This is an interesting article on a difficult, subject - one that I have a lot of interest in. Let me try to summarize what you are saying first. If I do a good job then you know you have written the article clearly. If not then either I have not been a careful reader or you could stand a rewrite. Here goes:
The God of fundamentalist Christianity, is a “vindictive tyrant… that delivers calamity or fortune at his whim”, not the lover of mankind that he is believed to be. The proof of this statement is the existence of suffering and evil in the world, which no power that is both loving and omnipotent would allow. You do not believe in such a God, but instead “an interpersonal creative energy that is bound by immutable Universal Law” that is “a respecter of no man”. This “Divine Intelligence” is powerless to respond to prayer or intervene in the human condition in any way.
While the Divine Intelligence may have no volition or ability to harness its own energy, it is a powerful force that man can and does consciously or unconsciously use to create the circumstances of the world he lives in. This is what is meant by man being made in God’s image.
“The thoughts we hold are constantly creating our world and our universe.” The tragedy and evil that exists are the result of a collective belief in their inevitability. “The moment we stop believing in war, sickness, violence, and even death itself, these phenomena will no longer exist.” It seems that all that is required for peace, health, and eternal life is that enough of us (or perhaps all of us) “hold” the desired state in our “mind(s) and heart(s).” Mother Theresa’s desire to attend a peace rally as an example of what this holding in mind and heart might be.
Although an understanding of the Divine Intelligence can be found in the Bible, religious leaders have “intentionally misled…the masses” about this, presumably to maintain power.
OK. I hope I got that right. Now for my response:
While I share your critique of fundamentalist Christianity and appreciate your desire to find both a more satisfying explanation for evil and suffering and an outlet for a religious urge (something I think we all have), I don’t see that your concept of the Divine Intelligence is any more plausible or desirable than more traditional teachings.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this sounds a lot like the power of positive thinking, an idea which I think does have some value but can not be extended to far. It may be true that if you approach life with confidence, then you are more likely to succeed than if you expect failure. However, that’s not the same as saying that positive thinking is the only thing that determines outcome or that it will always work (at least if practiced by enough people.)
The first problem I have with your belief is that I don’t see that you have presented any evidence for it. What’s to say this isn’t just a case of wishful thinking on your part? So, my first suggestion, is to provide some evidence. If you don’t have evidence but it is something you believe in your heart, then say so.
Even if I don’t believe in the Divine Intelligence that you describe, I would hope that in reading your article that I would at least find your concept emotionally satisfying. I should be able to say, “That may not be true, but it would be nice if it were.”
The reason why I can’t say that is that it seems to be entirely based on belief rather than on hope or action. To my mind the world is a complex place. I don’t understand how any thoughtful and honest person can believe anything without any doubt. Such a person can hope. Such a person can search his conscience. Such a person can try to figure things out. Such a person can even possess the passion and commitment to do things that might make the world a better place. But belief without action seems to require both too much and too little of us.
Therefore, my second suggestion is to see if you can develop your ideas in such a way that it doesn’t sound so overly simplistic that a person like myself can’t even want to believe it.
In spite of these criticisms there are some nuggets of your world view that I do find appealing. Rejection of God as the grand but seemingly arbitrary dispenser of rewards and punishments is a good start. You seem to be connecting the Divine with the laws of nature, which as far as we understand them, are consistent throughout the universe, powerful, and awe inspiring. The laws of nature are not arbitrary nor do they have the ability to alter themselves for the benefit of mankind.
However, the laws of nature are a creative force. To the extent that we are created in the image of the Divine, it is because we are creative too. Our creative ability may be our only hope in figuring out how to get out of the messes we so often find ourselves in.
The Quakers believe that there is a divine spark in everyone that they call the Inner Light. They believe that we can harness that inner light to make ourselves and the world a better place. There are hints of those kinds of ideas in your piece, but they are overshadowed by what seems to be an unbelievable and uninspiring panacea.
I give you credit for tackling such a complex topic, and I would be interested in seeing any revisions that try to incorporate some of my suggestions.
Marcia |
|