A rhubaric ramble following a visit to the “state” of Las Vegas
Believers in a One Dimensional God:
The simple belief in God is similar to a belief in a one-dimensional god. It is neither good nor bad, but rather what people make of that belief. Different peoples imbue their god with different attributes. Many of these virtues appear anthropomorphic in nature. They describe human virtues as well as those of a one-dimensional god.
In this stage, the existence of god is simply not questioned but accepted as an indisputable reality. There is no crisis of doubt or faith (save on the rarest of occasions). The study of comparative religions is not needed. Attitudes toward other religions can vary widely across a range of human responses from hostility to acceptance (in the sense of toleration) or from benign neglect to condescending belittlement.
Such believers depend upon organized religion as the best way to express and validate their religious commitment. The individual functions best as part of a religious society that shares the same views. There is safety and security in numbers. One’s beliefs are constantly being reinforced by others like themselves. They have the security of the religious womb. They have the privilege of certainty. They avoid anxiety, stress, and worry. They can hew to a straightforward world without fear of interrogatory or exclamatory interference.
Quiet, simple acceptance creates psychological certainty and comfort. God exists, god is above them; heaven exists, heaven is above them; god creates the universe, the universe exists; there is life after death, the soul exists; god sees all, knows all (omnipotence); god can reward or punish; god is there, god knows all. These beliefs can be amended slightly or stretched this way or that a little. In general, however, these are common basic ideas. If this is what you were taught, if this is what you believe, then you are living in the world of a one-dimensional god. It is not a bad world but it is not a complete world; it is missing dimensionality.
Personal Faith
Here, one’s own beliefs are all that really matter. It is not necessary to attempt a deeper understanding of history to provide context for one’s religion. There is no great need or sense of urgency to seek knowledge of other religions. Those who believe differently are different and let it go at that. The believer prefers not to consider mankind’s stages of development as one religion then another emerges and evolves. Since only one’s personal religion matters, there is little cause to compare one’s own religion to others.
Should believers in this stage of religious belief exhibit a strong desire to learn more, they are ready to move into the more advanced belief system of a two-dimensional god. If they wish to enrich their understanding still further, they will need to shed their one-dimensional faith as a butterfly sheds its cocoon. When they actively seek to educate themselves more fully, the nature of their religious status starts to change; it does not disappear but a new journey begins. The destination is not yet known.
If “ignorance is bliss”, those who believe in a one-dimensional god may be the happiest of all. They do not yet know enough to question beliefs in such manner as to raise doubt and uncertainty; they need not study contradiction and disagreement or learn of errors and inaccuracies in the historical literature, even among the most holy of texts. They are not ready to ask themselves if the world is really as it seems, as described by the beliefs they were taught as children. They are not willing to ask if all the beliefs they were taught are truthful. They are not able to overcome the command “to never question” their beliefs for to do so appears unnecessary and unwelcomed.
To question religious belief is to invite danger. There is no reason to risk such needless action. The believer in a one-dimensional god does not challenge indoctrination but accepts such beliefs as sufficient and complete unto themselves. It is what it is and that suffices. Sometimes charlatans and fanatics are to be found here. However, most believers in a one-dimensional god are honest and trusting people. Why question that which does not need to be questioned?
They are somewhat prone to one small error of conceit. They mistake the simplicity of their belief as being more profound than it actually is. They believe they have arrived at the end point of a transcendent level of understanding. They mistake the beginning for the end. They have not solved all the challenges of religious belief; rather, they have not begun to address them. They have not wrestled with the many-sided conundrums of human existence; rather, they have quashed the need and intent to do so. They accept passively rather than think actively. It is both their reward, and punishment, to be content with such an approach to philosophy and life.
Believers in a Two-Dimensional God:
A willingness to develop knowledge of other religions is a trait to be found among believers in a two-dimensional god. They can imagine people in other cultures have found different ways to express their spirituality. The need for institutional religion usually continues and predominates, but individuals may also be found who have opted for the path of enlightened personal spirituality without the restricting confines of an organized church that lays down theological doctrine that must be adhered to faithfully.
Often overlooked in discussion of religious histories, are those individuals who tried to develop a personal belief in a higher being that suited their needs but did not always conform. These beliefs can be quite similar to the beliefs of those attending church on a regular basis, but the non-conformists were willing to adapt their beliefs according to temperament and intellect. There is still much in common to be found among traditionalists and non-conformists; among both groups can be those who actively ponder the nature of god, the meaning of life, the purpose of existence, and their personal relationship to a higher being.
None of this is meant to belittle believers in a one-dimensional god, but believers at this second level of human cognition do not accept ideas passively or submissively. They question what they are taught and what they are to believe; they wish to understand not only the rituals but why they are supposed to believe certain sets of ideas and not others. They can study and compare their religion with different faiths without fear of losing their way; they can admire the best in other religions without knew-jerk condemnation of all theological thought different from their own. They exhibit a high level of willingness to understand ideas from outside their own local sphere of existence.
They demonstrate more than a mere toleration of “differences” but move beyond lip service to seek a fuller understanding of cultures that express spiritual longings in unique ways, from the comparative standpoint. The theology of other lands is intriguing, not repulsive; a search for similarities and distinctions among the world’s many religions is as potentially enlightening as it is challenging. We learn and grow from the study of differences among human societies; why fear such knowledge?
Believers in a two-dimensional god actively seek to avoid falling into the pit of narrow-minded dogmatism. None of this means they are ready to give up their own beliefs; the majority will remain religiously committed but, through education, with a fuller understanding of their own religious beliefs and spiritual purpose in life.
Some, perhaps only a few, may start to question their beliefs even more deeply. Among these questioners, they are willing to risk substantial changes to what they believe. It is the risk one takes from moving to a conception of a one-dimensional god to a two-dimensional god. Change in life is a constant; one cannot grow save by embracing change and risking development in a new direction. To stand still, to stay stagnant, is to risk spiritual death through lack of animated purpose.
Here, meaningful belief is tied closely to meaningful action. Belief as an end-all in itself becomes unfulfilling without an avenue for commitment to action, for service to others. Meaningful belief leads to meaningful action. The substance of belief is tested daily in how one lives. In time, many of these good-hearted actions become as much the center of one’s religious identity as any precepts written down in black and white.
The precepts are weak without actualization; those actions in turn breathe life into one’s self-understanding of religious thought and spirituality. The circle is complete and perfect as it has neither beginning nor end; each reinforces the other but both are vitally necessary to make comprehensive sense of the whole.
THE RANGE OF LIGHT
Limiting religious belief and action to a small field of narrow choices does not appeal to believers in a two-dimensional god. They must reach out and expand their horizons or perish for lack of stimulation and moral justification for their lives. The world exists as a place of active drama, the opposite of limiting narrow religious belief without connection to others in empathy and unity.
This view allows for optimism and a chance to make a difference in the lives of others. These believers in a two-dimensional god are helpers, teachers, leaders, guides, advisors, mentors. All of us likely have crossed paths with them and one or more of them may have made a tremendous difference in our lives. And, if we are extremely lucky, then one day we may find a way to do for others as others have done for us. Belief in a two-dimensional god invites us into a rich world where the best virtues can exist easily alongside an intelligent and pro-active spirituality.
Faith and action on behalf of others are not contradictory or mutually exclusive; to the contrary, they are interactive and mutually reinforcing. They raise religious belief to a new and higher plane within human consciousness. They liberate the mind and free human genius to be as creative and daring as imagination and moral virtue allow.
BELIEF AS ACTION
Believers in a two-dimensional god are open-minded and willing to learn as they grow; many find this journey of study and knowledge exhilarating. Often what they learn on their journey reinforces their original beliefs and thoughts; some, however, are not yet satisfied and will continue to question and seek. They are not satisfied with standardized answers, even when those answers gain in complexity and nuance.
Truly, some may never be satisfied but remain seekers their whole lives. Others may find that special way of thinking and being they seek that gives meaning to their lives and solace to their deepest spiritual longings. They will find a path wherein their rationality and spirituality go hand in hand without seeming contradiction or discomfort. They can create a moral compass by which they satisfy both their practical and religious needs; they can enjoy–or endure–the journey by which they continue to evolve a philosophy which will give their lives structure and purpose.
For believers in a two-dimensional god, it is a path of great challenge with many difficulties and obstacles along the way, but a journey ever more richly rewarding for that very reason. Nevertheless, even this travel on the path of self-discovery and of purposeful service to society and humanity, may not satisfy all.
There remain those who must journey farther on, and who by nature and temperament cannot rest and be satisfied to remain as they are. Among some few then, are those who must begin the arduous task of contemplating the lives of believers in a three-dimensional god. They may need to put at risk everything they have accomplished and learned. Who would be foolish enough to challenge such boundaries?
Believers in A Three Dimensional Almighty:
The Science of a Four Dimensional World
The first three dimensions refer to (and are contextualized by) involve a geometric conception of space, often called Euclidean geometry. It is the three dimensions of our daily lives and of our schoolhouse math books. I am not saying there is one god for each dimension although it would be pleasant to think such deep questions could be solved so simply!
The fourth dimension refers to human beings, their lives and actions, thoughts and emotions, goals and accomplishments. The fourth dimension refers to those seeking a fuller explanation of four-dimensional reality from a scientific perspective.
(Those who wish to know more about what physicists mean here, will need to consult other authorities than this author, who has trouble enough grasping the meaning of three-dimensional reality.)
Believers in a three-dimensional religious faith ask the most difficult questions of all. They are capable of considering their beliefs and practices objectively. They respect mankind’s vast accumulation of knowledge. They can reason logically beyond the scope of family-inherited values.
Those who are free-thinkers and yet are able to validate their religious beliefs at the same time, have a very deep and rich intellectual legacy and great sense of purpose in life. They find ways to synthesize the apparent contradictions between religious and scientific explanations of the natural world. They are not close-minded toward either but discover a sublime harmony. (Non-believers are capable of the same reasoning but are typically not credited to an equal measure).
To earn this level of self-awareness, it must be pointed out that such individuals must be willing to question the fundamental postulates of their faith–if they are to advance to a higher level of purposeful belief.
This is risky for religious believers for, as anyone knows, it is a fundamental tenet that “faith is faith” and should not be questioned or debated. The very thought that one might want to their question faith from a new perspective, would be anathema to most believers. Yet they will miss the opportunity to appreciate the physical world and the world of ideas at a higher level of understanding.
From ignorance or fear or egoism, they pass over such opportunities as lightweight and mindless, “unnecessary” in every sense of the word. But what is repulsive to one, can become an attractive and necessary step on a much longer journey of self-discovery in the lives of others. We do not stay the same; nothing does; change is part of the natural world around us. We must openly embrace change, actively seek it out, or we risk losing our grasp of the world, our sense of self-understanding, our ability to move toward greater comprehension and enlightenment that comes from seeking truths in areas formerly invisible to us. We do not grow if we do not try.
A PERSONAL ASIDE OR A RAMBLE WITHIN A RAMBLE
It is curious, if not passing strange, to look at the evolution of religious belief in reverse. We do not know if our cave-dwelling ancestors were very religious but at some point, somewhere on planet Earth, many early peoples discovered some sort of religious impulse—if not all at once, then a few at a time. Most likely, as language and thought developed, such impulses rose out of the need to address questions as to one’s origins, purpose, destiny or fate.
Although we may believe modern man’s ability to ponder philosophical conundrums is unique, it must have originated in the far distant past: how was the world created? Where did man come from, as well as all other living creatures? What happens when a person dies?
While at present we cannot pinpoint with any great accuracy the exact point in time human beings began considering such questions, it is likely that it goes farther back in time than we realize; indeed, it no doubt predates the written historical record and rise of early civilizations by a considerable mark, certainly many centuries, if not millennia.
At some point, we see that several religions are presented as “revealed truths”, which is to say, the Higher Deity created or guided mankind toward its understanding. There is room in these stories to allow for “communication” between a Higher Power and human beings. Yet, when we trace such religions backward in time, we often discover a period of polytheism in many early cultures.
People believed in various gods, one for the sun, rain, wind, and other natural elements as the need arose during the seasonal cycle of the year. As recently as Greek and Roman times, we still see an impressive panoply of gods, each with his or her own purpose and specialty. They take on quite human traits within the usual anthropomorphizing tendency that exists to make deities accessible, understandable and manageable, if you would.
Different deities thus came to represent messengers, love, war, beauty (Mercury, Diana, Apollo, and Hermes, among others): the gods of Mt. Olympus. In turn, the gods have a long and complex history among themselves. Zeus (Jupiter) emerges as the most powerful of all but the others have plenty of strength as well.
As the stories lengthen into epic tales describing their numerous intrigues, we also get demi-gods (half-gods: half-human and half-god) as well as your usual assortment of griffins and other kinds of winged and four-legged creatures not quite normal but not quite supernatural, either. The struggle between human beings and gods is underway in the literature, society, and philosophy of the time: a contest still prevailing even unto the very latest time in our own secular day.
Worship was important—to placate angry gods or to ask for favors from friendly ones—complicated somewhat by the rise of a priestly caste that sometimes displayed selfish motives of its own. They were connected to the socio-economic structure of their society, usually serving as a hand-in-glove partner to the ruling class. Oh yes, religion did not exist in a void in those days: priests and rulers had their own interests to protect.
Further complicating matters was another strange trend arising within human society: temporal rulers grown so powerful that they proclaimed themselves gods, too!
Eventually, in Western Europe at least, nearly all of this polytheistic diversity gets overthrown by the notion of a single Deity, combining or eliminating all others. Such a development as monotheism certainly streamlined a lot of different theological notions and practices.
In turn, it would open up a Pandora’s box of troubling theological questions that would haunt mankind for centuries to come: Unitarian or Trinitarian, one baptism or two, Jesus as god or Jesus as human, Protestant or Catholic, Jew or Muslim, fundamentalist or reformist, cover the head or uncover the head, cut a beard or let it grow, eat pork or avoid pork, celebrate the Sabbath on Saturday or Sunday and in which manner, lend money at interest or no interest, miracles as real or miracles as unproven, biblical tales as moral parables or as revelation, and so forth and so on.
Children no longer have to learn the names of dozens of Greek and Roman deities but that by itself does not settle all questions about the nature of a Higher Deity or how each person should respond to his or her religious impulse, if they have one at all.
