Posted inReligions Science

The Vatican gets it right (for once)

My thanks to Steve, a Church of the Churchless reader, for letting me know that the Vatican says the faithful should listen to science. Since it is likely that a majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices soon will be Catholics, maybe this will help spur the court to make a correct decision if an Evolution v. Intelligent Design case comes up. It was encouraging to hear that at least some Vatican functionaries have a decent understanding of what differentiates evolution and intelligent design/creationism: proof. Monsignor Gianfranco Basti, director of the Vatican project STOQ, or Science, Theology and Ontological Quest, reaffirmed…
2
Posted inScience Universe

Embracing the oddness of everything

Does life ever seem absolutely weird to you? It does to me. Often. I’ve got some distinguished company in this regard: George Will, who wrote a great piece in Newsweek called “The Oddness of Everything.” Will shares a bunch of strange facts about the universe culled from Bill Bryson’s book, “A Short History of Nearly Everything.” Now, facts aren’t really “strange,” “odd,” or “weird.” They’re simply facts. But when it comes to facts about the basics of life, time, space, and the universe, human cognition blows a fuse. Our brains can’t handle that much reality. There’s an awful lot of…
No Comments
Posted inBooks Radha Soami Satsang Beas Science

Don’t believe, just have faith

Sunday I gave a talk to my spiritual group that inspired me. So before I lose touch with my self-induced inspiration, I figured that I should capture it in a weblog posting. That way hopefully I can re-inspire myself as needed. However, I have to admit that this whole way of thinking is at odds with what I was talking about. Namely, the absurd split between “I” and “me.” More defensible are the splits between “belief” and “faith” or “religion” and “science.” Nonetheless, we humans love to divide up reality with concepts divorced from experience, then get anxious about feeling…
44
Posted inReligions Science

Religious Americans: tolerant but gullible

Since I have a decidedly nontraditional attitude toward spirituality, it was reassuring to see that a Newsweek/Beliefnet poll found that 79% of Americans answered “Yes” to the question, “Can a good person who doesn’t share your religious beliefs attain salvation or go to heaven?” Of course, I’d feel even better if I could get that assurance directly from whatever higher power is responsible for doling out salvation. Nonetheless, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that Christians appear to be more tolerant than I have been giving them credit for. Evangelical Protestants were the least tolerant, but 68% still were willing…
2
Posted inScience Spiritual practice/meditation

Seeing clearly now

My philosophical mind is always trying to find the commonalities in spirituality. Also, my scientific mind. We don’t say “What science do you believe in?” But “What religion do you believe in?” is a common question. That’s because science is a universal approach to learning about physical reality, while every religion considers that it alone holds the key to the truth about a presumed spiritual reality. So scientists are able to stand on common ground with other people, while religious believers end up isolated on their own distinct islands of false understanding. I’m attracted to the possibility that it’s possible…
No Comments
Posted inReligions Science

Science is flexible, religion is rigid

It’s good to be flexible physically, mentally, and especially, spiritually. This is why science should be embraced and religion rejected. For religion promotes a truth-denying rigidity while science emphasizes the need to be open to reality in all of its guises. The current controversy about the teaching of intelligent design, which is creationism in new clothes, illustrates this difference between open-minded science and don’t-bother-me-with-facts religion. Science is founded on the scientific method, a process for revealing the truth about how things work in the physical universe. Whatever demonstrable truths this process ends up finding are added to science’s fund of…
2
Posted inReality Science

Truth comes in two guises

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve shared a marvelous insight about the nature of the universe with other people and had it fall as flat as a baking powder-less pancake. I’ll speak with astounding passion, clarity, and insight, laying out a metaphysical truth that is so evident to me I figure there’s no way I’ll fail to be showered with praise by an audience grateful beyond belief for being given the gift of my revelation. Yet…actually there’s just a brief moment of silence, as if everyone is mentally praying, “Dear God, please let this conversation head off in…
2
Posted inHumor Science

A witty rebuke to creationism

Don’t miss this great “Open Letter to Kansas School Board” that demands equal teaching time for the theory that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. The letter’s author, Bobby Henderson, presents persuasive evidence to support his argument that, if Intelligent Design is an alternative scientific theory to Evolution, then so is the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory. What Henderson demands is “one third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.” I enjoyed this Open Letter a lot. A good way to combat…
No Comments
Posted inReligions Science Spiritual practice/meditation

Plunging deeper into Universism

As reported on my other weblog, I’ve decided to sponsor a Universist face-to-face discussion group here in Salem. Currently the group has two members: me and my wife, Laurel. This makes it easy for us to meet, but it would be nice to expand the membership between the confines of Hines. So if you live in the Salem area, consider becoming a group member (sign up here). Though this discussion group will be under the Universist banner, there’s essentially no difference between the philosophy of Universism and what gets preached here at the Church of the Churchless. I know this,…
4
Posted inPersonal/Stories Radha Soami Satsang Beas Religions

Filtering reality

The morning after I wrote “Why I embrace unorganized religion” I had an Aha! moment that smoothly spoke in a few words what I had struggled to express in several pages. Writing is a mystery. For me, the process seems to stir up the contents of my cranium, loosening up what had been fixed, uncovering what had been hidden. Much of the mental stew sinks back to the bottom of the pot again. Some rises to the surface of consciousness, bubbling over with a fresh insight. Such as… Clinging to a filter that obscures reality is a primary vice of…
2
Posted inRadha Soami Satsang Beas Religions Science

Cults, religions, and science

Ever since Rajni asked me about cults—specifically, if I think a certain spiritual group is a cult—I’ve been pondering what “cult” means to me. Here’s my response to Rajni’s question. ------------------------------ Rajni, you asked what my thoughts are of RS (Radha Soami Satsang Beas) being a cult. It’s taken me a few days to reply, partly because it’s taken me this long to get my mind around the concept of “cult.” Like lots of people, I use this word loosely and pejoratively to refer to a group of fervent believers that I don’t agree with. For example, I might say…
1
Posted inBuddhism Religions Science

Western religions holding back stem cell research

Watching “Nightline” a few days ago, I was pleased to find an expert supporting my contention that religion is at the root of the reason why the United States is falling behind other nations in crucial health care research. In my “God must be a Buddhist” post I argued that the Western monotheistic religions have more of a problem with absorbing scientific facts into their worldviews than do Eastern faiths such as Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism. Thus recent breakthroughs in embryonic therapeutic cloning occurred in South Korea, not the United States, because irrational tenets of fundamentalist Christianity have resulted in…
No Comments
Posted inReality Religions Science

Knowledge, belief, and feathered dinosaurs

Let’s say you believe in creationism or “intelligent design,” as creationists now like to call their addled explanation of how living beings came to be. You don’t accept evolution. Everything was created all at once by a supreme being that knew exactly what he/she/it wanted to do and did it just right the first time around. Then you are confronted with solid evidence of feathered dinosaurs—a fossil dinosaur covered head to tail with downy fluff and primitive feathers. Evolutionary theory predicted that birds evolved from dinosaurs and, ta-da!, the hypothesis has been confirmed. As paleontologist Mark Norell says, “Dinosaurs are…
2
Posted inReligions Science

Best religion: reality. Worst religion: faith

I always enjoy getting a message from my favorite (and, really, only) regular Christian correspondent, Steve. He sent a thoughtful response to my post, “Reason unites, faith divides.” I’ll include it in its entirety as a continuation to this post. Steve is so reasonable, I certainly don’t include him in my category of Closed-Minded Religious Faithful—they who ignore unmistakable immediate reality in favor of unproven faith in what may lie beyond what is known now.

I agree with Steve that “science is but a limited tool,” so long as it “doesn’t deal with things outside the natural, physical realm.” This was one of the central themes of my first book, “God’s Whisper, Creation’s Thunder.” Since science doesn’t know whether the essence of ultimate reality is material (physical) or non-material (spiritual), it needs to be open to any and all possibilities about what lies at the root of manifest existence.

So if “religion” means embracing really real reality, sign me up. But I don’t want any substitutes for the Real Thing. Give me the truth about the cosmos, or give me nothing. And this is what faith is, compared to truth: nothing. It’s a hope, theory, hypothesis, conjecture, wish, desire—whatever you want to call it. Whatever, it isn’t the real deal: something directly experienced.

Last Sunday I gave a talk to our local Radha Soami Satsang Beas group on this very subject. I heartily agreed with a statement by Lekh Raj Puri in his book Radha Swami Teachings: “True faith is that which is based on one’s inner transcendent spiritual realization. In that faith there is no scope for doubt; it is faith in true transcendent knowledge; it is real and reliable faith.”

But this definition of faith is far distant from what people usually mean by the term. Puri’s “faith” is precisely what I call “reality,” something directly and truly experienced. By contrast, the criticism which Sam Harris has of faith, which I echo here in the Church of the Churchless, is that shaky beliefs are mistaken for rock-solid truth. Worse, most people of faith (but not Steve) expect that other people should think and act like they do.

Steve correctly notes that “Science is not immune to folly or arrogance.” However, scientists don’t try to force their beliefs on other people, and scientists also have to offer solid evidence for the correctness of their beliefs (theories). Without such evidence, no one is expected to give those beliefs any credibility. Many religious faithful, though, expect that their unfounded beliefs about creationism, homosexuality, stem cell research, and so on will be treated seriously by society.

Sam Harris writes:

Imagine that we could revive a well-educated Christian of the 14th century. He would prove to be a total ignoramus, except on matters of faith. His beliefs about geography, astronomy, and medicine would embarrass even a child, but he would know everything there is to know about God. We could explain this in two ways: Either we perfected our religious understanding a millennium ago—while our knowledge on other fronts was still hopelessly inchoate—or religion, being the mere maintenance of dogma, is one area of discourse that does not admit of progress. The fact is, with each passing year religious dogma conserves less of the data of human experience. By this measure the entire project of religion seems perfectly backward.

By and large, I agree. Yet I encourage you to read Steve’s message, which presents religion and faith in a more favorable light. Each to his own.

2
Posted inScience Universe

Big bang stretches the mind

I’m a big bang addict. The one that created the universe, I mean. That’s the Really Big big bang. Other big bangs necessarily pale in comparison, for the original is what created everything in existence. I’ve read countless books and articles about the big bang. I never get tired of trying to envision what can’t be envisioned with the limited human mind. How is it possible that the entire universe was once much smaller than a sub-atomic particle? What force could end up creating one hundred billion galaxies (or more), each with an average of about one hundred billion stars,…
No Comments
Posted inGod Science Universe

Creationism is blasphemy

Gosh, there are still five hours until Sunday, and I feel the spirit moving me to write the Church of the Churchless equivalent of a “fire and brimstone” sermon. Reading a New York Times article, “An evolution in teaching: Fear of religious fundamentalists keeps the topic out of the classroom,” via the Portland Oregonian yesterday got me incensed about how ungodly a blind belief in creationism is.

Brothers and sisters, I call upon you to open your hearts and minds to God. Cast out the evil of creationism. Vow that you will never allow the wiles of devilish ignorance to turn you from the Almighty Truth. Worship the Creator who made heaven and earth, not the blasphemous creed of creationism.

Look around you and marvel. God is not obvious, but God’s works are. Until we are able to behold the Creator’s countenance directly, gazing upon the face of Creation is how we can best discern God’s qualities. Do not turn away from the immediate truths of this physical reality, for this will distance you from the greater truths of spiritual reality.

There are those who would substitute the insubstantial beliefs of man for the unchanging Truth of God. Do not trust these creationists. They elevate their subjective interpretation of a few words in a book over the objective evidence of the actual Creation. The delicious fruits of God’s majesty stand directly before them, yet they cast their eyes down to discredited notions from unreliable texts.

Evolution is the Creator’s will. Creationism is mankind’s imagination. Whenever you deny the evident facts of science and embrace a mere belief, you worship a false idol. God will not be mocked. The truth will win out. It is our sacred duty to fight on behalf of the Almighty. Take up your God-given arms of crisp reason and clear perception; do not let our children be deceived by the anti-God of creationism.

I read in the newspaper yesterday that teachers are avoiding the topic of evolution, “fearing protests from religious fundamentalists in their communities.” Fundamentalists they may be, but religious they are not. They are blasphemers, God-deniers, dangerous humanists. They seek to blind our children’s eyes to the glory of God’s creation. They want to confuse students with purely human conjecture instead of allowing them to know the truth of how the Creator willed creation to be.

My friends, we are becoming a Godless country. Americans are much more likely than people in other nations to accept the heresy of creationism. The United States is last, dead last, in a ranking of how knowledgeable citizens in twenty-one countries are about evolution. We should be #1 in knowing God’s reality. Instead, creationists are succeeding in keeping Americans ignorant of the power and glory that manifests as evolution.

From the One came many. All living beings are relatives of the same Common Ancestor. There is a direction to life: Upward. We can begin to discern the nature of the Creator through the laws of creation.

This is the truth. Stand firm and do not let the devilish forces of superstition and ignorance into people’s minds. Crush the malevolent seeds of creationism before they sprout. Face toward the light and shun darkness.

Above all, protect the children:

3
Posted inBooks God Mystics

Plotinus: Vision

For more than eight years I’ve been a close friend of a long-dead Greek philosopher, Plotinus. Obviously I haven’t sat down and talked with him directly, but I feel like I have, so intensely and intimately have I studied his teachings in the course of writing a book: “Return to the One: Plotinus’s Guide to God-Realization.” Plotinus is the last of five mystics that I’ve been writing about. Each is a worthy “patron saint” for the churchless, and each exhibits a special quality that I try to describe in a single word. For Plotinus it is vision. I’ve read countless…
No Comments
Posted inGod Science Universe

Scale of the universe

We are small. Very, very small. The universe is large. Very, very large. Most people have no idea how insignificant we, Earth, and even the Sun are in relation to the universe. Even smart scientific people. Once I gave a talk to a group of medical students at the Oregon Health & Science University. Instead of telling a joke to warm up the audience, I asked them, “Does anyone have an idea how many stars there are in our Milky Way galaxy?” No one knows the answer for sure, but I figured that I’d get some reasonable guesses. Yet I…
2
Posted inChristianity/Jesus Radha Soami Satsang Beas Science

Why I’m not a Christian

A few days ago I got an email from a thoughtful and well-spoken Christian, Steve, who had come across the Church of the Churchless. He disagreed with what I said in my “Brother of Jesus ossuary hoax” posting: “Christianity, if it is true, should be independent of Jesus Christ.” I enjoyed reading Steve’s thoughts, and hope he won’t mind my sharing them. Download Message from a Christian.doc (28.0K)

Steve, I admire your commitment to Christianity. I also like the attitude reflected in your comment, “I say this not in an effort to convert you….” Amen to that, and I hope you take this response of mine in the same spirit, for I’m not out to convert you to my unfaith either. I simply enjoy our interplay of ideas. Your email message stimulated some reflections of my own that encompass the theme of this post, “Why I’m not a Christian,” but also go beyond them.

For not only am I not a Christian, increasingly I find myself not anything else either. I don’t know what I am. For thirty-five years I’ve called myself a “satsangi,” a generic Indian term that means a member of a sangat, or congregation if you like. Interestingly, the spiritual organization that I’ve been a part of—Radha Soami Satsang Beas, or RSSB—in some ways is more Christian than any denomination that believes in the divinity of Jesus.

Why do I say this? Because the centerpiece of RSSB, along with related groups that fall under the rubric of “Sant Mat” (path of the saints), is a living master who is considered to be, like Christ, a Son of God. The master, or guru, is regarded as God in living form (or GILF, as some discussion groups abbreviate him). Many Sant Mat disciples come from a Christian background. Frequently they find that their relationship with the master and his teachings offers them everything that Christianity did, and then some.

I used to have no doubts about Radha Soami Satsang Beas or my own master, Charan Singh. Now I do. I consider this to be spiritual progress, not backsliding. I used to accept many things on faith that now I put in a “maybe, but remains to be proven” category. This is a big category in my mind. I’ve got countless concepts about God and spirituality filed away from a lifetime of reading, meditating, and general life-experiencing.

What I am sure of would fit on a few post-it notes; what remains a hypothesis fills shelf upon shelf in the library of my mind.

Once I realized this, I could no longer say with my previous ease, “I’m a ________.” That blank has had numerous entries during my fifty-six years: Catholic, hippie pothead, existentialist humanist, satsangi, and now—nothing. Well, “nothing” in the sense of a tidy moniker that I can assign to the form of my spiritual aspirations.

If I had to give a one-word answer to the question, “What do you believe in?” it would be “reality.” This certainly isn’t nothing, but since it is nothing in particular and everything in all I feel that Churchlessness is the straightest path to ultimate truth.

Steve, you said that “Truth—with a capital ‘T’—is outside its [science’s] realm and science is not qualified to posit nor hypothesize in the spiritual or philosophical realm.” Well, then, what is Truth inside if it is outside of science? In other words, where does Truth with a capital ‘T’ reside?

This is the big question. Really, it is the only question. All other queries can be reduced to this Mother of All Questions. My Christian correspondent said that “Scripture is meant to reveal specifics of God; his nature, desires, guidelines and plans.” So does Truth reside in a book? I can’t believe this. How did it come to be in a book? That place, the source, is what I want to find.

Steve’s message ended with: “I don’t see Christianity being on shaky ground at all. However, if you remove Christ from Christianity, you no longer have Christianity.” Yes, we agree on at least the last sentence. However, I consider that a faith which stands or falls on the nature of a single person, dead or alive, is on shaky ground. Others who number in the billions, disagree. And that’s fine by me.

I just cannot accept that the keys to the mysteries of the cosmos are held by a particular man or woman, and no one can pass through the doorway of Truth without following in that person’s footsteps. Could Truth play favorites in this fashion? Can only a chosen few become citizens of Ultimate Reality, with the rest of us destined to remain aliens in this strange material world?

Science seeks the universal, not the particular, for the rock bottom of reality seemingly must be something (energy? consciousness? spirit?) capable of supporting everything. Thus the way of science in knowing physical existence also is the way of knowing spiritual existence. Such is my hypothesis, at least, and it rests comfortably with me.

Along these lines, the New York Times web site had an interesting article today called “God (or Not), Physics and, of Course, Love: Scientists Take a Leap.” The question “What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?” was posed to scientists, futurists, and other creative thinkers. Their answers are fascinating. I’ll include the entire article in a post continuation. Here’s how one person, David Meyers, answered the question in a fashion that I wholeheartedly agree with:

As a Christian monotheist, I start with two unproven axioms: 1. There is a God. 2. It’s not me (and it’s also not you). Together, these axioms imply my surest conviction: that some of my beliefs (and yours) contain error. We are, from dust to dust, finite and fallible. We have dignity but not deity.

And that is why I further believe that we should a) hold all our unproven beliefs with a certain tentativeness (except for this one!), b) assess others’ ideas with open-minded skepticism, and c) freely pursue truth aided by observation and experiment.

This mix of faith-based humility and skepticism helped fuel the beginnings of modern science, and it has informed my own research and science writing. The whole truth cannot be found merely by searching our own minds, for there is not enough there. So we also put our ideas to the test. If they survive, so much the better for them; if not, so much the worse.

7