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

God Is the New Physics
When spirituality and physics started to be linked, many scientists called it the use of metaphor. It couldn't literally be true that there was a Tao of Physics that linked quantum mechanics to ancient Chinese philosophy. At best there might be a weak link--God and the new physics--the way one might

posted 10:54:59am Dec. 15, 2014 | read full post »

Will God 2.0 Be Indispensable in Ten Years?
The primary difficult with God isn't belief--more than 80% of US responders tell pollsters that they believe God exists. The problem is that God is irrelevant, providing few if any practical benefits in daily life. In an age of faith the circumstances were in God's favor. When people got sick or die

posted 1:58:33pm Dec. 08, 2014 | read full post »

Why Physics Needs God But God Doesn't Need Physics
Recently I created a brief storm on Twitter by throwing out questions that physicists can't answer. Twitter allows you to contact famous physicists directly, and it's predictable that a handful will become irritated and even riled up if you dare to challenge them. "What happens in physics stays in p

posted 10:19:20am Dec. 01, 2014 | read full post »

Why God Makes More Sense than Atheism
After two centuries of the tug-of-war between science and religion, it's clear science occupies the dominant position. It has passed the "So what?" test, meaning that science as applied to practical daily life has been immensely more important to modern people than God. This has given atheism, both

posted 10:39:29am Nov. 24, 2014 | read full post »

How Richard Dawkins Lost His Battle with God
When he wrote his 2006 best-seller, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins expected to accomplish two aims that have proved to be remarkable failures. The first aim was social. He wanted to attract a horde of doubters, fence-sitters, and agnostics to gather their courage and join the atheist ranks. This

posted 11:50:49am Nov. 17, 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.