Smaller than an atom, larger than the Universe

[serai]

.

Over the course of my life, my views on religion and what most people call "God" has changed and evolved. I was raised as a nominal Catholic. I and my siblings attended Catholic schools mainly because my parents felt (quite rightly) that the level of education we would get there far surpassed that of the public schools, even here in California, which in the 60's and 70's was at the top of the nation for children's education. My father has always been an atheist, and my mother, while religious, was very private about it, and rarely spoke on the subject. So my early encounter with religion was almost all based on what I was as an intrusion by outside authorities. Not always an unwanted intrusion, mind, but still an outside influence.

From the first, my most intense religious feeling was directed toward the female figures of religion - the Virgin Mary and her retinue of lady saints. The male figures of Catholicism did not offer me any spiritual nourishment, but rather imposed rules that I resented. The one exception was Jesus, who seemed in his downtrodden and ultimately sacrificial state to be much closer to the female figures than to the all-powerful, arrogant, and deeply unpleasant being claimed as his father, whom I had no liking for at all. Jesus seemed alright to me. True, he had a bit of a temper, could sometimes be unreasonable (that poor fig tree!), and at times flew off the handle, but by and large he was compassionate and at least paid women some attention (unlike his disciples, who mostly seemed like assholes).

As a teenager, I grew completely disillusioned with Catholicism, and by the time I was 19 had left it behind completely. Thanks to the good graces of a friend of mine, I came into contact with the Goddess. It was like coming home (the main image invoked by all people who find their own spiritual path), and I never looked back. After some years, I began to broaden my views, and read up on other religions such as Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, and other faiths, coming to understand that there is value in all faiths - they all have something to teach us, each in its own way. That's the great value of being a polytheist; it makes spiritual truth a much more universal thing. All gods and goddesses finally come to be seen simply as facets of an unknowable truth, something we humans will never be able to grasp fully, so it becomes logical that there are so many different ways to think about this subject. I went from Catholicism's "Our way is the only right way" to "You have something different? Please tell me about it!" Much more comfortable, interesting, and entertaining, as well as convivial.

And somewhere in there I made my peace with Jesus, whom after study of different faiths I recognized as another incarnation of the Sacrificed God, the son of the goddess, Dionysus of the Greeks, John Barleycorn, Osiris, all of whom are cut down to nourish the people. He is another of the Great Teachers, who has evolved through the centuries. I was especially delighted when I read about his similarities to the Buddha, how close their outlooks on life are, and how even the stories told about them are related. Did you know the story of Jesus walking on the water was being told about the Buddha three hundred years before Jesus was born? It's the exact same story, even down to what the Buddha says to the disciple who tries to follow.

All this because I'd like to present a wonderful interview that I just heard online. Terry Gross speaks with Karen Armstrong, a former nun who has been writing about world religions for many years now, with intelligence, grace, and a remarkable evenhandedness. She has a new book out called The Case for God, in which she argues that what many people think of as religion these days is really a very modern invention, something that has developed only over the last couple of centuries. She speaks here about the history of that, and about the problems inherent in treating religion as is it were the literal clinging to incredible fairy tales that so many characterize it as, and how it is imperative that a vision of religion, both older and newer, arise in the world, a vision that sees religion as not a literalist replacement for factual knowledge, but a poetic and metaphorical way of viewing the deeper problems of life, and a compassionate guide for how to deal with one another. Serving the needs of others rather than serving our own beliefs.

The Case for God - Karen Armstrong interview


I know there are some folks on my list who identify as atheists, and I would very much like for those folks to listen to this interview. NOT because I have any interest in changing anyone's beliefs - we pagans do not proselytize, thanks - but because it saddens me to hear so many people talking as if all religious people hold the same simplistic, childish, literal view that has dominated the discussions of religion in the media for the last couple of decades. Really, we're not all fools believing in Santa Claus. Many of us understand that religion is simply a map of the world, and not the world itself. The Buddha exhorted his followers to take care never to confuse the finger with the moon it points towards; if that were a lesson that was taught to every child, the world would be a much better place.

Enjoy!

Comments

[serai1.livejournal.com]

You're welcome. She's a wonderful writer. I found her books on the Buddha and Islam very useful.

[lindmere.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the interesting thoughts and links. I've read two of Karen Armstrong's books and enjoyed them both.

I'm one of those atheists, and I appreciate your call for a more nuanced definition of what constitutes religion. I also know that you share my love for Carl Sagan, so I'll reference his lament that none of the major religions have actively embraced science. I would love to see what a religion looked like that embraces what we know about the scope and complexity of the universe. Unfortunately, most newly minted religions take the same world-rejecting view as the old ones. Perhaps this situation will change in the coming decades, especially as like-minded people find each other on the Internet. I doubt I will ever be in the market for a God belief, but if I were, I think I would be disappointed at the moldy old inventory on the shelves.

[serai1.livejournal.com]

Actually, while Catholicism does not take the scientific view as being above its own in describing the world, it has been far more congenial towards science than the Protestant forms of Christianity, especially in the 20th century. John Paul II was pretty regressive, but John XXIII was much more inclusive, and set the Church on the path of modernization and open dialogue. My own love of and curiosity about science was inspired by two of the Sisters who taught me in school - Sister Judith, a lovely young nun with a very sweet disposition, and Sister Lucida, an older lady who taught my sixth grade class. She especially was well-versed in science, spoke about it as the ultimate tool to understand God's world, and NOT in that silly revisionist way that fundies claim. She was up on all the latest developments, and happily taught us about evolution, saying that it was remarkable how much we were learning about the incredibly complex way God worked in the world. She never contradicted the validity of scientific knowledge, but rejoiced in it. It was from her that I learned that science and religion do not have to be in conflict at all, but can support and complement each other beautifully, so long as we approach each with humility and openness.

That's the spirit with which I went on to approach science. I always wished I could have been a scientist, but the way my mind works never fit with those disciplines. I'm more artistically inclined, which is why I never left religion behind, I think. I'm more comfortable with metaphor than with logic; I prefer paradoxy to orthodoxy. To me it's just as accurate to say the Universe was birthed out of the Goddess's body as it is to say that it came into existence through a stupendous burst of energy which began the process of space/time. One is just a way of expressing the other, as is saying it all happened because God said, "Let there be light." For me, it's all one and the same, because while science works on proof of facts, religion works on elegance of image; they cover different territories, but they are all maps of the same land.

One of the reasons I loved, and still revere, Carl so much is that, while he had his way of viewing things, he never looked down on others for their way, so long as they didn't succumb to nonsense. He studied philosophy and religion as part of a well-rounded education, understanding that even if he didn't believe it, it was still part of our common human heritage and deserved attention. How can you argue about the world with someone if you know nothing of their views? In his book Contact, he had that wonderful line about Buddhism, "The Buddhists believe their god is so great, He doesn't even need to exist," which made me laugh out loud with its gracious humor and exact knowledge. He always said he understood the impulse to religion, even if he couldn't share it. That is an attitude I try to emulate, even if I often fail. (In my own defense, I'll say that it isn't people's religious beliefs I object to, but the cultural trappings that are often overlaid on them, and the ugly impulses those trappings can nurture and encourage.)

[lindmere.livejournal.com]

Actually, while Catholicism does not take the scientific view as being above its own in describing the world, it has been far more congenial towards science than the Protestant forms of Christianity, especially in the 20th century.

The Catholic Church certainly learned a long, slow lesson from coming down on the wrong side of the Copernican question, and eventually pardoned Galileo (I remember this quip from Mark Russell: "Isn't it typical? You put a criminal in jail and he's back on the street 400 years later.") However, Protestantism covers a broad spectrum, and I'm aware (thanks to having it hammered into me by 1,400,000 pages of Neal Stephenson's Quicksilver) that the Reformation was key to the scientific revolution in the Age of Reason. Newton himself was a fire-breathing Puritan. The Reformation idea was that, like the Bible in English, the wonder of God's work should be accessible to all, and scientific investigation, far from being discouraged, was a kind of worship.

I'm not sure I agree, however that not rejecting the evidence of science is the same as embracing it. However universal its themes, the Bible reflects a 2,000-year-old perspective in which much of the Earth was still unknown, let alone space, the microscopic and macroscopic universes, and of course all of modern physics. Hence my interest in seeing what a contemporary, science-based religion would come up with in the way of metaphors. (I agree with you that cosmogonic myths are among the most beautiful of human faith constructs.)

I'm more comfortable with metaphor than with logic; I prefer paradoxy to orthodoxy.

That's beautifully put, and like Carl, I also appreciate the impulse toward a more poetic and descriptive view of the world; our minds are formed for metaphors. To me one of the tragedies of modern science is that it is no longer comprehensible by even a well-educated person. The Newtonian world of simple geometry and immutable laws accords well with our desire for pattern and certainty. I find myself nostalgic for the Bohr particle model I grew up with; I try to understand string theory but find it confusing and incomprehensible!

I think your idea (or Carl's) of religion-as-metaphor, a sort of pantheism that recognizes parallel descriptive stories for the physical universe, is much more viable than Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria." The problem with declaring that science governs this realm, and religion that one, is that science's territory keeps expanding. Within a few decades we will be augmenting our brains; we are already, through the Internet, becoming part of a collective mind in ways that I don't think we realize. Our future selves may not even perceive the same universe that we do, and will no doubt need new stories to make sense of it.

[txvoodoo.livejournal.com]

That's really fascinating.

I love Terry Gross, also. She's delightful

[serai1.livejournal.com]

I'm glad you enjoyed it!

Terry is definitely one of the best interviewers out there. She knows her subject matter, and is always engaged and interested. A refreshing change from the shallow and/or arrogant manner of so many interviewers these days.