 |
The God Question The "Survey of the Class of 1957" in our 50th But how consistent is our little For our class the Gender and Education categories might indicate a "net" loss in belief relative to the general population. While Age and Political party might indicate a net increase. Would these effects cancel out, or would the negative factors dominate and help explain the class poll findings? Of course, it's statistically incorrect to simply cumulatively sum differences from separate poll categories. If classmates responding to our poll interpreted the God question to be asking about "absolute certainty," or "strong belief," then our poll results are consistent with the Harris national poll. Otherwise it might be argued that we are more ‘secular' than other Americans as a whole – opposite to my initial expectation. My expectation was based in part on the religiously traditional society in which most of us were raised prior to the sixties – or at least for Christians, prior to the "God is dead and Jesus is his son" movement inspired by radical theologians like Thomas Altizer and John A. T. Robinson in the early sixties. More fundamentally, the "God question" is as ambiguous as the various professed understandings of the meaning of the word "God." How would ‘spiritual' people, who may or may not be affiliated with a particular religious group, nor believe in a supernatural personal god, interpret the God question? Should the distinction between religion and spirituality be made? Can a more pointed, less ambiguous, survey question(s) be devised? The current spate of anti-religious books and commentaries by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, et al, might lead us to believe (with some justification) that religion is dangerous, on the rise, and must be vigorously opposed. Dawkins as well as the less strident Dennett examine religion as a dangerous "meme." Yet here again it is important to be clear about the sort of god they have in mind. Dawkins, in his The God Delusion book (p.15), defines the pious targets of his criticism as those who " believe in a supernatural creator that is ‘appropriate for us to worship.' He also asks us to "bear in mind that I am only calling supernatural gods delusional." Also note that he excludes Buddhism as a "philosophy" and not a religion. Dennett in his Breaking the Spell – Religion as a Natural Phenomena "tentatively" defines religions "as social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought." Yet we can find the "sacred" in Dennett (p.245): "The Tree of Life is neither perfect nor infinite in space or time, but it is actual, and if it is not Anselm's ‘Being greater than which nothing can be perceived' it is surely a being that is greater than any of us will ever conceive of in detail worthy of its detail. Is something sacred? Yes, I say with Nietzsche. I could not pray to it, but I can stand in affirmation of its magnificence. The world is sacred." I am reminded of Albert Schweitzer's "Reverence for Life." Religion is a matter of our "ultimate concern" – to paraphrase our late classmate Rabbi Arnie Fink writing in a Well, what is our ultimate concern? As I pondered Arnie's words, a passage in Karen Armstrong's book, The Spiral Staircase – My Climb out of Darkness (p.235), came to mind. She quotes Hyam Maccoby, librarian of Bishop Fred Borsch, in his book, The Spirit Searches Everything, seems to prefer the term "Spirit" with a capital "S" over the word "God." In addition, throughout his text, we find a ‘soft' form of expression for divine "intervention." Fred refers to a mysterious "uptick" that operates on the most fundamental processes to direct the evolution of the Universe as well as the evolution of conscious life and "self awareness." Could this be an attempt to avoid the popular understanding of a supernatural personal form of God belief? The distinction the With a proper preface or explanation, a question such as "If you are religious, are you a realist or a non-realist?" might be included in a less ambiguous, more meaningful, survey. I like a quote from John Dominic Crossan: "Tell me something about your God, and I'll know all the rest." In short, help me with the questions; then perhaps a more discriminating, even if non-scientific, class Religion survey could be designed. The following are some possibilities to provoke your reactions, criticism, and alternatives: 1. Is "Faith" possible without a corresponding "Religion?" Finally, I come back to Hyam Maccoby (Armstrong, p.236): "Right practice rather than right belief. That's all. You Christians make such a fuss about theology, but it's not important in the way you think. It's just poetry, really, ways of talking about the inexpressible. We Jews don't bother much about what we believe. We just do instead." The "Golden Rule" of Hillel and Jesus comes to my mind; or the gospel writer Matthew's last judgement scene (Matt. 25:31-40) wherein there are no questions about belief, only questions about whether we helped the hungry, thirsty, stranger, naked, sick, or imprisoned. Nevertheless, I press on with sorting beliefs and wrestling with my God question. If not God, then you classmates help me.
|
|
| For additional information, contact the Webmaster Copyright © 2024, Princeton University Class of 1957 |