future. We may discover that there is an electromagnetic (or some other) field generated by the body and call that a soul. We may even discover that it persists for a short while after corporeal death. Scientists are forever being accused of being materialist; given some of the work on Quantum Physics and the like, I think that’s a little unfair. Many of the things that are now testable were, heretofore, unproven and seemed very strange.
So, I don’t think that, in general, science is ‘completely dismissive’ of evidence contrary to a current theory. However, the standard of evidence required is quite stringent. People’s recollections of events is extremely shaky evidence; I have seen an individual stand up in court and, under oath, swear that a car arrived from the North when the driver of said car and all the physical evidence indicated it had come from the South. The witness was not lying intentionally; the way our brains work is such that we fit what we see to internal models and patterns. However, it does go some way to answering the question as to why individual testimony is usually discounted unless backed up by provable facts.
Let me state for the record; I don’t believe it’s provable that there is no god and, as a young man, I fervently believed in one. However, on the basis of the evidence I now find it very, very unlikely. And, even if there were one, which one ? The Christian/Judaic/Islamic/Norse/Roman/ ? If you move towards the prime mover type theology then, yes, you move into an area where disproving god becomes impossible. However, in so doing, you move into an area where there is no evidence for any particular religious dogma/approach. Instead, you have what looks far more like a force of nature.
If, on the other hand, you try to promote one particular form of religion then you run into the fundamental inconsistensies and provable fallacies that each of the holy books contains. There is, for example, much in the bible that can be disproven; that then leads people to ‘interpret’ it but then you’re on a very slippery slope indeed where words can mean whatever you want them to.
I find no threat in religion; as I said I have many religious friends and we have these kind of discussions regularly (usually after a drink I have to concede). I’m very happy for you if it provides you with succour, meaning and a moral framework.
However, for me, I no longer have any faith and, until I read Dawkin’s book, would have described myself as an agnostic (essentially, I had a deist philosophy that you couldn’t disprove god but and a force which we could call god might exist). However, having read it, I found myself convinced of the logic that such a deist god would, essentially, not really be a god in any sense that most people define ‘god’. So, reluctantly at first, I would now describe myself as an atheist.
That doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in anything; I believe that you SHOULD have the right to read any book you choose. I believe in equality of opportunity for all irrespective of colour, creed, sex, orientation. I believe in the rule of law (for all, no exemptions for those that create the law). I believe in freedom of expression. I could go on but I think you get the point.
Look forward to your response.
Matt (Blackblade … that’s my motorcycle, but that’s another story)
PS. I use coComment (www.cocomment.com) to track all my conversations so I don’t have to go back to each individual forum to find out if anyone has responded. You can find all mine at http://www.cocomment.com/comments/blackblade
Deicide said,
March 21, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Funny; an office employee in Saudi Arabia, where such books are not allowed. Dismemberment, decapitation style executions and other religiously founded ‘joys’ are. I have spoken to many ex-pats who live in that country and all they can talk about is the money. But is it really worth it?
hamletta said,
March 26, 2007 at 8:58 pm
The Amish are people of peace, which seems to me to be a tremendous contribution in our war-torn world.
They also invented all the really good desserts.
But seriously, what about their forgiveness and mercy toward the family of the man who murdered their daughters? If that wasn’t a lesson in walking the talk, I’ll eat my hat.
I think Dawkins is a twit, myself. I’m a Lutheran, so I’ve got 500 years’ worth of complex theology to deal with, as befits a religion started by a bunch of German academics and lawyers. I see Dawkins refuting 4th-grade Sunday School lessons, and it’s not particularly impressive.
Wake me up when he takes on Kierkegaard.
Andrew Krause said,
March 28, 2007 at 1:02 pm
I’d like to address the 3/19 post of Casiano P. Mayor Jr. First, I appreciate the mannered attempt at trying to make a logical argument as opposed to your 3/9 post that was simply an unsupported attack and unreasoned conclusion. Unfortunately, your later post exposes your biases and ignorance in that you make a common mistake of dogmatists and bad scientists, you try to find and show only the evidence that supports your beliefs.
As evidence of this, you rail against science’s apparent unwillingness to study near death experiences (NDEs). A simple Googling on the matter would have shown you how wrong you are. But apparently you had your mind made up before you made this ignorant allegation and didn’t bother checking. There are a number of scientists studying this elusive phenomenon from various neuromedical and ethnographic cross-cultural perspectives. Perhaps you might want to start with Dr. Susan Blakemore who has authored a book and numerous papers on the subject. Given your disposition however, I don’t think you’ll like what you find. Although NDE’s cannot yet be fully dismissed as having some supernatural connection (nothing really can - it’s the same problem as disproving God - it can’t be done) they appear to be the natural result of a dying/anoxic occipital lobe.
You make a similar argument for intercessory prayer. While there is lots of anecdotal evidence like the kind you cite, nothing has ever stood up to scientific rigor. Perhaps you haven’t read about it but there have been scientific studies testing the effectiveness of intercessory prayers across several religions including Christianity. None show a significant effect over chance (some cancers just naturally go into remission whether you’re Christian, Hindu, or atheist). And one might think that in thousands of years of such reports like yours that something definitive would have emerged beyond just word of mouth or mass delusion (yes, I’ve studied such “miracles” like that at Fatima). But there, alas, again you will come up short. If I saw and confirmed such convincing evidence, I would change my beliefs immediately.
Now I would like to address the issue of dualism where you attack Dawkins. Here I believe you are on firmer ground, not because Dawkins is wrong, but because HIS semantics and logic are occasionally strained and murky. Here, you might well want to read Sam Harris’s works (The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation), who takes spirituality much more seriously scientifically and who, I believe, puts dualism and the “soul” in much better perspective. I am not sure you fully understand dualism (otherwise known in my circles as the Mind/Brain problem) from a scientific perspective but I’m not going to explain it fully here unless requested other than through my counter arguments to yours. One problem is semantics; what is a soul? Well I don’t want to argue the semantics so let me state plainly the definition I’ll use which is probably similar to Dawkins. It is the mind - our conscious and unconscious thoughts, personality traits, cognitive functions, feelings, memories, (senses in some sort of incorporeal way?), etc. Let’s leave the “spark of God”, as I often hear preached to me, out of it since I’ve never heard anyone give a rational definition of what that is.
You are arguing for the mind (soul) as separate from the brain from a supernatural perspective, i.e., for it to be able to go to heaven without a body/brain. So first let me ask you to provide rational evidence for this. There is none and the burden is on you my friend. But let’s set this aside. As Blackblade points out, science is not dismissive of mind surviving the body and even physicists (see Tipler’s Omega Point Theory) have taken the possibility of resurrection of past minds seriously and even provided a totally scientific (non-superstitious) hypothesis for it (though it is currently on the far fringe). No God needed! Kurzweil also argues for the inherent duality of mind and brain as he postulates that we will one day be able to download our minds into machines. But this still takes a materialistic path, the mind must have some substrate for it’s computation and there is no evidence of how any complex electromagnetic phenomena can otherwise be sustained. Dawkins is implicitly acknowledging this fact.
You basically say, “there is no concrete evidence” for the mind’s dependence on substrate (brain or other computing infrastructure). This is ridiculous. There is evidence for nothing else and the evidence supporting this is right in front of your nose. It’s so obvious that Dawkins probably felt it was unnecessary to establish its foundation or elaborate. The effects of brain injuries, drugs, psychostimulation and many other avenues attest to it. Where the brain is affected the mind follows, and what the mind pursues induces physical changes in the brain, and so on. Let me turn the tables on you a moment and let’s say the separate soul you believe exists does. Assuming you are a fairly standard Christian who believes in the afterlife please answer the following questions - take your best guess, they’re only speculative.
1. If you have a stroke that destroys your ability to speak and understand language does that part of your mind go to heaven ahead of you?
2. At what point does a human get a soul, at conception? What happens to the souls of precognitive forms e.g., blastocysts? Do they develop thinking in the afterlife even though they have no human/earthy senses or experience?
There are enumerable published cases of major personality changes caused by accidents, disease, drug use, and other phenomenon not necessary caused by choices of the subject (for which he would otherwise be liable to God). One early well-documented case was that of Phineas Gage, a 19th century railroad worker, who accidentally had a railroad spike driven through his head. He amazingly survived but there were major changes to his personality (he became a very disagreeable fellow but was otherwise fairly normal). Here are some questions pertaining to personality that we most closely associate with “soul”. Pretend a man’s personality drastically changes due to no fault of his own.
3. Does his soul split into two souls, each subject to Holy Judgment?
4. If it does split, can one go to heaven and the other to perdition?
5. Let’s say it doesn’t split and the guy starts off as an evil but highly intelligent jerk who denies God and Jesus. A stroke later turns him into a wonderfully sweet Christian with the mental capabilities of a 3-4 year old. This new person accepts Jesus. What does his soul look like in heaven?
6. Now let’s reverse this, an otherwise nasty, yet born-again Christian man with below-average intelligence takes a new experimental drug to enhance his intelligence. It works and has the side effect of turning him into thoroughly wonderful person who nonetheless loses his religion and denies Jesus. Does he go to hell (or fail to go to heaven if you don’t believe in hell)? What is his mind/soul like in the afterlife?
I hope this got you thinking. The mind is inextricably linked to the material brain and itself evolves not only according to free-will choices (assuming that exists) of the person but due to the food we ingest, quality of air we breathe, and all other manner of natural means that change our brain and our thinking without our conscious knowledge.
When you definitely observe a mind that can see, think, and act outside of the brain please send me the evidence.
Now I want to get back to spirituality. I consider myself to be a spiritual person in a manner that may not be far of from what you have experienced – except in our interpretation of same. Whether through dreams, wonder, meditation, deep sadness, or wild happiness I have experienced awe, the feeling of oneness with the universe and other humans and I even had an amazing hypnogogic dream once (that convinced me once and for all what must surely be the cause of many religious “miracles” and delusion). I do not deny the legitimacy of the spiritual experiences you underwent and I’m happy that they made a positive difference in your life. But the fact that they helped you doesn’t make Christianity or belief in God true. The experiences you had and the transformations you enjoyed are common to every religion and faith throughout history whether one believed in Zeus, Osiris, or in atheistic religious strains of Buddhism and Hinduism. Science is only beginning to study mystical and spiritual experiences and I have no doubt that it will have much to tell us on these phenomena in the future.
Finally, I want to conclude this post by discussing why Dawkins irks you and others so. I found this paragraph of yours very telling:
“ Krause added: “She then dismisses the whole thing without addressing the main point simply stating that it has ‘failed to impress the theists’â€. I can empathize with Robinson on this, simply because Dawkins has been so dogmatic in his argument that God should be made part of the evolutionary process, leaving no room for such idea of God being outside space and time. Dawkins’s Science, to quote Robinson, is “his version of Darwinism.†“
You seem to be less concerned about the truth of an argument than what you perceive as the personality and motives behind them. While Dawkins has his own viewpoints, ideas and theories that he aggressively fights for, he is known to be an excellent scientist in all respects. Excellent scientists can rarely be dogmatists (but occasionally some are for lucky discoveries) and Dawkins is no dogmatist. I have no doubt that he would change his mind on his most cherished beliefs if provided rational evidence sufficient for others in his field. The fact that you may think Dawkins is an overly strident, intolerant, arrogant, know-it-all does not make your argument correct or his more likely to be wrong even if he is all those things.
It might amuse you to know that Dawkins is so perceived by many atheists as well. I used to be among them to some degree. After all, I grew up being told I was going to hell and I didn’t want to fight that intolerance with intolerance of my own. But then a bunch of things started to happen. We elected a fundamentalist Christian nut-job who thinks cells in a Petri dish have souls and would defile science on many fronts (evolution, climatology). Most Americans believe in angels who can help them, deny evolution and 44% think they’ll probably see Jesus in their lifetime. We had religious Muslim fanatics fly airplanes into the Twin Towers. And I’ve watched highly religious nations become more and more polarized and dangerous. I now believe that rational people can no longer sit back, be silent, and respect the beliefs of others, no matter how foolish or irrational simply because they are under the guise of religion or some other dogma (e.g., communism). We have to call BS when and where we see it. To me the willingness to believe without evidence (“faithâ€), coupled with reluctance to truly question or doubt is the root of most evil in our world.
I cannot fully disagree with those who say Dawkins turns off many people who we might hope can be rationally awakened. He does. But there are many who would not wake up from a less moderate voice. There is a place for Dawkins. By analogy, he is the pit-bull Malcolm X in contrast to the moderate Martin Luther King. I would argue that both types have their place and necessity in hastening a better world – a world where many fanatical irrational groups will eventually be able to acquire WMDs. Otherwise, I don’t think our civilization will survive this century.
Andrew Krause said,
March 28, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Corrections to my last post:
Second paragraph should read temporal lobe not occipital.
Question #2 should read:
At what point does a human get a soul, at conception? What happens to the souls of precognitive forms that don’t survive e.g., blastocysts that are aborted or die naturally? Do they develop thinking in the afterlife even though they have no human/earthy senses or experience?
Last paragraph (#21) should read:
I cannot fully disagree with those who say Dawkins turns off many people who we might hope can be rationally awakened. He does. But there are many who would not wake up from a MORE moderate voice. There is a place for Dawkins. By analogy, he is the pit-bull Malcolm X in contrast to the moderate Martin Luther King. I would argue that both types have their place and necessity in hastening a better world – a world where many fanatical irrational groups will eventually be able to acquire WMDs. Otherwise, I don’t think our civilization will survive this century.
Andrew Krause said,
March 28, 2007 at 5:08 pm
To Hamletta:
I got a kick out of your post, especially since you so glaringly exhibit the air of smugness and superiority people like that “twit†Dawkins are accused of – a trait I’ve always observed far more in the religious who also have a habit of injecting the threat of hell into their arguments.
I also found it hilarious that you don’t want to engage refutation of “4th-grade Sunday School lessons.†It so happens I’m married to a devout Catholic who attended Sunday School as did my mother. That’s apparently about the time, after kids have realized there’s no Santa that they really begin to ask the really fundamental questions that narrow-minded dogmatists such as you have NEVER been able to rationally answer. And yes, all Dawkins really has to do in remake those arguments intelligently and in greater context. But I understand your answer very well. The brainwashing indoctrination and inoculation against rational questioning you learned in Sunday school apparently worked quite well. So I doubt you have the true intellectual and rational ability to engage the philosophical heights you’re waiting for. Rest Kierkegaard.
Andrew Krause said,
March 28, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Hamletta,
I also couldn’t help comment on your following quote:
” I think Dawkins is a twit, myself. I’m a Lutheran, so I’ve got 500 years’ worth of complex theology to deal with, as befits a religion started by a bunch of German academics and lawyers. I see Dawkins refuting 4th-grade Sunday School lessons, and it’s not particularly impressive. ”
As for your Lutheran heritage, your inference of its history of wisdom doesn’t impress me. It’s founder and his brethren were aggressive anti-Semites who went out of their way persecute the Jews. Martin Luther himself wrote many missives on that topic. I guess God didn’t see fit to guide his hand on the matter as he supposedly did to those who wrote the Bible.
Blackblade said,
March 29, 2007 at 4:00 am
Hamletta said: “I think Dawkins is a twit, myself. I’m a Lutheran, so I’ve got 500 years’ worth of complex theology to deal with, as befits a religion started by a bunch of German academics and lawyers. I see Dawkins refuting 4th-grade Sunday School lessons, and it’s not particularly impressive. Wake me up when he takes on Kierkegaard.”
It doesn’t need to be impressive, just factually and logically correct … if the argumentation and logical premises are demolished, as they are, then the entire edifice crumbles. If the fundamentals fail then so does the construction based on them; if 2+2 = 4 is untrue, delete everything which depends on that axiom.
Philosophers, including Kierkegaard, have been attempting, and failing, to prove the existence of god ever since the enlightenment. Which god does become a pertinent question of course … there seems to be a default to the abrahamic, christian god but most of the reasoning is not predicated on that.
To cite Kierkegaard is, in my opinion, very self-defeating. He agreed with Kant that god could NOT be proven by reason and was only revealed through faith. Somewhat strange for a philosopher perhaps ? To paraphrase … “I’ve spent my life dedicated to reason but, when reason takes me somewhere I don’t want to be, I’ll abandon it in favour of superstition”.
Andrew Krause said,
March 29, 2007 at 6:17 pm
To Blackblade:
Awesome post! Wish I’d said it.
Blackblade said,
March 30, 2007 at 3:45 am
To Andrew :
You’re way too kind … I thought yours was much more complete.
chris said,
April 3, 2007 at 8:23 am
To Andrew Krause:
1. If you have a stroke that destroys your ability to speak and understand language does that part of your mind go to heaven ahead of you?
Do you understand fully the brain/mind relationship? Could they be interdependent? Can you assert that cognitive abilities and consciousness are one and the same thing? How do you explain qualia? What is awareness? Could the brain just be a receptor for consciousness in a way similar to a TV being a receptor for broadcasting signal? If so, could a damaged brain distort the signal?
2. At what point does a human get a soul, at conception? What happens to the souls of precognitive forms e.g., blastocysts? Do they develop thinking in the afterlife even though they have no human/earthy senses or experience?
Is physicalism a dogma or is it likely that science evolves and could explain the yet unexplained in the future in ways you believe impossible today?
I will not answer your other questions since they only concern people with religious beliefs, which I do not have. But maybe the questions I asked are the basis for some of it for people who try to make sense of them. Why don’t you rationally awaken them all by providing answers to my questions?
Andrew Krause said,
April 4, 2007 at 2:36 am
Chris,
My block of questions can be dissected, as you have done, to examine interesting questions, which I’m happy to do. However, their power was intended as a whole to examine the meaning of the soul and its ties to brain and you have subverted this process by using your claimed non-religiousness as an excuse to avoid answering the later questions, which are the core of my argument. The fact that I will honor your request to answer your questions does not absolve you of this dodge. I think you know what I’m after and you could have rephrased my questions you refuse to answer to render them non-religious, which in fact, were intended to address some of your points rather implicitly. For this reason, I’m not going to answer your questions as completely as I could right now until you take a holistic stab at my questions. You can either take the heaven and soul as a given or you can choose a convenient semantic approach of your choosing incorporating cognition, consciousness, and qualia. If I can do it and am non-religious, so can you.
In answer to your questions, first, I don’t think anyone fully understands the mind/brain relationship yet. I’ve already explicitly and implicitly stated they are interdependent. We could sit here for days and debate the meaning alone of the terms qualia, cognition, and consciousness and get nowhere. What you are arguing for, it seems, provides a good basis for dualism and its descriptors, which I already accept. I can provide you with all sorts of plausible conjectures for how each of these states and qualities arise and exist in the brain without resorting to unsubstantiated physical forces or dimensions (e.g., Penrose’s quantum mind) not to mention supernatural forces and dimensions. That does not diminish mind as a distinct entity on it’s own – but in my view, dependent on the brain for subsistence.
I did not assert that cognition and consciousness are the same thing. I don’t believe that but I would argue there is overlap. However, I could give you plausible arguments that they are different or that they are the same. So what? If by qualia you mean the internal mental representation and interpretation of sense and feelings (I’m trying to keep it simple here), most believe as I do that this results from higher (cerebrum) brain processing/interpretation of lower (reptilian brain) sense and feeling. This permits me to avoid using terms like “consciousness†or “cognition†(both higher brain functions) because I personally believe the phenomenon is more holistic than that. However, I could just as easily have argued that qualia is no different from consciousness or is just a part thereof as John Searle has done. What consciousness really is and how to define it is a current area of intense scientific debate. Some think we’ve simply fooled ourselves into thinking it’s a big deal at all. I’m still on the fence – awaiting more evidence as usual.
Could the brain just be a consciousness receiver analogous to a TV? I laughed when I read that because I just heard that charlatan Deepak Chopra make the same assertion on the Bill Maher show when he claimed he had used that argument to “destroy that idiot Dawkins†(or other words to that effect) in a recent blog of his (I read it – complete BS and gobbledygook as usual from him). Partly I laughed too because I was brought up by a mother who believed in ESP and imparted that to me. I actually believed something akin to this until I went to college and begin seeking the evidence for psychic powers and studied neuroscience. I completely changed my mind because there is no good evidence for either and I believe in Occam’s Razor. As Hitchens said, “what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed just as easilyâ€. If you’ve discovered such a medium of communication and conveyance for consciousness, please present some compelling evidence. I could become a believer again. I certainly would like to believe in such things – they’re cool!
But I don’t want to leave your question high and dry. I assume you’re serious. If I accept your premise that the brain is a consciousness receiver, I would be prepared to concede that some of the manifestations of brain function I analogized could possibly be mimicked in appearance. But this is very debatable and brain mapping and processing as understood today provide absolutely no support for this. There are many different brain disorders and properties elicited by effects and affects to many different parts of the brain from the lower (reptilian) to upper (cerebrum). Does that mean the receiver is distributed through every agency or is there one point of entry (as for a TV)? How do you explain inductive brain states caused by neurostimulation such as those first attributed to Penwell? Your assertion begs many other fundamental questions:
- Is it possible that one could construct a cage to block transmission? If so, what would happen to the man inside?
- Do animals have this receiver (not to mention consciousness and qualia)? When and where did it evolve and what part of the brain is it in? For that matter, when and where does in arise in fetal development?
- Do you believe AI replete with cognition, consciousness, and qualia can ever be created as I do? And/or alternatively, could it be possible to download a human mind into some other substrate created and understood by man (I doubt this personally but don’t dismiss it)? If the creation of either of these things were made possible in computers having no provision for any type of external consciousness communication, would you reject your hypothesis? If not, why not?
-I have many other questions and would love for others to chime in. (Blackblade – you are always able to articulate trenchant ideas with greater brevity than me. I look forward to your contribution.)
OK, that brings me to your last question concerning physicalism, dogma, and science. You have phrased it in the provocative manner of people I’ve usually observed to be desperately seeking to justify belief in something they can’t factually support. So they want smart people to acknowledge its possibility so that they might allow themselves to confuse that with probability. Any tenet of scientific discourse, be it physicality or Newton’s Laws, can become a dogma if it is unquestioningly and uncritically believed without sufficient evidence. Good scientists don’t blindly accept dogmas. I wish this were true of all people.
Again, you claim to be non-religious but you seem to be demonstrating that you have a faith or dogma of your own. What is it – a belief in psychic powers? Life after death? What is it that you want so desperately to believe in that you have to postulate and believe in possibilities (see, I made a concession) for which there is no convincing evidence? And why is that a healthy thing for you or society to do?
chris said,
April 5, 2007 at 6:11 am
To Andrew,
Frankly I did not know about this Deepak Chopra guy and I was only toying with you. Happy you laughed because that was a positive reading, wasn’t it?
I am quite happy with the way you replied to my questions. You accept that many things are still unknown and remain open to the possibility that dualism could be right but that it would need to be proven, just as physicalism or naturalism in their variants would need to. Indeed the debate is still open… And this was only my point.
I assume that your targets are only people who believe blindly in religious books and other practices and try imposing their beliefs to others. I am not of this kind (although I think you kind of assume it) and this is the reason why I could not just reply to your other questions. I would also agree with you that this attitude is plain wrong.
My only problems is to see many atheists with poor arguments who know nothing about dualism or physicalism but believe that the arguments of “the beginning of the universe”, “consciousness” and other yet to be solved scientific problem will be solved with the current physicalism paradigm: a wild assumption that puts physicalism to the rank of dogma when we know that the scientific theories change over time. I have even met some who believed these problems had already been solved. Yes! I have met such people. Of course, they are not of the scientific kind that you mentionned.They usually come with the “giant sausage living on Mars” argument without realizing that physicalism could be the “giant sausage”. Arrogance and ignorance affect theists and atheists alike…
I do not believe is Strong AI as you do. One day I was making a case for strong AI at university to my friends until one of them told me I think like a “Turing machine”. I did not grasp exactly what he meant at the time. I thought about it for a long time. Nowadays I believe that cognition and experience are 2 completely different things. I am not able to prove it to you otherwise I would already have written a book and be famous. This is only my intuition! On the opposite side believing that it is possible to implement qualia in an artificial manner is also intuitive and as yet unproven. However, I believe that animals have qualia since they have sensorial experiences. And also, there is an obvious mind / brain overlap, I never meant to argue this. For the moment, I will just follow my intuition and keep trying to solve the mistery if I can. I suggest you do this to.
I am not trying to prove anything unlike what you believe.But I tell you what is healthy though: to keep these questions open!
PS: I am not american so don’t worry, I am not speaking in tongue and will not cast a spell on you!
Andrew Krause said,
April 5, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Chris,
LOL! You really had me going! I figured you to be one of those types who makes the mystical arguments of the form that just as there is a fabric of space-time there is also a fabric of space-time-consciousness (like Chopra). Actually that is an interesting area and you had me thinking because areas of subjectivity are real problems for science. I have to confess, I’m almost disappointed cause I love a good fight with someone intelligent. I was even contemplating my next opening line to you, something like: “Blackblade, be careful of this one Chris, the Force is strong in him.†I was even about to ask you to measure your metachlorian levels and tell you I’m your father. But you spoiled all that for me – you a**hole.
You pretty much have me pegged, but I don’t reserve my wrath just for the religious and superstitious. In fact, because I hate hypocrisy, I despise scientists that behave dogmatically and suppress questioning or exploration worst of all. And I see it happen more often than I like – even with some very decent ones. But they’re just human, like the faithful.
Perhaps I should say that I sympathize and can understand the conundrum of the believer. I have had several ideas in my life I considered brilliant only to feel sullen and wasted when they were invalidated – in most cases by me! I felt proud that I could live up to my ideals and emptied at the same time. As a scientist it bothers me that most people really don’t know what doing real science is like. It should be like life.
The bizarre thing, for me at least, is that the process of science actually mirrors spiritual experiences in many ways. I think most people think science is this methodical machine where things move gradually from point A to point B. But a big reason I love science so is for those rare moments of insight, intuition, and perception that just seem to come out of nowhere. Perhaps the best idea I ever head came to me as I was falling asleep on an airplane – not trying to think about anything. It was a true vision (an uncontrolled movie/slideshow in my mind) in the religious sense only I don’t ascribe it to God. I had to gather my senses to wake up and write it down because I could feel it fading just like a real dream as I awoke. I believe my subconscious mind simply solved a problem I had been struggling with and couldn’t solve consciously through “trying†for a long time.
Have I had ideas many would find ridiculous? Yes, I have and I thought they were wacky too in some cases. But my intuition compelled me to investigate and often I discovered I was right or was led to some other unexpected opportunity and discovery. Some of the most compelling ideas in science are ultimately found to be dead wrong. But they help make arguments cohesive and inspire people to discover the right ones. The key difference with religion is the whole process becomes focused on the formulation of testable hypotheses to support such conjectures and the experiments that follow. That is why string theory both fascinates and concerns me so. Some physicists seem so enamored by the elegance and explanatory power of their creation that they seem to be falling towards a faith that some experimentally verifiable proposition will emerge some day. This worries me. I’ve had similar concerns with some who propose emergent neural network properties for explaining intelligence (i.e., just connect enough neurons with the right learning process and bang – intelligence) – though they’re usually better grounded than string theory is now.
Now back to your ideas of duality. The mind/brain problem is truly fascinating and even if I’m right about strong AI and we could build sentient machines, I don’t believe that will completely settle the issue (maybe our AI will for us though). I think the problem will be around awhile. So here I am about to actually give fodder to the irrational who would certainly use my arguments against me. But I agree with you, open communication of provocative ideas with the proper balance of skepticism and open-mindedness is good.
As I said, I think science is at it’s weakest in the subjective domain. Think about a theory of love and hate. How can science define the qualia of love and hate? When you hate someone, you can give me a definition based on other qualia for anger, frustration, dislike, etc. but that isn’t really what you’re experiencing mentally. You’re not saying to yourself, I’m angry, sad, hurt, etc. There may be no internal voice at all. You’re experiencing a feeling that we can reasonably believe that most people share and can understand because our brains our made similarly enough. There are, of course, brain conditions that strongly indicate that such qualia don’t exist in some people or are experienced in a much different way. How can we relate to each other or, for that matter, to an extraterrestrial who behaves like they love or hate in a manner indistinguishable from humans? Do they experience love and hate the same way? Can we even use those words? This is one reason why I don’t accept the Turing test as a complete verification of Strong AI.
Obviously the qualia of “green†as you experience may be red or blue for ET. He’d respond the same way so you’d never know the difference. How can science ever tell the difference? Is this question even important? Is there something a science of subjectivity could answer about us or the universe that would add value? Perhaps it simply says more about the limitations of our brains themselves and the fact that we are entrapped by the limitations of our languages, semantics, and powers of abstraction. But then we’re talking about constraints on knowledge acquisition (for humans at least). Uh-oh, epistemology.
Otherwise, if I’m right to the degree I believe in physicality, the best science can hope for is the ability to identify and predict brain states without ever being able to describe their mental essence. We might be able to completely analyze neurons, connective pathways, and their properties (action potentials etc.) and say this person is, has, or will experience love, hate, red, etc. Perhaps we could then predict or give probability curves for the likely responses to these experiences. But there’s still something missing….
Of course the faithful are now free to take my arguments, stick on Kant and Kierkegaard, and say that I just made their argument for faith. Of course I demure because I’m tired of writing. It’s time for you or Blackblade to take over. If the people who believe in God don’t know how to make their case properly, let’s do it for them and then have the fun of shooting it down all to ourselves.
OK, I’m a smug, arrogant bastard just like Dawkins. You got me. Wake me up when you get to p-zombies.
James said,
April 6, 2007 at 9:00 am
I’ve posted my own response to Dawkins (as well as a response to a visiting speaker of a six-day creationist bent) on my blog at http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/blog/ and so I won’t bother repeating the points I make there. It is ever so hard not to swing to the other extreme in response to extremism. Young-earth creationists make one want to throw religion out altogether. Arrogant atheists almost make one believe that science really is intrinsically opposed to faith. The ‘narrow way’ that avoids the extreme may or may not be right, but it certainly is more rational and reasoned than the voices on the extremes, including Dawkins. It is, of course, rather ironic that Dawkins, in advocating reason, should do it so unreasonably!
Andrew Krause said,
April 7, 2007 at 11:26 am
James. McGrath:
I checked out your website and while I saw much intelligent commentary across several of your blogs and references, I did not find one mention of the “narrow way†there. Nor did I find one particularly cohesive argument that I might have inferred to be the “narrow wayâ€. I must have missed it or it isn’t there, so please elaborate.
Nevertheless, I find much to agree with in your blogs. If you read mine, then you saw that I acknowledge the divisiveness of Dawkins. Here are just two quotes:
“…The fact that you may think Dawkins is an overly strident, intolerant, arrogant, know-it-all does not make your argument correct or his more likely to be wrong even if he is all those things. … It might amuse you to know that Dawkins is so perceived by many atheists as well. I used to be among them to some degree. After all, I grew up being told I was going to hell and I didn’t want to fight that intolerance with intolerance of my own.â€
“I cannot fully disagree with those who say Dawkins turns off many people who we might hope can be rationally awakened. He does. But there are many who would not wake up from a more moderate voice. There is a place for Dawkins. By analogy, he is the pit-bull Malcolm X in contrast to the moderate Martin Luther King. I would argue that both types have their place and necessity in hastening a better world – a world where many fanatical irrational groups will eventually be able to acquire WMDs. Otherwise, I don’t think our civilization will survive this century.â€
On balance, I think that Dawkins aids the cause of reason more than he hurts it. But I would concede that his message is probably best suited to fence-sitters and for mobilizing those who already share his beliefs.
Think about the original promulgation of the Christian faith (and most other faiths). Its success cannot be credited just to those who espoused an inclusional, moderate, loving, turn-the-other-cheek approach. It owes its existence at least equally to saints and martyrs who would certainly be said to be far more militant, arrogant and strident than Dawkins. In fact, some were even torturers and murderers.
So I agree that Dawkins is a militant figure. And if that causes you to reach out to moderate atheists and believers to counter the dangers of faith (as Dawkins/Harris define it), while securing a future for what you believe faith in God should be about, that’s great! I remember as a boy hearing from the fence-sitters on the race issue. Many just wished blacks (like atheists today), would somehow just disappear. Many were moved to follow the path of MLK mostly because they feared the alternative and more extreme paths espoused by Malcolm X or the Black Panthers. So if you feel militant atheists mock and insult the faithful and threaten to one day marginalize your beliefs, then continue your good work to encourage reason and education to make religion and its professed “true believers†less rationally ridiculous.
You don’t like Dawkins semantics for faith, religion, and God and your attacks on him are primarily a pirouette around his semantics. I don’t believe Dawkins is as ignorant as you suggest about the other possible meanings for God and faith. However, I would hope that you would concede that his definitions probably cover >90% of the “faithfulâ€. You are as much on the fringe in some of your positions as he is. In order to address your highly refined and moderate interpretations probably would have required doubling the size of his book and muddling his message.
I also think you need to take some of Dawkins semantics on face value and go from there. It is not fair for you or others to redefine faith, against Dawkins arguments, as anything other than believing without evidence. Dawkins argument (and I like Harris’ better) is not so much for science vs. faith as it is about reason vs. faith. Science is just one manifestation of reason just as religion is only one manifestation of faith. I think that Dawkins muddles this sometimes but Harris does not. To paraphrase Harris, no society has ever suffered from becoming too reasonable. But many have suffered from too much faith. I also believe that societies have suffered from too little reason and see no evidence that having insufficient faith has damaged any culture.
So in essence, as I define faith (congruent with Dawkins and Harris), it is not compatible with reason in making meaningful decisions about the universe or our lives. My challenge to you is to identify and explain those attitudes, beliefs, and actions, on both a personal and societal level, that really require faith with or without reason. And then explain how your superior way of faith cannot be achieved or matched through reason alone.
I would welcome debating you on these topics and others. I believe that you are a rational voice for good even though I disagree with many of your views and semantics.
Best regards,
Andy
Blackblade said,
April 9, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Wow, a week away and the conversation gets really serious !
Lots to think about before I even consider posting …..
James said,
April 9, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Thank you Andy for your thoughtful reply to my post about Richard Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion. Let me begin my reply by commenting on the idea of the ‘narrow way’, which was itself an allusion to one of two phrases sometimes used in connection with the teaching of Jesus: On the one hand, there is reference to a ‘narrow way’ that does not simply go along with the way the majority is headed. On the other hand, there are places particularly in the Sermon on the Mount that seem to teach a ‘third way’ or an alternative to two main possible responses to oppression and powerlessness in that time, namely resolute but non-violent resistance and protest, as an alternative to either passivity or violent revolution. It was perhaps your reference to Malcolm X and Martin Luther King that brought the idea to mind, but I ought to have explained further what I meant. In essence, I was referring to finding a middle ground, not so much as an absolute position, but in recognitions that there are alternatives to the extreme viewpoints that often get the most press nowadays, and that it is possible to preserve the creative tensions between apparent opposites in a way that can be personally and even socially beneficial. Mind and heart, body and soul, classic and innovative, old and new - the idea of a ‘narrow way’ is my way of referring to an ideal of finding a way of preserving what is good in apparent opposites. I do this both out of conviction and pragmatically - it is precisely the feeling that there is a baby in the bathwater Dawkins throws out that leads many people to object to his stance.
I’ve been reading Daniel Dennett’s book Breaking the Spell and interestingly enough, he raises the question of whether the race issue was helped or harmed by being made the focus of so much attention. He doesn’t claim to know the answer, and nor do I, but I certainly see the aftereffects of polarization, and can see parallels with the Christianity-evolution situation. In the early days of Darwin’s theory, there were a great many supporters of the theory who were also people of faith and did not see any conflict. Indeed, it might be argued that it was the misuse of evolution as supposed justification for a whole range of evils (including worldviews all the way from Capitalism to Communism) that probably led many to feel that their values were under attack. And so, on the one hand, it is my concern that Dawkins and others like him will continue to give the impression that evolution is intrinsically incompatible with their faith, and that this just perpetuates people feeling justified in their scientific ignorance, which is the opposite of what Dawkins (and you and I) would see as a desirable outcome.
As for faith and its definition, it may be true that the English word in its modern usage has connotations of believing without evidence. But it is not difficult to show that this is not the classic Christian usage. The New Testament Greek word translated by “faith” has connotations of trust, of faithfulness. There certainly have been religious believers in all ages that have been opposed to reason, and I am not interested in disputing that. But I am interested in disputing their interpretation of “faith” and of the Christian faith in particular, as well as disputing the impression such people have given and continue to give that faith and reason are fundamentally opposed.
For me, faith is about an attitude. It is an attitude that is expressed in and shared by many religious traditions, and it is one that people without any particular religious faith or worldview have also had. It is, in essence, the response of awe to existence (not only our existence), and a humble recognition that we are not ultimate (or in other words not God) and do not have a God’s eye view of the universe or of our place in it. For me, and for other believers like me, this leads to humility and an awareness of my own human limitations. It does not lead me to seek scientific information in pre-scientific texts, or to fear increases in our understanding of the natural world or of our own selves. If you ask me what is religious about this, the answer is that I interpret our place in the universe as being meaningful. I would be the first to admit that any language I may use to speak about God, ultimate reality, transcendence and the spiritual is not only intrinsically metaphorical but intrinsically inadequate. But I do not see an alternative to the use of such language in avoiding reductionism and the suggestion that life is either ultimately meaningless or that meaning is something that we each individually give to life, or perhaps give to it on the level of cultures or even species. My language of God and faith is an expression of trust and hope that life is ultimately meaningful. This does not lead me to conclude that my own individual personality and ego will survive death. But it does lead me to hope that my species may survive extinction, and that all that we create as a species will not simply be obliterated in a cosmic catastrophe that marks an ultimate end to everything our universe may ever produce. Once again, I would be the first to admit that these hopes are an interpretation of the universe and not something inherently part of the data it provides, nor something that I feel one can rationally prove or disprove. For faith, in the sense that I am using the term, to be “rational”, I require that it be in agreement with available evidence; it does not necessarily have to be a conclusion required by the evidence.
If there are levels of existence that transcend us and connect us all as part of something bigger, could we ever hope to see that, much less prove it, from our perspective? To use my favorite analogy, if we were cells in a human body, could we ever prove that there is a transcendent organism that unifies us? Could we ever find language that would adequately express what a human being is like? In short, is there anything more that we could attain than a mere hope and trust that there is transcendence, and meaning, and unity to our disperate existences beyond the horizons of our limited perspectives?
I’m not certain that I’ve addressed all your concerns - but that is what dialogue is for, so I’ll ask you to reply and ask more questions, if you’re willing. But I will conclude by summarizing that for me faith is part of my overall worldview which seeks to appreciate aspects of existence which I believe are compatible with reason but are not simply reducible to it. I think that, whatever accounts a biologist or a neuroscientist may give of the processes involved in falling in love, those are not a replacement for the experience. As I write this, I am listening to a new release on the Naxos label, Carson Cooman’s Symphonies Nos. 2 & 3. I have no doubt that there are ways of analysing this music in terms of reason, as well as in terms of the history of music, aesthetics, physics, and in other ways. My faith is my way of saying that there is more to that, that acknowledging beauty and wonder is not simply a misguided human response to aspects of our existence, but does in fact tell us something about the nature of reality itself.
Let me also add one more transcendent component of experience, namely humor, since I have just finished reading The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I remember a presentation on the philosophy of humor given soon after I began working at Butler Universityby a colleague who was soon to retire. Philosophers do not yet understand what makes something funny, nor do biologists - nor do I, my students would say! I do not think that attempts to understand the workings of humor are a threat to humor, and I am persuaded that current anti-scientific stances adopted by religious believers are the equivalent of late-night talk show hosts seeking to oppose scientific investigations into humor. But I equally feel that anyone who treated scientific advances as somehow undermining humor would also be equally misguided - indeed, laughable!
This is not because I think humor is in a special category and should be exempted from investigation, but because I think that it would be a mistake to confuse explaining humor scientifically with experiencing humor. In the same way, I support scientific investigation of the universe and all it contains, and yet find I still need the language of faith to express my conviction that there are other legitimate levels and perspectives on which to look at it.
Looking forward to continuing the discussion!
Best wishes,
James
[The above is also posted on my blog at http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/blog/200704.html#e91
Andrew Krause said,
April 9, 2007 at 8:47 pm
James:
Thank you for the dialogue and another thoughtful submission. I find I’m enjoying these debates lately so much I’m not getting any productive work done. But I’m procrastinating for fun. God would approve wouldn’t He? Or is procrastination a sin?
Anyway, let me first say that I cannot significantly disagree with anything in your first two paragraphs. In fact, I’ve had the same thoughts as you expressed and decided to play just one side of things for my argument. In reality, I’m on the fence, I’ve been a moderate if occasionally noisy heathen most of my life and only lately have I been tiptoeing in the militant’s playpen. I think there is sound reasoning and historical evidence to support both your argument and mine. You may well be right and I wouldn’t bet against you here. Revolutions, like the one I wish to see, do not succeed for good unless militants meld with moderates like you (and me?) at the right time and under the right conditions. Militants are volatile and potentially dangerous catalysts. History will judge.
Now let’s move on to the semantics of “faithâ€. You are correct, of course, from an historical Christian perspective, on the wider meaning of faith. So the wording of my admonition to you to stick with Dawkins’ definition could certainly have been interpreted as arrogantly ignorant, as I think it did to Mr. Allen who commented on my previous blabbering too.
Where I think you both may miss the point is that I believe it was correct for Dawkins to distill his argument in faith as belief without evidence because that is at the essence of its putative opposition to reason. You have given me a cogent personal and historical Christian definition for faith I’m not sure most believers, much less most theologians and philosophers, would agree with. I am no theologian but I’m sure you would agree that we could get into a very involved argument on this subject alone. How many theologians have earned their degrees on this one topic I wonder? Of course, you shouldn’t blame Dawkins for not wishing to fall into that trap.
I think you need to accept and address Dawkins’ simplified semantic distillation in your arguments at face value and use your ancillary lemmas and definitions for faith to explain why faith, as Dawkins defines it, isn’t really at the proper center of the debate (I think Kant and Kierkegaard would agree with Dawkins on this point, despite their alignment with you). I believe you have failed to do that in your response to me. Moreover, Dawkins has clearly anticipated your response and deliberately made his semantic adjustments to prevent what I believe promotes, rather than elucidates, semantic distortions that muddle arguments common in theology. Frankly, Dawkins does address your subjective attitudinal issues on faith (e.g., awe and transcendence), but he does so in the parts of his book devoted to the scientific explanation of spiritual and mystical phenomena. Incidentally, in my opinion, Sam Harris does a much better job at this than Dawkins and I’m no Dawkins groupie, or Harris groupie for that matter. I also wish to assert, as we carry on this debate, that my ideas are my own and I do not wish to be tied to those of others anymore. I’m no apologist either.
Since I’m on my own two feet, I’ll also add my own two cents to your views on faith as beyond believing without evidence. You are essentially making claims to a type of evidence in your definition for faith which is tautologic. Moreover, you need to explain how people like me exist who do not believe in God and yet also experience awe, transcendence, and even rare amazing experiences like hypnogogic dreaming (in my case) that would certainly be explained by many religious people as religious “miraclesâ€. Of course, I anticipate that your answer may be that was God tapping on my shoulder and I refused to listen. But since this tapping has been going on throughout the ages on people of all faiths, or lack thereof, many without the benefit of scripture or knowledge of your god, the burden is on you to prove that, especially when there are alternative plausible scientific explanations. Can you understand why I believe your registration of such feelings with God probably has more to do with the religious indoctrination (a form of brainwashing in my opinion) that you likely received in Sunday school and/or via family, cultural, and peer pressure (as I experienced too and found hard to resist)? This is more in line with historical fact and evidence and is a major reason why Dawkins is so against such indoctrination and the labeling of children as Christian, Muslim, etc. I agree with him and have seen the damaging effects of same in my own family not to mention the world.
As you can see from my other blogs, I am both a dualist and physicalist who realizes there are some puzzling gaps. But to paraphrase myself, “Science is just one manifestation of reason just as religion is only one manifestation of faith.†The fact that your subjective experiences may be outside science in some ways (which I do not yet concede) does not mean they are beyond the analysis of reason. Just because we lack a science of the subjective today does not mean we always will. I have a connectionist neuroscience background and emergent properties simulated in the lab can seem miraculous, but they aren’t since I can create them (unless you’d like to give up now and acknowledge I’m God ;-)).
I think you make some truly beautiful and elegant points on the nature of humility, aesthetics, humor, and the meaning of life. I don’t think by your prose even you are claiming those as a strong argument for God. I think your point of view here is best summed up when you say, “I have no doubt that there are ways of analyzing this music in terms of reason, as well as in terms of the history of music, aesthetics, physics, and in other ways. My faith is my way of saying that there is more to that, that acknowledging beauty and wonder is not simply a misguided human response to aspects of our existence, but does in fact tell us something about the nature of reality itself.â€
If you substitute “intuition†for “faith†I couldn’t agree with you more (in fact, try that substitution throughout your blogs and see if that tells you something). Perhaps you would be surprised to learn that I, like most atheists, share your sense of wonder, awe, humility, and transcendence in our appreciation of nature and our approach to our fellow man. I certainly feel gratitude that I should be so fortunate to have been given this life even though I have no god to express it to. Understanding the essence of something, like the nature of a rainbow, does not make it less awesome to me. It’s the other way around. I believe that many scientists have even more appreciation of this transcendent feeling than non-scientists because not only do they see the beauty of nature but the intrinsic beauty and elegance in the underlying mathematics and logic as well (which, unfortunately, most laymen never experience). Yes, some scientists, even a few brilliant ones, see this as even more evidence for God. But they are in the minority, an amazing fact considering the pressures and indoctrination to believe in God in our society and where >94% of Americans believe in God..
Please do not confuse intuition with faith as many do. Although we do not fully understand intuition, it has a rational basis as the mind’s subconscious ability to rapidly recognize patterns and meaning without conscious thinking. It is often wrong but it is right far more often than chance would allow. There are many reasons for intuition to have evolved, not least of which is that when a lion leapt out at us in the jungle, we often didn’t have time to reason about it. We just had to run like hell. Likewise, most champion chess players make decisions they can’t fully explain when push comes to shove. So intuition is rather like imperfect shadow reasoning and like science, it makes testable decisions that can be refined through experience, just as morality can be tested and improved by observing it’s consequences. If our minds are at least partially hardwired for faith, as they are for language, this could also explain much of your subjective nature with or without added indoctrination. For you to fall back on intuition is based on rationality to some degree. To fall back on faith is not (as I define faith).
So I clearly don’t buy your subjective argument for faith. Moreover, I find your deductions concerning life’s meaning to be very limited and almost degrading in some ways, especially for someone who presumably understands and apparently appreciates the writings of Carl Sagan. I think that the meaning of life is limitless without God and far richer unless God’s meaning for our lives is also truly limitless (I can argue it isn’t, in fact the Bible suggests it’s highly constrained – but let’s not argue this much). In fact, the two views could be identical with or without God since we have free will (I think). This is where I depart from many freethinkers in my philosophy. One non-theistic approach to defining meaning for our lives, as you say, is simply as we define it as individuals. But I believe that’s too simplistic and misses context, dimensionality, and multiplicity. Did you see the movie “A Beautiful Mind†and can you recall Nash’s thought experiment in Game Theory as how to best score with the babes in the bar in competition and cooperation with his comrades? He makes the statement, that contrary to Adam Smith’s purely selfish theory, the best way to score was to do what’s best for the individual and the group. Yes, perhaps the ultimate meaning of life is to optimize our reproduction. I’m not even sure that’s true except in the narrow context of Darwinian evolution. Rather, the rich tapestry of our meaning is colored by other contexts of how we live our lives to that end with our hopes, talents, family, tribe, country, culture, and race infinitely arrayed. I love my job, my family and am part of a culture that sought for and reached the moon and that all gives my life and those around mine meaning. Should we reach the stars and conquer the galaxy, or evolve into some higher intelligence, that will add to our meaning too even after we die. Maybe man’s deriviative purpose is to convert the matter of our universe into an infinite computer that can create it’s own universes – like God.
My son is an artist. I think artists are more important in history today than ever before, in large part, because I am a transhumanist. I believe that what defines man is going to be the central question, danger, and opportunity if and after we get beyond our current cultural and religious struggles. We need to face these issues soon with both objective and subjective rationality. I believe that art will better enable us to understand who we are before science can catch up. I think religion will lead to ruin unless you’re content to be Amish as we face a singularity where man’s intelligence can be vastly superceded or potentially fused with intelligence beyond what anyone alive today can imagine. To such an intelligence, man today may seem to be as the ants in the garden.
If and when we get there, I suspect many of the questions you and I have will be answered, or found to be theoretically undecidable analogous to Gödel’s Theorem. Unless your claim is that God can make 2+2=5 and break logic, these would be laws that even He couldn’t break. As such, these questions would become meaningless leaving God as an unnecessary and hollow deity.
The aforementioned is actually an overkill answer to your favorite analogy, “… if we were cells in a human body, could we ever prove that there is a transcendent organism that unifies us? Could we ever find language that would adequately express what a human being is like?†Let me take out the sci-fi imagination and bring it down a notch to the more practical. First, I think you should revise your argument - perhaps to make it more like Chomsky’s on dualism and language since I think he is arguing better for your position than you are. Otherwise, your analogy fails immediately since cells have absolutely no qualia or ability to think or reason and little, if any, ability to sense and communicate beyond their immediate neighborhood. So your analogy doesn’t work. If the cells could think and sense and communicate they could certainly discover their “transcendent†larger organism.
There is a good argument there for you to make, but you haven’t done so. Without taking the time to make your argument better, let me simply concede, as I did in a previous blog, that man’s mind may have inherent limitations that prevent him from attaining certain types of knowledge just as a dog will never understand Plato. However, that doesn’t mean that a more evolved and superior form of extraterrestrial or artificial intelligence couldn’t exist that could attain such knowledge. You also need to accept that by reason and logic, mathematical and physical proofs exist showing that certain types of propositions are undecidable and/or unknowable as I stated previously. .
Now, if God is pure physical transcendence, apart from and above all physical processes, you might have a half-decent argument for a god, but it would be a god virtually devoid of meaning or concern to men since we could never see him or visit him in any way. But I assume that like most Christians, you believe that God interacts with our world, whether he listens to prayers, performs miracles, harvests souls from our brain, or simply created it and set it adrift. If you believe this then God is testable, at least in part, by science and reason. Just as invisible particles leave vapor trails, God’s fingerprints would be everywhere. This will be difficult for you to reconcile unless you suppose God to be a trickster who likes to wipe off all his fingerprints. Maybe those fundamentalists are right then who say he also plants phony fossils and background microwave radiation to allow Satan to tempt our minds with sinful theories like evolution and the Big Bang.
I’d like to tie up my argument with some questions on faith that have always puzzled me about a God that is supposedly good, just, and omniscient and who, among other things, is said to have sent his only son as a teacher and pathway to Him. These questions are actually excerpted and paraphrased from another blog I wrote in at RichardDawkins.net. Please use my definition for faith (believing without evidence) in framing your reply but feel free to expand upon it as your argument dictates.
Mark 10:15 (New King James Version)
15 Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.â€
Luke 18:17 (New King James Version)
17 Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.â€
Aside from Faith in God/Religion, can you tell me where faith is ever a virtue (a good) for a mature adult person? And if you can make that argument, can you tell me where it ever should trump reason (again, outside God/Religion)?
I understand how faith in authority can have evolutionary benefits, especially for children where it is apparently hard-wired. But children lack knowledge and reasoning ability. Otherwise faith as a suffix of hope seems a dangerous last resort in leading to any positive action.
I can’t find any evidence that there is any regime (leaving God/religion aside) where adult reliance on faith can be expected to produce positive consequences. But the evidence for the contrary is legion. If you agree with me, why would a just, loving, and omniscient God wish to set the precedent and example that such faith is good? What good in man is God encouraging that we must meet him by faith rather than by evidence and reason? Otherwise, I can only conclude that God wishes us to embrace ways of thinking that can only screw us up before we get to heaven, or hell.
Please explain, because I’ve never been able to understand that.
Best regards,
Andy
James said,
April 10, 2007 at 1:37 pm
The discussion seems to be continuing on my blog at http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/blog/ I hope that anyone listening in here will keep an eye on the discussion there as well. Alternatively, we could keep posting all sides of the discussion in both places. At any rate, I just wanted to mention that the discussion is continuing, and let those interested know where!
Blackblade said,
April 12, 2007 at 11:28 am
Hi James (and Andrew).
Will most definitely, after your kind invitation, start monitoring the discussion over at your blog too.
I don’t have the erudition nor the langauge skills of either of you. However, referring back to a dictionary I find a definition of ‘faith’ as follows: “1 : complete trust or confidence. 2 strong belief in religion”.
I think that, axiomatically, that reflects the fundamental difference between a religious/faithful approach and a rationalistic one. A faithful person believes something with complete confidence, a rationalist ascribes a likelihood or probability.
Thus, it would be rare for a rationalist to state anything with complete confidence; there is very strong evidence for evolution/gravity/magnetism/etc but there can never be 100% confidence. Circumstances exist whereby the provision of sufficient proof would alter the stated position of a rationalist.
There are also lots of areas, which you have both elucidated at length, where there are very low levels of knowledge and a great deal of supposition. However, again, the rationalist position is that there can only be a position, with a reasonable probability of its being correct, once sufficient knowledge exists.
This is, for some, deeply unsatisfying. To have to answer a basic question with a “We don’t know” creates opportunities for others to jump in and say that they do. But, notwithstanding the fact that the affirmative/postive is more attractive, that is not evidence that it is correct.
People crave certainty and the universe does not deliver.
Best,
Matt.
Andrew Krause said,
April 15, 2007 at 12:54 am
Matt and James:
RichardDawkins.net unlike many atheist sites, has some intelligent and lively debate between believers and non-believers without the flaming and bad behavior I often see. Might be worth checking out. Let me know if you join and I’ll get in touch.
Andy
Blackblade said,
April 16, 2007 at 11:50 am
Thanks for the tip.
I’ve joined (as Blackblade again) so hope to see you there.
Cheers,
Matt.
PS. In case anyone is wondering the only reason for using the moniker Blackblade (my motorcycle is a Black Fireblade) is because, unsurprisingly, Matt is quite a common name
Mutile said,
April 18, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Everyone keeps saying that the existence of God can’t be disproven. During a math unit I was introduced to method of proof called
Reductio ad absurdum and this can also be used to prove that God doesn’t exist.
God exists.
The bible is the word of God
People can live 969 years
Therefore God can’t exist because people can not live 969 years
Mutile said,
April 18, 2007 at 12:22 pm
I have a question for christians.
Why did God show Adam and Eve the delights of Eden only to kick them out, when he knew they would fail and also engineered them to fail. Also he clearly wanted them to fail, so he is punishing them for doing what he wanted.
Blackblade said,
April 19, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Mutile,
Much as I might agree with your conclusion, your method is, I would respectfully suggest, significantly flawed !
The matter of a god’s existence, and not simply the Christian/Judaic god you postulate, does not logically imply that the bible is the word of god. Indeed, given that there are literally thousands of ‘words of god’ extant which one becomes a very telling point. Hence, you break the rules of the logical proof you’ve employed.
If it were that simple, it would have been done a long time ago and would not take someone with the erudition and facility with logic and language like Mr Dawkins an entire book !
Cheers,
Matt.
Andrew Krause said,
April 20, 2007 at 9:30 am
Mutile,
You can never disprove a negative - you can only prove it is very, very, unlikely. You can’t prove to me that certain men never lived to the age of 969. So your predicate collapses. Even if you could, you can’t prove that that God, with the powers ascribed to him in the same Bible, could not have enabled a special case of a man living to 969. The argument is also a tautology then. Sorry, but nice try.
C.D. said,
April 26, 2007 at 9:57 am
I find Dawkins disturbing, especially when I viewed his speech for militant Atheism. Dawkins does not rule out the possibility of any god, he rails against Christianity, but keeps its laws?? So does that make him a Christian Atheist??
He has also replaced god for reason and science, two seperate gods. He’s not outright against religion since he’s one of the bishops of Atheism. I pray that his congregation does not take to heart the notion of darwinism as faith, survival of the fittest has been perversed and justified to murder and exclude those who have belief.
Remember Richard Dawkins is nothing but a man, he’s not the epitome of reason and he’s not a god, which he, unbeknownst to his realization, he thinks he is. No martyrs please
Andrew Krause said,
April 27, 2007 at 11:25 am
C.D.
Dawkins doesn’t support Social Darwinism as you suggest. And I don’t see Dawkins supporting “Christian Law”, only laws that have been common sense to every faith and non-faith.
Finally, I’ve never heard of martyr for atheism who killed innocent women and children. But there are thousands of Christian and Islamic martyrs who have done so and will continue to as long as there is religious dogma.
C.D., I’ll bet you haven’t even read Dawkins books. You’re merely another member of the religious choir who spews from the twisted interpretations of others.
C.D. said,
May 4, 2007 at 2:57 am
Why the insult?
I don’t care to read his books, they’re unimanigative and boring, like most athiests and bring nothing new to the discussion that has not been said before. You can get that from any of his speeches posted on the net.
Besides, there are more to human conditions than religion. You also have to factor the political, misunderstandings, frustations, etc. of every society and human existence. Faulting religion for the worlds ills, is too short sided and unimaginative, which Dawkins is the crier of. Man may throw the “shackles” of religion off his shoulders and then what?? Human Bliss?? Hope?? Utopia?? Paradise??
Highly unlikely.
I’ve accepted the fact that Man is a fallen being, with temptive forces that tug at his coat tails. I made a choice two years ago to accept God because “he” is the reason in an unreasonable world. In other words I have made a stand against irrationnality and have nothing to fear or lose in the end. I chose to pick up where Dawkins left off and thats wonderment and awe with humility, inferiority and fragility.
And Andrew, who is a great disciple by the way, please just call me C.D. not a “member of the religious choir”.
Pax
Andrew Krause said,
May 6, 2007 at 2:38 pm
C.D.
I’m no Dawkins disciple, just fed up with reading distorted non-sequitur arguments from people who obviously don’t know what they’re talking about, and in your case, who admitted they didn’t even read the book. If you had, you would have realized your main original argument was attacking a straw man that Dawkins has never asserted.
I certainly would agree with you that man is an imperfect being. As long as he has a tendency to substitute dogma, wishful thinking, and blind faith for reason he will always falter, whether Christian, Muslim, or Atheist.. Getting rid of religion won’t bring utopia, but it will be a good start - if it’s done to follow reason and pursue dogma-free spirtuality.devoid of superstition. Much of Europe is now predominantly atheist/agnostic and by many measures it is a far more civilized society now that America. This is evidence enough that marginalized religion does not lead to chaos as you imply.
Frankly, I should have just let your letter stand as the last word of self-generated ignorance by another one of the religious choir, as I orginally reckoned. You are quite welcome and suited to your self-described religious “humility, inferiority, and fragility”.
Blackblade said,
May 7, 2007 at 4:37 am
CD, whilst in general I don’t condone ad-hominem attacks you really did put yourself in a position to receive them here.
This conversation is all about Dawkin’s book … how can you possibly comment constructively without having read it ? It’s like attending a book club and holding forth without bothering to first read the book in question.
I have to say I also find your assertion … “He is reason in an unreasonable world” highly telling. It’s also, funnily enough, a major theme in the book; the reasons why people find religion comforting. However, as is pointed out, the fact that something feels comforting and reminds us of the security we enjoyed whilst children that does not make it so. It is reassuring to think that someone has a ‘plan for life’ and that, therefore, we don’t have to think. But, again, the fact that it feels good does not make it so.
Finally, if you wish to exhibit “humility, inferiority and fragility” then feel free - but, so far, your postings have exhibited none of those characteristics … I would rather characterise them as trenchant statements made without reference to the topic of conversation.
C.D. said,
May 15, 2007 at 9:12 pm
These are my favorites:
“Getting rid of religion won’t bring utopia, but it will be a good start” …yet…
“I certainly would agree with you that man is an imperfect being”
I’ll always remember Stalin’s qoute that “Killing one man is murder, killing 25,000 is a strategy.” That’s reason. Perverted, sick, reason, which without religion, one man was able to pervert. Removing a supposed blight from society will not prevent other distorted perversions. Suppose you can substitute other ideas than “religion”. Language and distance is more devisive than religion, color of skin, wealth, education…etc.
I could care less about the loss of Post-Christian Europe, they decided as a continent to eschew the devil’s sourdough. Tragic as it is to see lovely churches converted to Mosques, I’ve always wondered what dhimmitude would be like.
As i’ve mentioned before, i’ve viewed Dawkin’s speeches and read his articles. Insightful twist on words towards the pious, but nothing new.
Andrew Krause said,
May 17, 2007 at 1:41 am
C.D.
What I’m railing against isn’t just religion, it’s dogma and irrationality. Stalin’s evil was due to dogma and the cult of personality he manufactured under the ideological dogma of communism for which he demanded faith in from the masses. I’m against all these dogmas and blind faith. As Harris said, “no society ever failed for being to reasonable”. Just because religion isn’t the only irrational dogma doesn’t mean it isn’t as dangerous. Funny thing, religion is the only area where dogma and apologetics has a good connotation.
That’s why I said getting rid of religion won’t bring utopia - we still have other dogma’s and man’s unreasonable desires to believe in wishful thinking and gain power over others to contend with. Supplanting faith with reason and rationality (which undergird atheism) won’t abolish man’s evil tendencies but it will enable us to handle them better.
I would not be so quick to use Stalin as your poster boy against atheism until you read about his life in depth. He patterned much of his approach to governing and control on what he learned as a boy in religious education and the nature of religious indoctrination and control. Even Stalin was a seed sown by religion - NOT enlightenment or science (which he also perverted with Lysenkoism for example).
C.D. said,
May 18, 2007 at 1:53 pm
I used Stalin as a perversion of reason. Man can reason anything!! Besides I understand that Stalin was a semenarion but, he did persecute the religious did he not? Same as Mao Zedong. They’re both great examples of substitute faith. Even the hideous North Korean regime, which i’m glad I was posted in Korea to oppose such a doctrine.
Also, Science is no angel itself, it has to account for its horrors, chemical/nuclear weapons, eugenics, industrial slaughter.
I am willing to accept Hitler’s perversion of Christianity through Aryan-Christianity, by substituting a Seigfried as a Christ. Hitler’s perversion of Choseness could not exist with the existence of God’s chosen people, the Jews. How sad it is.
Science is not mankinds salvation, no matter what science proves or if we evolved from apes or not, that does not matter to humanity! Humanity wants to know why they’re here?? What is their purpose? Dawkins preaches emptiness, which humanity is not going to swallow. Even if Judeo-Christianity were to devolve, you would still have to contend with New Age religion, Neo-Paganism and silly lucky charms. To rid of religion is simply chasing your thumb, it’s here to stay regardless of “reason” you contend is the truth, as man’s greatest crusade is meaning of life and with that mankind will latch on transcendence instead of facts.
I do agree with Dawkins that religious fundamentalists need to be with dealt with, I do not care for Biblical literalists as much as Dawkins, but then again he is one himself. God is not a bearded man who smites people with lighting bolts from a cloud. His philosophy is that I had as a thirteen year old, calling the religious ignorant or conformed. Of all things why would anyone wish to become a Christian?? It’s not a religion, it’s people’s lives, It’s a way of life, that is why the harder you press the stiffer the resistance.
That’s why ad hominem attacks are so hurtful, so please, i know that you did not say anything in your previous post, but hopefully that anyone who wishes to disagree with a doctrine that they refrain from attacking the poster as a religious stooge. I do apologize if I, myself, have acted in such a way. as Andrew has noted, that mankind is not perfect and at times I do get upset and lash out. So yes, I do apologize.
Blackblade,
Fate is for Romans and Athenians. Man has dominion over his life, he can choose to do good or to do evil. The sad reality of humanity is that people will do evil to make themselves appear good or to feel good. Pride is the chief cardinal sin which will plague humanity till the end.
Sorry so choppy in response, but i’m off to bed kiddos.
If you anyone of you wish to keep a correspondence please ask for email and we’ll gladly take our conversation off this forum into more private matters.
C.D>
Blackblade said,
May 19, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Hey CD,
I don’t think I mentioned fate, per se, in my last post.
The choice as to whether to commit good or evil acts is, indeed, within the control of an individual. However, I fail to see where that is necessarily promoting any religious viewpoint … muslims/christians/jews/buddhists/taoists/atheists can all behave evily or well. God is not a prerequisite to be good nor is any particular religion.
Happy to discuss further but this seems as good a place as any to do so.
Cheers,
Matt (Blackblade)
rafael said,
January 1, 2008 at 4:28 am
THE ATHEIST MENTAL DISORDER
http://scientistcanotcalculateearth.blogspot.com/
We will look at the theories of evolution in their two main foundations: the expansion of the universe, and the quantum or microorganism. To understand it with reason, thee first subject we are confronted with is God. Let us read a few verses from the Bible. Psalm 14:1 of the Old Testament says, “The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.” This sentence may also be translated as “The fool does not want God in his heart.” The result of saying this can be found in the second sentence of the same verse: “They are corrupt; they do abominable deeds.”Let us also take a passage from the New Testament. Hebrews 11:6 says, “For he who comes forward to God must believe that He is.
“THREE KINDS OF PEOPLE “
Whether you claim too be a Christian, a non-believer, or a seeker after truth, we will start by examining the subject of God. In this respect the world is divided into three camps. The first is that of the atheists who do not believe in a God. The second consists of the agnostics. They have no sure knowledge about the deity. On the one hand, they dare not say there is no God, but on the other hand, they are not clear if God does exist. We belong to the third category of those who believe in God.
PROSECUTION
Is there a God? I will not try to say yes or no to this question. Rather, I will make this place a law court. I will ask you to be the judge, and I will be the prosecutor. The work of a judge is to make decisions, to approve or disapprove the truth of statements; the work of a prosecutor is to present all the evidence and arguments that he can possibly gather. Before we proceed, we have to be clear about one fact: all prosecutors are not eyewitnesses of crimes. They are not policemen. A policeman may personally witness an event, whereas a prosecutor obtains his information only indirectly. He places all the charges, evidence, and arguments collected before the judge. In the same way, I shall present before you everything that I can possibly find. If you ask whether I have seen God or not, I would say “no.” I am reading or demonstrating what I have gathered. My job is to search for facts and to call for witnesses. You are to arrive at a conclusion yourself.
QUALIFICATIONS
Many people assert that there is no God. As a prosecutor I ask you first to check the qualification of these people. Are they qualified to make such claims? Are those who assert that there is no God moral or immoral? Do not just listen to their arguments. Even robbers and swindlers have their arguments. Of course, the arguments support them as robbers and swindlers. The subject of their arguments may be very noble; they may talk about the state of the nations and the welfare of society, but their opinions cannot be seriously considered. They are not worthy of passing such judgments. If a man is upright in his conduct and moral judgment, we can give credibility to his words, but if not, his words lose their credibility. This is especially true when it relates to the question of deity. It is interesting to note that the moral standards of men are directly related to their concept about God. Those who admit their own ignorance have a passable standard, while insistent atheists invariably have a low level of moral responsibility. I do not claim to know all atheists, but of the several thousand that I know, none of them possess a notably commendable morality. You may tell me that there was once a moral atheist, but if there was one, he is dead. Or you may tell me that there will be a moral atheist, but whoever he may be, he is not here yet. At least we can say that for now, we do not know a moral atheist.
NO ATHEIST IS MORAL
Recently in a College at Uk, the geologist, who is a defender of evolution therefore an atheist confess he is arrogant, the atheist said “there is nothing wrong in being arrogant, I’m right, so there is nothing wrongâ€. He was debating with a Christian professor who never change his good attitude even though he was being ridicule and mocked. Regarding the behavior of the Atheist it was sad to see a defender of science behaving as a child, he do not have moral standards, man who do not have a sense for Gods law, he will not respect anyone , regarding respecting other he is immoral. There were many students on the campus who did not believe in God. They were greatly offended by these words. This atheist offended the Christian professor again and again; the atheist said to him I like to interrupt you. He kept offending the Christian professor saying “you want to believe in God because you are insecure; the proof is that you have the psychological need of God, your God and you are false and have a mental disorderâ€. This is completely unethical using the right words immoral. Even the body language of this old man of Uk tells, something wrong with him, he cross his arms in a defensive way , he did look the audience , look to the floor and even when he smile was sad. He looks nervous and evasive; his body language showed that something was wrong with him. He made funny gestures and faces at the Christian professor. How can anyone with moral decency shuffle his speaking to do gestures and call to the other professor false in his believes and say that he has a mental disorder.
No atheist has helped you become better? Has he made your thoughts cleaner or your heart purer? Or did it make you just the opposite?”
“Regarding to what they speakâ€
This atheist use scientific methods of questioning, and this are endless, their speaking for sure is has not good intention. How come they will ask: Why Jews and Muslims who believe in God, hate each other and kill each other because their religion.
Muslims attacked Americans in 9/11 because they hate Americans and do not tolerated Americans way of living.
What are the intentions of these questions? Most of people know that Jews and Muslims have been fighting over their land for thousands of years; it is not for the God in which they believe it has been always the land. And that is their problem is up to then how they deal with it. The atheist confuse them as well others and said they kill each other because their God. Mr. Atheist can you put into your head that is because the land. Or what is what you are really after. Sure you have a bad tongue.
And why do you ask them about 9/11 actually you Atheist went to the Middle East and told them. You hate Americans because they allow prostitutes on the street. Of course they will say they do not like their respectfull woman to be in the street as prostitutes. But you Godless
Man understand, that their government is theocratic, meaning their believe in God is their Law and constitution, they live in a Theocratic society and as humans that is their right.
Why did you bring 9/11 up? USA is democracy. Do you want me to believe that my country USA attacks the Middle East because they want to establish Democracy in the theocratic Middle East? Even if that is truth, if I’m ask I will obey to my president and go to Middle East
And kill or get kill, soldiers obey orders and thousands of young people have died in this war, that is the way that my country is, do you know how many Middle East civilians have died there? Hundred of thousands, those who are dead are better off of those who are among the living ones, their suffering is not a joke and for USA soldiers is a pain in our soul, so who are you to bring up an issue that USA soldiers will never question.
China which is the domicile of more than half the world’s population is communist. Atheist should go there to recruit people. You atheist are in your line of question totally immoral.
I do whish that my president George W. Bush wont let you come to America and I will tell him about your videos The God of delusion and the atheist debate, because in those videos you make fun of my president. Do not think that because our presidents did not claim the rights to the back bone of the net years ago, they will never claim it back.
Now you ask: why believers hate, homosexuals? Isn’t good to see two male’s holdings hands on the streets, and to girls kissing on the train? Maybe, because evolution is not only about natural selection, but about sexual selection. Are evolutionists teaching the children of America about sexual selection, “Sexual selection is a special case of natural selection Sexual selection acts in an organisms’ ability to obtain by any means necessary to successfully copulate with their mate or in groups†Sexual selection simple means I can chose anyone male female is ok. Can you see that your teaching has contaminated humanity?
Do you Atheist hold at what you believe?
Of course not Richard Dawkins has called himself, a cultural Christian. If he is against Christians how he dares to call himself a Christian of any kind, I do believe in God I will always say that I do love God as my Father. But your stamen’s shows that you are not firm in your believe rather, you are liar therefore immoral.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7136682.stm
Their line of question is groundless or they are carrying out and agenda. I think for old man as they are, it is normal to question everything as well senile to think they know everything. They think of themselves as modern scientist question everything even if they don’t know the subject. Because they live in the twenty first century they know better than those who live thousands of years ago. And why they are confused using the word religion as if it means the same as believer. According to the lexicon Webster dictionary “religion is a way to trying to reach or seek God†“a believer in God have already found Him and knows Himâ€. Why atheists don’t know the dictionary? Do they know Greek or at the least Hebrew languages what about Aramaic or Latin. In the bible there are tree different words in Greek to designated the word “lifeâ€
1. Bios referring to the biological life our body
2. Psycho referring to the soul logical means study. The word Psychology means the study of the soul, emotions, mind and will.
3. There is another word for life that is Zoe the highest life. Whenever the bible speaks of eternal life speak of Zoe. In a Greek dictionary you will find the distinction. I wonder what an atheist that only knows the bible superficially how will they explain that in the bible there is a word Zoe that was transliterated from Hebrew to Greek as Zoe.
They should not speak about the bible, because their knowledge is superficial, have they read the bible fifty times? have they read 4000 others books? What about the evolution of species how many times they read it.
For this reason, their whole argument is not worthy of consideration. The question is, “Are you qualified to claim that there is no God?” If your hope is merely hear something that isn’t knew, you have lost your ground already.
IS MAN THE GREATEST?
One day a young man came to me and said, “I do not believe in a so-called God. Man is the greatest. He is the noblest among all creatures. There is no God in this universe; man is everything.” We were sitting opposite each other. After hearing what he said, I stood up, went to one side of the room, stooped down, and gazed at him intently. I said, “Do you know that in the past many Americans missionaries went abroad USA specially to China, they came with not support from their churches, during the boxer rebellion many of them died, but sow a seed of life “Zoe†that made of the idolaters Chinese genuine believers, when the communist took over China many were put on jail because of their believe in God, thousands of them died, the bible was taken away, a communist reform took place, everyone have to listen to Mao because communist in China as well Stalinism are base in the cult or worship of the personality of their leader. So believers were whipped out. Because they wont exult Mao over God , but today in china there are 200 millions of genuine believers, how this happen, God did it, can atheist recruit in America or in the world 200 million like them, of course not , so why you say that there is not God and you are greater than Him.
HOW VAST IS THE UNIVERSE?
I then said to the young man, “And here you are! You have not even walked through the whole earth, and yet you consider yourself greater than the whole universe. Let me ask you, do you know how vast the universe is? Take light for example. Light travels at 186,000 miles per second. Try to calculate how far light travels in one minute, or one hour, or a day, or a year. There are some stars whose light takes three thousand years to reach us. Go and work out how far they are from us! And you think you are so great! I would therefore advise all atheists and young men alike to admit the incompetency of man not only morally, but intellectually and academically as well.
“CAN MAN EXTEND BEYOND THE BOUNDS OF TIME AND SPACE?
Another time when I was in Kaifeng, I met another one of those young, stout atheists. I walked up to him and patted him on the shoulder, saying, “I saw God today!” He stared at me in curiosity and demanded a further word. I replied, “You are God! If you know that there is no God, then you have to be God.” He asked for an explanation. I said, “Since you are convinced that there is no God, you must have traveled over the whole earth. If God is not in Shanghai, He may still be in Nanking. You must have been to both places. That is not all. If God is not in Nanking, He may be in Tientsin. You must also have been to Tientsin. But you cannot draw this conclusion simply by being in China; God may be in another country. So you must have been to every country on this earth. If God is not in one place, He may be in another. Therefore, you must have traveled throughout the world. One never knows if God is hiding at the North Pole or the South Pole or in the woods or wilderness somewhere. So you must have combed through all those regions as well. If God is not found on earth, He may be found on the moon. You therefore must have been to the moon. God may also be on other planets or in outer space. This means that you have traveled through space and all the other galaxies as well. If you can say that there is no God, it must mean that you have traveled throughout the whole universe. If this is the case, you must be God yourself.”This is not all. Even though you know that God does not exist in Shanghai today, how about yesterday? Perhaps God will come tomorrow. You say that you know there is no God today, but what about last year? And how do you know that God will not come next year? You say that there is no God this year, but what about a thousand years ago? Very well, you must be an everlasting one who knows everything about the past and future. You have to be a being beyond time and space. You must be in Tientsin and in another country at the same time; you must be omnipresent from the east to the west, from the North Pole to the South Pole. Who else but you can be the very God? If you are not God, you can never be qualified to say that there is no God.
“THE EVIDENCEâ€
Some will immediately step back and say, “I have never said that I know there is no God. One can never tell whether there is a God or not.” Well, if you cannot give a conclusion, I will ask witnesses whom I consider trustworthy to present arguments to you and prove the existence of God. Again let me say this, you are the judge, and I am the prosecutor. I am presenting only the evidence before you. Decide for yourself if there is a God.
THE UNIVERSE
First, looks at nature, the world that is before our eyes and every phenomenon in it. We all know that scientific knowledge is the rational explanation of natural phenomena. For example, there is an observed drop in the temperature of a patient. The drop in temperature is a phenomenon, and the explanation for it is scientific knowledge. When an apple falls from the tree, it is a phenomenon. Why does an apple not fly into the air? The explanation for this phenomenon constitutes knowledge. A man with knowledge is a man who has the proper explanations.
ONLY TWO EXPLANATIONS
The universe displays countless phenomena of diverse forms, colors, shapes, and nature. We cannot fail to notice these phenomena before our eyes. The explanation for all these phenomena is known as knowledge. All thoughtful persons have only two explanations as far as the origin of the universe is concerned; there is no third explanation. You have to take one or the other of them. What are these two explanations? The first says that the universe came into being through natural evolution and self-interaction; the second attributes its origin to a personified being with intellect and purpose. These are the only two explanations presented by all philosophers of the world. There is not a third one. Where did the universe come from? Did it come into existence by itself or through chance? Or was it designed by the One from whom we derive the concept of God? You have to think and then make a decision about it. Everything that is by chance has certain characteristics. I would suggest you list all of these in a detailed way, the more the better, and then compare all the phenomena of the universe with your list. Alongside of this make another list of the characteristics which, in your opinion, would be prominent if the universe was created by an intelligent Being. Now by a simple comparison of nature with your two lists, it will be easy to draw a reasonable conclusion.
CHANCE EVENTS
What are the characteristics of things that come about by chance? First, we know that they are unorganized. At the most they can be partially integrated. They can never be totally organized. One can achieve a specified goal by chance once, but he can never achieve a specified goal by chance all the time. Anything that comes together by chance can only be integrated partially, never totally. For example, if I throw this chair to the other side of the room, by chance it may come to rest at a perfect angle. If I do the same with a second chair, it may also lie neatly beside the first one. But this will not keep on happening with the third and the fourth and so on. Chance can only provide partial organization. It does not guarantee total integration. Furthermore, all random interactions are aimless, disorganized, and purposeless. They are without order and structure; they are loose, formless, disorderly, and not directed toward any meaningful purpose. Briefly, we can say that the characteristics of chance events are disharmony, irregularity, inconsistency, purposelessness, and insignificance. We will write down these four characteristics on our list.
CONSISTENCY AND ORGANIZATION
Now let us compare the things in the universe with these characteristics. Take, for example, the human being. He is carried in his mother’s womb for nine months and delivered; he grows up and eventually dies. This cycle is repeated for every single individual. Consistency can be observed. It is not a wild game of chance. Again, look at the sun above your head. It does not exist purposelessly. Rather, it has its purpose and significance. Look at the moon, the stars, and the myriads of galaxies through your telescope. Some stars have their own planets. They all follow definite tracks and patterns. They are all organized. Their manner of motion can be calculated and predicted. The calendar in your hand is derived from them. Even next year’s calendar can be printed before this year is past. All these show that the universe is organized, consistent, and purposeful.
MICROORGANISMS
Let us turn to the micro-world. Take a thin slice of wood. Put it under a microscope and observe its grain and structure, all meticulously regular and rhythmic. Even a blade of grass and the petal of a flower are finely fashioned. Nothing is unorganized or confused. Everything is disciplined and functional. All these things witness one fact to you: the universe, with its macro and micro aspects, is purposeful and meaningful. Can you say that all these came into existence by chance? Surely you cannot.
IS IT OCCUPIED?
Once I was preaching the gospel with a co-worker of mine in a village. On the way back we were extremely thirsty. There was neither a teahouse nor stream for us to get water. In fact the whole area was uninhabited. After walking for a while we came across a thatched hut. We went to the door quickly and knocked. For a long time there was no answer. We thought that no one lived there. When we opened the door and went in, we found that the floor was swept clean. In one of the rooms was a bed with nicely folded sheets. There was a teapot on the table, and the tea in it was still warm. I said, “Surely someone must be living here. All the arrangements indicate beyond doubt that this place is occupied by someone. We should not drink this tea. We must get out quickly or else people will think we are thieves.” We walked out and waited for the owner to return. By observing the arrangements of the house, we concluded that someone was living there, without having seen the occupant. In the same way, we know that God is there by the arrangement of everything in the universe, although we cannot see Him. Every single phenomenon of nature is so balanced, organized, meaningful, and functional. You may say that they come by chance, but it is impossible for me to believe that chance is its sole originator. The Bible says, “The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.” Only foolish people can say in their hearts that there is no God.
CHANCE OR DESIGN
The universe has to be created by someone with profound wisdom, vast knowledge, and intricate design. If you cannot accept the concept of random formation of the universe, you have to admit that it was created by such a God. There cannot be a third explanation. The choice is left to you. You have to decide if the universe came by chance or whether it was created by God.
A DEMAND AND ITS OBJECT
One witness may not be enough. I will call in another. This time we will consider man’s heart. Before doing so, we should also observe one fact: wherever there is a desire, there must first be an object for that desire. For example, an orphan who has never seen his father naturally has a desire for a kind of paternal love. I have asked many people who were orphans, and they all have felt this irrepressible yearning. By this we can see that every desire of the heart arises out of an object in the world. As human beings we have a need for social belonging. We need companionship and mutuality. If you put a boy on a deserted island and he grows up alone, he still has the yearning for companions, for beings like himself, even though he has never seen a human being. This yearning or desire is the very proof that somewhere in the world there is something known as “man.” At a certain age, man begins to think about posterity; he starts desiring children and grandchildren. This is not a mere fantasy. This desire stems out of the existence and possibility of offspring. Hence, where there is desire, there is an object for that desire.
THERE IS GOD IN THE HEART
Do we have any desires other than social identity and self-propagation? What other cravings do we have? Deep in everyone there is a craving for God. Whether they are highly civilized races, such as those among the Caucasians, or the ancient civilizations, such as the Chinese civilizations, or the African natives and uncultured aborigines, they all have a common craving –God. As long as they are men, they have a yearning for God, no matter what race or nationality. This is a fact. You cannot argue against it. Everyone is seeking after God. Everywhere man is craving for God. This is very clear. By applying the principle that we just mentioned, we can see that since our heart feels the need for a God, there must necessarily be a God in the universe. Since there is a need for God in the heart, there must be the existence of God in the universe. If no God exists, we would never have such a craving in our heart. We all have an appetite for food. In the same way, we all have an appetite for God. It would be impossible to live if there was only an appetite for food but no food. Likewise, it would be impossible to live if there was a capacity for God but no God.
NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT GOD?
Once an atheist rudely rebuked me in a loud voice: “You said that a man has the psychological need for a God. But there is no such thing, and I do not believe in it.” I said, “Well, do you mean to say that you never think about God? In fact, even while you were talking, you were thinking about Him. This indicates that you do have a capacity for God. There is no one who has never thought about God. He may try not to think much about Him. Since this thought is in you, there must be such an object outside of you.
“THE WORDS AND THE HEARTâ€
A young man once came to me to argue about God. He was vehemently against the existence of God. He gave me one reason after another for saying that there is no God. As he was enumerating the various reasons why God should not exist, I listened to him quietly without saying a word. Then I said, “Although you insist that there is no God and support yourself with so many arguments, you have lost your case already.” He said, “What do you mean?” I went on to explain: “Your mouth can say as much as you want about there not being a God, but your heart is on my side.” He had to agree with me. Although one can give all sorts of reasons in the head, there is a belief in the heart that no argument can defeat. A stubborn person may give a thousand and one reasons, but you can have the boldness to tell him, “You know better in your heart that there is a God. Why bother to look for evidence outside?”Now what would you say? After looking at nature and the universe, after checking with your inner feeling, it is up to you to decide whether or not there is a God. But you should not be irresponsible; your attitude must be sober because everyone has to meet God soon. One day you will all stand before Him. Everything concerning you will be laid bare. On that day you will know God. But now is the time for you to be prepared. We should all be prepared to meet our God
CONSIDER THIS
I shall begin by assuming that the issue of God’s existence is settled. We all believe that there is a God. As those who desire to know the truth, we must go one step further to find out what kind of God He is. God is the greatest Unknown. We must spend some time to find out about this unknown One. The next step now is to know what kind of a God He is.
THE BIBLE
In the past few thousand years’ man has been inquiring about the nature of God. Is He kind or is He righteous? Is He indifferent towards us, or is He extremely interested in human affairs? These types of questions are the direct cause of all human religions. What is religion? Religion is man’s inquiry about God and his explanation of Him. Through these explanations, different men have arrived at different concepts about God. What kind of God is He? This is a big question. It is also a very serious question. We have all given our thought to this subject at one time or another. The question might even have occurred to our little mind when we were five years old. All men, educated or ignorant, have been intrigued by this question. It comes naturally after some contemplation and observation.
But a person trying to speculate about God is like an ant attempting to understand a human being. It is extremely difficult for the little creature to try to realize our life, nature, and mind. In the same way it is impossible for us to try to comprehend God. For this reason, in the past few thousand years, all kinds of people, theologians and philosophers alike, have done much thinking about Him. What has God been doing all this time? Has He been indifferent to us or has He tried to reveal Himself to us? What is God’s attitude? Do you think He would say, “I am God and have nothing to do with human beings. I do not care what you think about me. I shall stay in heaven as God. Let the mortals be ignorant!” Or do you think He has a desire to reveal Himself to man and visit him?
When I was in India, I saw some people lying naked on beds studded with nails. Some walked with bare feet on burning coals. These people devoted a great deal of energy to seeking after God. What has God done to them? Did He hide Himself and take no notice of them at all? Has He not kept Himself as a perpetual mystery? This is a great question. We have to consider it scientifically and objectively in order to find out what God is like.
A few years ago I spoke on a similar subject to some medical students in an auditorium in Cheloo University. I said that man is an organism with a life. God also is a life. Man’s life is higher than that of the lower animals, and God’s life is even higher than that of man. I asked the students, “Since we realize that all living organisms have some common laws and express some common traits, can you name them?” Different ones then started to bring up different points. At the end we summed up the discussion in this way: all living organisms contain two common characteristics. You can call these characteristics their common expressions or their common laws. First, every life wants to preserve itself. It tends to reproduce itself. There is the ability to produce posterity, to continue its own life. Second, every life wants to have fellowship with other lives. It cannot stand being by itself. When a man cannot find fellowship with another human being, he goes to dogs, cats, fish, or birds and makes friends with animals. All living creatures desire fellowship.
Based on these two characteristics of life, namely, the preservation of itself and fellowship with others, laws of human government are instituted. For example, the death penalty reflects a convict’s desire to preserve his own life; punishment comes in the form of taking away and terminating such a life. This is the way to inflict suffering on a life. Imprisonment, as a less serious punishment, cuts him off from having fellowship with others. This reversal of the life principle becomes then a suffering for him. From this we see that punishment is applied according to the principles of life.
With these two chief characteristics in mind, let us turn to the life of God. God is an organism of a higher order than human beings. He is naturally governed by this law of life. We can know God by the characteristics and distinctive features of His life. From this we can deduce whether or not God wants to have fellowship with man.
There are two kinds of religion: religion based on natural concepts and religion based on revelation. Natural religion starts with man as the center. He is the one that is seeking after God and studying about Him. What then is revelation religion? Revelation religion comes directly from God. He is the One who comes to reveal things to us. Man’s thoughts are often useless fancies. God’s revelation alone is trustworthy. Christianity is different from all other natural religions in that it is a religion that comes from revelation. Christianity begins from God. It is God who comes to seek out man, rather than man who seeks after God.
I will not try to persuade you to believe in Christianity or to read the Bible. I will only make a few suppositions. We will treat the subject in the same way as if we were solving a problem in geometry. We will start from the suppositions and then deduce our arguments step by step. We will examine our reasoning’s to see if they are sound and if our conclusions are logical. As in mathematics, with some problems we work forwards, while with others we work backwards. At any rate, in the end we should be able to tell whether or not a supposition is justified.
We have to make a few suppositions. The first one is that God exists. This in fact has been covered by us already. We have agreed that there is a God. He is a Being who has a purpose.
Second, we assume that God has a desire to reveal Himself to man. If God wants to reveal Himself to man and if He wants us to know Him, how does He do it? In what manner can He be made known to us? If He speaks to us through thunder or writes to us through lightning, we will not be able to comprehend His message. How then does God make Himself known to us?
If He is to reveal Himself and if He wants us to know Him, He necessarily must do it through human means. What then are the common ways that men communicate with one another? First, they do it through speaking and second through writing. All means of communication, whether telegraph, telephone, sign, or symbols, are all included in these two categories. If God is to manifest Himself, these are the only two means for Him to do so. For the present we set aside the aspect of speaking; we will see how God communicates with us through writing.
If God reveals Himself through writing, of all the volumes written by different people throughout the centuries, there must be one book which is divinely inspired. This is a very crucial test. If such a book exists, it proves not only the existence of God, but it contains His written revelation to us as well. Is there then such a divinely written book?
In the search for such a book, let us first mention a few basic principles. Suppose I want to order a book from a publisher. If I can tell him the name and author of the book, there will be no trouble getting it. If, however, I forget the name and author of the book, I can describe the characteristics of it to the publisher, such as the contents, size, color, binding, etc. The publisher will then search through all his books and locates the volume I want. God has one book in this universe. How do we find it? We have to know its characteristics first. If there is any book that has been written by God, it must meet certain conditions or have certain qualifications before one can say that it is from God.
Let me put forth a few propositions. If there is a book written by God, it must first of all mention God. It must tell you that it is from God and that its author is God. This is the first qualification. Second, it must carry a moral tone that is higher than what we commonly know. If it is a fabrication, it can at the most be on the same level as man. Third, if there is such a divine book, it must tell us about the past and the future of this world. Only God knows clearly what occurred in the past and what will happen in the future. Only by telling us these matters will we know Him as God. Fourth, this book must be simple and available so that all may be able to secure and understand it. If there were only one such book in the world, then only a very few people would be able to see it. It would not pass the test unless it is a book accessible to everyone. In the United States there is a group of people who claim to have a book from God. It is engraved in gold and contains only twelve pages. Such a book then would not be accessible to the Chinese. God would never write to us a book at which we could not look.
Now the matter is simplified. Let us repeat these four conditions once more. (1) If such a book exists, it must tell us explicitly that its author is God. (2) It must carry a high tone of morality. (3) It must give a detailed description of the past and the future of the universe. (4) It must be available. Let us pick out some of the more important writings throughout human civilization and check them against these qualifications to see if any meets our requirements.
We will start from books that are generally considered to be good. Let us take the Chinese classics of Confucius. They are immediately disqualified under the first requirement, for none of them claims to be written by God. They do have a high tone of morality, but they fail to give the origin and destiny of the world, the universe, and man. This does not mean that they are worthless books; it means that they do not contain the qualifications we want. They are not what we are looking for.
Let us go to the classics of other cultures. There are numerous volumes of famous writings, but none of them passes the first test. They are all clearly written by man. They may be masterpieces in philosophy or morality, but they are not written by God, nor are they divinely inspired. We have to set them aside.
There is a book in India called the Rig-Veda. It once dominated Hinduism. However, it does not claim to be written by God.
Another book called the Avesta, written by a Persian named Zoroaster, is also extremely influential in the Middle East. It does not claim to be from God either. Moreover, its moral tone is not especially commendable.
Let us come to the Koran of Mohammedanism. This is the closest one we can find. It tells us that it comes from God; it meets the first requirement. However, it does not fulfill the second requirement, for its moral tone is too low. The heaven it describes is full of lusts and flesh. God could never write a book with such licentiousness and immorality. Hence, this book does not pass the test of morality.
After searching through all the books, you have to come finally to the Bible. If God desires to communicate with man, and if He does so through writing, then this is the only book that can pass the four tests. Hence, this must be the book God has for man.
What does this book say? In the books of the law in the Old Testament, it says, “Thus said the Lord,” at least five hundred times. Other books in the Old Testament repeat the phrase about seven hundred times. In addition to the references in the New Testament to the speaking of God, the Bible has more than two thousand claims of divine origin. If God has no intention of communicating with man, we can forget about this book. But if He does communicate with man through writing, then this book has to be of immense value. Can you find another book where God is claimed as its author that many times?
We have to see if the Bible meets the second qualification. Let us take a look at its moral tone. Everyone who has studied this book confesses that it carries the highest moral standard. Even the sins of the noblest persons are recorded and condemned without mercy. Once a strong opposer of the Bible was asked by his son, “Why are you so strong against the Bible?” He answered, “If I do not condemn it, it will condemn me.” This book does not let us get by easily. The human concept is that all sexual acts outside marriage are considered as fornication. The Bible, however, says that even an evil thought is fornication. Human morality condemns an act of killing as murder, but the Bible condemns a slight hatred in the heart as murder.
We consider a man who lets his enemy get by without paying vengeance as forgiving. But the Bible charges man to love his enemy. How high is its moral tone and how low we are before its standards! You cannot help but admit that it presents the best ethical code for humanity.
Furthermore, this book describes in detail the past and future of the universe. Once a friend told me that he could believe in everything the Bible says except the parts in Genesis and Revelation where it talks about the origin and destiny of the heavens and earth. I told him that if this is indeed a book from God, it must, of necessity, contain these matters. If the Bible did not contain Genesis and Revelation, it would be the same as any other book, and we would have to look for another book; it would not be the one we want. But the past condition of the world and its future destiny are recorded here. Hence, the third qualification is also met.
What is the circulation of such a book? Last year (1935), more than two hundred million copies were sold. Can you name another book that has such a high circulation rate? This statistic, moreover, is not limited to just last year; every year the number has remained approximately the same. In one sense this book is very popular. In another sense it is like a thorn in your hand; it pierces you. This book gives you a headache. It creates an unspeakable uneasiness within man. It even causes man to oppose it. In spite of this, its annual sales are still over two hundred million.
Furthermore, this book is translated into more than seven hundred twenty languages. In every country and among every race, there is a translation of this unique book. It is extremely easy for anyone to obtain a Bible anywhere in the world. If the Rig-Veda were God’s book, then more than half of the world would perish due to a failure in obtaining it. Even if you put the Rig-Veda in my hand, I would still be unable to understand it. If only the educated ones can contact God, then I am destined to go to hell. If only the Indians have the opportunity, we Chinese, as well as other races, are out of hope. If God speaks through the Rig-Veda, then where can we find that book? Maybe we can only find the original copy in the London Museum. And even that may not contain the original meaning of God’s revelation to man.
This is not all. The Bible contains sixty-six books and it is divided into the Old and New Testaments. It was written by no less than thirty people. The span from the time the first book was written to the time when the last book was finished is more than sixteen hundred years. The places where they were written are also different. Some were written in Babylon, some in Italy, some at one end of Asia Minor, others at the other end of the Mediterranean. Furthermore, the writers themselves differed in their backgrounds. Some were lawyers; some were fishermen. There were princes, and there were shepherds. All these writings by men of different backgrounds, languages, environments, and periods are put together. The amazing thing is that it is still a complete book.
All those who have had some experience of editing know that in order to put together a few articles written by different authors, it is necessary for the authors to be of comparable level of academic achievements and viewpoints. Even when the academic standard and viewpoints are similar, there will still be conflicts and contradictions when you put five or six articles together. But the Bible, though complex in contents, contains history, poetry, laws, prophecies, biographies, and doctrines and was written by so many different ones at different times and under different circumstances, yet when you put them together, they surprisingly run as one continuous volume. There is no conflict or contradiction. They are written in one breath.
If you read this book carefully, you have to admit that God’s hand is behind all the writings. More than thirty people of varied backgrounds and ideas in different times and places wrote these sixty-six books. When you group them up, they link together as if they were written by one individual. Genesis was written about fifteen hundred years before Christ, and Revelation was written ninety-five years after Christ. There is a time span of sixteen hundred years. One talks about the beginning while the other projects the end of the world. Yet whatever begins in Genesis is concluded in Revelation. This amazing feature cannot be explained in human terms. Every word of it has to be written by God through man. God is the motivating One behind the whole composition.
There is another remarkable thing about this book. In itself it is a book that gives life. Yet countless numbers of people have lost their lives for its sake. There was a time when anyone who held this book in his hand would immediately be put to death. The most powerful empire in history was the Roman Empire. There was a time when this empire summoned all its forces to destroy this book. Everyone who possessed it would be inhumanly persecuted and later killed or burned. They wiped out thousands of people and burned countless copies of the Bible. They even set up a monument at a place where they killed Christians. On it was the inscription: “Christianity is buried here.” They thought that when they had burned all the Bibles and removed all the Christians, they would see Christianity lying there beneath their feet. But it was not long after that when the Bible came back again. Even in a country like England, which has already accepted Christianity as its state religion, you can still find tombs of martyrs for Christ if you visit different places there. Here and there you can find places where the Bible was once burned. Or you may come across a tombstone that tells you that such and such a person tried so hard and wrote so many books in his life to oppose the Bible. One place may tell you that the Bible was once burned there, and another place may tell you that Christians were once killed there. One signpost may point you to a statue of martyrdom, and another may point to a site of Bible burning.
Why is it that so many people have tried so hard to oppose this book? Why is it that men would pass by other books, but would either oppose this book with every fiber of their being or would put their whole life to the stake for it? There must be something extraordinary here. Even if you do not believe that this is God’s word, you have to admit that there is something unusual about this book.
This book seems to be very simple and easy. If you consider it from the historical point of view, it tells the origin of the universe, the earth, the plants, human beings, how they established their kingdoms, and how they will eventually end. This is all. There is nothing special about it. Yet it has been handed from generation to generation for centuries. Today it is still with us. Moreover, if you do not confess that it is truth, you have to conclude that it is false. You can disregard many books, but you cannot ignore this book. Nor will it ignore you. It will not let you go. It demands a verdict from you. It will not pass you by.
Another remarkable thing about this book is that almost half of it is prophecy. Among the prophecies, almost half of them are fulfilled. The other half is for the future and await fulfillment. For example, it predicted the fate of the nations of Moab and Ammon and of the cities of Tyre and Sidon. Today when people talk about big cities, they mention London and Shanghai. Then it was Tyre and Sidon. They were two chief cities of the ancient world. The prophecies concerning these two cities were all fulfilled. Once I was in the Middle East. For some reason I did not visit those two places. However, I bought two pictures of those cities. It amazed me when I looked at those pictures. I could not help but believe in the Bible. It was prophesied that if these two metropolitan cities did not repent, they would be destroyed and devastated. Their land would become hills of rocks and pebbles where fishermen would come to dry their nets. In the pictures that I bought, there was nothing but fishing boats and open nets on the shore. This is only one small fact that proves the reliability of biblical prophecy.
If you compare past events with the prophecies in the Bible, you will find that they all correspond one with another. For another example, take the birth of Christ. Isaiah prophesied concerning a virgin with child a few hundred years before Christ actually came. Later, He was born indeed of the Virgin Mary. The prophecy was accurately fulfilled. As the prophecies concerning the past have been fulfilled, so the prophecies concerning the future must also be fulfilled.
If God desires to communicate with man, He must do so through common human channels of communication. He must use the human language or human writings. In other words, there must be a book in the world that is a direct revelation from God. If such a book does exist, it must contain the four criteria we mentioned. Now we can say that such a book is found. This book tells us that God desires to have fellowship with us. He speaks to us through this book. Through it God is no longer an unknown Being. We can now know Him. This book is the Bible. I hope all of you will read it .
THIS IS A SERIOUS MATER, IS HE CRAZY? A LUNATIC? A LIAR? PLEASE YOU’RE VERIDICT
God desires to reveal Himself to us. He does so through means that are comprehensible to man. These are namely written and spoken language. We have seen how God reveals Himself through writing. Now we want to take a look at His revelation through speaking.
Suppose that you have had correspondence with a person for many years; however, you have never seen him. Naturally, you would want to know him more by having some direct acquaintance with him. Full understanding of someone cannot be achieved merely through writing. Direct contact gives a better chance. It seems as if communication through speech is of a more intimate and thorough nature than writing. When spoken language is added to written language, communication becomes enhanced. If you take away either of the two, you have a gap. Of course, if you take away both, communication is completely voided. Effective communication is always carried out by these two means.
If God’s intention is to reveal Him to us, He must of necessity do so through speaking. But how does God speak? Does He trumpet from the heavens? If so, we would all be frightened to death. We would all run away. No one would dare to listen. There is a chasm between Him and us. He, being so high and great, would drive us away from His holiness. How then does He speak?
THE WINTER ON THE MOUNTAIN
let me relate to you a story. One winter I was staying on the mountain Lu-shan, recovering from an illness. It was immediately after the war, and there was practically no one living on the mountain. In the vicinity of my dwelling, one could hardly see anyone all day long. I am a quiet person by nature. This kind of environment was very appealing to me. Not only was it quiet there, but the weather was cold as well. From morning till dusk, all I saw was a boy who came three times to deliver my meals. At the beginning I was quite at ease. But after a while, even a person like me began to feel lonely.
One day after lunch I went to take a nap. There was a balcony outside my bedroom window. When I woke up I saw some little creatures gathering around the balcony. Bits of my meal had been dropped there, and the birds were busily chirping around them. As they hopped around, they chirped and made many cheerful noises. I said to myself, “All right. Since I cannot find any human beings, I will try to make friends with these little birds.”
I rose up and went out to greet them. But in an instant they all flew away. An idea came to me. I took some of the leftover rice and began to arrange it in rows, with only a few grains in the first row and gradually increased them towards the entrance of the doorway. I hid behind the door and watched them coming. Soon they gathered around again. I said to me, “This is my chance.” I walked out and began to make friends with them. But the minute they saw me, they all scattered. Some perched on the branches of the tree across the balcony and stared at me, as if trying to determine what my intention was. Every time I approached them, they flew away, and every time I walked away, they came back. This went on a number of times.
I wanted to preach to the birds. I wanted to tell them, “Little birds, I have no special intention in doing this. This is winter on the mountain, and food is scarce. I have enough food with me, and I just want to share it with you. Please be at peace and come down. I only ask that as you eat, I can sit among you. I want to listen to your songs and watch you playing. Come. Let us be friends…” But the birds would not come. They did not understand me. I had to give up.
Later I had a certain realization within. I began to preach to myself. I said, “This body of mine is too big. If I could shrink from five feet eleven inches to the size of a bird, and even change myself into a bird, they would not be alarmed by my presence. I could then tell them my heart’s intention, and we could spend the winter on the mountain Lu-shan together.”
We have a similar problem today. If God remained God, we could never understand Him. If He talked to us in His language, we would be altogether lost. If God wants to reveal Himself through speaking and have fellowship with man, He must shrink Himself to such a degree that He and we are the same. Only then would He be able to speak to us and tell us of Himself and of the mysteries of the universe. Only then would we be able to understand Him.
Has God become a man to reveal Himself through His speaking? Let us again use the method of supposition. What if God revealed Himself through the human language? What if He became a man and fellowshipped with man? The implication is tremendous here! It would mean that in this world, among all the human beings throughout history, one person was not merely a man, but God as well! If it is granted that God became a man, there must be a mortal who was also divine. We need to find out about this One.
This is a thorny task. But we will employ the effective method we have adopted—namely, setting down a few principles. Then we will search according to these qualifications and directions. We want to base our evaluation on what manner of life a person should possess and what qualifications he must have if he is God.
The first condition that this person must fulfill is that he must claim to be God while he is on earth. He cannot be apologetic about it. He must declare boldly that he is God. Only then can we know who he is. Without this declaration, we have no way to guess his identity. Hence, a declaration is our first qualification.
Second, the way this person came into the world must be different from ours. If I said that I am God and yet was born in the same manner as every other mortal, my words would carry no force. If on the other hand, I dropped down from heaven; my assertion would be taken seriously. The way this person comes into being must be extraordinary. He must come in an absolutely different fashion; otherwise, his words will not carry the necessary weight.
Third, this man must bear a moral standard that is far above that of all other human beings. He must have God’s holiness, and his life must bear the mark of God’s righteousness. For example, if I became a bird and lived in exactly the same way as other birds, without showing them anything extraordinary, I could not convince them that I was actually a man. If God is to become a man, His moral behavior must be of the highest quality. This is the only way that we could identify Him as God.
Furthermore, if a person is God, he must necessarily be able to perform things which no mortal can do. If he can achieve what we cannot achieve and know what we do not know, we can say that he is truly God.
Lastly, this person must be able to tell us the divine purpose concerning man. What was God’s purpose in creating the universe and man? How does He take care of human pains and sorrows? What is the origin and ultimate solution of everything in the universe? What should our attitude towards God be? All these he must reveal to us. Unless this one shows us what we do not see, we cannot say that he has shown us any revelation.
We will set down these five conditions and put the whole of humanity to the test. Let us find out if someone meets the five requirements. Such a person would surely be qualified to be God.
The first person to put to the test should be you. Of course, you are not God, because you have never claimed to be God. Nor have I ever claimed to be. So that rules out you and me. Very well, now we will introduce Confucius. If you read his books, you will find that he did conduct a very moral and proper life. But he never claimed to be God either. Hence, he fails in the first step.
What about Sakya Muni, the founder of Buddhism? Not only was there an absence of the claim of divinity, but his philosophy itself is void of deity. He did not believe in the existence of God. Since he had no God, he cannot be God either.
Next, go to Mohammed. He believed in God. But he never claimed to be God. He called God Allah and himself the prophet of Allah. If you go through every person in history, you will discover that no one ever claimed to be God except One. That One was Jesus of Nazareth. He claimed to be the living God. No other person put forward such a claim.
How can Jesus of Nazareth claim to be God? Before going on, we have to pause for a moment to seriously consider the matter. It is not a light thing to claim to be God. A person who makes such a claim falls into one of three categories. He must belong to one of these three categories; he cannot belong to all three. First, if he claims to be God and yet in fact is not, he has to be a madman or a lunatic. Second, if he is neither God nor a lunatic, he has to be a liar, deceiving others by his lie. Third, if he is neither of these, he must be God. You can only choose one of the three possibilities. If you do not believe that he is God, you have to consider him a madman. If you cannot take him for either of the two, you have to take him for a liar. There is no need for us to prove if Jesus of Nazareth is God or not. All we have to do is find out if He is a lunatic or a liar. If He is neither, He must be the Son of God. These are our three choices. There is no fourth.
What did Jesus of Nazareth say about Himself? In John 10:30 He said, “I and the Father are one.” We need some explanation here. In the Bible the invisible God is called the Father. The Son manifests and expresses the Father. What is hidden is the Father, and what is expressed is the Son. The Son is the One who can be seen and touched. Behind, you have the Father. In front, you have the Son. The two are actually one. They are the two sides of the same reality. When we talk about two, we refer to the fact that one is hidden while the other is revealed. When we talk about one, we say that the revealed One is just the hidden One in manifestation. This is the biblical interpretation of the Father and the Son.
Therefore, when Jesus of Nazareth one day said, “I and the Father are one,” it was a statement that no one else could make. This man was saying in reality that He and the invisible God are one entity. He is God and God is He. God is the invisible Father, and He is the manifested Son. The Father and the Son are one! Who can this One be that made such a claim? Is He a madman? Is He out to deceive us?
After Jesus spoke such a word, what reaction do we see? “The Jews again took up stones that they might stone Him. Jesus answered them, I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these works are you stoning me? The Jews answered Him, We are not stoning You for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because you, being a man, are making Yourself God” (vv. 31-33). The Jews understood very well that Jesus’ words meant that He claimed to be God. After hearing these words they wanted to stone Him to death. A claim was made by Jesus, and an accusation was charged by the Jews, both of which concerned His divinity. Was Jesus insane? Did He speak pure nonsense just to cause people to kill Him? Or was He a swindler setting up some kind of a scheme? If so, what was He trying to gain? Was He trying to gain death?
Perhaps we will go back a little bit to the earlier parts in the Gospel of John and see what it says there. John 1:18 says, “No one has ever seen God; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.” Why has no one seen God? It is because God is invisible. Jesus said that He was the only Begotten of the Father; He expressed the invisible Father. When you see the only Begotten, you see the Father.
Again He spoke concerning Himself, “And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended out of heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven” (3:13). Have you ever heard anyone say such words? I cannot say, “No one has been to Shanghai, but he who comes from Shanghai to Tientsin, even I, Watchman Nee, who is in Shanghai.” If I say so, I would be gibbering nonsense. But Jesus was speaking a heavenly language. He said that He came out of heaven and is still in heaven. What can a person be if he can be in two places simultaneously? Either he is God or he is a lunatic or he is a liar. If you have not yet believed in Christ, please give a verdict to this issue. Who is this man?
Let us read John 3:31-32: “He who comes from above is above all; he who is from the earth is of the earth and speaks out of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all. What He has seen and heard, of this He testifies, and no one receives His testimony.” He said that He came out of heaven and was above all. After a while He said the same thing again. Let us see what the purpose behind these words is. He came to preach the things of heaven, but no one received His words. He mentioned words like “heaven,” “above all,” “out of heaven,” etc. What kind of man was He? Confucius never said this. Neither did Sakya Muni or Mohammed. Was Jesus of Nazareth a madman, a liar, or the Son of God?
John 5:17 says, “But Jesus answered them, My Father is working until now, and I also am working.” He always put Himself in the same place as the Father. Verse 18 says, “Because of this therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath but also called God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.” When we read His words now, we may consider them to be ordinary remarks. But the Jews knew what He was saying. They knew that He was making Himself equal with God. The words in fact meant that God is His Father and He came to express God. The invisible One is God, and the visible One is He. Therefore, the Jews sought to kill Him. What should we do about such an unusual person?
John 6:46 says, “Not that anyone has seen the Father, except Him who is from God, He has seen the Father.” Here the word is clearer. He said that no one other than Himself has ever seen God. Only He knew what the Father is like. I can only say with soberness and reverence that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. Read John 8:18. What did He say? “I am one who testifies concerning me, and the Father who sent me testifies concerning me.” The question in verse 19 is most interesting: “They said then to Him, Where is Your Father? Jesus answered, you know neither me nor My Father; if you knew me, and you would know My Father also.” Have you seen what He was saying? They had seen Him, yet did not know Him. Of course they would not know the Father either, whom they had not seen. If men knew Him, they knew God. Who is He then? If knowing Him equals knowing God, is that not the same as saying that He is God and God is He?
Read John 8:23: “And He said to them, You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.” The preposition “from” in this verse is ek in Greek. It means “out of.” That is how it should be translated. He said, “You are out of this world, but I am not out of this world.” This man claimed to be from above; He did not come out of this world. Who can He be?
The Jews were confused. They were totally bewildered. Who was this man? The ancestor of the Jews is Abraham. They boasted of being the descendants of Abraham in the same way the Chinese boast of being the offspring of Hwang-it. The name Abraham was highly venerated among the Jews. Now they brought out Abraham. Please read John 8:53: “Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too. Who are you making yourself?” How did Jesus answer them? Was He greater or smaller than Abraham? In verse 56 Jesus said, “Your father Abraham exulted that he would see my day, and he saw it and rejoiced.” What is this? Even Abraham had to look forward to Jesus! Hence, verse 57: “The Jews then said to Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Now please pay your attention to Jesus’ answer in verse 58: “Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I am.” Tell me who this man is. If I told you that before Hwang-it was, I, Watchman Nee am there, you would immediately write me off as a lunatic. Some of you would say that I am a liar. The words Jesus spoke made Him a madman, a liar, or God. There can be no fourth alternative.
We have to read on. In John 10:37-38 Jesus said, “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, even if you do not believe Me, believe the works so that you may come to know and continue to know…” Know what? The clause following is very crucial. It is a big statement: “…that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” Who then is this man? He said that He was in God and God was in Him.
Passages like the above are numerous in the Bible. I shall mention one more. Read carefully John 14:6-7: “Jesus said to him, I am the way and the reality and the life; no one comes to the Father except through
DR .HARIOM said,
April 6, 2008 at 1:04 am
Science and Spiritualism: Contrary or complimentary
Realization of one reality pervading all-over the universal existence is spiritualization. Vasudevai sarvam, one divine all around or Ayamatman Braham, this soul is the divine, is the principle of knower of Divine (Brahamvid). The investigation of cause and effect in the multiplicity of this existence is the subject of science. Spiritualism and science are the two concordant as well as complementary aspects of one Truth. Spiritualism is the vivid experience of the unity of Purusha and Prakriti, the Being and its executive Force. Science is related to the study of principles effectuating that executive force in our daily life. Spiritualism is the result of sacrifices (ahuti) of all variable incoming energies of nature on the altar of blissful unity of God. Science projects the knowledge of discriminative outgoing streams of energy in the physical manifestation. Existence can not exist without these two incoming and outgoing energies. Such is the entwined, Ardhnariswa, relation of jyan (knowledge) and vijyan (science). One is the gnosis leading towards supramentalisation, while other is the study of power executrix of that gnosis in nature.
When one existence or object and their surrounding vibrating energy start to come within accessible range, it is the starting point of science. When the stretching range between the existence and its environment or being and becoming immerges in inseparable unity, it is the birth of soul. This is the knowledge or logic which becomes discriminative power of seeker and helps to unravel the etched and cryptic coverings (avaran) of illusions of the consciousness of soul. The soul then splendors into its natal refulgent virginity of truth. By practice (abhyasa), it stabilizes and merges itself into the pure and transcendental Self, Satpurusa. This knowledge of above cosmic existence when founded on a scientific inlooking discriminative sight brings disinterested and disillusioned devotion (bhakti), to the seeker, which is beyond any hallucination and labyrinth of illusion (mithyachara). The great scientist Albert Einstein had rightly said that science is lamb without religion and religion is blind without science.
Spiritual knowledge enunciates that the cause of universal origin is the out pouring of divine Power (Kundalini Sakti or Radha), which fragmented into smaller and smaller units during the process of its descent in this subtle and invisible (suksam) and physical (sthul) manifestation. The superconscient got divided into subconscient and unconscient during its intricate descent in the cosmos. Contrarily, the scientific views explain that this creation is the result of combinations and recombinations of living (chetan) and non-living (jada) material. How the two opposite principles can be reconciled? One is the principle of disintegration of energy while other is that of integration. Spiritualism and science both paves the way of their reconciliation. Spiritualism asserts, as the conscient force descends in the domain of Kala (Time) and Maya (illusions), the out coverings (avaran) and impurity of soul increase. This indicates the huddling of physical fortification with the simultaneous spiritual mortification. Law of conservation of energy also reconciles this opposition, which states that the total sum of energy of universe always remains same, it can neither be created nor destroyed; however, it can change its form from one form to another. Hence temporal and spatial fragmentation, transformation and unification of energy provide a firm ground for this reconciliation.
During the downward journey of spirit from the superconscient towards subconscient and delirium void of matter, inconscient world opens the vestibules for duality, trinity and multiplicity of nature. After coming in the physical world, ‘Struggle for survival’ and ‘Survival of the fittest’ become the law of being. The true-self remains disguised in the innermost penetralia of the tabernacle of heart. Self (soul) remains dangled in the grasp of darkness. It remains groping in the search of its true-self. While the upward journey of spirit towards the divine nature mutilates these multiple strara of differentiation. Divisive streams of inconscient and subconscient life and matter start integrating and, thus, lose their existence in the convergent unity of love and bliss. The lord of Works surrenders its sovereignty to the fire of knowledge, Braham Agni, the source of all works. This ascent of spirit into Braham Agni is not only the psychological and philosophical upliftment of reason and intellect but it is growing up of whole nature into the light of true–Being. Here all the works find their completion in knowledge, sarvam karmakhilam jyane parisamapyte.
When we take a scientific glimpse of a stone, which is Jada (non-living matter), we find that the atoms and nuclear particles in its inner vicinity are highly unstable and movable. At one stage the observations on these particles are affected merely by the presence of observer and the presence of radiation emanating from the measuring instrument. The Principle of uncertainty or indeterminacy propounded by German Physicist Heisenberg explains this phenomenon. It proves that when the matter goes in its deepest core of existence, its energy starts vibrating to exhibit its wave pattern, where the fixity and determinacy of matter gets dissolved into a highly mobile behavior of energy. This expression of energy is the origin of the spheres of vital, mental and psychic energy which acquires conscient and superconscient dimensions in its differentiating spectrum of evolutionary process.
The collective influence of instability and sensitivity of the executive force in non-living and living material, in its ascension towards higher spheres of consciousness, establishes itself as a highly originative and the most primitive and ever dynamic energy of immutable and imperishable Self. When it reaches at its crowning experience, it immerges in to the deep sea of transcendence and ecstasy and expresses itself through the spirit of love and devotion. Sri Aurobindo says that love is the crown of all works and knowledge as this whole creation out flows from this reservoir of never ending bliss and ecstasy. Swami Vivekananda opines that love is the piercing force to traverse the spheres of ignorance and darkness. Jesus Christ and saints of Radhasoami yoga and many other sects recognize the importance of the force of love and devotion for self-realization.
Human is using his energy for constructive as well as destructive purposes. The continuous use of this energy brings fatigue to the physique of man. Then he aspires to restore his lost energy and wants to lose himself in the enriched reservoir of energy in the trance of deep sleep. The consciousness of deep sleep, Susupti, is devoid of any flux or reflux. All the encoiling conciousness, Vriti, of mind ceases by taking a dip in the vast blissful sea of Susupti. Physical, vital and mental consciousness acquires new dimensions of activity after having juxtaposition with this state of being. Veda declares that this cosmic existence of enormous energy has emanated from the womb of overlapping darkness and inactivity; the absolute void known as the storehouse of spirit and motionless quietude. But this state of Susupti is not the state of knowledge; for darkness prevails all over this plane of consciousness. Hence, to make a spiritual dent into this highly energetic zone but full of ignorance and overlapping darkness, awakening of spirit is required which can break the citadel of this dreaded sea of darkness, ignorance and ego. This sphere of consciousness engulfs the whole creation at the time of dissolution of the universe.
Continuity and perseverance of meditation turns this state of darkness (Susupti) into the knowledgeable ecstasy of light, where the fountains of effulgence and splendor all around and above pour their lucidity in the darkened spirit of seeker (sadhak). Undeterred by failures and stumbling, he reveals the Sun of Truth concealed in darkness as stated in Rigveda - Tat satyam suryam tamasi ksipyantam. The individual self is enlarged as the limitless Self (Jyoti-swarup Braham). The lower nature of the being (swabhava) gets rejuvenated and transformed into the divine nature (madbhava) as stated by Lord Krishna in the Gita. This is the experience of Turiatit (beyond all sensual, mental and cosmic consciousness).
The relationship of Prakriti extending into the multiplicity of physical (sthul) world and its cognating subtle (suksma) planes constitute the puissant ground for scientific studies. It is the discriminative knowledge which makes us understands the behavior of nature and to find its hidden treasures and rejoice the indwelling and governing power of nature. Thus, scientific habitation of things as realized by the sages like Kapil, Gautam and Kannad unravels the inextricating knot of mysteries of Prakriti (nature) which facilitates and prepares the seeker for unfaltering ascent through the converging unity of the diverging streams into the transcendental consciousness of Supreme Being (Satpurusa).
THANKS FOR GIVEN TIME TO RAED & FOR MORE PLZ CONTACT ON hariomkvk@gmail.com & PLZ VISIT http://www.radhasoamitaradham.com ABOUT WEBSITE PLZ CONTACT jasdeep.sindhu@gmail.com
Radhasoami
DR .HARIOM said,
April 6, 2008 at 1:05 am
Religion of Future ? A Perspective
Is there any God? If yes, what kind of he is? Where does he live? Why he propagated sins and crime? These are some questions which have always been creeping in human mind and shall keep doing so in coming times also. In fact this is necessary also because such a query which does not have an accessible solution keeps the man unquenched. For his peak progress, his peak desire should remain dissatisfied to a higher level as it prompts man for action. It is dissatisfaction which pushes him into sleep and again sets him in action. It is dissatisfaction which compels man to recognize God and infuse spirit of courage in him for flying to unending and unlimited heights and it has instilled enormous confidence in him to fight and face the difficulties. It has engendered imagination power in him to achieve the impossible. This imagination power, which convinces us to reach the unlimited, unending and immeasurable heights, has also made us to think of a super Power which is totally complete, free from any bondage and self-reliant; more so we also aspire to acquire these qualities means we also want to become like him. This cryptic desire of being to emulate himself to the higher Self proves the identity of man as a man and the same identity has rendered him courage and capability of becoming one with God, otherwise there would have been no difference between a man and an animal, a plant and a non-living matter.
Thinking capability of man is responsible for his good or bad thoughts, it endows him with the power of selection and till he continues to select he will choose and continue to endeavour for acquiring every thing that is within his imagination power. Therefore till this thought process prevails selection will persist and so existence of best shall also be a reality and hence, presumption of God can’t be negated. Till man is in the process of thinking, till he imagines and resorts to selection, till he is conscious, till he recognizes good or bad, till he has fear, till he hates and till he loves, he shall keep aspiring to become supreme and almighty .Till he possesses a desire of attaining supremacy, existence of God shall remain and so shall remain religion . Religion can be of two types, theist and atheist. Human religion has its origin in thought, it is a philosophy whether it originates from a person who believes in God or it is from the mouth of atheists like Charwak or Karl Marx.
Religion of Divine for all is one. Physical and mental religions can be different for different people. All the religions which exist in the world as on date have their origin from mind i.e. they are mental religions. Divine religion is not evolved out of thought, it is not a result of imagination. There is no place for any sense, selection, affection or hatred in it; it can’t be given any name or form. Calling Divine religion a religion will also not be fair because where Divine religion manifests there is no discriminative power, every phenomenal presence gets stabilized; shape, colour, name, form or structure gets dissolved in that sphere of consciousness. When mind ripples subside completely, Divine religion is born. Till these structures, formations, impressions or emotions exist only human religion prevails, mental religion is recognized and it can’t be a cosmic religion; it can’t be a religion of plants and animals. If the religion has no universal essence, it is incomplete and incapable. How can such a religion be called a religion of God. This is not more than a line drawn by a man, Pegamber, messanger or any Avtar (incarnation of God), which has a boundary, a limit or a selection. Can eternity be bounded? Can unlimited be described in words? From the angle of Divine religion calling God a God or calling Khuda a Khuda also seems to be unfair to God or Khuda or Allah, as in deep ecstasy or in state of unified consciousness you can’t assign a title to any entity, you can’t remember any God as the soul immerges into the sea of Bliss.
All the conceptions and growth comes to a halt in sushupti (deep sleep). This sushupti is the inner base , the axle of man where he acquires complete tranquility, all the movements of his mind stop and from here he again gets into action by rejuvenating his tired and mitigated energy, he again becomes capable to restart his work after imbibing this state of consciousness. Source of Divine religion can only be that centre from where mind and physique regain energy, man feels freshness and gets renewed. Once a man gets acquainted with such a Divine religion, all the turmoil of his mind settles, then he acquires capability to provide peace and tranquility not only one but to many whosoever comes to him. On attaining the state of enlightenment he can make others enlightened. Any Holy place does not have any worth for him. All the pilgrimages, religious books or holy structures serve as mile-stones for him which may be indications but not the ultimate Reality.
Love is the nearest synonym to express such a divine religion. Love is present in every man and creature. It is spread in every atom of this universe. Due to the power of love one man or object gets attracted towards the other; earth revolves around the Sun and Sun is revolving around some other bigger Sun , one galaxy or milky way is revolving around another galaxy. There is no limit of love, therefore, love represents the limitless and eternity. Love never perishes as it is a craving of matter (living and non-living), therefore it expresses the imperishable. Love does not shift its determinism and promise due to variable circumstances, hence, it is immutable. Love does not distinguish between cast and creed or religion and community. It is beyond time, space and mind. Love can’t be expressed in words. It is independent. Real love does not put shackles of bondage but sets free. Sacrifice is its soul. Total nature and its existence communicate through silence. There is no place for justification or argument in Divine love, only understanding and mutual offering (reasoning) do exist there. Love is the source of Bhakti (devotion) and realization of God is possible only by adoring Bhakti, Sradha (Trust) and surrender, as only love has the quality to immerge; It can overtake any thought , imagination or consciousness . It is the quality of love under the influence of which a person gives priority to his duty over his life. He does not care to sacrifice his life in order to fulfill his duty. One can hide knowledge but incense of love can never be hidden. In the words of Saint Kabir : -
“Love can’t be concealed when blossoms in a heart;
Ever if tongue keeps mum, eyes shall weep.â€
To acquire knowledge one has to make efforts to learn, training of mental faculty is required but love! Love is spontaneous, natural and organic and omnipresent in every creation of universe. Knowledge has boundaries, love is unending. Knowledge of every person is on different horizons but love has only single fruit and that is Ananda (Delight). A lover gets dissolved in the love of his or her beloved. Divine love does not ask for any thing in exchange, it does not dictate any terms, it is not conditional. Happiness of beloved is the biggest achievement of love. If love is conditional, it can’t be Divine love. Only love is the essence of Sufi cult in Islam and a Mureed (Devotee) completely surrenders to Sheikh, Rasool and Alaah (God). Emperor Akbar once asked Dadu ji Maharaj, “What is caste, color of god and tell me where his abode is and how can he be invented?†Dadu replied: “Isq (love) is caste and Isq is khuda’s colour , Isq Khuda’s abode and Isq his integral part.â€
Saint Augustine is known as pillar of Christian religion, he had a great affection to God. He was always restless for a glimpse of God and wept day and night in virah (separation). He expressed his philosophy in “Confessions†in following words: ‘O’ God ! You are so splendid and source of every thing but I could not love you. I am so late in coming to you. Look! You were within me and I was wandering in frivolity in outer physical world in search of you. I used to love and chase such things which you created due to my folly and inadvertence. You were always with me but I never kept myself with you. These beautiful creations kept me away from you, yet these things are not your essence and necessity. They are completely worthlessâ€. This experience of Augustine resembles with that of Socretes, Plato, Plotinus, Budha, Sufi cult, Hindu religion, Kabala, and Rabeej cult of Jew religion.
According to Jesus Christ, God’s kingdom lies within man. All the mystic Saints have said that God is not away from us, He resides within us. We don’t need to search him in the surroundings and sky. Whosoever lived this experience he quipped the God in his light form which exists in every atom of this universe , He manifests in every face and every structure and he is present in his bliss form every where and practically experienced in Turiatit (beyond all heights), Vicharatit (beyond all thoughts) and Bhawatit (beyond all emotions). He does not require any scripture or worshiping edifice to express Him. He is complete in him self. His description in words is not possible. Some hint can be given only by maintaining silence. Movement of tongue stops there, mobility of eyes do not work, voice extinguishes, knowledge ends; but even then it is said that who realizes him nothing remains to be known for him - Yasmin vigyate Sarvam vigyatam. All the treasures start surrendering before him because his soul gets fixed in Manipeeth (source of all treasures). There is no effect of fierce winds or storms on its luminosity, Like a lamp soul is ever luminous, he is always full of splendor of God . God’s resources are always at his service. Sukshma (subtle), Satvik (virtuous) and Devik (Godly) powers remain at his service.
Such a person becomes a source of light in him self and his surrounding also gets illuminated and charged; all treasures of nature start conversing in him. He becomes a living vessel of God power. If Surya–Braham (Sun of Gnosis) has descended completely in a person, current of time changes its direction. A new creation comes into being there. In addition to spiritualism, economic, scientific, political and social consciousness rises there. According to scriptures – when sun of truth rises, darkness vanishes; shining of that sun never decreases.
When kingdom of God shall descend? It will be possible only when this Surya –Braham shall descend in every soul and every soul shall shine like a Sun. Such a Sun which throws its lights in equal proportion on every thing and each being does not discriminate between them. It shares its light with every atom. Warmth of its light affects every thing and every person equally but deserving conductors get instant benefit and bad conductors remain in loss due to their own nature. Temple, Mosque, Church, Gurudwara or Sinagogue are similar to other lifeless objects before this ever-refulgent Sun. Existence of these does not matter for Him. Words and phrases of every Shastra are dwarf before this revealing existence as these can’t surpass their limits, if they cross their limit, their wings get burnt in the warmth of that spiritual Sun as the wings of a bird flying towards the sun in the sky gets burnt due to its heat. Under such an Empire of spiritualism, every one can express his sentiments and emotions freely but the beliefs and perceptions of others should also be respected. Peace generating spirit should always prevail and win over these emotions and sensual achievements. Psychic activities which afford life to others, do not throttle and strangulate the dynamism of life should exist and remain peaceful in the whirlwind of birth and death, and leisure and sorrows.
Establishment of such a kingdom of God is not possible in today’s degraded religious and social set up. For its realization we need to dismantle every anticipated and scripted conception because God can’t be a slave to any kind of conception. Spirit is the converging event of all the diverging energies. God reveals where all the opposites meet at the crossing point. This crossing point is the gate to enter the kingdom of Heaven. It is the real crucifixion of the spirit. It is a birth and dissolution place of both God and Devil or theism and atheism. Every contrasting state of being becomes compatible, harmonic and rhythmic on attaining this state of consciousness, as our conscious and unconscious spirit regales and becomes rhythmic in susupti (deep sleep) and gets rejuvenated on regeneration despite having contrast nature . They become complimentary to each other, serve as ladder for each other to return or pass into the state of awakening and deep sleep. There can’t be any place for personal form of God in such a kingdom of God because all the Pegambers, Avtars, Messiah, God or Goddesses are different shapes carved out from the incorporeal form of God just as different kind of ornaments are carved out of gold. Personal God is only a ladder, not a destination. Any structure with form or colour can only be a medium on the path of love; it can’t be an ultimate destination.
A person or a Guru can dissolve him self and become one with God. But how one who has imbibed his self into the greater Self can proclaim that he is God or Allah? This is true that on self realization one becomes so sacred and fearless that in his extreme love and compassion for God he utters the words of extreme imagination and conjecture. He can say Aham Brahamasmi (I am God), Tatvamasi (God is like you), Analhak, I am the son of God or I and my father are one in spirit because he has experienced such a blissful form of God Which is unparallel and incomparable to any object or bliss of this phenomenal world. But it also reveals a truth; if he is Braham (Supreme) others are also the same. If he is God’s son so are others. If he can become an integrated and inseparable spirit of God in his Kingdom, why others can’t share this empire. What a beauty! if one can declare like Socrates, whatsoever I have been able to know is that I do not know anything.
THANKS FOR GIVEN TIME TO RAED & FOR MORE PLZ CONTACT ON hariomkvk@gmail.com & PLZ VISIT http://www.radhasoamitaradham.com ABOUT WEBSITE PLZ CONTACT jasdeep.sindhu@gmail.com
Radhasoami
DR .HARIOM said,
April 6, 2008 at 1:06 am
Incarcerated beliefs of present day religion- Shackles of bondage
Thanks to the pluralistic culture of this country (India) that has endowed me with the right to utter these words, “Yes I am a true follower of Patanjali, Budha, Jesus, Muhammad, Nanak and Krishna simultaneously”. Is it possible to reconcile the opposition and be released from the incarcerated beliefs of the religion? Yes, the solution lies within us.
A few rational forces thrust for a benign separation of religion and reason. The Gandhian philosophy compares the separation of politics from religion with the severance of logic from the consciousness. Aristotle elicits that man is a political animal; animal because he is gregarious in nature, needs society for personality development and political; for he is the only animal endowed by nature with the gift of “Reason”. ‘Eater eating is being eaten in the evolutionary process’, says Aurobindo, indicating the existence as an integrated whole. He asserts that the ascension of lower nature towards higher nature brings a purified and enlightened reasoning which imparts the power of psychic understanding and right discrimination. The inception of higher consciousness builds a firm ground to solicit its well-deserving liberty and independence. Thus the right to live cannot circumscribe its boundaries with respect to the changing mental and spiritual perceptions of the society in which a man lives.
The evolution of life, in its turn earmarks a need for struggle between the individuals (Darwin) or a class-struggle between bourgeoisie and proletarian as predicated by Karl Marx. He emphasized that the seeds of opposition in a system always remain embedded in its base and upsurge with the swaying of congenial environment. His ‘Dialectic Method’ postulates that nature proceeds through rise and fall of opposites. Hence in the process of evolution, a conscious being has to confront and combat the creeping hostile vital forces of limbic system preserved in human mind, which sometimes due to loose control of conscious mind goes berserk and becomes violent. So we have to supersede the intricacies of life vibrating under the influence of forces of determinism and free will.
Nehru’s explanation of free will and determinism enunciates, “Life is both. Life is like a game of cards. You have no control over the hand that deals you. The hand corresponds to determinism; the way you play the cards corresponds to free will”. Determinism is fixity where the energy works like a machine; free will is flexibility which refers to the faculty of mind. Once the bullet is triggered off, it results into a vicious chain of reactions. But the decision to press the trigger rests with the free will of an individual which may propose or dispose the moral and ethical values of a society.
Some prominent western philosophers like Rousseau, Kant, Green, Bradley and Bosanquet have brought further refinement in defining “Free moral will”, differentiating into actual and real will. Real will is the Sovereign will which must be honoured by renouncing actual will or individual will. Real will corresponds to higher self and actual will corresponds to lower self. Blind belief in religion or a political set up is covetous and a pursuit of lower self, undoubtedly baulks the progress of any society or nation. Cicero favoured moral law identified with right reason. It is neither true religion nor right reason that construes nefarious designs of communalism and fundamentalism.
The present-day politics has done a great harm to religion. The so-called saints are getting political asylum. When reason and spirit become intuitive, a ‘Will-to-do’ is born, either Copernicus or Gandhian; a stoics not epicurean, a celibate not utilitarian. But when the marriage becomes occidental lacking intuition, a disaster is predictable. Civilization barbarized. Dark Age becomes inevitable. The intrinsic values succumb to death. The intelligible reality dwindles to extrinsic and presumptuous rituals. ‘Love and universal brotherhood are persecuted and put to strictures. Jesus falls prey to the orthodox and superstitious beliefs of the society. Stones are thrown on Mahatma Bhudha and Mahavir Swami. The great library of ancient Alexandria is burnt in the name of fanaticism and blind belief in God.
Higher life hardly recognizes written inscriptions. Life is a spontaneous and organic necessity that Budha, Krishna and Jesus were. Today Christianity is the biggest religion of world. There was a web of superstitions and exploitations when he was born. The same web of incarcerated ethical codes and rituals has been fabricated by the present-day Christianity leaving no possibility for the rebirth of the spirit of Jesus. For Jesus will be a barrier in the rigid superficial structures knitted by the mendacious papacy arrangement not different from the labyrinth constituted by Hindu or Islamic priests in intimacy with the statesmanship.
Extremism and fundamentalism are not sparing any religion of the world. Even Sikhism which had been considered a live and benevolent representation of values has now become out skirted from its umbilical teachings. “Revealing Word’ which was called Jesus by Saint Augustine and other mystics of christianity and doctrine of intrinsic ‘Sabad’ called ‘Gurvani’ or ‘Sound of God’ by Sikh Gurus has undergone complete annulment. The ‘Supramental Word or Supramental Logos’, called a creative principle of all worlds and heavens by Sri Aurobindo is buried to death.Hinduism which always offered opportunity to extend one self to the subliminal highs and abysmal lows of the multidimensional possibilities of the spirit, has started denigrating its age-long spiritual heritage known for its illimitable tolerance.
A true spiritualist does not entertain power for himself but offers his life for the welfare of people. He does not solicit awards. Personal lust of salvation or power vanishes from him. His working is a natural flow of higher consciousness, “Prajyaâ€. He stays above mundane longings and aspiration; Trigunatit, beyond the modes of nature. Chuang-tzu, a prominent interpreter of Taoism, declined an offer to be Prime Minister of the State of Chu. He said, “It was better to be a free pigling wallowing in the mire than to be a sacrificial cow adorned for the kill”. Such sages rarely enjoy power but their teachings deeply influence socio-political life of the nations for a longer time.
Religion without its practical utility is futile, says Vivekananda. He preached to have a glimpse of God in poor and indigent man and called God by the name of Dridranarayan (God of poor). Other philosophers tried to visualize the glimmer of God or Goodness in the formation of the most ideal State. State is individual writ large (Plato). State is prior to man and state is real nature of man (Aristotle). Citizen is prior to man (Rousseau). State is the body of God; state is ethical whole (Hegal). State is working conception of life as a whole (Bosanquet).
These western philosophers left lesser or no room for individual freedom. Hegal and Bosanquet had rudely sacrificed individual will on the sovereign will. For the sovereign will was thought to be the will of God and the body of State as the body of God. State which had been considered the result of “Sin’ and Satanic Kingdom upto 13th century before the arrival of Saint Thomas Aquinas, was now made a medium for the vision of God. In this new set up, personality could be denounced for the State’s cause. States dignity was a priority even at the cost of war. The inner vision of spirit thus found outer expression giving way to the adamant national patriotic forces which resulted into wars for establishing superiority. As and when the inner intuition was lost, there were spells of discord and disharmony and the history of destruction was written.
Philosophy is said to be handmaid of theology like waves on the surface of sea. Indian philosophy urges to seek Truth within microcosm for realizing the mystical secrets of macrocosm, ‘yat pinde tat brahmande’. “The kingdom of God is within you”, say Jesus. Know thyself (Socrates). Be a lamp unto thyself (Buddha) and “I am Atma (the Soul)”, says Krishna in the Gita. It is man who denigrates the brightness of the Sun of Truth that shines eternally within us, adityavat prakasyati tat param. The whole stock of society remains ever-beautiful in the innermost penetralia of heart. It is only selfishness that mars selfless, nobody else. The solution lies within us. Awakening towards ones own self is the answer.
Does it mean seclusion or departure from mundane responsibilities? Whether state or spirit? Neither state nor spirit, neither ought nor naught. Sri Aurobindo has reconciled this opposition of Ksara (mutable) and Aksara (immutable) into Supramental unity. Saint Kabir has stressed for the blissful fusion of physical and mental consciousness into the supreme Will which is a source of all oppositions and compositions. After merging into this state of consciousness, individual self is blessed and merged into the ecstasy of enlarged self of Braham (Supreme God). Each one is lifted to the higher self, loses ego, gets enlightened, and becomes Catholic or Braham. All the religions of world find their original source and ultimate destination. Such an evolution of humanity is a future inevitability.
THANKS FOR GIVEN TIME TO RAED & FOR MORE PLZ CONTACT ON hariomkvk@gmail.com & PLZ VISIT http://www.radhasoamitaradham.com ABOUT WEBSITE PLZ CONTACT jasdeep.sindhu@gmail.com
Radhasoami
DR .HARIOM said,
April 6, 2008 at 1:07 am
Religion of Soul - Religion of All
Saint Tara Chand Ji Maharaj generally used to say in his discourses– Brahamana (a higher cast in Hindu cast system) is that man who has dissolved himself into Brahamic (cosmic) consciousness. He does not accept donation, but tries to give, whatsoever he has, to the needy, indigent and destitute. Power of Word, the Creator, reveals in his soul which fulfills all his desires. The Lord of imaginations (Kalpavriksha) accepts his offerings of Love and devotion and provides all the treasures of life to him. Saint Charan Das says-
Brahmana is that who identifies Brahman (God) in himself
Becomes introvert and seeks the vision of Lord
His senses cease to travel outward
He nurtures compassion for every creature
He becomes devoid of passions, anger, lust, greed and ego;
Brahmana is that who possesses these virtues.
We are devoid of internal treasures embedded in the deeper layers of our Self because we have not identified the hidden enrichment inside. The actual bliss lies inside but we are groping outside in the gloomy world of passions and grief. We are adopting lopsided approach which create imbalance in our life energies. The outer achievements are dominating over the spirit of rationale and wisdom which has created imbalance between the inner and the outer world. The result is tension, instability, selfishness, individuality, unhealthy competition, nepotism, communalism and terrorism.
The reason of this imbalance is that we have not awakened the spirit of Wisdom seated in the middle of eyes (Third eye); the Lord of which gives all the orders; all the actions originate from this sphere (Ajya Chakra) of actions. Ajya means command, Chakra means sphere. All commands emanate from this sanctioning authority. All the senses respond to the mandate of this housing spirit. But the inner Self of this sanctioning authority has been sleeping in his den for innumerable lives. We have not made efforts to awaken its power which is sleeping encoiled for many past lives. When it awakens, the life force starts dancing which is seen and enjoyed by the devotee, the yogi.
The Hindu scriptures have called this state as the ‘Awakening of Serpentine power’. It is called serpentine power as it opens its vistas of light like the expanding and contracting face of a snake. Sri Aurobindo has called it Psychic being who is the actual representative of Supermind and master of transformation in this phenomenal world of actions and reactions, and cause and effect. It is the immutable spirit which dwells in the mutable spectrum of physical consciousness. It is the glimmering spark of eternity amidst the fort of dark forces of relative existence. Bhagwat Gita has narrated this power as Kshara Purusha; the mutable Spirit of universe which goes on changing upto the time this cosmic play persists. This Kshara Purusha is the Lord of Works and Psychic being remains in its fold as the representative of Supreme Being, the Satpurusha. It coordinates and commands all the activities of this Ksaras Purusha in any individual existence. Upto when this psychic Being is not awakened, its spirit remains liable to mutability and perishability and remains the instrument of the changes of time, space and causation. It follows the principle of cause and effect. Its eternity does not manifest in its self. Its bliss does remain unveiled and disguised. The friability and fragility of its grounded nature becomes slave of lust and passions. Problems, sorrows and grief of the lower nature remain integrated part of its spirit. This state of helplessness and weakness of the spirit is called ‘Jiva’ in Hindu jurisprudence. When this spirit identifies its natal strength of Real nature, Para-prakriti, Para-shakti or Radha, it awakens and the higher nature of imperishable, intangible and immutable Purusha descends into the brittle regime of Ksara Purusha and dismantles the domain of illusion and hallucination. This immutable spirit has been called as Aksara Purusha, Aksara Brahman or Shabd Brahman; the eternal and imperishable power of Supreme Being which manifests through the melody of celestial Song (the Word Power) in the universe.
This Aksara Purusha or Brahman is the Lord of knowledge; the originator of all the streams of mental consciousness from where outflows all the gnosis of visible and invisible spheres of the existence. Discriminative power of mind and wisdom are the results of the outpouring of this Sun of luminous knowledge. Lord of Works draws its vitality from this Sun of gnosis. This Purusha has also been called Savitri-Surya or Gayatri-Surya. This sphere of consciousness is the golden womb, Hirnaygrabha; the womb of universe where lies all the seeds of this universe. The universe takes birth from this womb of Lord of knowledge; the Aksar Purusha.
There is third layer of consciousness which reconciles the opposition of Ksara and Aksara, mutable and immutable, God and non-God, thesis and anti-thesis. All the physical, vital, mental and spiritual forces become satiable in this stratum of consciousness. All works, all knowing and unknowing plunges into the ocean of Bliss of this Purusha (Soami), the Satpurusha or called Purushottama in Gita. Sri Aurobindo calls this state of bliss as the Supramentalisation of the being. This realization of the Self can come through self-giving as it is the inherited legacy of the Lord of love and devotion. The fortified spheres of Ksara and Aksar can only be surmounted and churned through the intense longing of love and devotion for Satpurusha. This realization goes beyond all the boundaries of abysmal lows and sublime highs. All the limitations and perceptions of life, mind, gods, and non-gods, virtues and non-virtues get vanished after taking a sip of the ambrosia, Amrit, of the sanctity of Satpurusha.
The path of self-realization starts with the awakening of sleeping power lying within ourselves. It is called opening of Third eye. Buddha says it Divya Chaksu, supernatural eye of brightness. Mahavir Swami says it Param Jyoti, the supreme Light. Hazrat Muhammad calls it Noor; Light as the embodiment of Allah. Jesus Christ calls this experience as the Light of the world. In this experience, supernatural powers of gods and goddesses of goodness and virtue shower their grace on the yogi. The endowed grandeur of cosmic energy starts flowing unobstructed through the yogi as through a vessel of Supreme Being. But this opening of third eye is the initiation of spiritual realization. It is the opening of consciousness of Ksara Purusha, the Lord of Works or Virat Purusha, from where all the physical and gross form of cosmos originates. It is the starting of celestial or heavenly experience.
Kapil, an Indian sage, calls this state of realization as the attainment of the power of discrimination, Vivekkhyatiprapti, and intuition. Patanjali Rishi narrates it the vision of cloud of Virtue, Dharammegha Samadhi. Sankaracharya, Sri Aurobindo and other seers of reality have called it the experience of Samprajyat Samadhi, a state of trance where all unknown becomes known. Vedic literature says when the Sun of Truth rises, the dark of ignorance vanishes; tat satyam suryam tamsi ksiyantam. This Sun of Gnosis remains refulgent for ever within the soul of yogi; adityavat prakashyati tat param. When this Sun shines inside the Soul of yogi, every kind of knowledge starts flowing towards him; yasmin vijyate sarvam vijyatam.
When yogi surpasses this experience of refulgence, he reveals the truth in the form of superconscient light; not visible even with the supernatural eye of the Being. The fervour and intensity of this light becomes so dense that it is not visible through the celestial eye of gods; the Third eye. This is the experience of Sahasrara; the seat of Param Purusha (Supreme Being). This experience has been known as the realization of Nirvikalpa (beyond all alternatives), Asamprajyat (beyond all knowledge) and Nirbeej (devoid of all the seeds of happiness and sorrows) Samadhi. Christian mystics have called this state as the ‘Dark night of Soul’ or ‘Dark Secret’; the experience of which was engrossed by Prophet Moses on Mount Sinai. In this experience he was enveloped by a cloud of darkness when he approached the abodes of God. It is a blissful experience where the spirits of God and non-God get immerged into the ocean of Bliss of transcendental Eternal. The experience of Sahasrara has been considered just a milestone in Radhasoami Yoga. It is the lower seat of Brahamic (Cosmic) consciousness.
Osho opines that upto when the Ajya Chakra, is not awakened, man cannot break the shackles of slavery. He always remains in bondage of physical, economical, social and religious slavery. A slave of many masters, inner slavery as well as outer; an instrument in the hands of whimsical and unflinching forces of lower nature. Once released from the clutches of one master, he is incarcerated in the prison of another. He can not give command; he is not capable of giving command. He can only accept the orders because his power of Command, Ajya Purusha, is sleeping.
Tantric philosophy says that senses are the food of third eye. This eye is hungry for many lives because it has undergone through the trance of deep sleep thereby losing its sense of intuitive discernment. The gate of its sensibility has been locked. Key is missing. Key which can awaken the serpentine power has been lost. The treasure can only be unearthed with the key of wisdom and the power of true discrimination. This enclosed bud can open its petals of wisdom only through the incense of psychic enlightenment. Once this psychic awakening is realized, the gates of benevolence and magnanimity will open. All the treasures of life and knowledge will become accessible. The adamant and obdurate walls of ego and ignorance will shatter and their consciousness will ultimately transform into the gnosis and bliss of superamental Power. The impressions of grief and hunger will vanish from the mantle of humanity. The sense of self-giving will dominate the sense of wit and the doors of ‘Heaven on Earth’ will be opened to the aspiring humanity.
The sign of true religion is that it makes a man independent and provides redemption. It does not imprison him through the temptation of heaven and fear of hell. God lives within and it can be revealed by self-giving as love and devotion is the soul of supreme Realization.
This realization is complete in all the respects. It fulfills a person in totality. The beauty and outpouring of enlightenment from the Self enriches the depleted consciousness of body, life, mind and psyche.
Darkness is nothing but the depletion of light. Sorrow is nothing but the depletion of joy and bliss. Poverty and hunger is nothing but the depletion of faculty of mind and physique. Anger is nothing but the depletion of love. Vanity is nothing but the depletion of compassion. Greediness is nothing but the depletion of the spirit of self-giving. Communalism is nothing but the depletion of vastness of religion. Terrorism is nothing but the depletion of spiritualism from the core of the heart. Soul, being integral part of bliss, eternal splendor and consciousness, love, compassion, sacrifice and grandeur of the Supreme Being, impregnates all these qualities. All the virtues flow exuberantly and dwell inherently in the religion of Soul and Self-realization.
God governs all because he exceeds all and dwells in all. Hence the religion of Soul is the religion of God and the religion of all. That is why the religion of Soul is capable to replenish all the depleted energies of an individual as well as the whole humanity and the whole existence. It is a converging and enlightened state of all the diverging and combating energies and vital forces of the universe.
THANKS FOR GIVEN TIME TO RAED & FOR MORE PLZ CONTACT ON hariomkvk@gmail.com & PLZ VISIT http://www.radhasoamitaradham.com ABOUT WEBSITE PLZ CONTACT jasdeep.sindhu@gmail.com
Radhasoami
DR .HARIOM said,
April 6, 2008 at 1:08 am
Heaven on Earth
Thousands years ago Vedic Rishis (sages) had dreamt of peace, order and co-existence of all the living creatures not only on earth but in whole universe. In times to come king Aggrasain made it to happen in his rule and laid foundation of a prosperous and progressive empire where no one was in sufferings; all the citizens used to help each other. This kingdom was a unique example of spiritual socialism. In the west message of “KINGDOM OF GOD ON EARTH†became strong voice of common man on the advent of Jesus Christ. In a very short period it became an eye-sore of the then emperor when this Message started taking swing as a movement. It became a fear of the emperor. The emperor started thinking that this man has become a threat to his empire and he should not be allowed to remain alive. The Emperor ordered for his crucifixion. Jesus Christ left this world but this message started spreading like wild fire. The institution of Church fixed the day of doom also and proclaimed the reincarnation of Jesus Christ on earth and declared: only that person shall be able to book entry to heaven who is a member of the church. This opened a race for registration as a church member and within a short span church turned into an institution of mammoth wealth and power. Church priest and custodians of Christianity became slaves of comfort and leisure like Indian gurus (spiritual masters) of the present day. On the other front, religious revolution perpetuated in Christian religion, affected polity of the world and started showing impact on social and economic set up. This resulted in many religion battles and different strategies, ethical or non-ethical, were adopted for propagation of imperialism. Slowly and slowly Christian religion spread its wings to such an extent that Sun never set in their empire .Even on date number of followers of Christianity is the highest among all the religions. Hence, before we discuss “Heaven on Earthâ€, it is important to know the original character of Christian religion, without analyzing the conscience of this religion it would not be possible and fair to know whether laying the foundation of kingdom of God can even be thought of in the prevailing and never ending diversity in religion, politics and human nature. It is important for both believers and non-believers to first understand true form of religion and spiritualism before we proceed further.
Since initial times, some doubts crept into the mind of followers of Christianity which created unusual situation in front of the Church fathers. When Emperor Constantine declared it the religion of the State and appointed the priests to high positions, people started doubting if Jesus Christ was really an angel Of God or he was an ordinary man?
As the time passed, Christian religion became more consolidated and powerful. Church turned into a large institution of wealth and power. Some questions were still unsolved on the mental horizon of common man but none could make it open to others for the fear of being victimized, because voice against Jesus Christ or Bible meant invitation to death. Slowly and slowly modernization followed. As a result wealth, power and position were enjoyed by god fathers. In a short span combination of industrial and science development wrote a story of revolution of all round prosperity and development in the western countries. People had a feeling of comparatively more independence and economic freedom. Expansion of literacy was also riding the wings of the air. Invention of printing press gave acceleration to it. This helped in dissemination of knowledge to far flung areas. It encouraged for seeking explanation of religion and holy literature in a scientific way. This emancipation of people was not acceptable to church and efforts were made to curb it. But it could not withstand the arguments and logic put forth by the people and to meet their unquenchable thirst for emancipation. Church restrained people from giving new explanation to holy books but the intellectuals argued that it will help spreading the religion with more vigour and it will also help in disseminating message of Messiah to distant areas. This argument proved to be true but it also threatened the supremacy of church.
People started expressing doubts on competency of both Jesus and Bible. Bible was composed after many years of departure of Jesus. It was compiled by putting together the memories of different people. It was not easy for the common-man to understand the secrets of what Jesus said, as thinking of Jesus was advance by thousands of years. People, based on their understanding, nature and liking, narrated the teachings of Jesus Christ; thus changing their meaning partially or totally .Man has got a liking for miracles, so Jesus was projected as a man of miracles. Experience of his Soul was not taken as the essence of his life; rather his Messiah being and his miracles were given importance. It is not that Jewish Religion was devoid of spiritual wealth at that time. Rabbi’s cult was overflowing with divinity at that time which had a reflection of old Arabic spiritualism. But like Upanishads, knowledge this knowledge was also not with in the reach of common-man and he was fearful of his exploitation by priests and Jewish religious ceremonies which were the burden on common. As Mahatma Buddha shared his knowledge with the people in their own language and by approaching them at their doorstep, Jesus also became adorable to the people in a short span. His teachings, which suited their needs, entered their hearts with in no time He had a large following of poor, grieved and destitute. This was the reason why path of miracles was adopted. Today also, for award and recognition of a Saint his miracles are counted and there is no yardstick to measure his spiritual enrichment.
Science does not recognize miracles. The happenings beyond our sight and understanding become a miracle for us, therefore, old Dharmas (religions) which propagate superstition do not appeal to modern man. The meaning and definition of religion has taken a different shape just like the definition of an atheist. Marin Mersenne (1588-1648), a scientist of France once declared that there are fifty thousand atheists in Paris alone .When a verification of this statement was made, it became evident that all of them have faith in God but because of having some doubts about the teachings of Christianity, they all were presumed to be atheists. Yester years atheists are now counted in theists’ class.
Science opened the door for new knowledge. Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, Ludwig, David Hume, Laplace, Diderot and many other great personalities denied accepting the existence of God. This gave rise to a new discussion which encouraged people to raise queries, causing instability to basic structure of Christian religion.
Is God so cruel that He handed over his own son Jesus to tyrant people? Is God so coward that He could not protect his own son? Is He so tyrant that he took lives of so many people for protection of religion? Lacks of Jews were killed and due to their enmity Protestant, Catholic and Puritan Christians took toll of so many lives just to prove the superiority of Jesus and their religion over others. Was God ignorant of Adam’s sin ? If He was having its Knowledge why He allowed this sin to happen and thus made total humanity a party to it? Why His Angel Michael was shown so difficult way, which resulted in so many killings, religious crusades and enmity? Path of Adam’s liberation could have been easy, why it was not adopted? Is He not more intelligent than man? Is He not gigantic than man? If He is so incomplete, infirm, killer and cruel then how His existence as a blissful God be accepted? Was Jesus’ birth possible with out physical contact of man with maiden Merry? The trinity (God or Father, son and holy spirit) principle has always agitated east and west church.
Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980) in the twentieth century was of the view to negate the very existence of God because acceptance of his being diffuses human liberty. According to Morris Ponty (1908-61), if we admit God as a doer of every thing then nothing is left to be achieved by man. Camus (1913-60) went to the extent of saying that people should be bold enough to deny the being of God so that they could love human being .Acceptance of God’s existence reduces our creativity; even if He assists us in resolving our problems then also He decreases our share in our accomplishments and also our wonders. Logical positivists, linguistic philosophy and other related institutions’ intellectuals proclaimed that there is no entity like God. Whom we can’t see in our life, we can’t experience in our deeds, we can’t prove with our senses; what is the meaning of being such an entity (God) of false promises. Another section of the people advocated that Dharama (religion) is a necessity of life; without it every thing shall shatter, distinction of good and bad shall diminish, man will become selfish and it will give rise to individualism and disintegrate the society. Anarchy shall be created. Atheist rulers shall become more brutal. Individual’s liberty will get curtailed. Man, who lives in dreams, will lead a life of restraints. Today’s dreams are reality of tomorrow. What seems to be a dream and impossible to happen today is a reality tomorrow. Therefore, man’s wings shall be chopped. He dreams and flies high on the assumption that religion and God are limitless and never ending .If optimism and imagination die, life shall become devoid of joy. Human life finds its foundation on hopes; therefore, a super hope is also a necessity. Man carves a picture of superman in his mind and finding such a super-man in this world is difficult, so he always endeavors to progress and to attain perfection.
In this respect Marxist philosopher, Ernst Bloch (1884-1977) opines that thought of God to human being is natural; total humanity peeps into future. We feel imperfection and voidness in our life. Unlike animals we are never complacent and always demand for more and more .We always endeavour to improve upon ourselves and aspire for further progress to acquire capability to put a step forward .As a small child toddles and wants to grow into a bigger child ,the same way life progresses. Our all dreams and desires remain always aiming at acquiring which we do not possess. Religion philosophy also follows this principle; whereas it is a path where all has to be shunned or forgotten; but here also the thought of not now, not now continues to elude. Socialism also takes this utopia along with on its path; however Karl Marx has negated faith in any Super power .But Dharma (religion) certainly exists where there is a ray of hope. Bloch has perceived existence of an ideal God who has his abode in man and not somewhere far away.
Modern Christian visions of a God who always remains within the reach of man but he should not be limited to a corporal form. His presence in the world should not be restrained by limitations of humanly imperfections, forms, colours, cast, creed, time, space and land; who is away from hatred and He should give a message of love and affection. This is the reason why west has admitted Hindu Dharma’s principle of Brahman-atma (God-Soul), teachings of Buddhism and yogic actions have gained acceptance in western world. Man is turning towards such mystic religions which do not bind him in numerous religious practices, rather it takes care of his liberty as an individual .He does not want to become a slave of others’ whims and fancies, rather he opts to become a master of self. He does not want to be allured by the awards offered to him in the kingdom of God, rather he should be an inseparable and indispensable spirit of God. He should taste the bliss and Ananda of God in the present life only.
Karen Armstrong in his book ‘A history of God’ states, “Hindu religion does not render much importance to gods & goddessesâ€. Position of Guru (spiritual master) has been given priority over all the deities. This highlights importance of a man in society. Hindu and Buddhisms do not deny the existence of gods and goddesses. They say, if propagated, this theory may devastate humanity. These religions have carved a higher throne for Brahman and Nirwan (salvation) than Deities. Upanishads which were scripted about two thousand five hundred yeas ago, numbering around two hundred two, speak of only one message , “There is also something beyond Deities which is very fascinating, very blissful, it can neither be spoken nor heard, yet it is inner soul (centre) of all matter or living beingâ€. Describing the superiority of Brahman the author quotes Chhandogya Upanishad, “Shretaketu, son of Uddalaka studied Vedas and Shastras for twelve years. After gaining complete knowledge in the company of his guru when he returned, his father asked him a question regarding Brahman but Shretaketu could not reply. His father then asked him to bring water in a large pot and told to drop some salt in to it. Son obeyed. His father again asked him to come back the next morning. When he came next morning his father asked him to taste the water from different corners and tell its taste. Son replied, “Taste is same at all the points, it does not taste differently.†Then his father told him, “Brahman is Omnipresent in this universe just like salt is in this waterâ€. Saint Kabir Says :
“As sesame (Til) contains oil and stone has fire,
Your beloved (God) abodes in you, if you can awakeâ€.
Mahatma Buddha Says: “Taste me or bite me from any part of my body, you will find the same flavour i.e., compassion and only compassion. This is Nirwan (Salvation).This can’t be given any name like Atma or Pramatma (Soul or God). This can only be lived or experienced .To attain this experience, one has to pass through yogic Dhayan (concentration) and practice which enables the yogi to know his own self .He gains his universal form, like a small drop attains body of sea after completing its journey ; it attains a bigger self after loosing its entity to a larger existence. Will of the almighty now becomes his own will .Once some one asked Mahatma Buddha –where Buddha lives after Nirwan? He replied: the question is Irrelevant and it does not have any pertinence .It is just, like a burning lamp extinguishes and some one enquires where the flame goes. Exactly the same way when Buddha is no more, no desire remains to be fulfilled; question of sorrows and bliss does not arise. Buddha lives for others and this is Bodhisattva and any person can attain this state by making conscious effort.
All the religions of this world have their origin in mind; they find their birth in sentiments which has been called ‘Alam-al-mithal’ in Suhrawardi sect of Islam. This is a world of imaginations, full of forms and figures; which have to be crossed to reach the God. It is an invisible world which does not have any limit, which can’t be experienced through wisdom and knowledge. It is habitat of deities and angels or good and bad streams of life. All the religions have risen from this centre of spirit. Power of this mandal (spiritual segment) words in accordance to our desires and longing and become visionary in Dhayan (concentration) and dreams. Power of this mandal pushes the person, who is slave of mind and desires, in the world of illusions and hallucination. Deities gift Ridhi-Sidhi (miracle powers) but these block his progress on the path leading to God. If the Sadhak (devotee) is a holy soul then these powers help him in his efforts to move ahead. It is a centre of all Satoguni (Divine}, Tamoguni (Dark and demonic) and Rajoguni (sensual passions) powers. If a person is Tamoguni; dark forces shall come in his vision; It Rajoguni then forces of love, hatred and pleasure and if Satoguni, angels and deities shall be visible to him. Desire behind one’s deeds decides its fruits, as one desires as the results obtained. These natural powers extend help in the direction of one’s desires. It is said that Hazrat Muhammed experienced Alam-al-mithal in his dream one night when Angel Gabriel gave him a ride from Arabia to Jerusalem on a flying horse .On his return journey he met ABrahman, Moses and Jesus. Then both Gabriel and Hazrat commenced their journey, through difficult terrains, to Seven Heavens. Ruler of every Heaven was an ambassador of God. Judaism also recognizes that Moses reached into the lap of God after traversing seven Heavens, who was a source of eternal Noor (light) .Saint Paul says, “His friend, who belonged to Messiah, was stopped at third Heaven. There, he heard various sounds that can’t be described in man’s Languageâ€.
Rabbis saints of Jews religion say, “One needs Guru‘s blessings to cross the mystic world; who, from time to time, protects and cautions against dangers to come in the divine journeyâ€. Guru is also not an ultimate destination in this journey; He is also a mile stone only. A devotee realizes enlightenment must have cleared his soul of all the selfish thoughts, forms or structures or pleasant visions of gods and angels. His limited perceptions and imprints on his subconscious mind also must have been shown the exit door. He starts bathing in the glow of physical, vital and mental conscience transformed into super conscience now. His spirit becomes a continuous spring of light; he feels so enchanted that he is no more interested in material comforts in front of beauty and love of God. He sees only one universal power at every point of time and space. He feels God only, in every atom or particle. He even loses his own identity to God and dedicates his entire life to the cause of God .Now every worldly matter, rules and principles, which propagate hatred amongst people, become irrelevant for him. Love and compassion become priority of his life. Whenever any problem erupted in Christianity, Islam and Judaism, these mystics helped and provided firmness to the foundation of the religion. Rabbis and Kabala sects of Jewish religion, Suhrawardi and Sufi sects of Islam religion contributed to strengthen the roots of the religion from time to time. These mystics played a bigger and special role in recognizing Jesus as Messiah and in affording a wider and acceptable definition of the principle of trinity.
After three centuries of crucifixion of Jesus, when it was being discussed and argued in the parliament of Nyssa whether Jesus Christ was a Messiah in reality? If he was, then what was his position in the kingdom of God, is he a synonym to God or inferior to him? Then assistants of Arius and Bishop Alexander projected their conclusions. These arguments were going on with the consent of Emperor Constantine. In the view of Arius, Jesus was an ordinary man .He was claiming that Jesus became parallel to God only Became of his sacrifice, thus paving a way for others to follow. Had Jesus been of God’s nature he would have not been of any use to the mankind; it would have not been possible for us to follow his teachings and tenets of life because man can never be of equal status to God. Because of this fact God gifted him with a position of equality with Him as an award for his sacrifice; Jesus has been given a status of Logos (Word). We can also acquire a share in this status only through sacrifice.
Contrary to this, Athanasius argued that Jesus was of God’s nature and he was not born with man’s nature. He was Logos by nature .That Logos which was the source of whole universe and which was present before the creation and shall exist even after its dissolution. This Logos is inseparable part of ours and so is of whole creation, so that we may also acquire His nature and become an integral part of His higher nature.
It is explicit that Arius wanted to promote Jesus as an impersonal God. He wanted to fix him an inheritor of God, as a person who resembles us by nature and is one amongst us, where as Athanasius wanted to establish him in a universal form of God where Jesus should be worshiped as Logos, impersonal God and not as an ordinary man. He should be worshiped as Logos (Word); the creator of this universe, who dwells in the heart of every person in the form of a spark which never dies. Jesus as a person is bound to have an end but Logos never dies. Logos–Jesus appeared as Jesus in the world just to show us a path to enable us to imbibe in the higher nature (Parashakti) of God and enabling us to become one with God and as a benefactor for mankind; after which he retuned to his original Being and shall remain amongst us for ever as Logos is immortal. Common man and literate section of the society was more convinced with the view of Arius because he was talking of a Jesus of their own. He was talking of personal –Jesus. But the Council adopted the resolution of Athanasius because he advocated for a wider form of Messiah, who is responsible for creation, sustenance and dissolution of universe. Saint Paul and Saint John also recognized this form of Jesus. “ Word (Logos) existed prior to creation, Word was with God, Word was God and this Word created the whole universeâ€, this quotation was accepted as foundation of Bible and Christian religion. THIS WORD, DESCRIBED AS ANAHAD-NAAD (EATERNAL WORD) IN UPNISHADAS, FORMS THE BASIS OF SURAT-SHABD (SOUL-GOD) YOGA. THIS WORD IS THE GIST (ESSENCE), A CENTRAL PRINCIPLE OF RADHA SOAMI YOGA. In search of this word, a devotee enters into his self by adopting mediation and demolishes his self into the unending, infinite, eternal, limitless and blissful form of God.
Athanasius’s God –Jesus and Logos-Jesus was not an individual –Jesus, He was God of a mystic’s vision who was having its base beyond all boundaries of mind (Alam-al-mithal). He was God of a Sufi (Muslim Faquir ), Kabir, Nanak, Maulana Rumi, Khusro, Rabia Basri, Sri Aurobindo, Ravidas, Socrates, Rabbis, Kabala Saints and Upanishads. He was a God of profound love and deep compassion. This form of God was beyond the imagination of common man. This was the reason why the principle of such kind of God always kept the mind of Christianity in turmoil internally. The differences between the church of east and west never subsided because of this reason. Eastern Church was always inclined towards Athanasius’s mystic God where as western church favoured Arius’s individual–Jesus (Personal God). As and when intellect level arose, Arius’s God emerged stronger but when some mystic appeared on the scene, Athanasius’s God became prominent. But with the rise of renaissance and scientific period, death of mysticism was happened and Arius’s individual-Jesus attained the focus of masses and became more and more individual. It completely adopted Semitic and anthropomorphic form of God. More attention was given to linguistic meaning of words of Bible. Meaning and message hidden in the words and between the lines got ignored and its meaningful explanation of mystics was considered as a sin. Acquiring knowledge of secret education and mysticism became a crime. Bible In one hand and sword and bread in the other hand became a movement of the time. Finally it resulted into declaration of death of God by some intellectuals.
Arius and his two confident companions did not accord their consent to the decision of Council of Nyssa and they did not put their signatures on it. Even after the decision of Council in favour of Athanasius, the church fathers kept encouraging Arius’s principle. Slowly and slowly Arius and his companions got successful in obtaining recognition of their principle by the emperor. During this period Athanasius was tortured and was ousted from the country five times. With the acceptance of Arius’s principle of individual-Jesus, questions about principle of trinity (father, son and Holy Spirit) and specially regarding the position of Son in the kingdom once again erupted. These questions are automatically resolved through Athanasius’s principle.
Antony, a saint of desert, known as father of Christian monasticism (Ashram System) favoured Athanasius’s principle. Antony lived an unprecedented disciplined life in the desert of Egypt. He struggled continuously for twenty years with devil forces in his Meditation tomb. It is said that when he came out of the tomb his body did not show any sign of advanced age; like Jesus he adored Logos. He went fighting up to the abode of devil and came out of the tomb after defeating him. Athanasius in his book ‘Life of Antony’ attempted to show that any person can become one with Logos by adopting path of mortification (Tapasya), celibacy and meditation (Dhayan) and he can have sight of God’s eternal and Logos form as Antony could do. This can become a reality only and only through meditation and continuous practice (Abhyas). Necessity of such experience was also felt by other Christian seers and sages such as Clement, Origen, Denys etc.
People were still bewildered to know whether there is only one God? Is Jesus God? At this time three great personalities of Cappadocia in eastern Turkey came with a reply to these questions. They had a vast experience of practical spiritual knowledge .Their reply could satisfy church of east only and differences’ with western church remained unresolved .For church of west, sin of Adam, his descending from Heaven and deliverance from this sin still remained points of focus. Church of West always kept giving priority to the thought that man’s birth is a result of Adam’s sin and he can’t attain a status of God and he is not capable of becoming an integral part of God; he can never gain the purity of God. Adam committed this sin and we can only pray and repent before Jesus (Individual God) for the sins we have committed. There is no other alternative to get rid of this sin. Equating ourselves with God or understanding the self equal to God is an unpardonable crime. People against this thinking were seen with hatred in the Christian religion and they were punished. Search of God through meditation or yogic actions was considered an action of devil and attracted criticism. Church of west was always against searching God into the inner self by the people as did by Saint Augustine because it could become a danger to the institution of church if they have a sight of luminous and eternal Jesus within their soul. Had people experienced God within their self church would have been deprived of issuing directive in respect of God. Their main objective was to keep people weak and superstitious so that they could be exploited in the name of religion. Today’s Vatican Church is a part to this endeavour, which completely disapproves of Word–Jesus and Dhayan (meditation) and yoga.
Three great mystics of Cappadocia named Basil, Gregory of Nisa and Gregory of Nazianzus said, “Truth can’t be expressed in words, it can only be viewed with the eyes of soul (spirit) by practicing meditation. The essence of God can be known through dogma and Kerygma. Kerygma is the outer from of religion, it is the philosophy which can be explained in words in the churches but dogma is inner spirit of the religion which can only be experienced and the hints of its being can only be obtained in the form of signs. Dogma is not a thing which can be discussed or made to understand and can be effectuated through rituals and ceremonies. They explained it by quoting Plato and Aristotle and stressed that experience of spirit is not possible through the gates of wisdom. These three were under the influence of spiritualism of Greece. Eastern Orthodox Church seems to be influenced by philosophers of Greece and their Knowledge. They advocated for bearing silence to understand secrecies of religion.
Western church believed in oral description of God; its subject was Kerygma and not dogma. Gregory of Nyssa told that any description of God can only be a shadow, a false comparison. It doesn’t reveal the secret of God .We should not develop any conception of God rather we should have faith in it. We should look beyond all kind of knowledge and observe complete silence. This was experienced by Hazrat Moses on mountains of Sinai. When he happened to approach God, instead of finding God there, he was surrounded by a cloud of deep darkness. Indian sage Patanjali termed this experience as Dharammegha Samadhi or clouds’ religion. Swami Vivakananda called it cloud of virtue. Basil quoting Saint Philo said that God is essence (ousia) the glimpse of which is out of the reach of intellect and he can only be known through his outer expression (energeia). Athanasius had also told Arius that ousia (essence ) of God is beyond human understanding, his hypostasis (outer face) can only be described in words. Essence of a thing represents its inner substance and hypostasis is that which is visible by our eyes. Therefore, only one element resides in Trinity (Father, Son and Holy spirit). When God wants to reveal his Self to people, his outer face is visible. God can’t be given a name, He has three faces; Father who is inaccessible and a source of unlimited light, Son who is in the form of Word (Logos) and creator of whole universe, Holy spirit which is embedded consciousness of the universe, Father is the creator of this universe, He flows outward or inward through the Son and Holy spirit beholds it. This principle of trinity has been called Supermind, Overmind and all-pervading Spirit by Sri Aurobindo. When spiritual experience becomes so ripened that we feel the presence of God within ourselves and all around, this state exhibits presence of Holy spirit. When this spirit takes the form of matter it is called Aparashakti (illusionary power) and on attaining the form of Supermind it becomes Parashakti (supreme Force).
Experience of the saints of Cappadocia exhibits much similarity to primitive Indian divine experience. Describing the experience of trinity in nutshell Gregory of Nazianzas says, “When I feel experience of one, I am filled with the splendor (light) of all the three; when I discriminate between them, I again contract in to one and when I live anyone of these, I find all these three amalgamated unity and my eyes and body becomes full of light.
In eighteenth century real understanding of God diminished, Bible’s literary meaning remained prime source of understanding spiritualism. True sense of words became redundant .Eastern church‘s dogma (essence) died and domination of church of west got established. Dhayan (meditation) and mysticism were declared an illusion. A competition to prove God’s existence through proof and wisdom was set on His search on the strength of mind and reasoning got started. As a consequent, many intellectuals declined to recognize the very existence of God during nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Many mystics of Christianity expressed that we can’t have a vision of eternal form of Essence of God, it has got the nature of darkness. It has been called ‘Mool Prakriti’ (Basic nature) in Indian Sankhaya and yoga philosophies, which comprises of Sat, Raj and Tama. These three elements are in equal proportion in Mool Prakriti. Therefore, movement of all the constituents of nature comes to a halt, because, if there is no movement of energy it appears dark. This Mool Prakriti, when undertakes task of creation these three constituents start disturbing their proportions which causes tension and waves in it. When we meditate, its Sat element appears in the form of light at the place of third eye between the eyebrows. Therefore, we can see outer form of nature and not its Mool Prakriti because it is dark. When yogi (devotee) realizes this original form of nature, his spirit acquires knowledge of qualities (constituents) of nature and becomes free of all limitations as he does not fall prey to the weaknesses of lower nature. This experience has been termed as Asamprajyat (beyond all knowledge), Nirvikalp (without alternative) or Nirbeej (seedless) Samadhi (blissful state of spirit). Adwait philosophy also describes this state of consciousness as Nirgun Brahman (absolute God), a result of Vivek (discriminative power) and intuition.
Gregory of Nyssa called it a cloud of darkness and Hazrat Moses had also experienced this on the mountain of Sinai and Greece Christian Denys, in sixth century also called it dense cloud of darkness where nothing is visible. Afterwards, when Pope Gregory–the great came, he told that God has kept total knowledge concealed in the womb of large cloud of darkness and fog and He himself is also hiding in this inaccessible cloud. Maximus and Meister Eckhart, mystics of thirteenth and fourteenth century called God as an experience of darkness, such a darkness which can’t be termed as devoid of light; rather gives a reflection of strange light. Sri Aurobindo called experience of such darkness as Nirvikalp Samadhi where the intensity of light becomes so intense and dense that its movement comes to a halt and it gives impression of darkness. He called it luminosity of superconscient light. Buddha called it putting off a lamp. Other Christian saints called it dark night of soul. Bohme called it dark secret.
In the opinion of these mystics anything visible is God’s outer face or form; it doesn’t represent it’s inner Reality. Some Christian Philosophers describe God’s Luminous form as follows: In the words of Symeon in tenth Century:
O Light that none can name, for it is altogether nameless.
O Light with many names, for it is at work in all things,
How do you mingle thyself with grass?
How, while continuing unchanged, altogether inaccessible,
Do you preserve the nature of the grass unconsumed?
Symeon stated that this whole universe is safely reserved in the form of seed in the luminous womb of God. This luminosity remains present in every creature and in its ever changing nature and contrary to this there is also an entity which always remains stable, Agamya and Agochar (not accessible and visible). As per their statement, Saint Paul and Saint John affirmed having attained complete soul unity with Jesus Christ. They made it clear that this unity with Jesus doesn’t mean being one with his physical body, rather with his luminous and formless being which is unified and inseparable from the soul. Saint John says, “Souls which identify themselves with Jesus become one with God (Father) also. Saint Augustine calls this luminosity of God a force of transformation of soul. Saint Bernard realized descent of God’s light into his soul which stationed him in supreme consciousness. Saint Binjan described divinity as live form of light. Desert’s Saint John Cassian says, “Regular meditation fixes soul in divinityâ€. George fox said, “All holy books come out of inner light, inner light is the only source of all knowledgeâ€. This thought remained a cause of contention between mystics and the church for a longer period. George Fox, James Naylor preachers of Quaker’s sect and their followers gave a message that all the men and women can establish their direct contact with divinity .Every Human being is having a source of light with in his self. This source can be searched by and equal opportunity without any kind of discrimination and by any person belonging to higher or lower class or caste. Anyone can practise it and attain Mukti (salvation) during his ensuing life time. Dionysius says, “God who abodes in super conscient darkness is having aura of light around him. Hindu saints call it Jyoti-Swaroop Brahman (luminous Divine). Attainment of Param-Jyoti (Supreme Light) is called realization of Samprajyat, Savikalp or Sabeej Samadhi i.e., all knowledge, all alternates and all seeds of Karmas (actions and works) in balanced state of consciousness.
In Islam, Allah has been called ‘Noor’ (light); Hazrat Muhammad appeared from Noor of Allah and Imam, Maulvi and Sheikh took birth from the noor of Hazrat. It has been written in Koran that both Heaven and Earth are the creations of light (24:35). Hazrat Muhammad found Allah in the form of Noor in his last experience (53:13-17). Alike Greece sages, the seers of Suhrawardi sect of Islam have also realized God as the experience of light. Guru has been called Sheikh-al-Ishraq i.e., a master enlightened with the Noor of Allah. Support of Qutb (living and charged Guru) is necessary to experience this Noor. Suhrawardi philosophy is also known as Ishraqi philosophy. Ishraq means noor and noor is ommipresent, every thing in this world is because of Noor. Allah in Pak (pure) form is noor of Noors. Every mandal (sphere) of the universe down the ladder is illuminated because of illumination of upper sphere. In Other words, every downward sphere is based upon upper more illuminated sphere. In this way, traveling downwards a spectrum of regions of lesser light got established and after reaching at a certain point, due to overshadowing of one sphere by another upper sphere, shadow came into existence; which is responsible for this whole creation and darkness was thus created. When a yogi or Sheikh experiences a flood of light within his self, Vivek (wisdom) takes birth in him which is known as Hiqmat-al-Ishraq (Wisdom of illumination). Kabala sect of Jew religion also recognizes upsurge of this universe out of light. According to this sect when God desired to create the universe, a flame like gamut of rays resembling to smoke emitted from this aura, the colour of which was neither white nor black, red, green, or any identifiable colour. This mass of rays or light created the universe.
Some mystics crossed all the limits of experience. In 6th century, Denys, who was a Christian of Greece and a successor of Cappadocian fathers, narrated his experience in the book ‘The Divine Names’ without declaring his identity to avoid any difficulty in publication of his book. Like priest Basil, he took the difference between dogma and Kerygma very seriously. He told that it is not a matter of ordinary experience; it can only be imbibed by a person who has been baptized by a Guru and who is away from any conception and mental shrewdness. God can’t be given any shape nor can his experience be described in any language or through mental capability. Knowing secret of his experience is also not possible through study or analysis of scriptures. Calling God a ‘God’ or ‘Supreme being’ will also be a dishonesty because He is an experience of sunya (Nothingness). He can’t be given any name or identity. If we really want to understand God then we shall have to negate every knowledge and understanding taking its origin from intelligence. We shall have to say that He is God and also non-God. He possesses qualities of both good and evil, He is knowledge as well as ignorance. To know and experience this being, we shall have to demolish all the conceptions which we have made about God. We shall have to rein our every thought of mind so that it does not form any frame with regard to God’s colour or shape or develop any concept. Only by doing so we can have an experience of essence of Theoria or Dogma of God and we can become one with him and we can have experience of mount Sinai of Moses. Denys spoke of his experience which resembled to that of Buddha and even more than this, proving the contents of Upanishads or Gita. He said, “God is inner soul of this visible world, which is completely realistic, Nirgun (having no quality) as well as Nirakar Prajya (having no shape of knowledge) i.e., beyond any quality or shape or name. This experience of Denys resembles entirely with that of Indian sages described about ten centuries ago. In 3rd century, mystic Plotinus also spoke of an experience resembling to Greece and Indian Rishis. Plotinus desired to come to India for having spiritual knowledge but due to certain reasons he could not do so. This Indian knowledge and experience traveled to Greece through Pythagoras which was later followed by Socrates, Plato and other stoic monks.
During 13th and 14th centuries, European mystic Meister Eckhart (1260-1327) made it amply clear that wisdom is not sufficient to know God ,this is an experience beyond senses and does not fit into any frame made by us .He also told that God is an experience of nothingness. Father along with Son (Jesus) takes birth in the soul of man and not from Virgin Mary’s Womb. Eckhart also says, calling God a ‘God’ is also a disrespect to Him, therefore, for God’s shake we shall have to think beyond God itself and other conceptions about him; only then we can enjoy the experience of being one with him and can share his Ananda (bliss) .He further said, “My own existence should coincide with God’s existence and I should feel Him with in myself, only then we can become inseparable spirit of God’s kingdomâ€. In Upanishads this experience has been dictated as aham-brahmasmi (I am God), ayam atma Brahman (This soul is God), Tatvamasi (You are God), Soham (I am like Him) etc. Eckhart’s this secret principle of gnosis became a cause for displeasure of priests of Germany and he was declared a culprit and was tortured.
In 17th century, Jewish philosopher Baruch Spinoza (1632-77) having scientific approach advanced even ahead. Like Anselm and Rene Descartes, he told that we can’t even think of non-being of God. This thinking itself confirms existence of God’s kingdom. Where there is a thought, how we can deny non-existence of its thinker. A great thinker can only be a father of small thoughts, who helps us in carving these thoughts and making appropriate decisions. Descartes of France says, “I think therefore I amâ€. Saint Anselm, who happened in 11th century, also said that this thinking of non-being of God itself proves the very existence of God .Spinoza found that truth can’t be divided in to two parts, God and devil; there is only one spirit, God and devil both. Spinoza represented the dawn of new age of theism of atheists. It was followed by an era when existence of such God was denied which can’t be acceptable to mind (intelligence) and is cruel and weak like Jesus and who is not capable of providing protection to self and his first son. Spinoza further explained that God is a rule or central principle, which is a sum total of all ruling systems at lower level .This central principle rules the total universe .His such thoughts sent tremors through whole Jewish religious section which resulted into his ousting from Synagogue (worship place of Jews) at an early age of twenty four. Religious people prayed in synagogue: May God keeps him in great agony in hell day and night, while awaking or sleeping, entering or exiting and at all places; and he may pass through wrath of God, God may never forgive him! God’s anger may always keep burning him. Every punishment scribed in rule book of God may shower upon him and his name may be scraped from this world for ever. Some people describe Spinoza a great master for providing modernity to the religion and his path of secular salvation is followed by them. In 19th century Germany’s Hegel gave a separate philosophy called Dialectic method (Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis).This theory was adopted by Karl Marx also for describing socialism. According to Hegel, Jewish religion is a most degraded religion because it propagated false conception of God since its inception; it projected God as oppressor, aggressive and cruel before the People. Jesus made every effort to dispel this notion of people about God but after his departure Christian religion also nurtured the old path and they also projected same picture of God. Hegel’s view seems to be right because origin of all the three religions; Christian, Islam and Jewish is from the same source and all the three have less tolerance level. But in future, perhaps, this view of Hegel became a cause of slaughter of Jews when Hitler killed lakhs of Jews brutally to take revenge for their act to Jesus. They were thrown in the chambers of poisonous gas. They were slaughtered by searching one by one.
All the religions or philosophies that followed soul-searching or revealed deep secrets took mankind to greater heights. They don’t see God in a particular man or within a limited sphere, rather they see him in each atom and in the ultimate experience they realize that man is also God’s integral part, he is part of His eternity. Some found God in the form of light, some experienced His ‘Ananda’ in deep after the stage of light ; which is a zone of tranquility, quietness, stability, and calmness of super consciousness, infinite soul and mental peace ; finding depth of which is impossible. Only a few of them have experienced even more deepness of divine force, where in the tranquility of super conscience there is a consistent echo of God’s silence. When this state of trance appears, our body and mind are filled with eternal music. Some call it Word, some Logos, Naad, Anahat, Udageet, Vaani, Akath Katha, Kalma, Awaje-mustkin etc.; Hazrat Muhammad says that some times Koran’s Ayaten (subject matter) descended in him through the sound of a large bell and that was the most difficult experience for him. This description of sound of bell is also given in Rabbis sect of Jew religion and Christianity. Sound of whistles resembling to that of fast blowing air are also heard. Many Christian and Islam sages and Indian Rishis and saints have also talked of many cosmic sounds. Some of them like Mahatma Buddha said that giving any name to God’s experience is not pertinent. This is an experience beyond both God and non-God and it can’t be bounded. Only danger of this experience is that it can lead a person to atheism.
If we seek to establish true peace in this world, every one of us shall have to lift himself above the faith in impersonal image of God. Especially in Christian religion, Jesus is worshiped as an individual God, the results of which have not been encouraging. In Islam Allah is not worshiped as an individual but like Christians Islam also maintains supremacy of Koran and Hazrat’s teachings. They categorically reject possibility of any experience or philosophy of God beyond this. Unlimited has been made limited and He is measured with words and wisdom of man, where as to understand God’s divinity human wisdom and knowledge are very limited and equal to nothing. Man can presume God’s stature according to his wisdom only. How he can go beyond the limits of his thinking? How a man having boundaries to his wisdom can make a guess regarding Eternal? It is just impossible.
A person can not guess about God as described by Jalaluddin Rumi in his selected small stories. One such story goes as follows – “One day Hazrat Moses happened to hear a voice coming from earth. That voice was of a shepherd boy who was completely engrossed in his prayer to God with his closed eyes and folded hands, ‘O’ God I wish to help you! You might be clothed in dirty dress, I wish to clean your clothes, I wish to wash your feet before you sleep so that you may have a sound sleep with out any disturbance. I wish to love you, I don’t know If anybody loves you or notâ€. He was expressing his emotions by saying so. Hazrat Moses was astonished with his foolishness and made him conscious of his bad behavior to God. Hazrat reprimanded him that you are talking in such a crude language to God who is creator of this whole world and of all the heavens; He is not your relative to whom you can talk like this. Hearing this shepherd boy was full of repentance and went to the desert in agony. God was annoyed with Moses for this all and told him that he has not done a right thing. I don’t deal in words, I weigh the love and thirst of my beloved, could you not see the vigour of love in his heart, you heard his words only.
This story carries two good messages. First, every person evaluates God on the ability of his wisdom only; he establishes His picture in the frame of his mind. Someone asked a little girl what first will you do if God happens to come to you? The girl instantly replied, “I shall offer him the tasty lump of soil and lot of toysâ€, It means that every body fixes God’s image based on his taste, his nature and wisdom and behaves accordingly during his life time. Second message is that God does not admire or recognize wisdom; rather He adores love and thirst for Him. There can be different levels of knowledge in every man and religion where as soul of love always remains the same. God inhabits every heart and He inherits love, therefore, Sufi Saint Bulle Shah exclaims:
“Demolish Temple or demolish Mosque,
Demolish what so ever you can;
But never demolish any heart,
It is abode of God.â€
Love is the greatest treasure of humanity. The day God is accepted in the form of love that day man could be able to live in peace and harmony in this world. Sitting in the non-living leaves of Gita, Bible and Koran the dead God shall disappear that day. Jesus is living God, sleeping in human heart when awakened. He shall upsurge and shower the wealth of His love upon mankind. Jesus claims, “God’s kingdom is with in youâ€. So searching Him in Temple, Masque, Church or Gurudwara is a futile exercise. Rafi Sauda says:
“What if Quaba dismantles,
It is not a heart,
That can’t be rebuiltâ€.
Looking upon behavior of today’s religion some one says, “Fighting in the name of religion is hamaqat (a thing of laughing) and fighting for hamaqat is religion.
This battle in the name of religion shall continue till we do not reject individual’s God or God that fits into the structure made by our wisdom and we do not start worshipping omnipresent God who is showering love on every particle and existence. He is not a God manifested in one individual. He takes birth in soul, called Virgin Mary by Christian Saints who is sinless in its enlightened form. Such soul is absolutely innocent like a child and in such a pure soul birth of light of intuition and gnosis is Jesus’ resurrection. By calling Jesus a son of Virgin Mary we do transfer our sin upon mother Mary. We project our battle with lust (sex) in the name of religion to satisfy our desire and exploit the people through propagation of superstition. Misuse of sex is a sin but it becomes a boon if used as a power.
Individual God takes shape out of our passion and thoughts. This is a result of Alam-a–mithal. In all the three religions; Christian, Islam and Jew, personal God or scriptures are in the centre of method of worship. Hindu religion is also not away this ritual but this religion allows freedom to a person to adopt another stream. He can embrace his own opinion. It clearly exhibits that this religion is more open and provides congenial environment for emancipation of soul or salvation. Spiritual knowledge of Hindu Shastras (scriptures) does not project individual God as the ultimate aim, rather they harbour a God who is Nirlep (sinless), Nirgun (virtue less) and Nirankar (incorporeal and shapeless), even then He possesses every shape and virtue of the universe. He creates the universe through his Viraat Swaroop (gigantic form), bears total Suksma (invisible) existence in this Hirnyagrabha (golden womb) form which is center of all mystic powers, Ridhi - Sidhis (miracles) and a bowl of all treasures . This is mental world of all the imaginary powers, a sheet of Swarg – Narak (Heaven – Hell). It is abode of all the gods – goddesses and angels, who delude a seeker, give food to his weaknesses. A seeker having lust for sex gets glimpse of beautiful fairies ; if greedy , offered treasures and his material desires start getting fulfilled , if aggressive, all the powers of aggression come forward and if he is a Satoguni (virtuous}, a God of goodness or angel fulfills his desires. It is a house of Kalptaru or Kalpvriksh (Divine tree) or Kamadhenu (Divine cow) which satisfy all the desires of the seeker.
This God is known as Aksar–Brahman, Surya-Brahman or Aksara–Purusha (Word–God or supramental Logos) because this God is creator of total suksama (invisible and subtle) knowledge. Above Hirnyagrabh there is indescribable form of divinity, a god of Sushupti, who is the master of super conscient darkness, deep ecstasy and love. Total physical and suksama world exists in its seed form here .It stays here in its kaaran (causal) form. After passing through this stage, a person returns to dreams (imaginary world) and awakening state (physical world) and commences his routine life again after gaining freshness and revival of his energy, same way the universe rests in Susupti after doom’s day and again takes to the task of creation. Susupti is a centre of complete tranquility, an experience of sunya (voidless void), it is limitless. This is known as soul’s dark night or dark mystery which a mystic experiences after traversing the suksama (invisible) world. It is a state where he sheds all conceptions, wisdom and pre-notions of religion. All the spiritual figures, Shastras, worship places and to the extent that all the God messengers and Avtars or Prophet loose their identity and become one with this level of divinity. This form of God is distinct from other two outer identities. It is Dogma (essence), source of both Kerygma and Trinity.
Above these three stages of spirit: physical, subtle and causal, there is fourth sphere of consciousness called Turiatit stage which is a fusion of physical, vital, mental, psychic and spiritual consciousness. This is the abode of Purushottama (Supreme Being). There is a possibility of rebirth of the seeds lying in the darkness of Sushupti but after being one with Sat Purusha (Supreme Being), all the seeds , all the samskaras (perceptions and impressions on the consciousness) burn into ashes; There is no reason for their recycle. Spirit, Paraprakriti (power of God) or Radha, like a thread, treads all the four forms of Sat Purusa or God and accomplishes all the tasks by becoming power of Purusha (God). When Prakriti works in the form of Purushottama it is called Paramaya (mystery and beyond all illusions), Paraprakriti or Parashakti (Divine power) and when it descends downwards it degenerates into dwaitwad (two fold division), traitwad (three fold) and sahasarwad (Thousand fold divisions) and on reaching the outer part it gets lost in darkness of ignorance and forgets its identity. This form of Prakriti is known as Aparamaya (mother of all illusionary powers) or Aparaprakriti or Aparashakti. This is the reason why soul forgets its prime aim and its abode of divinity from where it has descended in this mutable and perishable world.
Individual God is a generation of the world of imaginations which gets its strength from emotions and thoughts of mind. This form of God is a moderate form, a middle link, a mile stone which needs to be by-passed because this form of God is half truth and half truth creates confusion, illusion and hatred. Christian religion is most wounded religion because it advocates worship of crucified form of Jesus. Each nail piercing the body of Jesus perturbs the devotee and it creates turmoil in the minds of its followers. As a result of which a Christian is not a satisfied man; a craving to fulfill always creeps in his mind. History says that he always finds the ways of aggression and domination. History of Christianity is full of wars an struggle. This is due to the imprinted and embedded impressions housing somewhere on his psyche. He never experiences peace and it is not going to be so in future also. Mukti (salvation) is a matter of far away, as for attaining Mukti complete tranquility of mind and wisdom is required. Dissatisfaction has to be transformed into satisfaction and it can only be possible when we start worshiping Jesus Christ as a sea of love and compassion and not as a crucified and wounded Jesus. Every Christian shall have to rethink otherwise Jesus’ wounded body shall continue to wound him also like Margaret Mary. Margaret Mary had got blessings of Jesus Christ, she is assumed to be blessed. In 1682 she narrates the dream of her meeting with Jesus in following words; when she had a glimpse of Jesus, his body was profusely bleeding and He was having wounds on his body. He exclaimed in his screamed voice; “Shall some one have a pity on me and help me? Shall some one become my associate in this boundless sorrow? Cruel and sinful people have made me so.
Till the screams of Jesus reaches to the last Christian, how Christianity can embrace Mukti (Salvation). Till even a single Christian or any person in this world is wounded how Jesus Christ can attain salvation? Jesus Christ’s Mukti is possible only when total humanity shall dispel hatred and embrace affection. Dream of Heaven on earth shall become a reality only when all the religions shall be viewed through the same mirror, they shall be treated at par; their cultural and spiritual identity shall be preserved, their valuable treasures shall be conserved. Virtues of other religion shall be adored and adopted and evils of own religion shall be shunned, only then problems of religious terrorism and communalism can be shown the exit. Jesus Christ is not the name of individual spirit; rather He is a spirit of wisdom and enlightened humanity and non-identifiable (impersonal) consciousness of universe.
Till the wounded and bleeding consciousness keeps anyone agitated in any form, he shall not be able to abandon religion-bounded enmity and hatred. He can’t come out of the state of Alam–al–mithal and upto the time it happens; there is no possibility of kingdom of God on Earth. Everyone residing on globe will have to think such limiting aspects and blind folded superstitions prevailing in ones own religion for the establishment of ‘Heaven on Earth’ in Reality. Religion of common God i.e., impersonal God as emphasized by the mystics of different religions can help overcoming these limitations as they share common experience of spiritualism and religion. Adoration and worship of personal God or scriptures can be the milestones in the journey towards Self realization. A common path of ‘Love’ for every creature and the surroundings can lead the humanity towards the goal of peace, tranquility and freedom. True love doesn’t differentiate between a person of one religion and the other. It is a binding, uniting and gliding force which is moving and revolving the whole universe on the wheels of Time and Space. It is recognized by all the living and non-living spheres of life. Animals, plants, birds do not recognize our religion, its rituals or any personal deity. They are not influenced by the presence of temple, mosque, church or gurudwara. Neither they respond to the aphorisms of our scriptures, nor do they, at all, exhibit respect to our worship places. They only respond to the incense of love and nurturing spirit of a person.
Only that religion can be the religion of God which attracts all of its inhabitants (living or non-living) without any disparity and that is the religion of Love and compassion (Dharam-e-Seena; religion of heart). True love has no limits and boundaries; therefore it can reach the limitless and inaccessible. It never puts the shackles of bondage in the feet of his beloved but always sets him free; hence, it can be the most potent means of delivering the ulterior goal of freedom. No knowledge is required to learn the basics of love as it is the quintessence of each and every atom and creature. Thus, love is the only cosmic religion which is recognized by the whole universe and its inhabitants. It becomes supreme Bliss when we adopt the path self-giving which is the result of true love.
Hence, path of love (self-giving) and the adoration and craving of impersonal God are the key treasures which can lead the humanity in the making of ‘Heaven on Earth’. Without making use of these treasures, the dream will remain a utopia and conjecture.
THANKS FOR GIVEN TIME TO RAED & FOR MORE PLZ CONTACT ON hariomkvk@gmail.com & PLZ VISIT http://www.radhasoamitaradham.com ABOUT WEBSITE PLZ CONTACT jasdeep.sindhu@gmail.com
Radhasoami
DR .HARIOM said,
April 6, 2008 at 1:09 am
HELLO HUMAN BEINGS ,
“LIFE IS NOT A REHERSAL - IT IS THE FINAL STROKE TO ACHIEVE ANYTHING IN LIFE ” & LIFE IS YOUR TIME , SO PLEASE DON’T WASTE YOUR TIME & CHANNELISE YOUR ENERGY TO KNOW EVRYTHING IN THIS UNIVERSE BY TRUE WAY . SO ENLIGHTED YOUR COSMIC ENRGY ( SOUL ). COSMIC ENRGY OF YOU ALL HAS 18 SPHEARES OF THIS JOURNEY TO SUPEREMBEING ( GOD ) .
1) 6 OF PHYSICAL WORLD
2) 6 OF SUBTLE
3) 6 OF CAUSAL
- IF ANYONE SHOULD WANT TO DO SOMETHING TO THYSELF & OTHERS, THEN FIRST OF ALL KNOW YOURSELF.
- IF ANYONE SHOULD WANT TO KNOW EVERYTHING IN THIS UNIVERSE THEN FIRST OF ALL KNOW ABOUT YOURSELF .
YOU ALL ARE THE CONSCIOUS PRESENTATION OF GOD IF YOU WANT TO MEET & KNOW ABOUT GOD THEN PLZ ENLIGHTED YOUR ALIVE PART WHO NEVER DIES .YOUR PHYSICAL WORLD HAVE END BUT COSMIC ENRGY WILL ALIVE TILL UNIVERSE IF YOU ENLIGHTED YOUR INTERNAL CONSCIOUSNESS (SOUL) . REMEMBER LIGHT IS THE FASTEST IN THIS UNIVERSE IT IS THE ONLY WAY TO KNOW ABOUT PAST , PRESENT , FUTURE MEANS ABOUT TIME & AFTER THAT ALSO AFTER TIME WHICH IS THE MAIN CENTRAL GRATIVITY . THE ONLY YOUR CONSCIOUS ENERGY CAN CONTACT EVERYTHING IN THIS UNIVERSE YOUR PHYSICAL WORLD HAVE NO RANGE TO REACH THEM .WHEN YOU ENLIGHTED YOUR COSMIC ENERGY ( SOUL ) THEN YOU WILL FIND THAT YOUR ALIVE ENERGY IS THE PART OF UNIVERSAL ENRGY IS EVERY WHERE IN THIS UNIVERSE . THIS KIND OF CONTACT IS THE TRUE & HOLY LOVE OF GOD . WHICH NEVER DIES TILL UNIVERSE , THE OTHER SIDE YOUR PHYSICAL LOVE IS MAKING THIS WORLD COTINUE . PHYSICAL LOVE DOES BY OUTSIDE BEHAVIOUR , FOR THIS LOVE YOU HAVE NEED OF OTHER BODY & IT CRAETE THE PHYSICAL WORLD & ALSO HAS END BY TIME BUT INTERNAL LOVE DOES BY SOUL , IT HAS NO NEED OF OTHER BODY IT MAKES US ONE BY SOUL IT HAS NO TIME LIMIT & END BCZ IT IS THE PRINCIPLE OF SUPEREMBEING ( GOD ) OR SUPEREME NATURE OR SUPEREME POWER OR SUPEREME FATHER OR SUPEREME CENTRAL GRATIVITY .
THANKS FOR GIVEN TIME TO RAED & FOR MORE PLZ CONTACT ON hariomkvk@gmail.com & PLZ VISIT http://www.radhasoamitaradham.com ABOUT WEBSITE PLZ CONTACT jasdeep.sindhu@gmail.com
rafael said,
June 8, 2008 at 6:37 pm
nemo said,
June 8, 2008 at 8:54 pm
This post is too long, and I will delete it a bit later, leaving the first paragaraph. But what is the point of such a ponderous tirade that can only discredit your viewpoint?
Michelle Barron said,
September 23, 2008 at 8:03 am
If Science is a method, then Faith can be said to be a process. ( I am addressing something said a while back.) Contrary to the assertion made in this post, the tenants of Faith can be abandoned. This is evident in the many twists and turns of the Reformed Church.
Michelle Barron said,
September 23, 2008 at 8:07 am
Jeepers, I meant “tenets.” I suppose “tenants” can be abandoned as well, both in Science and Religion
ferhan azman said,
September 23, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Why is it such a big issue for you Ms Robinson to write such a long review to prove what exactly to whom? Isn’t religion after all a private matter and a truly religious person following faith should not be bothered by any of Mr Dawkins’ writings. Any way God realises and reviews it all!
Danny Doyle said,
December 29, 2008 at 2:59 pm
‘When I wrote on my door: “Leave your tradition outside before you come in,” not a soul dared to visit me or open my door.’
- Kahlil Gibran.
Here’s to you, Mrs. Robinson « center & periphery said,
March 15, 2009 at 10:59 pm
[...] to “the new atheist wave” both in her criticism (see her response to Richard Dawkins here as well as an astonishing Paris Review interview here) and in her fiction. And on a list of [...]
Darwiniana » Most popular posts said,
March 17, 2009 at 2:24 pm
[...] the all time favorite, top of the list for over a year: http://darwiniana.com/2006/10/23/marilynne-robinson-on-dawkins/ A few of the the runners up are in bold characters, Schopenhauer on death, posts on the Axial Age, [...]