Why are there so many religions -- Part 1

I can remember back to my pre-teen years when I first started wondering about why there were so many religions in the world. For me, living in a small town on the eastern seaboard of the United States, that meant religious denominations, rather than specifically religions. In our little town there were churches for Methodists, Baptists, Catholics, Episcopalians, and a few smaller denominations.

People would argue about which of the churches had the right ideas about religious subjects. However they all shared the same basic perspective that came out of the western religious values systems derived from the Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches. As a result, it seemed to me that the problem was that people did not realize how much of what they believed was the same or nearly so. What they knew was merely the sayings of people that had been passed down from generation to generation with trivial variations being presented as having a substantial difference in people’s lives and in their salvation. What I learned was that simply informing people of the similarities was not adequate to bring about change. People perceived that there was a gulf between their thinking and the values of the other denominations or religions.

In subsequent years I learned of other religious systems besides the Western Christian based system. In college I learned about Buddhists, Hindus, Islam, and about Bahia. However, I really did not get the focus of what was going on until I started learning about the Bhagavad Gita, a variation of the earlier Hindu wisdom. In the Gita there were religious statements followed by explanations of what these words meant. As my friend and I (both interested in this topic) had a couple of glasses of wine and talked about the Gita, at a firepit in a tavern, I suggested he read me the words and I would give him the purport, or meaning, from the narrative of what it said. After about 30 or 40 minutes of this discussion we stopped and he said, or words to this effect, you were directly on target with what you said the lines meant. How did you know? Have you ever read the book? In answer to his questions I simply said I knew the answers well because I had helped write them. I had never read the book in the current time.

This confused him, but left me wondering for the rest of my life. Perhaps I had tapped into the scalar waves that Erwin Laszlo mentions in his books (for instance, Science and the Reenchantment of the Cosmos), or I entered a consciousness where I could see the discussions about meaning occurring in this or some other time period. Finally it is possible that I was remembering things from my personal previous lives, or my comments were based on hearing the discussions which I had forgotten until the wine and the words initiated my recall.

The way this relates to having so many religions is that the common denominator in all of these religious systems is faith and not dogma, or explanation, or ritual. Underlying all of these tools to understand what happens in life is the expectation that something grounds the person (grounds me) in daily life. Just as bread keeps the physical life together even in the midst of stress, so too is it with faith that keeps the links open between the use of the intellect of the brain and the emotional sensing of the heart.

So it is faith that is important and the common element in all religious systems. This thing called faith allows for several events or outcomes or aspects to occur. First is hope. I realize that not everyone can have hope for the future, or for the past if the studies of Alain Aspire (1982) [cited in Goswami, God is not Dead (p, 24)] have any meaning. It seems possible based on quantum physics that it is possible to change the past from the future. As a result we can change who we are and how we experience ourselves in the present by changing the events in the past that led to our current state of concern. By doing this we remove the inhibiting effect of the guilt and shame by sending it somewhere independent of ourselves and our future. Effectively we re-link the heart and brain together as a team again under the guidance of our consciousness.

However, let me make clear that this new freedom comes from sending the memories and associated behaviors and mind patterns to the original source of the issue and re-inventing them in the process of healing. This can be done by rechanneling the energy when it starts to re-assert itself. (My favorite phrase about this is the song by Dido: I will go down with this ship.) I will not let this situation dominate my life and change my beliefs. I am more than a few mistakes I’ve made.

This leads directly to the question of so many religion and religious systems, dogmas, expectations, ritual, and behaviors. We all make mistakes. Most of us cannot honestly admit to the mistakes. Our language tells us not to apologize since it shows a form of weakness. Yet honesty is one of the most important keys in trust and love. If you believe someone is honest, you will trust his or hers judgment. Additionally, so is gratitude an extremely important part of changing life focus. If we become thankful for the blessing we have received that we need not worry about the mistakes we’ve made because the mistakes provide the basis for the present gratitude. Finally the gratitude can only be reflected in the present moment. And this action and requirement further limits the ability of a mistake to manifest in the current situation and create a problem.

So one of the reasons we have so many religions and associated doctrines is to provide a screen behind which we can hide when we go to confront our own inadequacies before God. Just like Adam and Eve tried to hide their inadequacies from God by running and hiding in the trees hoping God would not see them. They did what they thought was “right”, based on the moral code they suddenly discovered by hiding their nakedness, rather than doing what was the good thing-coming to deity with their shame and guilt.

Consciousness in the Reenchanted Reality

US Astronaut Edgar Mitchell wrote an article entitled "Consciousness in the Reenchanted Reality" which appeared in Science and the Reenchantment of the Cosmos by Ervin Laszlo. Dr Mitchell's writes, "The attributes of quantum mechanics that set it apart from Newtonian mechanics are entanglement, quantum correlation, coherence, and non-locality". This observation is very similar to the writings of Dr. Amit Goswami, a theorectical nuclear physicist, whose work was mentioned in an earlier blog.

The idea of quantum correlation is worth discussing in the current time, since recently I have received emails on writings which seem to be struggling with this concept. At the most basic level quantum correlation describes a situation where two extremely small components of matter, for instance photons-although atoms have been experimentally correlated, are linked together, entangled, in such a manner so they share information. Experimentally it has been shown that once they are correlated they are able to be moved apart to distances that exceed the ability of the speed of light, the basic upper limit of rate of travel in the existing material universe, to transfer information.

Information transference becomes important because at this level the correlated items maintain the existing relationship and properties until one of them is changed, and then the other item seems to know about the change because it reflects the appropriate information. For instance, Dr. Goswami (The Self-aware universe, p. 120.) discusses collapsing the wave function of 2 correlated photons via use of a polarization filter. When the first wave collapses via observation through a particular filter the second photon responds to the filter used on the first photon. Physicist Dr. Mani Bhaumik (Code name God, p. 172. ) describes a similar situation with entangled or correlated photons which have no unique properties because they are correlated. When one of the photons is queried about its condition the other photon responds with the complementary property. In both situations the photons respond instantly regardless of distance or time apart. These aspects have been called "quantum wierdness" because they are at odds with our normal everyday experiences of the macro- or Newtonian -world.

What this means to faith appears to be, that faith which links us all together and exists as a function of our being sentient knows no time or distance either. What are the implications if faith is also a wave in the sense of material objects possessing a wave function like the photons above? Because we are all linked we must be able to share each others observations and experiences of the world, given the correct situation. Sometimes this happens through inadvertent circumstances, like a heavy emotional experience, or at other times purposefully like entering an altered state of consciousness through hypnosis or meditation or prayer. Perhaps it is this ability to contact a common experience and sense of the world that allows for creating a global community. Maybe there is only one faith, but many ways to understand it?

Beginning of divisiveness in religious thinking

One of my favorite contemporary songs is Dido's, and it's called White Flag. What brings it to mind is, although it talks about human love it is also appropriate for anyone wanting to talk about a greater love. By this I do not mean to denigrate human love, but rather want to ask a question; What is it that you believe so strongly that you would "go down with the ship" and that there would be "no white flag of surrender over your door"? For me it is the idea of a single faith appearing to us as a number of different religions.

Specifically I think the idea of a special religion begins to appear with the acculturation process. About the age of six people have the ability to operationalize their world and this allows for moving beyond living in a world driven by experience into a world driven by representations of the world. Joseph Chilton Pearce writing in Crack in the Cosmic Egg stated: "We interacted with the real world in our first six years or so through transactive movement of the primary processing. Culture, however, is a set of imaginative expectancies. To interact with the world of our culture we had to create the necessary concepts. Cultureal concepts are abstract creations" (p. 29)

Thus, it is the cultural interpretation of how the world acts that allows us to move one step beyond our basic level of interacting with the world and into a world where reality is a consequence of not what really exists, but what we have learned to interpret as real. The sad part of this, as Pearce goes on to demonstrate, is that we are not even aware of our not being in touch with reality, or even ourselves. The concepts we have developed become the vehicle we use to discuss reality with others, and so over time, they also become the vehicles we use to discuss what is real with ourselves. It becomes so strongly rooted that we are unable to distinguish that we are living based on a construct, an abstract concept, rather than what is actual.

The consequence of this for the western minded has become, to paraphrase Karl Jung, we are sick because we have developed a veneer that keeps us from ourselves, from the real root of our sickness. The thicker the veneer, the more distant we are from ourselves. For us this cure must be the movement of the person back to the self, back to communications with the primary processing capability that began to disappear around six years of age. To do this we employ all sorts of intervention techniques: therapy, regressions, psychedelic drugs, etc. In fact, many people have become quite wealthy leading others on journeys aimed at removing the veneer.

Pearce makes the point however, that any attempt we make to modify the acculturated learnings merely impacts another layer of the culture and re-energizes the system. Cosequently, we are not able to change the system by these various attempts that bring us back to the culture and this is what started me thinking about Dido's song. Perhaps if we can identify something in our lives that we hold to be so valuable that we will not surrender it, we can begin the process of cracking the egg of culture. Once the crack has appeared we can slowly widen the crack and see the world for what it is, a culture with specific values and limits, and the impact of the transgressor on the culture.

What is it that you believe so strongly that there will be no white flag above your grave, that is so important to you that you will go down with the ship? For me it is the awareness that faith in something greater than the self drives the crack in the egg, not the interpretation of the various religions.

Heroes as Transgressors

“The body is responsible for an intricate network of psychological negotiations to preserve us as we are. But we have been made to believe that our body is constantly tempting us with its desire—when it is the soul that will not settle for the body’s meaningless sacrifices, and it is the soul that is responsible for boldness, daring, risk-taking, and transgression” (p. 49). Thus states Brazilian Rabbi Nilton Bonder in his book Our Immoral Soul: A Manifesto of Spiritual Disobedience.

Rabbi Bonder makes the point that it is not the staid members of a culture that contribute to the redefinition and re-energizing of the culture. Rather it is the transgressors who are able to hear or see or feel another perspective from the voice of deity than the one that is constantly being heard by the masses. Indeed, it is the person who understands a different interpretation of reality that allows for the civilization to move forward rather than remaining the same for generations. People are not redeemed for performing the same activity in the same way over generations. Instead, people are uplifted by behaving in ways that energize the soul and help the body respond to divine directive, whether the response has a cultural blessing or not.

These people are the risk takers. And notably, it is only the risk takers who are able to re-construct the civilization in the present and for the future. Years ago while researching Chaos Theory I discovered some articles linking Chaos Theory and Medical outcome. Specifically, one of the reports focused on the importance of chaos versus random or consistent heartbeat helping the person to stay healthy. As it turned out in the article if the heartbeat is random it will cause death. If it is consistent and repetitious it is also dangerous to health. Apparently, the best type of beat for the heart is one based on a little chaos (very minor but measureable variations over time) in the beat so that everything is not the same from beat to beat.

Variation from the expected norm allows the person to prosper in terms of health and also in terms of moving humanity along. The great leaders who influenced the world have essentially been people who called us to redefine the meaning of doing what’s right and challenged them to do what’s good. Sometimes, as Rabbi Bonder contended, this movement to do the good meant not doing what is right, as when Abraham did not sacrifice Isaac, the right thing, but presented an offering provided by deity because he heard another voice than the one from his culture.

This type of action required not only the ability to stand against convention, but also to reach into the conventional interpretation and reframe it, literally to hear another voice than his peers. He stepped outside of what was right, the offering, and did what is good. The result was the beginning of the Jewish community. And this is exactly what our faith calls us to do—to step outside our comfort zone, to hear another voice, to act on that voice, and redefine what our culture perceives as its future. Faith empowers risk, transgression, and forgiveness. It’s our choice whether to perform the good at the cost of the right.

Hesitating in conversation - faith in action

When reaching the end of our rope with another person, it is really easy to forget that the rope is of infinite length with places to hold on to so we can rest between tuggings. The rest stops on the rope help us to ask one very basic question before we respond to a situation: Do I need to think before I answer?

Most of the time, I find, it is easier not to ask myself that question. I just want to get out of me, whatever it is that arose never considering intentionality of the other person. And here's the interesting part - even if I do not know the intentionality, I act upon my interpretation of the intentionality. My internal systems act based upon my instantaneous imputation of motive into a single isolated event and occasionally like everyone else, I’m right. So I hold on to the times I have been correct and forget about the vastly larger numbers of times I have been wrong.

Some studies indicate people process information on an unconscious level in about .1 - .2 second. (We have received input and are ready to respond within this period of time, regardless of our consciousness of the input.) However, we process in a conscious way in about .5 seconds. (We can determine the content of the input in a conscious manner.) So whatever issues I have operating in the background, they will be part of my unconscious response, if I do not hesitate – even if my perceptions are incorrect.

I remember learning many years ago in junior college psychology class that pipe smokers were considered more intellectual and objective than non-pipe smokers. Of course the answer eluded us for a while until we could observe a pipe smoker in action. One of the students asked the smoker a question and he answered AFTER pausing and puffing on his pipe. We, as did other people, assumed he was thinking about the question. He wasn’t. He was smoking the pipe. However, we attributed a quality to the behavior and so drew some additional, and incorrect, conclusions.

In terms of faith the key is the future of the relationship. It is about being able to return to difficult and divisive issues time and again without damaging the relationship itself. My hesitation shows my willingness to give credence to the points and suppositions of the other. Even if it is only the pipe smoker in action, since we have all hesitated at one point or another when we have wanted to say something, we give the hesitation a quality of thoughtfulness and purposefulness helping to strengthen the moment from both sides. It ceases to be a moment of argumentation, but rather becomes a moment of possibilities or potentialities that draw us together into the movements of a greater dance.

In this instance my faith causes me to act upon the infinite possibilities of a future relationship. It is kept alive because of my choice to hesitate despite my intent to do something. And it seems faith is like this: it allows the option of an alternative choice when circumstances see not an infinite set, but a calculable number with anticipated outcomes. In these situations faith raises its head and sees beyond the horizon of conscious perception into the vastness still being formed.

A friend forwarded this short video about the importance of hesitation, 6 and 1/2 minutes. Please enjoy.
http://jonathanfields.com/blog/do-you-realize-what-your-words-can-do/

Familiarity of Faith

Amazing isn’t it. How when you’re going to write about something for your next entry and someone sends you a note and suddenly your focus for the entry changes. This is exactly what happened today. I thought I wanted to talk about faith (duh, what’s the name of the website) but also a specific aspect of faith—pausing before responding to another person’s comments and how this demonstrates faith. But the exchange told me that what I really wanted to present for consideration was familiarity of faith.

By familiarity of faith I mean the perception that we have faith in something simply because we expect it to be a particular way since it has always been that way. Think about the sun rising in the morning. In all of our collective experiences it has always happened. Collectively we all agree that it will happen again when morning arrives. But that’s the circular reasoning since morning is when the sun rises and that’s how we define morning. There is a danger here of missing the focus. It is not really faith in the sun rising tomorrow. It is the expectation we hold that it will happen: assumed, assured, and predictable. Where is the faith?

There is no faith involved in this aspect of our perception. It is an assumption existing independently of our actual faith activities and adventures. Perhaps as children we questioned our parents or teachers about the sun rising in the morning and were told to have faith and it will happen. At what point did we cease having faith in the sun rising and it became a banal statement of expectation? How did we move from expectancy and involvement of faith into a world where personal involvement was not necessary and we still called it faith?

The major religions of the world, or some call them faiths, teach an interesting formula of involvement and detachment for faith to occur. Faith requires the looking forward to possible outcomes and the perception that the specifics have already occurred. This allows for both detachment and involvement but they are used to moderate each other, not to define them. This is where the problem with familiarity of faith occurs. The detachment exists, but it is not truly detachment it is rather a type of unrecognized boredom that has no content of interaction with the future. The involvement that brings my expectation of outcomes is not part of the process. The future is perceived as the status quo moving forward in time just as each day moves forward, but there is no expectancy of different possible outcomes.

As a result, mountains remain where they are. Students of religion and disciples of dogma doubt the reality of the miracles occurring in other faiths; unfortunately this perception contaminates even their own.

Adding a couple of days to the faith

Sharing my challenges as I go through this recovery period is proving more interesting and challenging than I had thought it would be. My guess was that I'd have some pain and discomfort for a few days and then a couple of weeks of healing while gradually returning to my normal activities, minus riding my motorcycle. Unfortunately this is not how it's been going. I had a follow-up visit, unscheduled, today because of an unexplained swelling in my neck.

In terms of tearing into my faith about recovery, the "we don't know what this is, but need to watch it for a few days" is more destructive than "we need to get you into surgery right now" which declares knowledge and approach leading to cure. It honestly is the not knowing what is happening versus what should be happening, since I went through this once before with flying colors that causes discomfiture. Seems to me the point of faith, that we all share, is that knowing reduces discontinuity or conflict within ourselves. Knowing what to do and what the outcome could be puts pieces of a puzzle in place. This allows us to construct scenarios around resolving our fears, at least for me it seems to.

And ultimately this is the problem, or challenge, or hope that each of us has to live with -- that the possibilities of outcome can be substantially limited and thereby allowing us to address the issue at hand, recovery. One of the issues that this scenario drives for me is the question of faith in god for salvation. Certainly accepting that whatever I'm doing will result in salvation, or immortality of soul, reduces my inner conflict and provides a vehicle where I can objectivize my behavior against an external standard and proclaim, "See I earned it. It's mine by right and privilege".

In my current situation, I can not point to some objective activity and say, I've earned this healing which I am due, since I did not do anything except to let the possibilities of healing within the natural universe take charge as they should, therefore I have no obligation due me. If I had fervently prayed for healing, or meditated to a healing program, or even just sat quietly and let divine energy flow over me, this would have been something. Yet I did none of these because my faith said it will work according to God’s plan.

And that’s the bummer. I gave it up to God’s plan, to the consciousness of the universe for an outcome that I held to be favorable. Only now that something I did not expect to be present has happened, what justification for MY desired outcome is there? The universe is filled with an infinite multitude of possible outcomes for my situation. Faith is my ability to see that despite this impossible number of outcomes, those that will develop are those that will allow me to continue along this mortal path until the next situation triggers my wonderment and caution about how to employ my faith for something other than fear of an unknown outcome.

When Faith is the same for us all

Over the last 20 years I have been involved with 5 Motor Vehicle Accidents that did a tremendous amount of damage. In addition I was also involved in an earthquake injury that created more problems related to head trauma and loss of personal awareness. Each of these insults to the brain produced aspects of personality shifts which had to be corrected before I could return to my business work. Fortunately for me when the disruptions occurred, I had enough mental health resources and knowing how the system worked to request the help I needed.

The physicians I requested hfelp from included: Psychiatrists, psychologists, mental health counselors, neuro-psychologists, primary care physician. Additional people I had to include were the Washington State organization for on the job accidents, my private insurance company, and the insurance company of the other people involved in the claim. In each situation the problem became more difficult because who is responsible for what portion of the claim is very ambiguous with pre-existing injuries. As an example, with the first head injury there was little problem attributing the injury to that driver at a 100% likelihood that she created the problem with residual effects that I had.

The second accident I was 85% recovered from the first accident. Now the doctor’s had to split the cause of the injury from his car to my car and body and subtract out the amount of damage that was related to the previous accident and re-aggravated by the second accident. On top of this the doctors had to guess how long the injuries would last and the probability of getting well from these new injuries and associated prior existing injuries. Ultimately no one can do this so it becomes a matter of the hierarchical structuring of the most talented physician and the physicians discipline that adds or deletes authority to the inquiry.

Having been through multiple iterations of these little operas and dramas, I have pretty well left the legal issues in my attorney’s hands and try to continue to work, which means that I couldn’t have been hurt seriously because if I were hurt seriously I could not be working. On the other side of the issue, is that to take time off from work means that you a not really injured that badly, only that you are trying to fluff up the claim to get more money. Anecdotally I’m sure some of this must go on. However, most of the studies which I had researched until a few years earlier showed quite the opposites.

Fifteen years earlier I went through a similar, but more technically challenging surgery, as the one I had on 9/8. Despite all my good intentions and expected outcomes, based on previous history, I can’t get from hurting to healing. I’m hold up in my house with little I can do to relieve the stress or the boredom. Since it is neck surgery the doc said it will be three months before I can ride my motorcycle again. I made plans to spend a lot of time reading, but with shooting pains interrupting my thinking that is not working either.

I wanted to share my experience in this matter, since it is only my faith that is getting me through this crazy-making time. And I suspect that I am not the only one involved in this circle of life that has given over everything to their faith.

Would be interested in hearing how you have applied you faith to a real world dilemma.

Onward and upward through Faith

What did he mean when paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin spoke of a consciousness underpinning the direction of evolution? Could he have been talking of a compromise between the Cartesian split of domains of knowledge? Or was he, as a Roman Catholic priest, trying to describe some other aspect of creation?

As it turns out de Chardin was speaking of his version of the creation story and its impact on the human race. In his mind, consciousness imbued all of creation with a sense of energy or direction to evolution. He tried to expand upon Darwin’s idea in The Origin of the Species that discussed the movement of creation to ever more complex life forms. For Darwin there was a distinct energy to creation which allowed his theory to account for the “purpose” of evolution. It was no longer enough to document the fossil records and the speciation process he found in the isolated Galapogos Islands. Putting the two ideas together, along with his drawings and his data from observation, he made a strong argument for the constant “improvement” of the earth species into more complex and better adapted creatures.
De Chardin, as a paleontologist understood the importance of this gap in Darwin’s reasoning. Indeed, Darwin had made conclusions which seemed to point to an upward course of development, but he could not explain what was driving the process. Seeming cogent arguments invariably lead back to some source external to materialism as the underpinning force. Even today there is neither philosophical nor physical justification in materialism--based on recent discoveries in quantum--for linkage between an individual’s brain and the same individual’s consciousness. Even discussions of epiphenomena (secondary aspects) of the brain as a justification for consciousness seem incapable to objectively describing differences in consciousness; such as, dreaming, non-dreaming, daydreaming, and “paranormal phenomena”.
For Teilhard consciousness underlay this movement to higher and higher complexity and it was self-evident, or nearly so. One had only to look at the increasing levels of complexity in the materialistic arguments for creation of the universe to see the presence of a force driving evolution. Although there was no “Big Bang”, as we understand it today, when he was developing his theory our present knowledge supports much of his argument. In terms of creation it starts with temperature & something. Then as expansion occurs and temperatures drop the traditional process occurs: sub-atomic particles yield atoms, which yield molecules, which yield compounds, which yield etc. until the planets and the universe exist as we currently know them. This movement to complexity seemed guided to him, just as it did for Darwin.
However, de Chardin goes a step further. As a scientist, he recognized that, if there were indeed a direction to creation, it had to lead somewhere. As a priest, he recognized that the direction was to the Omega Point, the crowning point of creation. This point had two components. First humanity would continue to improve and evolve until we effectively ruled out war and discord as solutions. We would work together in a greater community not unlike the early Star Trek episodes which occurred after his death. The second part was that as this occurred Christ would return to lead the universe. And this would be the glory of this consciousness’s leading—a time of peace, caring, and glorification of the human occurring through the process of evolution being driven by divine guidance.

World Religion or World Faith - Is there a difference

Not certain how anyone else feels about this, but it seems to me there is a significant difference between faith and religion? Discussions about a world religion generally set me back a couple of paces. The idea that someone or some governmental entity would be dictating to me the set of religious doctrines to believe creates a nearly instant resistance. I’m not talking about the “world religion” as mentioned in Christian Bible as "The Book of Revelation”, although there is certainly personal concern if it were to happen. Nor is this a reference to a cycle process like in Hinduism and Janism where we will all voluntarily return to a terrific relationship with the creator as the cycles work through to conclusion. There is just something in the gut that reacts to the idea of a prescribed set of beliefs.

The idea of a world faith feels less defined to me. It tells of a personal experience and how that is interpreted and integrated by the person having it. And it need not even have a set of beliefs associated with it. Interestingly, faith does not even relate to a higher power, in the traditional sense. For instance, while in the military, I had many friends in the Marine Corps. For them the “higher power” was membership in the Corps, when all else failed “Semper Fi”. This is where their faith resided. It made them strong in character, hopeful in spirit, and trusting outside of themselves. So faith needn’t be tied to religion or lack of religion.

These qualities of strength, hope, and trust seem to be what allows a person to move forward with his or her life. Miss one and the future seems lost. To accept adversity and success with equal grace must be a mark of a well-centered and present-focused person. I don’t think we get these qualities from religion, do you?