sophiaserpentia (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sophiaserpentia) wrote2004-03-02 01:03 pm
sophiaserpentia) wrote2004-03-02 01:03 pm
Entry tags:
(no subject)
It is long past time that a new model of divinity be defined.
In the past, when one said, "This is God's will," (for whatever this happens to be), the statement was not merely what we think of as a religious doctrine. It was also a statement that "this" was supported by the current government, was economically beneficial, defined one's nation and culture, furthered the ends of the aristocracy and the priestly class, and matched current understanding about what was proper and natural. Such statements were entirely wrapped in a prevailing cultural paradigm that defined rigid roles for people based on age, wealth, gender, class, race, and nationality.
If thinkers like Erich Neumann, Ken Wilber, Julian Jaynes, and Leonard Shlain are even partially right, then over time there has been more than just a "paradigm shift" which we might think of as "software updates"; there have been fundamental changes in the nature and experience of human consciousness, and in the way the brain works and processes information. In other words, there have been "hardware updates" too.
As time has passed, so has the conceptual landscape. "Religion," as an institution, has evolved to serve new purposes in a culture that has increasingly replaced certainty with skepticism, wonder with rational inquiry. Now, though, we appear to have reached the point where religion has become increasingly a hindrance rather than a helpful tool. Instead of bringing us together, religion divides us. Instead of supporting science and inquiry, religion favors roadblocks. Instead of connecting us spiritually to the cosmos, religion gives us rules and books and rituals.
What role is there for a supreme deity in a culture where leaders are elected, not divinely appointed? What role is there for eternal punishment in a culture where criminals are understood to often be victims of circumstance and are rehabilitated rather than punished? What role is there for priestly intercession in a culture characterized by access to leaders and information? What role is there for divinely-ordained sexual heirarchy in a culture where medical understanding of sex, gender, and sexual orientation has replaced superstition and rigid destiny? What role is there for a grand design in a culture that understands the processes that shape the universe? And what role is there for divine commandment in a culture where everyone has a voice in the ways laws are developed?
Increasingly people turn away from the old religious model as its dictates appear anachronistic and outmoded. Removed from the context in which they were developed, and from the cultures for which they were relevant, antiquated scriptural dictates appear at turns absurd, murky, and even at times unethical. Modern notions of justice, of fairness, and even of personal identity have shifted too far for older religious models to suffice.
No longer does it make sense to think of God as a patriarch, a king of kings, a prime mover; natural science, social science, philosophy, economics, and psychology have changed our outlook so much that it is difficult if not impossible for the modern person to relate to God in this way.
And yet, despite the evolution of consciousness, the pervasiveness of secular culture, the scientific understanding of the cosmos, and modern psychological models of the human mind, many of us are still arrested by wonder, beauty, and mystery. The coffin has not been nailed shut on spirituality; quite the opposite. What seems certain is that religious concepts will change; but it also seems certain that we still need our sense of wonder.
Neurology has in recent years given us some insights into the workings of the human brain that explain the origin of religious belief and the benefits it has provided. And while we might understand in their context the ways in which previous generations have defined their conceptions of the divine to reflect their social, cultural, and psychological needs, there are many sublime and ineffable questions that remain unanswered. For example, many of us still respond with horror at the prospect that there may be no fundamental meaning or purpose behind the existence of the cosmos.
It is difficult to say at this stage what a new conception of the divine presence will look like. Perhaps this is because only the most fundamentally mysterious and ineffable qualities touched by religious teaching -- some might say the most important -- remain unaffected by human psychological and cultural evolution. These are the aspects of spiritual experience that have always defied description, those which have only been spoken of with paradoxes and koans. We still hear this voice speaking to us; it has not been dampened, but rather still beckons us on to further growth.
Crossposting to my journal and crossposting to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
unitarians
In the past, when one said, "This is God's will," (for whatever this happens to be), the statement was not merely what we think of as a religious doctrine. It was also a statement that "this" was supported by the current government, was economically beneficial, defined one's nation and culture, furthered the ends of the aristocracy and the priestly class, and matched current understanding about what was proper and natural. Such statements were entirely wrapped in a prevailing cultural paradigm that defined rigid roles for people based on age, wealth, gender, class, race, and nationality.
If thinkers like Erich Neumann, Ken Wilber, Julian Jaynes, and Leonard Shlain are even partially right, then over time there has been more than just a "paradigm shift" which we might think of as "software updates"; there have been fundamental changes in the nature and experience of human consciousness, and in the way the brain works and processes information. In other words, there have been "hardware updates" too.
As time has passed, so has the conceptual landscape. "Religion," as an institution, has evolved to serve new purposes in a culture that has increasingly replaced certainty with skepticism, wonder with rational inquiry. Now, though, we appear to have reached the point where religion has become increasingly a hindrance rather than a helpful tool. Instead of bringing us together, religion divides us. Instead of supporting science and inquiry, religion favors roadblocks. Instead of connecting us spiritually to the cosmos, religion gives us rules and books and rituals.
What role is there for a supreme deity in a culture where leaders are elected, not divinely appointed? What role is there for eternal punishment in a culture where criminals are understood to often be victims of circumstance and are rehabilitated rather than punished? What role is there for priestly intercession in a culture characterized by access to leaders and information? What role is there for divinely-ordained sexual heirarchy in a culture where medical understanding of sex, gender, and sexual orientation has replaced superstition and rigid destiny? What role is there for a grand design in a culture that understands the processes that shape the universe? And what role is there for divine commandment in a culture where everyone has a voice in the ways laws are developed?
Increasingly people turn away from the old religious model as its dictates appear anachronistic and outmoded. Removed from the context in which they were developed, and from the cultures for which they were relevant, antiquated scriptural dictates appear at turns absurd, murky, and even at times unethical. Modern notions of justice, of fairness, and even of personal identity have shifted too far for older religious models to suffice.
No longer does it make sense to think of God as a patriarch, a king of kings, a prime mover; natural science, social science, philosophy, economics, and psychology have changed our outlook so much that it is difficult if not impossible for the modern person to relate to God in this way.
And yet, despite the evolution of consciousness, the pervasiveness of secular culture, the scientific understanding of the cosmos, and modern psychological models of the human mind, many of us are still arrested by wonder, beauty, and mystery. The coffin has not been nailed shut on spirituality; quite the opposite. What seems certain is that religious concepts will change; but it also seems certain that we still need our sense of wonder.
Neurology has in recent years given us some insights into the workings of the human brain that explain the origin of religious belief and the benefits it has provided. And while we might understand in their context the ways in which previous generations have defined their conceptions of the divine to reflect their social, cultural, and psychological needs, there are many sublime and ineffable questions that remain unanswered. For example, many of us still respond with horror at the prospect that there may be no fundamental meaning or purpose behind the existence of the cosmos.
It is difficult to say at this stage what a new conception of the divine presence will look like. Perhaps this is because only the most fundamentally mysterious and ineffable qualities touched by religious teaching -- some might say the most important -- remain unaffected by human psychological and cultural evolution. These are the aspects of spiritual experience that have always defied description, those which have only been spoken of with paradoxes and koans. We still hear this voice speaking to us; it has not been dampened, but rather still beckons us on to further growth.
Crossposting to my journal and crossposting to
unitarians