What we want is spirituality without religion, religion without faith, faith without God. We do not know what we want, only what we don't want. Do we have any idea of what we need?
When one thinks of the horrors committed by the followers of organized religion, the stupidity, ignorance and barbarity of the self-styled faithful, it is hard not to conclude that we'd be better off without religion. (Of course, no one wants to mention the awkward fact that the Trenches, the Bomb, and Auschwitz all happened without much help from religion).
You're drawn to Dewey's idea of a common faith, though...a kind of religious spirit without God. Why even stick with the word 'religious' if that's the case...why the nostalgia-for that's what it is, isn't it? And why do you always harp on about 'frameworks' when you don't personally rely on any? Must you always mean what you say and say what you mean? Is there much merit,that is, in discussing an 'idea' of religion, from the outside, as it were?
Well, I doubt it really is just ' outside'- if we're moved by such questions. Is this just the logical conclusion of the Protestant Reformation...each man is a saint, has their own interpretation. Forget the law, there's only the heart.
In South Korea there are 5 million t.v. channels since it's totally deregulated. God knows who watches what or who can broadcast what.
At one level, then, pluralism and fragmentation fit in with other trends in late capitalism. The lack of any framework means there's less chance of any slowing down, any resistance. And with the greater emphasis on subjectivity come the attendant dangers of solipsism. Everyone's got their own opinion, their own two cents; finally, freedom from the monopolization of knowledge and truth by the men in pointy hats, the old fogeys. Forget all these meaningless rituals and show me the dope, the three-step guide to instant enlightenment (and if you click now you can have it delivered to your doorstep in 24 hours.
In the land of the pure, if you're rich enough you're a sufi; if you're poor, you're just a fundamentalist. The proliferation of of t.v. evangelicals, women's groups (al-hoda), pamphleteers, propagandists and on-line access means, effectively, that everyone's got their own spin on religion, their own little set up. Build your own mosque with two and half bricks. No training, no discipline, no reflection and no qualifications required.
What of common faith, then? As always, the question becomes: what are the tradeoffs between promoting a certain kind of freedom and solidarity? For a consumer-oriented age this kind of pick-and-choose approach has its charms. And, Jesus, no-one wants to go back to the stifling orthodoxies and conservatism of the past. But when all is said and done, one can't but help feel that when you get rid of the institutional backdrop, the daily fabric that is made up of the small rituals, etiquette, specific uses of language, ways of looking and ways of talking (both of which include ways of not doing those things) then something is lost, then the door is open to a plain old worldliness and forgetfulness.
When one thinks of the horrors committed by the followers of organized religion, the stupidity, ignorance and barbarity of the self-styled faithful, it is hard not to conclude that we'd be better off without religion. (Of course, no one wants to mention the awkward fact that the Trenches, the Bomb, and Auschwitz all happened without much help from religion).
You're drawn to Dewey's idea of a common faith, though...a kind of religious spirit without God. Why even stick with the word 'religious' if that's the case...why the nostalgia-for that's what it is, isn't it? And why do you always harp on about 'frameworks' when you don't personally rely on any? Must you always mean what you say and say what you mean? Is there much merit,that is, in discussing an 'idea' of religion, from the outside, as it were?
Well, I doubt it really is just ' outside'- if we're moved by such questions. Is this just the logical conclusion of the Protestant Reformation...each man is a saint, has their own interpretation. Forget the law, there's only the heart.
In South Korea there are 5 million t.v. channels since it's totally deregulated. God knows who watches what or who can broadcast what.
At one level, then, pluralism and fragmentation fit in with other trends in late capitalism. The lack of any framework means there's less chance of any slowing down, any resistance. And with the greater emphasis on subjectivity come the attendant dangers of solipsism. Everyone's got their own opinion, their own two cents; finally, freedom from the monopolization of knowledge and truth by the men in pointy hats, the old fogeys. Forget all these meaningless rituals and show me the dope, the three-step guide to instant enlightenment (and if you click now you can have it delivered to your doorstep in 24 hours.
In the land of the pure, if you're rich enough you're a sufi; if you're poor, you're just a fundamentalist. The proliferation of of t.v. evangelicals, women's groups (al-hoda), pamphleteers, propagandists and on-line access means, effectively, that everyone's got their own spin on religion, their own little set up. Build your own mosque with two and half bricks. No training, no discipline, no reflection and no qualifications required.
What of common faith, then? As always, the question becomes: what are the tradeoffs between promoting a certain kind of freedom and solidarity? For a consumer-oriented age this kind of pick-and-choose approach has its charms. And, Jesus, no-one wants to go back to the stifling orthodoxies and conservatism of the past. But when all is said and done, one can't but help feel that when you get rid of the institutional backdrop, the daily fabric that is made up of the small rituals, etiquette, specific uses of language, ways of looking and ways of talking (both of which include ways of not doing those things) then something is lost, then the door is open to a plain old worldliness and forgetfulness.
No comments:
Post a Comment