Notes For A Discussion With An Atheist

Even if we were to strip prayer of all it's mystical connotations, it would still be a simple adjustment of attitude, conducive to lowering stress levels and orienting oneself in relation to a larger, more comprehensive context or meaning. From a purely psychological standpoint, prayer may be understood as a means of "massaging the unconscious", by taking a romantic approach to the world, making use of symbolism and theatrics, in order to access dormant faculties and catalyze dynamic problem solving. Meditation, or deep prayer, though, is when we relax to such a degree that cognitive and sense impressions are suspended, or superceded, and we experience only the fundamental awareness which underpins all phenomena. The result of devout meditative practice is a significantly deeper connection with oneself, an abiding empathy with all that exists, a strong compassion for all life, and an indescribable, all-pervading calm. This is not an article of faith, nor is it an experiment which may be demonstrated in a laboratory before others; it is an actual experience, which is incommunicable, but which every individual may acquire for themselves; provided that they possess the desire, will, or discipline to put in the effort. Tens of thousands have already done so. The peace they exude, the joy they give, and the civility with which they unerringly conduct themselves, all pay witness, even more than the incomparable beauty of their utterances, to the profound reality and practical value of mystical experience.

The proper interpretation of Christ's teaching is that the service of mankind is sacred; in religious terms, it is the service desired by "God" (as opposed to empty rituals, sacrifical offerings, or dogmatic assertions, as alleged in the Old Testament).

Jesus of Nazareth was what Oscar Wilde called him; the greatest romantic, and the prototype for all future romantics. He was not insane, nor unrealistic, but he spoke in the only language of his time (i.e. religious language; specifically, Judaism); both clarifying and reinterpreting it's sayings and symbols, in order to articulate universal principles which his people would otherwise be entirely -- as opposed to almost enitrely -- incapable of hearing.

As a romantic, he also understood that this language, althought misleading to the foolish and the unimaginative, is highly poetical, and that poetry is not something we need to strip away from life in the name of "science". Rather, there is perhaps no more sublime way of life than to see, consider, and interpret, oneself as a beloved child of God. Also, to see, consider, and interpret God as more than an abstract postulation of "oneness"; but, rather, as a Father who wants only to give us love; who, out of love, gives us this freedom to explore the myriad happenings, and ourselves, -- or, if we so choose, to settle down into the heart of the deep nature of things; into deep silence, the core, or ground of being, where our consciousness seems to be, or to become, united with God, and perhaps is God, or does become Him; some ineffablely peaceful and complete affirmation of being.

At least, this is the testimony of all the mystics, who have made the experiment of devout meditation, and they are, after all, the ones we ought to be consulting on this; not the masses. Just as we would not expect the masses calling themselves good citizens to know what a good citizen is, neither should we accept the popular conception of Chnristianity as anything but a misconception, a distortion, and a slander against what it means to be a true Christian. "I, for my part, do not wish to make the mistake of blaming Christianity for what men have done to it." ~ C.G. Jung

Repentance was made for man, not man for repentance. If God wants us to acknowledge our errors, and resolve to live more virtuous lives, it is not for His sake, or for the sake of any heaven, but for our own sake. Jesus came not to lead righteous men to heaven, but sinners to repentance, that they may become righteous. For the righteous already have their reward; to be good is it's own reward. What could be more effective proof than this of the reality of God: That goodness is superior to evil; peace to strife; love to hate; etc. What better proof is that that good triumphs over evil, that God is in His heaven, and Christ has risen?

Men like to speak of "the devil" and of "God" when it suits them, but they will insist they use these words in a figurative sense only. What they do not understand is that the only difference between their way of seeing and the visionary wa...y of seeing, is that the visionary recognizes the reality of the figurative. It is not real in the same way as the literal, but it nevertheless has a palpable existence. We may debate whether or not it is fact, but we cannot deny that it is truth.

Science is great, sure. But let's not ignore that Social Darwinism, Eugenics, and many of the atrocities of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia were inspired, not by religion, but by science and secular thinking. Granted, they were perversions, and not true science, and we must not look to slander science on their account. But, then, neither should we slander religion on account of its perversions, if we are being fair-minded. There are many "god-men" because it is a profound archetype that rightly belongs at the heart of our culture. Right now, Jesus is the god-man. Perhaps in another thousand years or when another civilization takes over, there will be another god-man by another name, but he will still be the Christ. No doubt a man will appear who will live such an exemplary life that a concensus will form that he is God, or a son of God, or onesent by God (however we wish to articulate it). And he will wear the crown for the next age, just as Jesus is the Christ, the annointed, the crowned, for this age, and just as Horus was for the Egyptians. Who has ears to hear, let them hear. ;)

This is what small minds never comprehend: That the truth of one interpretation does not necessarily exclude the truth of other interpretations. And, indeed, when you are confronting the greatest mysteries, it makes perfect sense to discover that they are multifacted, like diamonds, and that different facets of truth may be glimpsed from different sides. The fool is the one who sees only one side, and proceeds to proclaim that as THE TRUTH, and all other interpretations as false. Is Chrsit the Sun? You bet he is. Is the zodiac involved? Fuck yeah. And the more you look, the more you will find. This is the very nature of divine mystery. So go ahead and tell what you see, but, by all means, keep looking.

Thanks, but I still think you might be missing a piece of this puzzle. The ancients were not all primitive, and much of what is handed down to us is more than moral allegory. Symbols have been used since time immemorial to tap into deep psych...ological forces. Religion, properly practiced, is not only a form of science, but may be the highest expression of science. Have you read the little book "The Science of Religion" by Paramahansa Yogananda? He is ostensibly a Hindu, and I believe he makes use of various mantras, names, etc., but the primary focus is on the discipline of Kriya Yoga. Scientists are fond of speaking of rigorous experiments, but how many have the discipline to sit still for hours at a time? This is what we are told is required to experience for oneself the truth of higher realities, astral projection, mystical oneness. We are talking about tapping into energies which make men into powerhouses of virtue. George Fox, founded of the Quakers, spent many years in prisons, in the 1600's, in the worst imaginable conditions, he was beaten everywhere he went, but for decades he travelled and preached and made peace between groups of men and individuals. There are thousands of examples of religious men and women who lived this way. I honestly have yet to encounter stories of secular heroes like this.

If I give my father a "World's Greatest Dad" t-shirt... is that "choosing a team"? Should that be seen as pressumptuous or as a cause for strife? Or is it, perhaps, endearing? He is, after all, my father, and to me he is the greatest dad. And in order for me to have a strong loving bond with him, I can continuously tell myself that he is no better or worse than any other dad, or that there are some who are better some who are worse, etc. No, I naturally train my affections to the one who I have that personal relationship. And I do not begrudge anyone else their right to have a different father, or to call their father the greatest.

In Hinduism, this is much better understood than in the West.... They have something called a "chosen ideal".. You see, Hinduism is a religion by itself but it is even more like a whole bunch of religions working together -- just what you are envisioning -- it has already been done for hundreds, maybe thousands, of years in India. They have an entire pantheon of gods, but each individual chooses one.. one god who resonates with them, who has special significance for them... and then that god, or image, becomes a representation of Brahma, the One God with many faces, and they worship Brahma, who is ultimately formless, in the form of the avatar.... "Mother, don't make me unconscious through the Knowledge of Brahman. Don't give me Brahmajnana, Mother. Am I not Your child, and naturally timid? I must have my mother. A million salutations to the Knowledge of Brahman! Give it to those who want it. O Mother, let me remain in contact with men! Don't make me a dried-up ascetic. I want to enjoy Your sport in the world." (~Sri Ramakrishna)

When Ram Dass went to meet his guru in India, the man tried to send him away. He said, "What are you Americans doing here? Christ is your guru."

The real voyage of discovery is within. The only true mastery is self-mastery. This is the end of all true science and all true religion. What we are after is inner peace. Whether we find it in a laboratory or in an ashram. The fact is, the scientists have not found it. They keep telling us they will find it, and religion is just primitive science. Meanwhile scientists are treating symptoms, not finding the core of man's anxiety. Brilliant men and woment of science, as we speak, as inventing all sorts of synthetic chemicals which will make us more sick, because they trust the authroties who employ them, and -- dammit, they trust science. All in the name of science! Let's clone corn until it is utterly devoid of mineral content, in the name of science! But down with religion, with produces men like Vincent de Paul, who changed the world and the concept of charity, or Francis of Assis, who did likewise. Shall we just assume that all these people who seem so peaceful, who never raise their voices in anger, who speak only of compassion and forgiveness, who bless their enemies as they are being tortured, and still praise the goodness and holiness of the human spirit, -- shall we assume these are just primitive scientists, and not model human beings? Is that what you are asking me to do?

You can do more when you are centered. This is the central thrust of all tru religion. It is not about doing, but being. Think about it. Why do people do anything? The do things only in order to be; to be peaceful; to be content; to be happy; to be secure; etc. Well, what if they could bypass the doing and simply learn how to be? To be still and look out at the world with proper emotions. "Your industriousness is a fleeing from self; you have not the capacity for idleness." (~Nietzsche) http://www.youtube.com/watch?=JRv6aFi_5nY

I am a theist, or rather a mystic, or rather a mystical-theist. To may of thinking, this does not impolitely exclude atheism, agnosticism, pantheism, or anything else. As I understand it, these are simply different ways of looking at the world, and Christianity, in particular, is the lens which best fits me and allows me to see clearly; although I am quite aware that it may only cloud the vision of some. I do try to make clear to them what I see, -- the value I see, -- in Christianity.

Most of all, I don't think it is going away; like it or not, Christianity is a formidable entity within the collective; stradling the past, present, and future. I believe people like myself are especially needed, to help point "The Church" in the right direction, as it has been veering off-course for some time. I don't think sinking it is the answer. No one aboard is asking to be rescued, although some are jumping ship (and who can blame them). I don't like when atheists attempt to play pirate, so to speak, to commandeer the ship in the authority of science. All they want, all they know, is to turn it around. Make it not a ship (that is, a Church, afloat on the mystical sea which is God), but a house, on dry land. They see one shipwreck and they say, "The sea is off-limits to sensible men!" Perhaps it is so, and I would rather be senseless.

In truth, religion is not religion without science; and science is not science without religion. They are two wings of the same bird. What the philosopher-poet and 'Prophet of Romanticism', Novalis, wrote about philosophers and poets may be even more relevant for atheists and theists: "The division between philosopher and poet is merely apparent, and to the disadvantage of both. It is a sign of disease, and of a sickly constitution." Something to consider.

The religious, or reverent, approach to life is all-too often absent from scientific exploration, and the scientific approach is all-too often absent from religious exploration. My sense is that what divides them is not a pure contradiction; it is not a war, and cannot possibly be a war; there would be no winner; we would destry one another. What happens, historically, when there is such a dialectic, running right down the center of a culture, is that, even when one side appears to gain the upper hand, the other side remains a strong, subversive undercurrent until it is assimilated and some new manner of synthesis is acheived.

I want to say something about this idea os "sky gods". Yes, it all sounds very absurd, but then perhaps it is only what we think of it that is absurd. Religious terminology is, by nature, symbolic. Could it be that these atheists who laugh at the notion of sky gods are falling into the same trap they wish fundamentalists to avoid? The trap of literalism? God is not above you, He is not all around you, nor is He within you, yet these are all ways of indicating His ineffable nature. Words can only indicate things and parts of things, but God is beyond things, by definiteion. If you want to get "scientific" about it, God is not a He, nor is God God. The Upanishads say "God is and is not." This truth may also be expressed as "No God is God". Whatever there is, that is God, and yet God is always infinitely more than whatever is. You can't argue with this because it is a definition; you are in no position to negate it, because it is nothing if not an affirmation; you can only decide whether or not to accept and apply the definition/affirmation. If life is sacred to you, you should have no problem understanding why a sane person would want to use words like "God", "reverence", "prayer", "blessing, "grace", "worshipful", "divine" to describe something which trascends all descriptions.

Asking God for forgiveness and mercy is like asking the sun for light and heat; these belong to the incoprruptible nature of Divinity itself, and while clouds of ignorance may cast shadows of guilt over the souls of men, the sun does not go black, nor does the Lord condemn. Nonethless, man has need of repentance for his own sake, just as he must confess to having some need for the warm rays of the sun, and the fresh air of day, if he is to tear himself from the couch, and place himself where these salutary conditions may reach him. Is it some mark against the sun, that it shines only out of doors? Is it so unfair to say that, if a man will not go out to meet the sun, he has only himself to blame? For though we like to say that, unlike sunlight, God's grace is capable of reaching anywhere, God Himself has determined the boundaries that are just. And though He is surely capable of blessing all things, the proper place of man is to align himself with those paths which God's grace has already blessed. For it is unworthy of the majesty of God, that sin should be made more aggreeable, or mediocrity be crowned with the laurel. Rather, His nature is to call sinners from darkness into light, and to adorn all righteousness with glory.