“This new worldview is emerging from a number of streams of thought: the new physics; liberation theology; feminist theology; the reflections of psychologist Carl Jung and paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin; process philosophers such as Alfred North Whitehead, Charles Hartshrone, John Cobb, and David Ray Griffin; …the Buddhists Thich Nhat Hanh and Joanna Macy; and many Native American religions. The integral view of reality sees everything as having an outer and an inner aspect.
“Heaven and earth are seen here as the inner and outer aspects of a single reality. This integral worldview affirms spirit at the core of every created thing. But this inner spiritual reality is inextricably related to an outer form or physical manifestation. This new worldview takes seriously all the aspects of the ancient worldview, but combines them in a different way. Both worldviews use spatial imagery. The idea of heaven as ‘up’ is a natural, almost unavoidable way of indicating transcendence. But if the world turns, there is no longer an ‘up’ anywhere in the universe, just as north is no more ‘up’ than south is ‘down…’
“In this worldview, soul permeates the universe. God is not just within me, but within everything. The universe is suffused with the divine. This is not pantheism, where everything is God [sic], but panentheism (pan, everything; en, in; theos, God [sic]), where everything is in God [sic] and God [sic] in everything. Spirit is at the heart of everything, and all creatures are potential revealers of God [sic].”
(From Walter Wink’s The Powers That Be, pages 19-20.)
“In reaction to materialism, theologians created or postulated a supernatural realm. Acknowledging that this higher realm could not be known by the senses, they conceded earthly reality to science and preserved a privileged ‘spiritual’ realm immune to confirmation or refutation. The materialists were only too glad to concede to the theologians the ‘heavenly’ realm, since they did not believe it existed anyway. The slogan that many clergy were taught in seminaries was ‘Science tell us how the world was created, religion tells us why.’ This means splitting reality in two and hermetically sealing off theology from the discoveries of science and science from the wisdom of theology…
“In a world inundated with scientific data and discoveries, [virtually all the great theologians of the twentieth century] have not been interested in science. The price paid for this schizoid view of reality was the loss of a sense of the whole and the unity of heavenly and earthly aspects of existence.”
(From Walter Wink’s The Powers That Be, p.18-19.)
Liberal religious webloggers now have a site of their own: Unitarian Universalists Blogs. If you’re UU and you blog, you should join. And then post something like this handy little graphic on your weblog: 
While you’re there, be sure to gratuitously thank My Dog Wants to Be on the Radio. His coding ability is responsible, and he hopes to rally us toward some sort of group weblog in the future. (Something like Crooked Timber or more like a parsed version of TopicExchange?)
Speaking of TopicExchange, I’ve just started up a UU channel there. MovableType bloggers can ping http://topicexchange.com/t/unitarian_universalist/ and their posts will automatically get added to the RSS feed. (I’ve set it so only my god stuff gets added.) If you haven’t moved on up to MovableType yet, you can still enter your UU weblog posts here.
(Aside: MIchael–could we turn that RSS feed into that group weblog? I know it’s technically possible, but unfortunately that means I also know I have no business even trying…)
“This view became prominent during the Enlightenment, but is as old as Democritus (who died about 370 BCE). In many ways it is the antithesis of the world-rejection of spiritualism. The materialist view claims that there is no heaven, no spiritual world, no God, no soul; nothing but what can be known though the five senses and reason. The spiritual world is an illusion. There is no higher self; we are mere complexes of matter, and when we die we cease to exist except as the chemicals and atoms that once constituted us. Matter is ultimate. There is a ‘hard’ or philosophical materialism that sees the universe as devoid of spirit, and a ‘soft’ materialism associated with consumerism, self-gratification, and an absense of spiritual values. It is also the dominant ethos of most universities, the media, and culture as a whole. Since there can be no intrinsic meaning to the universe, people have to create values, purposes, and meanings for themselves…
“Materialism has in fact become so pervasive in modern society that it is virtually identified with the scientific point of view, even though the new physics has moved beyond materialism into a reenchanted universe.”
(From Walter Wink’s The Powers That Be, p.17-18.)
07.16.03 | Permalink | Comments Off on The spiritualist worldview (2 of 5)
“In the second century CE, a new worldview emerged, one that radically challenged the Judeo-Christian notion that creation is basically good. In this worldview, creation was the fall. Spirit is good, matter is evil. The world is a prison into which spirits have fallen from the good heaven. Having become trapped in bodies, these spirits became subject to the deformed and ignorant Powers that rule the world of matter. Consequently, sex, the body, and earthly life in general were considered evil. The religious task was to rescue one’s spirit from the flesh…
“This worldview is historically associated with religions such as Gnosticism and Manichaeism, philosophies such as Neoplatonism, and the sexual attitudes we associate, however unfairly, with Puritanism. It continues to be a powerful factor today in spiritualism, sexual hang-ups, eating disorders, negative self-images, and the rejection of one’s body.”
(From Walter Wink’s The Powers That Be, p.16-17.)
07.16.03 | Permalink | Comments Off on Truth & consequences
Replies the Happy Tutor:
Take the 25 years that this discussion has preoccupied the humanities. During that time the PC was invented, the Internet came alive, the human genome was mapped, and our posterity sold. Whatever concept of truth those folks are using is not God, but good enough for practical purposes. The payoff in the humanities for trivializing truth is what? What has been gained? Undermining the Father, who died long ago.
But even dead gods cast shadows. If by “Truth” you mean “good enough for practical purposes,” then you and I are in fundamental agreement. But then we are also pragmatists and not postmodernists. And we are talking of “truths” not “Truth.” (Richard Rorty and Gary Sauer-Thompson applaud us.)
I am upset by “Truth” not because of anything the last few decades of the humanities have put forward (although I find them helpful) but because of what “Truth” does to people. I contend that “Truth” is an idol that leads to sin. It purports to have a God’s™ eye view when none is available. It demands false pride as its sacrifice, and where there is pride there will follow abuse. In short, “Truth” lies.
My charge against “Truth” is not epistemological; it is ethical and theological — what I am raising is the question of praxis. “Good enough for practical purposes” is fine. But wouldn’t “good enough for eudaimonia” or “good enough for shalom” be better? If we have notions like eudaimonia or shalom, why do we need “Truth?”
The cause of postmodern discourse is theological: the dead God™. But the postmodernists evade the theological question for the epistemological and antimetaphysical. As you say, we must call upon the muses for new narratives in the meantime. A return to polytheism, or at least to henotheism. But who shall be our gods? I am reminded of Sam Delaney’s Neveryon series. The gods of that port city are nameless craftfolk doing their best to perfect their universe, each according to his ability — a pragmatist pantheon to be sure. Yet on the perimeter of the city-state roam named, known (and knowing) monsters who enforce the borders and demand blood sacrifices. How are we to evade that pantheon?
I am not trying to revive (or prolong) the Truth game. Far from it. I’m trying instead to reframe the question as a more constructive theological one: Which god shall we serve? and, Who shall we become? If the humanities had asked these questions, perhaps the last thirty years would have been more productive. At least scitech knows what it’s going for, eh?
« Previous Entries
» Next Entries
