Of course, there are various reasons for the steady decline of participation in traditional religion. Is there any doubt that there is also a steady secularization in societies? The reason I would like to focus on is the incredulity of many religious claims found in the traditions. Most of the traditions, at least in the West, still point to an interventionist supernatural mode of causation. The miracle stories in all the traditions are still taken seriously by many adherents. For some people, however, the idea that there are supernatural interventions taking place in the cosmos has become less and less tenable. Why? In a large part I think it is a result of people getting a feel for how things work in reality. I use the word “feel” purposefully. Most people in populations do not have a strong grasp of the details of causation as described in science. Instead they steadily attain a feel for the causal dynamics of life. Certainly the success of science in explaining many of the causal factors associated with reality has had a big impact. As people become more educated and science literate they attain some sense of how things nominally work. This sense has created a dissonance between what the traditions claim and what science claims. (more…)

There are many things that religion has in common with other forms of human endeavor. Religion creates community. It offers support and structure for society. It may even venture into the political and activist arena. However, the one area that makes religion distinctive is its focus on ultimates, the depth of reality. For whatever else religion is, its primary focus is on ultimate foundations and ultimate concerns. Religion asks the deepest questions about reality. Why is there something and not nothing? What is the meaning of the cosmos? What is the meaning and purpose of my life? What happens when I die? These are questions implied by life itself. They point to life’s deepest mysteries. They are the foundational realm of religion. (more…)

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…)

Who can deny the central role of metaphor in religious language? From the allegories in the Bible, to Greek mythology, to the parables of Jesus, to the songs in the Vedas, the use of metaphor is pervasive. Today the issue of metaphor in religion has become particularly important. Cutting edge theologians like Borg and Spong have deliteralized much of scripture and instead propose that even some of the seemingly critical “literal” claims of scripture be interpreted metaphorically. The question that many ask about this approach is if the metaphorization of religious claims strips religion of its content and identity? Or is metaphor really the life blood of religion throughout the centuries?

Here’s the etymology:

1533, from M.Fr. metaphore, from L. metaphora, from Gk. metaphora “a transfer,” especially of the sense of one word to a different word, lit. “a carrying over,” from metapherein “transfer, carry over,” from meta- “over, across” (see meta-) + pherein “to carry, bear” (more…)

The question of revelation is very important today. Many of the traditions are grappling with how to regard scripture. Is it holy writ in the sense of God “dictating” to the prophets? This seems to be the approach taken by conservative traditions where scripture is considered inerrant. If scripture is not a direct transmission from God how can it be revelatory? (more…)