So, here's Cox's way of dividing Christian history into three periods.
The first is the Age of Faith. Starts with Jesus and his immediate followers. "'Faith' meant hope and assurance in the dawning of a new era of freedom, healing, and compassion that Jesus had demonstrated. To be a Christian meant to live in his Spirit, embrace his hope, and to follow him in the work that he had begun."
The second is the Age of Belief which began as early as a few decades after Jesus lived, when church leaders began "formulating orientation programs" where a set of beliefs were created in order to initiate new recruits. The way Cox puts it, these sets of beliefs grew into something that replaced "faith *in* Jesus with tenets *about* him." A clerical caste formed to assert one set of beliefs over another, yet to an extent the different Christian communities were still held together by a common "Spirit". And the real turning point came when Emperor Constantine made Christianity legal and Emperor Theodosius made it the official religion of the Roman Empire, in the 4th century. Tenets were codified and belief became synonymous with membership, and hence with political/legal status. "Heresy became treason and treason became heresy." We know the rest of that story.
The third is what Cox calls the "Age of the Spirit". Cox goes into the history of that phrase, tracing it back to a Christian mystic in the 13th century. But basically the idea is that people today (beginning, say, 50 or 60 years ago) are increasingly distancing themselves from "religion" and describing themselves as "spiritual". So, they are more interested in "a way of life rather than a doctrinal structure". Cox claims that this is a wide and increasingly common sentiment that's mostly developing within/out of religious traditions including Christianity. This is why charismatic congregations are one of the few groups growing in the U.S., and why Christianity in Asia, a Christianity that emphasizes experience rather than doctrine, is growing like gang-busters.
Cox is saying that we are going through a transition, where Christian fundamentalism is declining and faith is no longer synonymous with believing the right thing as much as living a certain kind of life. A sort of return to the Age of Faith.
Sounds familiar.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Saturday, January 30, 2010
The Future of Faith: Belief/Faith
This may not be new to anyone else, but I found Harvey Cox's distinction between belief and faith to be helpful (*The Future of Faith*, pg. 3): "Faith is about deep-seated confidence...Belief, on the other hand, is more like opinion...Beliefs can be held lightly or with emotional intensity, but they are more propositional than existential. We can *believe* something to be true without it making much difference to us, but we place our *faith* only in something that is vital for the way we live."
He goes on to talk about a short story by Miguel Unamuno. A man is at his mother's deathbed, in the presence of a priest, and she asks him to pray for her. He doesn't answer and he and the priest leave the room. The man tells the priest that he would like to pray for his mother but he can't because he doesn't believe in god. "That's nonsense," says the priest. "You don't have to believe in God to pray."
I'm not sure why, but that story has made quite an impression on me. I keep thinking about it. The point of the story, for Cox, is to illustrate the distinction between belief and faith that he's trying to make. I'm not sure if the distinction is real, but I'm somehow comforted by the idea that one doesn't have to believe in god to pray. From the perspective of an atheist who's primary devotion is to rationality, this would be just silly. And from the perspective of religious fundamentalism, this also is silly.
But. Still.
He goes on to talk about a short story by Miguel Unamuno. A man is at his mother's deathbed, in the presence of a priest, and she asks him to pray for her. He doesn't answer and he and the priest leave the room. The man tells the priest that he would like to pray for his mother but he can't because he doesn't believe in god. "That's nonsense," says the priest. "You don't have to believe in God to pray."
I'm not sure why, but that story has made quite an impression on me. I keep thinking about it. The point of the story, for Cox, is to illustrate the distinction between belief and faith that he's trying to make. I'm not sure if the distinction is real, but I'm somehow comforted by the idea that one doesn't have to believe in god to pray. From the perspective of an atheist who's primary devotion is to rationality, this would be just silly. And from the perspective of religious fundamentalism, this also is silly.
But. Still.
Friday, January 22, 2010
The Great Abiding
I'm thinking of converting to Dudeism: http://www.dudeism.com/. If I ever get around to it.
Check out the musing on what makes a religion in "The Take it Easy Manifesto." And "Duderonomy" has some good tips for abiding. If you've seen the *The Big Lebowski* that is. If you haven't, your first step to taking it easy is renting it. But that's just, like, my opinion man.
Check out the musing on what makes a religion in "The Take it Easy Manifesto." And "Duderonomy" has some good tips for abiding. If you've seen the *The Big Lebowski* that is. If you haven't, your first step to taking it easy is renting it. But that's just, like, my opinion man.
Society without God (4): Why?
[This is the last post on *Society without God* and I just want to repeat that the point of all of this is not to say that we'd all be better off living in a Denmark or a Sweden. Or that we should try to actively create a non-believing society. The point is just to be well informed about what is actually happening in other countries, about what is possible, and to make certain fundamentalist claims obsolete. Like, you can't be good without god, or you can't live a meaningful life without belief in an afterlife, or you can't have a healthy society without god.]
Zuckerman gives a run-down on the theories out there about why Denmark and Sweden are so secular (pgs. 110-119).
1. Lazy Monopolies: "When there are many different religions in a given society--with none of them being state subsidized--interest and involvement in religion will be high. Conversely, when there is only one dominant religion in a given society--and it is subsidized by the state--interest and involvement in religion will be low." So, free market type competition is good and the various religions and denominations over-all do a better job of creating a believing populace. In Denmark, Lutheranism has been "consistently state-enforced and state subsidized." Sweden also has a national Church, although it official split from the government in 2000.
2. Secure Societies: "When the bulk of people in a given society experience a low degree of security, they tend to be more religious. Conversely, when the bulk of people in a given society experience a high degree of security, they tend to be less religious." In Denmark and Sweden, poverty and starvation are almost non-existent. Almost everyone has decent housing, health care, food, and education. And in the Global Peace Index of 2009 (http://www.visionofhumanity.org/) takes into account homicide rates, violent crime, human rights, political instability, etc.), Denmark ties Norway at number 2 and Sweden comes in at 6. The US comes in at 83 out of 144 countries.
3. Working Women: "Women are more religious than men, on all measures...Prior to the 1960s, the vast majority of Danish and Swedish women were engaged in unpaid domestic work as mothers and housewives...Today, the vast majority of Danish and Swedish women work outside the home...Danish women currently have the highest employment frequency in the labor market in the world." So the thinking is, since women are working outside of the home more, they are less concerned with religion and less of an influence on their families. This isn't offered as an explanation for a cause of secularization, but is supposed to partly explain why it has "accelerated or deepen[ed] it."
4. Lack of a Need for Cultural Defense: "Over the course of the last several centuries, Danes and Swedes have never been extensively oppressed or dominated by a foreign conqueror, especially one of a different faith."
5. Education: "Sociological studies have consistently shown that the more educated a person is, the less likely he or she is to accept supernatural religious beliefs." Sweden and Denmark have highly educated populations, and they have among the highest literacy rates in the world (something like 99%).
Zuckerman gives a run-down on the theories out there about why Denmark and Sweden are so secular (pgs. 110-119).
1. Lazy Monopolies: "When there are many different religions in a given society--with none of them being state subsidized--interest and involvement in religion will be high. Conversely, when there is only one dominant religion in a given society--and it is subsidized by the state--interest and involvement in religion will be low." So, free market type competition is good and the various religions and denominations over-all do a better job of creating a believing populace. In Denmark, Lutheranism has been "consistently state-enforced and state subsidized." Sweden also has a national Church, although it official split from the government in 2000.
2. Secure Societies: "When the bulk of people in a given society experience a low degree of security, they tend to be more religious. Conversely, when the bulk of people in a given society experience a high degree of security, they tend to be less religious." In Denmark and Sweden, poverty and starvation are almost non-existent. Almost everyone has decent housing, health care, food, and education. And in the Global Peace Index of 2009 (http://www.visionofhumanity.org/) takes into account homicide rates, violent crime, human rights, political instability, etc.), Denmark ties Norway at number 2 and Sweden comes in at 6. The US comes in at 83 out of 144 countries.
3. Working Women: "Women are more religious than men, on all measures...Prior to the 1960s, the vast majority of Danish and Swedish women were engaged in unpaid domestic work as mothers and housewives...Today, the vast majority of Danish and Swedish women work outside the home...Danish women currently have the highest employment frequency in the labor market in the world." So the thinking is, since women are working outside of the home more, they are less concerned with religion and less of an influence on their families. This isn't offered as an explanation for a cause of secularization, but is supposed to partly explain why it has "accelerated or deepen[ed] it."
4. Lack of a Need for Cultural Defense: "Over the course of the last several centuries, Danes and Swedes have never been extensively oppressed or dominated by a foreign conqueror, especially one of a different faith."
5. Education: "Sociological studies have consistently shown that the more educated a person is, the less likely he or she is to accept supernatural religious beliefs." Sweden and Denmark have highly educated populations, and they have among the highest literacy rates in the world (something like 99%).
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Society without God (3): Meaning of Life
Page 69: Zuckerman asks his interviewees, "Aren't contemporary Scandinavians vexed by the existential mysteries of life?" Jonas, quoted in the previous post, "The meaning of life, I think, is just to have a good life for myself and the people I care about. All this making the world a better place--I don't know. Because we as humanity really just screw it up so bad." Tina, Stockholm, 39, atheist, "But there is meaning everywhere...I mean, I think the very idea that there is a God up there telling us what to do and playing with us like pawns is absolutely horrible. It's another thing: I don't think people really need meaning. I think you work out your own meaning...And if you can't do that, you'd really better get yourself a better life [laughter]." Tyge, 62, Copenhagen, "[Life] has no special meaning. People try to find some special meaning. We are born, we live, and we die. Somebody has a good life, somebody has a bad life." What gives Tyge meaning personally? "First of all, my wife and my daughter--my family. My friends are dead, but my family is the most important thing." Maja, 28, Danish, "I'm not sure there is a meaning. There doesn't have to be really...It's just...something we're going through. I don't know why." How does it make Maja feel? "Um-m-m...in a way relief, because then...because then you don't have to think about it--has to be a meaning--it doesn't matter if there's no meaning about it." Lars, 43, Danish, "[Long pause]...I don't know, I think...the meaning is to be with other people...be nice to other people, nice to your family, have an interesting job, and I really have an interesting job, I think [he's a journalist]. But sometimes you can ask yourself, now you are here what are you going to do? Do something, you know, so that when we get to the end you can say I did something good for other people." Vibeke, 33, Copenhagen, "The meaning of life is living your life and having a good life, and you should not be waiting for something afterwards." Hjordis, 68, widow, Copenhagen, "There is no meaning." What keeps her living? "Good neighbors, friends, music, computer, everything--flowers, the garden."
Isak, 69, physician, agnostic, "I would say that it's been a pleasure to live. I mean my whole life, it's a long time, I had a lot of very pleasant feelings and experiences and a lot of ...yes, of course, you can be sad and be in bad situations and some people even take their life because they think that the life is not worth living. But in principle, the life is a gift to everybody and it's nice to have it. You don't need to have a sort of continuation of it, and I also have difficulties understanding what would then be the next life? If after this life, what would happen and how would that be? If everybody that had lived on the earth suffers and also this question of eternal life. I mean, eternal life is really something the worst that would happen to everybody. They never have the possibility to die, I mean for all time to be living. That is horrible."
Leif, 75, Gothenburg, "I don't think--I don't know if there's any meaning in life. I enjoy life. I enjoy making the things I do. I made a dictionary--English-Swedish-Yiddish--a half a year ago. It's very good, if I do say so myself. And I work as a publisher still...my wife, 16 years ago she got a stroke and she was a very weak person, but when my wife went ill, then I got stronger, in a way--so I got some strength--I don't know from where. I even wrote a book--I had a diary for the first year of when my wife was ill. So I didn't get depressed. And I even published it and it was a success." (I'm adding a big 'sic' to all of these direct quotations of non-native English speakers.)
Again, these responses were typical for his interviews. Many answers were very short--they just didn't think about the meaning of life.
Zuckerman brings up again the common assertion that a deep desire for meaning in life is a human universal. This is not the case. And what does this say about the need for religion? People want traditions sure. Traditions and ceremonies. But belief in a personal god and an afterlife? Also, Zuckerman points out that in Scandinavia, apathy towards the meaning of life doesn't breed deep apathy or indifference about the life they live. "Danish and Swedish culture is not characterized by widespread nihilism."
Isak, 69, physician, agnostic, "I would say that it's been a pleasure to live. I mean my whole life, it's a long time, I had a lot of very pleasant feelings and experiences and a lot of ...yes, of course, you can be sad and be in bad situations and some people even take their life because they think that the life is not worth living. But in principle, the life is a gift to everybody and it's nice to have it. You don't need to have a sort of continuation of it, and I also have difficulties understanding what would then be the next life? If after this life, what would happen and how would that be? If everybody that had lived on the earth suffers and also this question of eternal life. I mean, eternal life is really something the worst that would happen to everybody. They never have the possibility to die, I mean for all time to be living. That is horrible."
Leif, 75, Gothenburg, "I don't think--I don't know if there's any meaning in life. I enjoy life. I enjoy making the things I do. I made a dictionary--English-Swedish-Yiddish--a half a year ago. It's very good, if I do say so myself. And I work as a publisher still...my wife, 16 years ago she got a stroke and she was a very weak person, but when my wife went ill, then I got stronger, in a way--so I got some strength--I don't know from where. I even wrote a book--I had a diary for the first year of when my wife was ill. So I didn't get depressed. And I even published it and it was a success." (I'm adding a big 'sic' to all of these direct quotations of non-native English speakers.)
Again, these responses were typical for his interviews. Many answers were very short--they just didn't think about the meaning of life.
Zuckerman brings up again the common assertion that a deep desire for meaning in life is a human universal. This is not the case. And what does this say about the need for religion? People want traditions sure. Traditions and ceremonies. But belief in a personal god and an afterlife? Also, Zuckerman points out that in Scandinavia, apathy towards the meaning of life doesn't breed deep apathy or indifference about the life they live. "Danish and Swedish culture is not characterized by widespread nihilism."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)