Do you believe in God?

 Dear Greg:

I realize that you are a Catholic priest and are very learned in theology, but I think you have misinterpreted what I said and will take full blame for that, since "It is mostly Christians who get insulted that way...." obviously came out "wrong" and that is certainly not what I meant.  It was in response to Jonathan's remark, that went like this:

One thing that struck me is your remark about inclusiveness.  This, to me, is a problem with the perrenialists:  In trying to claim that all religions are essentially the same, they dumb down all the traditions and in doing so create their own form of ideological imperialism.  I would not dare insult the intelligence of Buddhists by claiming that my panentheistic beliefs are the same as their non-theistic beliefs.  We can easily agree to disagree about the existence of a theistic God, while noting our agreement about a higher reality which transcends all categories.

How can one be both inclusive and an imperialist?  If one is an imperialist, one is demolishing a culture and replacing an indigenous culture with one's own--so is not at all inclusive.  Since when has perennial philosophy throughout the world become imperialistic toward other religions?  Why does Jonathan think that perennial philosophy claims that all religions are the same or would be insulting to people's intelligence?  Seems to me that the only ones whose intelligence would be insulted would those who do not understand perennial philosophy. 

As you have correctly pointed out, Greg, the sense of outrage, insult, or intolerance expressed by many toward the concept of a perennial philosophy--that is, in finding a common thread, a perennial wisdom, or transcendant and mystical ground in all of the great wisdoms throughout the world is not a prejudice confined strictly to nor even necessarily mostly to Christianity--but is a form of intolerance that exists in every religion and even outside of religion.  And by "intolerance," I don't simply mean the narrow-minded hostility and outrage shown historically by religious zealots toward "other" people of other faiths and cultures who did not permit them to practice according to their own tradition and beliefs--as the emergence of Orange has pretty much eradicated this form of religious bigotry in most parts of the world.  The practice of burning people at the stake for heresy or religious deviance or dissidence is no longer acceptable, thanks to Orange rationality.

Yet still fairly widespread in contemporary times is an intolerant attitude expressed by many toward the concept of a perennial wisdom that exists in all the higher teachings of the world.  After all: one can be the quintessance of an Orange or Green acceptance of religious freedom and tolerance to allow for the coexistence with people of other faiths and cultures while simultaneously being highly inflexible and intolerant of the concept of a common mystical ground in all the great religious teachings of the world due to a sense of religious exclusivity or lack of esoteric teaching..  And not only that--but even intolerant of a perennial wisdom altogether (even in one's own religion).  This is because it isn't Christianity or any other religion per se that promotes this particular prejudice but more the fact that religious fundamentalism exists in every religion of the world--and hence the intolerance to the concept of a common ground and the feeling of insult (Shin Buddhism, for example, is a form of religious fundamentalism in Buddhism who would reject the notion that there is a transcendant common ultimate ground in all the great religions other than their own).  And common to all religious fundamentalism, wherever it exists--is a view of religion that is dogmatic, exclusivist, literalist, mythical, and predominantly if not wholly exoteric in its outlook.  Such a combination of traits is fine and well for those who are at the mythical and concrete-literal stage who lack the cognizance and the intensity of consciousness (diaphaneity--e.g., transparency) to see any value in perennial or esoteric wisdoms and practices; as this is to be expected given their level of development which is capable of seeing no further than their concrete literalism of dogma and myth so cannot be faulted for that.  Yet conventional religion--which arose prior to modernity and in particular religious fundamentalism--also has the unfortunate impact of discouraging spiritual seekers who have moved beyond the mythical stage (yet who are nonetheless committed to their particular denomination due to a lifelong affiliation and early indoctrination in religious fundamentalism or other exoteric tradition) from seeking a more sublime and transcendant truth as provided by mystical (esoteric) wisdoms very amply from within their respective religious tradition (though not necessarily from within their particular denomination)--let alone from any other religious or mystical tradition provided elsewhere.

What thus results is a mythical-rational view of religion that is essentially exoteric and devoid of any perennial wisdom, since individuals who have developed to the mental-rational structure (Orange and Green rationality) tend to be externally-oriented by nature, according to Gebser--which further reinforces their traditional exoteric outlook toward religion unless their newfound rationality and spatial orientation toward externality and physicality forces them to turn away entirely from religion and write it off completely as mythical and entirely fictitious.  

Among the former, however (that is, those at Orange or Green who do not write-off religion entirely as "myth" but are still committed to conventional religion)--the tendency is to simply use logic and critical thinking to prop up an essentially premodern mythical religion with persuasive philosophical or scientific arguments (which are persuasive to themselves and to many others, at least) in order to elevate myth to something it is not: which is not rational.  Of course, you can always reinvent religion for the sake of continued relevance within a given tradition as it moves into rational which I think is necessary.  So what you wind up with is essentially a form of mythical-rational view toward religion using rationality to prop up premodern religious myth.  And I make no apologies for Ken Wilber's observation that Moses parting the Red Sea or Jesus being born of a Virgin mother is myth and I second that remark.  

But getting back to Orange and Green rationality, the spatial orientation of externally-oriented Orange and Green to physicality seems to reinforce exoteric religion and diminish esoteric forms and seems more prevalent in the West.  The West is also more rational.  Not to say that this is all "bad'; rational people (at least some of them) have need for spirituality too that is more agreeable with their respective worldviews and levels of development.  And it does help to some degree to rationalize religious myth so as to have greater flexibility to interpret scriptural teachings beyond merely a strict concrete and literal interpretation of myth to move beyond religious fundamentalism--yet does little to promote perennial wisdom as taught by contemplative or mystical traditions.

I personally do not see Whiteheadean philosophy, process philosophy, panentheism, or even Catholicism as opposed to perennial philosophy, but am not familiar enough with these forms of contemporary or traditional theology or philosophy to comment any further.  However, the way in which Jonathan has presented the contemporary forms is strictly exoteric due to an apparent opposition to mystical or esoteric teachings of perennial wisdoms, which involve alterations of consciousness.  I get the impression that Jonathan is suggesting that altered states of consciousness is something that is somewhat inferior to normal waking rational consciousness.  This could potentially be perceived as a threat if one's conviction is of a personal God who is completely conscious, intelligent, and rational and always has been and always will be for all eternity; and with no exceptions..  In addition, I think that the dismissal of perennial philosophy as a "dumbing down" of all religions or a demeaning caricature of religion reflects a distorted view of perennial wisdom and is a dismissive attitude in  turn, since perennial wisdoms exist in all religions and arose independently of each other throughout the world beginning approximately 2,500 years ago, yet tends to be far more prevalent in the East where esoteric or mystical religions are far more common and developed than in the West.  

However, there are many contemplative traditions in the Western religion, Christianity, which is rich in esoteric and mystical contemplative traditions.  As well as in the Near East--such as Islam, which has its own forms of esoteric traditions.  None of these mystical traditions attempted to "dumb each other down" or demean their own practices by merely copying each other to "be more alike" to find a common ground in all religions.  Rather, they were realizations  that emerged fairly spontaneously and independently of each other the world over beginning two millenia ago.  They all surprisingly share many common recognitions concerning Ultimate Ground---which is what the perennial philosophy is about.  Not about dumbing down religions and discarding tradition, which is important to maintain in order to maintain relevance of a particular religious tradition to its respective culture and heritage and act as conveyor belt to its believers.. That is  to say--you can still practice your particular faith, tradition, or practice and embrace perennial wisdom without fear of the religion "dumbing down" to some generic or alien form or being demeaned to some caricature.  There is no evidence that perennial wisdoms in the past two millenia have ever "dumbed down" other religions or were ever imperialistic; as such no reason to posit this now.  

To reiterate: perennial wisdoms arose spontaneously and independently everywhere--long prior to the discovery of modern scholars such as Huxley or Huston Smith who arrived on the scene to study comparative religion to make these various connections to realize that a common ground exists in all the great teachings of the world--which they dubbed as a perennial philosophy.  It's been around long before it had a name and long before these various perennial wisdoms knew about each other; and as such there is no reason to maintain the position that it is insulting to other religions when nearly every religion has a form of perennial philosophy.   It is worthwhile for students of perennial philosophy, integralists, theologians, and others to investigate these commonalities now more than ever.  It is especially important for those of us who come from not one--but from multiple seemingly incompatible traditions and cultures yet wish to find a common spiritual ground with my Christian child while honoring our differences and without comprimising on either his nor my particular spiritual outlook.  

It may entail the jettisoning of myth including its claims to exclusivity as well as the jettisoning of a strict scientific materialism, logical positivism, or rationality (and their claims to exclusivity) and loosening the strictly exoteric view based not on contemplation, meditation, or on any other practice utilizing altered or trained states, but endorses subscribing to some belief system provided by myth or rational thought and little else.  As such a strictly mythical, rational, or exoteric view toward spirituality is no longer adequate for integral--which is beyond myth and rational thinking and is arational instead.  Arationality utilizes all present and previous modes of awareness including pre-rationality, irrationality, and rationality as well as consciousness, altered consciousness, or no consciousness in addition to positive manifestations of archaic, magic, mythical, and mentality to make visible and transparent what is present and true of Spirit or God and to bring these all into concretion.  This may involve the incorporation of a contemplative practice and trained states into one's tradition should one's tradition be exoteric and based instead on belief or pure faith or reason, yet these contemplative traditions exists in all the major religions so is not entirely impossible.  Alternatively, if one is not a member of any religious tradition and has neurological disorders making meditation difficult, it may involve some other unorthodox practice involving altered states of consciousness such as psychedelics, sacred plants, or some other ritual activity promoting "flow" or altered states such as that of music, writing, or sleeping very deeply during PMS on very rainy days.

But getting back to the point, if you go back to my previous comment where I said that "It is mostly Christians who get insulted that way.  That needs to change," you will find that I was speaking from the context of my personal experience with Christians in the Deep South, who are largely confined to a form of Christian fundamentalism (i.e., Southern Baptists, Pentacostals, Church of God, etc.) whose encounters with me were met virtually every time with an instant reaction of offense and insult at my audacity of daring to suggest that some common ground could possibly exist between God's "truth"--and my mother's atheistic "falsehood."  So who is prejudiced?  Me, for wanting to find some common ground--or others, who express indignation and insult at the very notion of my attempting to do so?

Of course, I did not mean literally or absolutely that "most Christians are that way"  as I am obviously speaking primarily from personal experience which is very limited in context and largely confined to Christian fundamentalism in South Georgia.  Obviously, I am not privy to the attitudes of "most Christians" from an absolute standpoint as there are 2.1 billion Christians who currently exist on the Earth and I do not know every single one of them in person; only a few.  Yet based on my studies and required readings as a Religious Minor and Philosophy and History major in college, it is widely acknowledged in many textbooks and among many scholars that generally speaking (though not always the case), Western religions tend to be more exclusivist and more exoteric than religions in the East and hence, less tolerant toward the concept of seeking some common ground in all religions via perennial philosophy (although perennial philosophies exist in Western esoteric religions) and have even converted the bulk of non-Western Christians to Christianity via conquest and abolishment of their indigenous cultures and religions .  Thus in that sense (but speaking only very generally, of course), "It is mostly Christians who get insulted that way, and that needs to change" although I do admit in hindsight that it could have been stated more empathetically than that so as to avoid painting a broad brush stroke over the entire religion and insulting all Christians as a consequence.  However, based on my personal experience, I have never encountered a Buddhist who was personally offended or insulted in my attempts to discuss some common ground between Buddhism and Christianity via interfaith dialogue.  Quite the contrary--they welcomed such a dialogue and shared my enthusiasm in seeking a common ground between the various religions but of course, they too were transplants to the United States so were probably themselves in a situation that is similar to mine in needing to reconcile contradictory views and finding common ground between various religions..

 Needless to say I am not referring to all Buddhists such as the Shin Buddhist who are fundamentalists who would likely take offense and be insulted by such comparisons or dialogues.  I have also encountered this inflexibility of mind among non-religious who subscribe to scientific materialism--who think that their view (e.g. "scientism") is the only correct view while all religion is false--although from my experience they are not necessarily offended by dialogue; only dismissive more or less or otherwise argumentative but incapable of including spirituality and other non-physical forms of realtiy referring to interiority in their particular worldview.  I understand the need to battle against the pseudoscience and anti-science that are spreading like a rot in modern culture but some scientific humanists (such as Carl Sagan) seem to go too far by rejecting spirituality altogether as something that is pseudo-scientific or anti-scientific when it has nothing to do with science and as such should not be incompatible with science if unrelated to it.  Scientific humanism and rationality tend to believe only in the reality of things having spatial extent, which leads to consumerism and greed for material things in space.. So they too are exclusivist.

Fundamentalists and exclusivists exist everywhere--a Pew Report recently polled religious viewpoints from people around the world and found that Alabamians and Iranians shared the most in common insofar as their fundamentalism and religious intolerance.  In fact, I have heard many Christians down here in South Georgia who believe that Catholicism is not even Christianity and that Catholics are going to Hell (go figure).  Yet it appears that even among Christians who are not fundamentalist--including yourself and Jonathan--who I assume are Christian and integral--I get the impression of a sense of outrage or insult at the idea of my seeking to find a common ground via integral or perennial philosophy between the various religions--in spite of my explanation that my reasons for doing so is to reconcile differences with people around me to find a common spiritual ground between myself and my Christian son, which I thought could be met with better empathy and understanding by Whiteheadean integralists and Catholic priests than merely dismissing me as being insulting to your religion.  So whose attitude is dismissive?  Mine, or yours and Jonathan's?  At least, Jonathan has acknowledged that some kind of "transcendant ground" exists that we can agree upon (this is what perennial philosophy is about) yet he seems to reject perennial philosophy as a dumbing down.  I have yet to notice any of you say anything positive about my hope to find a common spiritual ground with my child or any other Christian as a non-Christian and student of perennial philosophy whatsoever but only negativity as if to suggest that perennial wisdoms are a "dumbing down" of religions or a reduction of Christians to a caricature or diminishment of a personal God.  Perennial wisdoms exist in Christianity so it is obviously not a reduction of Christians to a caricature but is an affirmation of Christianity.  

So to rephrase that remark, I didn't mean literally that  It is mostly Christians who get insulted that way as I obviously do not know whether it is mostly "Christians" (above and beyond any other religious practitioner or believer) who expresses such outrage and feel insulted over perennial philosophy, Godhead, impersonal God, esoteric wisdom, or interfaith dialogue.  However, based on my experience--both on these forums as well as in the real world--it appears that way based on the reactions and responses of Christians I have encountered.  Should this be a reflection of the general populace of Christians as a whole, then that needs to change.  

I do apologize for my badly phrased remark as I do not mean to be dismissive or to reduce anyone to a mere caricature. It is more accurate to say that those who get insulted by perennial philosophy are confined to religious fundamentalism irrespective of religion, but is not necessarrily confined to fundamentalism as both you and Jonathan are obviously not fundamentalists yet appear insulted by the concept of a perennial philosophy (if I am reading you correctly) which leads me to suspect that perhaps Christianity may be more opposed to it.  Western theology as a whole seems less tolerant of perennial philosophy or in finding a common ground between religions via interfaith dialogue than Eastern mysticism or Western contemplative traditions due to its emphasis on exoteric religion and claims to exclusivity via dogma and scriptures.  That needs to change.  In addition, Western philosophy and science as a whole creates an atmosphere that is generally hostile toward spirituality and especially to esoteric wisdom due to its higher percentage of people who have arrived at rational Orange and Green and who are therefore externally-related to physicality and spatiality as the only viable reality.  That needs to change.