In another post, “forestpal” asked a question that perhaps all of us should ask: “Who would [should?] you go to for ideas about God and religion?” There might be a number of ways to answer this question, but if the answer is to capture religion it must encompass an idea of “God” that includes the “transcendent,” whether that implies a personal being or just a transcendent aspect of Nature. Einstein’s idea of God encompassed the transcendent, while Stephen Hawking’s did not. Both, however, pointed to nature as a source for their idea of “God.” So, what is the difference?

Imagine a VENN diagram, with three symmetrical overlapping circles. The circles are labeled, “Mind,” “Matter,” and “Mathematics.” And assume for the sake of argument that these circles encompass all of reality. (See Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality, Chapter 1) Now, suppose we fill-in just the center, where all three circles converge, and label this "known reality;" i.e. what we know scientifically about mind, matter, and mathematics. Acknowledging the transcendent is to understand that there is much beyond this center that is unknown—however the circles might be drawn. Moreover, acknowledging the transcendent also means that human beings can have some window or glimpse into this "other" reality. It is this second feature that is the essence of religion, religious experience, and religious faith. So, if one wants to learn about religion, they had better seek out those who at a minimum acknowledge the transcendent. Otherwise, you will be reading narrow and distorted ideas about religion by “scholars” that are locked into the center of the hypothetical VENN diagram, having no appreciation for what lies outside of that center, and who deny access to it, if they admit it exists at all.

Elaine Pagels (EP) is a world-renown Harvard religious historian. She has written a number of books, most notably, The Gnostic Gospels (1979), The Origin of Satan (1995); and Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (2003). These books, and others she wrote, are all scholarly works addressing various aspects of religion in a matter-of-fact “scientific” way. There is no hint of any personal faith here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_Pagels

In 1969, at the age of 26, EP married theoretical physicist, Heinz Pagels (HP), who was 30. After this marriage, they each embarked upon independent careers, both achieving substantial notoriety and respect. In addition to being an active scientist, HP became a science writer, writing popular works, such as The Cosmic Code: Quantum Physics As the Language of Nature (1982); Perfect Symmetry: The Search for the Beginning of Time (1985); and The Dreams of Reason: The Computer and the Rise of the Sciences of Complexity (1988).

EP and HP were deeply in love and had profound mutual respect for each other. EP, though not religious herself, was, naturally more sympathetic to religion and its value than HP. HP was a scientific materialist and atheist. One can imagine their conversations at the dinner table.

In 1981, after years of struggles with infertility issues, they finally had a son, Mark, whom, of course, they adored. Mark, however, was born with a congenital heart problem that plagued him throughout is short life. In 1987, at the age of 6, Mark died, leaving his parents devastated. They pulled themselves together and according to EP their bond became strengthened as they worked through this loss together. They also had adopted two additional children, Sarah and David, but even in death Mark was forever on their mind.

HP’s book, “The Dreams of Reason” was written just after Mark’s death, and was dedicated to him. This is a scientific book, but what is interesting is HP’s philosophical musings toward the end of the book about mind-body issues and survival of death. There is no doubt that he is attempting to reconcile his scientific knowledge with a deep personal loss.

In 1988, one year after Mark’s death, and just after “Dreams” was published, HP died in a hiking accident. EP was, of course, once again left devastated. Her emotional reactions to these two tragic losses in her life remained personal, until recently when they were described in her 2018 book, Why Religion: A Personal Story. In my view, what is most important about EP’s contribution to religion has less to do with her academic writing and everything to do with her personal life, as outlined in this book. It is here that EP gets around to the essence of religion; i.e. a personal narrative. In it, she weaves her substantial academic knowledge of religion with her personal transcendent experiences involving the death of Mark and HP. It is a beautiful and enlightening narrative that touches the essence of religion, and religious faith, without any hint of dogmatic commitments.

I strongly suggest that you read EP’s book, Why Religion. By so doing you will learn much more about religion than you could ever learn from reading the writings of scientific skeptics and detractors, like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sean Carroll, or Laurence Kraus, just to name a few. And this suggestion is just the beginning. Countless books by well-respected academics address religious and scientific issues with a respect for, and sometimes a commitment to, the transcendent. Although few such academics embrace a personal God, some do. But what they all recognize is that there is a vast reality that is not explainable by current scientific theories; and that human experience sometimes touches that reality in remarkable ways and in many different contexts.

I know all about religion. Keep your book.

"I know all about topic X, so I've no need to hear what a highly accomplished scholar might say on the topic"?

Hmmm. Now, "I have studied as much as I think I need to know on the subject and have little interest in pursuing it further" sounds entirely valid to me. Still, I think we should be careful to hold ourselves to the same standards of curiosity and openness to new perspectives and new ideas that we would ask of those who, for example, believe as they were told about Native Americans being descended from Jews...

So the author will tell me something new that is unknown ?

Odds are decent she'll say something worth considering that one hadn't previously thought about. One cannot guarantee either way, but that's part of my point.

Don't make me give you The Lebowski Ontological Argument for God.

This is a very complicated case, Maude. You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you's. And, uh, lotta strands to keep in my head, man. Lotta strands in old Duder's head. Luckily I'm adhering to a pretty strict, uh, drug regimen to keep my mind, you know, limber.

The Lebowski Ontological Argument for God ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVCtkzIXYzQ

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Lebowski Ontological Argument for God ...
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVCtkzIXYzQ
I use that line almost daily.

I love Elaine Pagels. I've read several of her books, including The Gnostic Gospels; Beyond Belief; The Origin of Satan; Adam, Eve and the Serpent; and The Gnostic Paul as well as some of her articles. I have not read Why Religion? but will do so.

A few notes. First, and least importantly, she is at Princeton and not Harvard. Second, I don't agree with you that she is irreligious. She was a mainstream Christian until she lost that literal faith in the light of studying the texts and their histories. Thereafter she became more metaphorical--a lot of her personal story, including the losses you describe, are recounted in her Beyond Belief treatment of the Gospel of Thomas--but never ceased looking for the numinous in life, which I consider the heart of religion in the good sense of that word. And she continued (continues?) to attend church as a form of meditation.

As a counterpoise, I would recommend C.S. Lewis's A Grief Observed, which is his account of his loss of his beloved wife. Lewis was a strange man, who among other bizarre experiences, while at Oxford had an S&M relationship with the mother of a deceased classmate. He was also an atheist until Tolkien persuaded him of the value of religious life. Thereafter he became an apologist, a dedicated but metaphorical Christian who did not consider the faith exclusive--i.e., he did not look down on Islam or Judaism, nor did he think that Christianity was the sole path to salvation.

If you forgive that digression, the book A Grief Observed (the story of his beloved wife's demise) is an honest attempt to understand God. The sentence that most deeply struck me went something like "I still believe in God, but I never believed he could be like THAT." In short, God could be vindictive, cruel, mean. Much of Lewis annoys me, but he was in that instance remarkably honest in saying that if God is omnipotent he is responsible for the evil that occurs on earth.

If one accepts, however provisionally, the word "religion" as meaning the search for personal truth, Pagels (and to a lesser extent Lewis) is useful. She is insightful. And a lot of her work, presented as the study of religion, is a vehicle for contemplating truth and reality. She, as opposed to famous scientists and TV personalities, is the sort of person whose ruminations about God are worth consideration.

How does Princeton make her more reputable than Harvard? I've never visited either one but read that Princeton has a bigger bent towards diversity and accepting various kinds of people more than Harvard. But Harvard has a bigger endowment, obnoxiously gargantuan.

My endowment is obnoxiously gargantuan

And untaxed?

Let's just say he's lost a lot of weight in recent years.

It doesn't, maca, as you would recognize if you saw that I prefaced that comment with the words "least important." Or did you miss that?

Some people care about accuracy for it's own sake--like whether there were humans on this planet before 4,000 BCE.

Some people care about accuracy for its (hahahaha! I corrected the "it's") own sake--like whether there were humans on this planet before 4,000 BCE.

Do you personally know any, or have any names, addresses, Social Security numbers, etc?

David Remnick tells part of this story about the Pagels in the New Yorker:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1995/04/03/the-devil-problem

There are some interesting details about how she personally coped with such losses, which are losses that could bow down even the strongest among us.

I can't get past the pay wall on that site. Here's another short piece from last year, a review of her new book, that captures Pagel's "religion" accurately and impressively.

She is a serious woman.


https://www.christiancentury.org/review/books/elaine-pagels-s-lifelong-search-sacred

Oh that is unfortunate. It’s a long piece and Remnick did an excellent job. It’s in the APRIL 3, 1995 Issue.

The occasion for the conversation was the event of a new book, The Origin Of Satan. David had an advanced copy.

Snippet that goes with HB’s narrative:

Curiously, “The Origin of Satan” begins with a nakedly personal moment, a hint of the way Pagels transformed pain into scholarship: “In 1988, when my husband of twenty years died in a hiking accident, I became aware that, like many people who grieve, I was living in the presence of an invisible being—living, that is, with a vivid sense of someone who had died.”

(Tsk tsk, LW. I would have guessed you of all RfMers would have a subscription to The New Yorker.)

LW loves the New Yorker but she is one cheap broad!

Stop calling dames broads !

"Dames" is a word used exclusively by men with Brylcreem in their hair, a few of whom are evidently still alive.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2020 11:03PM by Lot's Wife.

Well that sure takes all the fun out of it.

While I haven't read any of Elaine Pagels' books (I can't seem to find them in braille anywhere), her response to the deaths of first her son and then her husband reminded me of two events in my family, one (the second) involving me personally.

In 1987, my mom's youngest sister lost her husband in an automobile accident. Shortly after that, she thought she saw the ghost of her husband on some occasions standing in her closet. The mystery was solved when she recognized the person in her closet when he stepped in to the light as being her own teenage son.

Fast forward fourteen years to the death of my father after complications from a heart attack. Shortly after his passing, I played the song "If You Remember Me," by Chris Thompson, and I began seeing it as my father talking to me from the grave about how we had often failed to connect during his lifetime. The thing was, like my mom's sister's "visitations" from her late husband, it wasn't true at all. While it is true that we really never connected during his lifetime, my father didn't know the Chris Thompson record from any other pop song released in 1979. I had had the song for a number of years on CD, but he and I never discussed its lyrics and what they might mean.

My conclusion from these two events (along with some observations of my mom's behavior after my father's death) is that the process of grieving does not allow us to see things clearly; that is, we look for our lost loved ones, and when we don't find them, we create an illusion of the mind that that person is still there, looking over our shoulders. It's a coping mechanism for us as humans, but I think now that assuming that what we see during the grieving process is what is really there may, in fact, be very difficult, if not impossible, for the vast majority of us to do.

This is a wise post.

There is also something beautiful in seeing one's husband in her son. Perhaps that is where immortality lies.

My conclusion from these two events (along with some observations of my mom's behavior after my father's death) is that the process of grieving does not allow us to see things clearly; that is, we look for our lost loved ones, and when we don't find them, we create an illusion of the mind that that person is still there, looking over our shoulders. It's a coping mechanism for us as humans, but I think now that assuming that what we see during the grieving process is what is really there may, in fact, be very difficult, if not impossible, for the vast majority of us to do.

COMMENT: Thank you for these thoughts, and for sharing your experiences. No doubt, traumatic events and the related grieving process can affect human psychology in profound ways. However, one should always be careful about over-generalizing into a theory that is based upon "illusions of the mind." One should be cautious when calling any human experience an "illusion" when it is not presented as such to the experiencer. If one surveys the literature on this topic one is hard-pressed to dismiss them all as illusory. Moreover, similar experiences occur in contexts were there is no underlying trauma and where a psychological explanation seems much more forced.

I thank you for the book suggestions, as one who is always interested in new perspectives. I jumped from Mormon fake prophets directly to atheist scientists, and feel I need to read about ideas somewhere in the middle. I think Lewis leans very heavily towards Christianity, and I didn't find many new, more liberal ideas in his books that I read; though He resonated with me far more than any Mormons ever did.

I'm hoping to find agreement in Elaine Pagels' book, but-- whatever--I'm curious. Whenever I learn something new, think outside the box, try to grasp different ideas, I can actually physically feel my mind expanding. It is euphoria. (I'm being metaphysical.) For me, this is part of my recovery from Mormonism. I can also feel my mind shrinking--we have all felt that soporific stupor in Mormon meetings. 20 years ago, I was a narrow-minded Mormon, and now I want to know as much as I can possibly know, within my limited capabilities. This is what science does for me.

I'm pretty sure that Dave the Atheist was being a bit sarcastic. When I was a little girl, I was fascinated by Greek Mythology, Aesop's Fables, and the Nordic myths found in the Wagnerian operas, but I didn't believe in them. This how I feel about studying other religions and philosophies, right now. I can see why some ex-Mormons don't want to think about stuff like that. It's like I'm regressing back into the past to pick up the breadcrumbs I dropped in the forest, long ago, and I don't want to go back there, but maybe I need to go back there. I might solve some mysteries.

Maybe the ultimate "authority" on all things personal, spititual, and abstract is your own self. This is true in music and art, as well. But, you've got to get the information, first.

I love all your ideas.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2020 02:11AM by forestpal.

One of the problems of sorting out ideas about "God" is that unless one's concept of God involves some commitment to a transcendent reality, it is devoid of religious significance, and is in effect meaningless; as SC has inadvertently demonstrated repeatedly.

So, the first step in religious inquiry is to try to determine if such a transcendent reality exists; i.e. if there is some reality beyond the ability of our five senses to access, and if so, can it be accessed in any other way--even if such access is only an intuitive feeling that such a reality exists.

So, there is a wide spectrum encompassed by this transcendent reality, and what one deems can be accessed in such a realm. On the one side of this spectrum are people who believe in a host of religious ideas, like a personal God, a heaven and hell, and a "plan of salvation," and further believe that one can access such a reality through "revelation." The other side of the spectrum are people like Einstein, who believed in a transcendent reality that encompasses substantive natural law and mathematics, and who was astonished that scientists through mind and consciousness could to some degree, but not fully, access such reality. So, there is a huge difference between the "God" of religion, and the "God" of Einstein, but both involve a transcendent reality that to some degree can be accessed by conscious human beings.

So, given the above, how does one go about finding one's place on this spectrum--if one is able to accept the idea of the transcendent in the first place? (Which I accept as a given!) It seems that the first thing to remember is that such access is deeply personal; it is at bottom about one's personal experiences, and intuitions. That means that a person can only be "informed" by the scientific or religious literature. A decisive personal answer will never be found in any book. (I have tried this approach for decades, unsuccessfully!) What is important is not to be tricked by dogmatic skeptics into believing that given science the transcendent cannot exist; or tricked by religionists into believing that it is simple and associated with certain knowledge involving dogmatic theological pronouncements by some "prophet."
____________________________________________________

"Maybe the ultimate "authority" on all things personal, spiritual, and abstract is your own self. This is true in music and art, as well. But, you've got to get the information, first."

COMMENT: Well said! I fully agree, as I said, the ultimate authority is personal and spiritual, and that "information" can only inform, direct, or more dangerously, stifle one's quest for understanding. It is this latter danger that concerns me most for exMormons who, like most of us here, who have been burned by religion.

If there is one thing I think I have learned over the years, it is that rejection of the transcendent out of hand in favor of a rigid, materialist view of reality "in the name of science" is not only unnecessary, but is manifestly based upon false assumptions. Such a view plays havoc to one's worldview, including most especially one's commitment to freewill and human values, which are of themselves part of a transcendent reality.

“On the one side of this spectrum are people who believe in a host of religious ideas, like a personal God, a heaven and hell, and a "plan of salvation," and further believe that one can access such a reality through "revelation." The other side of the spectrum are people like Einstein, who believed in a transcendent reality that encompasses substantive natural law and mathematics, and who was astonished that scientists through mind and consciousness could to some degree, but not fully, access such reality.”

Or Kirk and Spock. Joseph would surely have a green alien.

I am convinced 'we/ourselves (subconscious)' knows everything or we are 'entangled' to a source where we can get the information.

Therefore, we need to go 'inside' our expanded selves to find the answers to things like God, religion, etc. etc.!!! Of course I RV and prove week after week I can get information I am 'only' entangled with.

I don't think God would have planned it any other way.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2020 07:37PM by spiritist.

I think our experiences are co-created. For that to occur, there needs to be a “co-“ part. Physical materialism is in denial because of the past sins of religion, but perhaps it’s because it has become a religion unto itself. Otherwise, why are evangelists like Feynman, Carroll, and Krauss given such sway? But the science (in the classical sense) doesn’t support them.

It’s a lot like the Atheism that occurs post-Mormonism as a response to traumatic betrayal that beggars the imagination of those who haven’t lived it. So it’s a problem for sure, but certainly preferable to the fate of Mormons who learn in the afterlife that they sold their birthright for a quick fix. Esau’s beans.

This is the refiner’s fire. There may not be gold in the teeth of South American Mormons, but there’s gold here in RfM. Maybe you go without God for a while, but aren’t you glad you came to the party?