Seven Principles of Cosmic Spirituality

From Tom Harpers official web site:

Seven Principles of Cosmic Spirituality

1. The entire cosmos is the manifestation of Divine Mind-every molecule, every cell, every creature, every rock, tree, mountain, planet, blazing star, whirling galaxy and universe of galaxies.
2. We are all an integral, interconnected part of the whole cosmos and our own inner world is a holograph of the cosmos within us.
3. One basic datum underlies every religion under the sun, the principle of Incarnation. The Word or Logos, God's self-expression made manifest, has given the light of its divine spark to every mind/soul coming into the world. Christians call this the Christ or "Christ in us." Other faiths have different names or modes of expression for this same inner reality.
4. Every religion whose ethical core is summed up by the word "compassion" or "loving-kindness" to all other creatures without exception has a vision of the truth and is a valid "way" to Transcendence.
5. No one faith or religion-whatever its claims may be, alone has The Truth.
6. True cosmic spirituality is steeped in, flows from, and derives its most powerful analogies and metaphors from the natural world -- from the tiniest bit of dust to the spiraling stars above.
7. The core aim of cosmic spirituality is radical transformation, both personal and societal.

While a little on the new age side, I like many things he is saying. Why am I thinking "new age" is something to be avoided, flakey even? Is it my "fundamental upbringing" clouding my perceptions still?

I am not sold on #3 but I like #'s 1, 4, 5, and 7. Maybe I am heading down that new age path for a while at least. Any comments or thoughts fellow ents?

More on Breaking the Spell (the study of religion)

Came across a review of my current reading by H. Allen Orr of The New Yorker entitled The God Project. While I am early into the book and finding it a little difficult to read, as Dennett spends way to much time early on defending his right to "study" religion, this review is making me feel dispair in continuing.

The review by Orr however is an excellent read and though I would highly recommend reading the whole thing linked above, I will leave you with a couple of quotes:

Even if a science of religion could reach firm conclusions, what would it mean for religion itself? Exactly what would follow for the faithful? At one extreme, the Dawkinses of the world argue that a scientific accounting of the origin and evolution of religious memes should destroy belief. At the other, the Goulds argue that, because science and religion have separate provinces, no proper scientific finding can touch religion.

Neither of these extremes seems tenable. It would be naïve to deny that science can inform, and sometimes challenge, our view of religion. To take a trivial example, perhaps the earliest finding from the natural history of religion was that different peoples appeal to different gods. Any honest Christian or Jew must admit that, had he been born half a world away, he’d be an honest Hindu or Buddhist. This finding suggests at least some adjustment to more innocent views of the inevitability of one’s faith. But believers often seem happy to make these sorts of adjustments and remain perfectly faithful. For some people, the spell cast by religion seems to have less to do with the particular claims made by a particular tradition than with larger metaphysical claims: the universe has a purpose, God exists, or life is sacred. So the more serious question is whether a science of religion—indeed, whether science in general—can undermine these sorts of beliefs.

____________________

None of this is to say that Dennett’s preferred outcome is wrong. Religious beliefs, including those abstract ones having little relation to any particular tradition, may well be mistaken. But it seems clear that any such conclusion must come from someplace other than science. Of course, even if a line can be drawn between physics and metaphysics, it wouldn’t make all our difficulties disappear. Religion is much more than a collection of transcendental and untestable assertions. It’s also a potent social and political force and, like any such force, it is sometimes prone to excess. The result is the usual roster of ills: intolerance, fanaticism, and, yes, terrorism. But it seems doubtful that solutions to these problems will emerge from anyone’s laboratory.

Deep book and deep thoughts no doubt. The highlight is by myself as it is a very powerful and sobering statement that is hard to ignore. My head is spinning . . .

Time

On Saturday night I went to the airport to pick up my inlaws who were dur in around 9:30 from Phillie. However once we arrived we realized the flight was delayed by over an hour. Feeling a little tired, I decided to have a nap on one of the lovely couches in one of the dimer areas of the terminal waiting area. After a short nap I woke up in a sudden start only to realize that I had experienced some acid reflux that had worked its way into my windpipe. It's like sucking puke into your lungs. Think about it, not so good. Anyways, I hurried to the "convenience store" kiosk to get a water in an effort to relieve this awful feeling. While I was getting my water there were a couple of people in front of me so I was purusing a Time mag while I waited. There was an article in this issue that caught my attention so I purchased it with the anticipation that I would be able to read it while awaiting my inlaws arrival.

This article will be interesting to both Cip and Cold Mo and I recommend you drop by your neighbourhood Chapters to have a read (it's not long). Wait, I just realized that When Not Seeing is Believing by Andrew Sullivan can be seen online. So I won't belabour much here other than to quote a quote of Andrews' and highly suggest you cruise on over to Time:

The 18th century German playwright Gotthold Lessing said it best. He prayed a simple prayer: "If God were to hold all Truth concealed in his right hand, and in his left hand only the steady and diligent drive for Truth, albeit with the proviso that I would always and forever err in the process, and to offer me the choice, I would with all humility take the left hand, and say, Father, I will take this--the pure Truth is for You alone."

That sentiment is as true now as it was more than two centuries ago when Lessing wrote it. Except now the very survival of our civilization may depend on it.

Revelation

In line with certainty, another interesting word is revelation. Many of those who feel certain about their religious beliefs depend solely on a writtten or verbalized word from someone who has had a revelation. I like Paine's comment on this subject, as found in his Age of Reason pamphlet. He says:

As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I
proceed further into the subject, offer some observations on the word
'revelation.' Revelation when applied to religion, means something
communicated immediately from God to man.

No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a
communication if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case,
that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not
revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only.
When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to
a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those
persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to
every other, and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call anything a
revelation that comes to us at second hand, either verbally or in
writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first
communication. After this, it is only an account of something which
that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find
himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to
believe it in the same manner, for it was not a revelation made to
me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

Powerful logic when it comes to acceptance of the written word of man while ignoring nature, science and most of all, reason!

Certainty

There's that word again! It really seems like such an ugly thing to me now. Quote below, from an interview in the New York Times with Daniel Dennet, author of one of the books I am currently reading. While the book is interesting, this statement is not.

So what can you tell us about God?

Certainly the idea of a God that can answer prayers and whom you can talk to, and who intervenes in the world - that's a hopeless idea. There is no such thing.

Edited Oct. 03/06 - Certainty Reheated

I was thinking more about certainty over the past 24 hrs. One point I would like to make is that I believe that certainty goes hand-in-hand with credibility. Those who say they are certain about their religion or belief system have no credibility when you think about. I think this is why I am having some trouble reading Breaking the Spell because Dennet is so certain about his belief (or non-belief as it were).

I also came across this quote tonight:

“When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also add that some things are more nearly certain than others”
-Bertrand Russell

It is this near certainty that I would like to lay out for myself in blogs to follow.

Appetizer

The Big Bang made God deaf.
Anonymous