| A None Without the Habit | for everyone |
I've never thought of myself as trendy. But apparently I'm part of a fast-growing demographic, people who claim "no religion." I don't know what that means for others; I may not even be all that clear what it means for me.
But for starters, here's what I am NOT.
I am not anti-religion. I have too many friends and relatives who find religion a source of comfort, guidance, and solace to dismiss their choices (which include all three great monotheistic religions, as well as Buddhism and others, less known). I also have too many friends and relatives for whom religion is really little more than another source of ongoing torment and anxiety to make it appealing to me.
I'm not an atheist, because most atheists seem to be just as certain about there being no god as the devout are that God exists. I don't see how either group can be so certain.
Nor am I a Christian, especially if that requires believing in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. A good guy, certainly, an influential teacher, unquestionably, worthy of study, absolutely. Divine? Neither logical nor credible.
I find just as many flaws with all the other established religions. Much to admire, but too many defects to adopt. I could be Baha'i without the socialism/communism parts, but that's like saying I could be Mormon except for that whole Joseph Smith and the tablets of gold thing, or Catholic if it weren't for that pope guy.
So I continue to meander through life (which has, admittedly, been notably free of tragedy and hardship) as a none (no uniform or rules), certain only that those who believe they have the universal answer are universally wrong; and hopeful I'll be strong enough to maintain my journey when I have to deal with the inevitable sadness that is an integral part of life. As far as what, if anything, comes next, here's my analogy: I'm thinking heaven is kind of like a party. I've heard there is one and while I'm not sure who's hosting, I wouldn't mind being invited. So I try to live my life in a way that would make me an attractive guest.
I'm linking the following from Norman Lear (Thanks, MaryAnn). If someone starts that church, maybe I'll join, just for the company and discussion, if nothing else.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norman-lear/mamaloshen-a-church-for-p_b_480896.html
*This is an old one that I updated for no particular reason.
*This is an old one that I updated for no particular reason.
Terri Kung wrote on Mar 2, '10
ReplyDeleteI've adopted the term non-theist for myself, although if pressed to explain myself I'd have probably had to write an essay similar to your above blog post. Have you read Merullo's "Breakfast with Buddha". It's an amusing read if you see it at your library.
E Carl Anderson wrote on Mar 4, '10
ReplyDeleteWell, I wasn't gonna say anything, and what I have to add is probably what you need; and you may not need anything; maybe I'm the one in need. I like your candid, thoughtful approach. . . . It goes without saying that you are extremely intelligent, (not a compliment, actually more like an understatement) But sometimes we are too smart for our own good. if we want an invitation to "the party" but we are "hedging our bets" or if we are really not convinced there is a party. . . . well that may be too wishy-washy to do us much good as Pascal's wager goes.
To get an invitation to the party it might be a good idea to develop a closer relationship to the host of "the party",just in case he does decide to throw one. I believe Gandhi had a close relationship to this higher authority; I know Mother Teresa did. We all might use their lives as an example. God said King David (from the Old Testament) was a "man after His own heart" Why? It certainly was not because David was the epitome of piety.. David was an excellent sinner. What he did right was talk with God, respected God-listened to God and followed God's advice without blaming God for his circumstances. He also gave God the credit for the good things in life-his and others.
If you want a picture of the opposite of David; it is King Saul, who trusted in his own wisdom, never asked God for advice until he had already messed up things royally. And when things did go right-took the whole credit for himself. He never grew, never changed, never learned much and never asked for forgiveness except to keep up appearances. He died without any relationship with God whatsoever. It never occurred to him to even bring the Ark Of The Covenant (God's Presence) back and put it in the Tabernacle where it belonged; that was left for David to do.
I hate to admit that I am more like Saul than David, and I'm not being too hard on myself, just trying to see it from God's point-of-view.
Sorry to to on and on.... I know you have read Victor Frankl (Man's Search for Meaning) and I believe you've read "Man's Search for Himself" by Rollo May. And of course there is "The Road Less Traveled" by M. Scott Peck, M.D. (He was a practicing Buddhist at the time he wrote this, I think,)
So you know all this stuff and more. And I am probably being waaaaaay too serious. Am I way off point here?
Bob Berndt wrote on Mar 4, '10
DeleteNot at all. It is, in fact, a serious subject that I (tried to) treat with a light touch. Nevertheless, I don't want to hedge my bets (religiosity as insurance). I'm all in, as they say on the Poker Channel, but because I truly believe my spiritual journey is ongoing (as I disingenuously answered during the interview process at Schechter), I reserve the right to reach whatever conclusion my meandering mind reaches at some and varying points down the road.
I also believe that if some divine spirit chooses to punish me for using the brain given to me by same divine spirit, just because I reached the "wrong" conclusion, then that spirit isn't all that divine or something I wish to spend eternity with.
I'm thinking the final exit interview ought to go something like, "Ooooh, nice try. Wrong, but at least you used the brain you were given. That shows more spirituality than those who just accepted whatever faith belief was handed to them without thought."
None of this is intended to disparage anyone else's faith. Because I recognize that faith is what others have (in a divine) that I lack, which makes neither of us automatically right or wrong.
Finally, isn't the point of a blog to stir thoughtful, respectful discussion? Thanks for contributing to that.
Drmist1 wrote on Mar 6, '10
ReplyDeleteI break it down this way: We can only hope through an assumption that there is a "forever" beyond this existence, and it is simply illogical to believe we can view this assumed afterlife in anything beyond human terms. I find it strangely comforting that the human brain cannot comprehend "nothingness" and it seems illogical to be sentient in a universe that goes on after we would otherwise cease to exist. I wonder about life, and death, as much as the next guy. Wonder: That's as far as we can really go.
Here is a page from a journal I kept during my senior year of high school.
Thought for this life: "What is this all about, anyway?"
Thought from the next life: "oh."
I do like your view of the afterlife as an after party, and I might still have enough grey matter to commit it to memory. For now, I follow the philosophy of Bill and Ted: We should all be excellent to each other.