So the question had to be asked: was my experience of God merely emotional excitement and fervour that is part and parcel of Christian ritual and celebration?  When I face most Christians with the question on how we can be sure that the Bible is the Word of God, given that it is a collection of books that a group of men decided was divinely inspired, they merely point back to faith.  They suggest a simple trust in God that he did guide this group, and the widespread acceptance of the Bible as ultimate truth attests to God’s intervention.  I would concur that such trust exists in large portions of the world population – not just amongst Christians, but also Jews and Muslims, who all sharply disagree on this point of their particular perspective being the only true one (not all adherents do hold this position, but the majority do very much outweigh the progressives). 

It seems to me to be supreme arrogance to assert that God has chosen a certain portion of the population, and a small one at that compared with the vast portion of the other major faiths.  To those who would suggest that God does not choose, but the matter of faith is of free will, I would remind them that those born into strict Muslim families will never have the opportunity to exercise such free will to choose another path.  This idea of free will is a fantasy very much restricted to democratic western societies.

Did I taste and see that the Lord is good, or was I merely trying to fulfill an emotional need?  At this stage, even while I do find so-called evidence of the existence of God wanting, I find myself unable to assert that there is simply no God at all.  I do not buy into the notion that God (or divinity, or Spirit) must in some way be an observable phenomenon to be considered true.  Yet I do think that the arguments of atheism are important as a counter-measure to fundamentalist Christianity, given that the notions of God found there are more within the realm of fantasy than speaking to Ultimate Reality.

Ideas of God, whether derived from the Bible or from other sacred texts, are psychological projections.  Human consciousness considered the vastness of reality, and has always had to dream up some kind of higher beings/Being to account for the wonderful world.  Have we now outgrown God, now that we have evolutionary theory to account for much of what was previously a mystery?  I would suggest that we let go of these ancient ideas of God, in much the same way as we let go of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, and maintain the depth of mystery that has always held us together in awe and wonder.  How this works, how it will progress in my own life, is an exciting and challenging journey.

- Gary

I once thought that I had God pinned down, and that I had a vital relationship with him.  Now, I wonder whether that was just wishful thinking.  I really don’t think religion or atheism are right-and-wrong positions (Rollins delves into this beautifully); they are simply conceptual frameworks for identifying with certain positions.  Anything – and I mean anything – that is said about God is no more than language, no more than a signifier.  If you are experienced with philosophy at all, you may begin to suspect that I am delving into the subjective-objective domain here, and you are correct.  But regardless of how technical I get at describing faith and belief (or lack thereof), it does all come back to ideas.

The concept of God is not static.  It is a construction over thousands of years involving the mental projections of men and women (primarily men, given the most common gender-typing of God as He).  Does the projection accurately reflect the reality of that which it points to?  The Bible (and other sacred scriptures) is an attempt to create a static impression of God, however even the concepts contained therein are dynamically interpreted to fit within particular worldviews.  Even still, the Bible itself contains no static impression of God, but has apparent contradictory (or maybe paradoxical) accounts of his nature and being.

I see the Bible now more or less as a conceptual framework that unites certain people in the belief system contained therein.  People have all manner of reasons why they hold to faith, and all manner of personal experiences that testify to the reality of their faith.  It is not a question of whether they are right or wrong, or whether their concepts accurately reflect a domain of existence that is not objectively verifiable.  I am more interested in questioning concepts themselves, and living within the domain of paradox.

Certainty is so yesterday

- Gary

Religion is delusional as it supposes to name the unnameable and objectify the subjective

Whatever can be said of that which is beyond our perception and beyond our understanding will always fall short.  Language can only deal with what is; supposed supernatural events can only be explained in natural terms.  All of religion is explained through the mediation of particular individuals, often regarded as prophets or sages, who have been said to have received a unique revelation.  The substance of this message is then adhered to by followers, who find ways to verify the message through their own subjective experience.  In the subjective, there is no right or wrong, there is only experience, which is quantified to be truth.  This experience is then identified to be something that can be explained, bringing it into the realm of language.  From this religion is created.  In religion, truth is mediated from outer, rather than inner sources.  This is delusion.

Religion is delusional as it creates unnecessary boundaries

Our world is suffering due to the delusional thinking of religious followers, who insist that their higher truth demands respect.  These deluded people are willing to kill and be killed for the sake of beliefs that have no basis of reality.  Granted, such instances might constitute a minority within religious circles, nonetheless the larger problem is one of boundary – namely that one group claims to have final revelation.  These peoples have identified with mental positions based upon their respective religious texts.  What is the point of such boundaries, when all they do is inflict harm and disharmony?  From the Christian perspective, not only is there one major boundary, but also many internal boundaries, known as denominations.  Of course, this also occurs in every other religion.

Religion is delusional as it prevents people from thinking for themselves

It is my firm belief that the majority of religious texts were not written to create followers, or religious movements.  Rather, they were created out of the unique experience of individuals and groups as sources of inspiration.  It is delusional to rely on any source as final and authoritative.  Our task is to go beyond these sources, not for the sake of creating something better, but to get to the essence of that which inspired the creation of the sources.  Monotheism called this God, but this is an anthropomorphized concept, or in other words clothing the unnameable in human form.  The problem of taking these mental concepts and prescribing them to groups only prevents people from arriving to that which is beyond all thought.

Ultimately, you must search yourself and find that which is true.  Some may find themselves in this place through religious devotion, but I see religion as more of a stumbling block, for it is more likely to cloud the way.  Using the words of one who inspired a religion, but who it has been said was not a Buddhist, the Buddha used the metaphor of clouds as an apt way of describing how delusion mars the way to truth, love, peace, and happiness.

- Gary

In Chapter 1, titled Does It Really Matter What I Believe, McLaren distinguishes between good and bad faith.  What I found interesting is that his descriptors for bad faith perfectly label my experience of faith in the churches I’ve attended, while his descriptors for good faith are the things I’ve desired but rarely found.  The descriptors for bad faith are as follows:

1. Bad faith is based solely on unquestioned authority.
   A rather wicked use of scripture for this assertion is “touch not God’s anointed”.
2. Bad faith is based on pressure or coercion.
   If you’ve ever been to see the production of Heaven’s Gate Hell’s Flames, you’ll know about this one.  That is a terrible dramatic presentation utilizing fear and guilt to coerce people to believe.
3. Bad faith is often the result of a psychological need for belonging.
   This is likely the primary reason why my family came to faith.  Churches can be a wonderful place of friendship and potential courtship for singles, particularly given the individualism of our time.
4. Bad faith appeals to self-interest and base motives.
   The prosperity gospel and appeals to miracles demonstrate this perfectly.
5. Bad faith is arrogant and unteachable.
   Try questioning most prominent evangelical preachers and this is what you will likely find.  ‘I am right because God says so.’  How pitifully ignorant.
6. Bad faith is dishonest.
   I’ve mainly witnessed this with the many ways the character of God is justified in his many inhumane acts in the Bible, or in describing suffering.
7. Bad faith is apathetic.
   This is probably my pet peeve.  Ever since my early days as a Christian, I wanted a relevant faith, one which inspires me to action.  Yet the church was nothing more than an activity of learning and focus on the afterlife.
8. Bad faith is a step backward.
   It certainly was for me.  Rather than developing my character, I spent too many years in ignorance, fear, and guilt.  Instead of becoming a better person, I just found another channel to be selfish.

Naturally, good faith is the inverse of the above:

1. Good faith is humble, teachable, and inquisitive.
2. Good faith is grateful (or, worth celebrating).
3. Good faith is honest.
4. Good faith is communal.
5. Good faith is active.
6. Good faith is tough (able to cope with rigorous challenge).
7. Good faith is relational (involves a human-divine relationship).

I have seen hints of the above, but nothing substantial, hence my lack of comments.  Given the fact that I don’t really have faith at present, I am not sure whether I can assert if good faith does exist.  I am open to it, which is the reason for reading this book.

The first two chapters are, for the most part, a sociological survey of the current success of Christianity as the world’s fastest growing religion. Vibrant Christianity, it seems, is an emerging force particularly in South America, Asia and Africa.

The third and forth chapters contain quite an informed characterization of the atheistic challenge to religion and Christianity in particular. D’Souza quotes a number of prominent figures to highlight their overtly negative views. Had I not read The End of Faith and listened to a portion of The God Delusion audiobook, I might have taken quite a dim view of Dawkins and Harris, considering them to be taking mere elitist positions in relation to science.

However, I now know that while their attacks on religion are strong, both men remain positive and mystically-oriented rather than negative and materialistic. Understandably, given that D’Souza has already confirmed himself to be firmly a believer in the supernatural, he is going to be on the defense to what amounts as a strong attack on his position. His task in this book is to prove that Christianity is not the evil that it has been characterized to be by prominent atheists. As such, these chapters feature quotes to highlight some of the strongest attacks made to date.

I highly doubt that there is one large philosophical structure called ‘atheism’. Atheists can vary from the materialistic to mystical, and as such have entirely different views on life. The very best of atheists would put religion in centre square of our education systems, if only to align the mythical stories with scientific rationalism. In other words, to explain religion in as natural terms as possible. Atheists generally get characterised as being in denial; rather, they are simply those who choose a perspective that is more in line with reality as it is perceived.

As a Christian, I perceived atheists as deluded – how could they deny the obvious? How could you not see from the complexity of nature the signs of a Creator? Now I understand that God is not a necessary explanation, and gladly D’Souza does not imply delusion on the part of atheists (unlike most Christian authors). Even editor of Skeptic magazine, Michael Shermer, recommends the book to atheists as a well-reasoned work (even though he disagreed with most of the conclusions).

- Gary

As such, I am more and more coming to the position, like Sam Harris, that religion itself requires deconstruction. The whole system is flawed and really should just be pulled apart. Depth and meaning, or sacredness and spirituality, can still flow through the culture without the necessity for institutions to administer it. I was never really into institutional religion even through my Christian years. I viewed my simple faith and pentecostal experiences to be superior to the extra baggage that seemed to be carried in other traditions. Still, that did not make me irreligious, just skeptical of the validity of the other forms. As I moved through my deconstruction process, I have tried to remain as open-minded as possible to the potential good that could still exist in the religious traditions, particularly Christianity. Unfortunately, it seems the negatives far outweigh the positives when it comes to the contribution that religion makes today.

I guess the most pertinent question to ask is, how useful is religion? What is religion’s contribution to the world? Some would say the benevolence, such as aid organizations that are currently supporting Burma and China in their recent disasters. Others might say that they have a tremendous unifying power, bringing people together under a system and banner that makes for effective community. These things may be true, but do they outweigh the pathologies? The institutional religions by-and-large hold on to archaic and imperialistic beliefs about the world and reality that more than counter any aid effort, instead leading to death and destruction. Christians might say, granted this may be true for Islam, even for Judaism, but not for Christianity with its peace-loving Saviour. Putting the historical argument of the Crusades aside, I have to again side with Harris in the thought that irrational beliefs, such as those promoted in the Left Behind series, do impact foreign policy, and are cited as motivators for war. Why should we consider the word of one person writing over 1,000 years ago (Augustine) to be definitive in the cause of launching a ‘just war’? Moderate believers who promote tolerance within their own traditions are condoning beliefs that lead to senseless violence.

So, is there a reasonable faith? There might be, so long as the beliefs in question are held lightly and are open to question. I would suggest that faith must be progressive for it to be reasonable. In other words, it must be open to change and correction. There is no room for reason and arrogance to coincide, whether believer or atheist. Willful ignorance should be challenged wherever it exists, without the necessity to resort to pettiness.

For me, the purpose is to unravel the text in the light of contemporary Christian and religious experience. I do this from a critical and skeptical viewpoint, taking nothing for granted. Doubt is probably the most beneficial tool here, for it seeks not merely an alternative understanding, but rather an understanding that is shaped by how I perceive and experience the world. This really puts me at odds with many Christians, who perceive that we must approach the Bible from a viewpoint of faith. It is only by faith, they say, that we can truly understand the words of scripture. By faith, we can hear the voice of God speaking through the words and directly to our heart.

It is that notion of faith that we must apply doubt first of all. For if God truly did speak through the words of the Bible to his faithful, why then do we have such multiplicity of interpretation? So many ideas have arisen from individuals who claimed that God gave them a ‘revelation’, and in many cases these ideas are in conflict. Either God is actually the centre of the conflict, or those who claim inspiration really just imagined the experience. It’s pretty obvious that a conflicting God would not be terribly popular, so that notion falls flat. So how do we then explain the multitude of individuals who truly believe that the Holy Spirit illuminates scripture, so that they receive ‘aha!’ and ‘I get it!’ moments?

I get the same ‘aha!’ experiences from all sorts of texts. It’s really just a paradigm shift, a different way of seeing. It’s like the demonstration in my psychology lecture of ambiguous images – you know the type, where a picture looks like a face, but if you look at it from another perspective, it becomes a head. It’s simply a matter of perception rather than any kind of spiritual revelation. I don’t mean to put a damper on anyone’s experience, but really we’ve got to understand human experience in a very logical way.

Now I could go on forever about faith and doubt, but I’m supposed to be explaining why I still study the Bible. It’s now come down to a real picking-apart of the belief system that I once took for granted. I’ve become a critic of my own experience, as well as the experience of others. In this sense, my Bible study is far more interesting, since I no longer have to try to discern certain things or worry about how different parts fit into my experience. Instead, from a critical perspective, I can read the text with an eye to the cultural and historical forces shaping the message. I mean, what makes this text so much more authoritative than all other ancient texts describing a people and their god/s?

What does make it important comes back to the influence of Christianity on our culture. What also makes it important to me is asking how it informs my experience now. What can I make of Jesus now? Is he really as important as Christians believe, or am I misinformed? I’m more concerned with existential truth than with arguments to the existence of God, and this shapes my questions and inquiry.

Just as an aside, I wonder if any of us here went through this very phase of biblical inquiry that I am describing, and if so what was your inevitable conclusion?

- Gary

Not too long ago, I would read the Bible as if it were God’s Word to me now, as if God were speaking to me through the text. In fact, that was the primary way I could know God and maintain the sense of relationship. I came to speak of and relate to God as one would a person, obviously through the creative use of imagination. This God-sense began at a youth concert, where I was so emotionally moved by the sermon that I experienced a shift in my focus. It was that ‘born again’ conversion experience that so many talk about. Thus began many years of my life as a devoted follower of Christ.

Fast-forward many years into the future, and I am listening to an interview with Emerging Church leader Brian McLaren discussing the metaphorical nature of hell. It was my first exposure to the idea of universal salvation. Suddenly, an entirely different paradigm came rushing in to shatter the foundation of my faith. If the message of the gospel as proclaimed within evangelical churches is that Christ saved me from hell, and hell is not real, what is left of the gospel? I felt disillusioned and immediately stopped attending church, whilst beginning to explore the alternative approaches to scripture. Over time, a lack of exposure to evangelical Christian church services and a range of books and podcasts would blast away any remaining hope that I had in a literal view of the Bible.

What then was I experiencing all these years, and what is it that holds so many people to continue in literal belief? Certainly, it was that sense of emotional connection to God, Jesus, and the concepts of salvation. Largely, it was the assurance of bliss in afterlife rather than eternal suffering. Brian McLaren’s attack on this aspect of afterlife was the key that unlocked the door of critical inquiry. When the Bible is believed to be God’s trusted Word, any form of questioning implies a lack of trust. If hell is only a metaphor, scripture itself cannot be taken literally seriously, and a faith based on literal truth crumbles.

You can’t blame anyone for taking a literal view. Literalism abounds in our culture, as we want simple and easy answers to complex problems. We leave little room for ambiguity, and this is reinforced daily through media. The problem with taking a western understanding of religious scripture is that it wasn’t written by western authors to western audiences! We place our judgment on the text without the dual understanding of the cultural complexities of the original culture and our culture. On one side, the non-believer takes an objective, scientific viewpoint, and labels the text as nonsense. On the other side, the believer pulls bits and pieces together to form a religious belief system that is unquestionably based on the absolute authority of divine authorship. Both polarities will never cease to be in conflict.

The main problem I can see with this way of seeing the issue is with the idea of trusting God – if we do believe in God, we need to equally believe that he/she/it would provide an authoritative text of belief. And then, what about our personal and corporate spiritual experiences which we see as authentic? I believe there was always some kind of cultural/naturalistic explanation for any of my experiences. At conversion, I was undergoing a very traumatic period in my teenage life. In the church, I experienced a kind of acceptance. At times I thought I heard the voice of God, but how can I differentiate that from my own inner voice? I experienced many ecstatic emotional experiences, primarily in meetings where the atmosphere was one of expectancy. I heard thousands of sermons, and each were constructed by morphing the worldview of the preacher with the scriptural subject being presented. This is how the prosperity gospel (health and wealth, name it and claim it) came into being, among other varied views. I can also imagine it as the source of denominational division.

Where does that leave God? Right now, I don’t know. I will go so far as to say that since I believe there is room for ambiguity and mystery, then there is also room for God, though not as I knew before. I would like to say that God is present, but I can’t say that with certainty. This is where I am, and that is fine.

- Gary