One of the most interesting questions in theology and religious philosophy, at least for me, is why certain individuals and cultures opted for a particular religious framework. While this is certainly a complex issue, one can speculate at what might have been happening with seminal figures (i.e. Elijah, Moses, Jesus, Siddartha, Lao Tsé, etc.) in history who for some reason formulated their religious thinking as they did. One way to approach this question is, I think, from the standpoint of religious experience. Now, what I mean by religious experience is any experience that is interpreted as revealing something about the ultimate basis or structure of reality. I believe the issue of religious experience as a basis for forming religious sentiment has become particularly acute in this age of religious pluralism. Prominent Christian theologian Langdon Gilkey wrote:

If I were asked what are the biggest changes in theology since the first half of the twentieth century, since the great neo-orthodox days, I would mention, first, the concern for the issue of the pluralism of religions, and second, the deep, and very new, theological concern with nature.

Religious pluralism calls into question the truth and authority of a particular tradition. A survey of religious sentiment throughout history reveals both similarities and differences between religious traditions. If religion, in some way, taps into and characterizes ultimate reality this begs the question why there are differences? There are, of course, adherents who just claim that the others just got it wrong. To an objective observer these claims will, in my view, be almost always circular.
(more…)

After all these many years for some reason I remember very vividly an experience I had as a teenager. As with many teenagers I was troubled. Being a very shy person, I found it difficult to fit in with the gregarious goings-on in high school. It seemed,at the time, that most everyone was having such a good time relating to each other and having fun. I had friends, to be sure, mostly on the tennis team, but when it came to the social aspect of the teenage community I felt extremely inadequate. I felt awkward and out of place. Wanting to date and relate on a social level for a very shy person can be a difficult situation. It creates an internal conflict that was not easily resolved. One night I was feeling particularly down about life and was looking for some relief. As many people do in trying situations, I felt the need to seek some solace in God. (more…)

The rise of religious pluralism in societies has created a new climate for theologians. As prominent theologian Langdon Gilkey says:

If I were asked what are the biggest changes in theology since the first half of the twentieth century, since the great neoorthodox days, I would mention, first, the concern for the issue of the pluralism of religions, and second, the deep, and very new, theological concern with nature.

What should be counted as a religious experience? Invariably at least in the theistic traditions religious experiences are described in “positive” terms. By positive I mean terms like unity, blessedness, beauty, goodness, healing, etc. The problem with restricting religious experiences to something positive is that it drives a wedge between God and the world. It divorces God from part of the dynamics of life (i.e. the emergence of “evil”) and posits the source of evil only to the world. Since for many people God is only “good”, the attempt to shield God from evil is understandable. Attempts in theodicies to shield God from the evil in the world are legion. Invariably they do not satisfy. The reason is that if God is the ground of being of all things then God is ultimately responsible for evil anyway. Typically shielding God from evil is attempted under the rubric of “freedom”. The argument goes something like this: there is no evil in God but God allows creatures to be free such that they can choose to be “bad”. Thus God remains pure from evil but creation can choose it. This concept only works within a classic theism because the world is ontologically distinct from God. Thusly religious experience (i.e. experience of God) can only be experience of the good which is found in God. If, however, classic theism is becoming less and less compelling religiously then the concept of religious experience must be revised. Panentheistic approaches offer this opportunity. However, some of these formulations still attempt to shield God from evil in some fashion at the cost of a true ontological panentheism. Process theology is one such failed attempt because God’s participation in the world is only prehensional and persuasive. Even though God prehends evil, it is not part of God. Religious experience then remains only the positive prehension of God’s “good”. Evil still remains the product of the ontologically distinct world. The question is whether there may be another way to understand religious experience that does honor to God participating fully in the world in God’s complete self? I think there is. It can stem from the concept of “the living God” that is found in most religious traditions. (more…)

For those of you who are not familiar with Paul Tillich, he is considered one the foremost theologians of the twentieth century. He had a vast knowledge of both philosophy and the history of thought. He was my intellectual mentor. One of the most profound, in my view, and deeply important concepts of his is “The Dimension of Depth”. I’ll have a dedicated thread on this soon but you can get a sense of it from his words below. Tillich was a Christian theologian but his theism was controversial. He was even called an atheist by some because of his claim that the term “Being-Itself” was the only non-metaphorical statement that could be made about God. Many, including myself, view him as a Christian panentheist. (more…)