God Is Nature.

The concept is strange. The concept is interesting. Above all, the concept is oddly beautiful. 

When we think of nature, it is abundant, anomalous, adaptable, alien, alluring, anarchic, arbitrary... Amazing. All of these adjectives could also be used to describe God - abundant in forgiveness, anomalous in his approach to evil, adaptable to the needs of his people, alien in our lack of understanding him, alluring in human desire to understand him, anarchic in characterization, and arbitrary in his warnings. 

Baruch Spinoza, an influential philosopher of the 17th Century, viewed god and nature as two names for the same reality, namely a single fundamental substance which is the basis of the universe, and all lesser beings such as ourselves are simply modes and modifications. Everything that exists in nature is one reality, and there is only one set of rules governing the whole of the reality which surrounds us and of which we are a part. Through this theory, Spinoza was considered the greatest advocate of Pantheism, the belief that everything composes an all-encompassing and impersonal god. 

It is said that there are more pantheists than theists in the world. For example, Hindu literature and religious text contains pantheistic ideas. The Atman (the human soul) is indistinct from Brahman (the unknown reality of everything). Examples of pantheistic ideas can also be found everywhere from Christianity, Judaism and Buddhism to Taoism, traditional African and American religions and Ancient Greek mythology. 

The phrase "God is nature" links together themes from different religions. Firstly, it takes the personification of earth, Gaia, from Greek Mythology. She was a primordial deity, the creator of the Earth and all the universe, the very embodiment of nature. You could add the idea of the Jewish God Elohjim as an omnipotent creator of nature or the animalistic visions of Native American traditions. 

Nature is powerful, majestic, ordered even in chaos. It has a complex system where everything works together in harmony to create beauty. What is God? The Creator and Sustainer of life. What is Nature? The Creator and Sustainer of life. If you leave the idea of a conscious Christian or Islam God, and think purely about an impersonal and formless God, this concept is very attractive. 

If you look out of the window, take a stroll through the park, appreciate your surroundings, you learn to respect the beauty and energy of nature. Because nature isn't dead. It isn't dormant. It's bursting with energy, actively working, changing , improving with every moment. The power of nature is breathtaking when you really take it in, and I feel that understanding the strength of the universe is akin to meeting God, if you ever were to. 

Christians, Jews, and Sikhs alike believe that God is part of the world, all around us in everyday life. Whether you believe it or not, it is a comforting idea for many to feel that God is all around us, in the air we breathe, the fruit we eat, the colors we see and the scent of rain on arid ground we smell. 

I leave you with one final quote to reflect on from Helen Keller: 

"The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or touched - they must be felt with the heart."

Can Spirituality be Non-Denominational?

This is a prominent question in today's life with all the different things going on in the world at the moment. So many people would love to know if the troubles that we as one people face, such as the threats of Libya, North Korea and Al Quaeda, might be easier and perhaps non-existent if the human sense of spirituality was totally non-denominational. That is to say that all faith was not centered around a religion but an individual core belief. 

But is it possible for human nature to drop ties with religious denominations and follow their own faith? And how similar would people's core beliefs be in comparison with each other?

In theory, yes. Spirituality can be non-denominational. After all, these denominations and religions are man-made, and are created through spirituality. They cannot trap spirituality in a inescapable bond, or they themselves would be bound in return. Spirituality is the very essence of religion, faith, belief. And people experience this in different ways. 

However, the question must be asked whether humanity as a whole is able to forget about the man-made denominations and work individually each to his own belief. Why did man create denominations to begin with? Denominational laws divide the masses between good and bad behavior according to a perceived identical faith, and to begin with this seems simple enough. But what about when you reach further within and find anomalies within a denomination? 

For example, the Catholic Church is against gay marriage, saying the act of sodomy is against the will of God. Therefore any gay Roman Catholics must remain chaste their entire lives if they are to follow their denomination of choice. One might argue that those people would simply leave the Catholic Church and follow a different denomination of Christianity which is more accepting of their sexual orientation. This leads me on to another point which I have to hold for a second. 

What about those who have no choice to be in a religion, those who are born within some fundamental denomination who cannot leave it? They may not agree with the rules upheld by other members of their denomination but there is nothing they can do to change it. Therefore these anomalies in a denomination show that the identical faith spoken of cannot be real. Everyone's ideal of spirituality is different and shows that under the right circumstances spirituality can and possibly needs to be non-denominational. 

And I can now return to my point. Why should the gay Catholic go to follow a different Christian denomination if they feel that overall they are more in tune with the traditional teachings of the catholic church? Why must they follow any denomination at all if they understand which moral rules and teachings they believe in? It should be simple for people to march alone following their own unique concept of spirituality, but for some reason most people just cannot.

Let's take a closer look at human behavior then. School is the perfect example. When a student arrives at a school they are categorized into a group according to their interests, fashion sense, looks, and intelligence. Therefore a pretty, sporty, sociable girl will quickly be shoved into the popular group. Her main topics of conversation with her friends will likely be fashion, films and boys. But what if she secretly loves watching Battlestar Galactica? If her friends knew, she would be tossed from the group because after all a sci-fi loving nerd doesn't belong with the popular kids. So what does the girl do? What would most insecure teenagers do? Keep it a secret. She would rather be in a group of people who share other similar interests with her rather than brave it and take on High School on her own, free to follow all of her interests without judgement. 

Do you see the pattern here? 

Spirituality can be and sometimes is non-denominational for people. But the majority of people just aren't brave enough to follow their own instincts with their faith. They're just too insecure that without denominational guidelines they'll stray from their spiritual path and get lost in a tangle of incorrect beliefs. However, in my opinion you just have to risk it. I understand completely that people feel more comfortable part of a community where they share most beliefs or interests with the rest of the denomination, but I have also grown up believing that everyone is unique. Therefore they should not categorize themselves within a group where their whole personality cannot be expressed. 

God is the Only Explanation for the Existence of Life.

Some would say that God is not the only explanation for life in the universe. They would say that there are alternative explanations such as Evolution, which can, according to Darwinians such as Richard Dawkins, explain the origin of life and obliterate the need for a God as an explanation. A designer as described in the Teleological Argument by William Paley is not necessary, and the 'designed' universe is actually proven to be an evolved one. As Dawkins said, "intelligent design explains precisely zero" of what we know about life. 

However, other people would disagree, asserting that God has to be the only and original explanation, for example Christian Creationists who reject evolution as an explanation for the existence of life entirely. Ultra-conservative Christians propose that the creation of the world was as exactly written in the Book of Genesis, and attempt to explain away evolutionary evidence; fossils are apparently the result of animals drowning in the year of Noah and the Flood. This is called Scientific creationism, formulated by Henry Morris, try to maintain events such as the Seven Days and the Flood in the bible to make evidence used by Evolution seem concurrent with Creationism. There is even a hypothesis that the multiplicity of languages in today's culture is due to the Tower of Babylon, rather than a cognitive development formed by the convergence of genetic interest between relatives. 

Others suggest that there is no possibility of other explanations for the existence of life than God as there has to be a 'prime mover', a start to the chain that allowed evolution to begin, which must be expressed as an external being or a God. Even Dawkins, when pushed to question infinite regress, suggested that an intelligent being from another world may have "seeded life" on Earth. Aquinas in his teleological argument asserted that "inorganic objects cannot direct themselves" and that the world works as if harmonised by an intellligent designer, though as a follower of Aristotle, he may have believed in a 'prime mover', and not in the traditional christian God who created the world in seven days, as was believed by the church in Aquinas's time, the 1200s.  

On the other hand, there are those who say that religion and science can actually work together, that both evolution and creationism may be compatible in some interpretations, although maybe not the Creator as in the traditional Judeo-Christian concept of Him. Accepting the theory of evolution foes not necessarily lead towards a rejection of God's involvement with the process. In Darwin's book, 'The Descent of Man', he even implied that nature is an intelligent force or perhaps a being which decides fate and orders the process of natural selection in his quote "rejecting that which is bad and preserving that which is good". This suggests that there is a plan to the universe which, according to Hans Kung, shows that the meaning of the universe can be discovered, as opposed to a universe which came about by accident. 

Finally some believe that science and evolution have not replaced evolution, but only the myth and analogies of the Holy Books such as the Torah and the Bible. Religions such as Christianity can be maintained without the ignorant and closed-minded view of Fundamentalists who refuse to listen to the logic of Evolution. Even the Catholic Church has now embraced evolution as an explanation for our development, while placing God at the heart of our origin by placing simplistic living organisms on the planet. 

In my opinion a God, an intelligent force, is the only possible explanation for the existence of life as the suggestion of infinite regress is an illogical thought to me. However not a God as described by the Judeo-Christian concept. I prefer to think of God in more deistic terms; a spark which gave life and burned out long ago. I could not say with any conviction that there is any other plausible explanation for life that a God in some form or other. 

Is God Responsible for Everything that Happens in the Universe?

Almost all faiths are founded on the belief that the universe was created by a deity in one form of another, although it remains to be determined therefore whether He is responsible for everything which happens in the Universe. In this article I will focus solely on the Judeo-Christian concept of God as creator as this is the faith I am most familiar with, being brought up Catholic and sent to a Catholic boarding school. Although many people of all different faiths believe that certain events in the universe are fated, including humanity, I will not talk of that which I am unsure of, and do not want to offend people of serious religious faith.

In the book of Genesis, there are two accounts of the creation of the world. The first describes the seven days in which Elojhim created the world ‘ex nihilo’ from nothing. This powerful and deist depiction of God as a potent, creating force is entirely detached from the loving and compassionate depiction, Yahweh, who walked on Earth and spoke with man. The personified God who had a relationship with man shows a more anthropocentric view of creation than the Elojhim account. This created the idea that God as Yahweh created us for a purpose, since we were reportedly created ‘imago Dei’ in the image of God. Although both of these accounts are of the original Hebrew Scriptures, they portray very different images of God. In fact many believe that the Elojhim account, while first in the book of Genesis, was written at least 500 years after the Yahweh account when a Jew visited Arabia and took the story from their existing idea of an all-powerful deity. However the one similarity between the two tales is that both were creators, creating the Earth and animals ‘ex nihilo’.

Similarly in Christian Scripture, in John’s gospel, Jesus was described as ‘the word’ or ‘logos’ used in the context, “In the beginning was the word, and the word was God, and the word was with God.” This suggests that in the view of Christianity, descended from Judaism, God created everything within the universe, in the form of Elojhim perhaps. However John took this view a step further, using this to portray Jesus as the interface between man and Elojhim, explaining Jesus as comparable to Yahweh (though not as paternalistic), and joining the two genesis stories to form one, strong legend. The Christian faith continues to call God the creator today even outside of the Scriptures, often through prayers and teachings. For example in the Apostle’s creed, Christians declare that they “believe in one, true God, Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth”. This assertion shows how Christians believe that God created the universe as an all-powerful and all-mighty force.

The reason for this concept of God as creator is that humans enjoy having a certain order and structure to their lives without a great sense of mystery. Although it is impossible to answer the many incomprehensible questions of the universe, different religions such as Judaism and Christianity envision a great creator to explain these questions. The linked similarities between Elojhim and Yahweh give a paternalistic and dominant view of the creator. This shows that God works with motive to give humans purpose. Because he is seen as the creator of the universe, many believe him also to continue to sustain the universe, thereby being responsible for the universe and everything within it.

I argue that God would not be responsible for everything that happens in the universe. For a start, it is of popular view that we as mankind have total free will, and therefore this would not be true if God was still responsible for us. Some may declare that even if God does not continue to sustain us in the world today, he still holds responsibility for us because we exist from him.  Therefore all things in the world have to be his fault, his problem. A popular extension of this view is Eternal Law, the position that all events in the universe were predetermined and we have no free will at all. The thing I find most troubling with this position is that it is a Christian view, even though it completely contradicts the Christian teaching of Man’s free will. I find it hard to believe that any rational Creator God would purposefully predestine such destruction as wars and famine having created us with such detail and accuracy. I also find it hard to believe that a God who is said to love everyone equally might set up the rape and savage murder of innocent young people through the actions of one man or woman. I feel that what we do in our lives is of our own choosing and that no higher being is responsible for our activities.

Hebrew Scriptures suggest that God was very powerful and also benevolent towards his ‘chosen people’.  In the book of Exodus, it is written “The lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness.” In addition, in the Christian gospel of St John it reads that “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son” for the salvation of mankind. One key question in religious philosophy concerns the relationship between God and goodness. The Euthyphro dilemma is the problem; Does God create moral standards that he issues as commands, or does he command that which he already knows as good? Judaism would choose the first option, while Plato would say that good is already there. This dilemma is difficult to resolve, since religious believers tend to use God’s commands as a point of reference when deciding what is good, but are aware that sometimes their relationship with God might call on them to do something that they know rationally would be considered wrong. Take for example the story of Abraham. God called him to kill his son Isaac on a mountaintop to prove his faith, and Abraham conceded to do so, despite the immoral face of the action. The goodness of God therefore cannot be measured by human standards of goodness. They are set apart in a way which we cannot comprehend.

Many people believe that God is very powerful, often describing him as omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, especially Christians. However Hebrew beliefs do not include the all ‘omni’ part of the phrase, believing God to be only very powerful, very knowing and very kind. They had good reason for this. When you talk of God as being almighty, as though there is nothing he cannot do, difficult questions begin to emerge. Through the position of Eternal Law, everything good or evil, happy or sad, it is all of God’s doing. The correct response to the events of the universe according to the Bible is Faith, even when things seem confusing or disturbing. Accept in faith and do not question. A good example of this unquestioning approach can be found in the story of Job. God allowed the devil to test Job to prove that he was a true follower of God. God placed Job into his enemy’s hands, and Satan was given two attempts to make Job suffer. He first lost his possessions and his children, and then a decline in health and his reputation in the community. Even though Job’s wife wanted him to curse God for the pain brought down on him, Job did not buckle. His reply was that “The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of God.”

However this view is difficult for many to understand. It takes huge restraint and patience for someone to experience such loss and still have faith in God. Personally I do not comprehend the perseverance and strength of this faith as my own beliefs will not allow me to belief that compassion and reason in a deity would lead him to allow such acts from the devil towards one of his creations. How can the builder of the universe choose to allow someone’s world to collapse around them? And yet we are taught to believe that God creates intelligently and deliberately with a clear plan and purpose.

The Judeo-Christian ideal of a loving and compassionate God cannot exist simultaneously with the statement that God is responsible for everything that happens in the universe, rendering one or the other false. This is because if God wants to help us with starvation or flooding for example, but cannot help, then God is not omnipotent and cannot be held responsible. However if God does have the power to help but does not, as now with Superstorm Sandy, then he is malevolent. The typical Judeo-Christian response to this is that without suffering in the world, there can be no such thing as compassion. However this implies that God is willing to choose who suffers, showing that he favors those who appear to us not to be in need. This depicts God as a cruel and unfair deity, very unlike Judeo-Christian teachings. The two concepts, whether God is compassionate or responsible for everything in the universe, are not compatible. They cannot co-exist. If you believe in God as a Jewish or Christian believer then you must believe in the former if you are to believe the teachings of the scriptures and of the church.  

Therefore I conclude that in the context of a Judeo-Christian approach to God, God is not responsible for everything that happens in the universe.