All Comments (41)

Jihadist, I was trying to give such people the benefit of the doubt. Some religious people sincerely believe that they have a divine mission to convert others.

Tonio

You said : "It's possible, although not necessarily probable, that those people really want others to surrender to THEIR will."

Touche. Not "possible" or "probable", but in fact. And they are the fundamentalists in whatever religion they adhere to. Muslims calls these types among their co-religionists fanatics and/or bigots.

What's wrong with having a "designer religion" that is not "tethered" to anything? Doesn't that imply that the individual has only a limited right to his or her own beliefs? Why should anyone care if people's spiritual explorations lead them to combine some elements of different religions?

Granted, Mouw has an excellent point about incompatible world views. I suggest that religions shouldn't have world views at all, at least ones about the natural world that purport to define people. While I don't know much about Hinduism and Buddhism, I would object if those religions do indeed define humans with pejorative terms such as "ignorant." Not as deeply offensive as Original Sin, but still objectionable. I think of it this way - I have no problem acknowledging my ignorance in particular fields of knowledge, but I have an issue if someone else describes me that way. And then there's the question of religious worldviews violating Gould's concept of NOMA.

Is Mouw correct in his use of the word "salvation" for the Hindu and Buddhist worldviews? Or he is using a Christian word to frame the non-Christian worldviews? I would assume that under those worldviews, human ignorance is a natural condition and not caused by disobedience to a divine authority figure.

My problem with "surrendering to the divine will" is this - the only "evidence" for that will is various unverifiable claims by people. It's possible, although not necessarily probable, that those people really want others to surrender to THEIR will.

Viejita Del Oeste

How can anyone argue with what you've said? There is so much truth in it.

And yes, religious literacy is needed. But first, cultural literacy. Too much of what the wider world, especially the Muslim world knows of the west and Christianity is gleaned from movies. If Hollywood is to be believed, Christians are obsessed with Satan/the Devil and exoricism when it comes to the Christian faith for example.

Mass culture and mass media is potent in shaping popular perceptions and mispeceptions.

Officeman brings up a good point (at least I think this is part of what he is saying) about belief and relativism. No matter which tradition you adhere to, there are certain actions that are unethical in any faith system, including atheism. There is such a thing as truth.

This site has a lot of people, many with with Abrahamic cultural backgrounds, some of whom don't seem to have taken the trouble to understand the beliefs and practices they undertake to critique. It is honest to say "I don't like the behavior of {some}Christians (or Muslims, or Jews) so I've never bothered to figure out what they actually believe." It is less than honest to claim "I don't approve of {some of the highly visible} members of that faith, and therefore I am an expert on why they are wrong."

Although there is a lot that he doesn't get to, another good reference might be Stephen Prothero's "Religious Literacy."

Imagine that. One of my favourite atheist (Bgone) and one of my favourite adherent of Buddhist precepts (Norrie Hoyt) having a difference of views:)

Never mind. Some of us has to be atheists. Some of us has to be Buddhist partialists. Some of us has to be, horrors of horrors to both Begone and Norrie Hoyt, Muslims:)

I can always skip Buddhist meditation and get into Sufism, a more passionate spiritualism in some strains that would make z Buddhist monk blush, not to mention fellow Muslims who deem these Sufis "enthusiastic".

Or I can be a "pragmatic" Muslim and apply Muslim precepts/principles in my daily life - no booze, no premarital or extra-marital sex, no interests in banking etc. That is a form of abstinence eh, that would even challenge a pious, meditating Buddhist monk, including the fast during Ramadan.

Buddhist ethical and moral precepts are one anyone can appreciate and practice, if they have the will-power.

Upon re-reading my post above, I have two regrets. First, I did not mean to sound as strident as I may have. Forgive me. I understand these are weighty questions and that the truth is not always obvious. (We are, perhaps, blineded by concupiscence.) Second, I did not address the question of "sacrifice." I contend that the notion of sacrifice is inherent to human life. Aristotle defined love as "sacrifice." Anyone who has ever really loved another will know exactly what that means. If God is love, then God must exhibit and teach us sacrifice. There is nothing "stupid" about this.

Please forgive me a lament: I am disappointed but not surprised at the amount of ignorance that exists when it comes to understanding religions that teach the existence of objective truth. I can't blame teenagers for thinking this way, because the education establishment so misunderstands American legal precedent that schools are afraid to fund decent religious studies programs. But if you're over the age of 25 and have any free time, you have an obligation to read some good defenses of religious objective truth, and do so with an open mind, before you mock the belief. A little education might help explain what otherwise seems "stupid."

The position advanced most often here, whether understood this way or not, is a philosphy of relativism. One who believes in objective truth would argue, pursuasively I think, that relativism in religion is a logical impossibility. We can't all be right. Furthermore, the existence of moral rules acts in the same way as the existence of rules of law in society: to bring order and organization to what otherwise would be pure chaos. I submit that life would be impossible in the universe were it not for the order and objective truth that exists in mathematics, physics, biology, etc., and that the hard sciences can inform our understanding of God at least as much as the soft sicences.

That said, I will turn, briefly I hope, to specific criticisms made here that do not qualify as advocating relativism, though they certainly indicate a deep misunderstanding of the religious positions attacked.

1. It is simply incorrect at worst, and an unfair generalization at best, to characterize all the "Abramahic religions" as believing man is innately evil. Since the author's primary attack was on Catholicism, I will explain the Catholic position on the issue: mankind is created good, but through the original choice of evil at the earliest stages of human history, man is corrupted by concupiscence. Concupiscence is a desire to act consistent with passion, even when that passion is contrary to reason. In my experience, concupiscence is the finest single explanation for the human condition that exists. Alexander Solzhenistyn wrote a marvelous book about his time in the gulag describing how difficult, but rewarding it can be, to live a life of reason seeking truth.

2. With regard to the attacks on the Catholic/Orthodox/and some Protestant beliefs in the bread as the body of Christ and the wine as the blood of Christ, I can only say that it's easy to mock what we don't understand. The following is is a highly inadequate explanation, and it is certainly worth reading more on the subject, but the theology is incomprehensibly beautiful. To start, the only reason to believe it is true (assuming one accepts the Easter message) is because a man who rose from the dead told us it is so. I contend it is perfectly reasonable to accept most anything said by one who comes back from death, of their own power. Such a person has established power over nature.

From the "fact" that Christ's words are true (again, assuming belief in Christ), a number of conclusions can be drawn from these words about consuming his "body and blood." The most significant is that God desires intimate and perfect union (communion) with mankind. Because man is a physical and spiritual being, that communion must be physical as well as spiritual. In essense, you are what you eat. If you eat the "body of Christ" you become a member of his "mystical body" and are, in a sense, divinized. Put still another way, "the two become one flesh" in the Eucharist in the same way that a man and woman become "one flesh" during the physical union that is proper to marriage. Marriage is the very description the the Abrahamic God uses routinely in Scripture to describe the relationship he wants to have for eternity with those who love him.

If anyone is interested in reading more about relativism, I might suggest books by Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College. There may be nothing better on the Eucharist and the role of sacrifice in religion than the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Hinduism offers a salad bowl approach to spirituality. There ae many practises to suit all temperaments and you take the one that clicks with your personality.

Mr. Mouw got it completely wrong.
Eastern religions also have Vaishnavism that insists on developing a relationship with a personal god, Krishna/Vishnu.
So, the easterners offer a whole variety of very differing doctrines from the experimental atheism of Buddhism/Jainism to the strict theism of Vaishnavism/Sikhism etc.

And there lies the big difference between the Middle-eastern and far-Eastern faiths. The far-easterners have an innate tolerance for experimentation and discovery while the Middle-eastern idea of tolerance is to persecute/crucify/burn(Inquisition
/war(crusade-jihad)/cook(Holocaust) all else and each-other due to their patents on the way to 'heaven'.

Yoga is a method that its inventors claim gets at the following questions:
Who am I (flesh or soul or..)?
Where did I come from (before birth)?
Where am I going?
What is the meaning of life and death?

Do yoga if you have the will to experiment, interest in the above questions and want to attempt finding answers in good health. Else, bye-bye.

Mr. Mouw got it completely wrong.
Eastern religions also have Vaishnavism that insists on developing a relationship with a personal god, Krishna/Vishnu.
So, the easterners offer a whole variety of very differing doctrines from the experimental atheism of Buddhism/Jainism to the strict theism of Vaishnavism/Sikhism etc.

And there lies the big difference between the Middle-eastern and far-Eastern faiths. The far-easterners have an innate tolerance for experimentation and discovery while the Middle-eastern idea of tolerance is to persecute/crucify/burn(Inquisition
/war(crusade-jihad)/cook(Holocaust) all else and each-other due to their patents on the way to 'heaven'.

Yoga is a method that its inventors claim gets at the following questions:
Who am I (flesh or soul or..)?
Where did I come from (before birth)?
Where am I going?
What is the meaning of life and death?

Do yoga if you have the will to experiment, interest in the above questions and want to attempt finding answers in good health. Else, bye-bye.

Mr. Mouw got it completely wrong.
Eastern religions also have Vaishnavism that insists on developing a relationship with a personal god, Krishna/Vishnu.
So, the easterners offer a whole variety of very differing doctrines from the experimental atheism of Buddhism/Jainism to the strict theism of Vaishnavism/Sikhism etc.

And there lies the big difference between the Middle-eastern and far-Eastern faiths. The far-easterners have an innate tolerance for experimentation and discovery while the Middle-eastern idea of tolerance is to persecute/crucify/burn(Inquisition
/war(crusade-jihad)/cook(Holocaust) all else and each-other due to their patents on the way to 'heaven'.

Yoga is a method that its inventors claim gets at the following questions:
Who am I (flesh or soul or..)?
Where did I come from (before birth)?
Where am I going?
What is the meaning of life and death?

Do yoga if you have the will to experiment, interest in the above questions and want to attempt finding answers in good health. Else, bye-bye.

Mr. Mouw got it completely wrong.
Eastern religions also have Vaishnavism that insists on developing a relationship with a personal god, Krishna/Vishnu.
So, the easterners offer a whole variety of very differing doctrines from the experimental atheism of Buddhism/Jainism to the strict theism of Vaishnavism/Sikhism etc.

And there lies the big difference between the Middle-eastern and far-Eastern faiths. The far-easterners have an innate tolerance for experimentation and discovery while the Middle-eastern idea of tolerance is to persecute/crucify/burn(Inquisition
/war(crusade-jihad)/cook(Holocaust) all else and each-other due to their patents on the way to 'heaven'.

Yoga is a method that its inventors claim gets at the following questions:
Who am I (flesh or soul or..)?
Where did I come from (before birth)?
Where am I going?
What is the meaning of life and death?

Do yoga if you have the will to experiment, interest in the above questions and want to attempt finding answers in good health. Else, bye-bye.

I'm sorry, but predicating a religion on the basic belief that Man is innately evil and incapable of redemption without the supplication to a God which created Man, in that state, is ridiculus! The Abrahamic religions are bloody exploiters of man's gretaest fear, mortality and the knowledge of his death. The Abrahamic religions are intellectually crazy, this being their greatest strenght, no one could be so stupid as to make up this nonsense...only God could be so stupid!
The roots of these religions are based on the ignorance of trial shepards living in their deserts, subject to the whims of nature and their neighbors. They believed that sacifices, human and otherwise, would placate the Gods and save their miserable lives for one more day. The ultimate sacifice would be a sacrifice of God himself, hence the nonsense of the Christain belief that a Godly sacrifice to the hoary Jewish God would provide some relief! These sorry people even perpetuate this divine corruption with elaborate ceremonies to turn bread into the flesh of God for human consumption in some macabre rite of regicide. Some even expound the virtues of drinking the BLOOD of their God to gain his power! And then they speak of peace at the end of their weapons of mass destruction!

BGONE,

I'd thought that what you just posted was your view but you confused me with your earlier post:

"Now I understand the basic difference between the three great faiths and the two not-so-great ones."

It seemed to me that you had to be referring to their inherent values as faiths, rather than their number of adherents, since there are more Buddhists and Hindus than Jews.

I was offended by your seeming doctrinal preference for Islam over Buddhism, so I responded in what I took to be in kind.

I still think that what you wrote requires a reader to read it as I did (because there are so few Jews and so many Hindus and Buddhists).

But I gather you didn't quite realize what you were writing (this is NOT meant as a derogatory comment).

By the way, Buddhism is not a faith - the Buddha instructed his followers not to take what he said on faith - but to work things out for themselves.

Best wishes to you.

Gee Norrie, I didn't know I had a choice. It's worse than that. I choose neither or any of the other "faiths" as well, prefer knowledge to faith.

A scam is a scam. A scam by any other name still smells like YKW. What gives you the idea I choose either Islam or Buddhism?

So, BGONE, you'd choose Islam over Buddhism.

That tells us a lot about you.

Why don't you move to the Northwest Frontier Province - or are you there already? How are the Taliban doing?

And, oh yes, did you get Osama's autograph?

Regards.

Volt Rare, you left out http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul How can God be identified? Suppose the voice heard is a real supernatural being. How can we know it not Devil?

God is too busy to appear in person to us all so why does God take time out from His busy schedule to speak to a few? The wise speak to supernatural beings cautiously and listen to those who speak to them with much more caution.

I got it. "The Hundu and Buddhist agreed that for them the basic problem of the human condition is ignorance, and that salvation must be a process of enlightenment."

Now I understand the basic difference between the three great faiths and the two not-so-great ones. The three great ones go for the ignorance while Hindu and Buddhist enlighten. That clears it right up.

"You must accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior else hell" is ignorance while, "Confusious say..." is enlightenment. So, "enlighten me oh mighty enlighented one, for thy ignorance is written in a literary hoax where thou puts thy faith." I could save words by simply sayong, "contaminate my mind with thy holy spirit."

The basic points of all religions in my view are: there is a supreme power, its within everyone at their core, seek to experience its presence, attune to it and be guided by it, have faith and make a sincere effort to act in accord with the golden rule.

It doesn't matter what name is attached to the ultimate source of life.

Additionally, free will allows choices but "we reap what we sow", sin is that which causes suffering; we should learn to strive to be an instrument through which the one life flows and harmonizes the differences of an infinitely varied world.

Finally, human thoughts, judgments and opinions that are not birthed out of some measure of spiritual consciousness are a form of ignorance, and when preached by some "religious authorities" perpetuates the blind leading the blind.

This concept has been referred to often amongst religions that focus on the adoration and worship of a divine entity as its main tenet:

"Surrendering to the divine will"
"Surrendering to God"
"Obeying God"

So we come to that often used expression: "God", "Allah" or any other name for a deity.

If I am to obey God, how am I to know what God wants me to do?

How am I supposed to know or even understand what a supernal, superlative, omniscient, omnipotent, non-corporeal God wants? How does God communicate to me?

What if I'm mentally ill, and I hear voices? Would this automatically mean that I'm hearing divine messages?

Or what if, I'm an ego-maniac or an unaware, self-important ignoramous wallowing in one's own ignorance and ideological baloney, and I feel that God speaks to me, and commands me to start a war? Or perhaps defy the ATF and burn down the fort with all of my followers?

Has there ever been a completely documented, verified, incontrovertable case of communication of God to a human being?

In my frustration with the historical train wrecks involving this age-old problem, I'm not trying to invalidate the concept of submission. (Of course, there are more personally appealing allegorical, philosophical, introspective interpretations of this concept, et. al.)

However, I am trying to point out a potential pitfall, and an extremely unfortunate and horrible historical pattern of abuse of this concept.

In the event that an indisputable divine voice, or divine hand does not communicate incontrovertibly to me, who does the speaking for God? The leaders, the guru, or perhaps voices or unexamined feelings and motives in one's own head.

Human beings appoint themselves and claim to speak for an infallible God. Thus what these religio-political leaders say is regarded as infallible, and not to be questioned. Disobedience & disagreement with _human_ leaders and _human_ interpetation is regarded as heresy and being against God.
And then heretics, kafirs, or unbelievers are threat to the poltical or social power of the leaders and are often persecuted or are the targets of war.

I'm not invalidating the concept of religious leadership. However, there should be safeguards against abuse, corruption, and the folly of fallible leaders.

Combine this with another potential vulnerability: A population primed to submit its obedience to God results in a heirarchical command structure that won't question leaders who have the gall to claim that they speak for God.
One can see what this has resulted in, throughout history, and up to the present day.

Again, I'm not invalidating the concept of submission to the divine. Perhaps it can be a good path for trimming down that Ego and unifying elements of the psyche into harmony with a common purpose and focus.

However, the vulnerability of mistakenly, unconditionally submitting to the wrong thing is something that should be guarded against.

Thus increasing self-awareness of one's emotional thought process (in order to help guard against personal ego-mania & irrational insecurities), as well as developing one's own knowledge and independent moral/ethical reasoning ability is important.

Ignorance and rejecting knowledge & reason should be contrary to religion, and not in accordance with it.

--jsp akha Volt Rare

I will echo and carry further a sentiment proposed by commentators earlier: what's wrong with a designer religion, "not tethered to anything"?

Some might say that if you draw your religion (beliefs, practices, places of worship, etc) from multiple sources, having no single authority, you cannot be grounded in anything of enduring truth. But since "a man can truly serve only one master," I have to ask if it is humanly possible to truly follow multiple religions as equal.

Secondly, I would also add that all major world religions must be grounded in some window, some piece of the Truth, or else they would not endure over the generations that they have, winning vast numbers of hearts and minds across the entirety of the globe. This being the case, it could be argued that a "designer" or "cafeteria" religion may actually hold the most comprehensive and therefore accurate, or at the very least helpful picture of the human and the Divine, and everything in between.

Let me make a Psychological point. Anyone who has read William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience should grasp the depth of difference in religious experience simply between individual personality types. In actuality, you don't have to read James. All you have to do is simply listen closely to the person sitting across from you in church, describing his/her own conception of faith, salvation, God, etc. If you examine the matter truthfully for yourself, it should readily become apparent to you that we all carry our own smaller scale "designer" (i.e. unique) version of institutional religion. That is to say, we each have distinctive individual lives, full of unique experiences, thoughts, and emotions which add up to a one-of-a-kind relationship with God. In this way, we are only truly "tethered" to our personal paradigm.

There seems to be fear implied behind "risk," but "perfect love casts out all fear." Let us continue the interfaith dialog, exchange of practices, and the sharing of our very personal religious stories with one another, that we may come to know ourselves and God more fully.

I will echo and carry further a sentiment proposed by early commentators: what's wrong with a designer religion, "not tethered to anything"?

Some might say that if you draw your religion (beliefs, practices, places of worship, etc) from multiple sources, having no single authority, you cannot be grounded in anything of enduring truth. But since "a man can truly serve only one master," I have to ask if it is humanly possible to truly follow multiple religions as equal.

Secondly, I would also add that all major world religions must be grounded in some window, some piece of the Truth, or else they would not endure over the generations that they have, winning vast numbers of hearts and minds across the entirety of the globe. This being the case, it could be argued that a "designer" or "cafeteria" religion may actually hold the most comprehensive and therefore accurate, or at the very least helpful picture of the human and the Divine, and everything in between.

Let me make a Psychological point. Anyone who has read William James' "The Varieties of Religious Experience" should grasp the depth of difference in religious experience simply between individual personality types. In actuality, you don't have to read James. All you have to do is simply listen closely to the person sitting across from you in church, describing his/her own conception of faith, salvation, God, etc. If you examine the matter truthfully for yourself, it should readily become apparent to you that we all carry our own smaller scale "designer" (i.e. unique) version of institutional religion. That is to say, we each have distinctive individual lives, full of unique experiences, thoughts, and emotions which add up to a one-of-a-kind relationship with God. In this way, we are only truly "tethered" to our personal paradigm.

There seems to be fear implied behind Mouw's "risk," but "perfect love casts out all fear." Let us continue the interfaith dialog, exchange of practices, and the sharing of our very personal religious stories with one another, that we may come to know ourselves and God more fully.

Norrie,

I like that. I don't know if I like the terms "cafeteria" or "designer", but I do agree with thoughts you presented. We're all individuals, and we need to be able to have our individual journeys.

Thanks to those who commented on my post.

1. Comment on "the only solid faith is faith in yourself and your abilities". That's impossible. All of life requires that we rely on others. I rely on farmers, utilility workers, construction workers, lawyers, doctors, etc. There is nothing unreasonable or childish in wondering whether this principle of reliance doesn't teach us something about what we were made for in the first place. If this, and other factors lead one to conclude that there is a Creator who made us for a particular purpose, then perhaps true freedom and goodness are found by living in a way that does not contradict the Creator's design for us. This gives truth to the poet's statement: "These walls do not a prison make."

2. I am not sure how my post would lead one to believe that "bettering oneself" is selfish. However, since it's been mentioned, I suppose it depends on how one defines "bettering oneself." To explain what I mean by "coming out of oneself" as the primary means to happiness, think about what it's like to lose yourself in a project at school or work; devote time to a charitable endeavor; or to act toward a beloved or a child in such a way that their welfare, rather than your own, is of primary importance to you.

For a religion or philosophy to really work for an individual, it MUST be a cafeteria or designer faith, tailored to the individual and not just pulled ready-made off the rack.

Otherwise it won't fit the person and will be of little use to him/her, like a medicine which sits in a prescription bottle and is never taken internally.

Many of those who claim to rely on themselves alone behave in an incredibly insecure manner. For instance, feeling threatened by someone else's faith. Marco, I don't necessarily put you in the category of "insecure humanists" but please don't put me in the wrong category either. Andrea and I both receive great strength from our faith, but our approaches are quite different. Bottom line, we are individuals, not merely representatives of one philosophy, faith or culture.
I am happy your own value system works so well for you. I agree, good question. And to Andrea and the others who responded: Good answers.
Gotta go.

Marco Polo is right in the sense that having faith as a child means innocence and purity of heart, not regression to an infantile stage.

Yet purity of heart cannot be accomplished by humans independently. We are contaminated to the core by the sins of generations, of evolution itself. One has just to look at one's own heart.

Furthermore, our inpurities have now been institutionalized as structures that rule the world, condition us to further inpurity, enslave us.

That is why Jesus Christ visited. Impossible for humanity to redeem itself without his infinite and pure love.

I enjoy the accolade, I do...........makes me wanna start my own religion. Yea, right.

I am just glad I could contribute.

I'd like to thank the academy...............

Officeman,

"Acting selfishly ultimately makes us less happy"

Do you consider bettering oneself a selfish act?

I agree that this was a very thought-provoking question, thanks Marco.

Sorry to say this, and I know it's gonna set some fires under a couple of rears, but I just have to say this.

The only Solid Faith is Faith in yourself and your abilities. Why depend on something or someone that isn't even there? Believe in yourself, practice what you love, and preach that it is all right there inside of you. Not in the sky, and certainly not in the ground. It is rooted in your core. Religion has done an excellent job of taking that away from people.

The question about "surrendering to someone else" is a good one. I believe the answer is found in Austine's famous line: "You made us for yourself, oh Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you." If we were created for a purpose - complete intimate union with our infinite Creator - we will be unhappy if all we do is serve ourselves. Put in a Trinitarian construct, God made is to image himself: three persons in a total union of self-donation to each other. Accordingly, we are most fulfilled when we "give ourselves away" out of love for others. Acting selfishly ultimately makes us less happy. But God is also free will, so the choice is ours to make.

I find it interesting that we must search hard to find ways to separate instead of include.

Inspiration, enlightenment - tell me what the difference is and I'll tell you that you have gotten so much into the jots and tittles that the meaning of language is missed in the process.

God is a God of all peoples, all races, all religions and in the words of Billy Graham, the spirit of God works in people who call themselves all sorts of things - Christian, Muslim, Atheist - whatever -sometimes whether they know it or not.

That is not to say that evil doesn't exist - it is a part of humanity also regardless of what they might call themselves.

Once again, the conflict is probably semantic. In seeking to overcome the separation between the earthly and the divine I can more fully become my own person.

You are falling into the very trap I was complaining about, the idea that our faith requires us to sit down, shut up, and stop asking questions. Solid faith gives us strength to master our own insecurities, gives us power to stop being puppets and encourages us to question the assumptions of mass culture and earthly prejudice.

Marco Polo,

See, that's where they get you! You can't be your own master and still get to heaven. You have to completely surrender your life to God/Jesus et al. If you try to better yourself (ie yoga, meditation - in a way other than doing it to become closer to God) it's a selfish act.

Got a question for all who choose to surrender.

Why surrender to something or someone? Why not be your own person? Why become a puppet when you can become your own master?

Just some thoughts............would love to hear what you think.

ALM
Good point. Once again, we have a case of the same words meaning different things to different people. This is one of the problems that many educated people have with Christianity as practiced and preached (in the US at least) today, the appalling anti-intellectual bias.

To use a Catholic example, Therese of Liseaux -- the Little Flower -- is the most popular saint for modern American Catholics. She is best known for her "simple faith" which can also be interpreted as plain stupidity and ignorance. For such a person I might feel sympathy, but not veneration. On the other hand the well-read and erudite Teresa of Avila has few parishes named in her honor.

There are even more instances available in the Protestant camp. Those who follow Eastern paths of spirituality could well wonder where we are coming from. Jesus said "Come as a child" (i.e. open-minded) not as a brain-dead zombie or grade school dropout. We should not fear knowledge, particularly the kind of self-knowledge ALM is talking about. The kind, by the way, that the Little Flower probably had in abundance.

I just read something written by the great theologian, Paul Tillich on what is sin, that would seem to shed some light on the reason for the different world views between Abrahamic faiths and Eastern spirituality. This is from Ch.19 of "Shaking of: the Foundations:"

"To be in the state of sin is to be in the state of separation. And the separation is threefold: there is separation among individual lives, separation of a man from himself, and separation of all men from the Ground of Being."

This statement is one that one versed in Eastern Spirituality would comfortably find to describe the state of ignorance. I can state this with confidence as I formerly followed an Eastern path for over thirty years before coming to Christ in the last three years.

And in all faiths, it is this desire to overcome this separation, and surrender to the Divine which propels us on our respective paths.

"Otherwise we run the risk of creating our own individualized "designer religion" which--to borrow an image that Plato was fond of--is not "tethered" to anything."

I don't really see how that would be a bad thing. My problem with religion doesn't come from the belief there is no god. There very well may be, but if I choose to worship/belive in her/him, it won't be in the way most Christian denominations "tell" me too. If someone comes up with their own way, isn't that somehow better than just blindly following what they've been taught? Singing the hymns without wondering why we sing them, or what they mean? If you question it, but decide to stay/come back (not neccessarily "on your own terms") but with a way you feel more comfortable with, doesn't that mean something?

I also believe Richard J. Mouw has touched the heart of the difference between Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic rooted religions.

It gets a little complicated between the Abrahamic religions (and within them) when they define what is or is not sin, and the degree to which they recognize not only personal but structural sin, and how each (and within each) they respond to both.

The Abrhamaic world view bifurcated significantly with Jesus.

I think Mr. Mouw is getting to the heart of the issue. It's really not about meditation, yoga, prayer, exercise, or other spiritual disciplines (eastern or western). It's about a fundamental difference in understanding of the human condition.

(from the article)
"The Hindu and the Buddhist agreed that for them the basic problem of the human condition is ignorance, and that salvation must be a process of enlightenment....We Abrahamic types agreed among ourselves that the real problem is a sinfulness that can only be remedied by surrendering to the divine will."