 |
| The End of the World John Martin, 1851-1853 |
Today I got a notice about a new book claiming that 2012 will be both the end of the world and a 'new beginning'. The language describing this book was along these lines...
Drawing on meticulous research as well as personal shamanic experience, the author clarifies the 'big picture' of planetary evolution from the perspectives of ancient wisdom and modern science. He reveals an intricate interplay between phenomena (such as galactic super-waves, magnetic pole reversals, evolutionary impulses within matter, and the descent of supramental light) shaping a new species of humanity on a rapidly evolving earth.
After reading that I thought to myself, "I hope I don't sound like this in my articles". I do use the phrases like, "ancient wisdom and modern science" to describe my subjects, but - as they say - the devil is in the details. I can see how someone could easily confuse this kind of book with the sound of some of my work if they only skimmed it.
While I do try to synthesize ancient wisdom with a modern scientific understanding of the universe, there are a few things I don't do. I don't try to stretch ancient peoples' ideas into meanings they probably didn't have in mind in order to fit it to some theory today. This would imply that I'm suggesting ancient people somehow had access to discoveries only made recently. That's not impossible, but such a claim would require a lot of evidence, not merely retrofitting some vague description to something else. More importantly, it implies I'm trying to prove things about 'what exists' by using ancient philosophy - which would never be the case. On the other side of the coin, I also do not try to bend or reinterpret scientific theories of our time into some different version of themselves in order to fulfill a predetermined belief or ancient idea (such as with the common distortions and misrepresentations of quantum physics by New Age and postmodern writers).
Genuine spirituality for the modern world should not be in the business of telling people what exists or doesn't, why the cosmos came into being, what happens in some unknowable realm, or what's going to happen in the future. Claims about reality should be left to those who do the hard work of observing the natural universe through proven scientific means. Instead, genuine spirituality takes the facts of Nature as best as science can approach them, accepts them provisionally, and builds upon that. It encourages a humble approach to knowledge. Cultivating such humility means we do not make claims about things we cannot show to others that we really know. Further, such a humble approach to knowledge is an important spiritual value itself.
Instead of trying to 'nail down' all the grand secrets of the cosmos, genuine spirituality teaches us to accept that we do not know all things, including many things we really wish we knew. Instead, spirituality is about learning to live with what we do know and learning to be open to more as it becomes rational and responsible to accept it. But most of all, genuine spirituality is about focusing on making ourselves a better person, building our character, discipline, empathy, and compassion to the point where we can enjoy a deeper joy and contentment in life that is possible only through such virtues.
The truth is, we can't know what's going to happen in 2012, and it has yet to be demonstrated that anyone has any more access to that knowledge than anyone else (including the Mayans or their modern 'interpreters'). By all reasonable standards, we have little reason to suspect 2012 will be highly unusual. Instead of worrying what will happen to the world in 2012 or any other thing that's outside our control, a genuine spirituality would direct our attention to what the person in the mirror will do in 2012 to try and make life better for themselves and those around them.
Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteI understand where you are coming from. It's easy to understand why some people would stop reading post in blogs like ours as soon as they came across a term like "ancient wisdom and modern science."
You use the term "genuine spirituality," and it's a good term, but very hard define or justify. I think of genuine spirituality as something like genuine art. While in a sense all art is genuine, yet as a person gains a broader and deeper sense of art, one sees certain works of art are simply deeper, richer, more worthy of contemplation and effort than others. And the same is true for spirituality.
Although the analogy only goes so far, I think New Age spirituality is to "genuine spirituality," what the paintings of Thomas Kincade are to genuine art.
Thanks Thomas :)
ReplyDeleteThose are interesting analogies. I think they may be apt, as there is a similar dilemma in distinguishing between 'non-art' and 'bad art'.
>Genuine spirituality for the modern world should not be in the business of telling people what exists or doesn't, why the cosmos came into being, what happens in some unknowable realm, or what's going to happen in the future. Claims about reality should be left to those who do the hard work of observing the natural universe through proven scientific means. Instead, genuine spirituality takes the facts of Nature as best as science can approach them, accepts them provisionally, and builds upon that.
ReplyDeleteWell said.
In all my research on the study of religions, there seem to be three possible functions of religion, if religion does actually serve a function and is not a spandrel as some say. Those three are explanatory theory, support for/reflection of the social order, and managing anxiety. There may be others but these three have been well-explored over the last century of scholarship.
Religions no longer seem credible as explanatory theories, as you say. That leaves the social and psychological functions. So, if genuine spirituality is to work for us in the 21st century, it may have to accept the explanatory theories offered by science and discover satisfying social and psychological meanings that coincide with them.
Thanks B.T. :)
ReplyDeleteI would say, rather, religion hasn't lost its explanatory role. Perhaps, instead, religion should simply consider the sciences its source of explanatory theory. Thus, the scientists are brought back into the fold - something which hasn't been the case since the first philosophers that focused on studying nature first branched off to form what would become the sciences thousands of years ago. This is the reunification of the natural and the sacred.