Communicating Belief

I think one of the reasons that it took me so long to make this post is that I had never really thought about what prevents me from performing "the act of naming". And though I am by no means satisfied with my following thoughts on the matter, I think a good starting point is going back to the quandary of communicating my identity. Itamar might recall what I wrote in my previous post:

"I believe that a true sense of identity comes from being able to associate myself with a set of beliefs and being able to communicate the integral meaning of what I believe to others. Yet, I know that my beliefs are as pure and well-defined as any person who is able to identify themselves as a Buddhist, a Muslim, or otherwise."

What I intended to communicate (in my patented convoluted style) is that it is important for me to separate my need to find truth and the need to communicate that truth and connect with others who share that truth with me. What I am trying to argue is that the "act of naming" (to use Itamar's phase which I really like) constitutes a compromise between these two needs that I am unwilling to accept. More concretely, using the words "a sense of wonder" or "God" (or identifying myself using any phrase or word - other than human, of course) is demeaning to what I believe even though I might be tempted to throw up my hands and say "I give up, I hereby renounce my defiance to withhold from the act of naming!" I refuse to water down or hedge what I believe even if what I gain from engaging in the act of naming provides a mediocre foundation for the most precious of all things, and make no mistake, it is the most precious of all things - community and intimacy with other people.

I almost agree with the entirety of what Itamar means when he says:

"To me "God" is not a question of belief but a question of how you relate yourself to existence, to the universe, to people, to yourself."

I say almost because, on the contrary, I believe that "God" is a compromise between my relationship to existence, the universe, and to all my brothers and sisters and my own personal integrity. I feel as though I am being asked to name what I believe solely as a crude way of communicating my solidarity with other people (which is a noble cause) at the expense of the integrity of my individual beliefs. I like to think that the only way to build solidarity with others is through the still crude, but more honest medium of my actions rather than through naming.

And if pressed, I prefer words like compassion, love, humility, and sincerity to define my relationship with the universe. Clearly, many people who define their relationship with "God" would agree with the power of these words as well. However, if the step that I take from "compassion, love, humility, and sincerity" to "God" is not the dramatic compromise that I say it is, then that would mean that the "act of naming" has become so weakened by modern religion and spirituality that I fail to see the significance of the act. If "God", at this point, is just some abstract representation of the finite intersection of the values that most decent people in this world hold to define their common relationship with the universe that requires no compromise on my part, then it's a meaningless step. Otherwise, it is a compromise that I am not meant to make.