The Sunday Mail
In religious terms, there are three types of human beings – theists, atheists and agnostics. A theist is one who acknowledges, affirms and recognises the existence of the Divine.
An atheist is the direct opposite of a theist. A theist is certain about the existence of the Divine, an atheist is certain about the non-existence of the Divine. Therefore an atheist does not acknowledge, affirm and recognise the existence or validity of the Divine.
Many atheists are decent and rational human beings who are law-abiding citizens of goodwill even if some theists may find their viewpoints objectionable. An agnostic is one who is in the middle of theists and atheists.
Agnostics have no position over the existence or non-existence of the Divine. They are non-committal about the existence or non-existence of the Divine. They are irreligious or non-religious but environmentally conscious.
In a balanced way, they are doubtful and sceptical about the Divine or lack of it. They avoid exactitudes or certainties about anything and therefore they refrain taking an absolute position in matters religious.
There are two types of theists; externalists and unternalists, depending on whether the Divine is affirmed, considered or acknowledged externally or internally and immanently.
Firstly, a theist of an “externalist worldview” considers that the Divine, has a physical address (Heaven), has humanoid or anthropological attributes (masculine, fatherly, judgemental, benevolent, etc). Such a Divine is said to actively intervene, respond to and gets involved in daily human behaviour. In this externalist worldview, the Divine is a humanoid “Infinite Great Being”.
There are two types of externally-focused theists. There are those who belong to an organised religion. There are many and numerous organised religions in the world: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Baha’i Faith, etc.
Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism and Sikhism are best seen in the internalist context. Within each of the externalist organised religions, there are various denominational persuasions. Then there are those who do not belong to any of the organised religions but are externalists by perspective or disposition. These include those of an indigenous traditionalist outlook who are of externalist but not organised into a formal institution.
In many instances, forceful atheists like Richard Dawkins respond to an externalist or humanoid view of the Divine while agnostics are very doubtful of the veracity of the externalist view. Rationally, it can be absurd to portray the ineffable nature of the Divine in human terms and with that we have the next kind of being a theist.
Secondly, a theist of an “internalist worldview” considers that the Divine is a “spirit”. The word “spirit” is derived from Latin “spiritus” which refers to a breath and breath is the life sustaining force or energy. Such a force or energy is the universal activating power in every form of life. So you are a bearer of the breath or spirit. Theologically, the breath is called the Divine (Genesis 1:27; 2:7). So the Divine is not humanoid and it’s not independent of life. The Divine does not have an independent life of its own detached from forms of life.
Therefore, the Divine is an impersonal, sexless, formless, eternal and infinite life-sustaining cosmic force or energy (called “ka” in ancient Egypt, “chi” by the ancient Chinese and “prana” in Sanskrit of India).
It is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. In each individual, it is the collective “consciousness, intelligence and creativity” and thus the final or grand court of appeal for a human being’s punishment or reward.
The institutionalised journey of re-connection (called religion) with the life sustaining cosmic force or energy should be directed towards the Self to internally discover and awaken and then externally actualise the individualised cosmic powers or faculties of human agency, ie reasoning, discernment and causation. The life-sustaining cosmic force/energy does not reside in an organisation, building or public sphere; but very deep within our hearts awaiting effortful discovery by our minds. The life-sustaining cosmic force/energy is thus considered the life’s “First Cause” and “Sustaining Cause” of “consciousness, intelligence and creativity”.
“Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of (the Divine) is within you.” – Luke 17:21 as based on Genesis 1:27; 2:7 and Psalm 82:6. This approach sees the Divine, the life sustaining cosmic force or energy, as part of and within a human being and the universe. Such theists of an internalist perspective eschew unquestioned religious dogmatic tenets and doctrines. Therefore they do not affiliate themselves to any of the organised religions. Like agnostics, they are irreligious or non-religious and environmentally conscious. From an “internalist” worldview, Mencius (a Chinese philosopher who was arguably the most famous Confucian) described “chi/qi” (life force) as an individual’s vital energy, which is necessary to activities controlled by one’s willpower. Since it is natural, it can be augmented by “means of careful exercise of one’s moral capacities” (Mencius, 2A:2).
The eternal, immortal and infinite life sustaining cosmic force or energy is individualised in each human being as the Divine Self, and it is the purpose of human life to discover the indwelling Divine Self without the burden of divisive and conflictual doctrines and dogmas, and avoidance of cultic tendencies (unquestioning obedience, complete subservience and excessive devotion).
When one has discovered the Divine Self, he/she develops and grows his/her own abilities (natural or acquired) to dispense the highest, best and greatest glory or the worst gloom to oneself and to others.
“We all exist as Divine aspects and expressions of Source Energy, (the Divine), who resides within each and every one of us without exception. And it is (the Divine) within us that ‘doeth the works’, in other words creates through us. Everything we experience therefore comes from the inside, created by our thought processes giving rise to a Thought and then Form, and which then manifests outwards into our physical experiential reality.
“The principle of Creation therefore is simple: to realise the Divine within and to create from a position within the Divine.” – Adrian P. Cooper, “Our Ultimate Reality, Life, the Universe and Destiny of Mankind” (November 10, 2007).
All organised religions are underpinned by certainties and exactitudes of their dogmatic tenets, doctrines and theological speculations. They did not start as highly institutionalised organisations but schools around sages and teachers. Slowly they impinged on and undermined robust, rigorous and free inquiry about the essential nature of reality within and around us.
“Religion” is thus defined formally and substantively. Formally, it is seen as an organisation and thus a social construct. It is thus a public concern defined by the adherence to institutional structures and inflexible norms, procedures and rites, ceremonies, rules and dogmatic interpretation emphasising absolute subservience, obedience and compliance for order and regularity.
Substantively or internally, “religion” is an intensely private and personal concern as a sphere of individual conscience. It is an organic individual quest for truth, meaning and purpose in and about life. It is about content, meaning and motive emphasising individual character and growth for inherent human worth, causation and responsibility. As a quest for meaning and purpose in life, it is not an institution, organisation or structure! It is a state of mind not about formalities. It is a sense of being not adherence to dogmas and ceremonies.
It is consciousness and not loyalty to an organisation or another being. It is the thoughts, words and actions for a deep connection to the inner essence and a delicate “balance between intellect, helpfulness and intuition”.
Religion is anchored by very intensely private and personal convictions and therefore it is a social construct or a product of human behaviour. Such beliefs and convictions, if organised institutionally, are a rare subject to “critique, judgement and replacement”, even if they maybe unbeneficial, irrational or unjustifiable.
“To teach a student to think is to teach him to think independently – but independent thinking is incompatible with the acceptance of dogma and the tenets of” organised religions.
Where religion is projected literally and publicly or socially, the Divine is considered to be humanoid, located somewhere and with interventionist behaviour; whereas as a private and personal sphere of life, divinity is an internal experience and the Divine is considered as an indwelling life sustaining cosmic force or energy.
An internally-focused theistic approach to life is to be an individual of honourable character who is concerned in creating a better world free from willful ignorance, fear, want and disease through the discovery and actualisation of the cosmic or grand powers of human agency – reasoning, discernment and causation.
We are all full human beings who should have human worth, causation and responsibility. Being a full human being means we all have exactly the same eternal, infinite and limitless life sustaining cosmic force or energy within and around us. We are all equal bearers, vehicles and means of the indwelling Divine and absolutely nobody is closer to the Divine more than you can choose. Are you building human walls or bridges by your religious perspective and practices?
——
Shingai Rukwata Ndoro finds time to freely read and reflect. For feedback, contact him at [email protected], and read more of his writings on www.shingaindoro.blogspot.com
