2 posts tagged “secular”

I really should have mentioned this before, but so slowly am I reading the thought-provoking free ebook "A Guide for the Godless" by the philosopher Andrew Kernohan that I would like to bring your attention to it now, and perhaps we can get some discussion going. The table of contents reads as follows.
     Preface

1. Meaning
2. Purpose
3. Death
4. Self-Realization
5. Pleasure
6. Desires
7. Reasons
8. Emotions
9. Judgements
10. Holism
11. Beliefs
12. Truth
13. Meaninglessness
14. Justice
15. Choice
16. Commitment
17. Culture
18. Happiness
    References
    Index
    

There are brights of many stripes, from the livid hues of vehement anti-religionists like Richard Dawkins, through the pale pastels of more moderate secularists, all the way out to the indistinct colourations of a few religious people who nevertheless welcome the secularization of society. I find myself more in the middle of this muddle, but am beginning to elbow my way to the Dawkins end.

I have an enduring affection for Buddhism, partly because it (can) dispense with supernaturalism, partly for the respect it pays to the individual and the scientific method ("repeat the following experiments and see if you can reproduce the findings"), and partly because of the time I spent living in Japan. My upbringing in an Anglican country, and attendance at a Church of England school from the ages of seven to 11, left me a lingering affection for the Church of England, if not for Anglicanism or even Christianity as a whole. Work by secular Buddhists centers around "transformation and healing", to borrow the title of a book by Thich Nhat Hanh. (From my own understanding of his work, Nhat Hanh cannot be considered a bright, or even a secular Buddhist, but he does seem to welcome a reinterpretation of Buddhism' s basic definitions, claiming for example that reincarnation need not be understood as the preservation of any kind of identity beyond death. This is an important message from a Buddhist leader, because most Buddhists' understanding of reincarnation is indeed of an eternal essence progressing from life to life, in direct contrast to what was taught by the historical Buddha.)

I also occasionally enjoy the work of "radical" theologians such as Spong or Cupitt. Since organised religion is clearly dying and has no place in a decent society, I had thought that by pushing their still-believing flock in a secular direction, such theologians might prevent nasty problems when the death knell finally sounds. I still think they can fulfill such a role, but lately, and here we come to my elbowing, the likes of Spong and Cupitt have got increasingly on my nerves. Cupitt writes very well, but as a "believer" in postmodernism he can only hope to persuade by the eloquence of his writing rather than the coherence of his argument, since postmodernism holds that nothing is true - except for postmodernism.

In general, these people - radical only in relation to their peers, tame in relation to secularists - start strongly. Spong, for example, argues eloquently against the existence of a god external to the universe who can respond supernaturally to the appeals of mortals, and for the example of a fully mortal Jesus as a taboo-breaking radical of great love and equanimity. He clearly demonstrates that the Bible should be read as epic (read mythic) "history" and never never as literal, eternal, or in any way god-given. With this largely admirable background, he praises the ideals and achievements of secular society such as the abolition of slavery, universal sufferage, equality of the genders, races, and sexual orientations.

But having run the marathon, he stumbles at the finishing line by declaring that some new kind of non-organised Christianity must be preserved. Why? Why should it? Having clearly argued that Christianity has contributed only suffering for two millenia (apart from some nice paintings and bits of music) and that any joy has been found beyond - indeed, inspite of - its dehumanizing influence, why do we need it for our future joy and happiness? If Jesus was kind and loving, need we the Bible to become kind and loving too? No, we do not.