A "Higher Power"

Many Americans have a fuzzy, ill-defined concept of god as a "higher power". It is "higher" in the sense of existing outside and above the scope of the causal agents that we normally see operating in the physical world, and a "power" in that it is able to effect change in our world, typically in ways that mortal agents would be unable to. This vague entity is commonly pictured as an ever-present, intentional agency, though not necessarily anthropomorphic or even conscious (in the sense that we are). It is responsible for the some or all of the workings of fate, destiny, good and bad luck, and the major events of our lives. It may respond to prayers and intervene in major life events.

This belief provides comfort and refuge when life brings the pain of disappointment, misfortune, suffering, loss, unfairness, fear, broken relationships, failure, or death of loved ones. It sustains hope for an afterlife, helps establish a connection to the mystical and mysterious, between like-minded believers, and to the sense of wonder and awe that comes with being human. Those who would say, "I couldn't live in a world without god", "life would be pointless without god", "there would be no right and wrong without god", "what goes around comes around", or "everything happens for a reason" might think of god in these indistinct terms. For them, life would be far too uncomfortable and psychologically painful without this faith. This "appeal to consequences" argument convinces them that, therefore, he or it must exist - if it were untrue then what would be the point of going on? Life would just be too awful otherwise.

There is evidence from the fields of Cognitive Science and Neuroscience that humans have hard-wired "agency detection" centers in the brain that ascribe intention and "agency" to events in the world. The natural human tendency to believe that a higher power somehow directs otherwise random-seeming events may be facilitated by this hard-wiring.

There are "cognitive biases" that may predispose one to come into this belief. "Confirmation bias" is the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions. This cognitive mistake can cause one to filter negative, disconfirming evidence while over-emphasizing positive, corroborating evidence. For example, one may clearly recall times when prayers were answered, accidents narrowly avoided, or good luck encountered and use these occasions as evidence for god's intervention. However, the opposite (and potentially far more numerous) experiences of unanswered prayers, accidents that were experienced, and bad fortune are explained away by other means.

Another cognitive bias or error in thinking is Apophenia, also called "patternicity" (a term coined by the skeptic, Michael Shermer). Shermer defined it as "the tendency to find meaningful patterns in meaningless noise". In his book, The Believing Brain he describes how humans impute agency and meaning into otherwise random events. This trait can cause people to see meaning and intent behind events that are actually happening for impersonal and random reasons.

Belief in "higher power" can satisfy the natural religious sense without the encumbrance of complex and possibly irrelevant formal religious doctrine, the need to attend church, to tithe, or engage in other inconvenient activities. It can be a source of great comfort and peace, which alone may justify adopting the belief if having those feelings outweighs the need for a theology that has strong backing evidence and makes clear logical sense. For those who simply don't want to bother coming up with a well-formed theology, study the scripture of their childhood faith, or learn about attractive competing faiths, this is a convenient and practical (although somewhat lazy) way to delegate all things spiritual to the higher power and call the job done.

Oprah's God

When I happened to catch a sound byte of the Dr Oz show where he was interviewing Oprah Winfrey, I just had to include this astute theologian's thoughts into my collection of god-conceptions. Here is a frequently repeated report of the interview:

In his introduction of Winfrey, Oz told excited audience members: “Oprah has transformed the lives of millions, and now faces a transformation of her own. Today she says that you have the power to transform your life…she says the answers are all inside of you.”

Asked by Oz, during the Dec. 7 airing of “The Dr. Oz Show,” what her “big plan” was and how she remains inspired throughout her career, Winfrey responded:

“For me at this particular time in my life I recognize that everything is about moving closer to that which is God. And without a full, spiritual center — and I’m not talking about religion — I’m talking about without understanding the fullness from which you’ve come, you can’t really fulfill your supreme moment of destiny. And I think everybody has a supreme moment of destiny.”

“I think being connected to that which is greater than yourself, for me, at this particular time in my life, is the most important thing,” she added.

I hope this clears up any confusion you might have previously had about just what god is :)

Atheist, Agnostic, Ignostic, and "None"

There is no commonly agreed upon definition of atheist. Just as there are thousands of definitions of "god", there are many (probably not thousands, though) types of atheists. The word, literally means "non-theist" or "anti-theist". Depending on the context, it can range from an active and vocal denial of god and rejection of religions to a simple disinterest in the whole topic. It can imply an active disbelief in deities or simple lack of a belief in them due to their improbability and lack of evidence. Atheists claim there are two main reasons for their denial of the existence of gods and/or disbelief in gods: "Strong Atheists" claim that there is positive evidence that gods do not exist (also called "positive atheism"), while "Weak Atheists" claim that theists bear the burden of proof to show that god(s) exist, that they have failed to do so, and that belief is therefore unwarranted.

Some atheists are casually non-theistic about the dominant god or gods of their culture in the same sense as we all are about Thor, Mithra, Zeus, Marduk, or Isis. They are just apathetic about gods, without distinction. Others (the "new atheists") take an activist stance against religion, asserting they have proof that god doesn't exist.

The word, "atheist" has strong negative connotations. Many atheists are not comfortable identifying publicly as atheists because of that stigma. As a sub-group, polls show that they are one of the most despised. In America, self-proclaimed atheists have practically no chance of election to high public office (there is one recent exception to this in the US Congress). Because of this, and because "atheism" is a negative descriptor (it defines what they are not, but says nothing about what they are) many atheists may prefer being called secular humanists, philosophical naturalists, philosophical materialists, non-religious, or skeptics.

Atheism can be the endpoint of a long transition from religious to deist to "spiritual but not religious", maybe a quick stop at pantheism, to agnostic, and finally to atheist. Many on the de-conversion journey are not comfortable making the leap in one fell swoop, but take time to transition. It can take a while to unlearn what accrued over a lifetime.

Up until about the time of the Enlightenment in Western Europe, a label of atheism didn't necessarily indicate lack of belief, but more a lack of willingness to accept God's rule. Descartes, who is famous for basing his philosophy on a proof of God's existence and benevolence, was accused of being an atheist by some of his contemporaries, mostly because he didn't believe in god the way you were supposed to. It was not until relatively modern times that Westerners actually started to commonly think about rejecting the actual existence of a god or gods. Prior to this, Protestants called Catholics atheists, and vice versa, and both called the Hindus, Moslems, and other "heathens" atheists. Theists considered deists to be atheists. It was thrown about much as the epithet, "communist", was used as a general purpose ad-hominem attack during the second half of the 20th century, and how "bigot" and "racist" is frequently used in the 21st century. It used to have more of a connotation of "incorrect belief" rather than "no belief", as it does now. There were early schools of atheist philosophy in ancient Hindu and Greek teachings, but only in the last couple of centuries has the movement gained momentum.

With the coming of the Enlightenment, or Age of Reason, began an era in Western civilization which emphasized logic, reason, and empiricism as the primary sources of legitimate knowledge. The enlightenment was a movement toward science, knowledge, and reason, and away from religion, ignorance, superstition, and dogmatic acceptance of "established" philosophical "facts" from the Greek philosophers (particularly Aristotle). The Enlightenment embodied a desire for human affairs to be guided by rationality and evidence rather than by faith, superstition, or revelation; a belief in the power of human reason to change society and liberate the individual from the restraints of custom or arbitrary authority; all backed up by a world view increasingly validated by science rather than by religion or tradition. The Scientific Revolution, which roughly coincided in time with the Enlightenment, amplified this trend.

Related to atheism is non-theism, which is the belief that the universe can be explained without any reference to the supernatural, or to a supernatural being. This is similar to metaphysical naturalism. Some non-theists avoid the concept of God, while accepting that it is significant to many; other non-theists understand God as a symbol of human values and aspirations. Many schools of Buddhism may be considered non-theistic.

Some atheists contend that there is no compelling evidence for god, and insufficient reason to believe. On top of that, there is insufficient "prior probability" to continue to suspend judgment on the issue (as agnostics do) due to its inherent implausibility. Their reasoning goes something like this: For all past generations no clear evidence has been presented (short of personal testimony, questionable documentation, and muddled reports of miracles). We have no reason to anticipate any new compelling evidence is forthcoming anytime soon. Therefore, we are justified in inferring that god probably doesn't exist. This line of thought brings in the concept of reliable knowledge vs. certain knowledge. Although we don't have absolute and certain knowledge that a god doesn't exist, we have reliable knowledge that this is the case. In other words, we can be as certain of this as we can of most things we encounter in life. Just as we cannot say with 100% certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow or that a real world exists outside our front doors, we can (with a high degree of confidence) make these assertions. The same can be said of a confident lack of belief in the existence of a god. To paraphrase from Stephen Jay Gould's description of scientific facts, atheists can't have "absolute certainty" of god's non-existence. They can only say that it is "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

So, does "absence of evidence mean evidence of absence"? It can, if the evidence was strenuously and diligently sought after, but was not found. However, an omnipotent god is outside the bounds of experiment. He can always befuddle, outsmart, and outmaneuver any experiment designed to detect his presence. This type of "special pleading" (god is there, but you just can't see him) is very convenient for god's defenders, and is used in other contexts to support belief in ghosts, ESP, UFOs, hollow earth, and other fringe entities and belief systems.

Agnostics haven't gone as far as atheists in their declaration of the non-existence of gods. They claim that there is not enough evidence either way to make a decision. Agnostics are frequently criticized for being wishy-washy for refusing to take a stand. Some agnostics are really atheists who are not ready to "come out" in public. Some honestly think that there is not enough evidence to reach a conclusion one way or the other.

Ignostics (a lesser known term, synonymous with Theological Noncognitivism) object to the vocabulary, terminology, questions, and concepts used in religious discussions. They claim that there really is no coherent definition of God, and that there are too many contradictory and irreconcilable definitions to make sense of. They assert that, without a clear definition of what is meant by "god" in "does god exist?", we are putting the cart ahead of the horse and probably asking the wrong questions. Without knowing what we are asking, we will end up almost certainly just confusing ourselves with misleading terminology that seems to make sense, but really doesn't. As Wittgenstein recommended, they prefer to "pass over in silence" this topic because it really can't be discussed reasonably, and the propositions that are made about it one way or the other have no "truth value", neither being capable of proof nor disproof. In other words, it is a useless exercise to speculate on the ontological status of a "god". In this they echo Buddha when he outlined his "unanswerable questions" - a set of questions that can't be answered, may not even make sense to ask, that waste our effort, and whose pursuit misdirects our energy and focus from more important things.

None is a relatively new term that belongs in this chapter. It has been described, tongue-in-cheek, as the fastest growing "religion" in the West. It mostly shows up in younger people living in First World countries in the West. It describes people who, when answering a questionnaire on religious belief fill in the box marked "None" or "No religion" instead of Christian / Hindu / Moslem / Buddhist / etc. They don't identify with any of these groups, and would not affiliate themselves with these or any other groups that might show up on such a list (including Atheist and Agnostic). They resist being categorized and labelled in this manner, and see no reason to submit to the process. Because of this, it is difficult to make general statements about what they are "like" or what the believe or disbelieve. I think it is fair to say that they don't really want to participate in a discussion or debate about the topic of spirituality, salvation, praying, or any other religious topics. They don't want to be thought of in religious terms, and they don't use religion as a framework for how they approach life. They don't attend church very much, if at all. Thoughts about god just don't play a significant role in how they move through their lives. Many do confess to believing that a god or "higher power" may exist, and may even technically belong to a church (that is, they never officially separated from whatever church they were brought up in). Some admit that they occasionally pray. But for the "Nones" god and religion play only a small role. It it indicative of the lessening relevance of religion among many younger Europeans and Americans. Looking forward, the "Nones" are unlikely to join churches, buy bibles, give money to churches, have their children attend church, get their children baptized, or raise them in a particular religion.

Theism and Deism

Theists believe in a supernatural intelligence who, in addition to his main work of creating the universe, is still around to oversee and influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation. In many theistic belief systems, the deity is intimately involved in human affairs. He answers prayers (and even appears to crave them), forgives or punishes sins, intervenes in the world by performing miracles, concerns himself about good and bad deeds, and knows when we do them, or even when we think of doing them. He is fully informed at all times.

Deism also involves belief in a supernatural intelligence, but one whose activities were confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe in the first place and got the ball rolling. The deist god never intervenes thereafter, and certainly has no particular interest in human affairs. Deist differ from theist in that their god does not answer prayers, is not interested in sins or confessions, does not read our thoughts and does not intervene with capricious miracles.

God experienced as awakening and enlightenment

There is some overlap here with the "mystical god" described earlier. Various religious experiences entail an "awakening" through revelation or mystical experience. After this awakening, the "scales are lifted" from the eyes as famously happened to Saul of Tarsus, or the Grinch Who Stole Christmas. Nothing seems the same after this - everything is filtered through the new spiritual perspective. The recollection of life before this experience is one of a dullness or lack of awareness, as if one were previously sleepwalking. It sounds similar to the way someone feels when they are freshly in love. How long this honeymoon period lasts probably varies. For some it is a short-term infatuation, and for others, it can and does mature into a lifelong relationship.

Advaita proponents talk in terms of awakening - of realizing everything is connected and that there are no distinctions or divisions or "self". This is a very subjective and personal psychological experience, and this new set of realizations come from the same mind that had the previous "erroneous" understandings. It is a transition from one perspective to another, and the latter seems to be preferable to the former to the person undergoing the transformation.

Spiritual awakening and enlightenment is the primary goal of almost all spiritual practices, traditions and religions and for any spiritual "seeker". It frequently involves long hours of sustained prayer, meditation, physical deprivation and exertions, fasting, and various forms of mental focus and/or defocusing. We see this in Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, animistic "primitive" religions, and many other traditions. There are many names for this awakened state of consciousness depending on what culture and tradition we belong to - nirvana, cosmic consciousness, enlightenment, etc. Whether it represents a new ability to see hitherto hidden realities, or is a personal psychological experience brought on by the practices leading up to it is open to debate.

Fideism

This is a type of belief in god that unabashedly admits of no logical justification. Fideists concede that there is no evidence that supports faith in a god or gods. They seek no empirical justification, and they make no scientific claims based on their faith. In the absence of contrary evidence, they simply prefer to have faith over no faith. That faith makes them more comfortable, allows them to engage in prayer, and to participate in a relationship with god and with a community of believers. The justification of their faith is irrelevant to them.

The attitude of Fideism towards reason and logic (with respect to religion) ranges from simple disinterest to outright hostility. Fideists of the latter sort disparage logic and reason as being weak and incapable of ascertaining the most important types of truth, which faith alone can provide. Martin Gardiner, one of the founders of American skepticism, was a Fideist of the former sort. He clearly was a master of logic and reason, but chose not to apply them to his faith. The need for evidence and external reasons for believing are of no consequence in Fideism. Faith for the sake of faith alone, the peace of mind, a sense of greater purpose, the inner strength, and the happiness it can bring is sufficient.

Born Again Christian God

This is straightforward, literal theism which portrays a god in whose literal image we are made. This type of god is thought of as a powerful, humanoid, supernatural being much like us, but infinitely more powerful in each of our positive attributes and totally lacking our negative attributes. When he does display cruelty, sadism, pettiness, commits genocide, approves of rape, murder, and torture, it is because we have shown improper faith, violated his laws, or it is otherwise for our own good. He is infinitely powerful, intelligent, creative, kind, aware, caring, capable, etc. He takes taking a personal interest in us and all that we do, hears all prayers, and observes each of us 24 hours a day. This god is able to be everywhere present, aware, involved, and in control. As songwriter, Marty Robbins wrote of another minor deity, "He knows if you've been good or bad, so be good for goodness sake".

He is a master supervisor who knows when a sparrow falls. He watches our activities and thoughts with extreme interest. He craves our worship and our prayers. He rewards and punishes like a supernatural parent. The intense faith that god is always there to provide sustenance, support, and strength is one of the strongest selling points for the personal-god philosophy. Practically everyone feels emotionally or physically stranded or isolated from time to time. Having an imaginary friend who is always there can be very uplifting and encouraging in life's worst moments.

The evangelical/fundamentalist version of this goes further - every word of the bible is considered to be literally and factually true. In no way is it considered to be allegorical or metaphorical. When the bible says that mankind was created in god's image, this can be interpreted in exactly one way: we look like him, and by "we" this means that god probably looks a lot like the white, male, members of the local pentecostal congregation. This preference for literalism is not shared by most Christians, and is not required, or even thought to be relevant, by most Christian believers. In fact, it was not until the last few hundred years that the literal factuality of the bible even became a major issue. Some historians of religion trace the emphasis on literal interpretation to the Enlightenment, and see it as a reaction to the hyper-rational non-supernatural forces coming into prominence. As the factual inaccuracy of the bible was pointed out time and again by prominent Enlightenment figures, religious apologists dug in their heels and pulled in exactly the opposite direction, asserting the exact factual correctness of the bible. Prior to that, there was no strong debate on this subject. As biblical stories about Noah's flood, creation of the universe in six days, the virgin birth of Jesus, stopping the sun, parting the Red Sea, and creation of Eve from Adam's rib began to be seen as myths, a school of biblical inerrancy emerged as a counter-reaction.

And of course, in addition to the literal interpretation of the bible, the main thrust of the born again movement is that Jesus Christ, god's only son, is the sole path to god. Only through baptism in Jesus can one achieve salvation and eternal connection to god.

Some Evangelical sects practice a form of prayer that, over a period of months, allows the participants to begin to believe that god is actually present, for example, sitting on a couch with them or at the kitchen table, advising them. After a long path of group and individual prayer sessions focusing on sharpening the imaginary experience, Evangelical members convert what start out as conversations with an imaginary entity into real conversations - sort of an induced cultural schizophrenia. They consult this god on all matters, small and large, from how much salt to put on a salad to career choices. He becomes that person's "best friend".