The Nature of God Three Hypothetical Frameworks to Examine the Phenomena of Religion

The conclusions that we draw from evidence placed before us are, in large measure, founded in the ontological or metaphysical beliefs that filter our understanding. To a fully believing Christian, Jew, Muslim or other religion, all evidence points to the existence and interaction of the God or gods of their religion; to an Atheist, all evidence is viewed as coincidence or as the end-result of natural processes. Some Pagan and mystical groups refer to a "Cosmic Consciousness" that is somewhere between the two extremes.

In order for us to examine the function and benefit of a religious practice or belief, we must have some sort of ontological framework in which to examine the practice. It would be somewhat arrogant for us to assume that any one religion or view is correct and reject all others. We should only work from what we can logically ascertain to be true. To that end I propose to examine religious practice through the lenses of three hypothetical realities.

Hypothesis #1: God or gods exist external to and independent of our reality

In this hypothesis, there are one or more supernatural beings. This being or group of beings is capable of interacting with us as individuals and with the stuff or our reality at will, and this interaction is independent of what we consider to be natural laws. The key attributes of this hypothesis is the ability of deity to choose whether to act or not, and to choose how to act. When a miracle occurs it is because a deity chose to create the miracle.

It is tempting here to ascribe other qualities to our deity here, such as intelligence, benevolence and rationality but there isn't any basis for doing so. Even in this hypothesis we must set aside our preconceptions and consider that we may be considering one god of many; a rational god or a mad one; a benevolent god or malevolent or neither. If there are more than one god, then they may work together in harmony or they may be at cross purposes and in conflict. Intelligence may be overcome by emotion. Even if we are dealing with a single intelligent, rational and benevolent deity, we cannot presume that we are able to understand the rational purpose behind this deity's choices in interacting with us. 

Hypothesis #2: There exists a natural phenomenon not currently understood but that can be accessed through religious practices

This view contemplates the idea that the anecdotal evidence commonly attributed to the actions of a god or group of gods is actually the effect of a natural process that is governed by natural laws that haven't been discovered or described yet. Here, the practice of a ritual in some way aligns something internal to the individual - or the individuals within the group participating in the ritual - with some external force or energy that is able to influence the events within our reality. Some individuals may be more able to align than others, or they stronger than others. There may be external influences that can aid in the alignment or that can dampen it. Finally, there may be practices that are more effective than others. When a seeming miracle occurs it is because of the alignment of natural forces directed by the religious persons involved.

An extension of this hypothesis is the idea that all of the intelligences in the universe are a part of a much larger intelligence, which some call the "cosmic consciousness." This cosmic consciousness directs the events within the universe based on the input received from its component parts. In this sense we may be working with an intelligent entity, but this entity is constrained by the physical laws of our universe.

The important aspect of this hypothesis is that it is a natural phenomenon that is not independent of the laws of nature. If we can understand the laws that govern its operation we can predict the outcome of various ritual practices and develop techniques to make theses practices more effective.

This leads to an interesting observation about faith, which I will explore in more detail later, but for now it is sufficient to note that "faith" or the individual's belief or lack of belief may be deterministic of the effectiveness of a particular practice; and the corollary that the absence of faith in an outside observer may provide a dampening effect that reduces effectiveness.

Hypothesis #3: Neither gods nor unknown natural phenomenon exist, the supposed effects of religious practice are nothing more than coincidence, superstition, and faulty reasoning

This is the atheist view. At first glance, this hypothesis appears to contradict our working hypothesis that there is a reason for humans brains to be pre-wired to believe in the supernatural, but this isn't necessarily so. In this metaphysical framework it is entirely possible that the belief in the supernatural and the practice of religious ritual serves some internal purpose beneficial to the individual. It is possible that this is the actual spark of human creativity - the ability to conceive of things beyond what the senses tell us is real. 

While this hypothesis cannot account for the mythological miracles such as the global flood or the parting of the red sea, it may account for the anecdotal healing miracles and the miracles of human achievement. Even if it doesn't, it still provides a reason for humans to believe in the fantastic constructs of the perceived supernatural.

Introduction to The Esoteric Eclectic

According to Paul Bloom, writing in the December 2005, issue of Atlantic Magazine, experimental psychologists have determined that human beings come into the world with brains prewired to believe in the supernatural.

Despite the vast number of religions, nearly everyone in the world believes in the same things: the existence of a soul, an afterlife, miracles, and the divine creation of the universe. Recently psychologists doing research on the minds of infants have discovered two related facts that may account for this phenomenon. One: human beings come into the world with a predisposition to believe in supernatural phenomena. And two: this predisposition is an incidental by-product of cognitive functioning gone awry.

My own experiences have led me to believe that there are forces at work in our world that have not been described by physics or other science. Most, as is the case with most people I've talked to, are anecdotal, but there are some that have proven repeatable under the right circumstances. Though I am a skeptic in many ways, I cannot discount the idea that there are "supernatural" forces that can be tapped into by us humans. I don't necessarily believe these forces are magic; rather, I believe that they can be explained if they are studied.

Our world is filled with mythology; stories that attempt to describe man's connection to the divine, or if you will, stories about gods that define a particular faith. These stories often form the basis for certain practices within a religion and are instructive as to why the practice differs from other faiths. These stories represent best guesses of explanations of phenomenon observe by people lacking in the tools to fully study them.  These mythologies embody, but do not completely or accurately describe, phenomena observed but not understood. As such they may reflect universal truths that are worth of study and further description.

On the other hand, these mythologies and practices have been passed for millennia, often in oral tradition, translated from language to language, transmitted through hand copied manuscripts. Ideas have been corrupted for political and other purposes; texts have been lost or destroyed. Meaning has been lost due to cultural differences or social changes. Ambiguity, difficult in modern language, becomes all the more so when examining an ancient idea.  

This blog will document my attempts to study the practices and mythologies of various religious schools in an attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff. My approach will be to treat each source as potentially truthful, but to ascribe ultimate authority to none. My approach will also consider that there may be more than one correct approach; that an underlying principle or universal truth may be manifest in more than one way. What does it mean if a particular source is "true," what does it mean if it is false. This discussion will assume that no tradition is true; it will assume that all traditions are true.

I welcome comments and feedback from fellow travelers on this path. It is through discussion that we may find new ideas or new ways of looking at old ideas. This is not a place for evangelism or proselyting. If you already have your answers and are unwilling to challenge them through deep examination of their underlying premises, you fill probably not find much of interest to you here, nor add much of relevance to this discussion.