I wrote a reflective essay about "My church is sick, it could die" - and there's been a number of responses from different quarters. One said: "It's the natural evolution of humanity. We will slowly step out of the long shadow of religions just as we slowly stepped out of our primal caves so many thousands of years ago. Long live the burgeoning new age of enlightenment." This response so surprised me - not that the comment was made, but the formulation of it - that I started to reply, but my reply grew lengthy to the point of needing a blog. The short response began as follows. I don't know if the comment was made from an atheist perspective - I suspect so - and if so then I admire your strong faith in nothing, I wish my faith was as strong. Alternatively, if you are simply reacting to the ills of institutionalized religion, then I have a large amount of sympathy. Human institutions, be they religious or secular, are fundamentally flawed because they're run by, well, humans! Yet we are creatures of community, and community creates structures, and structures become institutionalized, and every now and then parts of these structures need to be reworked (die and begin again?) so that they can function effectively for evolving needs (are you listening USA, SA, Russia?). The surprised aspect produced this instead. The commenter speaks of a "natural evolution of humanity" and stepping out of "the long shadow of religions" within the "burgeoning new age of enlightenment". Hmmm. Well now, that carries a slight hint of chronological snobbery, doesn't it? People have been stepping out of the "long shadow of religion" for as long as we have recorded history. Whether by making religion serve their purposes as they so often do with any other secular institution (anyone thinking of the Koch brothers?), or by outright rejection of any named religion as in the evangelistic "new atheism" of today (perhaps Dawkins, anyone?), or the secularization of religion (lots of these - Rob Bell and Ophra, anyone?). What’s happening in this "age of enlightenment" is simply another turn of history's wheel. Think back from today’s post-modernism (which is neither post nor modern) to the '60s, to bohemian France, or the modernist world epitomized by GB Shaw (nicely countered by GK Chesterton's wit) and the industrial revolution, even the manipulation by the Catholic church in the middle ages (mostly a humanist power grab at the macro level), and all the way back to Roman hedonism through to Aristotle, Plato and Socrates. Society has repeatedly flailed against the "long shadow of religion", or else used and abused the institutions of religion for their own greedy purposes. This "burgeoning new age of enlightenment" is nothing really new, only it has been given a louder voice by the unprecedented connectivity of this time. Set against the evangelism of new atheists (and I recognize a subculture of non-agressive atheism whose interaction I value) is the continued and pervasive spiritual hunger across society. "Thinking people" hunger for spirituality in as much as "Thinking people" abuse others, despite the fact that much of the developed world seems to have given up thinking. Its as if logic and reason simply cannot overwhelm an inner awareness that’s shouting "surely I must be more than the mere atoms that make up my body". And if I am more than mere atoms, I am spiritual. And so the question of theology begins once again (and again and again), and once again those who are willing examine history, evidence, experience and their reasoning for the existence of God. Each generation must wrestle with this question for themselves. If we could inherit wisdom, maybe we might see a "natural evolution of humanity", but while we undeniably grow in knowledge, I argue that there is zero evidence that we are evolving in Wisdom. Data is not knowledge, knowledge is not understanding, and understanding is not wisdom. And therein lies the rub. I must come to my own conclusion based on the evidence I see before me, set against my experience and my reason. To adopt a position because someone else tells me to is intellectual suicide - be it for or against religion. To say I am right and you are wrong claims an authority of absolute truth which is arrogance in the extreme. The best I can do is say "My conclusion is ... I recognize I might be wrong ... I acknowledge that you have apparently concluded differently ... but until my reason and experience can tell me otherwise, what honest choice do I have but to live by that which I conclude?" I have concluded that God is real by following my reasoning to uncomfortable places, and by accepting the implications. I may be wrong, I re-examine continually, but my conclusions only ever seem to become more firmly grounded. I hope atheists and people of other faiths do the same, because the uncomfortable reality is that we can't all be right. Syncretism holds little logical value.
1 Comment
I am struggling this concept of spirituality. I've recently read and felt I had understood and even felt peace towards Eckart Tolle's A New Earth, which speaks towards enlightenment. I have noticed that he quotes the New Testament often and the way he explains some of the words spoken by Jesus really resonate within me. How do you feel about this? I'm curious as to your views. My friend who is very evangelical in her Christian faith feels that my views towards Eckart Tolle's teachings are 'counterfeit.'
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Why?
Probably the best therapy is to express yourself. Why do you think psychiatrists make you lie on the couch and talk, while all they do is murmur "hmmm", "uhuh", or "go on"? Archives
May 2017
|