Religious Meaning as the Art of the Existential Experience
rbb
As any devoted person to the search for the meaning of
life knows and admits, the question of God is central. The decision to
accept not only the existence of God but his supremacy over the universe is
the most significant decision that one can make. Those who reject this
conclusion, set themselves up for a man centered cosmos. Logical evidence,
intelligent arguments and rational proof are unnecessary, for in the end
only belief is needed. All the scientists who ever lived can't disprove God,
while every theologian who ever preached can't certify his existence to
those who are unwilling to believe.
Atheists and agnostics alike, pride themselves on
intelligence; their reason. Church goers study their Bible verses, Torah
pronouncements and Koran passages. The skeptic often rebuffs these teachings
since doctrine is perceived to be the work of men, and not confirmed to be
from THE Supreme Being. The post modern world would have you accept that it
doesn't matter what you believe, life is now and will be over shortly.
Popular culture regards deep reflection as fruitless, since it is futile to
explain the universe. Live for today, in the way you want. That's the
message that dominates the media perception of the world.
Barbara DeConcini - dean of the Atlanta College of Art in
Atlanta, Georgia, offers this viewpoint: 19th Century influential cultural
critic Matthew Arnold - "drew critical attention to deep concordances
between religion and art with their predictions that, in Arnold's famous
phrase, "most of what now passes with us for religion will be replaced by
poetry." Arnold thought that only art could address his society's widespread
loss of confidence in religion, fostered by the rise of modern science.
Humankind needed art and especially poetry "to interpret life for us, to
console us, to sustain us." If art was canonized, so too was religion
aestheticized. In the words of George Santayana, "the whole of Christian
doctrine is religious and efficacious only when it becomes poetry."
Contrast what passes for art in today's video reality
coarse society. Any pretense that what you see approaches the artfulness of
meaningful human expression has long been discarded. If religion has been
discredited, what can be said for the mediums of media degradation and
debasement? Not exactly the poetry of Keats, Shelley or Yeats. Could there
be a neoteric approach to revive the age old hunger for understanding our
own existence?
OSHO was a provocative spiritual teacher from India who
established a meditation method as a way to experiment and create the
conditions for the birth of a "new man" -- one who is free of all outdated
ideologies and doctrines of the past and whose vision encompasses both the
spiritual wisdom of the East and the scientific understandings of the West.
He taught that "The truly religious people have been simply religious, they
have not been dogmatic . . . I don't teach principles, ideologies, dogmas,
doctrines. I teach you a religionless religion, I teach you the taste of it.
I give you the method to become receptive to the divine. I don't say
anything about the divine, I simply tell you "This is the window - open it
and you will see the starry night" . . . So my whole effort is existential,
not intellectual at all. And the true religion is existential."
When Ms DeConcini writes: "In mainline Protestantism the
theological response to the so-called failure of religion in the modern
world took two chief forms: the kerygmatic theology of Karl Barth and the
existential or apologetic theology of Paul Tillich. If Barth recalls
theology to a radical God-centeredness, Tillich rediscovers its correlative
and existential character. With Tillich, theology becomes a way of
reformulating and answering the fundamental question of our being, aiming to
overcome tendencies toward a rationalized objectivity on the one hand and a
romantic subjectivity on the other. Through the method of correlation, the
existential questions which arise from our human predicament find response
in theological answers derived from revelation", she is illustrating a
technique that bridges the gap that is missing in the modern world.
Materialism, that worships science as almighty, has not
been able to substitute itself for a creator; even though it tries. While
men seek to uncover the working of Human Genome and the secrets of DNA, it
has only produced an empty society, lost and disturbed. The insight of
Tillich incorporates a form of spiritualism that the eastern mysticism of
OSHO could appreciate. That window must raise the shades and open the panes
and learn how to become receptive. So when DeConcini asserts, that the
"interdependence of the existential question and the theological answer is
"the universal principle of revelation in religion and culture" and as such
their one theonomous root; we should not dismiss as being irrational. If she
is correct that "the void that Tillich sees as the cultural destiny of the
modern period can be viewed theologically as a sacred void, an existential
cry of ultimate concern", then we have a slim chance to resurrect ourselves,
with a renewed faith in the eternal.
The art of the faith is to accept the belief as true.
Science confirms not the doctrine, but the revelation. There is no axiomatic
conflict, science does not empirically dispel the essential. But the
religion of the absolute, secular scientist, lacks the art of humility. The
law they reject as superstition, is the solution they are unable to
discover. Why is it so abstruse to admit the self-evident? The art of
religion is the willingness to seek the light that shines through that
window. Salvation is not found in clerics or churches, but only exists as a
gift. The thought of the unrestrained apostasy of the modern age for a
biblical faith in the God of divine manifestation, is too much for the
sophisticated intellectual.
No, their answer is to perfect the social environment
without improving the human condition. They deny that human nature rejects
perfectibility, as a social project. Religious meaning comes with faith in
the only rule that matters. Faith is a living, bold trust in God's grace; so
says a familiar name. Is it just as true today as when it was first stated?
Karl Barth would recognize the preacher, but the question is would you?
(click on the faith link and test your belief) But in the end, his is just
another ministry of man. The meaning in his spiritual revolution essentially
lies in your willingness to seek and allow that which you alone, are unable
to comprehend, to enter your soul. The mystery is hidden from our abilities,
but our faith unites us with the divine. OSHO's "new man" is not new. He is
the same as all men. His purpose is a union with God, by faith and obedience
to His law. The Existential experience is a process that helps to open that
window. The choice is yours - you are condemned to be free . . .
SARTRE - December 16, 2003
The true meaning of religion is thus not simply morality,
but morality touched by emotion.
Matthew Arnold
Eldon Leighton Donovan
"rbb" >
Wow!
That is a really big title
> The true meaning of religion is thus not simply morality,
> but morality touched by emotion.
> Matthew Arnold
Gosh,
that's nice...
That makes my panty wet with emotion, just thinking about it.
~e!
slider
"Eldon Leighton Donovan" wrote...
### - that remark just makes you... wet... Period. :)
so what'sup anyway... don'tcha' like discussing deeper things?
ah fuck it let's just talk about your friggin' record collection all night
then lol ;-)
rbb
"Eldon Leighton Donovan" <EL...@ADC.com> wrote in message
news:k8CdnfVJQvB...@comcast.com...
Makes me think that you still need diapers.
RBB
Jethro Bodean
"rbb" <r...@hotmail.nl> wrote:
> As any devoted person to the search for the meaning of
>life knows and admits, the question of God is central.
As any logician knows, opening an essay with a highly questionable
assertion is not a very good idea. God is not something I give much
thought to, for basically, at this time it is an unanswerable
question.
>The decision to accept not only the existence of God but his supremacy over the universe is
>the most significant decision that one can make.
With the possible exception of deciding to step out of the way of an
oncoming train?
> Those who reject this conclusion, set themselves up for a man centered cosmos.
This is just a completely unwarranted assumption. This essay begins
with three highly questionable assertions, stated as if they are
facts. One should already be able to see why I never had the
slightest interest in reading Sartre. But I will continue...
As for the cosmos as a whole, I have no idea whatsoever that it is
"man-centered". I would never even begin to make such an assertion.
Sartre is committing the very common logical error that just because
we don't know what created the universe and we don't know all of the
dominant life forms in the entire universe, that it simply must be
MAN. Completely untrue. Furthermore, I have never heard anyone even
claim this. It is just a very BAD argument.
> Logical evidence,
>intelligent arguments and rational proof are unnecessary, for in the end
>only belief is needed. All the scientists who ever lived can't disprove God,
>while every theologian who ever preached can't certify his existence to
>those who are unwilling to believe.
This is why it isn't even worthy as a topic of thought, because
nothing can really be said about it either way.
Above, Sartre also makes the common mistake of implying that
scientists NEED to disprove the existence of God. First of all, it is
widely recognized that one can very seldom prove that a thing does not
exist. Second, it is also widely recognized that the burden of proof
is on those who claim a thing exists to prove positively that it DOES.
And finally, many scientists believe in God, and consider it as an
issue completely apart from their scientific endeavors, or think they
have developed a belief in God that is compatible with their
scientific endeavors.
> Atheists and agnostics alike, pride themselves on
>intelligence; their reason. Church goers study their Bible verses, Torah
>pronouncements and Koran passages. The skeptic often rebuffs these teachings
>since doctrine is perceived to be the work of men, and not confirmed to be
>from THE Supreme Being. The post modern world would have you accept that it
>doesn't matter what you believe, life is now and will be over shortly.
>Popular culture regards deep reflection as fruitless, since it is futile to
>explain the universe. Live for today, in the way you want. That's the
>message that dominates the media perception of the world.
There is no single "media perception" of the world. "The media" runs
a wide gamut. Check out the difference between LA Weekly and USA
Today, just for one example. I do not see much of a point to the
entire paragraph above.
> Barbara DeConcini - dean of the Atlanta College of Art in
>Atlanta, Georgia, offers this viewpoint: 19th Century influential cultural
>critic Matthew Arnold - "drew critical attention to deep concordances
>between religion and art with their predictions that, in Arnold's famous
>phrase, "most of what now passes with us for religion will be replaced by
>poetry."
Now that is a most optimistic prediction. :-) LOL. Suffice it to
say, this has not materialized.
>Arnold thought that only art could address his society's widespread
>loss of confidence in religion, fostered by the rise of modern science.
There is no widespread loss of confidence in religion. Personally, I
find this hard to comprehend, but the fact is ... a large majority of
my fellow dumbass Americans are still religious, most of them in a
traditional way. But personally, I find that people who imagine
themselves to be "spiritual, not religious" usually have just as many
misconceptions and questionable beliefs as the traditionally
religious.
>Humankind needed art and especially poetry "to interpret life for us, to
>console us, to sustain us." If art was canonized, so too was religion
>aestheticized. In the words of George Santayana, "the whole of Christian
>doctrine is religious and efficacious only when it becomes poetry."
Humankind apparently doesn't need it as much as you think, especially
judging by the size of the poetry section at my local Barnes and
Noble. I was just perusing it the other day.
I picked up a volume named "Outlaw Poets" and sat down in an easy
chair reading it for about an hour, before coming to same conclusion I
usually do -- that I like my own poetry better. LOL! Talk about an
egotist...
Every time I read some modern poetry I end up thinking "Gee, I should
write more poetry, as obviously there is a shortage of good work."
> Contrast what passes for art in today's video reality
>coarse society. Any pretense that what you see approaches the artfulness of
>meaningful human expression has long been discarded.
Hey, there ya go. I actually ALMOST agree with something Sartre said.
This is an amazing moment that I will cherish. But it isn't quite
full agreement. While rare, there are still good artists here and
there.
> If religion has been
>discredited, what can be said for the mediums of media degradation and
>debasement? Not exactly the poetry of Keats, Shelley or Yeats. Could there
>be a neoteric approach to revive the age old hunger for understanding our
>own existence?
Bugs Bunny voice: eh.... could be! Or maybe not...
Maybe there will be a major resurgence of such concerns. Maybe in ten
years. Maybe in a hundred. Who knows.
> OSHO was a provocative spiritual teacher from India who
>established a meditation method as a way to experiment and create the
>conditions for the birth of a "new man" -- one who is free of all outdated
>ideologies and doctrines of the past and whose vision encompasses both the
>spiritual wisdom of the East and the scientific understandings of the West.
>He taught that "The truly religious people have been simply religious, they
>have not been dogmatic . . . I don't teach principles, ideologies, dogmas,
>doctrines. I teach you a religionless religion, I teach you the taste of it.
>I give you the method to become receptive to the divine. I don't say
>anything about the divine, I simply tell you "This is the window - open it
>and you will see the starry night" . . . So my whole effort is existential,
>not intellectual at all. And the true religion is existential."
This is pure baloney. You don't teach me anything, period. And you
don't give me any method, period. The Hubble did more to open the
window to the starry night than you ever will.
And you can't point to either "The East" or "The West" and assert it
as "half of wisdom", so that if we simply put them together then we
get it a whole. Bull. A lot of people got rich off that fad, but
most of the spiritual teaching of the east is not wise, and a good
deal of the science of the west is not well-conducted or comprehensive
in scope. Everyone exists, and life goes on, dude. There is no
"true religion". Just a bunch of marketeers working hard to create
new buzz words.
Shit, maybe I need to write a book on this too.
> When Ms DeConcini writes: "In mainline Protestantism the
>theological response to the so-called failure of religion in the modern
>world took two chief forms: the kerygmatic theology of Karl Barth and the
>existential or apologetic theology of Paul Tillich. If Barth recalls
>theology to a radical God-centeredness, Tillich rediscovers its correlative
>and existential character. With Tillich, theology becomes a way of
>reformulating and answering the fundamental question of our being, aiming to
>overcome tendencies toward a rationalized objectivity on the one hand and a
>romantic subjectivity on the other. Through the method of correlation, the
>existential questions which arise from our human predicament find response
>in theological answers derived from revelation", she is illustrating a
>technique that bridges the gap that is missing in the modern world.
Neither one of them is saying a thing about God, because no one knows
a thing about God.
> Materialism, that worships science as almighty, has not
>been able to substitute itself for a creator; even though it tries.
It is an incorrect assertion to say that "it tries". Scientists do
not "worship" science as "almighty". Again, a lot of scientists
believe in God (odd as I personally find that to be). When Einstein
used the word "God", he was really speaking of sort of an abstract
personification of the Universe itself, rather than any actual deity.
I have never heard a single scientist say that materialism is the real
creator of the universe, and I am pretty sure that I never will.
> While men seek to uncover the working of Human Genome and the secrets of DNA, it
>has only produced an empty society, lost and disturbed.
Now you're pissing me off. What a crock. As if an empty society,
lost and disturbed, is suddenly the fault of the Human Genome project?
Ha ha ha ha! :-) What a stupid thing to say. A good deal of society
has been lost and disturbed for thousands of years. And the
continuing investigation of genetics will bring wonder after wonder
for at least the NEXT thousand.
>The insight of
>Tillich incorporates a form of spiritualism that the eastern mysticism of
>OSHO could appreciate.
Oh dear god. I wish you would specificially state this "insight" of
Tillich in some sort of concrete fashion that goes beyond saying "we
exist and we wonder". Then it could be torn to shreds.
> That window must raise the shades and open the panes
>and learn how to become receptive. So when DeConcini asserts, that the
>"interdependence of the existential question and the theological answer is
>"the universal principle of revelation in religion and culture" and as such
>their one theonomous root; we should not dismiss as being irrational.
Uh, I have no problem with the principle of revelation. REVEAL
something to me, other than a lot of fancy talk that in spite of how
many times I read it still actually says nothing. :-)
> If she
>is correct that "the void that Tillich sees as the cultural destiny of the
>modern period can be viewed theologically as a sacred void, an existential
>cry of ultimate concern", then we have a slim chance to resurrect ourselves,
>with a renewed faith in the eternal.
Who needs "faith" in the eternal? It is all around. Try Hubble.
Who needs to be resurrected? We are alive right now.
The "void" eh? Is this "void" composed of Desperate Housewives,
reality shows, Tractor Pulls, and Taco Bells? Ah, so ... if we put
classical culture, philosophy, mythology, and art up against Taco
Bell, well then it really starts looking like we NEED to be saved,
doesn't it? (extreme sarcasm)
Am I the only one who sees through that one as just another shabby
trick? See, I read Keats AND eat Tacos, dude. And I am SICK and
tired of shallow rhetoric dressed in the clothing of "monumental
revelation". Elitist intellectuals pretending to have "the answers"
impresses me not one SMIDGEON more than egomaniacal gurus pretending
the same.
I, for one, will not get fooled again. Show me some "revelation".
If you only point toward "heaven" and say "divine grace" -- "faith", I
will have to wince, shoot you a disgusted look, and return to eating
my taco while watching the Science channel on satellite TV.
> The art of the faith is to accept the belief as true.
Pretty much any form of madness involves just "accepting the belief as
true".
>Science confirms not the doctrine, but the revelation. There is no axiomatic
>conflict, science does not empirically dispel the essential.
I am glad you at least recognize that much. Indeed, if there is
anything "divine" out there or ... in here, it will almost certainly
be science that conclusively reveals it...
> But the religion of the absolute, secular scientist, lacks the art of humility.
Sez you. When a man admits that he does NOT know the absolute, then
he must seek more carefully, refining his knowledge at every step, and
taking no previous finding as unquestionable. The very essence of
this approach is to remain humble in the face of the endless mystery
of the universe. When a man sees no reason to believe himself to be
anything but another organic life form on his way to death, this too
has a humbling effect.
And clearly it is those who believe themselves to be the special
children of God, who will be saved and taken to heaven to be preserved
forever who lack humility.
> The law they reject as superstition, is the solution they are unable to
>discover. Why is it so abstruse to admit the self-evident? The art of
>religion is the willingness to seek the light that shines through that
>window. Salvation is not found in clerics or churches, but only exists as a
>gift. The thought of the unrestrained apostasy of the modern age for a
>biblical faith in the God of divine manifestation, is too much for the
>sophisticated intellectual.
I find the above to be a completely unmoving series of unfounded
assertions, nothing more.
It very much remains to be seen what we can or cannot discover. It is
really still quite early in the game, and so far we are doing quite
well at discovering "the law" for ourselves, thank you. Hard science
is only a few hundred years old.
> No, their answer is to perfect the social environment
>without improving the human condition.
I don't know about "perfect", but clearly to improve the social
environment is a way of improving the human condition. One aspect of
it, for example, could be to put a great deal more money back into
subsidizing the arts, both in public projects and in education. Hey,
maybe even poetry, eh?
But not your ranting about "God", old man. Not that.
> They deny that human nature rejects perfectibility, as a social project.
I don't know a single person calling for perfecting human nature, at
least not yet. With genetics, it may well become an issue in the next
few hundred years, though.
Apparently, "God" didn't build us "perfect" either, if you go to their
doctrine of "original sin". Not that that isn't complete nonsense,
I'm just saying... what is this talk of "perfecting" man supposed to
be about to begin with?
> Religious meaning comes with faith in the only rule that matters.
> Faith is a living, bold trust in God's grace; so
>says a familiar name. Is it just as true today as when it was first stated?
Is it just as delusional and self-important as it ever was?
>Karl Barth would recognize the preacher, but the question is would you?
>(click on the faith link and test your belief) But in the end, his is just
>another ministry of man. The meaning in his spiritual revolution essentially
>lies in your willingness to seek and allow that which you alone, are unable
>to comprehend, to enter your soul. The mystery is hidden from our abilities,
>but our faith unites us with the divine. OSHO's "new man" is not new. He is
>the same as all men. His purpose is a union with God, by faith and obedience
>to His law. The Existential experience is a process that helps to open that
>window. The choice is yours - you are condemned to be free . . .
It's true, in many ways I am free. I am free of your "God". I am
free of your theology and philosophy. I am free of your poetry (and
free to create more). I am free of the assertions of "souls" and
vaguely defined "mysteries". I am free of your fear of the real and
awesome power of science.
I am not free of human nature or the chemistry of the material world;
and like any animal I am not free of death. I am not free of
genetics.
And neither are you, Sartre.
> SARTRE - December 16, 2003
>
>
> The true meaning of religion is thus not simply morality,
> but morality touched by emotion.
> Matthew Arnold
A Reeses cup is not merely chocolate, but chocolate filled with peanut
butter.
Jeremy H. Donovan
Mark
rbb wrote:
> As any devoted person to the search for the meaning of
> life knows and admits, the question of God is central. The decision to
> accept not only the existence of God but his supremacy over the universe is
> the most significant decision that one can make. Those who reject this
> conclusion, set themselves up for a man centered cosmos. Logical evidence,
> intelligent arguments and rational proof are unnecessary, for in the end
> only belief is needed. All the scientists who ever lived can't disprove God,
> while every theologian who ever preached can't certify his existence to
> those who are unwilling to believe.
>
> Atheists and agnostics alike, pride themselves on
> intelligence; their reason.
Does anyone else feel that "reason" is nothing more than the creating
and maintaining a point of view, an artificial model of reality?
btw I stopped reading the original post at this point as it seemed to
be selling something.
slider
"Jethro Bodean" (jeremy) wrote...
One should already be able to see why I never had the
> slightest interest in reading Sartre. But I will continue...
### - ahahahahaha! :):):):)
Shaun G
heart, so if that God is science, so be it. I prefer something with a little
more omniscience.