Common Grounda conversation

Proposition: Progressive revelation reconciles the problems raised by the diversity of religious

experience—revelation, dogma, effects on humanity, etc—for secular humanists and religionists alike.

The LeftThe Secular Humanist

speaks: Might not God be better found in a modern scientific journal than in

religious doctrine?

Argument for Science❖ Science is natural.

❖ It explains the existence & order of the universe & human consciousness.

❖ It is rational, fact-based, objective & non-dogmatic.

❖ It is antithetical to sectarianism, dogmatism, intolerance & violence.

❖ It does not indulge in magical thinking.

❖ It deals with human reality, which is the material world.

❖ It is progressive, evolving as we evolve.

❖ It is self-correcting, acknowledges its mistakes & moves on.

Argument Against Religion❖ It was invented by man.

❖ It misrepresents the origins of man & cosmos and represses human intellect.

❖ It is irrational, dogmatic, subjective.

❖ It gives rise to sectarianism, disunity, intolerance, repression & violence.

❖ It indulges in magical thinking.

❖ It combines servility & solipsism.

❖ It represents an anachronistic, Bronze Age philosophy.

This is the sum of duty: do naught to others which if done to thee would cause thee pain.

— Krishna, The Mahabharata

The RightThe Evangelical Christian

speaks: Isn’t God found only in the Bible, thereby making all other religions

false, and science an illusion at worst and the

product of human intellect at best?

Argument for Religion❖ Religion was created by

God.

❖ It explains the creation of the Universe & human consciousness.

❖ It is antithetical to materialism & immorality.

❖ It teaches us to love others as we love ourselves.

❖ It recognizes that material reality is an illusion & a test.

❖ It puts the human spirit in touch with reality, which is the spiritual world.

❖ It is absolute—it doesn’t change.

❖ It rejects “progress” that is detrimental to the human spirit.

Argument Against Science ❖ Science misrepresents the

origins of man and cosmos & derails human development.

❖ It is amoral, illusory & misleading.

❖ It gives birth to materialism, repression of the human spirit, & glorification of the creation over the Creator.

❖ It encourages the denial of God’s existence and therefore, the need to obey His laws.

❖ It is grounded in hubris.

❖ It combines arrogance & solipsism.

❖ It has become disconnected from human reality & from history.

Argument Against Other Religions

Evangelical: The Bible tells us that the master of deceit, Satan, will do anything to stop souls from going to Heaven. So if he can prevent you from having a relationship with Jesus by distracting you with a false religion, he’s achieved his goal!

That is why you see so many religions—the more there are the better the chance Satan can confuse people and keep them from seeing the Truth.

What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.

—Hillel, The Talmud

Continuing the ConversationHumanist: But religion is archaic. It’s an artifact from mankind’s childhood and represents an absolute and not a relative way of looking at the universe. It can’t be progressive by its very nature, and so, it can’t guide mankind’s ethical evolution. We must be guided by our “ethical intuitions”—an inherent moral compass—that evolves as we evolve.

“Religion spoke its last intelligible or noble or inspiring words a long time ago ... or it mutated into an admirable but nebulous humanism. We shall have no more prophets or sages from the ancient quarter, which is why the devotions of today are only the echoing repetitions of yesterday.” — Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great, p 6

Allow me to quote an expert:

Continuing the ConversationEvangelical: Religion is ancient, absolute and infallible. It can’t be progressive and there’s no room for diversity of belief. The message that can change the world hasn’t changed—God has spoken through Christ once for all time. I’m sure He’ll make some provision for non-believers, but it must involve Christ in some way.

Allow me to quote an expert: “I am the Way the Truth and Life, no man comes to the Father but by me.” — Jesus Christ

The Center The Bahá’í speaks:

You’ve found a point of unity: you both say that revelation is at an end.

But is it?

Humanist: It has to be because religion is manmade and its creation relies on myth-making. That takes time.

Evangelical: It has to be because God spoke to mankind once and for all time through Jesus Christ 2000 years ago.

Bahá’í: We’ll get back to the idea that revelation has ended. But if man has an inherent moral compass that evolves as we evolve, why didn’t it guide us to create an evolving, inclusive religion? Why does religion deteriorate? Why does dogma get more exclusive and irrational as the religion ages instead of more inclusive and rational?

Humanist: That’s just the nature of religion. It’s inherently evil. Look at all the evil things it’s done—the Crusades, the witch burnings, terrorism, even the persecution of your own faith in Iran.

Bahá’í: But science and secular politics have perpetrated evils too—atomic weapons, eugenics, Social Darwinism, communism, Nazism—yet you’re not saying that the manmade institutions of politics and science are “inherently evil.” Isn’t that a double standard?

Humanist: No comment.

Bahá’í: And, Evangelical, if religion is absolute, why do the teachings of the Old Testament differ from the teachings in the Gospel?

Evangelical: But they don’t differ. God is always the same, so His teachings are always the same.

Bahá’í: What about the law of divorce? Moses gave one law and Christ changed it, saying: “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” (Matthew 19:8) Isn’t Christ showing that God gives us His laws according to our capacity to understand them?

Evangelical: No comment.

Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others.

—Zoroaster, Shayast-na-Shayast

Humanist: So what’s your solution, Bahá’í? What explains the unique position of religion among human institutions? What accounts for its “deterioration,” as you call it?

Evangelical: Yeah, and how do you explain the changes Christ made in Mosaic law? Why do you think His laws would change?

Applying the New Paradigm

Progressive Revelation

Bahá’í: Let’s look at the Bahá’í concept of progressive revelation—each Founder of a revealed religion brings a message that reflects God’s will for that age.

The message is consistent with the capacity of the audience; the Teacher asks the believers to stretch just a bit to take in new ideas—for example, as Christ asks His followers to change the way they understood marriage and divorce.

Humanist: But aren’t these “Teachers” just men? They may be wise or enlightened, but they’re still just human beings, right?

Evangelical: Yeah, aren’t they just men? They may be wise or enlightened, but they’re not divine like Christ.

Bahá’í: If these Teachers are going to tell us anything about God that we can’t figure out by ourselves, then They must have capacities beyond ours.

Try this metaphor on for size: Each divine Mediator is like a perfectly polished Mirror capable of reflecting the full glory of the Sun (God) in a way that we can comprehend.

So, yes, Humanist, They’re human. And yes, Evangelical, They’re divine.

Bahá’í: These Mediators restate the eternal principles of religion—the sort of principle represented by the Golden Rule, for example—and give social teachings that suit the age.

In its growth period—its spring and summer—religion flourishes as its teachings take root. It begins to absorb artifacts from the culture around it. In its autumn and winter—it deteriorates as those artifacts begin to overshadow the original message.

Sometimes this results in changes in doctrine. Sometimes it results in new denominations. And sometimes it results in violent conflict. That’s why God continues to send His Messengers … in every age.

Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.

—Kung-fu-tse, Analects

Humanist: So, you’re saying God created religion and man “edited” it. And you’re saying God has revealed Himself to us within the last 2000 years. Please explain.

Evangelical: No, she’s saying that God created all the religions and that He’s revealed Himself to us through someone other than Christ! How can that be?

Bahá’í: Well, think about it. If the point of God speaking to us is to bring us into a closer relationship to Him—to give life to our souls—then does it make sense that He’d speak one time, then fall silent?

If He’s the God revealed by Christ (among others), then won’t He behave as the loving Parent that Christ revealed? What good human parent would speak to his child once when he was ten, say, then refuse to say another word until the child was on his death bed?

And if He’s a rational God, won’t he educate us in a similar fashion to the way we educate our children—in keeping with each child’s capacity?

Bahá’í: Let me quote from my own expert:

“Religion must be living, vitalized, moving and progressive. If it be non-progressive it is dead. The divine institutes are evolutionary; therefore [their] revelation must be progressive and continuous.” —Abdu’l-Bahá

Bahá’í: To put the pieces together...

❖ There is one God who manifests Himself in many ways.❖ One of those ways is through the observable universe,

which we study scientifically.❖ Another is through religion, which represents our spiritual

education, and which must be ongoing. ❖ This education is given to us through the teachings of

God’s Manifestations, i.e., Krishna, Christ, and Bahá’u’lláh.

❖ These teachings evolve as we evolve. ❖ So, each religious system represents a stage in our

evolution.

Humanist: Okay, maybe that explains the dogmatism, but what about the magical thinking? Science and religion are like oil and water. The two don’t mix.

Evangelical: Yeah, what he said … about science and religion, anyway. I mean, evolution? Give me a break. Liberal scientists planted those dinosaur bones to throw doubt on the Bible.

Bahá’í: Funny I was going to say that science and religion were like the two wings of a bird. In fact, that’s the metaphor the Bahá’í writings use. Abdu’l-Bahá, the Bahá’í expert I quoted just now, says that “Material and spiritual science are the two wings of human uplift and attainment. Both are necessary...”

Necessary, not optional. Bahá’ís believe—and this is straight from our scripture—that scientific knowledge is the highest attainment in the human world, because science—whether material or spiritual—informs the way we investigate our reality.

Hatred does not cease by hatred; hatred ceases by love. This is an eternal law.

—Buddha, Dhammapada

Humanist: But there is no “why”—reality just is. Reality is entirely physical. Reality is what science explains. Religion is just human imagination because it doesn't explain things the same way that science does.

Bahá’í: Is reality entirely physical? Tell me, what do you think about most of the time? What do you talk about with others? What do you interact with most of the time?

Humanist: I suppose you’re going to tell me.

Bahá’í: Don’t we interact mostly with our own intellect and consciousness and the intellect and consciousness of others? Certainly we take physical input through our senses, but we always filter it through our intellect. After all, in the last half-hour, Humanist, have we once discussed anything physical except as a metaphor for an intellectual concept?

Evangelical: Wait just a minute! It’s my turn.

Look, Bahá’í, science is clearly in conflict with the Bible record. The Bible says we were created; science says we just happened by accident through the process of evolution.

There’s a huge difference between a creation and a natural process.

A sculptor would say it was. The Bible says God molded us like clay. If you watch a sculptor work, you’ll see that the form the finished piece takes evolves slowly through a series of stages until it reaches its finished state.

Bahá’í: Yes, evolution is a process. But isn’t creation also a process?

The path from conception to birth is also a process. At one time each one of us looked more like an amoeba than a human being … but we were always human beings. Right?

All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

—Christ, The Gospel of Matthew

Bahá’í: Look around at nature and at our own intellect. Both are products of a process—whether you call it creation or evolution.

We’re surrounded by processes. The birth and growth of suns and planets, of life on this planet, of ideas and inventions … of civilization itself—all these are processes. Our own intellect is in a constant state of evolution—so is our understanding of it.

Would either of you argue that our intellect hasn’t changed since, say, the time of Christ?

Humanist: No, I certainly wouldn’t make that argument.

Evangelical: Okay, no. I think we’ve changed too. We’ve grown. But in some ways, haven’t we grown away from God?

Bahá’í: In some ways we have.

Maybe we should listen to the man who said that if we’d only put the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount into practice, we’d have a transformed world.

Humanist & Evangelical: Thomas Aquinas?

Bahá’í: Wrong. That would be Bertrand Russell, Welsh earl, philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, co-founder of analytic philosophy and most prominent 20th century atheist.

Though he decried religion as superstition based in fear, he understood on some level that its beneficial effects were limited by humanity’s choice not to live by the religions they professed.

Bahá’í: In suggesting that religious principles are only beneficial if we follow them, Bertrand Russell stands in complete agreement with religious scripture.

“The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established. This unity can never be achieved so long as the counsels which the Pen of the Most High hath revealed are suffered to pass unheeded. Through the power of the words He hath uttered the whole of the human race can be illumined with the light of unity...” — Bahá’u’lláh

No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.

—Muhammad, Hadith

Humanist: But this raises a key issue. In order to believe in any religious doctrine, you have to have faith. Faith is irrational. It’s believing in something without any evidence or proof.

In a word, it’s blind.

Evangelical: What’s wrong with that?

The Bible says: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good testimony. By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” —Hebrews 11:1-3

See what it says about “a good testimony?” We have faith because of the testimony of Christ and His apostles. We have faith because of what the Holy Spirit does in our own lives.

Humanist: Aha! But that’s not real faith, is it? You believe because of what you’ve “seen,” not what you haven’t seen!

Evangelical: What? No—wait a minute. Did I say that?

Bahá’í: Hold on, Humanist—are you saying you never exercise faith?

Humanist: Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. I believe in reason. Having faith is unreasonable.

Bahá’í: Have you ever seen a neutrino?

Humanist: A neutrino? Of course not. Neutrinos are too small to see.

Bahá’í: But you believe they exist.

Humanist: I don’t believe they exist. I know they exist because scientists have measured them.

Bahá’í: So you trust the authority of the scientists who have measured neutrinos—you have faith that these scientists are doing their work properly and coming to the right conclusions.

Humanist: No, I don’t have faith. I simply base my assumption that neutrinos exist on the facts that these scientists have ascertained.

Bahá’í: Then, you’re saying that you’ve organized your feelings about the existence of something—in this case, neutrinos—around the assumption that an authority on the subject has experienced them in some way.

Humanist: Yes. That’s what I just said. What’s your point?

Bahá’í: Only that that’s how I’d define “faith.”

So would a great many other people, including philosopher and mathematician William S. Hatcher, a Bahá’í scholar. I thought he put it very succinctly when he wrote:

“We need a good word to sum up this process of organizing our emotions around our assumptions, and religion has provided us with the word: faith. We can define an individual’s faith to be his total emotional and psychological orientation resulting from the body of assumptions about reality which he has made (consciously or unconsciously).”

He also noted that: “Every human being has faith just as surely as he has a mind and a body. We are not free to choose not to have faith any more than we can choose whether to be born.”

Humanist: That’s silly. And it’s just semantics. You’d call it faith. I’d call it …

… something else.

Evangelical: No, it’s not silly. That’s exactly how I feel. Faith in God is a natural response to what He’s done for us and what we’ve observed in His universe—just as you believe in neutrinos because of what scientists have observed.

Bahá’í: So, what you’re both saying is that through experience, observation, what the Bible calls testimony—that is, the expert opinions of people whose judgment, experience and expertise we trust—we gather a body of evidence around which we organize our beliefs.

You, Humanist, primarily consider the testimony of scientific literature.

You, Evangelical, consider primarily the testimony of scripture.

As a Bahá’í, I consider both.

What I’m asking you both to do is question your assumptions—to be open-minded about the validity of the other’s experience and “testimony.”

Humanist: I always do try to be open-minded.

Evangelical: And I always try to observe truth and reason as we’re instructed by the Apostle Paul’s example.

Bahá’í: Another point of unity. So, Would you agree, Humanist, that to be reasonable and just, you’d judge religion and faith by the same standards you’d like others to use when they judge science and scientific thought?

And would you agree, Evangelical, that to be just (and obedient to Christ) you’d judge both science and “other” religions by their fruits—rather than the behavior of their worst “adherents?”

Humanist: Well, of course I’d have to agree with that. It would be hypocritical of me not to. After all, it wouldn’t be fair to judge science solely by the behavior of scientists. BUT...

Evangelical: Okay, I agree. Christ did ask us to judge others by their fruits. And I’d certainly not want Christ judged solely by the behavior of Christians. BUT...

And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbor that which thou choosest for thyself.

—Bahá'u'lláh, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf

BUT...Thereby hangs a dialogue. We invite you to continue the conversation on

your own forums, in your own neighborhoods, with your collegial groups.

“Shoghi Effendi has for years urged the Bahá’ís ... to study history, economics, sociology, etc., in order to be au courant with all the progressive movements and thoughts being put forth today, and so that they could correlate these to the Bahá’í teachings. What he wants the Bahá’ís to do is to study more, not to study less. The more general knowledge, scientific and otherwise, they possess, the better. Likewise he is constantly urging them to really study the Bahá’í teachings more deeply.”

— Universal House of Justice, Compilation on Scholarship, p. 18