God and Humans

(Your Agenda)

Wyatt

hey john, im a pretty post-modern kinda christian, and i pretty much buy what youre selling -- sorta. i do think theres a fundamental type of experience that underlies all religions, and is experienced cross culturally.

however, you run into difficulties when you try to distill those experiences from all of the cultural baggage that has built up around them. youre trying to move beyond individual religious traditions and get at the human core to religion (which is worthwhile, i think) but in doing so you have to be careful of what you do with all that tradition and religion. you cant just throw it away, because doing that would be to the disingenuous to the actual experience to trying to understand.

in trying to find a common root of all religions and a sort of "culturally neutral" universal spirituality, its typical to look for a historical root, a kind of "first cause" to human spirituality. that way you talk about the basic spiritual experience (and/or the brain activity associated with it) divorced from things like jesus or buddha or mohammad. thats what Emil Durkheim and Huston Smith have both tried to do (in different ways) to talk about the universalities of religions.

but the problem with that approach is the assumption that there was a "first cause" before tradition got in the way, that in fact the spiritual experience and the religious tradition even can be separated. i think that assumption is false.

that assumption relies on a very simplistic understanding of religious experience. it views the experience as something detached and isolated that happens within the brain (or soul), which is then interpreted using tradition, thereby creating a religious experience of (for example) seeing jesus. i dont think thats a very good explanation for religious experiences. instead, i think tradition both creates and interprets the experience, and the experience in turn creates and interprets tradition. they have a dynamic, dialogical relationship. it takes a tradition to teach people how to have religious experiences in the first place, to give them the expectation that its even possible, and to give them the motivation to engage in spiritual practices.

so when you try to take the tradition out of the experience, you're actually robbing the experience of some essential components, diminishing its value.

for example: the christian doctrine that only those who accept jesus as their savior are saved, and all others go to hell (i dont subscribe to this, but most christians probably do). it looks like your perspective would value and encourage the spiritual experiences of evangelical christian communities who teach this doctrine, right? you would recognize that even though they have some wacky and kind of hateful beliefs, there's still some crazy brain chemistry going on and theyre having some kind of authentic spiritual experience. but from their perspective, the authenticity of the spiritual experience is related to being saved, to having accepted jesus christ as their savior. thats why theyre allowed to have sacred experiences communing with god, and their experiences have confirmed that. the nature of the experience itself solidifies the community and its doctrines, proving in the eyes of the community that they were right all along __ why else would god's spirit be so present in their communal spiritual experiences?

from that perspective, your attempts to separate the experience from the doctrine look naive at best, malicious at worst. youre denying the value of their religion, while still salvaging some leftover pieces to advance your own agenda (cross-cultural religious unity). i admire that particular agenda, but no community takes kindly to their beliefs and practices being hijacked and used against them.

John Dishwasher

The fundamental difference we have is the role of culture. You believe that culture is necessary for the full expression of human spirituality, and I believe that culture mostly inhibits the full expression of human spirituality. That you could deduce this from my essay is pretty insightful, because I don't really make this explicit. That's not what the essay is about.

I did not write the essay to further any agenda. I am not espousing a new belief system or deriding a former one. The argument of the essay and my posts is pretty simple: (1) We all seek peace of mind. (2) If we can simply recognize that both the atheist and the fundamentalist Christian (and everyone else in between) starts here, then maybe we will understand each other better. It is a "gross and simple" attempt to point out the common ground where we all begin, a common ground that is usually overlooked because of its simplicity. That's all the essay and my posts are about.

Your response is nuanced and well-presented and I appreciate your thoughts, but I feel its possible you are foisting upon me intentions and ideas that I do not have. I get the feeling there is some debate going on somewhere among intellectuals about this and you think I'm on one or the other side of it. My friend, I am really a dishwasher. A thoughtful one, but a dishwasher. This is not a pose. I am not trying to jettison all "the baggage" of tradition and religion. I have never heard of Durkheim, and while I have heard of Smith I have not read him. I'm betting those dudes are into sophisticated arguments. I am not. I am into the simple and the gross.

The symbiotic relationship you posit between tradition and religion I find really intriguing. I cannot subscribe to it, however. I do not believe that humans have to be taught to be spiritual. I believe they are naturally spiritual. I believe that the "teaching" actually teaches them away from their natural spirituality, that it corrupts a natural understanding. The fundamentalist Christian extremes you cite actually support my view on this better than yours, I think. Their "wacky and hateful" beliefs are a distortion of something that is natural in them.

Wyatt

but the techniques are pretty similar across cultures, which plays into argument. mystical experiences arent something humans can do instinctively or automatically, but there is a well documented way to achieve them in almost every major religious tradition thats basically the same.

if it were totally instinctual and didnt require any training or practice, than everyone would do it. in the studies you refer to, the subjects are typically nuns or monks who've lived the majority of their lives in seclusion practicing some kind of traditional prayer technique. and in all those communities of monks and nuns, no matter what religion, theres a very regimented practice of prayer/meditation thats taught generation after generation. people are usually only able to induce the crazy brain activity (mystical/ecstatic psychological states) after years of training. its not easy.

John Dishwasher

Thanks for pointing out that "there is a well documented way to achieve them in almost every major religious tradition." That's where my assertion in the blog that the eventual "scientific path to 'god' will look familiar" comes from.

Wyatt

but every religious tradition also has a set of beliefs and doctrines about those experiences, and theyre all wrapped up together. they cant be separated... but even the idea that all people are seeking peace of mind, and theres a single universal way to get there that we all have in common __ thats an agenda. and it actually does deny the individuality and uniqueness in each religious tradition. i think youre right that religion fills a psychological need, but not everyone articulates that need in the same way, and not every religion fills it in the same way.

John Dishwasher

I understand what you're saying but since you've brought it up I really should say that it's because of my respect and admiration for all of these traditions, and an genuine affection for all their adherents, that I wrote the blog in the first place. It was not my intent to take away their "individuality and uniqueness" but simply to point out their common ground, and to say that that common ground also happens to be shared by atheists, and even, dare I say, satanists. All of whom also have my respect.

Auudell

Wyatt, I find your state oblivious to the tons of gnostic/occult/yoga practices being used in any number of informal traditions used locally.

I'm an atheist who has jumped into L.A..'s occult community and has experience mystical states whether it was from controlled breathing, chanting, ecstatic dancing, fasting, sex, drugs, or initiation.

You have a very narrow viewpoint, stop speaking in general terms about communities you have little contact with.

Wyatt

yeah, John, i totally get that and its clear from your writing. im just trying to say that i think your argument unintentionally diminishes the uniqueness of individual religions.

again, i still think theres a lot of value to what youre saying and to finding common ground. we just shouldnt focus COMPLETELY on the common ground to try to invent a totally universal religion or something, because uniqueness is also something to be valued.

John Dishwasher

Okay. Thanks for italicizing unintentionally and capitalizing completely. I get you. And I actually agree with what your saying. The essay is an attempt at distillation. It leaves out as much as possible so it can illuminate and emphasize a very simple idea. A universal religion would actually bore me for the same reasons you resist it. There is no reason for traditions to be cast aside as long as they are helping people find peace of mind. It would be nice, though, if we could find a way to prevent them from keeping people from finding peace of mind. That's part of what prompted me to share the essay. Pointing out such an obvious common ground makes everyone equal: believers, atheists, indifferents.