thoughts that stuck, ctd.

I grew up in a churchgoing family. Between middle school and leaving for college, I went to church (United Church of Christ) most Sundays, and was a member of the youth choir. Despite that, I have never been a religious person and don’t believe in the Christian concept of “God”.

I do, however, believe in some aspect of interconnectedness between people that I can only describe as spiritual or godlike. This spirituality is largely based on the philosophy of Ken Wilber, as described in Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality (a book that is nearly impossible to read, but is worth the effort). But I was more receptive to the ideas in Wilber’s book because of a guest sermon that my dad gave at our church a long time ago, the content of which has been the basis of my spirituality since then.

My dad chose spirituality as the topic for his guest sermon. After this many years, I’m a little sketchy on the details, but the overarching message was this: what if Jesus, instead of being the Son of God, was simply an improbably spiritual person?

(Images from wikimedia.org, modified by me)

This idea is based on the idea that there is a spectrum of spirituality. The population as a whole is represented on this spectrum according to some distribution (for the sake of simplicity, let’s assume a normal distribution), and there exists some way to identify a position along this spectrum for each individual.* Under this formulation, there’s no reason that Jesus would have had to be a divine being. Instead, he may have simply been a statistical outlier; an Usain Bolt of spirituality, if you will, multiple standard deviations above the mean. The kind of spiritual being that is almost inconceivably improbable. Accepting this idea, you could extend it to Muhammad, Ghandi, Moses, Mother Teresa, etc: all (possibly) real people who were improbably in touch with the spiritual.

This formulation appeals to me because it shifts the concept of religion from one which requires belief in something I think impossible (an omniscient being) to one which allows me to discount the mysticism of religion while still recognizing the validity of some of its teachings (across denominations and across religions). It allows me to pick and choose spiritual role models according to my opinion of their teachings rather than whether we have the same conception of a “higher power”. And it allows me to focus on the qualities that religions share rather than those that make them different.

For me, spirituality is not something given to us by some external force, but rather something that flows upward from the individual and binds us all into a larger whole (see the Wikipedia entry for “Holon” for more background on this concept). Institutionalized religions, in my view, are all somewhat corrupted expressions of this. At their roots, I view all religions as attempts to codify moral behavior, injected with some mythology to “put the fear of God” in people. The major religions are organized along common themes, most of which focus on promoting harmony among that religion’s adherents. So much of the disagreement is in the specifics: whether Jesus or Muhammad was the Messiah, or maybe the Messiah hasn’t come yet, or maybe there is no Messiah; whether power in religious institutions should be centralized or given to the congregations; whether there’s one God, many gods, or no gods at all.

So why did these religions all splinter apart, rather than recognizing their similarities and reconciling their differences? I think the answer to that lies in the politics of today, and the extent to which politicians rely on fear to win people to their cause. If you’re trying to build a religion up from nothing, it’s going to be a much harder sell if you focus on the similarities between your religion and another, just as politicians are constantly trying to highlight the differences between themselves and their opponents. Like the political parties of today, leaders of religious movements would rely on creating tension between their followers and some group of “others” in order to keep the masses mollified and themselves in power.

If any of the ideas in this post appealed to you, I would highly recommend the movie The Man From Earth. Less about the spirituality, but revolves around a statistical outlier analogous to what I talk about here.

(Though this idea originated with something my father said, my views do not necessarily represent his thoughts on this.)

* This reduces spirituality to a two-dimensional metric that can somehow be quantified, which is clearly an oversimplification. But assuming that it is possible to quantify “spirituality”, expanding this to a multi-dimensional distribution wouldn’t change the idea.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in philosophizing, thoughts that stuck and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to thoughts that stuck, ctd.

  1. Brian says:

    JB told me about your blog bc I also somewhat recently started blogging. I really like the openness of this post.

    There has been an ongoing shift in religion in the US for quite some time now. Without exploring that thought, I think everyone will agree the collective religious belief of the country is extremely different now than 50 years ago. If more and more people are headed toward a more scientific view of spirituality, isn’t this just another type of religion, albeit unnamed and unorganized at this time?

    • frouglas says:

      Brian – Basically, I think you’re right. My spirituality is, on some level, a form of religion. But then again, what isn’t? Everything that we do requires some amount of blind faith, usually a blind faith that the normal rules will continue to apply. How do I know that this isn’t a Matrix-style hallucination? How do I know that when I drop something, it will fall? I can’t know these things beyond ANY doubt, because my only evidence for those beliefs is that this is how things have always worked. But there’s a first time for everything.

      That being said, I can still make value judgments about the validity of these different things. This idea comes (for me at least) from Ken Wilber, who points out that a theory of relativism that prevents one from imposing a hierarchy on different theories, values, or thoughts, is itself hierarchical, and therefore contradictory. If all ideas are equally valid, then a theory of absolute truths is as valid as relativism, which cannot be true. So yes, my spirituality is a form of religion. I believe it to be better than other religions because it is and will always be an expression of my own values rather than someone else’s (though my values may be based on the teachings of others, when I believe them they become my own).

      Can I say with certainty that it IS better? Not at all.

      Does that invalidate it in my eyes? Not at all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s