A friend recently told me about this passage from the collection of Bahá'u'lláh's writings called Prayers and Meditations. In Facebook conversation I've been talking about my limited and impersonal understanding of "God". This passage might seem a bit paradoxical to that viewpoint, at first glance. The paradox is because of my inability to precisely describe the nuance of a belief that lies somewhere between the poles of atheism and personal theism, without recourse to philosophical language (the best "school of thought" to describe my own core belief has always been panentheism).

I am well aware, O my Lord, that I have been so carried away by the clear tokens of Thy loving-kindness, and so completely inebriated with the wine of Thine utterance, that whatever I behold I readily discover that it maketh Thee known unto me, and it remindeth me of Thy signs, and of Thy tokens, and of Thy testimonies. By Thy glory! Every time I lift up mine eyes unto Thy heaven, I call to mind Thy highness and Thy loftiness, and Thine incomparable glory and greatness; and every time I turn my gaze to Thine earth, I am made to recognize the evidences of Thy power and the tokens of Thy bounty. And when I behold the sea, I find that it speaketh to me of Thy majesty, and of the potency of Thy might, and of Thy sovereignty and Thy grandeur. And at whatever time I contemplate the mountains, I am led to discover the ensigns of Thy victory and the standards of Thine omnipotence.

Bahá'u'lláh, Prayers and Meditations, p271-2; worth reading more of the "meditation" surrounding this particular paragraph

Now, this particular paragraph could lead one to assume that Bahá'u'lláh is positing a pantheistic viewpoint of God. Other parts of the meditation offer a more personal/anthropomorphic approach. However, elswhere we are warned about literal reliance on anthropomorphism:

However, let none construe these utterances to be anthropomorphism, nor see in them the descent of the worlds of God into the grades of the creatures; nor should they lead thine Eminence to such assumptions. For God is, in His Essence, holy above ascent and descent, entrance and exit; He hath through all eternity been free of the attributes of human creatures, and ever will remain so. No man hath ever known Him; no soul hath ever found the pathway to His Being. Every mystic knower hath wandered far astray in the valley of the knowledge of Him; every saint hath lost his way in seeking to comprehend His Essence. Sanctified is He above the understanding of the wise; exalted is He above the knowledge of the knowing! The way is barred and to seek it is impiety; His proof is His signs; His being is His evidence.

Bahá'u'lláh, The Seven Valleys and the Four Valleys, p22-3

The reason for the anthropomorphic-seeming statements is not stated; I can only assume that the terminology is used as a metaphorical device that helps us puny humans connect to this inscrutable force-Being. But of pantheism itself, 'Abdu'l-Bahá makes clear that this concept is too limiting of God in His Father's theology (Some Answered Questions, p290-6; the discussion of this concept is too philosophical, and wrapped around particular Súfí beliefs, for quoting any particular part here).

From these passages, and others yet to be quoted, I find space in the Bahá'í Faith for my demi-belief, my panentheism that admits of an impersonal "divinity" that is both immanent and transcendant. It would be arrogant in the extreme to assume my belief is the correct one; rather, it is simply my way of getting by, and helping me to focus on becoming a better person and creating a better civilization. It doesn't matter to me if it is ultimately right or wrong; if it helps anyone else see a way to connect their own souls to the Supreme Being, then I am happy for them.

In responding to a friend about the nature of the "god concept" in the Bahá'í Faith, I began to collect a number of passages and add a few comments as to why I chose them. And then I found this hitherto unknown (to me) statement from 'Abdu'l-Bahá. It could not be more plain, and completely justifies what a fellow Bahá'í once said to an atheistically-inclined friend: "I don't believe in the same God you don't believe in."

This people, all of them, have pictured a god in the realm of the mind, and worship that image which they have made for themselves. And yet that image is comprehended, the human mind being the comprehender thereof, and certainly the comprehender is greater than that which lieth within its grasp; for imagination is but the branch, while mind is the root; and certainly the root is greater than the branch. Consider then, how all the peoples of the world are bowing the knee to a fancy of their own contriving, how they have created a creator within their own minds, and they call it the Fashioner of all that is—whereas in truth it is but an illusion. Thus are the people worshiping only an error of perception.

But that Essence of Essences, that Invisible of Invisibles, is sanctified above all human speculation, and never to be overtaken by the mind of man. Never shall that immemorial Reality lodge within the compass of a contingent being. His is another realm, and of that realm no understanding can be won. No access can be gained thereto; all entry is forbidden there. The utmost one can say is that Its existence can be proved, but the conditions of Its existence are unknown.

That such an Essence doth exist, the philosophers and learned doctors one and all have understood; but whenever they tried to learn something of Its being, they were left bewildered and dismayed, and at the end, despairing, their hopes in ruins, they went their way, out of this life. For to comprehend the state and the inner mystery of that Essence of Essences, that Most Secret of Secrets, one needs must have another power and other faculties; and such a power, such faculties would be more than humankind can bear, wherefore no word of Him can come to them.

Selections from the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, number 24

The futility of trying to understand God – leaving one "despairing, ... hopes in ruin" – reminds me of the Buddha's parable of the poisoned arrow, which I first encountered in Huston Smith's World Religions. In it He describes a man who dies of an arrow wound because he is insistent on learning everything about the arrow and the person who shot it. Rather, he should focus on his actions and suffering in the here and now, not on the essence of metaphysics.

The word "confirmation" is used by some in a spiritual sense, something akin to signs and portents: an experience that validates, proves, or explains a previous feeling, decision, or action i.e. "... ask for you all divine guidance and confirmation in the very important work you are directing" [1]. It is natural to ask, "what is the agent of this confirmation?" To the traditionally theistic, that answer is obvious: God. To the athiest, the answer is probably something along the lines of "Whoso seeketh out a thing with zeal shall find it." [2] (self-fulfilling). Truthfully, my attitude towards the concept has traditionally been dismissive.

Dr. Steven Phelps, a researcher at the Bahá'í World Centre in Haifa Israel, has written a review of Richard Dawkins's God Delusion: The new atheism, reconsidered. Actually, he wrote it about a year ago. Anyway, he does a lovely job comparing and contrasting the "new atheism" with the tenets of the Baháí Faith, with probably the most positive review of Dawkins's work that you'll ever read from a monotheist :-).

Salon is carrying a terrific interview, titled The atheist delusion, with of all people a Catholic theologian. His is an analysis that I've been wanting to be brilliant enough to make about the three atheists, and the concept of science and/vs. religion in general. One of the issues he brings up is the concept of extreme atheism leading to nihilism, as demonstrated in the works of Nietzshe, Sartre, and Camus. I want to add one more person to his list: Dostoyevsky.

Professor Stanley Fish writes about two new books addressing the question of the existence of evil in his NY Times article Suffering, Evil and the Existence of God. It is a useful review of two works that present an intriguing counterpoint to each other. Not surprisingly there is quite a bit of debate in the comments, most of it anti-religious.

Judging by everything I have read, in Stanley Fish's blog (NYT TimeSelect only) and elsewhere, about the 3 Atheists ' [Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris] arguments, it seems that most of their them pertain to ancient religious trends and do not necessarily address contemporary religion. So what if wheelbarrows might have been amazing to the (many) authors of the Bible? We humans still find existential consolation in many of their fine observations about our many natures (cf Ehrlich Human Natures). So humanity has progressed since that time. Likewise has religion progressed.

Continuing on the theme of science and religion...

• Lunging, Flailing Mispunching, a friend's blog posting on Richard Dawkins and why it is good that we ask "why" and not just "how"
• Darwin's God, a New York Times Magazine article on evolutionary/anthropological approaches to belief. Evaluates the main two camps: the byproduct theory and the adaptionist theory. Is religion a byproduct of other conditions that led to genetic fitness, or is it per se inducing of reproductive fitness? I'm definitely in the latter camp, believing strongly that religion influences culture influences genetics. Witness development of lactose tolerance in certain cultures.
• God and gorillas, an article I haven't actually read yet but have on good authority is worth it. "Anthropologist Barbara J. King explains what our distant cousins can tell us about religion and why it's OK for scientists to believe in God."

Way back in November I had entry discussing "science vs. religion", lamenting the growing "evangelism" of science. Since then I've been meaning to followup with a continuing theme of fundamentalism: specifically, agreeing that religious fundamentalism often stands in the way of applying scientific progress to social development and knowledge. I do not argue that with this group of arch-atheists. Perhaps I will come back to that theme another time. But today I want to look at the way forward — agreement on climate change.

I just came back from a wonderful interfaith dialogue that brought together a large number of each of Christians, Jews, and Muslims as well as a couple of Bahá'ís (but no Pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. for some reason). I was reminded and really struck by one of the common elements that is found in the highest spiritual essence of every major religion — the importance of treating our fellow humans with dignity and respect, of greeting the stranger with hospitality and working together for our common betterment.