I had a conversation this past week with another elder, at the hot tube at my gym of all places, about “goodness” and God. I told him I did not believe in God, that I think of it as a man-invented explanation/responsible-party for that which is beyond our understanding.

I allowed that I thought there is likely some truth to the story of Jesus, except I saw Jesus as a man transformed for his time, rather than the saintly character we make him out to be.

The goodness part came up as a question of source. My friend wondered if goodness was not “from” God then from where? I pointed out his question automatically classified me as “not good” since not acknowledging his God I could not be considered to be a good person. “No”, he said. “Since I was raised Christian”, that was the source for me being a good person.

So, of course, I then wanted to know if that meant all Buddhist’s, Hindus, Muslims, etc. were excluded from being good? No, he allowed, they had their version of God as a source and guide. It appears that in his belief system God is the root of goodness; not people, not the conversational environments in which we are raised; rather an external non-human source.

The inquiry was enjoyable for me. People my age don’t generally want to delve into such deeply held belief conversations – too threatening to our hard wiring. As we exited the hot tub, I thanked my new African American friend for his willingness to inquire without thinking me a lesser person because I don’t believe in God. I reminded him that where we live that’s grounds for being shunned.

Later as I recalled the conversation, it seemed to me that for people raised and inculcated (as in hard-wired-in-our-brains) in religious traditions, responsibility for “goodness” becomes immersed in these external religious sources rather than in ourselves. And that we are blind/in-denial-of our own hard wiring.

To be confronted with the possibility that humans may be born innately “good”, rather than led to “goodness” modeled by external sources, would require that we be willing to be responsible for goodness and all that pours forth from it on our planet, rather than assign the source/responsibility to deities we invent. 

Of course to do so means we also be responsible for other side of the coin - the selfishness, wickedness, spitefulness, viciousness, wretchedness so apparent in our cultures.

Not a comfortable thought.

Is the master relationship for humans "warring"?

I recently finished reading a supposedly true story of a man who spent most of his life with the Indians in the Montana and southern Canada areas in the late 1800's before the buffalo were killed off and the Indian tribes wondered the upper plains from Yellowstone north into the Canadian plains. this white man grew up in mass, but loved the outdoors and the adventure of the Indian way of life.

He married a Blackfoot woman and became accepted as a member of their tribe and relates a series of stories about his life as a trader roughly based around FT Benton, WY and his life living among and participating in the culture of that tribe.

One of the things which most struck me, was the constant warring (on-again-off-again) between the half dozen nations (tribes) of that region. The default seemed to be raid-and-steal-each-other’s-horses-and-kill-or-be-killed-in-those-raids, interspersed with hunting forays for food for the tribe, or seasonally migrating the tribes to follow the game upon which they lived.

The warring was matter of fact, as it seemed was the mourning, burial and worship rituals, surrounding these constant forays. It was just part of their life, like the weather. And it most often wasn’t usually personal, as in motivated by hatred, though revenge was sometimes a justification.

What struck me was the regularity of it. It seemed the conduct of young men, earning their warriorhood, and the expression of all that that meant in the life of each tribe, was programmed into the behaviors of each tribe, each warrior. It was given momentousness by the tribal grieving, their related ceremonies, and the over-and-over stories told about these events while smoking pipes in their lodges.

There were several levels of relationships to notice in these happenings. One that jumped out at me was the tribe’s relationship to this “warring” tradition, and to the other tribes who were engaged. They all seemed to share in the relationship: warring – a kind of shared standard – slightly differing in it’s import from tribe to tribe, and often similar in their rituals.

I found myself wondering: are we as human’s all bound by this type of tribal warfare (now so apparent in our political arenas)? Is it part of our DNA to war with each other? Is “adversarial” a master relationship? Not a senior relationship, but a master relationship – one in which we all participate without necessarily being aware we are participating?

Is this sort of behavior learned? Innate? Pre-ordained? If not, how come it seems to be around all the time? It seems men want to war, and women want peace. Simplistic, I know.

But can we NOT do that? Have humans at any time in their history, not warred for more than a generation? Can we even imagine the possibility of agreeing on how to exist with each other beyond the condition I shall call survival?

Is the master relationship of existence on this planet competition that leads to warring?