Here is something I wrote back when I still considered myself a liberal theist. Although I’m now practically a deist who is rather skeptical about a Creator’s intervention beyond causing the Big Bang, I still stand with most of what I said albeit not quite as smugly. More importantly, I believe there are a few noteworthy points here that the freethinker might find interesting.
* * * * *
Lately I’ve been renewing my spirituality (I did not say “religion”) and what’s rather ironic about it is that it all started when I stumbled upon some atheist blogs and a discussion about the Problem of Evil.
Although I have always maintained that I am a Christian albeit a non-traditional one, I do admire the atheists’ and agnostics’ attitude towards the search for Truth by practicing Freethought – a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma. (Wikipedia)
Ah, science, logic, and reason instead of authority, tradition, or dogma. One thing the atheists mock about the fundamentalists is the latter’s preference to dogma over reason. And that’s the same reason why so many young Christians question their beliefs and then feel guilty for not being steadfast in their faith. Some of them take the first scary step in the journey seeking Truth while others abandon science in favor of authority and end up still feeling guilty and thirsty for answers.
I am going to share something I read from Scott Peck’s book several years ago because it attempts to answer the questions begged by the previous paragraph. Of course I could also just direct you to the link here but that would be plain laziness on my part. Besides, it’s a rather long article and I do not want to take so much time and energy from my dear readers, and so I will try to paraphrase and condense it from what I understand, interjecting my own personal experiences. It’s called the Stages of Spiritual Growth.
Stage 1: Chaotic, Antisocial
All children are born into this stage, but some reach adulthood without ever leaving it. These are the people who submit to nothing but their own free will and have no beliefs or principles, and their relationships with other people are often manipulative and self-serving.
Stage 2: Formal, Institutional, Fundamental
Because of the chaotic life in Stage 1, some people experience intense psychological pain or get into trouble and end up converting into Stage 2 by joining or being committed to an institution – military, school, an organization, jail, a church. Stage 2 people follow rules but do not care to think about the reasons behind them. They do not want to hear anyone question the beliefs they hold so dearly especially if it is a logical, valid question, because the institution with its dogma is the only thing preventing these people from falling back into the chaotic life in State 1, and they especially do not want that. (Some criminals, when caught and imprisoned, quickly turn into model prisoners and given early paroles, only to commit another crime on the first day of their release. That’s because they rely solely on the institution – prison – and have no principles of their own.)
Stage 3: Skeptic, Individual
When Stage 2 people marry and raise a family, their children often become Stage 2 at a very early age. But as they grow into their teens they become so used to order that they tend to take for granted the rules and beliefs of their parents and even question these beliefs. Here they are already into Stage 3, the truth seeker. For the Stage 2 people, Stage 3 is the same as Stage 1 – non-believers – and so they would try to convert them with their doctrines, only to end up getting ridiculed. But Stage 1 and Stage 3 are very much different even though they both do not submit to an institution or dogma. Because while Stage 1 people submit only to their own free will, people in Stage 3 submit to something higher: Truth.
People in Stage 3 are often atheists or at least agnostics because they are very logical and scientific. Let’s face it: until now we still cannot scientifically prove that there is a God. There are many personal testimonies about experiences with Grace of course, but they are never enough to let us arrive at a conclusion based on scientific method, which demands that the outcome must be repeatable in a laboratory-controlled experiment (like water always boiling at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level or at one atmosphere of pressure). Now there are many who claim that God took away their cancer, but not all who pray are healed.
Stage 4 – Mystic, Communal
Since this is a rather complicated stage, I would like to quote directly from the book instead of using my own words:
If people in Stage III seek truth deeply and widely enough, they find what they are looking for–enough pieces to begin to be able to fit them together, but never enough to complete the whole puzzle. In fact, the more pieces they find, the larger and more magnificent the puzzle becomes. Yet they are able to get glimpses of the “big picture” and to see that it is very beautiful indeed–and that it strangely resembles those “primitive myths and superstitions” their Stage II parents or grandparents believe in. At that point they begin their conversion to Stage IV, which is the mystic communal stage of spiritual development.
Now the problem with some atheists is that they automatically assume that all religious or spiritual people are in Stage 2: ignorant and superstitious. This should not be the case because while Stage 2 people think of God as a sky daddy who will always rescue them, for the people in Stage 4 it is more of a personal relationship. As Scott Peck explained about how all the great religions have the ability to communicate with both Stage 2 and Stage 4:
In the Christian example: “Jesus is my savior,” Stage II often translates this into a Jesus who is a kind of fairy godmother who will rescue us whenever we get in trouble as long as we remember to call upon his name. At Stage IV, “Jesus is my savior” is translated as “Jesus, through his life and death, taught the way, not through virgin births, cosmic ascensions, walking on water and blood sacrifice of reconciliation – man with an external daddy Warbucks that lives in the sky – mythological stories interpreted as literal accounts, but rather as one loving the whole, the outcasts, overcoming prejudices, incorporating inclusiveness and unconditional love, this, with the courage to be as oneself – that is what I must follow for my salvation.”
Personally, I do not think that I am already in Stage 4. Most likely I am still on Stage 3 and just beginning to approach Stage 4. And that is why I kept quoting from the book instead of using my own words when explaining Stage 4.
And although I could never scientifically prove to anyone that there is a God, I do have many experiences with what I would call Grace. These experiences may not be enough (and especially not repeatable in a laboratory-controlled experiment) in order to arrive at a conclusion based on scientific method, but the blessings are far too many and far too gracious to be attributed to mere chance alone – or I must be a very lucky guy.
Yes, I know there is so much unnecessary suffering in Africa and in other parts of the world, even right here in our own country. Yes, I recognize that there is the Problem of Evil. But I still believe in God, and although His Grace may not be consistent or even predictable, I believe that when one keeps his life open to Grace, he will be able to catch it when it comes.
And considering myself blessed beyond what I think I deserve, I could now only ask, “What return can I make?”
@ Daniel: Impressed kasi ako sa brilliant Santa Clause analogy mo eh. You hit the point more accurately by just substituting a few key words in the last part of my article than the others with their more lengthy comments, no offense to them. 🙂
@IM:
Na mention na naman ako:D
@theSN:
Thanks for the comment. You might notice at the start that I mentioned that this is an old article written at a time when I still considered myself a 'liberal theist'. Now, as I deist, I have become rather skeptical on a Creator's intervention beyond causing the Big Bang, hence, I no longer believe everything here especially the part about 'Grace'. Besides, I already conceded to Daniel Gubalane's brilliant Santa Clause 'plagiarism'.
The reason I still posted this old article, however, is to share Scott Peck's stages of spiritual growth which, I believe, is quite accurate at least up to Stage 3, and I was hoping it will appeal to the theist readers and challenge them to seek truth instead of blindly following church doctrines. 🙂
IM, I hope you can deal with a little honest criticism. Your assumption that the considerable amount of blessings you’ve experienced must originate from God is pure ex pos facto nonsense. We cannot draw too many conclusions from low probability events that have already occurred, even when people experience them in high frequency within a short time frame. These experiences are probability based and random.
Think, there are those like you who feel equally ‘blessed’ who are Buddhist, Muslim and maybe even Somalian. There are others who feel blessed when they reflect back on the night they met at a party and eventually married, attributing it to an incredible chance. They view it as an amazing, improbable event, when they would have eventually met someone else and considered themselves just as fortunate. If good fortune has you on the suppose, thinking that something supernatural is operating, then I’d say you were too influenced by Peck’s own warped interpretation of proof of God‘s existence. ‘If it‘s positive, God had something to do with it’ is what he espouses in a nutshell, right?
Peck was trying to fuse psychiatry and religion into a self-help format, and it seems like that appeals to you. That’s great. Personally, he should have kept the two distinct and apart. On top of being preachy about his profession and personal beliefs with religion, he presents unfounded views of metaphysics which is a big no no if you claim to subscribe to scientific method. His four stages of spirituality are pseudo psychiatric nonsense, as is many of his other assertions that rely on his own personal beliefs that have little to do with established scientific knowledge. They are not based on empirical research, are not proven to be culturally neutral and seem a bit andocentric, so why should anyone buy it? If Pecks beliefs have personally benefited you, I will seriously regret expressing this – but it seems you are still on a quest to find real answers, and I don‘t doubt your ability to read this with a critical eye as well.
So when will you start being completely objective about your deism, liberal deism or whatever you choose to call your position without getting post hoc? Is your minimal belief in God directly proportional to blessings recieved, or will a streak of bad luck prompt some spiritual regression? Johns made a good point earlier how hard it is to define ‘blessings’ without seeming awfully subjective.
Maybe you come from an wealthy, industrious family and have parents who loved their kids. Now substitute ‘blessings’ with ‘benefits’ and roll with the cause and effect. If it brings you closer to a proof of God, let me know.
Hey! I'm Daniel Gubalane. What happened to my account before the make over of this site?
Nag sem-break lang ako, nagbago na kayo…
Hehe
@ John: I know about 'grace' = luck/chance, but Daniel Gubalane beat you to it with his brilliant Santa Clause 'plagiarism'. :))
As for Scott Peck's 'stages', I said in my previous post that I think it's accurate albeit up to Stage 3 only, and that is why I still posted this old article even though I myself have become rather skeptical about some of the things I wrote.
As for 'cynical atheist', yeah, I guess that's a wrong combination of words. Sorry. 🙂
"These experiences may not be enough (and especially not repeatable in a laboratory-controlled experiment) in order to arrive at a conclusion based on scientific method, but the blessings are far too many and far too gracious to be attributed to mere chance alone – or I must be a very lucky guy."
What constitutes "far too many and far too gracious"? What you consider blessings might be a curse to someone else. It's entirely subjective. And with regards to luck, "Chance favors the prepared mind."
I must also criticize the way Peck made it into "Stages", as if everyone who fails to attain Stage 4 is somehow "incomplete".
BTW, you're poisoning the well…. I'm NOT a cynical atheist…. LOL 😀
hehe
@ Daniel Gubalane: LOL! Bull's eye! 🙂 And that is why I converted from being a liberal theist to a deist who has become rather 'skeptical' about a Creator’s intervention beyond causing the Big Bang. The reason I posted this old article is to share Scott Peck's stages of spiritual growth which, I think, is quite accurate up the the 3rd stage. I'm not so sure about the 4th. 🙂
I do not intend to plagiarize your article… ;D
Although I could never scientifically prove to anyone that there is a Santa Claus, I do have many experiences with what I would call 'Aguinaldo'. These experiences may not be enough (and especially not repeatable in a laboratory-controlled experiment) in order to arrive at a conclusion based on scientific method, but the gifts are far too many and far too expensive to be attributed to mere chance or my parents alone – or I must be a very lucky guy.
Yes, I know there is so much unnecessary suffering in Africa and in other parts of the world, even right here in our own country. Yes, I recognize that there is the Problem of Evil. But I still believe in Santa, and although His Generosity may not be consistent or even predictable, I believe that when one keeps his chimney open and puts striped socks in his Christmas tree, he will be able to catch it when it comes.
And considering myself blessed beyond what I think I deserve, I could now only ask, “What return can I make?”
Thank you, Sathepine. And I'm glad the first comment this post got is quite a positive one, helps me endure the upcoming critical comments from cynical atheists…I could almost hear their fingers madly tapping at the keyboard…:)
Thank you very much for sharing this. We are similar in some aspects especially in this line of yours: "but the blessings are far too many and far too gracious to be attributed to mere chance alone – or I must be a very lucky guy" (except that I'm a girl not guy lol). This is the only reason why I am an agnostic. And if I did believe in a god for sure, I'd still be a deist like you.
^_^