A new book - and one that should provide much food for thought: "How the West Really Lost God" by Mary Eberstadt. It begins with the question, "has the West really become more secular?" which is something that I took for granted, but the author wishes to leave no stones unturned - and in doing so, brings several researchers in to dispute this common belief. "No" they claim, "the West has not lost god, but merely replaced him with images or ideas other than those from traditional Christianity." These ideas, they say, include certain forms of politics (ie, communism) as well as the biggest of all, environmentalism. For these apologists - some of them surprisingly from fields such as neurology - Man has proven to be Homo religiousus - that is, resistant to the press of secularism, even in the face of overwhelming proof against many religious beliefs. Some have taken to look for the "religion gene," with the belief that religion has must have served a positive function in human evolution to continue to endure, and so must be embedded in the gene code. It is not that these people are pro-religion, but rather surprised by the evidence. Any readers of science in the late 19th century will find that the "sensible" man believed that religion held the last traces of superstition for modern humans - and would soon cease. That it has not has made these theorists believe that it must have something to do with encoding, for why else would an otherwise practical man still hold such fantastical beliefs?
But the author knows better - that the religions indigenous to Europe are on the sharp decline, and those that might be thought to replace them cannot really be called "religions" in the traditional sense. The remainder of her book will show how the decline of religion is paralleled precisely with the decline of the traditional family - and how each provides feedback to the other.
I will certainly write more of her thesis in the coming pages - for it will raise such ideas as the State serving as the new family head - and put additional light on such things as abortion, divorce and gay marriage. But here I will speak of my own immediate reaction to her belief that the new notions of spirituality are, indeed, rejections of religion, not merely changes.
It is in Scandinavia, for instance, where we find the greatest decline in traditional religious participation and belief; but are the Scandinavians godless? With my anecdotal reaction, I had to say "no" - rather, that they had instead followed the same path as a collective that I had done personally - that is, rejecting church teachings and church attendance while still thinking of themselves (and myself) as "religious" or at least spiritual. For me - and I like to think for them as well - we were rejecting the authoritarian nature of the Church, while keeping the inner nature of, if not Christ, at least of "spirit." And, although the implosion of Christianity in Europe began in the 1960's (one author put it precisely at 1963), in my own life, it really began earlier, with my parent's generation. Married, decent, liberal and religious church goers, they never-the-less believed that many of the customs of the Church (ours was Catholic) were either outdated or cruelly unfair. Was a man or woman to be damned for having sex outside of marriage (or, say, oral sex inside of marriage)? Or the unwed mother made a pariah, or the woman so desperate that she has to have an abortion to be destined for hell? And hell - would a good god even have everlasting damnation? And so on, bringing us up with such questions - questions that were and are good ones.
At this point in my readings, I still believe what I did last night - that it is not spirituality, at least, that is being lost, but dogmatism in an age of liberal thought. I will revisit this again. I have, though, already begun to question this democratization of religion. My parents gave me doubts about the authority of the Church, but not about the existence of some sort of god (not in youth, anyway), and never the idea that the morality preached by Jesus was anything but sacrosanct. But will these generalized notions continue to exist with the loss of prestige and credibility of the churches?
"God" is already a word, if not a notion, that is seldom proclaimed in public without a sense of embarrassment. And of morality - it is not only church attendance and confession that are mandatory for Catholics, but also fidelity in marriage and the bedrock notion of the sanctity of life of the unborn. In Scandinavia, if not quite yet the US, both are already considered antiquated ideas, or marginal at best. What else might be considered "antiquated" without the constancy of church teachings?
Abbey Hoffman, a '60's radical, wrote a book called "Steal This Book," with the idea that theft is a GOOD thing, as it destroys the capitalist (as he sees it) notion of property. Killing the unborn has slid towards euthanasia, where in Holland some of the old or infirmed are killed without consent - for their own good. And we can continue down the list of the Ten Commandments with like examples.
Is individual conscience enough? Is a nation run by notions held for the hour good enough for the ages? That is, are we wise enough on our own, and as a democratic agglomeration, to rewrite the rules of morality for good and long-lasting effect? More later, FK
But the author knows better - that the religions indigenous to Europe are on the sharp decline, and those that might be thought to replace them cannot really be called "religions" in the traditional sense. The remainder of her book will show how the decline of religion is paralleled precisely with the decline of the traditional family - and how each provides feedback to the other.
I will certainly write more of her thesis in the coming pages - for it will raise such ideas as the State serving as the new family head - and put additional light on such things as abortion, divorce and gay marriage. But here I will speak of my own immediate reaction to her belief that the new notions of spirituality are, indeed, rejections of religion, not merely changes.
It is in Scandinavia, for instance, where we find the greatest decline in traditional religious participation and belief; but are the Scandinavians godless? With my anecdotal reaction, I had to say "no" - rather, that they had instead followed the same path as a collective that I had done personally - that is, rejecting church teachings and church attendance while still thinking of themselves (and myself) as "religious" or at least spiritual. For me - and I like to think for them as well - we were rejecting the authoritarian nature of the Church, while keeping the inner nature of, if not Christ, at least of "spirit." And, although the implosion of Christianity in Europe began in the 1960's (one author put it precisely at 1963), in my own life, it really began earlier, with my parent's generation. Married, decent, liberal and religious church goers, they never-the-less believed that many of the customs of the Church (ours was Catholic) were either outdated or cruelly unfair. Was a man or woman to be damned for having sex outside of marriage (or, say, oral sex inside of marriage)? Or the unwed mother made a pariah, or the woman so desperate that she has to have an abortion to be destined for hell? And hell - would a good god even have everlasting damnation? And so on, bringing us up with such questions - questions that were and are good ones.
At this point in my readings, I still believe what I did last night - that it is not spirituality, at least, that is being lost, but dogmatism in an age of liberal thought. I will revisit this again. I have, though, already begun to question this democratization of religion. My parents gave me doubts about the authority of the Church, but not about the existence of some sort of god (not in youth, anyway), and never the idea that the morality preached by Jesus was anything but sacrosanct. But will these generalized notions continue to exist with the loss of prestige and credibility of the churches?
"God" is already a word, if not a notion, that is seldom proclaimed in public without a sense of embarrassment. And of morality - it is not only church attendance and confession that are mandatory for Catholics, but also fidelity in marriage and the bedrock notion of the sanctity of life of the unborn. In Scandinavia, if not quite yet the US, both are already considered antiquated ideas, or marginal at best. What else might be considered "antiquated" without the constancy of church teachings?
Abbey Hoffman, a '60's radical, wrote a book called "Steal This Book," with the idea that theft is a GOOD thing, as it destroys the capitalist (as he sees it) notion of property. Killing the unborn has slid towards euthanasia, where in Holland some of the old or infirmed are killed without consent - for their own good. And we can continue down the list of the Ten Commandments with like examples.
Is individual conscience enough? Is a nation run by notions held for the hour good enough for the ages? That is, are we wise enough on our own, and as a democratic agglomeration, to rewrite the rules of morality for good and long-lasting effect? More later, FK
RSS Feed