For Those Who Presuppose Experience...

Destiny is but a phrase of the weak human heart, the dark apology for every error. The strong and virtuous admit no destiny.

On earth conscience guides; in heaven God watches. And destiny is but the phantom we invoke to silence the one and dethrone the other.
Edward Bulwer-Lytton


The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
Bertrand Russell



These two quotes are relevant to those that are so cocksure about their destiny and knowledge! Those that think they understand and know everything, whether the believer or unbeliever know not what they speak! We are all ignorant in areas, and we are all in the 'dark" no matter how "enlightened", OR how much "revelation" we can understand!

Experience should teach us that none of us are immune to any of the vices of heart, that we try to "win" at another's costs! And for what, and why? For "God" or for "Man"? For the "Greater Good"? Do you suppose the costs to another when you plan your destiny?

Destiny means an "ultimate end". It can be understood by the religous to be predestination, and to the unbeliever as the "work" of "gods" (men). Oligarchies are what are made from small groups of elite that design such plans. Our Founders were not impressed by oligarchies, because they sought to defend the right of all under the "rule of law"!

Is there an "ulitmate end"? The religous believe so, as these believe in rewards and punishment in eternity, but not all religous believe such. Some believe that we are rewarded or punished in the here and now. The unbeliever believes that by his "wisdom" or "shrewdness" he earns his "keep" and people should applaud his ability to "control the situation".

Experience is a teacher, all right. A teacher that Man is just man. And that despite man's noble qualities, man can't help but flounder, faulter and fail if he has not been reflecting on his life long enough to evaluate its values as to ends. Are all 'ends" equal? Or there more noble ends, than others? Do others have a right to choose their end, or is your end the only one to be promoted? Why? Who are you?

Some presuppose that humans identify through experience! These like to promote human experiments so their "end" will be verified! Empirical evidence in human form! Others like to use sacred texts to evaluate human history! And what will the knowledge bring mankind? Of what use is it?

How do we frame our lives? How do we understand our values? What are our priorities? Why do we prioritize the way we do? What do we want to accomplish? What do we ultimately desire? and Why?

Some questions I do not know how to answer. I cannot answer them until I study further as to my frame of reference, which is nature herself.  This is work that must be done. Otherwise, I will not know what I value and why? It is my life. I have only one to live and I don't believe in eternal life, heaven or hell.  "From dust we came, and from dust we will return". 

Hearing Voices Is Not Rational

"Hearing God's voice" is a major emphasis in revelational faith. These people believe that God is really alive and speaks to the "chosen". Others believe that God's revelation is totally revealed in the written text of "Scripture". These believe that "God speaks" to "His chosen" through "His Word".

Recently, a radio program that "preaches" the latter, has become of concern to my husband. He has listened to this program on and off for years. But, lately, this "Bible-believing" Christian has become convinced that he knows the date of Christ's return, May 21st, 2011!

Why has this become of concern? First, this person's ministry was the "dot and tittle" of the written "Word", but has now become a "rhema Word". What changed this person and how did he become so convinced that he would suggest that those who don't adhere to the May 21st date are not "saved"?!? Has this person become deluded? demented? What caused the change and how does he "know" what he "knows"?

This is why revelational religious claims are not dependable ways of "doing business" in the "real world", where rationality is needed, so that "contracts" can be negotiated and the terms met. Contracts, whether social, or business are based on laws that define the terms and conditions of such relationships. This is why personal words, such as "love" is not the way to term such "real world" problems.

"Hearing voices" is how spiritual leaders many times lead those that have belief in such ways of 'knowing". These do not accept the naturalistic way of understanding such voices, and this is dangerous, as it leads to emphatic demands and fearful reactions about "God's will", which limits others in their understandings. And it damages diversity, and creates religious wars.

Personal Reflections Lead to Self-Understanding on 'God".

I believe it is horrendously dangerous for people to go about their daily life without self-reflection. Why? Because without self-reflection one cannot ascertain the reasons why they do or believe as they do. And without a rationale, there really is no reason to choose one way above another in deciding a course of action, except for human social convention.

My personal reflections have come about over my responses, or should I say reactions to certain situations, I find myself in. If one cannot respond reasonably, then one's reaction is a give-away to "stakes" in the fight. And those stakes are stakes of identity, or wounds that must be healed.

One of the biggest challenges to me, is the issue of choice. Choice is necessary for indviduality, personal value and affirmation of one's ideals.

Children have need of safety and security because they are developing their identities. Without safe and secure environments, then, the child is left with anxiety about the dire neccessities in life and without hope to fulfill his personal identity.

Children grow, explore and develop their interests when adults support them, and even further their "discoveries". And interests that develop in childhood are interests that become passions in young adulthood. Passions lead to pursuits of life goals and education that end in a life given to that passion.

For the child, divorced families are challenged to meet the needs of safe and security, so he can explore and develop interests. These safety and security issues can be strongholds that deter the young adult from developing passions and pursuing goals later in life. And inevitably, an overly cautious, or overly reactive child can be the result of such an environment.

I have found that my own reactions and fear of being controlled has its roots grounded in my early childhood. When divorced children do not have any choice about the events that "control their lives", they feel helpless, insecure and unsafe. Thus, "God" enters in to "help" the child to defend themselves in an unsafe and insecure world. "God will work all things together", etc. etc. God's Providence is viewed as safety, security and assurance of "goodwill". But, these coping skills are not healthy past the point of childhood. "Self" is not developed when one has an unhealthy need for dependence.

"God" is used in place of seeking, pursuing, developing, and taking responsibility for oneself. And this taking responsibility is also a challenge for me, as I fear responsibility, because of the "perfectionism' of the adults in my life, as a child. Great anxiety transpires when I fear failure, so why tramp over that territory if there are so many pits one can "fall into"? Besides, no one 'needs" what I have to offer anyway? Who am I?

These messages are messages of self-hatred, and self-rejection. These messages were tempered by a religious coping skill. I believed that God loved me, personally. This brought me a sense of being valued, individually and specifically. But, my realization that no one is particularly special was not a new one, it was just put into a new frame. The new frame was one of a 'vast void' of human insignificance.

If humans have no innate significance, then the only way to significance is what one does. And what one does, breeds an atmosphere of competitive drive for success to be valued. It is the 'survival of the fittest" that define who gets on top. And the rest of humanity dries up under the sun of pointless absurdities that intrude upon their life with regular 'humiliations'.

The "survival of the fittest" leaves me with anxiety, because I have been "taught" that I was not "the fittest". This "view" has nothing to do with evolution, but it has a lot to do with my own self-concept.

So, what is the point? The point is that religion can de-value, as well as value "the human". And when religion intrudes upon the individual, determining and confining choice, then religion has ceased its value, because of its devaluation of the individual, as significance.

At the same time, when religion limits 'self-development' because of its zeal for absolute certainty about "God" who cannot be confined to our safe and rational 'solutions', then religion has stepped over and ignored the very purpose of its existence; Man.

Existential Angst and Authoritarianism

I had the opportunity to have the grandkids here with me this week. I am always amused and "enlightentened" whenever my grandaughter says something with such conviction and authority, without having the slightest insight into how simple her understanding is.

The learning process has been studied by educators, so that physicians and developmental 'specialists of all kinds' can diagnose whether a particular child is "on course" or developing appropriately. The judgment is not to learn about another individual child, so much as to encourage the parent or give resources or tests to the children who seem to be developing at a different rate than "the average".

But, every stage of learning is a stage of growth, but also "existential angst", because whatever has been believed before is enlarged, or undermined and re-vamped altogether, then there is a cognitive dissonance that needs to be "solved". And the solution is coming to terms with a "new world order".

Children believe in "make-believe", such as fairy tales that paint a world filled with "happily ever afters", or "God" who is personally interested in the particularity of the child's every whim. "God" is representative to the child of security, stability, and hopeful promise of a "future". But, as the child matures, these images and hopes are challenged by encountering the 'real world' and an enlarged view of understanding, which counters their simple and trusting "ideals". The "real world" becomes an enemy to 'peace'.

"Existensial Angst" is what should be expected in Christian colleges, because there is no "special revelation" or special truth in an abstract form, but only in personal form. The student themself is a "revelation" of indivdiuality. And their hopeful future is not protected by "God", but by their ability to function within their specialty of discipline.

Authoritarianism does not allow or understand the need for individuality in personal values or of personal commitment. Authoritarianism hinders growth because of the 'fear of difference". Difference is a challenge to those who hold to authoritarianism, whether ecclesiastical, bibilical, governmental, or organizational.

The individual in his own "right" has a right to exist apart from the collective "whole", and for his own personal values, not society, itself, which de-mean and de-moralize the indivdidual in his/her development and "promise".

Christian and Islamic Radicalism

Radicalism is the decline of rational faith and the beginning of emotional reactive faith claims to exclusivity.

These claims cannot be reconciled or resolved by furthering radical's claims to absolute Truth.

Absolute truth claims in the Christian tradition is based on Scripture and/or Tradition. These believe that the Church or God's "Word" is God's revelation. And these think that others must be reached to further what they deem as absolute.

Islam is no less committed to absolute claims to faith. These believers, just as radical Chrsitian believers, are willing to die for their faith. It was reported that (Hassan's talk on the Koranic worldview affirmed death more than Americans value life.) Both leave behind this world for "that world", believing that this world is somehow less than "that world".

My husband recieved an e-mail from the Netherlands that suggested that the curse of the Christian Church was a lack of commitment and a lack of conviction. This would be true to radical idealists, who do not temper their understanding to be inclusive of difference. Everyone must "dot their "i"s and cross their "t"s" in the same way. There seems to be little or no understanding of man's limitation in understanding that world since that world is understood to be revealed and they "have recieved the revelation". How the revelation comes and what it depends on is what is debated.

Some Christians such as fundmentalists believe that Jesus, as God's revelation is an absolute. And that Scripture is God's testimoney to His Son. And His Son is the only entrance into heaven, as one must be 'born again". The text is considered closed by these believers because God has revealed everything that was needed in " His Son".

Fundamentalistic Islamic believers believe that Allah is the One and Only True God and that his messenger was Muhammed. Those who do not adhere or convert to Islam are infidels. And infidels are not considered equal to Muslim believers. The Koran is understood to be the text of their faith.

Both these traditions base thier claims on absolutistic understandings of God, as revealed in a text, visions, and eye-witness accounts. Both "win" when they are willing to "die for the cause of Christ or Allah".

The Essenes were the Jewish sect that believed in a sectarian view of life. But, i am not sure whether they understood themselves in exclusivistic ways.

In today's climate of violatility, we do not need radical faith, that cannot be verified. Dialogue is not possible with these that believe that they have THE handle on Truth. The Transcendental in this view, is to be loved over the Material.

I am afraid for our future in this world, if radical claims of faith continue to be perpetuated, at the costs of many lives, and without recourse for the value of diversity.

I am not sure of how radicalism can be tempered, as the radical always thinks that when other do not believe as he does, that it just proves the validity of his faith and his "specialness" in 'knowing the Truth". Persecution is a validation, instead of a correction. These are not open to input. But, they definatley think others should be open, or else these radicals will do the persecuting.

Law Is the Boundary Between Reason and Revelation

I have been thinking about the extremes of faith apart from reason and reason apart from faith. One cannot ignore the "fall-out" of these two extremes. The casualties are of rationale and mystery.

Reason without faith leave one making decisions arrogantly, because what is known is all that should be known. But, faith without reason is no less arrogant becasue it dismisses any knowledge that one can gain in the world and makes foolish mistakes.

Laws protect us from these irregularities because our nation is based on "equality under the law". Law protects from the "sins" of tresspassing. Americans live in peace because we do not have to fear government interference or individual indiscretions. But, if we have occasion to experience such atrocities, then we have recourse, "under law".

Law protects us from the arrogant.

Betwixst and Between

My husband and I just got back from a Science/Religion conference this evening. It was geared toward "religious responses" to Darwinian evolution. I found several things interesting, but one especially so, the "is" and the "ought".

The emphasis on the "religious response" was due to "fear". A "fear of the power of the religious" in America to form policy around "religion" and not the "facts of science". This is what was called the "is". The religious were to remain inside their domain of what is called the "ought".

While facts are based in real reality of the everyday experience and scientific endeavor, the religious are given a "place" of handing out platitudes and metaphors, which do nothing to change reality, except in someone's head. Is this enough?

I find it hard to defend an "ought" or a "should". An "ought" or "should" means that the reality that exists should be changed, but the question is not about change, but "how" and "what"! How does one view the change that would make life different or better? These are questions about values, and not ideals of "shoulds" and "oughts". Values are based on personal conviction and are given priority according to their importance. Values form one's personal ethics in prioritizing one's moral choice.

"Shoulds" and "oughts"may or may not bring about a "right", whether of needed change or ethical decision. The "right" is limited by cultural definitions, at times. And these cultural definitions may or may not be "enlightened". There are only personal choices, not universal ones.

Revelation has been touted by the religious as a means to the 'ideal" or the "shoulds", "oughts", and "right". But, revelation should be "grounded" by "enlightening" one's mind to what "is". Without understanding that what we know is limited about the mystery that is in this universe, we will act presumptutously, arrogantly, pompously, irrationally, or radically. This is not to say that science, nor religions do not give us some understanding of the mystery. But, we do not have but a part of the whole. We must deal in the "is", as this is the only way to really communicate about and make a difference in the "real world". The real world consists of the political and the public, as well as the personal and the private.

Therefore, I think reason is the best way to approach reality and others, so that change may come through shaping policy, making decisions, and committing one's life.

Religion Set Itself Apart

Religion is man's attempt to to 'be special" and not just the result of evolutionary "process". Human beings have always attempted to "set themsevles apart" for some "special purpose".

The human need to "be special" could come from many factors, but we all need to be valued in one way or another, unless life itself is devalued by one's culture. What "inspired" people to create a "more meaningful experience" than barbarianism? Some would want to believe that is is because of "god".

"God" has been useful to create meaning to life, give priority of value, and bring about an 'order'. But, these functons of "god" have been based on different authorial sources. The Calvinist based his understanding on supernaturalism or revelatory texts, while the naturalist, liberal, or Catholic bases his understanding on natural law, order and structure, which is based on reason.

The Founders understood man's need for order and structure, but also understood the need for a freedom to express diversity. Diversity or difference is not applauded in caste, or aristocratic systems of government, as these are controlled by the "ruling elite", where change itself is understood in negative ways. Change can happen in a democracy or representative republic by the people's vote, lobbyist, courts, and public dissent through the press, or demonstration.

Religion does not value the individual for the most part, as it affirms conformity, and is threatened by dissent, and questions. Religion, in this sense, is an aristocracy, whether one believes that "God" rules, the cleric/priest, the text, or the congregation. An individual is at the whim of whatever "authority is affirmed".

Without Faith....

Without faith, it is impossible to please God. Many evangelicals believe that faith becomes possible through the revelation of Scripture alone. But, what about other literary works? Are they significant and can they impart "revelation that is just as important? Fundamentalists would not believe so. I disagree.

Without faith....what does this mean? Everyone has faith, it is just by what authority one has faith in....

Evanglicals have faith in Scripture first and foremost, but can also place their faith in Tradition of the Church.

What about reason? Is reason a proper place for authority to reside? I think so, for otherwise, evangelicals should just turn off their brain and listen to whoever happens to cross their path and "obey", especially, if they speak for God. Otherwise, they cannot become who God intends for them to be.

There is a certain strain of training Youth that I attended a long while back that promoted this type of thinking, as leadership was "God's protection" for you. Leaders were infallible. And therein lies the danger. Leaders are humans, as are written texts of tradition, and tradition itself. Without assessing these authorities, one does not become discerning. Nor does creativivity flourish. Any thinking outside the box is athenema to conventionality, which is tradition's forte'.

While leaders are human, they are necessary in developing others, seeking vision, implementing policy, and setting goals. Authority is not the problem, but absolutism is. I think that authority should be developed, of course, as children have not had their reason expanded beyond the literalization of myth. But, authority given to children who literalize myth is a dangerous cauldrum.

Religion can limit reason's expansive capacity to explore, engage and create. The universe is too expansive and too interesting to limit oneself to a simple view of faith.

The Church has often, if not always opposed reformation, whether religious, political, or cultural. And those that tried to reform the traditionalists were hanged, burned, or be-headed, in the name of God and for the sake of protecting God's interest and His Kingdom...

I would much rather live by "whatsoever is not of faith, is sin"....

Atheism and Community

Atheism has been viewed as anti-theism, which has meant traditionally, opposition to God. I find that atheism, though, are just supernaturalistic atheist, not anti-humanist! In fact, I think that atheist cease to truly be atheist when they form community. Community is about humans, who are made in God's image. Christians should be atheists, as humans should be the focus of religion, not God.

Conservative Christianity has traditionally dismissed atheists or "prayed" for their salvation and their turn to God. I think that Christians should understand that they worship a human model in Jesus of Nazareth. Christians should understand their history and understand how they came to believe what they believe. Otherwise, those who think they know light really can bring darkness.

Christians have identified themselves as a group in many ways and one of the ways has been to oppose humanism, as a secularization of belief or faith. Humanism has been understood as "secular" because man is fallen and needs to be redeemed to the spiritual realm where true light happens, etc. etc. This understanding is a gnostic faith that believes in a special revelation. There is no special revelation, But, this does not mean that "revelation does not happen in self reflection and personal growth. Personal growth, and self-understanding is about trasformation because it evaluates what one finds most important. No one else can determine that for you. It is a personal commitment of life and choice.

I find that Christian faith is struggling to define itself today when there is real honest evaluation of text, tradition, and revelation.

Worldviews, Science, and Roles

I have been thinking a lot in the last few years about my faith. What is the role and function of the Church, the State, and the individual. I had understood my faith to be about a separation between Church and State, as this left freedom for the individual's expression and commitment. I think this was what our Founding Fathers meant to do, so that there would be no conflict of interest when it concerns the realm of politics. This is a complentarity view.

From what I can gather, the complentarirty view sees science, and faith as distinct spheres. This view to be consistent would also view roles and functions as distinct. This view would lend itself to a two level view of leadership. The sacred realm is to be led by ministers, while the secular realm would be for "worldly" leaders. Likewise, in the home there would be distinct roles and functions for the male and female. The problem becomes one of hierarchy, importance, and prejuidice in understanding life in all its diversity. In the philosophical realm, this view holds faith and reason in two distinct areas of understanding. And purpose is found within the sacred realm where "god" determines what is to be done or one submits to what is understood to be "god's will". Science is a means to an end. This view would be more conservative in traditional terms.

On the other hand, a more liberal view would lend itself to a integrated view. Faith is not anti-thetical to reason, nor is faith anti-thetical to politics. Faith contains reason, as faith encompasses values that are reasoned from ethical commitments. Character is viewed as the epitome of truth claims. This is where the life lived is a commitment to values held. Purpose is made, not found by the individual. Life is lived under social contract understanding. And science is the way of understanding more about life. Science is an end itself. Reason is embraced as a means, but should not be the end.

Revelation in the former view is outside of the individual, in moral models, texts, relgious understandings, or groups, where the later would view revelation as the individual themself. The individual who holds to the former view does not necessarily hold a lower view or development of character, if, that is, the character has come to resolve the values of revelation as "other' and the trascendent as a separate realm. It is a matter of perception of reality, life, personal development, identification, value, and commitment.