Questions re Eljay's Religious Beliefs

I look at the awe, wonder, mystery and beauty of the world around me, and my soul is lifted. I’m filled with ecstasy, with rapture, with piety, with peace, with inspiration.

I am devout in my religion. I practice my religion of every moment of every day of every year, for the rest of my life. There is never a moment when I am not in church.

If that is not a religion, then Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam are likewise not religions.

My god is the universe. The universe is my god. No more, no less. No embellishment, no censorship. What is, is.

So why not just say the universe? Because saying “the universe” fails to convey the proper object of my regard. They are synonymous, but there is a difference in meaning. Saying “god” or “god, the cosmos” highlights my personal relationship with our impersonal universe.

Here’s an analogy. I could introduce you to my mother and say, “This is Karin.” Or I could say, “This is my mom, Karin.” Both Karin and mom refer to the same person, but “mom” expresses my relationship with her.

Likewise, “god” expresses my reverence, respect, piety, and spirituality towards the universe. In English, it is the appropriate word; there is no other word that carries that connotation.

To reduce confusion over my use of the word god in the context of my religion, I’ll use “god, the cosmos”. For other religions’ deities I’ll use that deity’s proper name. Jehovah. Allah. Zeus. Odin. Jesus. Alexander. Tutankhamen. Paraclete. Apollo. Thor. Brahma. Vishnu. Shiva. Ahura Mazda. Julius. Augustus. Heracles. Perseus. Et cetera.

No, I am my own personal savior. I believe that Jesus was a savior for one and only one person: himself. Furthermore, in my opinion, I think Jesus failed to save himself.

On the basis of the Bible’s quotes and hearsay quotes of Jesus, he appears to me to have many untenable, transcendental beliefs, self-worship, a god-complex or god-in-proxy, a tin god. But I’m willing to give Jesus the benefit of a doubt, and assume he’s been misquoted, redacted, embellished, censored, or misattributed quotes by others, postmortem.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s not really an issue. Jesus is dead. And he neglected to author any of his own works.

The Christians I’ve met seem to me to be a miserable lot. They have a religious system that requires them to believe in irrational, nonsensical, illogical dogma.

They demand others believe in the same irrational, nonsensical, illogical dogma as well. More so to affirm, authenticate and corroborate the irrational, nonsensical, illogical dogma that the rational, thinking, logical part of their minds reject. A form of approval and condonation.

But I feel that the Christians’ internal struggle is in vain. Even if every person on the planet was a devout believer in Christianity, if everyone proclaimed their Christian faith with full vigor, if everyone rejoiced in that unanimous affirmation, the internal conflict would still be present.

Christianity is a religion of faith. Of blind faith. Of untenable blind faith. And untenable blind faith is one of the greatest sins. The only sin that’s greater than untenable blind faith is the propagation of untenable blind faith.

Q: How is your faith in your god the cosmos any better than faith in God Jehovah, God Jesus, or God Trinity?

I don’t have faith in my god. My reverence of the universe as my god is a value judgement.

There are other people who believe in basically the same doctrine I believe (and belong to the same church I belong), except they do not revere the universe as god.

The question is an equivocation of the word “faith”. It’s being used to mean “faith – religious beliefs” in the first sense, and “faith – belief without proof” in the second sense.

Q: How is your reverence of the universe as god any better than a Christian’s reverence in Jehovah as God?

However, no matter how wrong thinking and erroneous the Christian faith, as a United States citizen I defend your right to have your faith. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, no matter how false, mistaken, misconceived, misinformed, or untenable.

The Bible’s theology is not my theology. I do not hold the Bible in reverence, I do not believe in the Bible’s inerrancy, I do not believe in the Bible’s infallibility.

I believe that the Bible is a collection of documents as prepared by a committee of Christians at the Council of Nicea. The documents were selected based on the political processes, prejudices, and biases of that council. They’ve undergone redaction, censorship and embellishment in the first several centuries of their existence. Translated Bibles have likewise taken liberties to alter, redact, censor and embellish. To the point that there is now a Bible available to back any position taken by any Christian Apologist.

Sincere, heartfelt believers wrote the documents in the Bible. But those documents have very little to do with truth, reality, history, or science. Collectively, they are documents that express a theology. The Christian theology.

To say that the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true is circular reasoning. That is a logical fallacy.

For me, I do not believe in the hearsay, rumor, gossip, anecdotes, parables, fables, stories, folklore, superstition, infallibility, inerrancy, and deity of the Bible. The Bible has some merit. There are some salvageable passages in the Bible. But by and large, I cannot condone the Bible. I find it to be a mishmash of confusion in which one can read into it whatever what one wants to find.

If I were of a mind to, I suspect I could justify and rationalize my religious doctrine from passages from the Bible. But I don’t have a mind to, for the Bible is not the basis of my theology.

In my opinion, no, I am a theist. I have a god belief. I believe the universe is god.

But it depends on what your definition of “atheism”. I use the definition of: atheism is the disbelief in theism. Which, in turn, depends on your definition of “theism”.

The definition of theism I use is: theism is the doctrine of the existence of one or more gods, of whatever nature or kind.

Thus the doctrine of Zeus and the Greek Pantheon of Deities is a form of theism. As is Wiccan’s God and Goddess doctrine. And the doctrine of Odin and the Norse Pantheon of Deities. Or the doctrine of Jupiter and the Roman Pantheon of Deities. Or the doctrine of the Egyptian Ennead. Or the monotheism of the Egyptian Amen-Ra. Or the monotheism of Judeo-Christian Jehovah, for the Unitarian Christians. Or the polytheism of the Trinitarian Christians, as expressed by the Nicene Creed. Or the monotheism of the Jesus-is-God Christians. Or the monotheism of the Islamic Sunni and Shi‘ite. Or Spinoza’s “pantheism”, which is really panentheism. Or Einstein’s pragmatic, impersonal theism.

I find describing someone as an atheist to be very uninformative. Atheism tells me a lot about what a person does not believe: the person disbelieves in theism. It tells me nothing about what the person does believe. I am more interested in what a person believes, than what a person disbelieves.

In my opinion, yes. The operative definition of theist I’m using is: belief in the doctrine of the existence of one or more gods, of whatever nature.

For example, Dan Barker’s definition: theism – a belief in a personal being who created the universe and sustains it.

By Dan Barker’s definition, I would not be a theist. But, I do not concur with his definition of theism (although I can see where he’s coming from).

Also, I distinguish -isms as “the doctrine of…” not as “the belief in…”, and -ists as people who believe in those doctrines. That way, an -ism exists conceptually, independent of the belief in that -ism.

Under Dan Barker’s definition, if there were no belief in theism, then theism ceases to exist. Under my definition, if there were no theists, theism still exists as a philosophical doctrine. Perhaps the distinction is merely an immaterial trivial difference. *shrug*

“Religiousizing”? Despite the interesting abuse of the English language, I get your gist.

You are entitled to your opinion. I’m entitled to mine. I am not influenced at all whether or not you condone or condemn my religion.

And, similarly, I return the favor, for I do not consider your untenable Christian religion to be worthy of anyone’s devotion.

For me, the soul is one’s mind, intellect, memory, attitudes, hopes, dreams, desires, goals, values, morals, ideology, and emotions. My soul is emergent behavior of my brain’s neural network. My soul is ephemeral. When I die, it has died as well.

My spirit is the structure of my body, and the processes of my body. When those processes are disrupted or the structure damaged, it can result in injury or death.

My essence, what makes me me, is in a state of flux. I’m always changing, always growing. Cut of my arm changes my essence. A brain trauma changes my essence. Convincing me of a novel concept changes my essence. My essence is my body, my spirit and my soul; all of which are in flux. I am a continuum of being, of becoming.

In my religious framework, the holy spirit is the structure and processes of the entire universe. The holy spirit is not a personage.

I do not believe in the Trinitarian Christians’ Holy Spirit, also known as Paraclete, Pneuma, or the Holy Ghost.

In my religious framework, heaven is a state of being. Heaven is my thorough and intuitive understanding that I am an integral part of the universe.

Hell is also a state of being; it is being separated from god the cosmos. I feel sorrow for all the poor Christians who are separated from god, for they all are truly in hell.

Solely for provincial reasons. The majority of the mainstream religions in Minnesota are some form of Christianity. If I were in the Middle East, I’d compare and contrast my beliefs to Islam. Or if I were in India, I’d compare and contrast my beliefs to Hindu or Buddhism.

I was raised Roman Catholic. I became a Christian apostate when I was ten years old. Christianity raised doubts in me with such unanswered questions like: What is “sin”? How can the crucifixion of Jesus atone for another person’s “sin”? Why is Jesus the son of God, why not everyone? How can there be three-gods-in-one, what does that even mean? How is Jesus any different from any other person in the world? How can a loving, all-powerful God allow misery, disease, and suffering on the planet? How can anyone believe that this vast universe was created solely for the edification and benefit of human beings? Where’s the proof in the tenets Christianity? What’s a “firmament”? How does anyone know and substantiate the occult claims of the testimonials of the Bible? What’s a “spirit”? What’s a “Holy Spirit”? What’s a “soul”? What’s an “angel”? Where is “Heaven” and “Hell”? How is what’s in the Bible different from something just made up?

I now know the answer to many of these questions, both in the terms of my religion, and in the historical and evolutionary terms of the Catholic religion. I find the Christian Apologist position to lack merit. I find Christian theology to be specious, if not downright implausible and untenable.

The best words I can find to describe Christianity are: specious, false, fallacious, argal, fabricated, illusory, make-believe, pretend, imaginary, fantasy, untenable, sophism, fraud and sophistry.

Similar sentiments apply to every other authoritarian dogma, revelation based, untenable blind faith based religion.

I’ll take the existence of reality as a provisional axiom. I think the existence of the universe, of objective reality, is fairly self-evident, and for me only requires a small leap of faith.

For those who really, truly believe that reality is an illusion, I challenge you to test your faith. The test is simple. Get into a car and drive into a brick wall, with a speed proportional to your faith that the wall does not exist.

If you fail to take the test, then we’ll drop this issue as moot. If you took and pass the test, but didn’t have the vehicle moving at maximum speed, then your faith in the illusion of reality is less than 100%. If you took the test and the vehicle was moving at maximum speed, I’ll let you use my car to take the test again. Let me disable the (presumably nonexistent) airbag and cut out the (presumably nonexistent) seat belts first.

I am a minuscule part of my god the cosmos. I am a constituent of god. I am not god.

Although I may be minuscule in the grand scheme of things, although I may be insignificant in the big picture … I’m not insignificant; I’m significant to myself, my friends, my family.

Although there is no discernable purpose for the universe, I have a purpose in my life. I make my own purpose, my own goals, my own meaning for my own existence.

Spinoza equates Nature with God. But instead of taking the transcendentalism out of God, to get nature. He adds transcendentalism to Nature to get God. Not just God or Nature, but a God (or Nature) that is a sentient, sapient, intelligent, cognizant being. A personage.

Spinoza’s form of “pantheism” is properly called panentheism. Panentheism is a belief that the universe is part of God (a personage, in this case), and that God is greater and more than the universe.

I do not believe in transcendentalism. That is, I don’t believe in any doctrine that promotes any kind of reality beyond physical reality. No spirit realms, no astral planes, no psychic world, no meta-reality outside the universe, no eternal really-really-real reality-beyond-the-physical-reality, no Hlatky’s axiomatic uber-reality, no assertions that physical reality is illusionary, no denial of physical reality, no claim that reality doesn’t really exist, no idealism, no dualism, no pluralism.

No places-of-existence outside of the physical universe. No Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, Limbo, Tartarus, Hades, Niflheim, Muspelheim, Gimle, Asgard, Vanaheim, Jotunheim, Svartalfsheim, Utgard, Olympus, Sheol, Abyss, Ginnungagap, Alfheim, Valhalla, Nirvana, ad nauseam.

Have you even read my belief statement? No, I do not worship myself, and I am not a solipsist.

No, I believe that nothing outside of reality exists. My god is a god of all-that-exists. All of reality. All of the universe. The cosmos in toto. Everything. Totality.

Only those things that do not exist are not part of my god. Such as Jehovah, Odin, Amen-Ra, Zeus.

It depends on your definition of atheist. I claim to be a theist, based on this definition of theism: the doctrine of the existence of one or more gods, of whatever nature or kind.

Most theists look at my religious beliefs and tend to label me an “atheist”.

Personally, I call myself a pantheist. And I find that it makes little sense to try to pigeonhole pantheism as a form of theism or atheism. There are pantheists who, like me, are theist-pantheists. There are pantheists who, like many of my fellow church members, are atheist-pantheists.

And among pantheists it doesn’t make a whit of difference if one is a theist-pantheist or an atheist-pantheist.

I think this statement is based on a false premise. Many humanists are very moral people. Many atheists are very moral people. Many areligious skeptics are very moral people. Many areligious infidels are very moral people. Many religions that don’t adhere to a God (creator being) have strong moral convictions, such as Taoism, Confucianism, Theravada, Mahayana, and Shintoism.

Many religions that don’t adhere to God (Jehovah) have strong moral convictions, such as Islam, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Sikh, Jain, Eckankar, Wiccan, Vajrayana, and NeoPagan.

Likewise, I think there is sufficient evidence to show that self-professed Christians have been at the center of some of the most heinous actions. Adolf Hitler, a self-professed Roman Catholic with the blessing of the Roman Catholic Church. The Inquisition. The continued Christian holy war in Ireland. The slaughter of the Native Americans based on Christian religious superiority. The enslavement of Africans based on Christian religious superiority. The innumerable wars and atrocities based on Christian religious superiority. And community atrocities based on Christian sectarian superiority within multi-denominational Christian communities. The persecution and extermination of non-Catholic Christian cults by the then newly formed Catholic Church. The assimilation of the Celts based on religious superiority. The subsumation of the Vikings based on religious superiority. The current subsumation of the Native Hawaii kahunaism religion based on Christian superiority. The violence against abortion doctors based on presumed Christian moral righteousness.

No, Christian arrogance isn’t righteousness. It is a knee-jerk reaction necessary to protect a religion that is built up of gossamer fantasy, superstition and folktales, by people who have been inculcated into an intrinsically evil religion.

Why is Christianity (and other faith-based religions) intrinsically evil? Because it’s very foundation is make-believe. Untenable blind faith and pretend imaginary make-believe fantasy differ in no tangible way; they are synonymous.

That brings up the question, “What is a religion?” By a myopic Christian definition, Zen Buddhism, Theravada Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, Shintoism, Taoism, and Confucianism are not religions.

The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, in its article on Religion, lists some characteristics of religions. The more markers that are present in a belief system, the more “religious like” it is. Because it allows for broader grey areas in the concept of religion, I prefer this over more simplistic definitions we can find in basic dictionaries. Read the list and see how Natural/Scientific Pantheism (SciPan) fares:

1. Belief in supernatural beings (gods).

No. SciPan does not believe in the supernatural. Nor the transcendental. SciPan is very no-nonsense, down-to-earth, and practical. Its doctrines are that of physicalism (mechanistic materialism), monism, naturalism, pantheism, skepticism-via-logical-positivism.

2. A distinction between sacred and profane objects.

Yes. SciPan holds a distinction between sacred (such as our planet Earth), and profane (such as lying and falsehoods).

3. Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.

No. SciPan has no ritual acts. Some SciPan members perform ceremonies that have significance to themselves, but that’s not does not originate with SciPan. This may be partially due to SciPan’s nascent state.

4. A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods.

Sort of. SciPan has a moral code, but it does not believe it to be sanctioned by god (the cosmos)*. It is sanctioned by humans, for humans.

5. Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual, and which are connected in idea with the gods.

Yes. SciPan garners one or more religious feelings of awe, sense of mystery, adoration, reverence, celebration in its members, which is connected with god (the cosmos).

6. Prayer and other forms of communication with gods.

Yes, to some extent. SciPan has prayer of hope, prayer of thanks, prayer of communion, prayer of meditation. SciPan does not have prayer of petition, prayer of supplication, prayer of confession.

7. A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it.

Yes. SciPan has a world view and the place of the individual therein. The over-all purpose is that there isn’t any. The point of the world is that there isn’t any. Each individual makes his or her purpose in life.

8. A more or less total organization of one’s life based on the world view.

Yes. It would be hard for a SciPan member not to base his or her life upon the world view that each person is a part of the universe, each person has the burden of telling the truth, doing good, improving the world about him/herself, and taking care of our home the Earth.

9. A social group bound together by the above.

Yes. The Natural/Scientific Pantheist (SciPan) community is growing and active. The organization of/by/for SciPans is called the World Pantheist Movement (WPM).

* Note: a majority of SciPan members do not call the universe god, primarily because of the association of the term “god” with God-of-the-Bible.

Q: ...the problem, however, as I'm sure you well know, is that you have just used the word God as a synonym for the universe, and that is not useful in describing God as an entity other than the universe...

I get that question a lot, it's in my FAQ section (under religion). I'll give it another go.

I'll address your second part first. My god is the universe. Period. No difference. Same thing. Synonym. Nothing added, nothing detracted. No exception. Identity.

The first part implies "WHY use 'god' for the universe'? Why not just use 'universe'?"

I deify the universe. Calling the universe itself "god" conveys a little extra (but important!) meaning than just calling the universe "universe". It conveys my personal regard of our impersonal universe. It highlights my reverence, my deification, my awe, and my feelings towards our cosmos. For me to avoid using "god" would be dishonest.

It's the correct term, in English, to describe my personal relationship with our impersonal universe. I hold the totality of reality as my god. It's an admission and acknowledgement of my feelings, and that the universe itself is the proper object of my regard.

So my god (the cosmos) is, for me, my god. I don't expect most atheists to hold the universe, in their opinion and view, as a god. But I do say that I'm entitled to my value judgement, my personal opinion, in this regard.

And, at least my theist (pantheist) case, my god does exist. Unlike gods of many other religions. My god is known through science, logic and reason. And only through science, logic and reason.

I'm not just calling the universe "god" to be a pain in the tuckus. I'm as sincere about it as any Christian is to their imaginary God-of-the-Bible. Or any Muslim with their pretend Allah. Or any Hindu with their make-believe Brahma. I'm a devout pantheist.

Calling the universe "god" puts the strong emphasis on my personal relationship to our impersonal universe. Calling the universe "the universe", in the context of my beliefs or worldview, lacks that key connotation.