Good and God

[otherbrother]

I am in dialogue with a friend of mine who is an atheist. We are exploring common ground. The fact that he has replied suggests that I have not turned him off too much with my talk about spirituality. It is an ongoing experiment that I thought would be helpful to share here. ;

Today, my spiritual processing led me back to an earlier insight I had: "There's more God in Good than there is good in "God."
The "God function" that I mentioned might just be our mutual sense of what is good. Theists and Atheist alike would agree that when my four year old granddaughter was terrified while undergoing a medical procedure and I held her little hand to comfort and support her, THAT was good. The theist would say a godly behavior. The atheist would stop at simply good.

But at base the theist wants "good" from his or her "God." So the sensed (or merely imagined) deity is really just a means for actualizing potential goodness.

Perhaps the deity is just an unnecessary middle man. If we go directly for "good" then perhaps it becomes a positive self fulfilling prophecy that somehow or another manages to make it happen.

We could trust in "human potential." And perhaps quite a few theists would be okay with that, as long as they could claim that "God" created that potential.

The more I think about it, "God" may be like Deepok Chopra's "Pure Potential." It seems more fruitful to admit that what we mean by "God" is really an Unknown source of good (whether the source is strictly within us, or is beyond our individuality, or even some blend of the two, like Carl Jung's notion of a "Collective Unconscious"). But the effect process of becoming and being good is what counts. And when it comes to living in a society, that means a serious practice of reaching consensus about what is "good." I trust that, while much disagreement would occur in the margins, more agreement than we ever thought possible will occur about basic goodness. A good first step towards making a good world would be to realize that we must endeavor to reach this general consensus. We must begin by talking together about what is good. Values clarification will lead to some workable degree and form of consensus, upon which we can base a "better" society.
Caring about each other will probably make the cut. Caring FOR each other probably will also.
Okay, how do we go about increasing those two "good" things? Figuring out a means would also be agreeably "good."

Problem is, the world we have allowed to form does not really care all that much about growing goodness. We replace that goal with external success, high status, material acquisition--all of which pull in the opposite direction of the "good" I abundantly felt while holding my granddaughter's little hand.

 

[otherbrother]

I am in dialogue with a friend of mine who is an atheist. We are exploring common ground. The fact that he has replied suggests that I have not turned him off too much with my talk about spirituality. It is an ongoing experiment that I thought would be helpful to share here. ;

Today, my spiritual processing led me back to an earlier insight I had: "There's more God in Good than there is good in "God."
The "God function" that I mentioned might just be our mutual sense of what is good. Theists and Atheist alike would agree that when my four year old granddaughter was terrified while undergoing a medical procedure and I held her little hand to comfort and support her, THAT was good. The theist would say a godly behavior. The atheist would stop at simply good.

But at base the theist wants "good" from his or her "God." So the sensed (or merely imagined) deity is really just a means for actualizing potential goodness.

Perhaps the deity is just an unnecessary middle man. If we go directly for "good" then perhaps it becomes a positive self fulfilling prophecy that somehow or another manages to make it happen.

We could trust in "human potential." And perhaps quite a few theists would be okay with that, as long as they could claim that "God" created that potential.

The more I think about it, "God" may be like Deepok Chopra's "Pure Potential." It seems more fruitful to admit that what we mean by "God" is really an Unknown source of good (whether the source is strictly within us, or is beyond our individuality, or even some blend of the two, like Carl Jung's notion of a "Collective Unconscious"). But the effect process of becoming and being good is what counts. And when it comes to living in a society, that means a serious practice of reaching consensus about what is "good." I trust that, while much disagreement would occur in the margins, more agreement than we ever thought possible will occur about basic goodness. A good first step towards making a good world would be to realize that we must endeavor to reach this general consensus. We must begin by talking together about what is good. Values clarification will lead to some workable degree and form of consensus, upon which we can base a "better" society.
Caring about each other will probably make the cut. Caring FOR each other probably will also.
Okay, how do we go about increasing those two "good" things? Figuring out a means would also be agreeably "good."

Problem is, the world we have allowed to form does not really care all that much about growing goodness. We replace that goal with external success, high status, material acquisition--all of which pull in the opposite direction of the "good" I abundantly felt while holding my granddaughter's little hand.

MY ATHEIST FRIEND’S RESPONSE:

I can certainly agree with the lack of good in "god".
Especially when you learn that more destruction and death have come from wars of god than any other reason for war. Religions do some good things of course but this just gives man an excuse to let religions to get a way with such evil.

 

[otherbrother]

MY ATHEIST FRIEND’S RESPONSE:

I can certainly agree with the lack of good in "god".
Especially when you learn that more destruction and death have come from wars of god than any other reason for war. Religions do some good things of course but this just gives man an excuse to let religions to get a way with such evil.

My next response:

Even if "God" is but a meaningful myth that allows people to better accept, relate to, and utilize the unknown in order to create good, the imaginary object that leads to greater overall good is "truer" that gods who merely help one tribe win a war against another tribe. Throughout history people have prayed to wrong, small, gods in order to try to get the things they want. Those in any religion who go deeper in their faith and focus on growing, being transformed into better selves, have much more in common with deeply spiritual people in different religions than they have in common with regular followers in their own faith tradition. Most "religious" folks simply aren't all that "spiritual." Since spirit means breath, then it means, in secular terms, to be able to be connective, open, whole. It sets the stage for effective interdependence and collective good. I think some atheists are more "spiritual," than most believers. I also think that a more spiritual society could be achieved if we democratically set out to intentionally shape culture in that direction. The language and logic of "good" might be the best tool/means to achieve that goal. Religion in general has underperformed. We may be able to use religion, but only if the various religions serve a common good and spirituality.

 

[otherbrother]

I am in dialogue with a friend of mine who is an atheist. We are exploring common ground. The fact that he has replied suggests that I have not turned him off too much with my talk about spirituality. It is an ongoing experiment that I thought would be helpful to share here. ;

Today, my spiritual processing led me back to an earlier insight I had: "There's more God in Good than there is good in "God."
The "God function" that I mentioned might just be our mutual sense of what is good. Theists and Atheist alike would agree that when my four year old granddaughter was terrified while undergoing a medical procedure and I held her little hand to comfort and support her, THAT was good. The theist would say a godly behavior. The atheist would stop at simply good.

But at base the theist wants "good" from his or her "God." So the sensed (or merely imagined) deity is really just a means for actualizing potential goodness.

Perhaps the deity is just an unnecessary middle man. If we go directly for "good" then perhaps it becomes a positive self fulfilling prophecy that somehow or another manages to make it happen.

We could trust in "human potential." And perhaps quite a few theists would be okay with that, as long as they could claim that "God" created that potential.

The more I think about it, "God" may be like Deepok Chopra's "Pure Potential." It seems more fruitful to admit that what we mean by "God" is really an Unknown source of good (whether the source is strictly within us, or is beyond our individuality, or even some blend of the two, like Carl Jung's notion of a "Collective Unconscious"). But the effect process of becoming and being good is what counts. And when it comes to living in a society, that means a serious practice of reaching consensus about what is "good." I trust that, while much disagreement would occur in the margins, more agreement than we ever thought possible will occur about basic goodness. A good first step towards making a good world would be to realize that we must endeavor to reach this general consensus. We must begin by talking together about what is good. Values clarification will lead to some workable degree and form of consensus, upon which we can base a "better" society.
Caring about each other will probably make the cut. Caring FOR each other probably will also.
Okay, how do we go about increasing those two "good" things? Figuring out a means would also be agreeably "good."

Problem is, the world we have allowed to form does not really care all that much about growing goodness. We replace that goal with external success, high status, material acquisition--all of which pull in the opposite direction of the "good" I abundantly felt while holding my granddaughter's little hand.

Correction in text: “but the effectIVE process …”

 

[Thomas]

But at base the theist wants "good" from his or her "God." So the sensed (or merely imagined) deity is really just a means for actualizing potential goodness.

We have to be careful (as theists) of projecting anthropological traits onto the divine. I am an apophatic believer, yet believe God and the idea that God determines origins and ends, and the Divine Will tends in that direction, and the Good is in relation to that.

The more I think about it, "God" may be like Deepok Chopra's "Pure Potential."

Rather, I think God in line with Christian philosophers, as Pure Act.

The idea of God as Pure Potential brings in a whole class of problem: If there is potential, then there is possibility of Change, so then we have time ... so again we err by predicating temporal things of the Eternal.

And when it comes to living in a society, that means a serious practice of reaching consensus about what is "good."

I would suggest the Golden Rule – it's universal, it's ancient, no-one disagrees...

 

[Thomas]

MY ATHEIST FRIEND’S RESPONSE:
Especially when you learn that more destruction and death have come from wars of god than any other reason for war. Religions do some good things of course but this just gives man an excuse to let religions to get a way with such evil.

Oh, you can tell him he's just wrong. It's a common assumption, but it's illogical and inaccurate.

 

[Thomas]

Those in any religion who go deeper in their faith and focus on growing, being transformed into better selves, have much more in common with deeply spiritual people in different religions than they have in common with regular followers in their own faith tradition.

I'm not sure they would entirely agree with that. I'm not sure how you define 'deeply spiritual people'?

Religion in general has underperformed. We may be able to use religion, but only if the various religions serve a common good and spirituality.

I think the mistake here is missing the point – religion hasn't under-performed, humanity underperforms, and I'm not sure what kind of regime or regimen you'd bring in to make it perform?

 

[otherbrother]

We have to be careful (as theists) of projecting anthropological traits onto the divine. I am an apophatic believer, yet believe God and the idea that God determines origins and ends, and the Divine Will tends in that direction, and the Good is in relation to that.


Rather, I think God in line with Christian philosophers, as Pure Act.

The idea of God as Pure Potential brings in a whole class of problem: If there is potential, then there is possibility of Change, so then we have time ... so again we err by predicating temporal things of the Eternal.


I would suggest the Golden Rule – it's universal, it's ancient, no-one disagrees...

Yes, the Golden Rule is great low hanging fruit for the goal of spiritual consensus. Thanks

 

[Thomas]

Indeed, low hanging it may be, but until we get that right ...

 

[otherbrother]

Oh, you can tell him he's just wrong. It's a common assumption, but it's illogical and inaccurate.

But I need to appreciate how he might have gotten that wrong conclusion. If I say he’s wrong, the conversation stops.
And a more “spiritual” formation of society will require a finding of common ground.
I once got an atheist who loved to ride motorcycles to admit that he has a spiritual experiences while experiencing a motorcycle ride. His chapel is on he road.
And though you and I might think it is a rather limited form of spirituality, it is nonetheless a base from which to build a House of God. Other such experiences could be drawn out over time. And I would benefit from his shared spirituality also. It could inspire me.

 

[otherbrother]

Thomas,
On the face of it this post will appear way off topic, but I think it lends itself to finding common ground as regards spirituality. All have some sort of experiencing a connective, flowing, whole, full, animated, inspired, grounded, subjective state involving a shift in consciousness.

Without a cultural process of drawing those subjective “truths” out, a new society would not have a good foundation.

Here’s my seemingly unrelated, but hopefully relevant, thought:

My understanding of the Book of Job was that it was a Koan-like riddle whose answer was not a logically derived thing you could point to, but, rather, was a new, more spiritual, perspective upon which to base one’s faith. …

 

[otherbrother]

This little poem I wrote a couple of years ago seems to act like a Koan, and is in line with what I think that Elihu, helped by God, was able to offer Job.


One Watcher, One Sun

The sun
leaned on the fences,
at first illuminating,
and then eliminating,
her defenses;
its soft orange glow
rested all along
the busy row
after row,
after row,
and now no barriers
does she know.

 

[Thomas]

But I need to appreciate how he might have gotten that wrong conclusion. If I say he’s wrong, the conversation stops.

OK huge debate, a sound discussion here, it seems.

From the conclusion:
"As I have tried to make clear throughout this essay, none of what I have written here is meant to imply that religions are always, or even typically, peaceful, or that members of various religious faiths cannot exhibit the same degree of violence as those otherwise motivated. Religious peoples are often willing to engage in warfare. To the contrary, my argument is that claims that religious wars are more violent and greater in number than other types have no empirical evidence to support them. Such arguments are wholly anecdotal, which almost certainly explains why professional historians have not embraced them. Available quantitative analyses of history’s wars in this regard, as flawed as they are, point in a different direction: that religious conflicts are but a relatively modest percentage of the total and that other causes or ideological motivations have inspired as much or more conflict than religion. Thus, until new data are collected that demonstrate otherwise, the claim that religion is the greatest cause of war is an unsubstantiated myth."

On figures along, Marxism caused more deaths than religion.

And a more “spiritual” formation of society will require a finding of common ground.

Depends how you define 'spiritual' – to me, 'spirituality' and 'religion' are synonyms. I don't buy the 'I'm spiriitual but not religious' meme.

Or rather, I do, but I don't agreer with the secular definition of 'spirituality' – it's a culturally appropriated term.

But I do agree there's grounds for dialogue.

 

[Thomas]

For example, if you're a Christian apophatic, then you do not seek 'spiritual experience'.

The most profound accounts of Christian mystical speculation are not experiential at all.

And a general rule is, if that's what you seek, then you're looking the wrong way ...

At worst it's a form of idolatry, and very possibly 'a wilderness of mirrors'.

+++

I'm not trying to shut you down – rather that the secular world has appropriated 'spirituality' and 'mysticism' and doesn't really understand either in any profound detail – rather it's been rendered a 'product' to be commercialised and marketed.

I'm happy to discuss it, but we have to sort out the terms first.

 

[otherbrother]

I hadn’t read the poem for a while. At first, I thought the comma after the word “eliminating” was a mistake. But then I read the poem as saying her defenses were illuminated, then eliminated.
First something (grace, God, insight) allows you to see your broken state, and then you have a chance to transcend and heal.

Funny how my own ditty speaks to me as though Someone Else wrote it. Was it a deeper part of me, or an Other, or a blend of the two? Am I the author or reader? Or both?

 

[otherbrother]

OK huge debate, a sound discussion here, it seems.

From the conclusion:
"As I have tried to make clear throughout this essay, none of what I have written here is meant to imply that religions are always, or even typically, peaceful, or that members of various religious faiths cannot exhibit the same degree of violence as those otherwise motivated. Religious peoples are often willing to engage in warfare. To the contrary, my argument is that claims that religious wars are more violent and greater in number than other types have no empirical evidence to support them. Such arguments are wholly anecdotal, which almost certainly explains why professional historians have not embraced them. Available quantitative analyses of history’s wars in this regard, as flawed as they are, point in a different direction: that religious conflicts are but a relatively modest percentage of the total and that other causes or ideological motivations have inspired as much or more conflict than religion. Thus, until new data are collected that demonstrate otherwise, the claim that religion is the greatest cause of war is an unsubstantiated myth."

On figures along, Marxism caused more deaths than religion.


Depends how you define 'spiritual' – to me, 'spirituality' and 'religion' are synonyms. I don't buy the 'I'm spiriitual but not religious' meme.

Or rather, I do, but I don't agreer with the secular definition of 'spirituality' – it's a culturally appropriated term.

But I do agree there's grounds for dialogue.

Fair analysis of religiously justified wars. Thanks for sharing. Yes, perhaps religions are a work in progress. We just haven’t seen the degree of progress we had hoped for at any given time.
Similar to the joke (paraphrased) “You should have what a mess the hypocrites in our church were before the started coming to church!”
I believe it pays to be both spiritual AND religious, but that spirituality (or deeply “religious”?) must be the main emphasis. It’s like having a solid aerobic base for your distance running.

 

[otherbrother]

Should have SEEN, that is

 

[otherbrother]

For example, if you're a Christian apophatic, then you do not seek 'spiritual experience'.

The most profound accounts of Christian mystical speculation are not experiential at all.

And a general rule is, if that's what you seek, then you're looking the wrong way ...

At worst it's a form of idolatry, and very possibly 'a wilderness of mirrors'.

+++

I'm not trying to shut you down – rather that the secular world has appropriated 'spirituality' and 'mysticism' and doesn't really understand either in any profound detail – rather it's been rendered a 'product' to be commercialised and marketed.

I'm happy to discuss it, but we have to sort out the terms first.

That’s an interesting curve ball to me.

I trust poetic logic because of the connective power of metaphor. I think it plays a role in love, healing, and probably quantum mechanics in which a better self can be “unpacked.”

Regular reasoning can be twisted so effectively into all sorts rationalizations that I would rather die with a poetic understanding than a definitive string of words.

I think it’s important to prepare for that special crossover moment. I’d rather go out as a prophetic poet than a very intelligent thinker. Although I value both attributes.

 

[otherbrother]

I’ll have to look into that whole “Christian apophatic” thing. Sounds Platonic.

I do think Mind runs deeper than the energy-like substrate of overall reality. But the energy/spiritual substrate is a valuable gateway to Mind Itself, an interface between our tendency to think and experience in terms of discrete objects or “matter,” and a realm/format of Pure Mind.

 

[otherbrother]

Tell me more. Is it translatable into terms the world may someday understand? Or destined to remain esoteric knowledge?
I have strong inclusion instincts, a belief in the viability of finding common ground.
I really like Father Thomas Keating’s project, the annual Snowmass Interreligious Conference. I cherish the book A Common Heart that resulted from that project.
But if the apophatic approach can help lift up the world. I’d be receptive to it.