WHY THE TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF GOD IS CONTRADICTORY

I hope to show in this post why the traditional Judeo-Christian-Islamic idea of God is inherently and irredeemably contradictory. 

Now, at the outset I need to make one thing perfectly clear. When we speak of the ‘traditional' idea of God we are referring to the supposed and presumed existence of a 'supernatural,' 'infinite' and 'immortal' personal or superpersonal being who is said to be all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient), all-loving (omnibenevolent) and everywhere present (omnipresent), and who, at least according to the traditional interpretation of the Christian scriptures, is said to have taken human form uniquely in the person of Jesus Christ, who traditionally is said and held by Christians to be both fully human as well as fully divine. One more thing---this infinite God is said to be entirely separate from His [sic] finite creation, even though it is asserted that it is possible for us to 'know' this God.

Here’s one reason why the traditional theistic concept of God is inherently and irredeemably contradictory. In the course of this post I will give you some other reasons as well. If a supposedly supernatural God had an existence or presence before reality, that is, before the supposed creation of all that which is, then that God must be ‘unreal’, and therefore not God. Why? Because it is impossible to postulate a reality before it was present. That’s right. 

Christian apologists and other theists postulate the existence of some ‘atemporal’ reality, but that is a meaningless proposition. Why? Because action implies multiple states, and multiple states in turn require some form of time. Now, it is asserted that God exists ‘outside’ of all time, but the God of the Bible and the Qur'an is supposed to both think and create. ‘“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD’ (Is 55:8). ‘Your thoughts are of great worth to me, O God. How many there are!’ (Ps 139:17). ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’ (Gen 1:1). ‘I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things’ (Is 45:7). ‘That is Allah, your Lord; there is no deity except Him, the Creator of all things, so worship Him. And He is Disposer of all things’ (Qur’an 6:102). ‘Allah is Ever-Knowing, Ever-Wise’ (Qur’an 8:71).

How, please think about all this for a moment. Thinking and creating (making) things are both time-related activities. In other words, God is supposedly timeless but also causally efficacious, that is, God can affect material objects (the latter being a time-related concept).  However, the only truly timeless things that we know are abstract objects---for example, numbers and sets---and they have no causal properties. But, God is supposedly abstract as well as having causal properties. That is a contradiction, and nothing with a contradictory nature exists or can exist. So God---at least the traditional theistic God---cannot, and therefore does not, exist.

The well-known Christian apologist William Lane Craig [pictured right], in his book Time and Eternity: Exploring God’s Relationship to Time (2002), states that ‘outside of time, God is eternal; and with creation, God has entered time’.  Well, if Craig is right, it means that God must have changed, but God, so we are told, is supposedly immutable. Now, if God is not subject to time, having entered the natural world from ‘outside’ (whatever that means, for it is impossible to conceive of anything existing ‘outside’ the universe), God can no longer be said to be supernatural or infinite.  Why? Because it is impossible to speak meaningfully of the supposed infinite acting in the finite, the supposed non-temporal acting in time or entering into time.

Here’s another contradiction that cannot be resolved. I ask you this---why would a supposedly supernatural God (again, how can we conceive of anything being ‘supernatural’) bother to create a ‘natural’ universe, assuming for the moment that the universe was ‘created.’ Did God feel a lack of something? Did God want company, or something? If so, then God was not perfect in Himself/Herself/Itself. You see, so-called creationism and perfectionism---God is said to be both creator as well as a perfect being---are mutually exclusive.

Of course, there is no such thing as the 'universe.' That's right! You see, the word 'universe' is just that---a word. It simply means the sum 'total' of all there is, with the totality of all things being what is known as a 'closed system.' Each 'thing' is a cause of at least one other 'thing' as well as being the effect of some other 'thing,' so everything is explainable by reference to everything else. End of story. 

Hence, all theological talk of the supposed need for some 'first cause' is, well, nonsense. As the Scottish-Australian philosopher Professor John Anderson [pictured left] pointed out, 'there can be no contrivance of a "universe" or totality of things, because the contriver would have to be included in the totality of things.' (In any event, the entire notion of a supposed 'Being'---the 'contriver'---whose essential attributes [for example, omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience] are non-empirical is unintelligible and inherently contradictory. In any event, why would a supposedly supernatural 'contriver' bother to 'create' a natural universe, assuming (once again) that it was created?

Here’s another inconsistency, assuming you're still 'with' me. God is supposedly blameless, yet there is the supposed reality of divine punishment, hell and eternal damnation. Those two ideas don’t sit comfortably together. I much prefer the Buddhist idea that we are punished by our 'sins,' not for them. Further, the existence of gratuitous evil and suffering in the world is incompatible with the notion of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. Evil or suffering is gratuitous if, in the view of reasonable persons, the world would be improved by its absence. Now, an omnipotent God would be perfectly able to create human beings that were genuinely free but who never used their freewill to do evil, but only to do good. However, it is said, at least by Christian apologists, that God knowingly created human beings who, God knew in advance, would use their freewill to do evil. I am sorry, but such a God is then morally responsible for all the evil and suffering in the world that has in fact ensued. Why? Because, as I have said, if God is all-powerful, God could have created human beings that were genuinely free, but who only used their freewill to do good. For example, a recovering alcoholic, who wishes to stay sober, chooses not to drink, one day at a time. Yes, he or she could choose to drink, but they consistently choose to exercise their freewill not to drink. If human beings can do that, then surely any decent God, who was all-loving and all-powerful, would want to create people like that. 

In any event, the God of traditional theism is far from attractive. According to the Bible, God deliberately killed every living thing on earth (Gen 7:20-24), murdered innocent children (Ex 12:29), murdered over 50,000 people because they dared to look into the Ark (1 Sam 6:19), murdered infants and ripped fetuses from the womb (Hos 13:16), and supposedly commands the death penalty for adultery (Lev 20:10) and the murder of homosexuals (Lev 20:13)---and that's just for starters. Not a very nice person, to say the least. The God of the Qur’an can be just as unlovely. Unlike the Judeo-Christian God, who is said (except by some stupid and ignorant Christian fundamentalists whose God hates 'fags' [see picture above]) to ‘hate the sin but love the sinner,’ Allah loves only the ‘good’: ‘Allah loves not transgressors’ (Qur'an 2:190); ‘He loves not creatures ungrateful or wicked’ (Qur'an 2:276); ‘Say: 'Obey Allah and His Apostle;' but if they turn back Allah loves not those who reject Faith’ (Qur'an 3:32); ‘Allah loves not those who do wrong’ (Qur'an 3:57, 140); ‘Allah loves not the arrogant, the vainglorious’ (Qur'an 4:36); ‘Say, if ye love Allah, follow me; Allah will love and forgive you your sins’ (Qur'an 3:31). All I can say is, thank God for the great Baptist minister Harry Emerson Fosdick who famously wrote, ‘Better believe in no God than to believe in a cruel God, a tribal God, a sectarian God. Belief in God is one of the most dangerous beliefs a man can cherish.’ (I once spoke those words of Fosdick at a debate at the Sydney Town Hall at which Dr William Lane Craig was present. However, the organiser of the debate, St Barnabas Anglican Church, Broadway, Sydney, shamefully edited out those words from my speech in the video tape of the proceedings. The truth hurts.)

Now, if the existence of certain state of affairs is logically incompatible with the purported existence of an all-powerful and all-loving God, or if it is intrinsically improbable that those states of affairs would subsist in a universe with such a God and more probable than not that they would subsist in a universe without such a God, then there are more than good grounds for believing that such a God does not exist.

Here’s another contradiction or dilemma.  (I could give you many, many more, but that's for another day---and post.) Does God have a body? If so, where can we locate that body? You see, if God does not have a body, the alleged properties attributed to God (for example, that God is powerful, loving, good, and just) are totally misleading. Why? Because all such predicates apply to bodies whose behaviours are publicly observable. They do not apply to so-called ‘disembodied minds.’

In this post I have tried to use logic. Now, when I debate Christian apologists, they invariably assert that God is ‘above’ logic. That cannot be the case. God---or at least any concept of God---cannot be ‘above’ logic, whatever ‘above’ means. You see, the assertion that God is above logic is not an a priori proposition. Where is the theist’s proof for this assertion? In fact, the theist, although rejecting the applicability of logic, is still applying logic, albeit wrongly, in their arguments for the existence of God. The theist is tying themselves into a knot of their own making. What, I ask you, is the point of reasoning about God if the principal tool of reason---logic---is inapplicable. Never forget this---logic is about things, not thought. Logic is about how things are related to other things. In logic it is always a case of … what is. As philosopher John Anderson pointed out many times, there is only one order or level of reality such that a single logic applies to all things and how they are related to each other. There can be nothing ‘above’ or ‘below’ the proposition---not even God. If anything were above logic we simply could not trust our senses. That’s right---if God is above logic there can be no interpretation or logical extrapolation of God’s word, nor could there be any system of apologetics. For example, the various arguments for the Christian doctrine of the Trinity would immediately and totally collapse.

The theist is often a hypocrite. Theists do in fact use logic when expedient, that is, when it suits their purposes. Take, for example, the law of contradiction (that is, that anything with a contradictory nature cannot exist). The theist affirms that God cannot contradict Himself [sic]. Thus, God cannot create a rock that He [sic] can’t lift. God cannot create a round square. God cannot make the immoral moral. God may be all-powerful, says the theist, but God is still constrained by logic. If that were not the case, then there would be nothing to stop God from creating a rock so heavy that God could not lift it and then in the next moment lift it. 

In short, a God ‘above’ logic doesn’t make any sense---not that a God subject to logic does either, as I’ve tried to show. Be that as it may, the idea of a God ‘above’ logic is inconsistent with the very attributes that go to make up the traditional theistic concept of God. Reason and observation tell us that nothing can be done by anything, including God, that is not otherwise part of God’s capabilities.

Assuming, for the moment that the traditional God of theism does in fact exist, that God would not be above logic nor below it. As with morality or goodness, reason would have to be seen as part of the very nature of God. Yes, any sensible concept of God would have to accept that God does not ‘submit’ to logic nor arbitrarily ‘create’ logic. Reason would have to be seen to be part of God’s nature. A sensible believer would also have to accept that God cannot contradict His/Her/Its own nature.

Are there more sensible concepts of ‘God’? Indeed, there are. Here is a previous post of mine that may be of interest to thinking---as opposed to believing---people.

RELATED POSTS

ENACTMENT THEOLOGY

YOU’RE AN ATHEIST? THAT’S GOOD!

BETTER TO NOT BELIEVE AT ALL

THERE WAS NO FIRST CAUSE---AND NO NEED FOR ONE

MINDFULNESS AND THE TOTALITY OF ALL THINGS

YOU’RE AN ATHEIST? THAT’S GOOD!

'Operationally, God is beginning to resemble not a ruler but
the last fading smile of a Cheshire cat.' - Sir Julian Huxley.

I notice that more and more people are calling themselves atheists these days---unashamedly. Not that there should be any shame about the matter. Not at all. Yes, atheism is fine with me. You see, in most cases, these people have simply rejected silly, outmoded ideas or concepts of God which weren’t God in any event. After all, the word is never the thing, as Krishnamurti kept telling us. The good thing about giving up belief in God is that there is then a real chance you may find the real God---which is the very livingness, oneness and self-givingness of life itself.

A Columbia University student once went to see Dr Harry Emerson Fosdick (pictured left), who was then the minister of Riverside Church in New York City. Fosdick was perhaps the greatest Christian thinker of his day---and the leading Modernist in Protestant Christianity. The student was very agitated. Before he had time to sit down he announced to Fosdick that he didn’t believe in God. ‘So, you’re an atheist,’ said Fosdick. ‘Please describe for me the God you don’t believe in.’ The student did a good job of picturing a fairly traditional Judeo-Christian God as a venerable but vindictive bookkeeper who was forever taking notes of everyone’s good and bad deeds. When the student had finished Fosdick said to him, ‘Well, if that is the God you don’t believe in, I don’t believe in that God either. So, we are both atheists. Nevertheless, we still have the universe on our hands. What do you make of it---its formation, its meaning?’

Fosdick will always be one of my ‘gurus,’ although I hate that word. Fosdick once wrote this:

The way parents lie to their children in matters of religion is to me a constant and shocking astonishment. Here is a mother who tells me that in answer to her four-year-old’s question as to where God is she has said, ‘In heaven’; and in reply to the further inquiry as to where heaven is she has said, ‘In the sky.’ This mother has now waked up to the fact that these heedless answers were downright falsehoods. She did not believe what she said. And she did not, apparently, comprehend that teaching the child an idea of God set in such an incredible framework of imagination was the surest way to have that child say some day that she did not believe in God.

Dr Fosdick went on to say, ‘The New Testament says that God is love; that where love is, God is also, dwelling in those who are lovers of their fellows; that God is spirit, surrounding and interpenetrating us so that God lives in us and we in God.’ Now that is a more sensible---and entirely Biblical---concept of God.

I recall that Dr Fosdick also wrote, 'Better believe in no God than to believe in a cruel God, a tribal God, a sectarian God. Belief in God is one of the most dangerous beliefs a person can cherish. ... Some of the people who do not believe in God at all are more merciful, truth-loving, and just than are some who do.' Once, at the Sydney Town Hall, before the start of an important debate between Dr William Lane Craig and Dr Peter Slezak on the topic of the existence of God I read out those immortal words of Fosdick, having been asked by the debate organisers, St Barnabas Anglican Church, Broadway, to say a few words. (I had been involved in the selection of the atheist---Peter Slezak---to debate Craig.) The video tape of the debate produced by the church did not contain the words of Fosdick. They were edited out by the then assistant minister of the church. I was disgusted---and I still get angry about it when I recall what happened. I was soon to learn that debating---and even interacting with---so-called (and self-servingly called) 'Bible-believing Christians' can be a very unpleasant---and totally unChrist-like---experience. I will have more to say about that below.

Now, back to the topic. Recently I communicated by email with a lawyer whose daughter has Down syndrome. The lawyer mentioned he was an atheist, and it was clear he had some fairly strong things to say about religion. I suspect---although I can’t be sure---that ‘part’ of this man’s atheism is an emotional reaction to having a child with Down syndrome. I also suspect---although again I can’t be sure---that this man’s parents, or the church or Sunday school he may have attended as a child, or perhaps a 'church school' (which are very good at churning out atheists---not their intention, of course), told him ‘downright falsehoods’---Fosdick’s words---about the nature of God.

I detest religious fundamentalists because they do terrible things to religion. They destroy it by imposing upon it a rigid ideology, that is, an artificial construct which was never part of the original teachings of the religion or its founder. They turn many people into atheists.

As for the ‘new atheists’---people such as Richard Dawkins (pictured right), Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens---I have some problems with them as well, at least when it comes to some of their more extreme and polemic and, yes, ill-informed, attacks on conventional religion and the existence of God. I don't know whether these people turn many others into atheists. I suspect they largely 'preach' to the already 'converted' non-believers. I wouldn't want to give them much more credit than that---certainly they don't deserve any.

Now, it’s not that I am against atheists or atheism. Not at all. By traditional definitions of God, I am an atheist, and I am proud of what I achieved when I was president of both the Humanist Society of New South Wales and the Council of Australian Humanist Societies. I am proud that I debated---in no ordinary or amateurish way---several prominent Sydney Anglican clerics (including a couple of bishops), exposing what I saw---and still see---as the weaknesses in their Christian apologetics, not to mention the corrupt version of Christianity which they present. I also found a couple of these clerics hopelessly duplicitous and disingenuous. They thought it was quite OK to lie for the sake of Jesus (cf 1 Cor 9:19-23). For example, I would meet with my opponent before the debate, and we would 'agree'---at least I thought we had reached an agreement---on how to debate the particular topic (eg the existence of God or the physical resurrection of Jesus) and on definitions (eg 'God'). However, during the debate I would often find my 'Christian' opponent turning their back on what we had agreed upon previously. They were certainly 'as shrewd as snakes' but in no way 'as gentle as doves' (cf Mt 10:16).

The truth is I dislike Sydney Anglicanism immensely. I see it as a horrible perversion of Christianity. The ultra-evangelical Sydney diocese---'Anglo-Baptists' some call them---is something of a laughing-stock in the worldwide Anglican communion---and rightly so. Sadly, the Sydney Anglican diocese is the only one in Australia which is growing. That is, or should be, a real concern to all who value religious, political and intellectual freedom, freethought, liberal religion and the separation of church and state. Now, for many years I was active as a Freemason---a movement known for its religious naturalism and religious indifferentism---and once in the particular lodge to which I belonged I was discussing---over dinner---the subject of Sydney Anglicanism with another lodge member who was a devout high-church Anglican layman from a rural diocese. I said to the other Mason, 'You know, we're not suposed to be discussing religion in the lodge,' to which he replied, 'We're not. We're discussing Sydney Anglicanism.' I like that.

I mentioned above that, technically speaking, I am an atheist. Yes, that's true enough, but at times I have also referred to myself as being a panentheist, which I see as the noblest and most mature concept of God described in the New Testament. The essence of panentheism is this---God is in all things, and all things are in God, but not all things are God. Also, whilst all that is can be said in a fundamental sense to be God, that is not all that there is of God. God is still much bigger than the sum total of all that has its being in God, for God is Be-ing (or, if you like, Be-ness) itself. Now, you may not know this, but the Bible does not present just one concept or idea of God. In many ways, there is an evolving concept of God. We have the vengeful, tribal God of the ancient Hebrews---the God that does not really exist except in certain people's troubled minds---then there are images of an almost pantheistic God in, for example, the Psalms, then there's the near absence or 'eclipse' of God in books such as Ecclesiastes, and in the New Testament we get various more mature concepts of God---as Love, the Spirit of Life, and so on. Be all that as it may let it be known and widely celebrated that atheism (which refers to the absence---and not necessarily the denial---of theistic belief) is not, in itself, a bad thing and---at the risk ,of sounding patronising (which is not my intention)---it can even be a very good thing. Yes, positive atheism is, or at least can be, an inspiring, sensible and courageous philosophy and life stance. However, the ‘new atheists’ are dangerous people. They are fundamentalists, and they are militant.

First, the ‘new atheists’ are fundamentalists because:
• they are utterly convinced of the ‘fundamentals’ of their position and their arguments---which is the very essence of the wicked and scary ideology known as fundamentalism!
• their assertions all too often are a facile attack on a form or religious belief that we all hate and which, in any event, is a perversion and corruption of true religious belief
• they are all too often childishly unaware and ignorant of the true nature of world affairs, the latter ordinarily being much more complex than that espoused in their simple-minded two-dimensional worldview
• they demonise whole peoples, especially Muslims and evangelical Christians
• they are rigid, inflexible, dogmatic and----yes---narrow-minded in their thinking, for just as the Christian fundamentalist divides the world into the 'saved' (or 'churched') and the 'unsaved' (or 'unchurched'), so the fundamentalist atheist divides people up into the 'rational' and the 'irrational,' the 'enlightened' and the 'unenlightened' (the latter being those who believe in God as well as such things as fairies, elves and angels---they are always included as well, for the sake of ridicule), thus embracing a belief-system that is as puerile, intolerant, chauvinistic and bigoted as that of religious fundamentalists (whether Christian, Jewish, Islamic or otherwise)
• their approach is to ridicule, belittle and---as already mentioned---demonise
• they see only one truth – their version of 'rationalistic truth' – with all other values, worldviews and belief-systems being dismissed as mere 'fantasy' and 'superstition'
• just like Christian, Jewish and Islamic fundamentalists they impose upon sacred scripture an artificial construct, and a rigid ideology, that shows a complete ignorance of the Bible, the Qur’an and other sacred texts, and they cannot distinguish between religious myth and factual narrative
• like Christian fundamentalists, in particular, they are out to convert others to their point of view and posess an evangelical and obsessive zeal to proselytise
• they are simplistic, often naïve, and anti-intellectual, rejecting intellectual investigations into the true nature of religion, the various world religions, and the various reasons (social, cultural and otherwise) why people hold and maintain religious beliefs and views.
 

Secondly, the New Atheists are militant because:
• they are driven by a hatred and hostility toward any kind of religion ... without distinction
• they rightly attack a repugnant version of religion but use it to condemn all religion
• they blame God, or all religious people, for the sins of irrational religion and religious zealots
• they blame a ‘straw God’ for all the ills and evils in the world – for example, Dawkins self-servingly 'defines' the ‘God’ in which he disbelieves as follows: ‘He not only created the universe; he is a personal God dwelling in it, or perhaps outside it (whatever that might mean), possessing the unpleasantly human qualities to which I have alluded’ [emphasis added] – now, only a fool would believe in such a god!
• they generalise ad nauseam about religion, but they are, in fact, evangelists for their own peculiar form of secular religion, with a few of them even advocating the use of extreme violence (including murder) against certain religious extremists who they regard as being the enemies of civilization – these so-called enemies of civilization ‘should be beaten and killed and defeated, and I don’t make any apology for it’ (Christopher Hitchens).

The ‘new atheists’ are, as already mentioned, dangerous people. At times, they are totally irrational in their attacks upon religion and religious people. They tend to overstate their case. They often misunderstand the nature of religious faith. They are woefully ignorant of religion and theology, and they are fanatics---something which is always a worry. Some of them have even advocated the use of violence, even extreme violence, against other human beings.

The really sad thing about these so-called ‘new atheists’ is that there is absolutely nothing ‘new’ about either them or their 'teachings' at all. For the most part, their books just rehash dry, tired old British rationalism of the 19th century---which itself was based on outmoded thinking and thought forms even way back then. My good friend, John Zerilli, who is a philosopher, lawyer and writer---and, I am very proud to say, a former law student of mine (and one of the very best I had the pleasure to teach)---has written in his insightful book The Economic Imperative, ‘[Richard] Dawkins is epistemologically trapped somewhere between Pisa and Paris, somewhere between 1600 and 1650 AD.’

Exactly. This man Dawkins knows next to nothing about religion, theology and related topics. If ever there was a solid argument against having a state Church one need only look at Great Britain. The Church of England, in Britain, is almost dead---which may well turn out to be a damn good thing. Some 70 or more years ago, one Dr Henry Wilson, then the Anglican Bishop of Chelmsford, declared that Christianity in England was crumbling, and was then only a minority religion. Wilson wrote that Christianity was ‘hanging by a thread in this country.’ That was 70 or more years ago. Well, since then someone ‘jerked the thread,’ so to speak, such that the Church of England is today little more than rubble in the not-so-great Great Britain. What has that got to do with Dawkins, Hitchens and the like, you may well ask? Well, everything. Only a church which promulgated utter nonsense---with the blessing of the State---could have produced a theological waste land and an intellectual vacuum which provided such a fertile breeding ground for the spawning of a militant and highly toxic form of atheism.

So, who or what is God? Well, Fosdick pointed to the New Testament descriptions of God as both Love (cf 1 Jn 4:8) and Spirit (cf Jn 4:24), the latter referring to the very livingness of life itself, that is, the ground of being. I endorse those ideas. I also love the New Testament description of a God ‘in whom we live and move and have our being’ (Acts 17:28). Now, that is a very ‘big’ God indeed, but this is also true---in each one of us God lives and moves and has its being. That's why Jesus told us that the kingdom of God is within us (cf Lk 17:21). Great stuff. However, no matter how we conceive of God, the reality of God will always be so much bigger. Ultimately, God is Mystery---and not just a mystery.

Look around you, and what do you see? Living things living out their livingness. And it seems self-evident to me that the life which lives out its livingness in and as you is the very same life which lives out its livingness in and as me. I take that to be self-evident and axiomatic. Others may not do so, but that is their choice. For me, all life is interconnected and interdependent, although I reject strict monism and the so-called Gaia hypothesis. And another thing we see all around us---life constantly gives of itself, to itself, in order to perpetuate itself. Is that self-givingness of life nothing other than love in action?

There you have it. Life, Truth and Love---God, if you wish. Of course, there is so much sin, sickness, suffering and evil in the world---so much that it seems like there is no God at all. However, those who have a sensible understanding of God know that God is a verb---not a noun. God is something we do. The presence of so much sin, sickness, suffering and evil in the world is a constant everyday reminder to all of us, not that there is no God, but rather just how much 'God-ing' remains to be done---by you, me, and the rest of us. Yes, in the words of Fosdick quoted near the start of this post, 'we still have the universe on our hands' so let's all get on with the monumental task of being God to each other---and to our broken world.

Are you an atheist? If so, I am not trying to turn you into something else, let alone an orthodox heist---heaven forbid! We must reject all this nonsense that you have to believe in a conventional God in order to be a ‘moral’ and ‘decent’ (whatever that might mean) human being. That’s crap, but it’s the sort of crap regularly promulgated by the Christian churches which has helped produce the current lot of ‘new atheists’ and their many followers. It’s all rather sad---indeed, quite pathetic. However, until the mainstream Christian churches discover the real God of the Bible---the one I have referred to above---we will see more and more people identifying as atheists. That may not be a bad thing. At least in time we may see the death of mainstream Christianity (along with the other two major monotheistic religions), which would not, in my submission, be a bad thing, for out of the combined ashes there might arise, Phoenix-like, a new understanding of the All-in-all and of what it means to have one’s being in God. We can only hope---and pray.

RELATED POSTS

LEADING ATHEIST SAM HARRIS ENDORSES MINDFULNESS AS RATIONAL SPIRITUALITY

ENACTMENT THEOLOGY

MINDFULNESS---A VERY PRESENT HELP IN TROUBLE

THE DEATH OF PAUL KURTZ---FATHER OF SECULAR HUMANISM



BIGOTED BUDDHISTS

"Buddhism is essentially a philosophy of equal opportunity and common responsibility. It is dedicated to releasing mankind from the illusions which they have created for themselves and by which they have gradually become obsessed. Buddhism does not require the immediate attainment of ultimates but invites its followers to attempt moderation (middle path) of those extreme attitudes which are the causes of personal and collective disasters." - Manly P. Hall.

I am a practising Buddhist. Let me explain. When I say that I am a practising Buddhist, that is not the exact same thing as saying I am a Buddhist as such. I do not practise any religion in any exclusive or dogmatic sense. I do, however, draw from, and try to practise, the spiritual and moral essence of nearly all religions, sensibly interpreted. For as long as I live, I will always be practising Buddhism or something just as noble.

You see, being a Buddhist is something one becomes … over time. A person is not “converted” to Buddhism. When you follow the Buddha’s teachings, sincerely and diligently, to the best of your ability, you are “converted” … that is, gradually transformed into a new and better person. I say that with no sense of superiority or self-righteousness. It can happen to people even if they follow no religion at all. Maybe it happens more often that way, I don't know. It's an interesting thought.

Another thing. Buddhists don’t “believe”. They know (well, some things at least) and they try to understand. People ordinarily believe when they don't know or understand something. Buddha said, "Do not believe, for if you believe, you will never know. If you really want to know, don't believe." The good news is that there is no need to believe anything ... and nothing to believe ... in Buddhism. Phew! What a relief!

Please listen to the late Ven. Dr K Sri Dhammananda:

So, forget about belief-systems. Beliefs are for "spiritual cripples" and escapists ... for those who can’t, or won’t, think for themselves. Beliefs, by their very nature, take the form of prejudices or biases of various kinds and, as Krishnamurti used to point out, beliefs dissipate energy which is otherwise needed (in his words) to "follow the unfolding of the fact, the 'what is'" .. that is, to remain choicelessly aware at all times. Buddha Shakyamuni referred to beliefs as being in the nature of thought coverings or veils (āvarnas). In other words, beliefs are barriers to truth and realization. The Venerable Thich Nhat Hanh, that much-loved Vietnamese Zen master, has said, "Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. Buddhist systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth." Buddhism offers "teachings", which are to be understood and then practised ... but NOT believed. So, choose a religion or philosophy that doesn’t require you to believe ... or disbelieve ... anything. Life is truth, and life is forever open-ended.

I am sad to say that most of the religious bigots I have known in my 56 years of life have been so-called “Bible-believing Christians”. I guess it comes from believing things such as, “Jesus is the only way to God”, “If Christianity is right, all other religions are wrong”, “God has spoken His final word in Jesus Christ”, and so on. Yes, I know, Muslims assert that God has spoken His final word in Muhammad. So they must be right, eh? Forget it. Don't even go there. If people are rewarded for believing that sort of thing, then I wouldn't worship such a god anyway.

Bigotry and Buddhism are not supposed to go together, but I have encountered a number of bigoted Buddhists. Generally, these people do not assert any sense of superiority over Christians or followers of other religions or the non-religious, but quite a number of them not only think that their particular form of Buddhism is more correct than that of others, they also make snide remarks about those other forms of Buddhist practice.

At the risk of oversimplification, there are two main streams, branches or “schools” of Buddhism – Theravāda (literally, "the Way [or Teaching] of the Elders" or "the Ancient Teaching"), being the oldest surviving Buddhist school, and Mahāyāna (literally, the "Great Vehicle"), of which there are many kinds. In addition, there are a number of esoteric schools of Buddhism (notably Tibetan and Japanese), some or all of which are regarded, at least by some commentators, as being part of the Mahāyāna school, and by others as forming a separate third stream or branch. That is sufficient for present purposes.

Now, there is little, if any, supernaturalism or superstition in Theravāda Buddhism which, for the most part, is a system of mental cultivation as opposed to a religion per se. (For me, that is a great plus, for I am persuaded by both science and philosophy that there is only one order or level of reality.) However, the same cannot be said for most of the Mahāyāna school or schools.

That is not to say that one stream is more authentic than the other. Each is regarded by experts as being a legitimate and authentic response to the inspiration of the Shakyamuni Buddha. Each affirms that a Buddhist is someone who takes refuge in the Triple Gem and follows the Five Precepts diligently to the best of their ability. That’s about all they have in common.

I have been appalled to hear from some Mahāyāna or esoteric Buddhists that Theravāda Buddhists are only concerned with their own welfare and enlightenment and not that of others, whereas they (Mahāyāna or esoteric Buddhists) are rightly concerned with doing good deeds for others ... which will, just coincidentally, of course, result in their own individual “sanctification” ...

Ugh! Wrong! Learn some Buddhism, pleeaase! ... "When the wrong person [eg those who act from the wrong motive or otherwise selfishly] uses the right means, the right means work in the wrong way": The Secret of the Golden Flower. Yes, I know, that's Buddhist-Taoist. Well, the Buddha put "Right Motive" [aka "Right Intention"] near the very beginning of his Noble Eightfold Path. Enough.

Let it be known, once and for all, that the essence of Theravāda Buddhism - the spiritual philosophy of millions of people in Southeast Asia - is that, in repudiating the values of the world, we become mediators of the Buddha-power for others and "saving" instruments for the world at large. Any suggestion or intimation that Theravāda Buddhists are only concerned with their own welfare and enlightenment is both unfair and untrue.

Equally, I have been appalled to hear from a few Theravāda Buddhists that Mahāyāna Buddhism is inauthentic, or at least not as “good” as Theravāda  Buddhism, because it (Mahāyāna) is not the oldest form of Buddhist teaching. The truth is that both are as authentic … or inauthentic … as the other.

Despite that, it is the case that a number of prominent Theravāda Buddhists have displayed virtual contempt for what they see as the "superstition" of Mahāyāna Buddhism. For example, the late Ven. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (pictured left), who was perhaps the 20th  century's leading interpreter of, and apologist for, Theravāda Buddhism, echoed the views of many Theravāda Buddhists when he referred to such Mahāyāna practices as the lighting of candles and the offering of flowers and fruit at the altar of the Buddha as "Buddhism for thumbsucking kids." Strong stuff.

I draw from all "schools" of Buddhism ... as well as from many other religious and philosophical traditions as well ... for NO ONE has a monopoly on Truth. Indeed, even the word "monopoly" is wrong, because it implies ownership ... and NO ONE can own Truth. Truth just is.

A “good” Buddhist rejects any posture which even hints at exclusivism or superiority. Dogmatism has no place in Buddhism ... or in any "true" religion or philosophy of life.


RELATED POSTS

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF BUDDHISM

TAKING REFUGE IN MINDFULNESS

BETTER TO NOT BELIEVE AT ALL