Deepak Chopra and Intent

Deepak Chopra and Intent


Good Enough For God? (by Deepak Chopra)

posted by dchopra

I’ve been pondering the belief that good people go to heaven while bad people go to hell. “Good” can be defined by absolutist rules pertaining to sin, like the Ten Commandments and much of the Koran, painting a clear map of what it takes to be good enough for God. Or “good” can be left to a person’s own moral values, in which case relativism prevails: terrorists in Iraq, for example, feel that they are doing good for God and expect heaven for actions that horrify people outside their sequestered belief system.


A great deal of harm has resulted from both approaches. Trying to be good enough for God isn’t a realistic basis for action unless we are content to divide into separate moral communities with little or no contact between them.
Since every person wants to lead a moral life–and a large majority say they believe in heaven and hell–what is the connection of right and wrong to Nature, or the universe? What kind of God wouldn’t want us to be good?
India already has an amoral religious tradition; the universe was not created to lead to a moral conclusion–a day of judgment when sinners will all be eternally punished and the righteous eternally rewarded. I am not espousing this tradition, only pointing out that the amorality of modern science, which sees no purpose to creation, has a religious equivalent. Leela, the dance of creation, is a pure phenomenon like the Big Bang, only seen in projected human terms as the play of gods and goddesses.
A God who doesn’t want us to be good may want us to be free instead. In my experience, free people wind up being as moral, and usually much more moral, than people bound by strictures and rules. In an amoral universe, free choice already seems like a truism, because there are no natural limitations to prevent the human race from pursuing any course of action it desires, including highly self-destructive ones. Even the instinct for self-preservation is not an absolute in human nature.
The idea of a God who wants us to be free is an evolving idea. It frightens many religionists and leads to violent opposition. But the history of modern life has moved toward personal freedom inexorably, and a God who evolves at the same time makes sense, given that we see God evolve continuously throughout the Old and New Testaments. “God: A biography” by Jack Miles gives a fascinating textual account of God’s many faces and changes in scripture.
A God who wants us to be free is the next evolved stage after a God who forgives and a God who redeems. These are non-punishing versions of God, and they can be found all over the world–not in mass religion, perhaps, but in many divinity schools and various reform and liberal sects.
Religion can be an ally of reason in this regard, because both can adapt to an amoral universe without accusing each other of breach of faith. The religionist doesn’t have to deny scientific fact, while science doesn’t have to dismiss faith as sentimental morality-based projection. Science already believes in freedom of the mind, and it’s time religion did, too.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(1)
post a comment
jim fitzgerald

posted February 14, 2008 at 9:50 am


Very thought provoking! I can see why this concept may be threatening to many folks. I think it is the contrast between an ‘external’ religion and an ‘internal’ religion. External religions look to the rules for life guidance. Internal ones make it clear that spirituality is inside of ones ‘self’ and you look inward to find it using the techniques described in the religious texts. The drive to do what’s right comes from within! A rather foreign concept to the external religions. No guilt! what a concept. Do whats right for your fellow human beings, not because if you don’t follow the rules you are doomed to an afterlife in hell,just to promote harmony in the world and thus your own world.- Thank You for being courageous and bringing this thought to life. Love and Peace



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Do Your Emotions Help You or Hold You Back?
Recently, a close friend of mine made the remark that our emotions for the most part are basic, primal, immature, and unevolved. Ever since then, I have been ruminating on the validity of this statement. If our emotions are basically primitive, then how they be our allies, especially on the path to

posted 10:52:25am Jan. 26, 2015 | read full post »

Powers of Mind: In Praise of Subtle Actions
At a time when the mass of headlines seem to be about the brain, artificial intelligence, robotics, and smarter computers, not enough is said about the mind. When reduced to a mechanism, the mind somehow is thought to turn into the brain, with no difference between them. It's true that the brain see

posted 10:51:38am Jan. 19, 2015 | read full post »

Can Science and Religion Save Each Other? (Part 2)
Science is used to being dominant, and religion is used to being defensive--these are familiar poses for two worldviews, the one being on the rise, the other on the decline. Generally when an entire belief system is on the decline, it steadily disappears. There's no need to believe that the king's t

posted 10:29:24am Jan. 12, 2015 | read full post »

Can Science and Religion Save Each Other?
A flurry of controversy surrounded the astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson two weeks ago when he took a jab at religion in the name of science. It began Christmas day with a mischievous tweet: “On this day long ago, a child was born who, by age 30, would transform the world. Happy Birthday Isaac Newton

posted 3:36:40pm Jan. 05, 2015 | read full post »

How to Save the World--A Simple Answer
Around a decade ago, when I first started posting at Huffington Post, one entry considered the world's four greatest problems. They were over-population, climate change, pandemic disease, and refugeeism. Despite the suffering and fear it creates, terrorism affects far fewer people than these four is

posted 10:11:57am Dec. 22, 2014 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.