The yearnings to connect with something more profound than our individual lives may be called a religious or spiritual impulse. Religions have long been the way societies have structured this impulse. We do not question the need for people to connect with something more profound than their own personal dramas. We do question the viability of religions that present this world as a stepping stone to some other more important realm. Once this occurs, it is inevitable that religious experts delineate how to reach this other realm, and what must be sacrificed in this world to do so. This always includes renouncing self-centeredness—an endless task.
Once the spiritual impulse is channeled into any renunciate worldview, it makes those who share a belief in that structure feel connected. But this involves creating walls between “us” and “them,” which historically has been the easy way to become mechanically bonded and fill the vacuum of meaning. This is especially tempting now that feelings of disconnection are rife. Uniting with each other and bringing meaning to existence in a way not based on a narrow group identity is one of the vital challenges of these times.
Because the power of traditional religions comes from furnishing unchallengeable answers about the unknown, they are inherently authoritarian. Religions deflect examination by ordaining faith and belief to be sacred, while maintaining that no ordinary person can know enough to take issue with the beliefs they put forth. A further hindrance to the intelligent examination of religious tradition is the social taboo against doing so. We do not question people’s right to believe what they will. But the concept of religious tolerance is commonly extended to include not criticizing others’ beliefs. This is partially because beliefs that are non-rational are considered not subject to rational examination. This may be true about the contents of a belief, but is not true about what effects operating out of a given belief have on the world. If a belief that sends children to war with the promise of a special paradise cannot be challenged as harmful, that concept of tolerance is for us intolerable.
We define tolerance simply as not trying to impose one’s views on others through coercion. We also consider any view of tolerance that cuts off examination of anything the human mind can inquire into basically authoritarian. Why should religion, whose power is monumental, be exempt? We view ecological uncaringness, overpopulation, and uncared-for children as major threats to survival. In our conception of morality, structures that promote these are immoral. This, of course, is debatable, as it should be. Should a religion that makes birth control a sin not also be subject to examination and debate?
Indeed, the very act of making sacred certain actions, institutions, or ways of being is authoritarian, as it ensures that there can be no questioning. The potential for great abuse is inherent in any ideology closed to reason, feedback, or change based on changing circumstances. Officially placing something in the category of the sacred indicates that it needs protection and shoring up because of the fear it cannot stand on its own. Traditional concepts of the sacred set up an inherent dualism between what is sacred and what isn’t. The hidden function of the sacred has been to get people to sacrifice to it. This has been a part of the same polarity that separated the spiritual from the worldly, which is the basis of all renunciate moralities. What most urgently needs to be reexamined in these fateful and dangerous times is, above all, that which has been held sacred.
It is fashionable among some to say that truth, if it exists, cannot be known because all statements about it, and views of it, are couched in a language and cultural context which are essentially subjective. This is an understandable reaction against authoritarian absolutes and universals that masquerade as objective, while hiding self-interest. The downside of relativism is that it itself is a disguised absolute that inhibits even exploring whether there are or can be perspectives that go beyond the subjectivity of culture. We hold that there are historically embedded pan-cultural truths that can reflect, however dimly, more than just the fabrications of vested interest, personal preference, or even cultural constructions. For us, one such truth is that the human species is now at risk because its new technological capacities for leveraging power have gone far beyond the constraints of the old moral systems. The truth of this can, of course, be challenged. But, nevertheless, the perception that the path humanity is on now risks extinction is either true or not. We cannot envision a more important topic for inquiry. People can only answer for themselves whether truth can be found and what it is. For us, humanity’s hopes lie in the possibility that truth, whatever it may be in this time of crisis, will shine through.
The Guru Papers
Diana Alstad-Joel Kramer
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire