My Fellow Contributors,
One of the books I am reading at this time is Eckhart Tolle's book, The Power of Now. This book was actually recommend to me by Slick a few months ago and I have been devouring it every since. The tagline for the book is, "A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment". I recommend it to everyone who is searching for their own inner voice and presence.
I bring this book up not to discuss philosophies, but because their is a section of the book that I feel resonates with what I have discussed in several of my previous blogs.
Here is the section I want to point at today,
"Don't get stuck on the level of words. A word is no more than a means to and end. It's an abstraction. Not unlike a signpost, it points beyond itself. The word honey isn't honey. You can study and talk about honey for as long as you like, but you won't really know it until you taste it. After you have tasted it, the word becomes less important to you. You won't be attached to it anymore. Similarly, you can talk or think about God continuously for the rest of you life, but does that mean you know or have even glimpsed the reality to which the word points? It really is no more than an obsessive attachment to a signpost, a mental idol....
...If you had a strong aversion to the word God, which is a negative form of attachment, you may be denying not just the word but also the reality to which it points. You would be cutting yourself off from the possibility of experiencing that reality."
Jack and I were having a conversation after the last open mic. You see he's been writing a bunch of physics poetry lately and asked me if I believed in God. I told him, that I was raised Roman Catholic and my views aren't as simple as whether or not there is a God. I told him that I view organized religion as a medium through which I can find my spiritual enlightenment or presence.
In rebuttal he told me that I had to acknowledge that science is the only universal truth. That God is only used as a weapon against groups and that it is worth not believing in because it is only used for evil. He told me that he was raised christian but has now come to the realization that there is not a God.
I read the passage from The Power of Now after this conversation, and felt that these were a few lines I should have quoted in defense of my position.
The way I see it, God is only a signpost used to get everyone connected to a universal truth. Jack, and other people like him, are asking the wrong question. Its not whether there is a God, but why would a God be created.
I was doing some research for an article on the relationship between business and religion. In my research I came across an article about Karl Marx. He held the view that God was created by men, and was used to keep the laborer in the chains of the capitalist. I agree with Marx in one respect, that God was created (the word and the way its delivered) but rather than a means of oppression it is a means of liberation.
It is a way for all of us to "be on the same page"; to focus our attention on one idea. Rather than getting caught up in the how of religion, we need to get focused on the Now of religion. The feeling that it makes us experience and the sense of freedom, warmth, love, and tenderness it opens us up to feeling.
So don't get caught up in words. Don't get caught up in other peoples opinions or in their religion. Everyone is searching for the universal truth. They are searching for their own god-essence and they are teaching us that we are all connected.
Physics, God, Science or Religion. These are only tools teaching us to transcend.
As Always
Undoubtedly Yours,
Bermuda the Man
Interesting. I think you've misquoted me a bit, but very interesting.
ReplyDeleteNot by much, if I have at all.
ReplyDeleteI strongly remember you asking how I could say there was a God, that you were raised christian but now you see science as the source of truth and that people use religion as a means to oppress others. I believe you used the example of homosexuality and the church.
Where did I misquote you?
Undoubtedly,
Bermuda the Man
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have two problems with the things you claimed I said, and both have to do with you spinning my words into making me look into more of an asshole than I already am.
ReplyDelete1) "He told me that I had to acknowledge that science is the only universal truth."
I don't think I've ever said someone needs to acknowledge the facts of science. I'm not a televangelist for the scientific community. Facts are available for people, and it is up to them to look at the facts. I, of course, think people should be informed, and I make a point to surround myself with people who are informed; but I would not tell someone that they had to acknowledge X, Y, or Z because a person who does not search for knowledge is not worth my time.
2) "God is only used as a weapon against groups and that it is worth not believing in because it is only used for evil"
This is the most egregious misrepresentation of what I said, and you should probably think about how you want to portray people who you work with in the future. But that's another discussion.
Anyways, if you took out the "only" and used "often," I would have less of a problem with the representation, as this is a feeling I actually sort of believe. Liam Corley, a man I respect more than most, is a religious man. I would have to be insane to suggest that he uses religion to oppress homosexuals or the like. However, this is not to say that religion, both in the past and right now, is not used as a weapon, because it certainly is. The war in the Middle East is a byproduct of religion, so you cannot say that religion is not a weapon. The individual is not at fault and many people I respect are religious, but I personally believe that religion, like many other things, is something people take advantage of. The main thing that makes me cringe, though, is that the belief in something like Thor, Jove, Amon Ra, Allah, or Jesus gives rise to violence. That is my problem. You can see this in the cases of the conflict in Ireland, the genocide of the Kurds, the Sikh-Hindu conflict in Punjab, and basically anything that has happened in Southern Asia for the last fifty years.
Again, before I take any flak from anyone, I do not care if someone is religious. I simply think that religion, like many other things, leads to violence and oppression -- and violence is something I, and rational people, think is terrible.
One more thing, I want to address the whole "worth believing"
thing. I do not "believe" in things because they are "worth believing." I would never say God is "not worth believing." If I am trapped in a snowstorm, believing in a blanket and a hot cup of coco is not going to keep me from becoming hypothermic. I believe in things because my opinion is one that I consciously formed through reading a shitload about spirituality, philosophy, and the cosmos. My perception of the universe and the question of a deity is an informed one, and the evidence, from what I can tell, seems to suggest that there is no God. However, I cannot say that there is no God, because I do not have sufficient evidence to support that claim. For all intensive purposes, you can call me an agnostic. I simply prefer the term Atheist because I don't have to say I'm a Santa Clause Agnostic.
I hope this makes sense.
J
The problem with all of the examples you used is that in America we have a very different view about religion. Religion is more of a cultural idenitification rather than an ethnic idenity.
ReplyDeleteAround the world, Religion is much more than what you believe it is who you are. So when you say that the war in the Middle East is a byproduct of religion, you are misrepresenting the facts. It is not the medium of religion that creates war, but the differences in ethicnitcy, and society that create these.
When you say,
"The main thing that makes me cringe, though, is that the belief in something like Thor, Jove, Amon Ra, Allah, or Jesus gives rise to violence. That is my problem. You can see this in the cases of the conflict in Ireland, the genocide of the Kurds, the Sikh-Hindu conflict in Punjab, and basically anything that has happened in Southern Asia for the last fifty years."
I cringe for several reasons. First, gods such as Thor, Jove, Amon Ra, should not be grouped with the one from Abrahamic faith Allah in arabic and God in english. And neither should prophets such as Jesus and Muhammad. If followed correctly, these prophets will never lead one into violence. It is man who has misinterrepted these "signpost" and has been lead astray.
You make it sound in your quote as though religion will undboutedly lead to violence, persucution and conflict. Which perhaps is more of a comment on your opionion on the nature of humanity rather than religion.
As you stated, from your readings and from what you can tell, there is no God.
But you are getting caught up in the visual representation of God. That God somehow is thing to exist.
God is not any thing you can imagine. How could it be?
God is no-thing. And in this it is perfect.
God is like an room. Yes, a room has walls, a floor, and a ceiling. But this is not what a room is. It merely defines it. Thus we have prays, churchs, books, and ceremonies which seek to define God, but they are not God.
God is the empty space, as is the room.
Or as in the Tao Te Ching,
The uncarved block of wood, which is perfect. For it can be anything.
Udoubtedly,
Bermuda the Man
Your response is one large red herring, so I'm not sure if a response is really necessary; however, I'll humor the idea.
ReplyDeleteI will use a specific example of the conflict in the Middle East to illustrate my point. Ron Paul, a man I know you respect, has spoken out against aiding Israel. This is because we are backing a religious conflict. The Israelis and the Palestinians are at war because they are fighting over a divine right to ownership of a strip of land. The Israelis are better equipped to fight, and thus they are pushing back the Palestinians into a smaller and smaller portion of Israel (or Palestine, I suppose). When people are pushed closer and closer into a wall, they start to do things they would not normally do (i.e. strap bombs to their chests and kill civilians). This is a response to religious conflict, and I would be hard pressed to find anyone who disagrees, assuming they are not in denial. This is not fact-twisting. This is what is happening in Israel/Palestine. If you don't believe me, go ahead and watch Occupation 101. That's the unsung song of what's really happening.
Speaking further to your argument, though, allow me to quote you.
"If followed correctly, these prophets will never lead one into violence. It is man who has misinterrepted these "signpost" and has been lead astray."
I think you could and should be right when you say if followed correctly, prophets will not lead to violence; however, history shows that many people do not follow directly the teachings of the books they consider holy. Also, religion has and does lead to violence, so to say that it doesn't is to deny things like the crusades. You can't seriously argue the claim that religion does not lead to violence. Yes, it undoubtedly does, because, yes, it certainly has.
As for the whole signpost thing, it's all fine and dandy to take a look at religion and blocks of wood and chairs through a structuralist lens, but humans do not deal with the abstractions of concepts -- they deal with the actualization. Platonic visions of concepts in the whimsical ether are perfect, but, as Plato would suggest, once they enter the world, they are marred and imperfect. So, please, let's not deal with "signposts" if we want to have a meaningful conversation.
J
I understand where you are coming from when you talk about the actualization of religion. That we must see what religion is doing in the real world and not the truth is seeks to give us, but I feel like this is just admitting defeat to the zealous, radicals who have taken religion hostage (like the Catholic presets who have tainted Catholicism for myself to a certain degree and groups such as Al Qaeda have done for Islam and Zionist Israelis have done for Judaism).
ReplyDeleteClearly, the most important part of religion is the human element.
What we chose to believe, what we chose to reject. How we chose to convey our interpretations of the books and how we chose to share that message with others.
Furthermore, we need to look at the abstraction of religion rather than the actualization when trying to find our own personal spirituality because the actualization is not the intended purpose of religion.
The Bible is not the word of God, rather it was edited and put together by the Council of Nicaea under the direction of Emperor Constantine. The Koran is a much better actualization of the word of God than the Bible, in my opinion.
And the conflict in Israel and Palestine is about religious beliefs but it is also about colonization and fighting for independence.
I am just a little apprehensive when someone says they are waging war in the name of a certain religion. That sounds to me like they are using religion as an excuse or a scapegoat to justify their actions.
I mean, Religion can't defend itself. Jesus and Muhammed cannot say "hey wait that's not what I wanted" because they are dead (lol) and also because we have gotten caught up in the actualization or the perversion of religion rather than the ethereal truth it was trying to teach us.
I think a problem we Americans have is that we over-religious-ize the Middle East. We forget that the modern idea of nation-states, borders and countries is a relatively new idea for them. We should use more examples in our own country when arguing rather than throwing out many people do this, many people do that (none of us are experts on the current affairs of the middle east) because we will as scholars and as debaters, are better able to attest to the validity of these statements rather than making claims that give a lot of clout but are actually supported by very little.
Lastly, the only way to have a meaningful conversation between religions is by speaking about the universal truth, the abstractions of the concepts Jesus and Mohammed and the Buddha were trying to teach us. How can we come together as one if we are not looking for common group, but instead focus on our differences.
Undoubtedly,
Bermuda the Man