Introduction
Religion is however we feel our connections to the universe. Religion can be superstitious or scientific. It can be theistic or atheistic. It can be communal or selfish. Religion is something everyone does, either well or poorly. Religion is our simplified map of world. Philosophy when think about that map, religion is when we feel it.
There are but three religions: and our entire lives are built on one of these three foundations:
There are religions of Fear:
Fundamentalism is what the universe looks like through the lens of fear. Fundamentalism is afraid of change and afraid of strangers. Fundamentalism always feels something has gone terribly wrong. It imagines an angry deity just out of sight. It uses that invisible authority to prove its every claim and justify its every deed. Because it is afraid, fundamentalism seeks power above all else. It wants to “take America back” or “purify the church from impurity.” It understands the world primarily in terms of power, and seeks to put itself or another fundamentalist in charge.
A conservative is not necessarily a fundamentalist by any means. The difference is fear. Conservatives are concerned with living their own lives, fundamentalists cannot leave people who are not like themselves alone. Even a committed atheist can fall into this trap if, instead of building a compassionate nontheistic worldview by its best lights, it keeps returning to its ridicule of religious people.
There are religions of Desire:
While we won’t be looking at self-defense from this kind of religion, it is important not to leave it out. Worldviews built on desire are usually magical, and self-focused. A religion of desire does not learn from the world as it is, but seeks to shape the world in its own image. Ideas and practices are chosen for how they make the practitioner feel. Such religion may consist in a personal practice, in chants, beads or in whatever gives the individual a “buzz.” This is the religion of miracles, fortune tellers and success seminars.
There are religions of Love:
By “love” I mean our felt sense of connectedness to each other and to the natural world. This is the religion of mysticism. “Mysticism” here does not mean “magic” or “supernatural”. Mysticism is an over powering sense of reverence for reality and an awareness that our consciousness emerges from a primordial depth we cannot comprehend.
An astronomer who discovers a new nebula and pauses to say “Wow” is having a mystical moment. Einstein did not believe in a personal God, but used the term “mystical” to imply this dissolving into reverence and interconnectedness. A religion of love can unite the best science and highest reverence, A religion of love can unite the universal and the personal. A religion of love can balance a calling to justice with a deep compassion for all side locked in that struggle.
Self-Defense Course
For the next two weeks we will be looking at scriptures that refute fundamentalism. We will not be assuming our reader are Christian, but that whether Christian or not they are dealing with people who have fundamentally misunderstood the message of Jesus. My hope will be to disarm fundamentalist misuse of scripture and to point out scriptures that call us to tolerance, scientific honesty, personal responsibility and universal humanism.
Warning label: The truth is we are all fundamentalists when we are afraid or frustrated. Fundamentalism is the name we give our primate instincts and the stored memories of fear and shame that fundamentalism seeks to exploit. The purpose of this guide will not be to give you tools to defeat fundamentalists in a debate. That is as easy as it is counter-productive. An embarrassed fundamentalist is even more dangerous. Instead, our purpose will be to keep the fundamentalist who is standing outside of you from triggering the fundamentalist who is hiding inside you.
Jim, I enjoyed your article and found myself anxious to read more. Judging from your sense of mysticism, I’d say you’ve read Abraham Heschel’s _Man Is Not Alone_, yes?
I’m curious about the way you chose to structure the article. When I read the first sentence, I thought “Wow. He’s going to lose 90% of his readers right there.” I happen to agree with it, but I see it as a pill most people won’t swallow without a *lot* of rhetorical coaxing. If I were writing something like this, I’d start innocuously with personal experiences and build up to that zinger in hopes of reeling in those readers closer to the fundamentalist end of the spectrum. Do you think this is a vain hope, or is this article simply not written with those people in mind?
Hugh,
You may be right, but I thought it would be hard to reach out to both ends of that continuum. Fundamentalists are usually wonderful people who do not recognize the abusive nature of that worldview. It’s like domestic violence counselling, if you bend over too far to protect the feelings of the abuser, you aren’t really speaking to the abused. In this article I just want to equip people who understand religion to be a call to love, but are under constant attack by those who see that religion as unscriptural. I think they are both important groups to reach, but I felt I needed to choose between them for this particular piece.
Yes, I’ve read Heschel. I’ve tried to learn from religious sages from all over the world. Thank you for the feedback. Let me know if you think of better ways of saying it. My work is always intended as the first word of a conversation, never the last.
Reminds me of old Admiral Farragut, Sir! An ambitious undertaking which will be applauded by some. Bet you get a lot of hits on this series!
“Philosophy is when we think about that map, religion is when we feel it.” What a beautiful description. So simple, yet I can’t think of a case where it wouldn’t apply. Just amazing.
“That is as easy as it is counter-productive.” Nice.
And the last sentence, the purpose… insighful. All of us needs that. I’m really looking forward to it.
Very needful. I need some passive risistance coaching to push back at aggressive bible bullying.