Religions aim to guide believers to be caring to others and follow the Golden Rule. Most religions include stories, prayer, weekly services, rituals and ceremonies that strengthen spirituality in the followers and ideally lead them to become caring persons. Some old doctrines, stories, and rituals are losing effectiveness in our scientific age.* But another reason that atheists are giving up on religions is that they see religion as leading some followers toward extremist actions against others who believe differently. Extremists in many cases regress to simple views of faith to help them counter the complexity of life in a fast changing world. They become easy prey for political power seekers.

Most humans cannot relate to God as an infinitely powerful image unless they imagine God in an anthropomorphic way (as an all-powerful human being). To relate to God is easier if God is perceived as a benevolent all powerful human. Non-believers, however, seem to rebel against an anthropomorphic image of God.

Others find it easier to relate to an INTERNALIZED image (see below) of a transcendent guide influenced by the values exemplified by Jesus in his short life.

Increasing knowledge of how our brains work supports the idea of hardwiring that implies newborns grow to desire a relationship with caring others like most of them had with their Mom. The NEED FOR SUCH A RELATIONSHIP is what becomes hardwired in their brains. Later in life the caring other might be a favorite teacher, mentor, or a supervisor at work. Memories about relating to such caring persons is what some call INTERNALIZING these other persons.

This line of thinking points to a different approach to belief in a transcendent, supreme being that I believe would be acceptable to many non-theists. I believe that many so-called atheists have related to a: mentor or caring parent or spouse. Some relate to a transcendent person such as Gandhi, or Martin Luther King. That is not very far from a relation to an internalized Ultimate Caring Other which some believers and nonbelievers do or could call God.

References that provided background information for the foregoing ideas are: Bishop John Spong's The Sins of Scripture, in Section 8, which is entitled Reading Scripture as Epic History. In that section he traces the history of development of Jewish epic stories by the Old Testament prophets. They expanded the scope of perspectives from tribal commitments toward a universal commitment. On page 279, he wrote that basically the New Testament is the story of attempts to explain and articulate the Jesus experience - "that somehow, in some way, through some means God had been met in the life of this Jesus." In my view, the Jesus story helps one internalize Jesus and in this way we gain the ultimate perspective that includes being caring and loving toward all others.

Paul Tillich, Friedrich Nietzsche, Karen Armstrong, and a number of other theologians agreed that the personal (anthropomorphic) God was a harmful or outdated idea. See also: A History of God, p. 382, and The Spiral Staircase, Chapter 8; both by Karen Armstrong.]

The following quotes are from page 298 in Spong's book. "We have entered into the consciousness of God. That is what it means to discover that we are now God's dwelling place." "We must rise to our new vocation and be God for one another. For in each of us is the promise of "Emmanuel," which means God with us. ... " We must "allow God to live and love through us, through our humanity."

The early Christians had a very difficult time defining a Creed. See John Spong pp. 221-227 in The Sins of Scripture and Marcus Borg pp 96-97 in Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time. Constantine helped organize the Council of Nicaea in 325 a.d. That third century creedal statement was claimed to be the actual faith of the apostles - The Apostles Creed. (Spong p. 227)

I have posted an essay that outlines an alternative response to the stresses in a rapidly globalizing world. It is accessible at: Relating To The Divine and Peacemaking. A quote from that essay follows. "I believe that social scientists, cognitive scientists, and human scientists in related fields will overcome the separation between religious faith and science and by so doing will provide a basis to help expand common beliefs in all religious faiths. (I define religious faith as trusting in the idea that God is present and active in and through the behavior of loving and caring humans.)"

For a detailed discussion of the many considerations that are involved in the foregoing, see my forthcoming book entitled: Countering Polarization - A Key to Peacemaking. That book discusses stages of faith and moral development, eight ever broader levels of perspective taking, managing personal identities, and what we must do to decrease polarization in legislatures, among the general public, within church congregations, and in the political sphere. A published copy of this book is available now from Xlibris' bookstore at: Countering Polarization, the Colorado State University Bookstore, and the Boulder Book Store. The book is now also available from Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble.

===================================================

* See the Preface in Spong's A New Christianity for a New World (2001).