Mystical Religions
Mystical Religions
by
Stephen B. Waters
November 17, 1980
Mystical religions have persisted primarily because certain experiences in history have otherwise defied explanation in purely human and physical terms. Mystical rather than natural causes have been required. To do without the supernatural--without heavens or hells--everything must be able to be explained in reasonable human terms. Without that, the implausible just might be plausible and mystical religions our only recourse.
Julian Jaynes, in Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind recently presented plausible explanations that gods and religions could reasonably have their origins in purely human conditions; that contrary to previous opinions, gods are not necessary to explain the past. Only because Jaynes successfully addresses why and how religions might have come about have we the freedom to create and consider an alternative system to avoid the pitfalls that plague the practical application of mystical religions. Mystical religions are:
- Replete with unanswerable questions.
- Without a framework for resolving problems that is both consistently useful and a fair match for reality as we best perceive it.
- Dependent upon faith rather than thoughtfulness for justification.
- Resistant to shucking dogma with which they have been encumbered.
Mystical religions have been put to good use. Even today they focus the will of the people towards decent ends. They have been a unifying force against oppression. Nevertheless, there are so few potent weapons to use against oppression. If you must depend upon dogma and mysticism you are not honing your use of those weapons. Your success depends on a tenuous foundation.
We must extract from mystical religions their lessons of value to express them in terms that are reverent, not for the mystical, but for the purely human.
Many atheists wish to suppress mystical religions. Our purpose is rather to explain it. Once explained and understood, it joins the fantasies--useful fantasies as were those of the later classical Greek periods where gods were used metaphorically and symbolically. While in earlier times the gods were treated as real, in later times they became, as fantasy, a useful mirror for reality and a vehicle for the social lessons of morality.
Resurgence of religiosity is both heartening and distressing. It indicates people are dissatisfied with the system they have contrived for managing their lives. However, rather than synthesize a new framework, many have chosen to embrace an older and unsuccessful framework with increased vigor--as if the problem was not the insufficiency of the framework but the vigor with which it was embraced. The resultant zealotry and fanaticism tend only to increase the instability of an already unstable world.
Practically, we are faced with a potentially difficult transition period. Some will still embrace their mystical religions while others will no longer need them. Religions must be seen by those who are beyond them as to have been valuable in their place and yet still valuable to those who require them.
Those who have valued mystical religion and gone beyond it need not be embarrassed for having had it. To be embarrassed for having lived it would be as childish as to be embarrassed by the inexperienced actions of childhood--both improper and non-productive.
This attitude still allows religion to have value for those people who require it. And, until we are personally threatened by it, we must abide by the wishes of those who embrace it, even though it be to their disadvantage. Enforced re-education is out of the question. All we can do is offer an opportunity for people to learn to take care of themselves better.
Mystical religions are at odds with a fundamental requirement of individuals in a society: they must allow for the possibility that they might be wrong. Processes for detection of error and correction must exist. In mystical religions an individual need not be able to justify his actions. He may abdicate his responsibility with the claim that God told him to do it. God made it right. Who needs to reflect upon the ramifications of what one does when one need only put faith in God and everything will be all right. Praise God and pass the ammunition. God, of course, is on everyone's individual side.
With God on everybody's side, we must resign ourselves to living in a relativistic world with no opportunity for conflict resolution other than force. Mystical religions don't help us deal practically with global affairs. They probably create more problems than they resolve.
While "yes" and "no" are often recognized as satisfactory answers to particular questions. "This is not a good or useful question" often is not. "Does God exist?" is one of those questions. It contributes not one whit to determining how best to face the day to day problems of living:
- How to create a decent standard by which to live.
- How to lay a framework of understanding to help others learn the value of holding on to that standard.
- How to help yourself and others recognize and overcome obstacles to further development.
What mystical religions have done in the past is pass on from generation to generation what the social traditions of the society have been. They have not excelled at explaining why those social traditions are valuable except in such vague terms as that God wants it that way. A better teacher today explains in terms that are clearly understandable to the student why the lesson is personally useful to that student.
Examining mystical religions we trod on tricky ground. For instance, the process of being admirable is the process of being Christian (or whatever religion). However, the admirability of being Christian is, in itself, no testament to the validity of the mysticism of the religion.
Our task is this: What are those positive things for which we use religion? What are those negative things that often and regrettably are associated with religion? Can we duplicate, in purely human terms, those positive aspects of religion while avoiding the negative aspects and also without encumbering ourselves with new negative aspects.
Phrased another way, is a religion expressed in purely human terms a better structure for dealing with reality, as best we see it, than one expressed in mystical terms and with justifications that depend on mystical faith? How do we best avoid the pitfalls of unanswerable questions and notions that require us to adhere to dogma at odds with our experience.
Rehashing religious mysticism is to look for meaning not where there is none, but to look for something outside the scope of our reason. Our reason is our only window to this world--Aren't even our religious experiences known to us only by the resources of our minds? Rehashing religious mysticism is like grinding hamburger: any way you chop it, it is still just beef.
However penetrating or lucid these arguments may be, they must be insufficiently compelling for someone who has faith. Faith says that no matter how much reason you have to believe something it isn't enough--you can't believe in it. More poetically, Malcolm Muggeridge called faith "the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen". That is my definition of fantasy.
Those who have successfully made Kirkegaard's "leap of faith" must decide whether to make the same leap back. We can't leap for them. We can only show the value of it.
|
Copyright 1998 by Stephen B. Waters. This page was last built on 11/25/98; 4:18:08 PM. sbwaters@rny.com At the moment I am using Macintosh OS to work on this website. |