Universal Spiritualism – Woo Or A Merging Of Science And Religion?


The Origin of Religion
A Sermon
by
James Ishmael Ford
Patheos
February 10, 2019

In O&I’s treatment of this essay, this sermon, I am trying something different. I have invited three friends with expertise in evolutionary anthropology, economics, and sociology to comment and engage in a written discussion. Of the three commenters/discussants, one has experience as a former Christian theology student at a seminary and another as a former Christian cult member.

It is hoped the three discussants’ comments will lead to a far-ranging discussion about matters brought up in the sermon in the following areas:

-         The origin(s) of religion;

-         The validity of the claim that modern spiritualism is making religion more universal and less culture-bound and tribal;

-         That universalist spiritualism may be the only hope for Humankind’s survival;

-         The current and future relationship between our scientific understanding of material reality and the spiritual reality of religion.

As always, all other O&I regulars and visitors are also welcome to comment and join the discussion. All comments are below.

What follows is an introduction to the above-linked sermon.

~ ~ ~

James Ishmael Ford is an American Zen Buddhist priest and retired Unitarian Universalist minister. He was born in Oakland, California in 1948 and holds a BA in psychology from Sonoma State University. He also has a Master of Divinity degree and a Master of Arts in the Philosophy of Religion degree, both from the Pacific School of Religion. For more about Ford see here.

In his sermon Ford claims that there is a growing unbound-by-culture unity among many of the religious believers of the world. That is, a growing spiritual approach to religion and reality that is contending with older, culture-bound book-centered religions. He further claims that this new, emerging view is one where religious or spiritual beliefs are compatible with, in fact intertwined with, material reality. And that this provides common ground for unifying the world’s people who hold disparate religious beliefs. Finally, Ford claims, this universalization may be the only hope for Humankind’s survival as a species.

Jewish Portugese-Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) held a pantheist view that God was nature, nature was God. That is, God was not the Abrahamic God rather it was all things inherent in the natural processes of the cosmos. Einstein declared he believed in Spinoza’s god. Pantheism of this sort and its kin panpsychism have their adherents today. See here, here and here.

Even renowned American philosopher Thomas Nagel, a self-avowed atheist, takes a swing at material reductionist accounts of the mind, consciousness, soul, or spirit. He claims the mind-body problem of consciousness is not just a local problem but “invades our understanding of the entire cosmos and its history.” See this review of his 2012 book, Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False, a book that infuriated many scientists and philosophers.

What’s going on here? What is Ford telling his congregation? What is he telling the rest of us?

~ ~ ~

Here’s a synopsis of and very brief comment on Ford’s sermon:

Ford rightly claims that religion has been an integral part of each society’s culture for the vast majority of cultural evolutionary time. He claims, again correctly, that “no one has ever succeeded in fully untangling religion from the rest of the mess of human lives in specific cultural contexts.” And that “religions have always been tied up with the transmission of culture, reinforcing the various ways in which people identify themselves and, critically, separate themselves from others.”

In the African context which I am most familiar, what Ford says is true.

In a section of my book Circumcision and Coffee in Uganda, “Above All, the Supernatural,” I describe religion as the repository and integrating force of the indigenous African worldview. That is, religion in pre-Islamic and pre-Christian contact sub-Saharan Africa was pervasive, something far more than a compartmentalized subset of culture.

Traditionally, I wrote, sub-Saharan Africans approach life – the biological, social, religious - simultaneously. The basis, the foundation of traditional African culture is religion within which all their beliefs, values, and behaviors about nature, work, social life, morality and virtue have life and meaning. As one elder of the Bamasaaba of eastern Uganda put it: A traditionalist Mumasaaba individual “lives his/her religion with conviction” as a “cultural institution in which one lives and through which one dwells in constant relation to the Divine.” This is still true of the traditional worldview of the vast majority of rural sub-Saharan Africans.

However, contemporary Africa-wide religious beliefs and practices, especially among the urban and educated, are an amalgam of traditional and Christian or traditional and Islamic ideas and behaviors. There is very little in all of Africa of the religious universalization that Ford speaks of. I think his notion of universalistic spiritualism is a dubious Western phenomenon to the degree he is correct, and far from the global movement or process he claims or, more likely, hopes for.

Ford further states that “with the birth of Buddhism, then a bit later Christianity, and lastly Islam, we find missionary religions. They no doubt carry with them cultural elements from their places of origin. Lots. But they mostly bring certain ‘big ideas’ at their heart that are meant to be shared with the whole world.”

Ford argues that this “untangling” of religion from its cultural milieu can help us understand “that part of what it means to be human that we call religious or spiritual.” That in looking at religion in this de-cultured, untangled sense we can “examine the parts of religion in hope of understanding the whole.” What he claims emerges when we do so is a “’purer’ distillation at the heart of the matter,” what religion really is and is becoming.

Ford claims that a new Axial Age began with the 18th Century European Enlightenment and was followed by the emergence of a “modern interreligious dialogue.” And from this he claims that “a new whole is emerging. Something totally unexpected. Like a new dawn, a world perspective. If you will a universalism.” He then regrettably notes that such a global, non-cultural religiosity or spirituality must still contend with the older, culture-tied religions. In this struggle he offers little hope for resolution claiming that he “can’t put money on our species surviving for a whole lot longer.”

Finally, here is the crux of Ford’s argument:

I think the spiritual at the heart of it, the secret truth that floats through all religions, that universalist current sometimes held up, sometimes scorned and suppressed, but always present is a knowing that within all our diversity there is some mysterious unity. And, frankly, I think it is our only hope for survival as a species.

If there is a universalism emerging within a new Axial, it is this. Each thing as it arises, you, me, a rock, a star is precious and beautiful. And. It, that you, that me, that star arises out of a profoundly connected web of relationships. That web itself is simply the relationship of things, coming together, holding for a moment, falling away. But each thing [that] it presents is the universe itself. And, we human beings, blessed beyond all reason, get to notice this.

He closes his sermon with this:

The truth has always been there.

Hidden in plain sight.

You want to know the origin of religion?

“To see a World in a Grain of Sand/And a Heaven in a Wild Flower/Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand.”

Just notice. Just be present. Just this. Just this.

The origin of religion.

Amen.

Perhaps the current, often bloody contending between the old, culture-bound, book religions and anyone not in their fold, including Ford’s purported new universal spiritualists, is the real issue here.

Maybe it’s all just woo.

Your thoughts?

}:> ~:)

Comments

  1. Allow me to begin the discussion on a positive note. There are a few things that are appealing to me in Ford’s sermon. Things that distinguish him from many traditional clerics. One, he draws attention to ‘relationships’ as the basis for spirituality. Two, he talks about religion in prehistory. Three, he tries to find a ‘natural’ unity in Humankind’s various expressions of religiosity. To someone like me, an ethnographer trained in anthropology, these approaches are familiar and appealing - sociality, prehistory, unity. There’s much I disagree with Ford over but these I like.

    ReplyDelete
  2. JUDITH MOORE: I think religion is a byproduct of the need to assign agency to everything; probably a survival strategy for all animals. We must ever be on the lookout for threats. I think we hominids have lived in predator groups, always seeking new territories to conquer and exploit. I think certain charismatic, possibly schizoid, personalities gain prominence as storytellers/mythmakers who explain past/present/future events, giving meaning to our existence in a historical/infinite framework. The perpetuation of ancient written records of these stories/myths authenticate their truthiness for the believers.

    On modern spiritualism:
    I am not as hopeful as Ford about the possibility of a shared spiritualism. I think people of good will who embrace different faith traditions hope only for mutual respect and toleration. I think it is unlikely that any unity can be achieved. Professional clerics are dependent for their survival on maintaining the loyalty of their faith congregations through ritual, liturgy, and unquestioned sacred texts. They will see any attempt at ecumenical spiritual experience as a threat.

    We had a leader of the local Muslim community speak to our Fayette Democratic Women at our last meeting. He explained their theology and practice in a very nonthreatening way, ignoring the evangelical aspects and emphasizing the charitable and politically liberal teachings. I think this is the best we can hope for.

    On education, especially in the sciences: I think science education inevitably weakens religious authority and religious institutions. However, scientific knowledge need not weaken the spiritual experience of awe and wonder. It may expand those feelings, and even invoke feelings of humility and compassion. Science can expand the sense of oneness with everything. After all, everything is connected atomically, chemically, and biologically. In this sense, scientific learning, whether in the so-called hard sciences or the social sciences, can be the basis of spiritual experience.

    ReplyDelete
  3. PAM DEWEY: When Jim first sent out his invitation to take part in this discussion, and linked to the article, I went out and read it right away. And decided to make a private reply to Jim first with some very candid, off-the-top of my head thoughts and reactions about what I had read. Jim suggested back to me that those thoughts and reactions might actually be a useful way to jump-start the discussion, even though they are very informal. So I am taking his suggestion... here is what I wrote to him:

    ***
    re: your Zen dude

    My first reaction to his ramblings?

    I wonder what he's been smokin'. :-)

    That's not a put-down, mind you. Some days I wish I could have something to eat or smoke or drink that would not lead to a hangover, but would leave me feeling all warm and fuzzy and in awe of a raindrop or whatever. Or be involved in some ritual with pretty surroundings and esoteric stuff going on and some sort of prescribed style of "meditation" that would make me feel at one with the cosmos...or whatever he is feeling.

    I'm sure he's a very nice man, and he's welcome to what has made him feel good about... stuff. But his ending never ever got back to the origin of concepts of " universal energy, to ancestor worship, to scapegoats and sacrifices, to averting natural disaster" and all that. By the end he seemed to just want to breathe into existence--name it and claim it, as the Pentecostals say... his own totally idiosyncratic definition of the word religion, and marvel at how his own personal "spiritual sense" lined up with it.

    Mind you, I will be able to go back and dialogue over some of the specific aspects of both what he says and about the history of religion. I just needed to get off my chest first that I have kind of a low tolerance for his type of esoteric, flowery writing. It all sounds SO much like umpteen other folks who have gone off dabbling in their own DIY spirituality/religious rigmarole, especially those around the turn of the 19th/20th century in the various spiritualist movements of the time. Were you aware, for instance, Indian Swamis were a hot commodity back then in circles of bored rich housewives in the US? The Beatles with their fascination with the Maharishi were way behind the curve in the 1960s!

    But seriously... I WOULD enjoy tossing around some thoughts about the possibilities for how all mankind seems to have invented religions that all infinitely clash with one another but have had an ironclad power over the minds of subsets of the multitudes.

    REPLY BY JUDITH MOORE
    Pam, thanks for sharing.

    There are many good books on God, and not all by sometimes rude atheists. Here's a wiki review of one that I found helpful, especially when I tried to engage in conversation with proof-texting believers.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_God

    But that was some years ago. People tend to stay with a pastor and congregation who helps them believe what they want to believe; but your experience has taught you that already. The few pastors I knew who were both compassionate and honest soon talked themselves out of a job. Perhaps that is some comfort to you and George.

    ReplyDelete
  4. LORRAINE HEIDECKER: First off let me say that I do believe Ford was sincere in his experience at that New England Church and like all those who experience revelation he feels the insight is universal and is impelled to share. That said I do not think he recognizes how culture bound his "insight" is. I read "Just notice. Just be present. Just this" as Buddhist teachings. Is he aware of this as the origin of his experience?

    One of the first things we are taught as anthropologists is that cultural bias is in us all. It is inescapable and the best we can do is try to be aware of when it is influencing/coloring our observations and our interpretations of that observation. Is Ford aware of his cultural bias? I don't think so and this undermines his notion of modern spiritualism being more universal and less culture-bound. I see nothing to support his claim of a growing "unbound by culture unity" among world believers. (Here I agree with Jim's position.)

    The notion that religion is a unifying set of ideas that allows us to trust and identify with strangers is an old one. It has been advanced to explain the rise of the notion of gods and their ilk as a way of justifying kings and greasing the wheels of commerce. Does he suggest that "universal spiritualism" with all of humanity joining together in one unifying set of beliefs will somehow reduce conflicts and so keep us from killing each other off? Its a nice idea (hope springs eternal) that has been tried before and is doomed to failure. Any time a set of beliefs is imposed on a society there is a fissioning - a Martin Luther, a John Wesley, a Joseph Smith, a Jim Jones, that nutball that started Heaven's Gate, come up with a new set of ideas and find themselves at the head of a mob that swallow the new ideas whole and will happily follow them off a cliff.

    I do not think you can "untangle" religion from the culture that spawned it. BUT religions do reflect (usually the most conservative elements of) society. As world societies move closer together due to improved communication, trade and such, it may be their religions will reflect this shift. This may be what he is interpreting as "culture free". It is not. Religions are shifting as the cultures shift only more slowly.

    I do wish to say that I believe any speculation on the origins of religion is a pleasant exercise in creative fiction! We have no data, only hypotheses with no way to test them.

    Back in 1866 the Linguistic Society of Paris (the major center of linguistic studies at the time) banned debate on the subject of the origin of language due to the almost total lack to data to support any hypothesis advanced. This held until almost the end of the 20th century and in spite of advances in neurology and paleontology there is still no agreement and precious little debate on the topic.

    I feel we are in the same position regarding the origins of religion. We can go back a good way in time but as soon as we leave the written record we are forced back on inference from data gleaned from animal behavior, paleontology, archaeology, evolutionary psychology and the like. Now we are on shaky ground. Are we interpreting this data correctly? Are our own cultural biases getting in the way? We have no idea. LH

    REPLY BY JUDITH MOORE
    Thank you, Lorraine, for your wise insights. You are, of course, correct. It may be fun to speculate about origins, but likely impossible to glean truth from sparse evidence and vivid imagination.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you Lorraine, Judith, and Pam for commenting on James Ford’s sermon.

    Since this discussion began James Ford has had more to say about his notion religious universalism.

    On March 9, again in Patheos, Ford published an essay entitled “Waking a Dancing World: A Zen Priest Reflects on Being Spiritually Fluid.” In this, another flowery, warm and fuzzy piece, Ford, in response to the assertion that he is “spiritually fluid,” declares: “While I am a rationalist and naturalist, I basically consider myself a Zen Buddhist, not a Christian.” Later he says “while I am culturally Christian, by most definitions I am either an atheist or, I would prefer a non-theist.” He says that “as a UU (Unitarian Universalist) minister I preach from an ‘ambiguously theistic” perspective … for me, religion is most of all about the mysteries of being human.”

    Ford concludes with this:

    “Religion is always messy. It is about the most fundamental of human concerns, and we bring our whole lives to it. … We need to be aware of the lenses we bring to the matter. And, most of all, to know the project itself is the awakening of the world.

    “And here’s a truth. The pathways to that awakening are mostly held within religions. And religions are parts of cultures. And, all of it dynamic. So, sometimes orthodox. Sometimes syncretic. Sometimes, well, you get it. It’s dynamic. We need to be fluid if we want to arrive at a healing place.

    “But we open ourselves. And, oh, my. We see things through one perspective, but allow ourselves to see at a different angle, and, in a heartbeat the world changes.

    "So, with that, maybe we can even think of being a bit kinder to each other, more forgiving of foibles, and be more about healing. You know, the project.”

    ~ ~ ~

    Initially I was struck by James Ford’s notion that there may be hope for Humankind in the awe and wonder we all, believers and non-believers, feel toward our planet, Life and the cosmos. Perhaps like Ford I am filled with hope but in denial about the increasingly imminent destructiveness of Humankind’s current political, economic and religious path. And like Ford, I may also be looking for a project to awaken the world. Maybe he’s right, religion may have a role in such an awakening. But I disagree with Ford that the pathways to that awakening are mostly held by the world’s religions.

    Until we have overwhelming, unequivocal evidence to force us to think otherwise I remain convinced Humankind should stay with the secular scientific effort to improve our understanding of the cosmos and our place in it. And in doing so, we accept that such an understanding, such a truth, will remain provisional, not absolute. That that pathway toward an awakening will be the most truthful and useful, and that the religious will also gradually take that path in whatever manner than can justify.

    Foisting our emotional and theological predispositions, as Ford does, on Humankind, and weaving them into the matter and processes of the cosmos, and trying to make them compatible with the truths of science; or hoping a purported re-emergence of his notion of a universal religious spiritualism will lead to unity and peace among the world’s peoples may be a project best suited to believers, but it is not a necessary and sufficient project for all Humankind.

    ReplyDelete
  6. To present a scientist’s take the notions of James Ford I refer to one of the most important books of the 20th Century, The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God by Carl Sagan, 2007, edited by his widow, Ann Druyan.

    Sagan sets the stage as follows:

    “The word ‘religion’ comes from the Latin for ‘binding together,’ to connect that which has been sundered apart. It’s a very interesting concept. And in this sense of seeking the deepest interrelations among things that superficially appear to be sundered, the objectives of religion and science, I believe, are identical or very nearly so. But the question has to do with the reliability of the truths claimed by the two fields and the methods of approach. By far the best way I know to engage the religious sensibility, the sense of awe, is to look up on a clear night. I believe that it is very difficult to know who we are until we understand where and when we are. I think everyone in every culture has felt a sense of awe and wonder looking at the sky. This is reflected throughout the world in both science and religion. Thomas Carlyle said that wonder is the basis of worship. And Albert Einstein said, ‘I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research.’ So if both Carlyle and Einstein could agree on something, it has a modest possibility of even being right.

    “Many religions have attempted to make statues of their gods very large, and the idea, I suppose, is to make us feel small. But if that’s their purpose, they can keep their paltry icons. We need only look up if we wish to feel small. It’s after an exercise such as this that many people conclude that the religious sensibility is inevitable.

    “All that we have seen is something of a vast and intricate and lovely universe. There is no particular theological conclusion that comes out of an exercise such as the one we have just gone through. What is more, when we understand something of the astronomical dynamics, the evolution of worlds, we recognize that worlds are born and worlds die, they have lifetimes just as humans do, and therefore that there is a great deal of suffering and death in the cosmos if there is a great deal of life.

    “And if … life and perhaps even intelligence is a cosmic commonplace, then it must follow that there is massive destruction, obliteration of whole planets, that routinely occurs, frequently, throughout the universe. Well, that is a different view than the traditional Western sense of a deity carefully taking pains to promote the well-being of intelligent creatures. It’s a very different sort of conclusion than modern astronomy suggests.”

    As for Ford’s notion that “religion is the project for awakening the world,” I cannot express my disagreement with Ford on this in a better way than Sagan has:

    “If the very strong version of the anthropic principle is true, that is, that God created the universe so that humans would eventually come about, then we have to ask the question, what happens if humans destroy themselves? That would make the whole exercise sort of pointless. So if only we could believe the strong version, we would have to conclude either (a) that an omnipotent and omniscient God did not create the universe, that is, that He was an inexpert cosmic engineer, or (b) that human beings will not self-destruct. Either alternative, it seems to me, is a matter of some interest, and would be worth knowing. But there is a dangerous fatalism lurking here in the second branch of that fork in this road.

    “I think if we ever reach the point where we think we thoroughly understand who we are and where we came from, we will have failed. I think this search does not lead to a complacent satisfaction that we know the answer, not an arrogant sense that the answer is before us and we need do only one more experiment to find it out. It goes with a courageous intent to greet the universe as it really is, not to foist our emotional predispositions on it but to courageously accept what our explorations tell us.”

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment