This blogpost is closely based on a lecture given by David Warden of the “Dorset Humanists” on "The Religion of Life,” (DCRL link below), a way of life advocated by British Philosopher of Religion Don Cupitt
SOURCE: Don Cupitt and the religion of life – a lecture by David Warden
link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK7pWPVV7LA (Hereafter referred to as DCRL)
Note well also the following works as further references:
· Philosopher-Kings: http://www.philosopherkings.co.uk/doncupitt.html
· The Fountain: https://iai.tv/video/the-fountain
· Cupitt, Don. Turns of Phrase: Radical Theology from A to Z. London: SCM Press, 2011. (Hereafter referred to as TP)
· See also the overview of Don Cupitt’s thinking at: http://www.philosopherkings.co.uk/doncupitt.html
*****
Don Cupitt and Religion
Don Cupitt is a British philosopher
of religion and theologian who has reflected deeply and written extensively on
the state of religion in the contemporary Western world.
Besides, Cupitt also teaches that this life is (apparently) all that there is and that there is nothing else beyond this present existence. Hence, our main task is to live this life to the fullest and make the most of our limited existence here on earth.
Here in the West, religion is usually thought of as a belief in and worship of a supernatural God. Let us not forget though that there are other meanings of the word “religion.” For example, in everyday usage, “religion” is sometimes meant as an “all-consuming passion” (such as baseball or football, hence, expressions such as “Hockey is my religion”).
In parts of the East though, religion has often been understood primarily as a practice or applied philosophy that can deliver enlightenment and bliss to those who undertake its practice. In this understanding of religion, “believing” is not too important. Rather, the emphasis is on praxis: practicing and living according to teachings that are immensely practical and are geared to achieving a greater wholeness in the practioner and in the world. These teachings can actually be called—in the words of spirituality teacher Roger Walsh—"psycho-spiritual technologies” that can and do deliver bliss, happiness, and well-being. Spiritual-wisdom traditions such as Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism (among others) best exemplify this type of religion. There is a tendency in the West though to look down upon such non-theistic forms of religion and consider them as “mere philosophies” (mere human thinking) and not true religions, which are thought of as being directly revealed by the Divine Being. Needless to say, I do not agree with this condescending attitude toward Eastern spiritual-wisdom traditions.
It is fair to say that Westerners are generally not used to an understanding of religion that puts great import on practice (praxis) instead of believing. As mentioned above, it is usually thought that monotheistic religions are the only “authentic” forms of religions. Because of the prevalence of this idea in the West, there is still a strong tendency to equate religion with supernatural beliefs or with believing in things that one cannot really prove but have to be, as the popular formula goes, “taken on faith.” Many of these matters that are to be taken on faith have mythological features in common with other ancient myths. Many Westerners find it hard to see that a largely “beliefless” kind of religion that puts the emphasis instead on praxis can be interesting, let alone legitimate (cf. Cupitt, 2000: Philosophy’s Own Religion).
[jkk
annotation]
In line with Cupitt, I propose that even in the West, it is high time to understand and practice religion in the abovementioned manner frequently associated with Eastern spiritual-wisdom traditions (Eastern religions). I say this because of my work with young adults at the university, many of whom identify themselves as MRB (‘Multiple Religious Belonging’ people), SBNR (Spiritual but not Religious), Dones (We’re “done” with religion), and/or Nones (We have “no” religion). This may very well be the reason why Buddhism, a tradition that has no explicit belief in God, is so popular in the West today.
Psychiatrist
and spirituality teacher Roger Walsh (UC-Irvine) has called an understanding
and practice of religion (that emphasizes the practical dimension) “transconventional
religion.” This is contrasted with “conventional” Western religion which puts
the emphasis on believing on faith (the creed, the Bible, biblical principles,
etc.) and linking one’s eternal salvation with such an act of believing.
[end of jkk annotation]
The Origin of Religion: To Protect Humans from an Existence Without Meaning
The common theory of religion is
that it was originally meant to shield human beings from the terrible idea ‘We’re
alone in a meaningless universe’. Humans hate a vacuum; above all, the vacuum
of meaninglessness. To protect themselves from such a horrible and bleak
thought and to give themselves hope and a sense of purpose in life, our ancient
ancestors started to envision a divine being(s) in a divine realm. They
imagined that being(s) as the source, sustainer, and goal of human existence.
Moreover, through faith/belief in this being(s), humans gave themselves
something that, they believed, would overcome meaninglessness and outlast death
itself.
[For more on this, see Cupitt The Religion of Being, 1998]
[jkk annotation]
Transcendent
(or “Religious”) Experiences
I do not
entirely agree with Cupitt though that the origin of religion is to be sought
exclusively in the psychological need of our ancient ancestors to shield
themselves from the terrible fear of meaninglessness. Religions also began
because some remarkable ancient ancestors had significant experiences of the
Transcendent. These kinds of experiences are also called “religious”
“spiritual” “peak” experiences, among others. These seers believed that they
had caught a glimpse of a greater, transcendent reality that lies beyond the
conventional one we can access with our senses and they convinced other people
of that as well. The result was that people converged around the claims of seers
to have experienced a greater reality and pinned on that greater force their
hopes that there is a greater meaning to existence than what we experience in
the here and now.
[end of jkk annotation]
Let’s go back to Cupitt’s theory of religion. Cupitt thinks that religion was created by humans to shield them from the fear of a meaningless existence and give them something bigger than their individual puny ego/existence to live for. In this way, we can say that traditional religion protected and sustained humans against meaninglessness. In other words, religion gave your life a meaning: that meaning is found in God.
We have to acknowledge though that this “protective” function of traditional religion is in rapid decline in the West. This is a problematic thing because, like our ancient ancestors, we modern people continue to be confronted with the same existential problem of meaning (or meaninglessness) that our ancestors sought to resolve through religion. Our big problem today is: We do not have a good enough substitute for the important role that religion played in the past. It’s as if we’re drifting in a spiritual no-man’s land.
Back to Cupitt. What is the next phase, one might wonder, in the evolution of religion (according to Cupitt)?
A “Religion of Life”
Cupitt’s response to the abovementioned problem is his proposal of—what he calls—a “religion of life.” By this he refers to the fact that, at least in many parts (perhaps, most parts?) of the Western world, this kind of religion has already established itself firmly within the life and mentality of many (or most?) people.
One unmistakable proof of this is that this ‘religion of life’ is already reflected in the everyday speech of people. People in the West nowadays are devoted not anymore explicitly to God, but to life itself, hence, the ubiquitousness and overwhelming acceptance of the phrase, “the sacredness of life” on the part of both religious and non-religious people everywhere.
The “Old Creed” Contrasted
with a “New Creed”
[For more on this, see Cupitt, The Old Creed and the New, 2006]
Cupitt presents a comparison and contrast between—what he calls—“the old creed” (OC) and a “new creed” (NC) that—he claims—is becoming prevalent and pervasive, especially in the West today. Recall that a “creed” is a set of statements that one deeply believes in and bases one’s life upon. “Creed” has been the foundation of the Christian faith (as expressed, for example, in The Apostles’ Creed or The Nicene Creed, still regularly recited in churches).
In the OC, the ideal was presented as: People should be devoted to loving God with all their hearts, minds, and souls. Nowadays, this very ideal seems to be foreign to many people, at least in the West. Cupitt suggests in the NC that the love, dedication, and devotion that people used to give to “God” in the past are now directed at a new object—“Life” itself. This is deeply symbolic of the seismic shift that has happened in major parts of the Western (and developed) world. In other words, the purpose of human existence has shifted from “God” (OC) to “Life” itself (NC).
We can make things clearer with the following comparative chart:
|
OLD
CREED (former dominant paradigm) |
NEW
CREED (current arising paradigm) |
|
Love GOD with all your
heart … |
We love LIFE with all
our hearts …( Love life with the same
religious intensity with which religiously motivated people in the past used
to or still love God) |
|
“Hate your life in this world;
keep it for eternal life” (from the Gospels, e.g., John 12:25) |
“Live life (in this world) to
the full!” Carpe diem! (Seize the
day! Take advantage of what is give to you now!) |
|
“We are lovers of death”
(Osama bin Laden). This is also expressed in the gospels as “Whoever hates
his life will keep it for eternal life” (John 12:25) |
-“Take life as it comes” -Find your "mission"
"calling" "vocation" in life -Carpe Diem! (“Grab the
day”! Seize the opportunities that life gives you now/today) |
|
Funerals were considered
mainly as a rite of “passage” from earthly existence to ‘life after death’
("passed") |
Today, funerals are mainly a
celebration of someone's "life" |
|
|
|
[jkk
annotation]
Of course, these two paradigms DO NOT HAVE TO BE diametrically opposed to each other. There is a way by which one can accept them both. In fact, a typical “Catholic” approach to life and faith, for example, is frequently described as “BOTH/AND” rather than “either/or”. In practice, one can affirm both this life and, at the same time, trust that there will be a better reality in the next dimension beyond death. However, in our secular age, there does seem to be a marked lack of interest in or uncertainty about the “next life” or the “hereafter.” There is instead an intense focus on this life.
[end of jkk annotation]
“Life” Idioms
To emphasize the shift in devotion from God to life, Cupitt has collected a few hundred of—what he calls—“life idioms.” These are expressions in the ordinary language of (English-speaking) people that indicate that there is a shift of interest evidenced in contemporary language from “God” as a central focus onto “this life” as the primary focus of one’s reason for living.
Some of these life-idioms are the following:
1.
Always look at the bright side of life (see for
example the end scene of Monty Python’s Life of Brian)
2.
The good things in life
3.
That's life!
4.
Such is life
5.
Get a life!
6.
The times of your life (e.g. Kodak commercial
song by Paul Anka)
7.
The story of my life
8.
Being more alive / feeling more alive / “Staying
Alive” (Bee Gees)
9.
Live your own life
10. It's
my life (Bon Jovi) / It’s your life
11. Life
is what you make (of) it
12. Live
dangerously (Nietzsche)
13. Live
fast; die young
14. Don't
let life pass you by
15. You
only live once
16. (the)
quality of life – (if it goes beyond a certain "threshold" to
maintain human dignity, it’s not worth continuing anymore)
17. Life's
a bitch!
18. Fuck
life (Irish novelist Samuel Beckett)
19. L'chayim
- to life! (greeting in Hebrew)
20. Say
"Yes" to life (Nietzsche). Viktor Frankl, the Austrian Holocaust
survivor/psychologist wrote a famous book based on his experiences at the Nazi
death camps called Man’s Search for Meaning. The original title he
wanted for the work was: Nevertheless, Say “Yes” to Life.
21. Just
do it! (Nike slogan) What does "it" refer to? Presumably,
“life”!
22. See
Naples and die! (1952 film Vedi Napoli e poi muori) - an experience that
is so awesome, you'd be ready and even happy to die after it. A variant of that
is: “Now I can die.” (Also found in the Gospel of Luke 2:29-32, “Now you can
let your servant go in peace”)
23. "Life is everything. Life is God”. Said by the character Pierre in War and Peace. Tolstoy 1860. This expression is particularly noteworthy.
As an extension of the idioms above, the following expressions show how what was originally religious terminology has been transferred to everyday, “secular” speech.
1.
The “miracle” of life
2.
The “sanctity” or “sacredness” of life
3.
She was “the life and soul “of the group (or of
“the party”)
4.
Her life was a symbol of “the indomitable (character)
of the human spirit”
5.
“A sacred place”
6.
(to) "Worship" someone/something
7.
They are the “gods” of rock-and-roll
8.
roadside “shrines”
9.
"heavenly, divine, angels" /
"hellish" demonic
10. a “revelation” or “epiphany”
…and last but
certainly not least…
11. OMG Oh My God! – This is such a common expression of English speakers that proves how a past religious attitude expressed in a common expression continues today for the purpose of invoking some greater existence/force in the face of a significant happening
The Shift from “God” to “Life” as Seen in Some Literary-Artistic Figures
Don Cupitt also puts the spotlight on some notable literary-artistic figures whom he calls “prophets of the religion of life.” He takes some key quotes from them that characterize their thinking and how that way of thinking has contributed to the shift from “God” to “Life” in contemporary Western culture and mentality.
The figures he mentions often in his work are the following:
Henry David Thoreau
- American writer 1850s
Friedrich Nietzsche
- German philosopher - 1850s
Vincent Van
Gogh - Dutch painter 1880s
Marcel Proust
- French novelist early 20th century
DH
Lawrence - English novelist early 20th century
Virginia Woolf - English novelist, 1920s
Henry David Thoreau
Walden 1854
"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately ... to front ...the essential facts of life and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what was not life ... I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life ..."
Note that this line from Thoreau was also highlighted as the guiding principle of the group who sought to live life to the full (carpe diem!) in the movie Dead Poets’ Society starring the late Robin Williams (1989).
DH Lawrence
The Plumed Serpent 1926
"Seek life where it may be
found" vs. "Seek the Lord while he may be found" Is 55:6
"Seek life first" vs. "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God" (Jesus in Mt 6:33)
Virginia Woolf
Mrs Dalloway 1925
"Life itself, every moment of it, every drop of it, here, this instant, now, in the sun, in Regent's Park, was enough."
Vincent Van Gogh
Don Cupitt recommends that we live
as Van Gogh (expressionist) painted the sun (in an expressionist way), namely,
as an outpouring of our life energy.
(Cf. for example Van Gogh’s The Sower at Sunset 1888; TP,
Traditional Religious Art and
Secular Art (RL, 20:25)
Cupitt also makes a comparison in his works between religious art and secular art. Many forms of religious art such as those portraying figures from the Christian tradition are not “life-like.” They are more like lifeless, wax figures (E.g., Mary, the saints, etc.) that contemporary Westerners (or many contemporary people in general) cannot relate with anymore.
Compare that with pieces like Camille Pissarro’s Place St. Lazare (1893). These works portray life as it is “on the streets.” Notice the amazing teemingness of life in scenes from real life in such paintings (and pictures).
A Fountain
Cupitt sometimes uses the image of a fountain where one can see both an outpouring of life and energy and (the effect of) immediately passing away at the same time. (See also TP, 38-39)
How can a 'Religion of Life' help us with aspects of the (existential) human situation?
There are certain issues or themes that have given humans—what in philosophy is called—an existential angst from the dawn of history. How does Cupitt’s religion of life help humans deal with these big themes of life? Some themes which express this deep angst in humans are:
·
the anxiety of aging and time slipping away
·
the fear and even terror of approaching death
and oblivion
·
the problem of evil
·
good and bad fortune (“luck”)
·
What's it all about anyway? / The pointlessness
of life
· sex and sexuality
Let’s take each issue and see what Cupitt’s thought can suggest about it
Aging and Time “Slipping Away”
OC (Old
Creed)
·
Life is seen as a journey or pilgrimage going to
God
·
Life as a preparation for life after death
· God lives outside of time
NC (New
Creed)
·
Live on the edge!
·
Surf the present moment!
·
Accept transience!
·
The principle that you have just “one life”
·
This is it! After this there is nothing more!
· Life's a theatre - put on a good show!
Fear about approaching death and oblivion
OC
·
People will pray for me
·
God will look after me
· Death is a passage into eternal life
NC
·
Death is nothing (Epicurus) so forget about
death.
o
Death, Epicurus argued, cannot touch us because “while we exist death is
not present, and when death is present we no longer exist.” Since death cannot
touch us it cannot be bad. Fear is rational only for something bad. So Epicurus
concludes that fearing death is pointless.
·
Burn brightly like the sun until you are burnt
out
·
Put on a good show right up to the end
· Forget self and love life to help you conquer the fear of death
The Problem of Evil
OC
·
Goodness and justice will ultimately triumph in
God’s time
·
God will defeat Satan
· Jesus will come again on the clouds of heaven
NC
·
Life is a package deal and it contains
everything: good and evil, comedy and tragedy, bliss and wretchedness. (jkk – In Forrest Gump: “Life is a box
of chocolates”)
·
Life is bittersweet … bitter-bittersweet
· Life goes on after every atrocity / life just carries on
Good and bad fortune/luck
OC
·
Why me? / What have I done wrong?
·
God's "mysterious" plan for your life
· Everything will turn out OK in the end
NC
·
Life itself is completely indifferent
·
So, give up complaining
·
Renounce victim psychology
·
Let go of resentments and regrets
· Keep calm and carry on (Stoicism)
What's it all about? / The Pointlessness of Existence
OC
·
God has a plan for your life
· The 'ultimate meaning of it all' will be revealed in God’s time
NC
·
Forget all about 'the meaning of life'
·
Inject meaning into your life by the way you
live it
· Your life probably won't get 'nicely rounded off' but make your unique contribution to life
Sex and Sexuality
OC
·
Sex is a “necessary evil” (for the continuation
of the human race)
· Sex should be strictly controlled within monogamous opposite-sex marriage or better celibacy
NC
·
Have a (sex) life!
·
sexual fulfillment
·
Explore your sexuality!
·
Come out!
· How to think more about sex (a book by practical philosopher Alain de Botton)
In Summary: Cupitt on ‘How should we live?’
Traditional religion (largely, Christianity in the West) consoled humans for a long time. Now, however, the undeniable fact is that it's in terminal collapse (at least in the West) among many (most?) middle-age and younger people. Traditional religion was very important in the past because it was fervently believed to be able to give answers to the deepest questions and most urgent issues of angst in humans. With religion becoming more and more irrelevant in the secular West today, the burning question remains: How do we deal with those deep, unsettling issues that perplex us? After all, we are still the same humans just like our ancestors who—we can say—“invented” religion and took refuge in it in order to shield themselves from meaninglessness. Like our ancestors, we are still in the same existential situation, facing oblivion, fear of death, meaninglessness, pointlessness, and other existential issues.
In answer to that, Cupitt thinks that we need, rather, we have already in fact created and adopted a new 'religion of life'. He has presented this religion of life’s main contours in his various works. By way of a summary, we can recap Don Cupitt’s response to the fundamental question ‘How should we live?’ by quoting the following lines taken from his The Fountain (2010) and The Last Testament (2012).
"One should hope to go up like a rocket and burn out at the summit of one's flight, falling unnoticed to earth in the darkness."
"Give it your best shot ... make the best you can of your life."
"Enrich
your corner of the world."
This is based on Cupitt’s fondness for insects) "We should live as if at the end of the world, with the furious joy of those insects that have only one or two days to emerge, dry out their wings, sip a little nectar, find a mate, copulate energetically, lay their eggs and die. One has work to do and one must do it in a hurry, with furious joy." [see also Cupitt, The Long-Legged Fly]
"We should not waste the only life we will ever have. We should seek to live as generously and affirmatively as possible. We should commit ourselves to living this life to the full while we have it."
Life's a package deal: it can't be renegotiated, and there's no alternative. So, we should buy into it, and make the very most of it."
*****
JKK’s Thoughts and Critical Reactions to the Main Contours of Cupitt’s Proposed “Religion of Life”
The Importance of Don Cupitt for Today
I think that Don Cupitt is one of the most creative philosopher-theologians in recent times. He was (and still is) viewed as a maverick by the mainline church institution, but if one looks more deeply into his overall project, it is actually for the purpose of preserving Christianity’s legacy for present and future generations. He has explicitly said so himself. He insists that if institutional Christianity just continues the status quo as it has done so far and does not move in some radical ways to truly respond to the spiritual needs of people today (ways which he has suggested in his various works), it is doomed to general oblivion and utter irrelevance, at least in the secularized West. The ones who will continue to take refuge in traditional religion will only be smaller groups of conservative (unfortunately, also reactionary) believers.
This particular effort to remain relevant on the part of Christianity should be directed at how it can support the massive shift that is happening in the West from a “religion of God” to a “religion of life.”
I largely agree with Cupitt on this. Yes, there is an urgent need to respond in radically new ways to the already dominant ‘religion of life’ in the West. If institutional religion in the West (aka, Christianity) fails to do so and just insists on “business as usual,” it will be tantamount to the proverbial “beating a dead horse.” Christianity will indeed doom itself to oblivion and utter irrelevancy. Contemporary people will look for ways to nourish their spirituality in other places. The bleeding of mainline churches (i.e. losing members in massive numbers) is already a testimony to that.
I wholeheartedly agree, therefore, with Cupitt’s point about the rise and the prevalence of a religion of life in the West (and even beyond the West). It is virtually undeniable and as clear as day; any effort to shore up traditional forms of faith is just something like creating a “ghetto” of people. Inside the ghetto, one can still make sense of the religious faith in its traditional form, but this kind of mythological and largely “ethnocentric” faith will not make any sense anymore outside the ghetto. According to this mindset, if you want to “grow your church (or religious community),” the only way will be to get people to come into the ghetto and live there, at least psychologically speaking.
My Reservations about Cupitt's Thinking
Despite my agreement with Cupitt about the prevalence of a religion of life, when it comes to Cupitt’s “nuts and bolts” about how this religion of life should be cultivated and actually lived, I have several reservations about his thinking, some of them serious.
In his writing and even in some online video interviews, Cupitt seems firm, actually even “dogmatic,” in insisting that there is nothing beyond this life. In short, reality consists only of this present life and world, and nothing else! That is practically what his oft-used notion of “non-realism” means. And “non-realism”—it should be remembered—is one of the pillars of Cupitt’s thinking (although he claims that he does not use this term anymore, TP, p. 82).
I, for one, am not so sure as Cupitt that beyond this present reality (we can access with our senses) there is nothing else. My reason is that when one is too sure about the non-existence of things beyond this present realm, that attitude in itself betrays a lack of epistemological humility. Epistemological humility is the humble attitude of being well aware of the limits of one’s knowledge. All true scientists and critical thinkers have this attitude. Furthermore, epistemological humility is something I consider as the surest guarantee of an integral search for truth.
In short, I am not edified with Cupitt’s “certitude” that there is nothing else aside from this present reality. That comes across to me as being similar to a fundamentalistic commitment to something that one cannot conclusively prove.
Partial Nihilism?
If you browse through the “life principles” based on the religion of life presented in Cupitt’s writings, some of them appear—at least to me—a tad nihilistic in the sense that the basic point they make is that there is no purpose bigger than this present life. Hence, Cupitt’s religion of life strongly urges humans to just concentrate on the here and now, make the most of it because beyond this life there is just nothingness. This line of thinking is not total nihilism because it does posit a purpose unlike some well-known forms of nihilism that emphasize the meaninglessness of it all. I repeat: Cupitt seems to insist that the whole purpose of existence lies in the one that we presently know so that we should give this present life our very best. That would be the essence of Cupitt’s religion of life: living life to the full before we fade out into the nothingness that lies beyond this present existence. (See TP, 80-81 where Cupitt describes the real meaning of “nihilism.” It actually contains a lot of positivity.)
Denial of an Afterlife and a Supernatural Dimension
For the traditional religious believer, that’s a bleak and dark message because Western religious traditions have, as their ultimate goal, focused on the continuation of the “self” as we know it (often called “the soul”), in an afterlife existence, united with the Divine in a “place” (actually a state) called “heaven.”
We should not forget that this traditional idea of an afterlife, heavily influenced by mythological imagination, is something we cannot conclusively prove nor effectively access in any way at this point, aside from relying on testimonies coming from those who claim to have had mystical, other-worldly experiences (Note well: This is not at all a guarantee of authenticity!).
We are All Living in a Mysterious and Unfathomable Reality!
The truth of the matter though is this: There is no sure and conclusive way, scientific or non-scientific, to access and prove the reality of the afterlife at this point in time. Ultimately speaking, we are, all of us (believer or non-believer), living in a mysterious and unfathomable reality. Those who have “faith” are people who trust that there is something beyond this life But mind you! There is no definitive way to prove that their faith is in fact true.
Not to be forgotten at the same time is the fact that there is equally no way for conventional science to disprove the existence of the afterlife or the so-called supernatural dimension (double emphasis!). But because our so-called advanced science cannot prove the supernatural, many people today who consider themselves “enlightened” dismiss the possibility of that transcenent dimension and mock those who are still open to its possibility. Such would be the general attitude of “the New Atheists.” What is troubling for me is that Cupitt comes close to such a dogmatic attitude about the non-existence of the afterlife or a supernatural dimension, although he invests everything into living life to the full in the here and now—a very positive attitude in itself.
My Own Basic Position – My “Faith”
Personally, I adopt a kind of epistemological humility about the afterlife and the supernatural dimension: I cannot either prove or disprove the supernatural dimension. Hence, I am open to its existence. That’s not all, I actually trust that there is a supernatural dimension, and that “God” (this needs to be nuanced though!) is actually the heart not only of that transcendent reality but of all realities, both physical and non-physical. Furthermore, I believe that the Transcendent encompasses everything, both physical and non-physical dimensions. I cannot prove that, of course. That’s why this trusting attitude is called “faith,” which is practically an attitude of trust and hope that there is a greater reality beyond what we know. What is the basis of my faith? Let’s save that discussion for another time and place.
Nevertheless, when we go back to our basic human reality, the so-called person having religious faith has no advantage at all over the so-called non-believer. Believers frequently seem to think that they have a privileged position that is not given to non-believers. That is not true! Everyone, both believer and non-believer, is just the same: All of us, whether we have religious faith or not, are primarily confronted with this reality that we can mainly access with our senses. If we train ourselves more (as the various religious traditions encourage us), our sense of trust that there is a greater reality becomes stronger, more heightened, but that kind of sense (or attuning to the trans-physical) is not conclusive; it is as if seeing “in a glass darkly” (as the New Testament says).
This is why I think that “God” (as well as “the Supernatural”) is, honestly speaking, a secondary theme. What is primary is what Cupitt is most invested in—the here and now, life itself! If we live this life well, as Cupitt suggests, then, if there indeed be a God or a supernatural dimension, we will definitely be taken care of there in that other dimension, a sphere which we cannot presently access. There is no need to worry about it for now at the expense of living out fully this present life. Our main “job” now is to live this life as fully as we can while we struggle to achieve wellness, authentic happiness, justice, and peace for ourselves and for our world.
That would be my present position.
---
No comments:
Post a Comment