This N.Y. Times story will become more and more common. As long as “religion” is a synonymn for cultural conformity and pre-scientific thinking more and more people will wake up wanting something more.
Religion is not what a culture deems it. It is not churches, crosses, temples, dogmas or particular rituals. Religion is the sacred poetry of life. It is celebrating the circle of life all along the way. Religion does not require belief in the supernatural. It does not require us to believe untestable propositions, or perform irrational acts in the name of our sect. Instead, religion is stopping briefly when the sun rises and sets. It is looking in wonder into the eyes of an infant and seeing the universe made manifest. Religion is pausing at the death of a friend, or stranger, and teaching children that they, too, belong to the circle of life.
In the West, religion has been falsely associated with supernaturalism, theism, creationism, sexism, and all kinds of isms. It is understandable and, in fact, admirable that people would reject that version of religion. Unless Christianity goes through a reformation more radical than Luther or Calvin ever imagined it will continue to lose its best and brightest. There is nothing irreligious about being an atheist, Buddha could be called an atheist. But how poor will our lives be when our masses live without reverence shared in community?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/magazine/from-bible-belt-pastor-to-atheist-leader.html?_r=1
Interesting post; I’m not sure I’m clear on your concern about “the masses liv[ing] without reverence shared in community.” You indicate that leaving the trappings of the western concept of religion has nothing to do with all the good stuff you cover in paragraph 2 (what I’ve always heard of as “being present in the moment”)
If those are the real goals of true religion, then the first step for the proponents would be to leave the priest class, the buildings, and the constant assumption that donations should be forth-coming. Move as peers with what was once thought of as the “flock,” but is probably better termed the “human family.” Leave off teaching myths and fables (often valuable myths and fables) to children as history and science–actually leave off teaching children anything at all, try to learn a thing or seven instead. At this point, you don’t have to call yourself an athiest, but, by your fruit, as it were, you’ll be indistinguishable from them.
* My “yous,” aren’t directed at you specifically, Jim, I only know you from facebook posts.
Jad,
Excellent questions. I do believe that religious hierarchy must be dismantled if religion is to be healthy, but communities of size can be helped by someone who co-ordinates the life of the group. So part of my life as a clergy is helping plan and co-ordinate community events that would be quite a burden for volunteers.In the Presbyterian system I am co-equal with the elected representatives of the church. In our system, no one person has power over others at least in theory. I do not wear a robe and any who serve the community in worship wear simple stoles if anything at all.
Having to pay for a building does create burdens and temptations for a community, but, but so does meeting in a field.
I think we can teach that the stories of religion are not historically or scientifically true, without losing their worth as sacred poetry. By “sacred” I mean representing what we value most. I understand the need to purge superstition, but stories touch us in a way that essays do not. In addition to teaching children to think for themselves, we must also teach them to care for other people, and to face life with courage. Stories give children a kind of concrete vocabulary for addressing experiences like trust, fairness and love that would be very hard for a child to share if they were presented as abstractions.
I am only indistinguishable from an atheist if they also live in intimate community, spend the night in hospitals with people as they face death, empower children to live fully and celebrate life, and dedicate their community to the service of the world. I do not see atheism and religion as opposed in any way. The Dalai Lama does not personify the mystery of life, neither did Buddha, but I would consider them both religious. I’m sure you can have every virture of a religious person and still be an atheist. But I also believe that I can have every virtue of an atheist and still call myself “religious.”
Jim