Utne Reader, 2nd assignment

I would like to comment on three articles, because they are all related, and give different but perhaps connected perspectives on one facet of human existence -- the spiritual.

In "The Divine Revolution" Vaclav Havel, the poet-president of the Czech Republic, tries to find a solution to humanity's headlong race toward self-destruction. He mentions the population explosion, the destruction of the environment, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the fact that we do not "touch the seed from which the threats ... sprout, but merely try to diminish their impact." He also says that "rising production is considered to be the main sign of national success, not only in poor states where such a position could be justified, but also in wealthy ones, which are cutting the branch on which they sit with their ideology of indefinitely prolonged and senseless growth."

Havel also feels that the religious systems that dominate the world are stressing their differences, and moving toward armed conflict; and that the civilization within which all this is taking place is a deeply atheistic one -- the first ever atheistic civilization. He thinks, however, that all the major faiths share a fundamental idea that this world and our existence in it are not "freaks of chance," but rather purposeful, although not totally understood by human minds. He thinks that searching for what unites various religions is possibly the best hope for us to discover and carry out our shared responsibility for this planet.

Ken Wilbur also speaks of the spiritual dimension -- however, not as an antidote to global disaster. He explores relationship of science and religion, and the integration of various "wisdom traditions." I found some of his comments fascinating. For instance, he mentions that not so long ago, morals, science, and art were fused, so they couldn't pursue "their own truths." He mentions Michelangelo not being able to paint something the Church did not approve of; Galileo having to curtail some of his scientific pursuits in order not to offend the Church. (I think Galileo was imprisoned for just such an offense.) Wilbur says that the "dignity" of the West stems from the differentiation of these three spheres -- that each has been set free to pursue its own truth, so that a higher integration among them is eventually possible. If Wilbur is right, and Havel is right, then this differentiation is needed before our common ground can be pursued. I think of an article I read in the latest Atlantic Monthly about Islam, and the difficulties (life threats, banishment, even death) encountered when people try to study the Koran critically, as the Bible has been in the last century (historical criticism, source criticism, etc.) This certainly is a major stumbling block to differentiation and finding common ground. Another comment that Wilbur made that was interesting had to with pre-rational and transcendental states, and the difficulty with knowing which is which: "...either you tend to reduce genuine, transrational or mystical states to prerational, infantile crap, as Freud did, or you take the New Age approach, which is to take any sort of prerational silliness and elevate it to transcendental glory. In other words, if it's not rational it must be God, which is simply wrong. Half the stuff that's not rational is a real nightmare and keeps people stuck in narcissism and self-absorption. They never move from egocentric to sociocentric into worldcentric, or truly transcendental, states of awareness." And finally, (this will be short), "God with a Million Faces" speaks of the tendency of many people to take what they like from various religious expressions and beliefs, and fashion their own unique "religion." Many of the religious leaders of various faiths who were interviewed seemed to view this negatively, citing different aspects: a "reflection of greediness and consumerism;" the lack of community, in some instances, because a "crucial aspect of religion is that it makes us relate to other people in a meaningful and sacred way;" advice to one of the leaders that she should "give up assembling my own faith out of the greatest hits of the ages," because any religion she could construct herself would never be bigger than she was. However, the author of the article found this a positive trend, because in it we can see the "primal impulse toward faith, which may be the deepest unity underlying all religions." And if this is so, perhaps Vaclav Havel's proposal to save humanity and the planet has hope.

-- Anonymous, January 02, 1999

Answers

Hi Christine! I did not choose to read any of the articles you did. Interesting to read your comments. Yes, there seems to be a lot of people taking out of religions what is comfortable for them and denying the rest. That's even happening in our small-town, fairly conservative churches in this area. People, generally speaking, are truly searching. What are people putting their faith in if they are creating their own religion? Themselves? Some thought that the world is going to end the second we hit 2000? I have a hard time with all of the New Age stuff. I'm your basic, old-fashioned Christian and do think that God makes everything seem rational. He is the One who I put my faith in and with that faith, I have gotten through and continue to get through some tough days.

-- Anonymous, January 05, 1999