A dialogue between three composite characters—two representing common views from the poles of the faith and reason "debate" and one representing a Baha'i attempt to bridge the divide. This was presented at the 2010 Association of Baha'i Studies conference by members of Common Ground Group.net

1. Common Ground
a conversation

2. Proposition: Progressive revelation reconciles the
problems raised by the diversity of religious
experience—revelation, dogma, effects on humanity,
etc—for secular humanists and religionists alike.

3. The Left
The Secular Humanist
speaks: Might not God be
better found in a modern
scientific journal than in
religious doctrine?

4. Argument for Science
❖ Science is natural. ❖ It does not indulge in
magical thinking.
❖ It explains the existence &
order of the universe & ❖ It deals with human reality,
human consciousness. which is the material
world.
❖ It is rational, fact-based,
objective & non-dogmatic. ❖ It is progressive, evolving
as we evolve.
❖ It is antithetical to
sectarianism, dogmatism, ❖ It is self-correcting,
intolerance & violence. acknowledges its mistakes
& moves on.

5. Argument Against Religion
❖ It was invented by man. ❖ It indulges in magical
thinking.
❖ It misrepresents the origins
of man & cosmos and ❖ It combines servility &
represses human intellect. solipsism.
❖ It is irrational, dogmatic, ❖ It represents an
subjective. anachronistic, Bronze Age
philosophy.
❖ It gives rise to sectarianism,
disunity, intolerance,
repression & violence.

6. This is the sum of duty: do naught to others
which if done to thee would cause thee pain.
— Krishna, The Mahabharata

7. The Right
The Evangelical Christian
speaks: Isn’t God found
only in the Bible, thereby
making all other religions
false, and science an
illusion at worst and the
product of human
intellect at best?

8. Argument for Religion
❖ Religion was created by ❖ It recognizes that material
God. reality is an illusion & a test.
❖ It explains the creation of ❖ It puts the human spirit in
the Universe & human touch with reality, which is
consciousness. the spiritual world.
❖ It is antithetical to ❖ It is absolute—it doesn’t
materialism & immorality. change.
❖ It teaches us to love others ❖ It rejects “progress” that is
as we love ourselves. detrimental to the human
spirit.

9. Argument Against Science
❖ Science misrepresents the ❖ It encourages the denial of
origins of man and cosmos God’s existence and
& derails human therefore, the need to obey
development. His laws.
❖ It is amoral, illusory & ❖ It is grounded in hubris.
misleading.
❖ It combines arrogance &
❖ It gives birth to materialism, solipsism.
repression of the human
spirit, & glorification of the ❖ It has become disconnected
creation over the Creator. from human reality & from
history.

10. Argument Against Other Religions
Evangelical: The Bible tells us
that the master of deceit, Satan,
will do anything to stop souls
from going to Heaven. So if he
can prevent you from having a
relationship with Jesus by
distracting you with a false
religion, he’s achieved his goal!
That is why you see so many
religions—the more there are
the better the chance Satan can
confuse people and keep them
from seeing the Truth.

11. What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow men.
That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
—Hillel, The Talmud

12. Continuing the Conversation
Humanist: But religion is
archaic. It’s an artifact from
mankind’s childhood and
represents an absolute and
not a relative way of looking
at the universe. It can’t be
progressive by its very
nature, and so, it can’t guide
mankind’s ethical evolution.
We must be guided by our
“ethical intuitions”—an
inherent moral compass—
that evolves as we evolve.

13. Allow me to quote an expert:
“Religion spoke its last
intelligible or noble or inspiring
words a long time ago ... or it
mutated into an admirable but
nebulous humanism. We shall
have no more prophets or sages
from the ancient quarter, which
is why the devotions of today
are only the echoing repetitions
of yesterday.” — Christopher
Hitchens, God is Not Great, p 6

14. Continuing the Conversation
Evangelical: Religion is ancient,
absolute and infallible. It can’t be
progressive and there’s no room
for diversity of belief. The
message that can change the
world hasn’t changed—God has
spoken through Christ once for all
time. I’m sure He’ll make some
provision for non-believers, but it
must involve Christ in some way.
Allow me to quote an expert: “I
am the Way the Truth and Life, no
man comes to the Father but by me.”
— Jesus Christ

15. The Center
The Bahá’í speaks:
You’ve found a point of
unity: you both say that
revelation is at an end.
But is it?

16. Humanist: It has to be because religion is manmade and its
creation relies on myth-making. That takes time.
Evangelical: It has to be because God spoke to mankind
once and for all time through Jesus Christ 2000 years ago.

17. Bahá’í: We’ll get back to the idea that revelation has ended. But if man has an
inherent moral compass that evolves as we evolve, why didn’t it guide us to
create an evolving, inclusive religion? Why does religion deteriorate? Why does
dogma get more exclusive and irrational as the religion ages instead of more
inclusive and rational?
Humanist: That’s just the nature of religion. It’s inherently evil. Look at all the evil
things it’s done—the Crusades, the witch burnings, terrorism, even the
persecution of your own faith in Iran.

18. Bahá’í: But science and secular politics have perpetrated evils too
—atomic weapons, eugenics, Social Darwinism, communism,
Nazism—yet you’re not saying that the manmade institutions of
politics and science are “inherently evil.” Isn’t that a double
standard?
Humanist: No comment.

19. Bahá’í: And, Evangelical, if religion is absolute, why do the
teachings of the Old Testament differ from the teachings in
the Gospel?
Evangelical: But they don’t differ. God is always the same, so
His teachings are always the same.

20. Bahá’í: What about the law of divorce? Moses gave one law and Christ
changed it, saying: “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts,
permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not
so.” (Matthew 19:8) Isn’t Christ showing that God gives us His laws
according to our capacity to understand them?
Evangelical: No comment.

21. Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do
unto others.
—Zoroaster, Shayast-na-Shayast

22. Humanist: So what’s your solution, Bahá’í? What explains the
unique position of religion among human institutions? What
accounts for its “deterioration,” as you call it?
Evangelical: Yeah, and how do you explain the changes Christ
made in Mosaic law? Why do you think His laws would change?

23. Applying the New
Paradigm

24. Progressive
Revelation

25. Bahá’í: Let’s look at the Bahá’í
concept of progressive revelation—
each Founder of a revealed religion
brings a message that reflects
God’s will for that age.
The message is consistent with the
capacity of the audience; the
Teacher asks the believers to stretch
just a bit to take in new ideas—for
example, as Christ asks His
followers to change the way they
understood marriage and divorce.

26. Humanist: But aren’t these “Teachers” just men? They may be
wise or enlightened, but they’re still just human beings, right?
Evangelical: Yeah, aren’t they just men? They may be wise or
enlightened, but they’re not divine like Christ.

27. Bahá’í: If these Teachers are going to
tell us anything about God that we
can’t figure out by ourselves, then
They must have capacities beyond
ours.
Try this metaphor on for size: Each
divine Mediator is like a perfectly
polished Mirror capable of reflecting
the full glory of the Sun (God) in a
way that we can comprehend.
So, yes, Humanist, They’re human.
And yes, Evangelical, They’re divine.

28. Bahá’í: These Mediators restate the eternal
principles of religion—the sort of principle
represented by the Golden Rule, for example
—and give social teachings that suit the age.
In its growth period—its spring and summer
—religion flourishes as its teachings take
root. It begins to absorb artifacts from the
culture around it. In its autumn and winter
—it deteriorates as those artifacts begin to
overshadow the original message.
Sometimes this results in changes in
doctrine. Sometimes it results in new
denominations. And sometimes it results in
violent conflict. That’s why God continues to
send His Messengers … in every age.

29. Do not impose on others what you yourself do
not desire.
—Kung-fu-tse, Analects

30. Humanist: So, you’re saying God Evangelical: No, she’s saying that
created religion and man “edited” God created all the religions and
it. And you’re saying God has that He’s revealed Himself to us
revealed Himself to us within the through someone other than
last 2000 years. Please explain. Christ! How can that be?

31. Bahá’í: Well, think about it. If the
point of God speaking to us is to
bring us into a closer relationship to
Him—to give life to our souls—then
does it make sense that He’d speak
one time, then fall silent?
If He’s the God revealed by Christ
(among others), then won’t He
behave as the loving Parent that
Christ revealed? What good human
parent would speak to his child once
when he was ten, say, then refuse to
say another word until the child was
on his death bed?
And if He’s a rational God, won’t he
educate us in a similar fashion to the
way we educate our children—in
keeping with each child’s capacity?

32. Bahá’í: Let me quote from my
own expert:
“Religion must be living,
vitalized, moving and
progressive. If it be non-
progressive it is dead. The
divine institutes are
evolutionary; therefore
[their] revelation must be
progressive and
continuous.” —Abdu’l-Bahá

33. Bahá’í: To put the pieces together...
❖ There is one God who manifests Himself in many ways.
❖ One of those ways is through the observable universe,
which we study scientifically.
❖ Another is through religion, which represents our spiritual
education, and which must be ongoing.
❖ This education is given to us through the teachings of
God’s Manifestations, i.e., Krishna, Christ, and
Bahá’u’lláh.
❖ These teachings evolve as we evolve.
❖ So, each religious system represents a stage in our
evolution.

34. Humanist: Okay, maybe that explains the dogmatism, but what about
the magical thinking? Science and religion are like oil and water. The
two don’t mix.
Evangelical: Yeah, what he said … about science and religion, anyway. I
mean, evolution? Give me a break. Liberal scientists planted those
dinosaur bones to throw doubt on the Bible.

35. Bahá’í: Funny I was going to say
that science and religion were like
the two wings of a bird. In fact,
that’s the metaphor the Bahá’í
writings use. Abdu’l-Bahá, the
Bahá’í expert I quoted just now,
says that “Material and spiritual
science are the two wings of human
uplift and attainment. Both are
necessary...”
Necessary, not optional. Bahá’ís
believe—and this is straight from
our scripture—that scientific
knowledge is the highest
attainment in the human world,
because science—whether material
or spiritual—informs the way we
investigate our reality.

36. Hatred does not cease by hatred; hatred ceases by
love. This is an eternal law.
—Buddha, Dhammapada

37. Humanist: But there is no “why”—reality just is. Reality is entirely
physical. Reality is what science explains. Religion is just human
imagination because it doesn't explain things the same way that science
does.
Bahá’í: Is reality entirely physical? Tell me, what do you think about
most of the time? What do you talk about with others? What do you
interact with most of the time?

38. Humanist: I suppose you’re going to tell me.
Bahá’í: Don’t we interact mostly with our own intellect and consciousness
and the intellect and consciousness of others? Certainly we take physical
input through our senses, but we always filter it through our intellect.
After all, in the last half-hour, Humanist, have we once discussed anything
physical except as a metaphor for an intellectual concept?

39. Evangelical: Wait just a
minute! It’s my turn.
Look, Bahá’í, science is
clearly in conflict with the
Bible record. The Bible says
we were created; science says
we just happened by
accident through the process
of evolution.
There’s a huge difference
between a creation and a
natural process.

40. Bahá’í: Yes, evolution
is a process. But isn’t
creation also a process?
A sculptor would say it was. The Bible
says God molded us like clay. If you
watch a sculptor work, you’ll see that
the form the finished piece takes
evolves slowly through a series of
stages until it reaches its finished state.
The path from conception to birth
is also a process. At one time each
one of us looked more like an
amoeba than a human being … but
we were always human beings.
Right?

41. All things whatsoever ye would that men should
do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the
law and the prophets.
—Christ, The Gospel of Matthew

42. Bahá’í: Look around at nature
and at our own intellect. Both are
products of a process—whether
you call it creation or evolution.
We’re surrounded by processes.
The birth and growth of suns and
planets, of life on this planet, of
ideas and inventions … of
civilization itself—all these are
processes. Our own intellect is in
a constant state of evolution—so
is our understanding of it.
Would either of you argue that
our intellect hasn’t changed
since, say, the time of Christ?

43. Humanist: No, I certainly wouldn’t make that argument.
Evangelical: Okay, no. I think we’ve changed too. We’ve
grown. But in some ways, haven’t we grown away from
God?

44. Bahá’í: In some ways we have.
Maybe we should listen to the
man who said that if we’d only
Humanist & Evangelical:
put the teachings of the Sermon Thomas Aquinas?
on the Mount into practice, we’d
have a transformed world.

45. Bahá’í: Wrong. That would be
Bertrand Russell, Welsh earl,
philosopher, logician,
mathematician, historian, co-
founder of analytic philosophy
and most prominent 20th
century atheist.
Though he decried religion as
superstition based in fear, he
understood on some level that
its beneficial effects were limited
by humanity’s choice not to live
by the religions they professed.

46. Bahá’í: In suggesting that religious
principles are only beneficial if we
follow them, Bertrand Russell stands in
complete agreement with religious
scripture.
“The well-being of mankind, its
peace and security, are
unattainable unless and until its
unity is firmly established. This
unity can never be achieved so
long as the counsels which the Pen
of the Most High hath revealed are
suffered to pass unheeded.
Through the power of the words
He hath uttered the whole of the
human race can be illumined with
the light of unity...” — Bahá’u’lláh

47. No one of you is a believer until he desires for his
brother that which he desires for himself.
—Muhammad, Hadith

48. Humanist: But this raises a
key issue. In order to believe
in any religious doctrine,
you have to have faith. Faith
is irrational. It’s believing in
something without any
evidence or proof.
In a word, it’s blind.

49. Evangelical: What’s wrong with that?
The Bible says: “Now faith is the
substance of things hoped for, the
evidence of things not seen. For by it
the elders obtained a good testimony.
By faith we understand that the
worlds were framed by the word of
God, so that the things which are seen
were not made of things which are
visible.” —Hebrews 11:1-3
See what it says about “a good
testimony?” We have faith because of
the testimony of Christ and His
apostles. We have faith because of
what the Holy Spirit does in our own
lives.

50. Humanist: Aha! But that’s
not real faith, is it? You Evangelical: What? No—
believe because of what wait a minute. Did I say
you’ve “seen,” not what that?
you haven’t seen!

51. Humanist: Yes, that’s
Bahá’í: Hold on, Humanist
exactly what I’m saying. I
—are you saying you never
believe in reason. Having
exercise faith?
faith is unreasonable.

52. Humanist: A neutrino? Of
Bahá’í: Have you ever
course not. Neutrinos are
seen a neutrino?
too small to see.

53. Humanist: I don’t believe
Bahá’í: But you believe they exist. I know they
they exist. exist because scientists
have measured them.

54. Bahá’í: So you trust the authority
of the scientists who have Humanist: No, I don’t have faith.
measured neutrinos—you have I simply base my assumption that
faith that these scientists are neutrinos exist on the facts that
doing their work properly and these scientists have ascertained.
coming to the right conclusions.

55. Bahá’í: Then, you’re saying that you’ve
organized your feelings about the
existence of something—in this case, Humanist: Yes. That’s what I just said.
neutrinos—around the assumption that What’s your point?
an authority on the subject has
experienced them in some way.

56. Bahá’í: Only that that’s how I’d define
“faith.”
So would a great many other people,
including philosopher and mathematician
William S. Hatcher, a Bahá’í scholar. I thought
he put it very succinctly when he wrote:
“We need a good word to sum up this process
of organizing our emotions around our
assumptions, and religion has provided us
with the word: faith. We can define an
individual’s faith to be his total emotional
and psychological orientation resulting from
the body of assumptions about reality which
he has made (consciously or unconsciously).”
He also noted that: “Every human being has
faith just as surely as he has a mind and a
body. We are not free to choose not to have
faith any more than we can choose whether to
be born.”

57. Evangelical: No, it’s not silly.
Humanist: That’s silly. And it’s just That’s exactly how I feel. Faith in
semantics. You’d call it faith. I’d God is a natural response to what
call it … He’s done for us and what we’ve
observed in His universe—just as
… something else. you believe in neutrinos because of
what scientists have observed.

58. Bahá’í: So, what you’re both saying is
that through experience, observation,
what the Bible calls testimony—that is,
the expert opinions of people whose
judgment, experience and expertise we
trust—we gather a body of evidence
around which we organize our beliefs.
You, Humanist, primarily consider the
testimony of scientific literature.
You, Evangelical, consider primarily the
testimony of scripture.
As a Bahá’í, I consider both.
What I’m asking you both to do is
question your assumptions—to be open-
minded about the validity of the other’s
experience and “testimony.”

59. Evangelical: And I always
Humanist: I always do try to try to observe truth and
be open-minded. reason as we’re instructed by
the Apostle Paul’s example.

60. Bahá’í: Another point of unity. So, Would you
Humanist: Well, of course I’d have to agree
agree, Humanist, that to be reasonable and
with that. It would be hypocritical of me not
just, you’d judge religion and faith by the
to. After all, it wouldn’t be fair to judge
same standards you’d like others to use when
science solely by the behavior of scientists.
they judge science and scientific thought?
BUT...
And would you agree, Evangelical, that to be
Evangelical: Okay, I agree. Christ did ask us
just (and obedient to Christ) you’d judge both
to judge others by their fruits. And I’d
science and “other” religions by their fruits—
certainly not want Christ judged solely by the
rather than the behavior of their worst
behavior of Christians. BUT...
“adherents?”

61. And if thine eyes be turned towards justice,
choose thou for thy neighbor that which thou
choosest for thyself.
—Bahá'u'lláh, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf

62. BUT...
Thereby hangs a dialogue. We invite you to continue the conversation on
your own forums, in your own neighborhoods, with your collegial groups.

63. “Shoghi Effendi has for years urged
the Bahá’ís ... to study history,
economics, sociology, etc., in order to
be au courant with all the progressive
movements and thoughts being put
forth today, and so that they could
correlate these to the Bahá’í teachings.
What he wants the Bahá’ís to do is to
study more, not to study less. The
more general knowledge, scientific
and otherwise, they possess, the
better. Likewise he is constantly
urging them to really study the Bahá’í
teachings more deeply.”
— Universal House of Justice,
Compilation on Scholarship, p. 18