On Christmas and Pluralism

After months of mining Andrew Sullivan for signs of incrementally growing tolerance between faiths, it appears I've shifted to my old student newspaper pal Kent Leslie ...

The last post I referred you to "An Evening of Kent" his blog for rants and raves which discussed how the educated religious might relate to those who are not interested in nuance in their theology. But Kent has a more scholarly -- and definitely reverent -- blog "Towards a Fuller Understanding of God" which is the focus of my posting today.

Kent's thesis is that the Magi were Zoroastrian scholars and that they too were privileged to have the Divine revealed to them, which brought them to Bethlehem to find the Holy Family. They were not "kings" and perhaps not truly astrologers in the contemporary sense. They received revelation from the Divine. He also notes that (from a Christian perspective) that it is possible that portions of God's truth may have been revealed to people throughout history in all places and that the role of Jesus is to bring it all together.

This idea bothers a lot of Christians. We believe Jesus is right. But we inaccurately come to the converse conclusion: that pagans are all wrong. Pagans are not entirely wrong. They are just wrong enough for us to need to hear from Jesus. Many things they get right. There’s a great deal of Buddhism that is exactly right; a great deal of ancient Greek philosophy that accurately depicts the world; and a whole lot of Zoroastrianism that properly describes God.

How, if they’re pagans, could they possibly have arrived at the truth? Well, it’s not too hard to figure: All truth is God’s truth; all truth comes from God. They got it from God. “But they’re pagans.” Yes, they are. So what? They still got it from God.

As a Christian, I don't quibble much with the conclusion that Jesus uniquely and profoundly embodies heavenly Truth. But, I continue to be drawn to the conclusion that God is so unknowable and so beyond human comprehension, that it could be possible that many faiths -- including Christianity -- have a true, yet incomplete understanding. That we must take the whole sum of theology throughout history to begin to understand the nature of God.

It is a vast task -- which is my point. We cannot hope to understand all revelation, which is why we must be humble when it comes to God. If we say "All truth is God's truth," then we can't expect to either own truth or own God.

In a Facebook exchange with Kent regarding his "Evening of Kent" posting, I said

One of the most difficult parts of any [all] religion is recognizing that some - maybe only the few - relish the uncertainty of faith that leads to both self discovery and the discovery of the Divine. But that others - perhaps most - turn to religion for certainty and safety, and that it might not be God's way to deny them the emotional and spiritual security they crave.

Kent replied:

Personally, I believe anyone who LIKES the uncertainty has something seriously wrong with them. [emphasis added] I know far too many religious anarchists who "don't believe in organized religion," but never think about the fact that "organized religion" is an oxymoron. Religion MEANS organized spirituality. Unorganized spirituality feels good, but is ultimately ... Read Moremeaningless.

You're right, though: The chaos in the universe is meant to propel us towards order. That'd be the Divine. But because He's hard to grasp, far too many folks settle for religion—whether it's our rituals or our belief-system—and religion is no more stable than the chaos. We're only deluding ourselves when we think so.

Yes, I like uncertainity. When I yield to it, it gives me peace. That is a portion of the truth revealed through Buddhism.

Footnote: Zoroastrians are still around today. Take a read of Kent's piece on the influence of this ancient religion on Judaism and then also do some additional reading. Famous modern Zoroastrian: Freddy Mercury from the rock band Queen.

The Evening of Kent

I'd like to recommend the blog of an old college friend of mine, Kent Leslie. Focused primarily on rants regarding his (very learned) perspective on Christian practice. I don't believe he can be classified as pluralist to even the smallest degree, but he has a progressive and very rambunctious attitude regarding Christian practice in America and the responsibilities of believers to be educated and intellectually honest.

What would have happened if Thomas [St. Thomas, the Apostle who doubted the Resurrection] had done as so many morons do, and hidden his doubts, and believed really hard until his doubts went away? Well, first of all, he would have been a hypocrite. And that point needs to be hammered home to the people of your church: Refusing to deal with doubt is hypocrisy. Everyone doubts. Oh, they say they don’t, but every single last one of them is worried that, fr’instance, maybe the End Times won’t turn out the way Tim LaHaye says it will, and they’ll have to live through a few years of tribulation. Or that maybe there’s a sin in their lives that’s getting in the way of their prayers, even though we’ve taught (or should teach) that prayer doesn’t work that way. Doubt is universal. Denying you doubt is like denying you sin.

Give him a read.

Non Sequitur

Bad idea to over-analyze a joke, but I really like the premise here. It presumes the existence of God, but mocks the faithful who are certain of their own correctness. Unfortunately so many religious people confuse mocking the believers with mocking the belief and confuse mocking the belief with mocking God. These three are not the same. One can revere God, but argue with the believers.

Religion as practice, not doctrine

Another fascinating thought from The Daily Dish ...

Andrew Sullivan writes:

But this in turn has led to a deeper and deeper frustration with religion as doctrine and a greater and greater interest in religion as practice.

I think that when one defines religion as a series of rituals that allows believers to share spiritual experiences with the Divine, one is able to accept the contradictions between various faiths as not undermining the existence of God, but rather reflecting the diversity of human experience.

Nones=Deism?

More from Andrew Sullivan, quoted Steven Waldman on Beliefnet. Here is something more:

The rise of the Nones is usually decried by religious leaders as a sign of secularization or atheism's ascent but get this: 51% say they believe in God.

Again, I think organized religion is important within the context of pluralism. While Franklin and Jefferson could be unencumbered philosophers, I think most people require a structure to spiritual practice -- just as they require a structure for community service. (We are more likely to raise money for cancer treatment if there is a fundraiser, than to donate a check out of the blue to the local research center.)

Pluralism, although distinct from Deism, is dependent on it. What pluralism does that Deism does not is embrace divine revelation.

Nones?

Excerpts from Andrew Sullivan's The Daily Dish: "The Coming Age of the Nones"

But the intellectual collapse of Christianity under the leadership of Protestant fundamentalists and Catholic theocons is surely relevant. The well-deserved inability of literalists to win many converts among educated people is also surely salient. The emergence of the politicized Christianist right - and its assault on Christianity as a freely chosen spiritual process - will surely lead to a continued and accelerating flight from organized religion....

But the Nones are not Ditchkins atheists. They express their position primarily as a form of skepticism and Deism. They are agnostics who do not dismiss the religious life but remain at a cool distance from it....

61 percent of Nones find evolution convincing, compared with 38 percent of all Americans. And yet they do not dismiss the possibility of a God they do not understand; and refuse to call themselves atheists. This is the fertile ground on which a new Christianity will at some point grow.

I had never heard this term "Nones" before. It is presumably tied to the choice one is given on survey forms ... Catholic? Christian-other? Jewish? Buddhist? Muslim? None. But clearly "Nones" does not reflect the Deistic orientation described above. It appears a form of hopeful -- or at least ambivalent -- agnosticism. "There might be a god, perhaps there is a god, but I cannot accept a god defined by the religious choices given to me."

I think there is a more profound thing happening as well, at least for Americans. There is so much cultural pressure to define Christianity as the only acceptable religious choice, that one may feel better off rejecting all religion -- and God -- then to explore other avenues of religion. Is there less stigma in being agnostic in America than in being Buddhist or pagan or Islamic?

I, for one, believe that organized religion is a human construct, but an incredibly necessary one. After all, as humans we require organization and social networks in every aspect of our lives, whether sports, charity or faith. The problem occurs when one holds up religion as being itself divine and not an extension of human need.

On evolution ...

From Jim Manzi on The Daily Dish:

The theory of evolution, then, has not eliminated the problems of ultimate origins and ultimate purpose with respect to the development of organisms; it has ignored them. These problems are defined as non-scientific questions, not because we don’t care about the answers, but because attempting to solve them would impede practical progress. Accepting evolution, therefore, requires neither the denial of a Creator nor the loss of the idea of ultimate purpose. It resolves neither issue for us one way or the other.

The article is the ultimate in geek, combining philosophy with logic and mathematical theory, not an simple read, but if you can follow the details it is a fascinating support on why and how that the existence of science does not preclude the existence of the Divine, in particular a Universal Creator.

This is based on Robert Wright's book Evolution of God which I have yet to read, although I am compelled by. I suppose there is an extension to Manzi's application of Genetic Algorithms to how the human creature continues to refine its understanding and definition of God over the ages. Where the sciences may have Genetic Algorithms, in philosophy we may have the Socratic Method ... a narrowing down of possibilities through questioning, examination and evaluation.