Additional material: https://cchu9014.weebly.com/additional-material9.html
Objectives for week 12
- To analyse why religion has found itself in a crisis since the onset of the modern era
- To understand the ideology of secularism and the process of secularization as results of the crisis of religion
- To reflect on the dual crisis of religion and materialism today
- To analyse different religious responses to this dual crisis, including fundamentalism and radicalism, spiritual individualism, and integrationism.
- To reflect on the implications for religion of the increasing interconnectedness of the planet, in the period that has been called the “Second Axial Age” by some scholars.
A New Axial Age?
Philosophers and sociologists of the 19th century predicted that, with the advance of science and social progress, religion would gradually disappear. But this hasn’t happened: since the second half of the 20th century, many parts of the world have witnessed a resurgence of religion, and increased assertiveness of religion in the public sphere. In this lecture, we will consider the reasons for this resurgence, and the accompanying rise in religious conflict. We will also consider an alternative trend, that seeks for greater understanding, harmony and unity between religious traditions, as exemplified by the interfaith movement and the charter for global ethics.
The crisis of religion
Last week, I discussed how through the centuries, the religious traditions and institutions associated with the axial figures, such as Jesus and the Buddha, gradually became completely embedded into the socio-political structures of their societies, and into the social divisions of different societies. Thus, by the 17th century, the world’s Axial religions had lost the “revolutionary”, innovative and critical edge that had characterised them at their origins. As Karl Marx commented, “Religion is the opium of the people,”[1] – by the 19th century, it only offered spiritual solace to the poor and suffering. And, as many movements of social reform and revolution have argued, religion had become part of the structures of domination by the feudal and capitalist classes that are against freedom and the emancipation of people. Is it possible for religion to play a constructive role in social justice? Is religion on the side of social justice, or with conservatism and oppression? Nowadays, many religious movements are advocates of social justice, but in the 19th century, generally speaking, religious institutions in Europe were firmly on the side of preserving an unjust social order.
At the same time, a host of new developments, that began in Europe but soon spread to the rest of the world, led the very existence of religion to be challenged to its core. Here, I will mention three of these challenges.
At the same time, a host of new developments, that began in Europe but soon spread to the rest of the world, led the very existence of religion to be challenged to its core. Here, I will mention three of these challenges.
The first challenge: the relationship between science and religion
The first challenge is the relationship between religion and science. Can religion reconcile itself with science? When, in the 16th century, Galileo Galilei discovered that the Earth rotates around the sun rather than the other way around, he was condemned by the Catholic Church. The Church positioned itself as being the enemy of science, thus starting a great conflict between science and religion. Could this conflict ever be solved?
The second challenge: sectarian conflict
Increasingly, in modern times, global interconnectedness reaches ever higher levels of intensity. In the past, as religion merged with the socio-political configuration of different regions and countries, much of the world ended up in a situation where there was a single dominant religion or sect in most countries and states. So, the French were Catholic, the British were Protestant, the Russians were Orthodox, the Sri Lankans were Buddhist, the Iranians were Muslim, and so on. The overlap between religion and national or ethnic identity became so strong that people came to consider that if you are a member of a certain ethnic group, by definition, you also believe in a certain type of religion. For instance, if you are Tibetan, people assume you are Buddhist; if you are Uyghur, people assume you are Muslim; if you are French, they assume you are Catholic. Many people think this way; but in fact, it’s not entirely true. My French ancestors were Protestants. There are Christian and Muslim Tibetans. And with globalisation and increased transnational links, barriers as such have been subjected to challenge. Transnational migration and circulations are becoming the norm rather than the exception. Now, there are growing Muslim populations in the traditional Christian countries, such as Britain and France. The idea that European countries are primarily Christian is being challenged. Also, there are growing numbers of Christians in China. Some scholars project that in a dozen years, China will have more Christians than any other country in the world. Even if 10% of the Chinese population becomes Christian, which is a possibility given current rates of growth, China will have 120 million Christians, which is higher than the entire population of most other Christian countries. Many people feel that Christianity is profoundly antithetical to China’s culture, and yet, Christianity is growing very fast in China.
The definition of a country or ethnic group as being identified with one religion has been deeply challenged. Even within one country or region, such as Hong Kong, we can find all types of religion on the Internet. In this class, you have been exposed to so many religious practices and ideas. The barriers and boundaries between them are becoming less distinct. How do people respond to that? What will be the outcome of this global mixing?
Under such conditions, can religions reconcile themselves with each other? Violence in the name of religion started with the Crusades in the Middle Ages. After Muslim armies conquered Jerusalem and Palestine – which are the Holy Land to the Christians -- the European kings sent armies to fight the Muslims. They wanted to recover the Holy Land for the Christians. But a lot of the Crusaders simply wanted to become rich through looting and plundering. Thousands of Muslims were slaughtered and massacred by the Christian crusaders, who were even divided by sect and often killed each other too! The Crusades were one of the first incidences of massive violence in the name of religion.
Later, many religious wars occurred in Europe in the 16th and 17th Centuries. One of the most notorious incidents is the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre in France, during which thousands of (Christian) Protestants were killed by (Christian) Catholics. Even as we see today, in the Middle East, there is increasing violence between different Muslim sects, the Shiites and the Sunni; and terrorism in the name of Islam hits China, Europe, Africa and America. While those terrorists follow extremist Islamic sects and organisations, the vast majority of the world’s Muslims are firmly opposed to such acts and consider that such terrorists cannot even be considered as Muslims. Nonetheless, prejudice and discrimination against Muslims is rising. Inter-religious strife is increasing in many parts of the world. Why is this happening? Now, we’re living in a world where there is more and more communication between different parts of the world, where different religious communities have increasing communication and contact with each other. Can’t they reconcile with each other? Can they avoid conflicts between each other? That is the second great challenge facing religion today.
The definition of a country or ethnic group as being identified with one religion has been deeply challenged. Even within one country or region, such as Hong Kong, we can find all types of religion on the Internet. In this class, you have been exposed to so many religious practices and ideas. The barriers and boundaries between them are becoming less distinct. How do people respond to that? What will be the outcome of this global mixing?
Under such conditions, can religions reconcile themselves with each other? Violence in the name of religion started with the Crusades in the Middle Ages. After Muslim armies conquered Jerusalem and Palestine – which are the Holy Land to the Christians -- the European kings sent armies to fight the Muslims. They wanted to recover the Holy Land for the Christians. But a lot of the Crusaders simply wanted to become rich through looting and plundering. Thousands of Muslims were slaughtered and massacred by the Christian crusaders, who were even divided by sect and often killed each other too! The Crusades were one of the first incidences of massive violence in the name of religion.
Later, many religious wars occurred in Europe in the 16th and 17th Centuries. One of the most notorious incidents is the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre in France, during which thousands of (Christian) Protestants were killed by (Christian) Catholics. Even as we see today, in the Middle East, there is increasing violence between different Muslim sects, the Shiites and the Sunni; and terrorism in the name of Islam hits China, Europe, Africa and America. While those terrorists follow extremist Islamic sects and organisations, the vast majority of the world’s Muslims are firmly opposed to such acts and consider that such terrorists cannot even be considered as Muslims. Nonetheless, prejudice and discrimination against Muslims is rising. Inter-religious strife is increasing in many parts of the world. Why is this happening? Now, we’re living in a world where there is more and more communication between different parts of the world, where different religious communities have increasing communication and contact with each other. Can’t they reconcile with each other? Can they avoid conflicts between each other? That is the second great challenge facing religion today.
The third challenge: freedom
The third great challenge to religion is how religion can reconcile itself to individual spiritual freedom and agency. Nowadays, with universal education and the scientific outlook, people don’t blindly follow and believe what their families or societies believe. Over the centuries, many religious traditions have become systems of dogma and customs, in which people are expected to blindly accept what their priests are teaching them. In a sense, these religious traditions have moved away from the early spirit of reflexivity and the critical viewpoints that their founders had, and become ossified systems of dogma. How can religion deal with the fact that people are sceptical of their teachings?
Secularization
These are the challenges that have been repeatedly posed to religion in the past few centuries. The gradual result of these challenges has been that although religion has not disappeared, its power and influence have collapsed, compared to what it was prior to the Enlightenment in the 17th century. The dominant “operating system” of most societies has been increasingly secularised and disenchanted; most societies have adopted the ideologies of secularism and materialism. Secularism considers that the individual can have private religious belief, but society should not be influenced by religion in any way – religion is only a private matter, it should be kept out of social affairs. Materialism considers that only matter exists in the universe. Both secularism and materialism have become the dominant ideologies of most modern societies today.
The crisis of materialism
Since the end of the 20th century, however, materialism has also been in crisis. In modern times, materialism had in a sense become the substitute faith: people believe in money, as if money were their god. Governments believe that economic development is the most important thing, above anything else: whether as an individual or as a society, the most important thing is to get rich and to assure one’s physical survival. Once that is assured, you are free to believe in whatever you want – whether it’s Santa Claus, God, or nothing. What you believe in is your own subjective problem; the main concern should be material development.
In a sense, then, modernity itself had become a kind of religion. People thought that all the problems of the world would be solved when they became materially wealthy. Materialism became a substitute religion. Even science became a substitute religion – this is called “scientism”. People considered that science would solve all the problems of the world – so long we they moved ahead towards scientific progress, everything would be fine. From the late 18th Century to the mid-20th Century, this was a powerful belief in modern and modernising countries. It is certainly a very powerful belief in China. Ever since the May 4th Movement of 1919, Chinese people put their faith in “Mr Science” and “Mr Democracy”. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Deng Xiaoping put forward the “Four Modernisations”, which he believed would bring China into the future. Even communism itself believes that the ideal state is one of material plenty. It believes that everything will be fine once the world becomes rich and the wealth is distributed evenly to everyone. Thus, most modern ideologies represent some sort of materialist faith.
However, this faith system began to collapse in the 20th century. Doubts in this system can be traced back to the end of World War I. When they saw millions of soldiers put into the battlefield, and when they saw millions of people losing their life to the calamity of this unprecedented war with the use of modern technology at the service of weaponry and military might, some philosophers and artists started to doubt in this faith in modernity and materialism. World War II was even worse. Many more events, such as the environmental crisis, happened during the 20th century, which challenged people’s faith in materialism.
Now, we have reached the stage of material plenty, spending more and more money on things we don’t need. So, people have started to ask themselves, is life only about power and money? The entire society seems to have devoted itself completely to power and money. People have increasingly started to ask whether materialism itself is even materially sustainable – as expressed by this video that considers the consequences of humanity trying to indefinitely maintain a rate of economic growth comparable to a hamster.[2]
The “operating system” of all our societies now is based on economic growth, growing exponentially like a hamster that keeps getting fatter. Every year, there is fear that the entire economic system will collapse, if the rate of growth even declines a little bit. In China, people are worried that the rate of growth is dropping below 7% per year. But for how long can such a rate of growth even be sustained? This is the operating system that our societies are based on – ever increasing production and consumption. Now, there is an ever-increasing awareness that we cannot sustain ourselves in this way. Therefore, materialism is also being challenged in a very serious way.
What shall we do? On the one hand, religion has been challenged; the power of the world’s religious systems has been shaken; societies have thrown away the power of religion, making it a private matter. The world has gone through a process of secularisation, which has reduced the influence of religion in the world. Religion has lost its influence in society, while materialism has become the dominant worldview. But now, materialism is being challenged. Can materialism even work materially? This is the situation we now face in the world.
In a sense, then, modernity itself had become a kind of religion. People thought that all the problems of the world would be solved when they became materially wealthy. Materialism became a substitute religion. Even science became a substitute religion – this is called “scientism”. People considered that science would solve all the problems of the world – so long we they moved ahead towards scientific progress, everything would be fine. From the late 18th Century to the mid-20th Century, this was a powerful belief in modern and modernising countries. It is certainly a very powerful belief in China. Ever since the May 4th Movement of 1919, Chinese people put their faith in “Mr Science” and “Mr Democracy”. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Deng Xiaoping put forward the “Four Modernisations”, which he believed would bring China into the future. Even communism itself believes that the ideal state is one of material plenty. It believes that everything will be fine once the world becomes rich and the wealth is distributed evenly to everyone. Thus, most modern ideologies represent some sort of materialist faith.
However, this faith system began to collapse in the 20th century. Doubts in this system can be traced back to the end of World War I. When they saw millions of soldiers put into the battlefield, and when they saw millions of people losing their life to the calamity of this unprecedented war with the use of modern technology at the service of weaponry and military might, some philosophers and artists started to doubt in this faith in modernity and materialism. World War II was even worse. Many more events, such as the environmental crisis, happened during the 20th century, which challenged people’s faith in materialism.
Now, we have reached the stage of material plenty, spending more and more money on things we don’t need. So, people have started to ask themselves, is life only about power and money? The entire society seems to have devoted itself completely to power and money. People have increasingly started to ask whether materialism itself is even materially sustainable – as expressed by this video that considers the consequences of humanity trying to indefinitely maintain a rate of economic growth comparable to a hamster.[2]
The “operating system” of all our societies now is based on economic growth, growing exponentially like a hamster that keeps getting fatter. Every year, there is fear that the entire economic system will collapse, if the rate of growth even declines a little bit. In China, people are worried that the rate of growth is dropping below 7% per year. But for how long can such a rate of growth even be sustained? This is the operating system that our societies are based on – ever increasing production and consumption. Now, there is an ever-increasing awareness that we cannot sustain ourselves in this way. Therefore, materialism is also being challenged in a very serious way.
What shall we do? On the one hand, religion has been challenged; the power of the world’s religious systems has been shaken; societies have thrown away the power of religion, making it a private matter. The world has gone through a process of secularisation, which has reduced the influence of religion in the world. Religion has lost its influence in society, while materialism has become the dominant worldview. But now, materialism is being challenged. Can materialism even work materially? This is the situation we now face in the world.
Responses to the crisis of religion
Indeed, by the late 20th century and up till today, the firm faith in materialism and modernisation has been subjected to doubt. Some people say we are entering a “post-materialist” era. Many people don’t want to be materialist any more. But if not materialist, then what? “Post-secularism” is another term used by some scholars. Although we have become a secularised society, we don’t believe so deeply in secularisation any more. As a result, there is more and more search for spirituality, and religions are becoming more popular.
But this is not necessarily the same kind of religion and spirituality as in traditional times. So, what is the way out? Is it neither traditional religion nor materialism? It seems that humanity today is at a crossroad. What is the solution to the crisis of religion on the one hand, and the crisis of materialism and secularism on the other hand? Religious communities have tried to respond to this crisis in many ways. Here I’m going to talk about three common types of responses.
But this is not necessarily the same kind of religion and spirituality as in traditional times. So, what is the way out? Is it neither traditional religion nor materialism? It seems that humanity today is at a crossroad. What is the solution to the crisis of religion on the one hand, and the crisis of materialism and secularism on the other hand? Religious communities have tried to respond to this crisis in many ways. Here I’m going to talk about three common types of responses.
Response 1: religious fundamentalism, extremism and conflict
The first type of response can be called fundamentalism. This is a response to hyper-pluralism, to the multiplicity of different ideologies, teachings, philosophies and religions that are increasingly in contact with each other. One of the responses to the challenge of modernity, is called religious fundamentalism. The basic idea of fundamentalism is that the reason traditional religion doesn’t really work anymore, is that it has become full of man-made customs that have little to do with the teachings of the religion itself. Consequently, what needs to be done is to purify the religion, to clean away all these customs and traditions, and to return to the “fundamentals” of the original teachings of the founder. But beyond that, the fundamentalist mindset does not tolerate any deviation from the original teachings, since it considers that these deviations completely destroy the original religion.
For example, in Muslim countries, there are lot of tombs of holy men. A lot of people go to those tombs to pray, hoping to get blessings by praying there, so as to get healed or have good luck — similar to the way that Hong Kong people go to Wong Tai Sin Temple. They go to those shrines of holy men to get good luck, blessing, healing and so on. However, some Muslims started to ask, “Where did Muhammad – Peace be upon him! say that we should go and pray at tombs? This is totally unscientific. Get rid of these superstitions!” This is the idea of fundamentalism — clear away everything and go back to the fundamental and original teaching. Look at the teaching literally: don’t try to read it symbolically, because we have to be scientific. That is another idea of fundamentalism.
In this sense, fundamentalism is actually very modern. It is not about going back to tradition, but about trying to be modern. That is to say, don’t try to look for any mystical symbols and deep meanings and allegories, the way the ancients did. Just like a scientist, we should look at the text — what does the Bible or the Qur’an say? We would do what the Bible or Koran says, and follow these holy books literally. But the problem is that those holy books were written centuries ago, when social conditions were entirely different from today. So, for example, the Qur’an was revealed in tribal Arabia, in which there was no government; tribes were constantly launching raids against each other, and an alliance of tribes decided to wage war against the emergent Muslim community to completely exterminate it. Many of the verses of the Qur’an were revealed in the midst of these wars, and instructed Mohammad and his followers on how to conduct war. These instructions enjoined on the fighters to act in a more humane manner than the customs of tribal warfare that were prevalent at the time of Mohammad. But, when these teachings are applied literally in the completely different context of the 21st century, the result might be quite retrogressive and destructive.
We find fundamentalist movements in every major religion. In Christianity, there is Christian fundamentalism. In fact, the word “fundamentalism” comes from some Christians in the early 20th Century, who wanted to go back to the “fundamentals” of the Bible. There is also Islamic fundamentalism, Hindu fundamentalism, and even Buddhist fundamentalism. In a word, fundamentalism exists in most different religions.
Fundamentalism has a number of common features. The first is the idea of dualism. The world is complicated, so it needs to be simplified. Don’t get all confused — everything has to be very clear. We lack clarity in this world so we have to clear it up. It’s very simple — there is only good and evil, right and wrong, us and them. If you are trying to be thoughtful and moderate, you are already on the path of the devil. The devil is trying to tempt you and twist your mind by trying to make you think in subtle ways. This strong dualism is one of the key features of fundamentalism— the world is divided between good and evil people.
In fundamentalism, other religions are considered to be evil. Actually, even different sects of the same religion, are considered to be evil. “Jesus loves me more than he loves you. Our church has God’s love, not yours. Your church is a fake one — the devil is behind your church.” We see the same kind of phenomenon between different fundamentalist Muslim sects in the Middle East.
According to this view, not only is the world is divided between “us” and “them”, good and evil; but the evil side is so dangerous that we have to be extremely careful. Even though God is on the side of the good people, the good people are threatened in the battle between good and evil. Satan, or the devil, is behind the evil group — be it another country, another religion, non-religious people, or another sect of the same religion. The power of Satan is threatening the truth.
This paranoia is a response to the complexity of the world today, when there are so many ideas, possibilities and choices. One response is simply to be paranoid and afraid of it all – it’s all the work of Satan. Become more extreme, simplify, and try to eliminate those who don’t follow the same belief.
This is connected to an apocalyptic orientation. We are in a war between good and evil, but ultimately, this war will lead to the end of the world. Violence, natural disasters, all the problems in the world – these are signs that the world is coming to an end. There are prophecies about the “last day” in many religious scriptures. Apocalyptic groups believe that these prophecies are literally true, and that they are players in the final drama -- the apocalyptic battle between good and evil, like in a Hollywood film. Some apocalyptic sects try to speed up the apocalypse: let’s help to destroy the world. This is particularly the ideology, for example, of ISIS right now. Why do they appear to be so vicious, brutal, destructive and bloodthirsty? Why don’t they care to engage in any kind of mutual understanding and negotiations with anybody? It is precisely because they are, in their minds, living in the end of the world. Even if ultimately all of them are killed, that’s not a problem for them, because that is destined to happen at the end of the world. Only the chosen few will survive. This type of apocalypticism can be found in different religious sects. In history there have been Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Christian and Daoist apocalyptic groups. Some apocalyptic groups are peaceful, waiting for the end of the world rather than doing something to harm other people. But some of the groups that we see in the world today are dangerously violent. Their destructive violence is an expression of their dualistic mind-set, paranoia, and apocalypticism.
The final characteristic is a total mental transformation – what people used to call “brainwashing”. To convert to a religion is similar to the adoption of a new philosophy, culture or a new set of values; it is to adopt a new mental operating system. When someone adopts a new mental operating system, there has to be a reconciliation between the new set of values and the old one. The old set of values refers to people’s previous life experiences, their inherited value systems, the perspectives acquired under other people’s influence, and so on and so forth. When we adopt a new set of values or a new belief, we then have to work out the relationship between what existed before in our mindscape and the new set of values.
However, in the fundamentalist mindset, people should not reconcile the tension between the old and the new operating systems. Instead, they should completely remove what previously existed in their minds, so as to totally embrace the new ideology. They should completely reject everything about themselves, their families and friends — to reject everything that is not completely in line with the new ideology. This is the idea of a totalised conversion experience.
For example, in Muslim countries, there are lot of tombs of holy men. A lot of people go to those tombs to pray, hoping to get blessings by praying there, so as to get healed or have good luck — similar to the way that Hong Kong people go to Wong Tai Sin Temple. They go to those shrines of holy men to get good luck, blessing, healing and so on. However, some Muslims started to ask, “Where did Muhammad – Peace be upon him! say that we should go and pray at tombs? This is totally unscientific. Get rid of these superstitions!” This is the idea of fundamentalism — clear away everything and go back to the fundamental and original teaching. Look at the teaching literally: don’t try to read it symbolically, because we have to be scientific. That is another idea of fundamentalism.
In this sense, fundamentalism is actually very modern. It is not about going back to tradition, but about trying to be modern. That is to say, don’t try to look for any mystical symbols and deep meanings and allegories, the way the ancients did. Just like a scientist, we should look at the text — what does the Bible or the Qur’an say? We would do what the Bible or Koran says, and follow these holy books literally. But the problem is that those holy books were written centuries ago, when social conditions were entirely different from today. So, for example, the Qur’an was revealed in tribal Arabia, in which there was no government; tribes were constantly launching raids against each other, and an alliance of tribes decided to wage war against the emergent Muslim community to completely exterminate it. Many of the verses of the Qur’an were revealed in the midst of these wars, and instructed Mohammad and his followers on how to conduct war. These instructions enjoined on the fighters to act in a more humane manner than the customs of tribal warfare that were prevalent at the time of Mohammad. But, when these teachings are applied literally in the completely different context of the 21st century, the result might be quite retrogressive and destructive.
We find fundamentalist movements in every major religion. In Christianity, there is Christian fundamentalism. In fact, the word “fundamentalism” comes from some Christians in the early 20th Century, who wanted to go back to the “fundamentals” of the Bible. There is also Islamic fundamentalism, Hindu fundamentalism, and even Buddhist fundamentalism. In a word, fundamentalism exists in most different religions.
Fundamentalism has a number of common features. The first is the idea of dualism. The world is complicated, so it needs to be simplified. Don’t get all confused — everything has to be very clear. We lack clarity in this world so we have to clear it up. It’s very simple — there is only good and evil, right and wrong, us and them. If you are trying to be thoughtful and moderate, you are already on the path of the devil. The devil is trying to tempt you and twist your mind by trying to make you think in subtle ways. This strong dualism is one of the key features of fundamentalism— the world is divided between good and evil people.
In fundamentalism, other religions are considered to be evil. Actually, even different sects of the same religion, are considered to be evil. “Jesus loves me more than he loves you. Our church has God’s love, not yours. Your church is a fake one — the devil is behind your church.” We see the same kind of phenomenon between different fundamentalist Muslim sects in the Middle East.
According to this view, not only is the world is divided between “us” and “them”, good and evil; but the evil side is so dangerous that we have to be extremely careful. Even though God is on the side of the good people, the good people are threatened in the battle between good and evil. Satan, or the devil, is behind the evil group — be it another country, another religion, non-religious people, or another sect of the same religion. The power of Satan is threatening the truth.
This paranoia is a response to the complexity of the world today, when there are so many ideas, possibilities and choices. One response is simply to be paranoid and afraid of it all – it’s all the work of Satan. Become more extreme, simplify, and try to eliminate those who don’t follow the same belief.
This is connected to an apocalyptic orientation. We are in a war between good and evil, but ultimately, this war will lead to the end of the world. Violence, natural disasters, all the problems in the world – these are signs that the world is coming to an end. There are prophecies about the “last day” in many religious scriptures. Apocalyptic groups believe that these prophecies are literally true, and that they are players in the final drama -- the apocalyptic battle between good and evil, like in a Hollywood film. Some apocalyptic sects try to speed up the apocalypse: let’s help to destroy the world. This is particularly the ideology, for example, of ISIS right now. Why do they appear to be so vicious, brutal, destructive and bloodthirsty? Why don’t they care to engage in any kind of mutual understanding and negotiations with anybody? It is precisely because they are, in their minds, living in the end of the world. Even if ultimately all of them are killed, that’s not a problem for them, because that is destined to happen at the end of the world. Only the chosen few will survive. This type of apocalypticism can be found in different religious sects. In history there have been Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Christian and Daoist apocalyptic groups. Some apocalyptic groups are peaceful, waiting for the end of the world rather than doing something to harm other people. But some of the groups that we see in the world today are dangerously violent. Their destructive violence is an expression of their dualistic mind-set, paranoia, and apocalypticism.
The final characteristic is a total mental transformation – what people used to call “brainwashing”. To convert to a religion is similar to the adoption of a new philosophy, culture or a new set of values; it is to adopt a new mental operating system. When someone adopts a new mental operating system, there has to be a reconciliation between the new set of values and the old one. The old set of values refers to people’s previous life experiences, their inherited value systems, the perspectives acquired under other people’s influence, and so on and so forth. When we adopt a new set of values or a new belief, we then have to work out the relationship between what existed before in our mindscape and the new set of values.
However, in the fundamentalist mindset, people should not reconcile the tension between the old and the new operating systems. Instead, they should completely remove what previously existed in their minds, so as to totally embrace the new ideology. They should completely reject everything about themselves, their families and friends — to reject everything that is not completely in line with the new ideology. This is the idea of a totalised conversion experience.
Response 2: spiritual individualism
Another response to the crisis of religion is extreme individualism. When people are bombarded with so many philosophies and ideas, some people just stop thinking. They may acquire a sense of meaninglessness – exposed to so many different worldviews and systems of belief, people just give up on all of them, and live in their own, individual world. Or they may compose their own, totally private and individual spirituality. “I believe whatever I choose to believe, and nobody has the authority to tell me what to believe or not. I will just construct my own personal and individual belief system.” This is what we call spiritual individualism.
Spiritual individualism is a type of spiritual modernity. In modern society, we see the rise of individual, who becomes the final authority in many aspects of life. Individualisation is one of the defining characteristics of modernity. In that sense, spiritual individualism is a perfect expression of modernity.
I did some field research at Asheville, a small city in the United States where a lot of spiritual individualists live. This is a place associated with the New Age movement. In the New Age movement and similar type of groups, people are constructing their own spirituality from a variety of sources. Some of them practice Daoist qigong. Some of them do Kundalini yoga. Some of them practice a modern form of American Indian religion, which involves smoking peyote, a certain kind of drug to enter altered states of consciousness. Some are involved in Buddhism. You can find all spiritual practices there.
Many of those people come together at a building every Sunday morning for an activity called the “Dance Church”, or alternatively known as the “Asheville Movement Collective”. This activity is similar to the habit of going to church every Sunday. But this group is different from the church, because the Christian church has authority — the priest tells you what to think and do. But at the Dance Church, they don’t do that. They are supposed to move naturally and spontaneously in accordance with the self. They are not allowed to follow any prescribed types of dance, such as hip-hop, tango, etc. They are told to be themselves. So when the music is plays, everybody moves spontaneously. “Don’t follow anything else but yourself.” What is interesting is that there is a strong rule: “there must be no rules”. “You MUST be yourSELF, and nothing else.” Isn’t that paradoxical?
I mentioned earlier that in the axial philosophies and religions, the idea was to transcend oneself. If one transcends oneself, then clearly, one should transcend to something else, toward something other than oneself. But here, the idea is that there is nothing beyond the self, the truth is only in your self. What is the result? If you refuse to follow any form from anybody, what can you do except to move your body around? If you start to do anything more than that, you’re following some kind of authority, teaching or path. But these spiritual individualists do not want to follow an authority or discipline. Spiritual individualism is thus often associated with the commodification of spirituality and religion, turning spiritual practices into commercial products. Thus, as a consumer, “the consumer is god”, and you have the total freedom to pick and choose what you wish.
Spiritual individualism is a type of spiritual modernity. In modern society, we see the rise of individual, who becomes the final authority in many aspects of life. Individualisation is one of the defining characteristics of modernity. In that sense, spiritual individualism is a perfect expression of modernity.
I did some field research at Asheville, a small city in the United States where a lot of spiritual individualists live. This is a place associated with the New Age movement. In the New Age movement and similar type of groups, people are constructing their own spirituality from a variety of sources. Some of them practice Daoist qigong. Some of them do Kundalini yoga. Some of them practice a modern form of American Indian religion, which involves smoking peyote, a certain kind of drug to enter altered states of consciousness. Some are involved in Buddhism. You can find all spiritual practices there.
Many of those people come together at a building every Sunday morning for an activity called the “Dance Church”, or alternatively known as the “Asheville Movement Collective”. This activity is similar to the habit of going to church every Sunday. But this group is different from the church, because the Christian church has authority — the priest tells you what to think and do. But at the Dance Church, they don’t do that. They are supposed to move naturally and spontaneously in accordance with the self. They are not allowed to follow any prescribed types of dance, such as hip-hop, tango, etc. They are told to be themselves. So when the music is plays, everybody moves spontaneously. “Don’t follow anything else but yourself.” What is interesting is that there is a strong rule: “there must be no rules”. “You MUST be yourSELF, and nothing else.” Isn’t that paradoxical?
I mentioned earlier that in the axial philosophies and religions, the idea was to transcend oneself. If one transcends oneself, then clearly, one should transcend to something else, toward something other than oneself. But here, the idea is that there is nothing beyond the self, the truth is only in your self. What is the result? If you refuse to follow any form from anybody, what can you do except to move your body around? If you start to do anything more than that, you’re following some kind of authority, teaching or path. But these spiritual individualists do not want to follow an authority or discipline. Spiritual individualism is thus often associated with the commodification of spirituality and religion, turning spiritual practices into commercial products. Thus, as a consumer, “the consumer is god”, and you have the total freedom to pick and choose what you wish.
Response 3: greater integration
Another response to the crisis of religion is to seek for greater unity, interpenetration or integration. According to this approach, humanity is currently undergoing the greatest transformation in its evolutionary history, characterised by an exponential multiplication of our level of intercommunication, interconnectedness and interdependence, and the possibility of permanently altering the evolutionary course of life on our planet, including our own. Is there any deeper meaning, significance, direction or purpose to these changes? From a materialist perspective, evolution is a process without any intrinsic direction or purpose. Religion, on the other hand, typically considers that there is a moral and spiritual meaning to the direction of change. The environmental and social “day of reckoning” our species faces as a consequence of our collective choices; the emergence of increasing levels of global consciousness, self-reflexivity and sense of responsibility for our collective well-being and for our planet – all of these manifestations of the current moment of human evolution, can be understood as spiritually and religiously meaningful. From this perspective, we need to consider the significance of the time we live in, and ask ourselves if we have a moral or spiritual imperative to act for the wellbeing of our species and life on Earth. Some scholars have suggested that humanity is now entering a "second Axial age". We will consider the characteristics of the current turning point in humanity's religious culture, and examine the ideas of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin on humanity's spiritual future.
Teilhard de Chardin and the “noosphere”
An example of the integrationist view is the thought of the French Catholic palaeontologist and theologian, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (Derijin 德日進, 1881-1955). He is famous in China as one of the discoverers of Peking Man (Beijing yuanren 北京猿人). In the early 20th Century, a number of European and Chinese archaeologists and palaeontologists conducted excavations in the vicinity of Beijing, who discovered the bones of an early ancestor of the human race, who has been called Peking Man. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was one of these scientists.[3]
He was also a very religious man, a Catholic priest. Although he was well known in China for his discoveries in the field of palaeontology, he is also famous for his theory about the evolution of human consciousness. He wrote many books about how humanity evolved in the context of the Earth’s planetary evolution, and how he saw humanity evolving in the future. However, the Catholic Church banned his books, because they were considered to be not in alignment with Catholic dogma.
His theory about the evolution of humanity includes some of the following concepts. The planet Earth is called the geosphere in geology. Around the planet, there is the biosphere, which is made up of all the biological life on this planet, and which forms the outer living coating of the planet Earth. If you consider all of the interconnections between all these different living beings, they form a single living system, which completely covers the surface of the world. For Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, in the first stage of planetary evolution, the geosphere came into being. Then, through the course of millions of years, the biosphere also came into being. Then, what is happening now, is the emergence of what he called the noosphere – which means a “mental sphere”.[4]
Over thousands of years of evolution, as human beings have spread over the surface of the Earth, the communication between human beings has gradually spread over the surface of the Earth. For most of human history, the communication between human beings was largely localised. But in the present day, the spread of human beings, the consciousness of human beings, and the communication between humans has completely covered the earth. This communication is going on all the time at intense levels and in all directions. The intense communication creates a planetary consciousness that transcends each individual. This communication and consciousness forms the noosphere, which covers the entire planet.
Although each of us has our individual consciousness, we collectively form one single system of consciousness, which is constantly communicating. In a sense, that can be compared to the brain itself. The human brain is made of trillions of cells, each of which has its own life. Yet, the intense intercommunication between all these cells forms the consciousness of one single human being. So what Teilhard de Chardin said is that this is the situation of our planet — collectively, we are moving in that direction through the increasingly intense communication and consciousness between human beings. As we think of the internet and cyberspace, we can understand his idea. But he said this almost 100 years ago. This was a rather radical concept in those days.
How did he describe the idea of the noosphere? It is the coming into being of a planetary thinking network — the interlinking system of consciousness and information, of a global net of self-consciousness, and of instantaneous feedback and planetary communication. At some point in the future, he thought, this intercommunication and interconnection would become increasingly intense to the point that what emerged would be a single consciousness. In his mystical, religious worldview, he considered that this point of consciousness is the point where humans would come into union with the transcendental vision of God. He called this the Omega Point. Teilhard de Chardin considered that the increasingly integrated consciousness of the human race will approach the universal consciousness of God. It is, in a sense, a very mystical and religious understanding of the future evolution of humanity.
Given this overall trend of evolution, we have a choice between what he called “divergent individualism” and “convergence.” In divergent individualism, which is the same as the “spiritual individualism” I discussed above, meaning and purpose can only be found inside our own selves. To find my true self, I have to find my freedom from others, not to subject myself to the influence or control of others. Therefore, it is in my individuality, in my own uniqueness and difference that I can find my true meaning and purpose. For Teilhard de Chardin, if everybody goes along the way of divergent individualism, what we will end up with is a highly individualistic society, in which individuals, with their absolutely unique meaning and consciousness, have no connection with each other.
On the other hand, he presented another choice, that of convergence. He proposed that in communication with others, we seek to find unity or union with others. So, every one of us should consider how to find the point of convergence that we have with others. He called this the general direction of evolution.
But perhaps Teilhard de Chardin assumed too great a dichotomy between the collective and the individual. On the one hand, we cannot find our own meaning in isolation. All the meaning that we get in our own lives, even when we create our own meaning, emerges through our conversation with other people and our interaction with the world. Paradoxically, our individualistic meaning-making requires a certain level of integration, communication and interaction with others. As the world becomes increasingly interconnected with even greater interaction between people, on the one hand, it leads to greater integration, but on the other, it makes it possible to have even more divergent individual meanings, because we can be exposed to so many different people and ideas. Every one of us will have different circles of friends, different things to read, exposure to different ideas, and experience of different places. This greater interconnectedness actually leads to an ever-greater diversity of individual consciousness, which, in turn, leads to further interconnectedness. So, in fact, individualisation and convergence actually go hand-in-hand.
He was also a very religious man, a Catholic priest. Although he was well known in China for his discoveries in the field of palaeontology, he is also famous for his theory about the evolution of human consciousness. He wrote many books about how humanity evolved in the context of the Earth’s planetary evolution, and how he saw humanity evolving in the future. However, the Catholic Church banned his books, because they were considered to be not in alignment with Catholic dogma.
His theory about the evolution of humanity includes some of the following concepts. The planet Earth is called the geosphere in geology. Around the planet, there is the biosphere, which is made up of all the biological life on this planet, and which forms the outer living coating of the planet Earth. If you consider all of the interconnections between all these different living beings, they form a single living system, which completely covers the surface of the world. For Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, in the first stage of planetary evolution, the geosphere came into being. Then, through the course of millions of years, the biosphere also came into being. Then, what is happening now, is the emergence of what he called the noosphere – which means a “mental sphere”.[4]
Over thousands of years of evolution, as human beings have spread over the surface of the Earth, the communication between human beings has gradually spread over the surface of the Earth. For most of human history, the communication between human beings was largely localised. But in the present day, the spread of human beings, the consciousness of human beings, and the communication between humans has completely covered the earth. This communication is going on all the time at intense levels and in all directions. The intense communication creates a planetary consciousness that transcends each individual. This communication and consciousness forms the noosphere, which covers the entire planet.
Although each of us has our individual consciousness, we collectively form one single system of consciousness, which is constantly communicating. In a sense, that can be compared to the brain itself. The human brain is made of trillions of cells, each of which has its own life. Yet, the intense intercommunication between all these cells forms the consciousness of one single human being. So what Teilhard de Chardin said is that this is the situation of our planet — collectively, we are moving in that direction through the increasingly intense communication and consciousness between human beings. As we think of the internet and cyberspace, we can understand his idea. But he said this almost 100 years ago. This was a rather radical concept in those days.
How did he describe the idea of the noosphere? It is the coming into being of a planetary thinking network — the interlinking system of consciousness and information, of a global net of self-consciousness, and of instantaneous feedback and planetary communication. At some point in the future, he thought, this intercommunication and interconnection would become increasingly intense to the point that what emerged would be a single consciousness. In his mystical, religious worldview, he considered that this point of consciousness is the point where humans would come into union with the transcendental vision of God. He called this the Omega Point. Teilhard de Chardin considered that the increasingly integrated consciousness of the human race will approach the universal consciousness of God. It is, in a sense, a very mystical and religious understanding of the future evolution of humanity.
Given this overall trend of evolution, we have a choice between what he called “divergent individualism” and “convergence.” In divergent individualism, which is the same as the “spiritual individualism” I discussed above, meaning and purpose can only be found inside our own selves. To find my true self, I have to find my freedom from others, not to subject myself to the influence or control of others. Therefore, it is in my individuality, in my own uniqueness and difference that I can find my true meaning and purpose. For Teilhard de Chardin, if everybody goes along the way of divergent individualism, what we will end up with is a highly individualistic society, in which individuals, with their absolutely unique meaning and consciousness, have no connection with each other.
On the other hand, he presented another choice, that of convergence. He proposed that in communication with others, we seek to find unity or union with others. So, every one of us should consider how to find the point of convergence that we have with others. He called this the general direction of evolution.
But perhaps Teilhard de Chardin assumed too great a dichotomy between the collective and the individual. On the one hand, we cannot find our own meaning in isolation. All the meaning that we get in our own lives, even when we create our own meaning, emerges through our conversation with other people and our interaction with the world. Paradoxically, our individualistic meaning-making requires a certain level of integration, communication and interaction with others. As the world becomes increasingly interconnected with even greater interaction between people, on the one hand, it leads to greater integration, but on the other, it makes it possible to have even more divergent individual meanings, because we can be exposed to so many different people and ideas. Every one of us will have different circles of friends, different things to read, exposure to different ideas, and experience of different places. This greater interconnectedness actually leads to an ever-greater diversity of individual consciousness, which, in turn, leads to further interconnectedness. So, in fact, individualisation and convergence actually go hand-in-hand.
The oneness of humanity in religious teachings
The intensification of both integration and diversification in today’s world challenges us to reconsider the meaning and application of religious teachings on universal love and compassion. From Christ’s words of “Love your neighbour as yourself” to Confucius’ teaching that “all within the four seas are brothers”; from the Prophet Muhammad’s message that “all people are a single nation” to Baha’u’llah’s teaching that “the earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens”, all of the great religious and spiritual traditions teach that that love, compassion and justice should be extended to all members of the human family.
Throughout its history, humanity has progressed through different stages of development and achieved various degrees of integration and unity within the capacities and limitations of each era. Human society has evolved from small-scale families and bands, to tribes, chiefdoms and kingdoms, to multi-ethnic empires and modern nations. Today, a single “global village”[5] is emerging with international organisations, networks, institutions and laws transcending the boundaries of nation states. The scale of human society and culture has gradually increased, from small units of a dozen individuals to the entire planet of six billion humans. The scope of economic activity, forms of social organisation, and collective identities have expanded to cover the entire planet. For the first time in history, technological advances and increasing interdependence among nations have paved the way for a greater spiritual consciousness of oneness to release its full potential in all aspects of social life. While the “Golden Rule” in all religious traditions has, long ago, laid the moral foundation for the oneness of humanity, humanity has now reached the stage where it is not only possible but necessary to fully apply the Golden Rule to all members of the human race.
The principle of the oneness of mankind goes much deeper than a superficial uniformity or the spread of symbols or habits of consumption. It goes beyond the material phenomenon of globalization, with its focus on the free movement of capital, the global expansion of markets and the accumulation of material wealth on a global scale. Nor is it a vague sentiment of universal brotherhood. Rather, the oneness of humanity implies a consciousness of the common destiny of all humans, and the motivation to act in line with this consciousness. This vision of the future sets in motion a process to change the structure of society.
All efforts to improve the living conditions of a community, build on a conscious or unconscious vision of a social ideal for humanity. Does this vision include all humans? Oneness must necessarily express itself in infinite variety. Diversity and oneness are complimentary and inseparable. The vitality and strength of oneness is dependent upon the diversity within it. For example, we may consider Abdu’l Baha’s analogy of a beautiful garden: “consider the flowers of a garden. Though differing in kind, colour, form and shape, this diversity increases their charm and adds unto their beauty. How unpleasing to the eye if all the flowers and plants, the leaves and blossoms, the fruit, the branches and the trees of that garden were all of the same shape and colour! Diversity of hues, form and shape enrich and adorn the garden, and heighten the effect thereof.” Likewise, in human society diversity does not invariably give rise to enmity and opposition. The differences of ethnicity, nationality, and race that exist today can be appreciated in the context of a historical process that has entailed progressive stages of integration. Differences that are perceived as causes of division and conflict should in fact be treated as sources of cohesion and well-being. Diversity brings enormous strength to the composition of the whole.
For example, we may consider the human body: within the system of a human body, millions of cells, with an extraordinary diversity of forms and functions, collaborate to make the existence of a human being possible. They give and receive whatever is needed for their individual function, as well as for the growth and welfare of the whole. The principle that governs the functioning of the body is cooperation. But this is not cooperation without a purpose or fruit. It is through the harmonious cooperation of all the diverse components of the body, that the higher powers of the human being manifest themselves – including the rational faculty, intelligence, and spirituality. The inordinate growth of one part of the body at the expense of the others, or the dysfunction of one part, lead to illness and even to the death of the whole.
No one would try to explain the life of a healthy body in terms of some of some concepts we use so freely in our social theories, such as competition among the parts for scarce resources, or each part trying to indefinitely grow in size. Fatal illness would surely be the result if the components of the human body operated in such a way. Would the ultimate results not be the same when the components of society operate in such a way?
The oneness of humanity includes such aspects as the equality of women and men; the equality and full participation of people regardless of their ethnicity, nationality or religion; the abolition of religious prejudice and conflict, and the reduction of extremes of poverty and wealth. The principle of oneness requires us to rethink some of the dominant theories of the social sciences, which assume that the foundation of human civilisation is the pursuit and defence of self-interest, competition, and the domination of one group over others. The principle of oneness requires us to imagine and practice other ways of ordering our social life, and to examine whether our own behaviour and social institutions are reproducing and promoting divisive and destructive habits.
Although the oneness of humanity is a planetary vision, its practice begins with our own lives. How does the principle of oneness operate in the family, or in a neighbourhood? How does it operate in a workplace or an organization? Since our imagination is earthbound it is a challenge to visualise what the oneness of humankind may look like. However, once the frame of reference we use to look at the world changes, our sense of perception automatically changes. In June of 1985, an Arab astronaut said the following during his flight on the space shuttle Discovery: “The first day or so we all pointed to our countries. The third or fourth day we were pointing to our continents. By the fifth day we were aware of only one earth.”
Throughout its history, humanity has progressed through different stages of development and achieved various degrees of integration and unity within the capacities and limitations of each era. Human society has evolved from small-scale families and bands, to tribes, chiefdoms and kingdoms, to multi-ethnic empires and modern nations. Today, a single “global village”[5] is emerging with international organisations, networks, institutions and laws transcending the boundaries of nation states. The scale of human society and culture has gradually increased, from small units of a dozen individuals to the entire planet of six billion humans. The scope of economic activity, forms of social organisation, and collective identities have expanded to cover the entire planet. For the first time in history, technological advances and increasing interdependence among nations have paved the way for a greater spiritual consciousness of oneness to release its full potential in all aspects of social life. While the “Golden Rule” in all religious traditions has, long ago, laid the moral foundation for the oneness of humanity, humanity has now reached the stage where it is not only possible but necessary to fully apply the Golden Rule to all members of the human race.
The principle of the oneness of mankind goes much deeper than a superficial uniformity or the spread of symbols or habits of consumption. It goes beyond the material phenomenon of globalization, with its focus on the free movement of capital, the global expansion of markets and the accumulation of material wealth on a global scale. Nor is it a vague sentiment of universal brotherhood. Rather, the oneness of humanity implies a consciousness of the common destiny of all humans, and the motivation to act in line with this consciousness. This vision of the future sets in motion a process to change the structure of society.
All efforts to improve the living conditions of a community, build on a conscious or unconscious vision of a social ideal for humanity. Does this vision include all humans? Oneness must necessarily express itself in infinite variety. Diversity and oneness are complimentary and inseparable. The vitality and strength of oneness is dependent upon the diversity within it. For example, we may consider Abdu’l Baha’s analogy of a beautiful garden: “consider the flowers of a garden. Though differing in kind, colour, form and shape, this diversity increases their charm and adds unto their beauty. How unpleasing to the eye if all the flowers and plants, the leaves and blossoms, the fruit, the branches and the trees of that garden were all of the same shape and colour! Diversity of hues, form and shape enrich and adorn the garden, and heighten the effect thereof.” Likewise, in human society diversity does not invariably give rise to enmity and opposition. The differences of ethnicity, nationality, and race that exist today can be appreciated in the context of a historical process that has entailed progressive stages of integration. Differences that are perceived as causes of division and conflict should in fact be treated as sources of cohesion and well-being. Diversity brings enormous strength to the composition of the whole.
For example, we may consider the human body: within the system of a human body, millions of cells, with an extraordinary diversity of forms and functions, collaborate to make the existence of a human being possible. They give and receive whatever is needed for their individual function, as well as for the growth and welfare of the whole. The principle that governs the functioning of the body is cooperation. But this is not cooperation without a purpose or fruit. It is through the harmonious cooperation of all the diverse components of the body, that the higher powers of the human being manifest themselves – including the rational faculty, intelligence, and spirituality. The inordinate growth of one part of the body at the expense of the others, or the dysfunction of one part, lead to illness and even to the death of the whole.
No one would try to explain the life of a healthy body in terms of some of some concepts we use so freely in our social theories, such as competition among the parts for scarce resources, or each part trying to indefinitely grow in size. Fatal illness would surely be the result if the components of the human body operated in such a way. Would the ultimate results not be the same when the components of society operate in such a way?
The oneness of humanity includes such aspects as the equality of women and men; the equality and full participation of people regardless of their ethnicity, nationality or religion; the abolition of religious prejudice and conflict, and the reduction of extremes of poverty and wealth. The principle of oneness requires us to rethink some of the dominant theories of the social sciences, which assume that the foundation of human civilisation is the pursuit and defence of self-interest, competition, and the domination of one group over others. The principle of oneness requires us to imagine and practice other ways of ordering our social life, and to examine whether our own behaviour and social institutions are reproducing and promoting divisive and destructive habits.
Although the oneness of humanity is a planetary vision, its practice begins with our own lives. How does the principle of oneness operate in the family, or in a neighbourhood? How does it operate in a workplace or an organization? Since our imagination is earthbound it is a challenge to visualise what the oneness of humankind may look like. However, once the frame of reference we use to look at the world changes, our sense of perception automatically changes. In June of 1985, an Arab astronaut said the following during his flight on the space shuttle Discovery: “The first day or so we all pointed to our countries. The third or fourth day we were pointing to our continents. By the fifth day we were aware of only one earth.”
The interfaith movement
I have been to Israel a number of times. A few times, I went to Jerusalem, which is the most holy place in the world for Jews and Christians, and the third most holy place in the world for Muslims. It is a highly sacred place for three of the world's largest religions. There is a place called the Western Wall in Jerusalem, where the Temple of the Jews – their most holy sanctuary -- was destroyed 2000 years ago. The only thing that remains of the holy temple of the Jewish people is this Wall. Jewish people around the world come to this place and pray at this wall. It is the most important and holy spot in the world for the Jewish people.
Right above the wall, on the Temple Mount, there is the al-Aqsa Mosque, one of the most holy shrines of the Muslim world. And if you walk for about five minutes, you will find the Via Dolorosa, the path that Jesus walked down when he was bearing the Cross. This path leads to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, where the tomb of Jesus Christ is located. All of these three sacred places are only 5 to 10 minutes’ walk away from each other. All of these profoundly sacred locations for about two thirds of the world's population are located in this one single spot. Regrettably, people are fighting for the control of this holy place. It has been extremely difficult to keep the peace between these different communities. Recently, violence has once again flared between Jews and Muslims over access to the Temple Mount. Even in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, a Christian holy spot, different parts of the sanctuary belong to different sects of Christianity, which have a hard time cooperating for the upkeep and maintenance of the holy site.
For me, it's amazing that people are fighting over Jerusalem, because they share the same holy place. I would say they should celebrate it! They should be happy that they have a common holy land! Jerusalem should be a place that brings people of different religions together.
Everything depends on how we look at things. If people have a dualistic and exclusivist mental operating systems, it becomes easy for them to become angry, and they want to fight against each other. But if we switch our operating system, the same thing becomes a cause of celebration — something that brings different people together. Nowadays, when religious animosity and violence are once again increasing in different parts of the world, it becomes profoundly important to learn about different religions, spiritual traditions, and approaches to understanding different types of spirituality, and to appreciate what they have in common. So many people in the world only know one way of being religious. It is because of ignorance and prejudice that we find hatred and violence in the world based on religion.
Many people and movements are trying to promote inter-religious and interfaith understanding. The modern inter-faith movement started in 1893, when the first interfaith and inter-religious dialogue in the modern sense took place at the World’s Fair in Chicago, in a gathering called the World’s Parliament of Religions. For the first time, religious leaders and representatives from everywhere in the world were invited to Chicago to share their ideas with each other. This marked the birth of the Interfaith Movement — people of different religions tried to overcome their prejudices and conflicts, and to engage in a peaceful dialogue to increase their mutual understanding. The Parliament of World’s Religions was revived in 1993, and it is held in a different city in the world every few years. Typically, several thousand delegates from around the world attend, representing hundreds of religious traditions and sects. Hundreds of small-scale interfaith events are also organised around the world every year.
Right above the wall, on the Temple Mount, there is the al-Aqsa Mosque, one of the most holy shrines of the Muslim world. And if you walk for about five minutes, you will find the Via Dolorosa, the path that Jesus walked down when he was bearing the Cross. This path leads to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, where the tomb of Jesus Christ is located. All of these three sacred places are only 5 to 10 minutes’ walk away from each other. All of these profoundly sacred locations for about two thirds of the world's population are located in this one single spot. Regrettably, people are fighting for the control of this holy place. It has been extremely difficult to keep the peace between these different communities. Recently, violence has once again flared between Jews and Muslims over access to the Temple Mount. Even in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, a Christian holy spot, different parts of the sanctuary belong to different sects of Christianity, which have a hard time cooperating for the upkeep and maintenance of the holy site.
For me, it's amazing that people are fighting over Jerusalem, because they share the same holy place. I would say they should celebrate it! They should be happy that they have a common holy land! Jerusalem should be a place that brings people of different religions together.
Everything depends on how we look at things. If people have a dualistic and exclusivist mental operating systems, it becomes easy for them to become angry, and they want to fight against each other. But if we switch our operating system, the same thing becomes a cause of celebration — something that brings different people together. Nowadays, when religious animosity and violence are once again increasing in different parts of the world, it becomes profoundly important to learn about different religions, spiritual traditions, and approaches to understanding different types of spirituality, and to appreciate what they have in common. So many people in the world only know one way of being religious. It is because of ignorance and prejudice that we find hatred and violence in the world based on religion.
Many people and movements are trying to promote inter-religious and interfaith understanding. The modern inter-faith movement started in 1893, when the first interfaith and inter-religious dialogue in the modern sense took place at the World’s Fair in Chicago, in a gathering called the World’s Parliament of Religions. For the first time, religious leaders and representatives from everywhere in the world were invited to Chicago to share their ideas with each other. This marked the birth of the Interfaith Movement — people of different religions tried to overcome their prejudices and conflicts, and to engage in a peaceful dialogue to increase their mutual understanding. The Parliament of World’s Religions was revived in 1993, and it is held in a different city in the world every few years. Typically, several thousand delegates from around the world attend, representing hundreds of religious traditions and sects. Hundreds of small-scale interfaith events are also organised around the world every year.
Other than interfaith events, many scholars, authors and artists are also trying to foster understanding between religions. For example, if you look at the “religion” section of any bookshop around the world, you will find many books authored by Karen Armstrong. She's a great author, and has written many books on religion. She was a former Catholic nun, and later tried hard to enhance the mutual understanding between people of different religions. Between Christians and Muslims, there has been a lot of prejudice and hatred. In this videoclip, she emphasizes the compassion of the prophet Muhammad.[6] While terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda and Isis, as well as Islamophobe (anti-Muslim) groups, portray Muhammad as vengeful and bloodthirsty, Armstrong studied the life and teachings of the Prophet to emphasise that compassion was at the heart of Muhammad’s teachings. This is an example of a woman from one religious tradition reaching over to other religious traditions, trying to find the value in the other religious traditions.
YouTube clip: Karen Armstrong: The Prophet Muhammad's Compassion
Another example is the American Muslim rapper Mo Sabri. In this music video, he testifies how, as a Muslim, he believes in Jesus Christ.[7] In the Qur’an, the holy book of Islam, it is emphasised that Jesus is a prophet of God, just as Muhammad. The rapper emphasises that as a Muslim, believing in Jesus is very important for him. He tried to break down the barriers that exist between people of different religious communities.
YouTube clip: Mo Sabri - Jesus
A final example is a very interesting interfaith dialogue between a Muslim imam, a Christian pastor and a Jewish rabbi. In this TED talk[8] they joke about their differences and emphasise the common spirit that brings them together as members of different religions.
YouTube clip: TEDxDU The Interfaith Amigos - Breaking the taboos of interfaith dialogue
The Second Axial Age
Karen Armstrong and other scholars have claimed that the period we now live in could be called the “Second Axial Age”.[9] Armstrong stated that
All over the world, people are struggling with these new conditions and have been forced to reassess their religious traditions, which were designed for a very different type of society. They are finding that the old forms of faith no longer work for them; they cannot provide the enlightenment and consolation that human beings seem to need. As a result, men and women are trying to find new ways of being religious. Like the reformers and prophets of the first Axial Age, they are attempting to build upon the insights of the past in a way that will take human beings forward into the new world they have created for themselves.[10]
The concept of the “Axial Age”, describes the appearance of the idea of transcendence in the civilisational centres of China, India, Greece and Israel. These Axial teachings and ideals were critical of local values and customs. A new level of self-consciousness appeared during this period. Another interesting aspect of the Axial age is religious circulation and interpenetration. In the time of the Buddha, there were many spiritual teachers who promoted Axial teachings; only the Buddha remains famous today as the founder of a world religion. In his time, the whole society of his time, together with its old culture, was collapsing. There were more and more people circulating throughout India, leaving their local homes and villages, and their local customs behind. Trade routes were expanding. There was greater communication and interconnection between different parts of India and even with other parts of the world, which led to the outburst of new ideas and spiritual teachers. The same thing was happening during Axial periods in China, in Greece and in Palestine. For example, there were many new religious movements emerging in the Roman Empire at the time of Jesus, which were breaking out of the traditional Roman-style pagan religion, or trying to reform Judaism.
According to Armstrong, we are now in a similar kind of “Axial” condition. Traditional and conventional religious worldviews have been challenged, they have collapsed, or they have found themselves in crisis. The old boundaries between communities have broken open. And there is a greater circulation and communication between different parts of the world. Many new and reformist spiritual and religious movements have appeared. At the same time, old religious movements and teachings have been fiercely criticised. It's hard to say now, but out of the bubbling diversity and emergence of different ideas, perhaps a new form of spiritual or religious culture will emerge.
One dimension of this “Second Axial Age” is a greater social consciousness. While the first Axial Age saw the emergence of individual reflexivity – to become critically aware and detached from yourself as an individual -- the current “Axial” condition seems to be characterised by a greater sense of collective reflexivity — we become aware of our collective identity as human beings, and we critically reflect on the type of collective society and culture we are creating through the way we live, think and act in society.
Indeed, thanks to the development of science and technology, humanity has access to immense and unparalleled power, including the capacity to change or eliminate the existence of life on the planet. We have a history of misusing or abusing the powers at our disposal. We need a strong set of values and principles to guide and restrict our use of these powers, for the protection and betterment of the world. But, owing to a history of misuse and abuse of religions and ideologies, religion has lost its credibility to play this role. Furthermore, in a context of globalized cultural pluralism, there is no religious or value system that is accepted by all as a source of guidance. Unfettered materialism, greed and egoism tend to become, by default, the dominant values of society. The gap between rich and poor increases; elites, corporations, and states become devoted to the protection of their vested interests.
Is it possible to develop a new set of spiritual values for humanity? This will require a new conceptual and methodological framework, which takes a simultaneously critical and constructive perspective on religion, including the following elements:
All over the world, people are struggling with these new conditions and have been forced to reassess their religious traditions, which were designed for a very different type of society. They are finding that the old forms of faith no longer work for them; they cannot provide the enlightenment and consolation that human beings seem to need. As a result, men and women are trying to find new ways of being religious. Like the reformers and prophets of the first Axial Age, they are attempting to build upon the insights of the past in a way that will take human beings forward into the new world they have created for themselves.[10]
The concept of the “Axial Age”, describes the appearance of the idea of transcendence in the civilisational centres of China, India, Greece and Israel. These Axial teachings and ideals were critical of local values and customs. A new level of self-consciousness appeared during this period. Another interesting aspect of the Axial age is religious circulation and interpenetration. In the time of the Buddha, there were many spiritual teachers who promoted Axial teachings; only the Buddha remains famous today as the founder of a world religion. In his time, the whole society of his time, together with its old culture, was collapsing. There were more and more people circulating throughout India, leaving their local homes and villages, and their local customs behind. Trade routes were expanding. There was greater communication and interconnection between different parts of India and even with other parts of the world, which led to the outburst of new ideas and spiritual teachers. The same thing was happening during Axial periods in China, in Greece and in Palestine. For example, there were many new religious movements emerging in the Roman Empire at the time of Jesus, which were breaking out of the traditional Roman-style pagan religion, or trying to reform Judaism.
According to Armstrong, we are now in a similar kind of “Axial” condition. Traditional and conventional religious worldviews have been challenged, they have collapsed, or they have found themselves in crisis. The old boundaries between communities have broken open. And there is a greater circulation and communication between different parts of the world. Many new and reformist spiritual and religious movements have appeared. At the same time, old religious movements and teachings have been fiercely criticised. It's hard to say now, but out of the bubbling diversity and emergence of different ideas, perhaps a new form of spiritual or religious culture will emerge.
One dimension of this “Second Axial Age” is a greater social consciousness. While the first Axial Age saw the emergence of individual reflexivity – to become critically aware and detached from yourself as an individual -- the current “Axial” condition seems to be characterised by a greater sense of collective reflexivity — we become aware of our collective identity as human beings, and we critically reflect on the type of collective society and culture we are creating through the way we live, think and act in society.
Indeed, thanks to the development of science and technology, humanity has access to immense and unparalleled power, including the capacity to change or eliminate the existence of life on the planet. We have a history of misusing or abusing the powers at our disposal. We need a strong set of values and principles to guide and restrict our use of these powers, for the protection and betterment of the world. But, owing to a history of misuse and abuse of religions and ideologies, religion has lost its credibility to play this role. Furthermore, in a context of globalized cultural pluralism, there is no religious or value system that is accepted by all as a source of guidance. Unfettered materialism, greed and egoism tend to become, by default, the dominant values of society. The gap between rich and poor increases; elites, corporations, and states become devoted to the protection of their vested interests.
Is it possible to develop a new set of spiritual values for humanity? This will require a new conceptual and methodological framework, which takes a simultaneously critical and constructive perspective on religion, including the following elements:
- An understanding of human spirituality, or the spiritual dimension of what it means to be human;
- the well-being of the entire human race as our moral and ethical horizon, extending to the entire planet;
- a sustained dialogue between science and religion, seeking for the complementarities and mutual restrictions between both systems of knowledge;
- building on the spiritual heritage of the human race, as expressed through the world’s religious traditions in dialogue with each other;
- identifying and applying spiritual principles in our efforts to live our individual lives, consult on our collective problems, and advancing our global civilisation.
[1] Marx, Critique of Hegel’s “Philosophy Of Right,” 131.
[2] See the video clip at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqwd_u6HkMo.
[3] Schmalzer, The People’s Peking Man.
[4] Chardin, The Vision of the Past, 71, 230, 261.
[5] McLuhan, The Gutenberg Galaxy.
[6] You can view the video clip at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lahXSUkuaIA
[7] You can view the video clip at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu5XyJsSy5g
[8] You can view the video clip at https://youtu.be/tPnZArtsG_c
[9] Armstrong, The Great Transformation.
[10] Roemischer, “A New Axial Age,” para. 19.
[2] See the video clip at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqwd_u6HkMo.
[3] Schmalzer, The People’s Peking Man.
[4] Chardin, The Vision of the Past, 71, 230, 261.
[5] McLuhan, The Gutenberg Galaxy.
[6] You can view the video clip at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lahXSUkuaIA
[7] You can view the video clip at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu5XyJsSy5g
[8] You can view the video clip at https://youtu.be/tPnZArtsG_c
[9] Armstrong, The Great Transformation.
[10] Roemischer, “A New Axial Age,” para. 19.
References
Armstrong, Karen. The Great Transformation: The World in the Time of Buddha, Socrates, Confucius and Jeremiah. Atlantic Books Ltd, 2011.
Chardin, Pierre Teilhard de. The Vision of the Past. Collins, 1966.
Marx, Karl. Critique of Hegel’s “Philosophy Of Right.” Edited by Joseph O’Malley. Translated by Anette Jolin and Joseph O’Malley. 1970. Reprint, Cambridge University Press Archive, 1977.
McLuhan, Marshall. The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. University of Toronto Press, 1962.
Roemischer, Jessica. “A New Axial Age Karen Armstrong on the History—and the Future—of God.” Accessed September 18, 2017. http://www.adishakti.org/_/a_new_axial_age_by_karen_armstrong.htm.
Schmalzer, Sigrid. The People’s Peking Man: Popular Science and Human Identity in Twentieth-Century China. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2008.
Chardin, Pierre Teilhard de. The Vision of the Past. Collins, 1966.
Marx, Karl. Critique of Hegel’s “Philosophy Of Right.” Edited by Joseph O’Malley. Translated by Anette Jolin and Joseph O’Malley. 1970. Reprint, Cambridge University Press Archive, 1977.
McLuhan, Marshall. The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. University of Toronto Press, 1962.
Roemischer, Jessica. “A New Axial Age Karen Armstrong on the History—and the Future—of God.” Accessed September 18, 2017. http://www.adishakti.org/_/a_new_axial_age_by_karen_armstrong.htm.
Schmalzer, Sigrid. The People’s Peking Man: Popular Science and Human Identity in Twentieth-Century China. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2008.
Appendix: the oneness of humanity in different religious scriptures
Native American
There can never be peace between nations until it is first known that true peace is within the souls of men.
— Black Elk, Medicine Man of the Oglala Lakota (Sioux) tribe.
— Black Elk, Medicine Man of the Oglala Lakota (Sioux) tribe.
Hinduism
Common, (worshippers), be your intention; common be (the wishes of) your hearts; common be your thoughts, so that there may be thorough union among you.
— Rig veda, 10.19.4 (Wilson trans.)
He who experiences the unity of life sees his own Self in all beings.
— Bhagavad Gita (Shri Purohit Swami trans.)
— Rig veda, 10.19.4 (Wilson trans.)
He who experiences the unity of life sees his own Self in all beings.
— Bhagavad Gita (Shri Purohit Swami trans.)
Confucianism
"All within the four seas are his brothers."
— Confucius The Analects 12.5.(James Legge trans.)
古之欲明明德於天下者,先治其國;欲治其國者,先齊其家;欲齊其家者,先脩其身;欲脩其身者,先正其心;欲正其心者,先誠其意;欲誠其意者,先致其知;致知在格物。
The ancients who wished to illustrate illustrious virtue throughout the kingdom, first ordered well their own States. Wishing to order well their States, they first regulated their families. Wishing to regulate their families, they first cultivated their persons. Wishing to cultivate their persons, they first rectified their hearts. Wishing to rectify their hearts, they first sought to be sincere in their thoughts. Wishing to be sincere in their thoughts, they first extended to the utmost their knowledge. Such extension of knowledge lay in the investigation of things.
物格而后知至,知至而后意誠,意誠而后心正,心正而后身脩,身脩而后家齊,家齊而后國治,國治而后天下平。
Things being investigated, knowledge became complete. Their knowledge being complete, their thoughts were sincere. Their thoughts being sincere, their hearts were then rectified. Their hearts being rectified, their persons were cultivated. Their persons being cultivated, their families were regulated. Their families being regulated, their States were rightly governed. Their States being rightly governed, the whole kingdom was made tranquil and happy.
— Confucius, Great Learning (James Legge trans.)
— Confucius The Analects 12.5.(James Legge trans.)
古之欲明明德於天下者,先治其國;欲治其國者,先齊其家;欲齊其家者,先脩其身;欲脩其身者,先正其心;欲正其心者,先誠其意;欲誠其意者,先致其知;致知在格物。
The ancients who wished to illustrate illustrious virtue throughout the kingdom, first ordered well their own States. Wishing to order well their States, they first regulated their families. Wishing to regulate their families, they first cultivated their persons. Wishing to cultivate their persons, they first rectified their hearts. Wishing to rectify their hearts, they first sought to be sincere in their thoughts. Wishing to be sincere in their thoughts, they first extended to the utmost their knowledge. Such extension of knowledge lay in the investigation of things.
物格而后知至,知至而后意誠,意誠而后心正,心正而后身脩,身脩而后家齊,家齊而后國治,國治而后天下平。
Things being investigated, knowledge became complete. Their knowledge being complete, their thoughts were sincere. Their thoughts being sincere, their hearts were then rectified. Their hearts being rectified, their persons were cultivated. Their persons being cultivated, their families were regulated. Their families being regulated, their States were rightly governed. Their States being rightly governed, the whole kingdom was made tranquil and happy.
— Confucius, Great Learning (James Legge trans.)
Buddhism
All things appear and disappear because of the concurrence of
causes and conditions. Nothing ever exists entirely alone;
everything is in relation to everything else.
— Bukkyo Dendo Kyonkai
causes and conditions. Nothing ever exists entirely alone;
everything is in relation to everything else.
— Bukkyo Dendo Kyonkai
Christianity
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
— The Holy Bible, King James Version, Genesis 1:26
And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
— The Holy Bible, King James Version, Isaiah 2:4
The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.
—The Holy Bible, New International Version, Isaiah 11:6
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.
—The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, 1 John 4:7-8
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.
—The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, John 13:34-35
— The Holy Bible, King James Version, Genesis 1:26
And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
— The Holy Bible, King James Version, Isaiah 2:4
The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.
—The Holy Bible, New International Version, Isaiah 11:6
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.
—The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, 1 John 4:7-8
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.
—The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, John 13:34-35
Islam
None of you [truly] believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.
—An-Nawawi's Forty Hadeeth, 13
"All people are a single nation;
so Allah raised prophets (among all)
bearing good news and giving warning,
and He revealed the Book with truth"
—The Holy Qur’an, 2:213
"And people are naught but a single nation but they disagree"
—The Holy Qur’an, 3:102
"Shall I not tell you what is better than prayers and fasting and giving alms to the poor? It is making peace between one another. Enmity and malice destroy all virtues."
—Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab, follower of Muhammad
—An-Nawawi's Forty Hadeeth, 13
"All people are a single nation;
so Allah raised prophets (among all)
bearing good news and giving warning,
and He revealed the Book with truth"
—The Holy Qur’an, 2:213
"And people are naught but a single nation but they disagree"
—The Holy Qur’an, 3:102
"Shall I not tell you what is better than prayers and fasting and giving alms to the poor? It is making peace between one another. Enmity and malice destroy all virtues."
—Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab, follower of Muhammad
The Baha'i Faith
That one indeed is a man who, today, dedicateth himself to the service of the entire human race. The Great Being saith: Blessed and happy is he that ariseth to promote the best interests of the peoples and kindreds of the earth. In another passage He hath proclaimed: It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens.
—Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, CXVII
—Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, CXVII