christianity, pluralism, and the problem of multiple revelations

[FireDragon76]

Recently I have just become dissatisfied with Christian religious life. I suppose the issue for me is authority- I just don't see good evidence that any Christian denomination has an infallible understanding of spiritual truth. And yet, I don't think western atheism is a good answer either, it throws out too much that I take for granted, particularly its reliance upon scientism. In fact the more I dig deeper into who I am, the more I realize I have a decided distaste for western culture, spiritually and intellectually. That makes me even less inclined towards western atheism.

I am also confronted by the reality that there are many religions in the world that also have claims about the nature of human existence and the path to salvation or liberation. I have some familiarity with both Buddhism and Hindusm, having practiced Yoga in the past and also Buddhism. I practiced Zen meditation but I'm also very familiar with Pure Land teachings. (years ago when I had a serious cancer scare I took refuge in the Buddha and studied the Japanese-American Pure Land tradition, even planning to visit the Ekoji Temple in Fairfax, VA at one time to attend a service there). Japanese Shin (Pure Land) Buddhism and Yoga are both non-exclusivistic spiritual traditions.

I came away years later from that, conflicted because I didn't know what to do with my Christian heritage and my Christian spiritual experiences. Rejecting Christianity definitely would leave me completely alienated from the wider culture and a religious community, for practical purposes.

Simply, the spiritual experiences of other religions are hard to dismiss (people do have life changing spiritual experiences in other religions, and there are also claims of miracle workers and healers in many religions), and it's hard to be impressed by the exclusive claims of Christianity anymore.

The only website I've really seen talking about the problems presented by modern religious pluralistic experiences that doesn't drive towards materialist secularism is something like this: Subversive Thinking: Christian exclusivism, religious pluralism, religious experiences, near death experiences and parapsychology

 

[Paradoxum]

And yet, I don't think western atheism is a good answer either, it throws out too much that I take for granted, particularly its reliance upon scientism.

Why don't you think it's a good answer? What does it throw out?

Atheism has nothing to do with scientism. I'm an atheist, and I wouldn't say I'm a scientism-ist (or whatever the term is).

In fact the more I dig deeper into who I am, the more I realize I have a decided distaste for western culture, spiritually and intellectually. That makes me even less inclined towards western atheism.

What about western culture don't you like?

Simply, the spiritual experiences of other religions are hard to dismiss (people do have life changing spiritual experiences in other religions, and there are also claims of miracle workers and healers in many religions), and it's hard to be impressed by the exclusive claims of Christianity anymore.

When I was a Christian I thought similar things. I came to a position of inclusive Christianity, where people of different religions worship the true God, and God acts for them, even though everyone's theology might not be right.

Of course I eventually became an atheist, since there's no reason to think it's God, rather than psychology (among other reasons).

 

[FireDragon76]

Of course I eventually became an atheist, since there's no reason to think it's God, rather than psychology (among other reasons).

Reducing religious experience to psychological explanations is precisely the stuff of western secularism.

What do I not like about Western culture? It's triumphalistic, reductionistic, exploitative, atomistic, and materialistic (even in the religious forms).

Out of curiosity, what made you reject religious pluralism? Some theologians like John Hick are perfectly satisfied with that explanation and don't reject belief in God as a result- they have an expanded understanding of God, that's all.

 

[Received]

What makes you think any single denomination is even capable (epistemically, experientially) of grasping Christianity?

 

[hedrick]

Why would you expect any denomination to have an infallible understanding? I would suggest that you look at the Gospels and ask yourself what Jesus was trying to do. Does it look like he was trying to teach a set of infallible doctrines? Or does it look like he was trying to help people develop a certain type of life, based on various principles that he taught?

It seems to me that his teaching, somewhat in the style of certain Zen teachers, was often focused more on creating a certain kind of understanding than conveying information. Though he certainly did covert information as well.

This makes comparing Christianity with other religions challenging. There certainly are differences in ideas: whether God is personal or impersonal, how separate he is from the world and how he is involved, what kind of relationship we have with him, what the basis of our actions is. How you evaluate that will depend upon a number of things, including your own experience, your evaluations of the communities, and your evaluation of historical evidence.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Recently I have just become dissatisfied with Christian religious life. I suppose the issue for me is authority- I just don't see good evidence that any Christian denomination has an infallible understanding of spiritual truth. And yet, I don't think western atheism is a good answer either, it throws out too much that I take for granted, particularly its reliance upon scientism. In fact the more I dig deeper into who I am, the more I realize I have a decided distaste for western culture, spiritually and intellectually. That makes me even less inclined towards western atheism.

I am also confronted by the reality that there are many religions in the world that also have claims about the nature of human existence and the path to salvation or liberation. I have some familiarity with both Buddhism and Hindusm, having practiced Yoga in the past and also Buddhism. I practiced Zen meditation but I'm also very familiar with Pure Land teachings. (years ago when I had a serious cancer scare I took refuge in the Buddha and studied the Japanese-American Pure Land tradition, even planning to visit the Ekoji Temple in Fairfax, VA at one time to attend a service there). Japanese Shin (Pure Land) Buddhism and Yoga are both non-exclusivistic spiritual traditions.

I came away years later from that, conflicted because I didn't know what to do with my Christian heritage and my Christian spiritual experiences. Rejecting Christianity definitely would leave me completely alienated from the wider culture and a religious community, for practical purposes.

Simply, the spiritual experiences of other religions are hard to dismiss (people do have life changing spiritual experiences in other religions, and there are also claims of miracle workers and healers in many religions), and it's hard to be impressed by the exclusive claims of Christianity anymore.

The only website I've really seen talking about the problems presented by modern religious pluralistic experiences that doesn't drive towards materialist secularism is something like this: Subversive Thinking: Christian exclusivism, religious pluralism, religious experiences, near death experiences and parapsychology

I was in a very similar (though still different) position a few years ago -- dissatisfied with religion in general, and many of the doctrines of Christianity in particular, but unable to bring myself to the point of accepting that I was an atheist, even though I no longer believed. Like you, I wasn't impressed by what I considered "western atheism," and I held certain preconceptions about what being an atheist meant (e.g., nihilism, moral relativism, etc). As I learned more, mainly by speaking to people who were atheists, those preconceptions were gradually dislodged, and I could accept that I was an atheist, and that it was okay to admit that. I remember when I first admitted it out loud to my partner -- the relief I felt to finally tell someone what I really thought, to end the charade. The only thing that worried me back then, and still worries me now, was the prospect of being alienated from the communities in which I was a member. I didn't want people to look at me differently just because I no longer believed in God, but of course, many people did. They held the same preconceptions about atheism (and atheists) that I once held.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Reducing religious experience to psychological explanations is precisely the stuff of western secularism.

I don't see why that is problematic for you. Even moral and aesthetic experiences can be explained in terms of the mind and the brain. Why should religious experiences be any different? As Ramanchandran points out, the fact that the experience of love can be explained in psychological terms does not, in any way, diminish the experience itself.

 

[Paradoxum]

Reducing religious experience to psychological explanations is precisely the stuff of western secularism.

And reducing sickness to natural causes (not spirits) is also the stuff of western medicine. I'm not sure how saying something is western is are argument against it. If we happened to get it right, we got it right.

Religious experience being psychological probably is the most reasonable explanation. What's your problem with that? And with atheism?

What do I not like about Western culture? It's triumphalistic, reductionistic, exploitative, atomistic, and materialistic (even in the religious forms).

What does triumphalistic mean, and why is it bad? Is it thinking we are the best culture? I don't think you can deny that western culture (in terms of things like science, democracy, rights, freedom, medicine, etc) has been the best in recent times. Perhaps Japanese culture could be considered close to western culture.

What do you mean by reductionistic? Science... which works?

Exploitative... perhaps. What do you mean by that.

What do you mean by atomistic? I agree there could be better community, but I'd rather be free with less community, than oppressed with more community.

I agree with your materialistic accusation to some extent. Money and objects aren't everything, and we probably care about them too much.

Out of curiosity, what made you reject religious pluralism? Some theologians like John Hick are perfectly satisfied with that explanation and don't reject belief in God as a result- they have an expanded understanding of God, that's all.

I'm not totally sure what you mean by religious pluralism. Having no particular religion, but accepting all of them?

Maybe if I'd stayed Christian I would have become more pluralist. The reason I was still Christian was because I still thought Jesus was the incarnation of God, and that he was important for salvation. So my opinion was that all good people worshipped and followed Jesus to some extent... they just don't know it.

In the end I saw no reason to believe in God or Christianity though.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't see why that is problematic for you. Even moral and aesthetic experiences can be explained in terms of the mind and the brain. Why should religious experiences be any different? As Ramanchandran points out, the fact that the experience of love can be explained in psychological terms does not, in any way, diminish the experience itself.

I am not a western atheist. I can accept many things that would be considered paranormal and most atheists would reject them. I definitely believe in some kind of survival of the self after death. I believe in the validity of "miracles", and so on. My issues is that I realize Christianity is not as unique as most Christians claim.

Reducing love to biochemicals in the brain is precisely the sort of thing that is anathema. Because then it makes scientific explanations the measure of all things. And that's deeply disturbing, because science is often incomplete.

 

[FireDragon76]

And reducing sickness to natural causes (not spirits) is also the stuff of western medicine. I'm not sure how saying something is western is are argument against it. If we happened to get it right, we got it right.

You'll get no affirmation from me on this point, as someone who has successfully used acupuncture and Chinese medicine. There's something holistic about traditional medical systems that is lacking in the western counterpart, that, even if all your problems cannot be "solved" by the healer, then at least all your person is addressed moreso.

I'm not totally sure what you mean by religious pluralism. Having no particular religion, but accepting all of them?

Yes, I believe many religions have positive things to teach humanity about what it means to live well, and I find the contempt of many Christians toward other religions, unwarranted.

I do believe Jesus Christ was unique in human history... but at the moment I have trouble understanding how the insights of other faiths are negated as a result.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I am not a western atheist. I can accept many things that would be considered paranormal and most atheists would reject them.

What's a "western atheist" exactly?

I definitely believe in some kind of survival of the self after death. I believe in the validity of "miracles", and so on. My issues is that I realize Christianity is not as unique as most Christians claim.

Of course it's not. There are many varieties of religion, and even many varieties of Christianity.

Reducing love to biochemicals in the brain is precisely the sort of thing that is anathema. Because then it makes scientific explanations the measure of all things.

In what does finding a scientific explanation for some phenomenon diminish that phenomenon? Our scientific understanding tells us that we are apes. It also tells us that we are made of molecules, and even further, that we are made of atoms. Has the entire human condition been reduced to atoms? No! Is the beauty of a rainbow diminished by our understanding of the physical principles of light? No. Is a star made less wondrous by our knowledge that its light has travelled centuries, millennia even, to reach our eyes? No. Isn't it just the opposite? With that knowledge, you see not only a cold, pale flicker of light in the night sky, but so much more -- you see time and space stretch before you, as the vastness of the cosmos makes itself plain.

And that's deeply disturbing, because science is often incomplete.

And religion is complete? You seem to admit that it too isn't complete. The difference, however, that while most scientists acknowledge basic fallibilism, many religions do not. They pretend to be complete in every respect, denying even the possibility that their doctrines could be in error.

 

[FireDragon76]

Why would you expect any denomination to have an infallible understanding? I would suggest that you look at the Gospels and ask yourself what Jesus was trying to do. Does it look like he was trying to teach a set of infallible doctrines? Or does it look like he was trying to help people develop a certain type of life, based on various principles that he taught?

Hedrick, I really respect your point of view. I'm glad you are addressing this thread.

When I read Jesus words... I honestly don't find any local Christian churches that embody them particularly well. I think the liberal Christian point of view is headed in the right direction, but few of the churches I know locally really embody this kind of vision. They are steeped very much in the evangelical Protestant mold. I live in the American South, and evangelical religion here is the norm. And yet it's the kind of parochial, tribalist religion I think that is most incompatible with my own lived experiences and how I would understand Jesus.

I have thought possibly of Quakers as one group I could affiliate with, though I also see a place for rituals that Quakers generally do not. However, I am really at odds with the Constantinian nature of mainstream Protestant/Catholic faith, especially the emphasis on creedalism and tribalism. Like the Quakers, I tend to see everyone as having something "of God" in them, an Inner Light, that God is available to everyone in their own way. I don't believe one must believe in Jesus or spend eternity in hell- I don't believe mere intellectual assent to Christian truth-claims saves us, either. Most of the sentiments on this forum by Christians are unrecognizeable by me. There's far too much polemical, un-Christ-like debating and acrimony, and I see that as an outgrowth of toxic religious culture.

 

[Paradoxum]

You'll get no affirmation from me on this point, as someone who has successfully used acupuncture and Chinese medicine. There's something holistic about traditional medical systems that is lacking in the western counterpart, that, even if all your problems cannot be "solved" by the healer, then at least all your person is addressed moreso.

If these treatments worked, there would be evidence that they worked, and become part of normal medicine.

If they aren't part of normal medicine, I see no reason to think they work. They could be just coincidence, or placebo.

Whether something is holistic is irrelevant. What matters is if it works.

If you have to pick whether to live your whole life without normal medicine, or without Chinese medicine, which would you pick.

Yes, I believe many religions have positive things to teach humanity about what it means to live well, and I find the contempt of many Christians toward other religions, unwarranted.

Some religions have some positive things to say. I'd say that the world would be better without religion though. The positive aspects could be kept without the religious aspects.

I do believe Jesus Christ was unique in human history... but at the moment I have trouble understanding how the insights of other faiths are negated as a result.

That's fair enough.

So what's your problem with atheism?

 

[FireDragon76]

If these treatments worked, there would be evidence that they worked, and become part of normal medicine.

Or maybe prejudice against non-western worldviews prevents many people from honestly evaluating them. For centuries Chinese were regarded as inferior by westerners, barbarians in need of enlightenment (look into 19th century western interventions in China, for instance), you don't think that legacy impacts how Chinese medical practices were approached?

If you have to pick whether to live your whole life without normal medicine, or without Chinese medicine, which would you pick.

That question is too abstract for me to give an answer- all I can choose between is what I am presented with. I'm not presented with a world where I must choose only one. There are some conditions, however, where Chinese medicine is superior, because it has a better understanding of how the human person interacts spiritually and physically, even if it doesn't have the sharp focus of western medicine. Chinese medicine has a good understanding of how a persons spirit (shen) and organs are interconnected with patterns of living, food choices, habits of behavior, and even higher transpersonal states of consciousness (living in harmony with Tao and achieving spiritual immortality), and this understanding has been refined by thousands of years of experience.

Some religions have some positive things to say. I'd say that the world would be better without religion though. The positive aspects could be kept without the religious aspects.

I disagree. Such a viewpoint shows a disembodied understanding of truth. Religious praxis is just as important as religious values.

So what's your problem with atheism?

It's impoverishing.

 

[Albion]

I thought what Hedrick did. Infallibility has nothing to do with this and hardly any--if any at all--of the churches you know claim to have it. So that issue seems a non-starter.

But on the bigger question, your problem is not one of theology so much as locale.

There certainly are churches or religious societies that are in step with what you've described...they just aren't in your neighborhood. While that isn't a practical answer to your dilemma, it does suggest that you shouldn't agonize over whether there's any place or institution that is in step with your own beliefs. Just learn to live with the fact that it's not nearby.

Maybe you could take advantage of one of those associations for "distance membership" that some churches have ,or else get yourself hooked up with periodicals, taped sermons, or whatever. Many people seem to find that such things do keep them connected.

 

[Paradoxum]

Or maybe prejudice against non-western worldviews prevents many people from honestly evaluating them. For centuries Chinese were regarded as inferior by westerners, barbarians in need of enlightenment (look into 19th century western interventions in China, for instance), you don't think that legacy impacts how Chinese medical practices were approached?

No, I don't think so. You can tell if medicine works based on the evidence in tests. It isn't about being against China.

That question is too abstract for me to give an answer- all I can choose between is what I am presented with. I'm not presented with a world where I must choose only one. There are some conditions, however, where Chinese medicine is superior, because it has a better understanding of how the human person interacts spiritually and physically, even if it doesn't have the sharp focus of western medicine. Chinese medicine has a good understanding of how a persons spirit (shen) and organs are interconnected with patterns of living, food choices, habits of behavior, and even higher transpersonal states of consciousness (living in harmony with Tao and achieving spiritual immortality), and this understanding has been refined by thousands of years of experience.

I not sure I believe you. I think you really know that if you were very sick, you'd want normal medicine to help you over Chinese medicine.

You they have a good understanding of the relation between the spiritual and the body, but do they really? It just sounds like made up superstition to me.

I disagree. Such a viewpoint shows a disembodied understanding of truth. Religious praxis is just as important as religious values.

'A disembodied understanding of truth'... what does that mean?

Religious practices is totally worthless in itself.

It's impoverishing.

How so?

Better to believe the truth than to hold on to a lie because it makes you feel special.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Atheism is not a worldview it is merely a statement of lack of belief in a deity.Even then, I think to be completely correct in defining atheism as I did above, for the whole of the atheistic, one must define "deity" as some sort of individual or group of individual beings and not allow for some supreme overriding collective consciousness either universal or species specific as some atheists seem to believe in that sort of thing and revere it as much as a theist reveres his/her god and surely Science is revered by a number of atheists as if it was some higher power rather than simply the attempt to explain physical phenomena and the workings of the universe using logic and experimentation that it is. There is very little in just not believing in a Supreme Being or a group of Supreme Beings to base a whole worldview on. Perhaps hedonism or materialism or some other ism that seems to be attractive to many atheists( not exclusively to them though) is what the OP is actually intending to criticize when mentioning "western atheism"? Criticizing Christianity for being fallible and not unique gets it half right. Christianity is unique so is Islam, Hinduism, Judaism etc. Religion is not supposed to be infallible only God is supposed to be infallible. Religion is humanity's attempt to explain the divine not the divine's attempt to deify humanity.

 

[FireDragon76]

Maybe you could take advantage of one of those associations for "distance membership" that some churches have ,or else get yourself hooked up with periodicals, taped sermons, or whatever. Many people seem to find that such things do keep them connected.

I'm thinking of that, just finding ways to live with a minority religious viewpoint.... and especially stay connected with others of like minds.

 

[FireDragon76]

No, I don't think so. You can tell if medicine works based on the evidence in tests. It isn't about being against China.

There are journals that discuss the efficacy of various Chinese medical modalities (and TCM does work, I've experienced it myself), but they will never appeal to true skeptics, who have already made up their mind based on first principles that Chinese medicine cannot work, because it recognizes the existence of nonphysical realities.

I not sure I believe you. I think you really know that if you were very sick, you'd want normal medicine to help you over Chinese medicine.

What makes you think I haven't been sick? I've been so sick that regular medical doctors were stumped. At one point my body's hormones were totally out of whack and my doctor wanted to put me on a regimen of hormones the rest of my life. Accupuncture and Chinese herbs cured that.

You they have a good understanding of the relation between the spiritual and the body, but do they really? It just sounds like made up superstition to me.

Of course, because you come from an "enlightened nation", a nation so enlightened they sold the scourge of opium upon a hapless populace against their will.

'A disembodied understanding of truth'... what does that mean?

Truth, wisdom, is reflected in how well we live, not in our understanding of reality.

 

[Paradoxum]

There are journals that discuss the efficacy of various Chinese medical modalities (and TCM does work, I've experienced it myself), but they will never appeal to true skeptics, who have already made up their mind based on first principles that Chinese medicine cannot work, because it recognizes the existence of nonphysical realities.

Nonphysical realities with no evidence for them.

If a particular practice does have affect beyond placebo, and this has been tested for, then fair enough.

Even if you want a placebo effect, that's better than nothing I suppose.

What makes you think I haven't been sick? I've been so sick that regular medical doctors were stumped. At one point my body's hormones were totally out of whack and my doctor wanted to put me on a regimen of hormones the rest of my life. Accupuncture and Chinese herbs cured that.

Well then it should be testable, to show it has more affect than placebo. If it works, but it should be promoted. It doesn't seem to be part of normal medicine though.

The fact that you got better doesn't prove that it's those things that cured you. That's true of anything.

Of course, because you come from an "enlightened nation", a nation so enlightened they sold the scourge of opium upon a hapless populace against their will.

What has it got to do with what nation you come from. Horoscopes and bad luck from breaking mirrors are superstitions too, and they are common here. Well at least the horoscopes are.

I'm not sure what you are talking about with opium. Did I claim that we are perfect?

Truth, wisdom, is reflected in how well we live, not in our understanding of reality.

Truth is understanding reality... that's what it means. Wisdom is in how well we live.