May the Force Be With You . . .

Zealotry is probably the biggest hindrance to open exchange of ideas, and acts as the biggest lock on the door to enlightenment.

I have family, and friends who are devout in their religious (note: not necessarily spiritual) faith, and live their lives according to dogma and doctrine because it enriches them. These same people, who honestly wish to better their lives and the lives of those around them, are just as incapable of discussing quandaries or existential dilemmas as the goth-makeup-sporting self-proclaimed 'atheists' who believe God should burn, if he even exists.

I've never understood it, personally. Well, I used to think I didn't understand it. But really it's the same syndrome with (seemingly) different symptoms. Like you said: Respect your adversaries and you respect yourself. I'll leave with one of my favorite quotes, from one of the greatest philosophers in human history:

If ignorant both of your enemy and yourself, you are certain to be in peril. ~ Sun Tzu

True enough about religious people knowing their limitations. There's no question that more of them (than the militant atheists, as you say) will end an uncomfortable line of conversation with something akin to "You know, I understand what you're saying, and it sounds like you've pretty much figured it out. I just can't accept that *because it would jeopardize my happiness/satisfaction with my current beliefs.*" At that, what else is there to say? It's a respectful acknowledgment of each person's (potential) respective limitations in fostering a positive dialog.

Something I've always found incredibly ironic about the pursuit of enlightenment (which is usually a highly rated goal of a person's immersion into religion) is that it is best accomplished using the scientific method. Chew on that for a second while I attempt to explain...

If a person wants to prove themselves correct/right/whatever, they usually will try to fit whatever 'evidence' they can find into the situation to make it support their desired conclusion. We call this many things, including 'junk science' or 'grasping at straws.' The problem here is that you've essentially closed off your mind to possibilities which are incompatible with your desired conclusion/outcome. In essence, you've tied one hand behind your back.

A scientist operates completely differently. The first step is to observe a phenomenon which is curious to you, and you form a hypothesis for why it may/may not be, then you go about performing experiments and observations in an attempt to better understand the phenomenon. The entire idea of science is to be as open-minded as is humanly possible, so you don't *miss* anything valuable, and so you don't end up going down too many dead-end streets in the process of your quest for satisfaction. There is (ideally) no bias involved. A scientist only asks the question, and whatever answers are returned are gladly accepted so he can analyze the data to better understand..well, to better understand everything, lol.

In my experience, it's the same with religious belief. Many people are comfortable with adhering to dogma or doctrine by the letter, because it enriches their lives to do so. There is NOTHING wrong with this...religion and spirituality are different things for different people. But for the person who is genuinely interested in seeking enlightenment, the approach is identical to that of a scientist.

Eloquent and well considered, John. I think you've done an admirable job of explaining the tenets of Christianity and faithful appreciation of The Bible, and while I'd quibble over some (I think, fairly major) points, I don't think it's necessary to do so. Your points are solid, and you're obviously a learned individual who cares deeply about salvation of the soul. I've got no issue with any of that, because I hold similar beliefs.

My point was not so much about Christianity, or faith in The Bible as such, but rather about the quest for enlightenment. If a person is purely devoted to The Bible and the teachings it contains, then generally speaking, the lessons must be learned in an order similar to the one you outlined in your post. Here's where I've got some problems, though...and I think this is true of *most* open-minded people who ponder on spirituality/faith/existentialism/humanity/Creation (note: I don't use the word *most* in an effort to be abrasive, I just can't come up with a more accurate word at this very moment) find it difficult to believe that there is only one path to enlightenment, or achieving a greater state of awareness.

Of course there are Christians who cannot accept the possibility that there are alternative routes to enlightenment and spiritual growth than through the principles and teachings of The Bible. But at the same time, I don't believe that it is anti-Christian to be open-minded to alternative forms of worship and/or religious belief. Christians, by and large, are (in my experience) the most accepting of opposing viewpoints and variations of faith of any major religion. This is kind of a critical theme in Christianity, the theme of acceptance through acts of faith and good works. I don't want to get into hypothetical situations (did I just say that, or was in John Kerry?!...ugh) too much, but mostly I think that God is in, or at least His 'fingerprints' are in all things Creation, so it should not be impossible to find His teachings outside of (the best, most influential and CERTAINLY most positive-themed) collection of His teachings ever considered by man, The Bible.

I do think the idea that the scientific method is post-modernistic is incorrect, however. The label may very well be, but the process is active in all things we do, and have always done (at least, the successful among us have always done, lol). Any type of feedback mechanism we experience, whether it's as a baby, a teenager in school, or as an adult is best appreciated using this method. It's simply undeniable. However, I do agree with the notion that in order to gain the fullest appreciation and benefit of Christianity, you need to 'start at the beginning', and to do so you must give yourself over to its teachings..but I think this falls more into the 'suspension of disbelief' category, compared to casting aside the validity of comparative analysis. In fact, you *must* include comparative analysis, and the scientific method, if you are to truly understand the teachings within The Bible!

If a person listens to a wise man speak at the pulpit, he may learn much from him. He may even remember a lot of it. But until that knowledge is cemented within his own mind, heart and soul, he cannot truly appreciate or understand it. Thus, much of the potential value of the lesson is never gained..which is worse than at one time having it, and subsequently losing it! His appreciation and faith won't grow as rapidly or as strongly, and so his spiritual growth may be compromised. I don't see this as optional. In order to truly incorporate a lesson, you've got to learn it 'the hard way,' and this usually involves a lot of work. Sometimes that work is done in contemplation (which is harder than many people assume!), and other times it's done in reflection. But at the end of the day, Christianity is based upon the idea that we can all understand the lessons for their basic value, and then begin to put those pieces together for the greater vision of God's message.

...

Now for *my* presuppositions ;) I do not presume, for a second, that there exists a truly objective person. In fact, it is implicit in my own statements that to become objective, or seek to become objective, is key to achieving enlightenment. It's like the quest for improving your faith, and the strength of your belief, which is a constant struggle with no end in sight (or existence, in all likelihood). I think that each of us, from the youngest of children to the eldest of prophets, holds certain presuppositions which obscure our vision of Creation and it's Creator. And within The Bible there are countless examples of men who have these presuppositions torn away from them in an hour of trial, leading them to improving their faith in God and his Creation. *THAT* is my greater point. In order to truly appreciate faith, and the beauty of life, one must be constantly seeking to strip away his own barriers to finding truth, *wherever* they may be found. So while we appear to agree on the greater point of objectivity being desirable, we probably begin to diverge somewhere around the question beginning with 'how do I find..' Which is wonderful. It truly is.

As to the idea that truth is malleable, I'm not sure how to best describe my position on 'truth.' I've tried a few different paragraphs to explain it, and it comes out clear as mud. Basically, knowledge and comprehension are built upon understanding. Like a pyramid. We start with hundreds/thousands/millions of simple things, like 2+2=4, and end up with things like E=mc2, eventually. I think truth is like this. What may seem true, according to your BEST comprehension skills at age 12, is no longer acceptable as truth at age 18, but may again be true by age 30, and untrue again by age 60. Mostly this is because of variable life experiences, which allow the opportunity for growth spiritually and intellectually. As you say though, this growth is not implicit, or guaranteed. It is actually inSANEly difficult to achieve, requiring too darned much work for some people to put forth.

Finally, because I know this post is too long, and I apologize for that, I'll say that I appreciate your thoughtful post! I don't believe that all belief structures are equal, and I don't think I've found the best one...not by a long shot ;) I do think, however, that spiritual growth is simply too personal and uneven of a process to believe there is only One True Way to God, or to salvation. I think there are many valuable steps, which can be taken in a multitude of orders, which lead a person to faith, salvation, and enlightenment.

Good post :)