What Comes After Religion? - Transcript and Annotations

 

School of Life: What Comes After Religion? (Please watch the video first!)

Published: Feb 4, 2015

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL--1Z_g4DE&list=PLV7Diz4DTv4mnAutv5CEqN7Y9HRKmejor&index=18

Accessed: 2021-02-01

(The main text is a transcript of the ‘School of Life’ video. Sub-headings and parts in blue are my own annotations. The concluding reflections are also my own)

Secularization

Fewer and fewer people believe nowadays. It's possible that in a generation, there simply won't be religion across Europe and large sections of North America, Australia and Asia. That 's not necessarily a problem.

Above, we find a brief description of the rapid process of secularization taking place in the so-called “developed world.” Of course, institutional religions think that this loss of faith and belief is a problem. How do you see the matter? Is the demise of religious belief and institutional religions a problem?

Why Religions were/are Important

But it's worth thinking about why people made up religion in the first place and what we're doing with the needs and longings that led them to do so. 

Examining the origins of religion and what were/are the human needs that religions have met in human history --- is a very important task!

At one level, religions are about asking us to believe in something. And when people say they can't believe, they tend to stop right there with the whole religion business. And often point out all the horrid things that religions have undoubtedly done and continue to do. But in this sense, belief is almost the least important and definitely the least interesting side of religion.

“Religious belief” often involves trying to give our intellectual assent to mythological ideas that cannot be proved by science (or has been disproved) by science.

The Valuable Things Religions Teach even in a Secularized World

What's fascinating is all the other stuff religions get up to. For example, the way they regularly gather people around and, strikingly, tell them to be nice to one another. Or the way they create a sense of community, acting as hosts, making sure that granny and the child, the big chief and the little guy learn to see each other as human beings rather than abstract entities.

Religions use rituals to point stuff out to us and lodge it in our fickle minds. For example, that the seasons are changing or that it's the time to remember your ancestors. That the moon looks pretty or you can atone and make a fresh start or that it's rather amazing that there's food on the table. Religions know we're not just intellectual creatures so they carefully appeal to us via art and beauty. We think of beauty in one category a frivolous and superficial thing, and truth and depth in an another. Religions join them together. They build temples, cathedrals, and mosques that use beauty to lend depth to important ideas. They use the resources of art to remind us of what matters. Their art is didactic. It's directed at making us feel things: calm, pity, awe ---

Those are the things (above) that—the School of Life’ thinks—are the valuable lessons we can learn from religions which we ought to continue practicing today, even in a secular age. The following statements below are why we still need the things that religions used to and still deliver to its adherents.

We may no longer believe, but the needs and longings that made us make up these stories go on. We're lonely and violent. We long for beauty, wisdom, and purpose. We want to live for something more than just ourselves.

Below we find critiques of the superficiality and inadequateness of contemporary society from ‘the School of Life’

What Modern Society Focuses On

Society tells us to direct our hopes in two areas: Romantic love and professional success. And it distracts us with news, movies, and consumption. It's not enough, as we know. Especially at three in the morning.

The Lessons We Need to Learn

We need reminders to be good, places to reawaken awe, something to awaken our kinder, less selfish impulses. Universal things which need tending like delicate flowers and rituals that bring us together. The choice isn't between religion and a secular world as it is now.

 The challenge is to learn from religions so we can fill the secular world with replacements for the things we long ago made up religion to provide. The challenge begins here.

***

Some Concluding Comments (by jkk)

On the one hand, the ‘School of Life’ adheres to an atheistic, materialistic worldview. It does not believe that there is any “Greater Power” (such as God, the Spirit, the Holy) out there. On the other hand, it thinks that there are many valuable things we can continue to learn from religions aside from the supernatural claims (which it does not believe).

My own (as well as many other “scholar-believers”) position is a bit different. I continue to hold that a standpoint of faith (in a Greater Something or “God,” if you will) is still possible and even important today, even for someone who believes in the value of science and progress but is also aware of its limitation. My definition of faith is that it is primarily a trust in the goodness of reality and life – that trust is often linked with a greater power, but it need not be. It is enough to hope that there is some greater power with which all of us are connected (For a more detailed description, see: https://spiritual-notandyet-religious-jkk.blogspot.com/2020/04/part-3-epidemics-and-god-covid-19.html )

I absolutely agree with scholar-spiritual practitioner Roger Walsh MD, PhD that if we think of life and reality as—in his words—“disenchanted” (just material) as ‘the School of Life’ does, we run the risk of living in a world devoid of meaning and significance. That would lead to us feeling adrift, without any sense of a higher purpose. That, in turn, would lead to more meaninglessness and depression. (See Walsh, Essential Spirituality, 1999, pp. 195-196)

I do agree with ‘the School of Life’ though that religions over-emphasize mythological beliefs. This is a problem for contemporary people who live in a world with an advanced level of science and critical thought. I am, therefore, also for shifting the emphasis on—what the same Roger Walsh—calls “transconventional religion” (I’ll write more extensively about this in a future post) with a greater emphasis on ethical and spiritual practice that would enable one to have genuine “awakening” experiences. These in turn will lead to a deeper experiential sense of the “spiritual” unity of everyone and everything. And that is the core truth that all spiritual-wisdom traditions (aka, the religions) teach.

---

Why Religion and Spirituality Matter as Part of One’s Education

Why not Take a Course on Religion-Spirituality?

[#1] The Meaning of Key Terms and Expressions Here

[A] When I mention religion here, I do not primarily mean <participating in an "organized religious tradition"> (such as being a member of Roman Catholicism or Islam - although that might be good for some people). By “religion” I refer, first of all, to what is the heart of all religion: spirituality. "Spirituality" is basically what is in our deepest core: it is the life-force that animates and drives us; it is not scientifically quantifiable. It is from one's spirituality that we draw the energy (“the spirit”) to pursue meaning in life. It is also in spirituality where—the great Traditions point out—we can find our fundamental goodness as humans. This is expressed for example as Imago Dei [Image of God] in Judaism and Christianity or “Buddha Nature” in Buddhism”. I will, therefore, use the term "religion-spirituality" (taken as one, singular entity) to emphasize all the things mentioned above.

[B] To explain further, by spirituality, I also mean the deep drive--hardwired in humans--to search for MEANING. There is a very strong drive found in humans to search for their deepest, most genuine, and authentically good desires (I’ll call this "Depth") and, at the same time, there is also an equally strong drive to pursue something bigger than themselves, something beyond our small and (often) selfish EGOs. I’ll refer to this as "Self-Transcendence." Spirituality then is: the human quest for meaning by acquiring greater depth and transcendence. That is actually also my working definition for “religion” itself because that could be a description of the heart and core of any authentic religion. This quest for meaning, depth and transcendence has been engaged in for most of human history within the context of concrete religious traditions, such as Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, etc. Today, however, more and more people do not feel the need to belong to a religious tradition to be on a spiritual quest.

[C] The “Open-Mindedness” I suggest for Studying Religion.  I think it would be optimal if a person who wants to study religion-spirituality is also a “seeker.” A seeker—we can say—is someone who seeks to live life not superficially (as many do) but at a deeper, more authentic level. In effect, that would mean—at the minimum level—not accepting an uncritical scientific dogmatism (the idea that “only what can be scientifically proven is true”) but instead being open to at least the possibility that there is Something Bigger (or Greater) than what conventional science can verify. I think that this is the best attitude to have as one takes a course on religion…

In other words, this is a position that deeply values modern science but rejects “scientism” (the quasi-dogmatic belief that the only truly real things are what science can prove). More proactively, it means making the effort to cultivate some kind of "spirituality" in oneself. For some, it means considering oneself an active adherent of a religious tradition.

If that is not possible for you, then, at the very minimum, I suggest a healthy curiosity and openness to study human religiosity and what positive and negative roles it has and continues to play in human society, culture, and civilization.

Resource: See Huston Smith’s thoughts on “the religious sense”

***

[#2] Our Primary Question: Why Does Religion-Spirituality Matter?

With that we can now ask: Why does religion-spirituality still matter? In a learning environment such as the university, this is connected with the question: Why is it good to study religion-spirituality or even, why is it beneficial to be religiously "literate"?

To make that more existential or more applicable to concrete life itself, we can also ask at a deeper level: Why is it a positive thing to have a "religious-spiritual" sense or a “religious outlook” on life? Why is it good to cultivate some kind of "spirituality" in oneself? Below are some responses to those key questions as we start this course in religious studies.

Let’s start with a sociological, historical, and cultural reason for studying religion.

[#3] Religion-Spirituality has been a vital and integral part of human reality for most of humanity’s history and across all human cultures. It continues to be so for the majority of people in the world today.

A religious outlook on life has been the standard worldview of almost everyone for most of human history in all human civilizations. It continues to be so today for most of the world’s population (according to some estimates, at least 70% of the world's inhabitants still consider themselves “religious”). However, it is in the so-called "developed" countries that religion is widely considered "unenlightened" or “backward” by an increasing number of people. Nevertheless, if one seeks to understand how almost all people who have lived in the past and how most people even in the present, think and view the world, one definitely has to study religion. So, do you want to understand the foundations of your culture and civilization (yes, that includes this supposedly “enlightened” Western culture and civilization!)? Studying religion and being religiously “literate” about the great world religions and their positive as well as negative effects on human civilizations, cultures, and societies is an essential task.

Resources: Former US Secretary of State John Kerry famously said that if he went back to College today, he would major in comparative religions. (In this LINK, it is found around the 10th minute mark) 

Let’s go now to a deeper, existential reason for pursuing a more serious engagement with religion-spirituality.

[#4] It is Religion-Spirituality (taken here as a single, holistic, and integral area) that can more adequately deal with the questions that are most important for humans, namely: What would
enable me/us to find higher meaning, genuine non-egocentric self-fulfillment, depth and transcendence?

In psychologist Abraham Maslow's widely used "hierarchy of needs,” (School of Life version) the more basic needs of humans (such as physiological and safety needs) are located at the lower levels of the pyramid. This is not to say that they are unimportant. In fact, they are supremely important as a foundation because if these primary needs are not met, humans will not even realize that they have “higher” and more noble needs.

It is seldom mentioned that for all the importance given to the so-called STEM areas (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) in higher education today, these fields are meant to meet areas of human life that belong to the more basic, “lower” human needs in Maslow’s scheme. The fact of the matter is that science (and related areas) is largely incapable of responding to “higher” human needs such as love and belonging, emotional maturity, self-actualization (the highest need), as well as the deepest existential questions of life.

What then can respond more adequately to these “higher” or “deeper” perplexing issues? I must say that it is the humanities (philosophy, literature, history, art, psychology, etc.) that could deal in a better way with these questions. And within the humanities, it is obviously religion-spirituality as a more integral discipline that is—one can say—most capable of responding to humanity’s higher and deeper questions, needs, and aspirations.

 

[#5] Know the Limits of Science!  One important skill to learn at the university is how to more clearly discern different “domains” -- such as which domains of life are more proper to science (and related areas) and which ones are more proper to Religion-Spirituality and other fields in the humanities.  Although we live in a world that prioritizes empirical science (and its applications such as technology and engineering) above all else, it is rarely acknowledged that although science works wonderfully with the things that properly belong to its domain, it has severe limitations in areas beyond its domains, such as existential and ultimate meanings, purpose, values, etc. These questions are normally "beyond" science and "more properly" religious-spiritual and philosophical. 

The late scholar of religion, Huston Smith frequently decried "scientism" (not science itself!). Scientism is the intellectual position that holds that the only truly valuable things to learn and know in life can ONLY be taught by science. In other words, scientism is the fallacious thinking that what science has turned up or can turn up is the sum of all that is. That is simply not true, as any true scientist will admit.

Smith, for example, clarified that science cannot handle some of the following, crucially important matters for human life:

1. Values in their final and proper sense, for example, Why should we have integrity?
2. Existential and global meanings: for example, Why am I depressed? What is the meaning of life?;
3. Final causes: for example, What is the ultimate meaning of it all?;
4. The “Invisible”: We're not talking of "invisibles" that can affect matter (e.g., magnetism) but invisible entities such as thoughts, love, even spirits, ghosts, etc. (if those things exist). These are outside of the realm of science
5. Quality (not quantifiable quality such as the material indicators of the quality of life but ...) = spiritual, philosophical and existential "quality”, such as, the quality of my life in terms of love, contentment, happiness, purpose or meaning
6. Our "superiors" – this refers to anything superior to our material reality (no offence to materialists but it is considered the "inferior" realm in this scheme) that cannot be measured by our conventional scientific methods at this point (if such things exist) such as angels, God, non-bodily beings, etc. 

In another place, Smith clearly points out: "We have not discovered anything that conclusively proves that beings greater than us [our “superiors”] do not exist." This illustrates the principle that science cannot deal with its "superiors" – that is, possible realities that are greater than material reality. These beings (if they exist) are, at this point, beyond conventional scientific methods and even if they do exist, science cannot discover them at this point.

 

[#6] Epistemic Humility. One clear mark that someone has integrity is that they are aware of their limitations. That can be called “epistemic humility” – a humble acknowledgement of the limits of one’s knowledge. A true scientist is well aware of the limits of science. When someone claims that the only real things are limited to what we can see and touch, there is no epistemic humility there and, therefore, no integrity as well.

What field can handle the things that conventional science cannot deal with? Again, it is religion-spirituality taken as an integral discipline that includes not only religion in the narrow sense but also disciplines such as philosophy, art, literature, history, and psychology practiced within a worldview that is open to the possibility that the TOTALITY of REALITY is so much bigger and greater than the material realm.

 

[#7] The God Question.  The Abrahamic religions that we are more familiar with in the West (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) have historically given a central place to the question of “God”—believed to be an Omnipotent Being who created everything and continues to sustain them. When religion is discussed here in the West, therefore, foremost in people’s minds is usually the burning question: Does God really exist? 

It is noteworthy, however, that the discipline called the philosophy of religion teaches us that there is no 100% perfect or conclusive way to convince everyone about the reality of God’s existence. In fact, the plain truth is that, from a philosophical standpoint, although there are seemingly valid reasons for continued belief in God (for religious faith), there are also sufficient reasons for agnosticism and even atheism.

Agnosticism (the position that says: No one really knows for certain that God exists)—I personally think—can be a position of integrity. Moreover, a sincere “open to listen to different positions” kind of atheism can likewise be a standpoint of integrity. However, a vicious and intolerant atheism that is ironically "dogmatically held" goes against "epistemic humility" (Recall that this means: I am aware of the limits of my knowledge). I consider epistemic humility as a crucial indication of integrity in those seeking for truth and knowledge. I therefore consider this kind of atheism an unhelpful and even dishonest position.

At the other end of the spectrum, a vicious, blind, "too convinced," and equally intolerant "faith stance" is also unhelpful and dishonest because it likewise goes against--the abovementioned--epistemic humility.

 

[#8] Religion and the human quest to understand the TOTALITY of things, “the Big Picture”

Personally, and as a scholar of religion and theology, I do not think that the question “Does God really exist?” is the most important issue in the study of religion. It is—I suggest—a secondary question in terms of importance. Besides, since there can be no conclusive way to answer this question, pursuing it endlessly is, in a sense, a futile endeavour.

Rather, the more helpful approach for me is studying the concept of “god” (or similar expressions such as “Spirit,” “the Real,” “the Holy,” “Nirvana,” etc.) as an important and key symbol of humanity’s ongoing effort to “relate to the total scheme of things” which—according to religion scholar Huston Smith—is the heart of the religious problem. In short, the idea of “god” (and parallel notions) is a crucial key to understanding the ways by which humans throughout history and in every milieu have tried to cope with, make sense of, shed light on, maintain hope and positivity about LIFE and EXISTENCE which nevertheless remain ultimately mysterious. In this sense, “god” (and parallel notions) is a crucially important theme to examine. It also follows that the human “faith in God” (or some other ultimate factor) that religion-spirituality examines is actually a study of one of the most important aspects of humanity.

Religion-spirituality is important because it studies this human quest to understand the “totality of things” by utilizing the idea of “god” (and parallel ideas). Huston Smith calls “God” the one who completes the jigsaw puzzle and shows the whole of reality to be a “panorama.” (in an interview with Robert Kuhn - Closer to Truth)

This, however, is being severely challenged in our postmodern world. The postmodern world dislikes “metanarratives” and religion is as perfect a metanarrative as one can get. We will deal with this theme in another essay on contemporary forms of religion-spirituality.

 

[#9] Theology Gives a Glimpse of a Believer's “Insider-Perspectives”   The main difference between two related fields of study, "Religious Studies" and "Theology" is this: "Religious Studies" aims to eplore religions and spiritualities from a humanistic standpoint and does not require religious faith. Theology, on the other hand, is based on religious faith but endeavours to support that faith by using various university disciplines such as history, literary criticism, philosophy, etc. 

If you go on further to study "Theology", you'll even be able to see history or religious belief systems, as it were, "from the inside" or from an "insider's perspective."  You'll come to understand better how believers' minds work, what makes them tick.

One good resource for this is this article by Tara Burton in The Atlantic titled "Study Theology, Even If You Don't Believe in God".

Link: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/10/study-theology-even-if-you-dont-believe-in-god/280999/

 

[#10] The Religion of Life.  In our postmodern world, believing according to how the traditional religions define belief, is becoming increasingly difficult for more and more people. There seems to be a new kind of "religion" (or “spirituality”) that is arising and becoming dominant in the West today. The philosopher of religion Don Cupitt calls this "the Religion of Life." Its main point is that nowadays more and more people make "life" itself as the supreme value instead of "God." 

This is a fascinating development of people's religiosity/spirituality and many of you (I'm sure) identify with it already, whether you are conscious of it or not. To learn more about this, please refer to: Don Cupitt's thoughts on "The Religion of Life" and this youtube lecture about this titled "Don Cupitt and the Religion of Life." I have also written a summary-essay of Don Cupitt's 'Religion of Life' HERE. To be honest, I do not completely agree with Don Cupitt when he claims that there is nothing else than this life here and now. I think that is a lack of epistemic humility! But I agree that life here and now should be our main focus. This is my position: If there is something else beyond this life, living this life well will be our best preparation for it!

You can also refer also to my essay titled, The Secularized West - Source of Immorality and Godlessness or (Flawed) Embodiment of the "Kingdom of God"? .

---

Resources:

Huston Smith, Why Religion Matters: The Fate of the Human Spirit in an Age of Disbelief. Harper, 2001.

_____, The Soul of Christianity: Restoring the Great Tradition. Harper, 2005.

John Cottingham. Why Believe? Continuum, 2009.

Alain de Botton. “TED talk: Atheism 2.0.” January 17, 2012. https://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_atheism_2_0

Roger Walsh, Essential Spirituality: The 7 Central Practices to Awaken Heart and Mind. Wiley, 1999.

_____, The World’s Great Wisdom: Timeless Teachings from Religions and Philosophies. SUNY Press, 2014.

University of Northern Iowa. “Why Should I Study Religion?” Accessed December 29, 2020. https://philrel.uni.edu/why-should-i-study-religion

Dale Tuggy. “Why Study Religion?” Published: February 17, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmEWtEl0oPo&list=PLMCt15e8gG-j3nRRZlmhltadY8XDn4KAH

“Why Study Religion?” Accessed December 29, 2020.   http://www.studyreligion.org/why/leads.html

---

The Perennial Philosophy – Its Main Contours (acc to Roger Walsh)

Source: Roger Walsh, Essential Spirituality: The Seven Central Practices to Awaken Heart and Mind (Wiley, 1999), pp. 6-9.

[This is how spirituality teacher Roger Walsh MD, PhD explains the so-called "Perennial Philosophy." The main text is from Roger Walsh; my annotations (jkk) are found in brackets.]

The Perennial Philosophy

Thanks to global communication, for the first time in history, we have all the world's religions, their wisdom and their practices, available to us.  ... What do the different traditions have in common?

Beneath the hundreds of different cultures, claims, and customs, there lies a common core of both wisdom and practice at the heart of each authentic tradition. By "authentic tradition," I mean one capable of offering a direct experience of the sacred, and of fostering true spiritual growth and maturity in its practitioners. 

[The "direct experience of the sacred" is Roger Walsh's definition of spirituality. This is opposed to just believing in some teachings and doctrines because they were taught to you by some religious authorities. So if "a tradition" can offer a direct experience of the sacred, it can be considered an "authentic" (spiritual) tradition in Walsh's mind.]

Scholars called the essential common core of religious wisdom "the perennial wisdom" or "perennial philosophy." Why "perennial"? Because these profound insights into life have endured across centuries and cultures and have been taught by the great sages of all time

Developed over thousands of years, the perennial philosophy is a treasure house of humankind's curated wisdom. Vast in scope, profound in depth, it offers numberless insights into the nature of life and love, health and happiness, suffering and salvation.

At its heart lie four crucial claims--actually observations, since they are based on direct insights by advanced spiritual practitioners about reality and human nature.

[#1]  One. There are two realms of reality. The first is the every day realm with which we are all familiar, the world of physical objects and living creatures. This is the realm accessible to us via sight and sound and studied by sciences such as physics and biology.

But beneath these familiar phenomena lies another realm far more subtle and profound: a realm of consciousness, spirit, Mind or Tao (Way 道). This world cannot be known through the physical senses and only indirectly through the physical instruments of science. Moreover, this realm creates and embraces the physical realm and is its source. This domain is not limited by space or time or physical laws, and hence it is unbounded and infinite, timeless and eternal.

[This worldview was standard and widely accepted in practically all cultures of the world before the European Enlightenment. It is still the default worldview in traditional cultures and communities. Since the Enlightenment, the rational and scientific worldview has become standard in the West and in other parts of the world.]

[#2] Two. Human Beings partake of both realms. We are not only physical but also spiritual beings. We have bodies but we also have at the core of our being, in the depths of our minds a centre of transcendent awareness. This centre is described as pure consciousness, mind, spirit or Self and is known by such names as the neshamah  of Judaism, the soul or “divine spark” of Christianity, the atman of Hinduism or the "Buddha nature" of Buddhism. This divine spark is intimately related to--some traditions even say inseparable from and identical with--the sacred ground or foundation of all reality. We are not divorced from the sacred but eternally and intimately linked to it.

[#3] Three. Human beings can recognize their divine spark and the secret ground that is its source. What this implies--this is absolutely crucial--is that the claims of the perennial philosophy do not have to be accepted blindly. Rather each of us can test them for ourselves and decide their validity based on our direct experience.  Although the soul or innermost Self, being non-physical, cannot be known by the senses or the instruments of science, it can be known by careful introspection.

[Related to claim #3 is philosopher Ken Wilber's claim that the spiritual dimension can be experienced, and even validated through a process that is akin to what we know as a "scientific" method. See: http://spiritual-notandyet-religious-jkk.blogspot.com/2020/10/can-we-prove-existence-of-god-or-realm.html ]

This is not necessarily easy. Although anyone can be graced with spontaneous glimpses, clear sustained vision of our sacred depths usually requires significant practice to clarify awareness sufficiently. This is the purpose of spiritual practice. When the mind is still and clear, we can have a direct experience of our “Self.” This is not a concept of, nor an intellectual theory about, the Self. Rather, it is an immediate knowing, a direct intuition in which one not only sees the divine spark but also identifies with and recognizes that one is the spark. Sages from Judaism and Sufism, from Plato to Buddha, from Eckhart to Lao Tsu have agreed on this. 

…  Compared to this direct realization of the sacred, mere book learning and theoretical knowledge are very poor substitutes, as far removed from direct experience as a text on human reproduction is from the embrace of a lover. 

[#4] Four. The perennial philosophy's fourth claim is that realizing our spiritual nature is the summum bonum: the highest goal and greatest good of human existence. Beside this, all other goals pale; all other delights only partly satisfy. No other experience is so ecstatic, no other attainment so rewarding, no other goal so beneficial to oneself or others.  ...

Again this is not wild dogma to be accepted merely on the word of others or on blind faith. Rather, it is an expression of the direct experience of those who have tasted these fruits for themselves. Most importantly, it is an invitation to all of us to test and taste for ourselves.

***

If we distill these four claims down to their essential essence, what do we find? The central ringing cry of the perennial philsophy is this: We have underestimated ourselves tragically. We are sadly mistaken when we see ourselves as merely temporary bodies instead of timeless spirit; as separate, suffering selves instead of blissful Buddhas; as meaningless blobs of matter instead of blessed children of God. 

The words differ from one tradition to another but their central message is the same: You are more than you think! Look deep within, and you will find that your ego is only a tiny wave atop the vast ocean that is your real Self. Look deep within, and you will find that your ego is only a tiny wave atop the vast ocean that is your real Self. Look within, and at the center of your mind, in the depths of your soul, you will find your true Self, that this Self is intimately linked to the sacred, and that you share in the unbounded bliss of the sacred. 

This recognition is the goal of the great religions and it is known by names such as salvation and satori, enlightenment and liberation, fana and nirvana, awakening and Ruach Ha-qodesh. But whatever the name, the great religions all exist to help us discover our true Self and our true relationship to the sacred. This discovery, they agree, is the supreme joy and greatest goal of human life. 

The Perennial Practices

How to achieve this discovery of our true self is the central question of life, and it is here that the great religions offer their greatest gift. Each of them contains a set of practices designed to help us reach this goal. Whether they be the commandments and contemplations of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, the yogas of Hinduism, or the disciplines of Taoism, each tradition offers spiritual practices that awaken. 

Among the many spiritual practices, there are seven that are common to authentic religions and that we can therefore call perennial practices. These perennial practices were discovered by the religious founders and have been used by millions of men and women around the world. Now their universal nature can be recognized. Essential Spirituality (Walsh’s book) explains the seven perennial practices and offers exercises for applying them in all aspects of life so that you , too, can enjoy the many benefits they offer. 

[The heart of Roger Walsh's book 'Essential Spirituality' is to introduce readers to seven central practices to awaken mind and heart. For a summary of these practices, see: http://spiritual-notandyet-religious-jkk.blogspot.com/2020/11/the-seven-practices-that-awaken-heart.html  ]

---

[2] The Sixth Paradigm [R. Holloway--Different Paradigm Shifts in Christianity] - Part 2

 Source (in the public domain): http://radicalfaith.org/holloway/sixth%20paradigm.htm

From a talk Holloway gave in May 2003

Accessed: 2020-09-03

Go to Part 1 

The Sixth Paradigm  [Different Paradigm Shifts in Christianity] - continued

Richard Holloway (former Episcopal Bishop of Edinburgh)

 

PARADIGM #4: The Protestant Reformation Paradigm

Kung's fourth paradigm (P#4) is one we're more immediately familiar with - that of the 16^th century Protestant Reformation. It happened to coincide with the discovery of the Bible by ordinary people. Once the new printing presses had swung into action, many thousands of copies of the Bible became available to the person on the street. It was very soon translated from Latin into the vernaculars.

Just as the Roman institution had provided Christians with a feeling of absolute assurance, so also some people found a similar assurance in the words of Scripture. The absolute institution was replaced by texts which were perceived as the absolute truth straight from the mouth of God. The fourth paradigm promoted the same need for authority as did the third paradigm and pandered to the same fear of freedom.

More profound than such similarities is the way adherence to scriptural inerrancy prevents attempts to do theology differently. In order to preserve its internal consistencies, this paradigm must perforce retain an absolute commitment to a pre-scientific paradigm of how this world works.

In this paradigm the sun must be able to stand still, people must be able to walk on water, and the dead must be able to rise again. In contrast, institutions like the Roman Church can change and yet pretend they haven't. But how can anyone move off a doctrine of scriptural inerrancy without admitting it?

From study of the Bible as God's Word to humankind came the great theory that Luther evolved in contradistinction to the fundamentalism if the institution. It's nearly impossible for many Christians today to read Paul's letters to the early Church except through Lutheran eyes, so compelling was Luther's interpretation of the infallible authority of the Bible.

Luther taught that God saves us not through any of our own works or good deeds, be they pilgrimages, or masses or earnest prayer, but only through God's grace by the sacrifice of the Father's son. That really was a paradigm revolution for those times. It blew away the monolithic medieval Christianity of Roman Catholicism.

The Reformation church is today perhaps the most dated in feeling of all the churches.

I don't know if you ever go into a United Reformed Church building or a Presbyterian church. A few have developed new liturgical forms and norms, but on the whole the classic churches of the Reformation are, as we say in Scotland, very dour. They're heavy. You get long sermons. They may be very thoughtful sermons but they're long. It's all minister-dominated. There's no colour or brightness. It's very heavy, it's serious, it's intense.

That is also it's enduring value. It produces very serious people. Presbyterian Scotland was a very serious country which, by dint of focused effort over many years, produced a strongly democratic consciousness.

It also gave birth to the Protestant work-ethic. This was fundamental to Scotland's experience and self understanding. From this paradigm sprang also a well-educated public. John Knox, the Scottish Protestant reformer, wanted a school in every parish and largely succeeded in his ambition.

Despite this enduring value, the Reformation remnant of the fourth paradigm remains depressing and sexless. If you want to have a good time, don't go to one of these places on a Sunday morning. For unless you're solidly masochistic you'll come out feeling pretty rotten about yourself.

I often think that if you want a great exemplar of the virtues and maybe of the downside of the Reformation paradigm, look at Gordon Brown, the United Kingdom's Chancellor of the Exchequer (equivalent to the Minister of Finance in other systems). He is a deeply serious man. There doesn't seem to be any frivolity in him. He's deeply committed to his project - but he's not exactly a laugh a minute (although I'm told that with some decent malt whiskey beside him he can be quite good company). But there's no sense of frivolity of skittishness about him. In many ways he's a brilliant exemplar of the best of the fourth paradigm.

***

PARADIGM #5: The Modern Era Paradigm

The fifth paradigm (P#5) is the modern paradigm, that of the 17^th - 19^thcenturies. It is still powerfully with us, busily influencing and interpreting how we perceive the world and our lives. Nevertheless, we're increasingly able to regard it to some degree dispassionately as we sail into new and unfamiliar seas.

[1] The Sixth Paradigm [R. Holloway--Different Paradigm Shifts in Christianity] - Part 1

Source (in the public domain): http://radicalfaith.org/holloway/sixth%20paradigm.htm

From a talk Holloway gave in May 2003

Accessed: 2020-09-03

 

The Sixth Paradigm  [Different Paradigm Shifts in Christianity]

Richard Holloway (former Episcopal Bishop of Edinburgh)

 

I want to take a glance at the whole of Christian history because one of the things I'd like to get at is this widespread notion that Christianity is or ever has been a single thing.

To do this I'll use a large text, but I want to lead into it by addressing first a very slim text.

One of the most important and influential philosophical texts of the twentieth century was a short book called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions written by an historian of science called Thomas Kuhn. Now Kuhn was a student at Harvard in the 1960s. He was a young physicist and was invited by the President of Harvard to teach a course on the history of science to humanities students who knew nothing about science. He said to himself, "You don't refuse the President of Harvard!"

In his researches and preparing the course he surprised himself. He came across something that he had not hitherto realised was the case. He had a notion of science as a kind of linear activity - a bit like those machines in a coal mine which eat into the coal face - which bites its way through the facts of the universe. He thought of science as a cumulative process in which these facts were gradually laid out.

He discovered that it was in fact a more violent, interruptive activity. Hence the title of his essay. He discovered that science operates by what he called "paradigm revolutions" or "paradigm shifts". He didn't actually coin the word "paradigm" but he did give it a new kind of meaning. He said that the scientific community worked within what it called a paradigm, a constellation of views based on experiment, a world view or set of assumptions that it operated within. This was the going, working science of the time.

The paradigm was operated until it stopped working - that is, until new questions or new discoveries began to collide with the given view. Let me give you a fairly obvious example.

Aristotelian astronomy, upon which the worldview of the entire Bible is based, proposed a three-decker universe with the earth at the centre and all the spheres going round it. The whole idea was that the earth is the centre of the system both physically as well as theologically.

That was the going paradigm. And it still works. The Ptolemaic version of Aristotelian astronomy can still operate for a yachtsperson. You can cross the Atlantic using Ptolemaic astronomy, guiding your boat by the stars. So to that extent it can still be a working paradigm.

But it was overtaken by the great Copernican discovery which was revolutionary because it said, "Ah! The earth is not the thing which everything else goes round. In fact, we go round the sun."

You'll recall the great struggle which then took place. This was because the new paradigm appeared to contradict both the biblical account as well as the going scientific paradigm. Interestingly, it was only fairly recently that the Pope gave the sun permission to be the centre of the solar system.

What happens then is that you get a working set of systems which operates quite satisfactorily until along comes new knowledge, usually discovered by creatures of genius. They begin to ask questions about the old paradigm. Those who use the old paradigm resist the new - and it is entirely right that they should do so. One doesn't want to keep changing a world view which works. It's a confounded nuisance if you're switching paradigms every few years. You need to get traction, a bit of tradition and leverage on the thing.

So you make it work as long as you possibly can. You use it to try to answer the new information which is coming in. There's also in some people a natural kind of conservatism which doesn't like any kind of change. They prefer the going paradigm to anything which is coming down the road. They do so for purely temperamental reasons - but it's also true that the scientific method itself inherently tests new data until it overturns the old. And then you get a paradigm revolution and you move on.

Kuhn's little book has influenced philosophers, culture critics and theologians since the early 1960s. I want to look now at a great text which has applied Kuhn's conclusions about paradigms to Christianity.

The greatest living theologian is Hans Kung, a Roman Catholic. His is the "large text" to which I referred earlier. He doesn't have the Pope's driving licence because he wrote a book in the seventies attacking the doctrine of infallibility and he had his licence to teach withdrawn.

He still teaches theology at Tübingen University but he teaches it in a secular setting (2020-no longer teaching). Quite movingly, he's an old man now and he would like to get his licence back. He'd like to die, as it were, in peace with the Roman Church. But he has been told that he will only get the licence back if he commits to the doctrine of infallibility.

So he will have to sacrifice his conscience to get back inside the Church (which shows you how corrupt churches are). I doubt if he will do that because his whole being has been one of challenge. He's been a sort of Protestant theologian in the midst of Catholicism.

Kung set himself a few years ago an enormous task. He wanted to describe the religious situation of our day. He conceived three volumes - one on Christianity, one on Judaism and one on Islam (2020-they are all published).

He applies paradigm theory to religion. He says that contrary to what we all think, religion has been a story of shifting paradigms - an essentially dynamic, changing enterprise.

I want to race through his application of paradigm theory to Christianity. He says there have been five Christian paradigms. As we'll see, these paradigms are all still in operation. In science, new paradigms succeed, complete and often oust those that came before. In Christianity, religious paradigms never seem to get discarded or superannuated. They simply get stacked up like trays in the trolleys of self-service restaurants.

[4] A Summary of the History of Christianity: A "Paradigm Shift" Approach (Part 4)

A Summary of the History of Christianity (by Hans Küng)

(with annotations and revisions done by Julius-Kei Kato)

Go to Part 3

Part 4 - Paradigm #4 : Martin Luther & The Protestant Reformation Paradigm

We will refer to sub-divisions of this article by the section numbers within square brackets (e.g. [1]).

Resources:

Original Link to this Summary (in the public domain / accessed 2020-09-20): https://www.global-ethic-now.de/gen-eng/0b_weltethos-und-religionen/0b-01-02-christentum/0b-01-0201-jesus.php

Paradigm Shifts in Christianity (a one-page visual diagram) https://www.global-ethic-now.de/gen-eng/0b_weltethos-und-religionen/0b-pdf/paradigm-shifts-christianity.pdf

 

[12] Martin Luther - Life

1483  Birth in Eisleben.
1505  Entry into the Augustinian monastery in Erfurt.
1512  Professor in Wittenberg.
1517  Publication of the “Ninety-five Theses” against indulgences.
1520  Papal bull threatening excommunication if he does not retract. Luther publicly burns the papal bull.
1521  Luther is excommunicated. He stands up to his writings at the Diet of Worms, he and his followers are put under the ban (Edict of Worms). Luther is hidden till 1522
in Wartburg Castle, where he begins his translation of the Bible.
1525  The Peasants’ War. Luther got married and broke with Erasmus of Rotterdam.

1529  Marburg Colloquy with Huldrych Zwingli and Martin Bucer.
1541  Jean Calvin established a theocratic republic in Geneva.
1546  Luther dies in Eisleben

 

 

[13] Luther’s Program

Luther’s program: Return to the Gospel of Jesus Christ

Bible

In place of innumerable ecclesiastic traditions, laws and authorities, the Holy Scriptures alone serve as the criterion of being Christian – translation of the Bible into the language of the people so that everyone could understand it

Christ

In place of innumerable saints and official mediators, Jesus Christ alone serves as the Mediator of humans before God

Grace

In place of ecclesiastically imposed pious deeds to merit salvation, believers find justification before God not through their works, but through grace alone, which cannot be earned, but is received through faith alone. Grace is unconditional.

Church

In place of the medieval clerical hierarchy, the Church is the community of believers, a congregation that prays and sings together.

 

 

[3] A Summary of the History of Christianity: A "Paradigm Shift" Approach (Part 3)

 A Summary of the History of Christianity (by Hans Küng)

(with annotations and revisions done by Julius-Kei Kato)

Go to Part 2

Part 3 - Paradigm #3 : The Medieval Roman Catholic Paradigm 

We will refer to sub-divisions of this article by the section numbers within square brackets (e.g. [1]).

Resources:

Original Link to this Summary (in the public domain / accessed 2020-09-20): https://www.global-ethic-now.de/gen-eng/0b_weltethos-und-religionen/0b-01-02-christentum/0b-01-0201-jesus.php

Paradigm Shifts in Christianity (a one-page visual diagram) https://www.global-ethic-now.de/gen-eng/0b_weltethos-und-religionen/0b-pdf/paradigm-shifts-christianity.pdf

[8] Rome: Primacy of Honour in the Early Church and the Process of Latinization

•         The Jewish roots of Christianity were forgotten by a church characterized first by Greek then by Latin culture.

•         In Rome, between 360 and 382, Latin replaced Greek as the language of the liturgy.

•         The basilica, originally a large hall for secular affairs, became the model of church architecture.

•         The thanksgiving meal (Eucharist) was gradually transformed into
a sacrificial offering: the table became an altar.

 

 

[9] The Pope – Successor of St Peter? – “No”, “Yes”, or “It’s Complicated”?

•         No evidence in the New Testament that Peter was in Rome.

•         No evidence for an immediate “successor” to Peter, not even in Rome.

•         No mention of a bishop of Rome in the New Testament or in the earliest Christian sources …

•         not in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans and not in the Letter of the Romans to the Corinthians.

 

•         Nevertheless, early evidence for the graves of the apostles Peter and Paul in Rome.

•         Around the middle of the 3rd Century, Bishop Stephen of Rome viewed himself as the successor of Peter and claimed a primacy over all other bishops.

•        (this part by jkk) Historically speaking then, it seems that the following idea: <the Pope is the literal successor of Peter who holds full authority [over all bishops in the Christian world], received in an unbroken chain of tradition going from the present pope all the way up to Peter himself who, in turn, received his authority as pope from Jesus himself> has to be re-evaluated very critically. It is not true in the literal sense. It can be considered an anachronism because the popes increasingly claimed this only later in history. The Eastern Orthodox churches (some of which are even older than Rome itself) have not accepted this. It remains the main block to unity among Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. However, it is true that the pope as bishop of Rome has had a unique place of honour (a “primacy of honour” and primus inter pares “first among equals”) in the history of Christianity from ancient times.  (jkk)