religion and civilization: discuss this quote

Quote:

A certain tension between religion and society marks the highest stages of every civilization. Religion begins by offering magical aid to harassed and bewildered men; it culminates by giving to a people that unity of morals and belief which seems so favorable to statesmanship and art; it ends by fighting suicidally in the lost cause of the past. For as knowledge grows or alters continually, it clashes with mythology and theology, which change with geological leisureliness. Priestly control of arts and letters is then felt as a galling shackle or hateful barrier, and intellectual history takes on the character of a "conflict between science and religion" Institutions which were at first in the hands of the clergy, like law and punishment, education and morals, marriage and divorce, tend to escape from ecclesiastical control and become secular, perhaps profane. The intellectual classes abandon the ancient theology and -- after some hesitation -- the moral code allied with it; literature and philosophy become anticlerical. The movement of liberation rises to an exuberant worship of reason, and falls to a paralyzing disillusionment with every dogma and every idea. Conduct, deprived of its religious supports, deteriorates into epicurean chaos; and life itself, shorn of consoling faith, becomes a burden alike, to conscious poverty and to weary wealth. In the end, a society and its religion tend to fall together, like body and soul, in a harmonious death. Meanwhile, among the oppressed, another myth arises, gives new form to human hope, new courage to human effort, and after centuries of chaos builds another civilization.

Hmmm.

The author is of considerable eminence; he knew a heck of a lot more history than I ever will, even if I memorized his 11 volume, 40-years-in-the-making The Story of Civilization: Will Durant. I believe that he is making both sides of the theist/atheist argument. Understand, he is not referring to Christianity and Western Civilization, he is referring to a pattern that is repeated throughout human history. I'll take his word on that, I'm sure he could go down the list if I challenged him (were he still living). He had a vision of history, knowledge, and philosophy that he called sub specie totius, "in the light of the whole", meaning that although things could be separated and studied, they should be understood as part of the entire picture.

Durant saw this conflict, religion and secularism, as the reason for the decline of civilizations. He took no position on it; he saw it as inevitable. (in defense of my interpretation there, I offer his quote on evolution vs Chrisitan creation: "As to harmonizing the theory of evolution with the Biblical account of creation, I do not believe it can be done, and I do not see why it should be. The story of Genesis is beautiful, and profoundly significant as symbolism: there is no good reason to torture it into conformity with modern theory.") He is saying that we must have the discussions that we are having; as players in history, we have no choice.

Durant was born a Catholic, and studied to become a Jesuit priest; he became disillusioned with Catholicism and became an atheist and socialist. He actually had plans to enter the seminary, and, once ordained, convert the Catholic priesthood from within! However, he was troubled by the soullessness of atheism, and became "an apostle for philosophy". I would call his approach scientific animism, or naturalism; the belief that there might not be a god, but nevertheless there is something beautiful and special about life:

Quote:

Even before Ethel's coming I had begun to rebel against that mechanical conception of mind and history which is the illegitimate offspring of our industrial age: I had suspected that the old agricultural view of the world in terms of seed and growth did far more justice to the complexity and irrepressible expansiveness of things. But when Ethel came, I saw how some mysterious impulse, far outreaching the categories of physics, lifted her up, inch-by-inch and effort by effort, on the ladder of life. I felt more keenly than before the need of a philosophy that would do justice to the infinite vitality of nature. In the inexhaustible activity of the atom, in the endless resourcefulness of plants, in the teeming fertility of animals, in the hunger and movement of infants, in the laughter and play of children, in the love and devotion of youth, in the restless ambition of fathers and the lifelong sacrifice of mothers, in the undiscourageable researches of scientists and the sufferings of genius, in the crucifixion of prophets and the martyrdom of saints -- in all things I saw the passion of life for growth and greatness, the drama of everlasting creation. I came to think of myself, not as a dance and chaos of molecules, but as a brief and minute portion of that majestic process ... I became almost reconciled to mortality, knowing that my spirit would survive me enshrined in a fairer mold ... and that my little worth would somehow be preserved in the heritage of men. In a measure the Great Sadness was lifted from me, and, where I had seen omnipresent death, I saw now everywhere the pageant and triumph of life.

I like it. It might not work for me, but I like it anyhow.

"We could do almost anything if time would slow up. But it runs on, and we melt away trying to keep up with it." That is the voice of a man who sees the big picture.

The padre can't comment. He's in Rome getting a
Vatican license plate for the Wiz..

Hey, Bob, I was actually hoping you'd read it and comment, as well as the padre and others who discuss this stuff.

I'm having a hard time deciding if it's enlightened, or wishy-washy. I'd call it wishy-washy except that Durant made a point of dedicating his life to living what he believed and explaining his way of seeing things. He wrote and published almost continuously from the first decade of the 20th century until his death, at age 96, in 1981. The paragraph may seem equivocal and filled with hedging, but his body of work most certainly is not.

I think that it is enlightening. His message is to see existence for what it is, personally: part acceptance of the non-existence of a deity and part surrender to the greater force of life and history. I'm not completely formed on this, I'm still pondering it.

Quote: EvenBob

The padre can't comment. He's in Rome getting a
Vatican license plate for the Wiz..

I guess that it's my duty as a fully ordained minister to comment. It appears that Durant, still unable to find comfort with his inevitable fate and similarly unable to validate the theology of others, stuck a compromise that his soul should live forever just because things look pretty.

That's a gross oversimplification but he does tend to use really big words, some simplification is in order.

edited

Quote: s2dbaker

I guess that it's my duty as a fully ordained minister to comment. It appears that Durant, still unable to find comfort with his inevitable fate and similarly unable to validate the theology of others, stuck a compromise that his soul should live forever just because things look pretty.

That's a gross oversimplification but he does tend to use really big words, some simplification is in order.

I can see that. I'm not sure I agree, but I don't disagree, either. Remember to put it in context; he believed that everything fit into the big picture, and he strove to understand it that way. If it is equivocal, he dedicated an awful lot of writing deeply defending his decision to be straddle the line.

Quote:

Declaration of INTERdependence
Human progress having reached a high level through respect for the
liberty and dignity of men, it has become desirable to re-affirm these
evident truths:
· That differences of race, color, sexuality and creed are natural, and that
diverse groups, institutions, and ideas are stimulating factors
in the development of man;
· That to promote harmony in diversity is a responsible task of
religion and statesmanship;
· That since no individual can express the whole truth, it is essential
to treat with understanding and good will those whose views differ
from our own;
· That by the testimony of history intolerance is the door to violence,
brutality and dictatorship; and
· That the realization of human interdependence and solidarity is the
best guard of civilization.
Therefore, we solemnly resolve, and invite everyone to join in
united action.
· To uphold and promote human fellowship through mutual
consideration and respect;
· To champion human dignity and decency, and to safeguard
these without distinction of race, or color, or sexuality, or creed;
· To strive in concert with others to discourage all animosities
arising from these differences, and to unite all groups in the fair
play of civilized life.
ROOTED in freedom, bonded in the fellowship of danger, sharing everywhere
a common human blood, we declare again that all men are
brothers, and that mutual tolerance is the price of liberty.

He took great pride in writing poetically. Remember that he was born in 1885; his literary tradition was that of an earlier age.

Quote: Mosca

I think that it is enlightening. His message is to see existence for what it is, personally

Thats the message of the guru. Don't listen to anybody,
you can learn it all by experiencing it yourself. A zen
master says his job isn't to teach, its point the student
in the right direction. If every snowflake is unique, I
would imagine every life experience is to. The purpose
of organized religion is to rob you of that experience
and replace it with their approved one.

The more things change the more they stay the same?
It may have seemed like an endless cycle back in the 19th century, but
I can't see rationality losing the battle some hundred years later.
Man is finally escaping the gravitational pull exerted by religion since the
dawn of civilization.
Archaeology is just one of the sciences that they have no answer for.

Quote: victorimmature

The more things change the more they stay the same?
It may have seemed like an endless cycle back in the 19th century, but
I can't see rationality losing the battle some hundred years later.
Man is finally escaping the gravitational pull exerted by religion since the
dawn of civilization.
Archaeology is just one of the sciences that they have no answer for.

That is another possibility that I considered. Is it just hubris, to think we've ended that cycle? Is Durant playing Ozymandias at us? Certainly the fact that civilization is now global rather than local has to be considered; the rules have changed.

Quote: Mosca

That is another possibility that I considered. Is it just hubris, to think we've ended that cycle? Is Durant playing Ozymandias at us? Certainly the fact that civilization is now global rather than local has to be considered; the rules have changed.

The point I was trying to make, was that if religions want to continue to
rely on superstition, to drive their agenda, then the game is up.
Unless they can continue to use their alleged demonstrations of magic
powers, from the distant past, to back up their supernatural claims, they
will find it increasingly difficult to hold the attention of their audiences.

As a Jew I disagree with the notion that secularism and religion cannot co-exist. Tensions exist, sure, but it is up to every individual person to be mature and accept others beliefs for what they are. I reject some portions of mysticism and "magic" that are related to religion but I do not discount others that share that belief in both Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and the several forms of Atheism.

Can we look back in history and see where religion has failed due to extreme tensions with state run governments? Perhaps, but what do we use this information going forward? Do we blind ourselves to the good nature that most religions provide? Or do we strive to make our personal lives better and to accept one another and stand against evil people together as a society?

That is just my thoughts on it without going into direct analysis of the quotes.

Quote: YoDiceRoll11

As a Jew I disagree with the notion that secularism and religion cannot co-exist.

There's a reason for that: Judaism tends to be more about deeds than faith. The majority of the commandments in the OT are about what to do/not do - don't kill, don't steal, inscribe these words on your doorposts, etc. In contrast, the majority of the commandments in the NT are about what to believe: whosoever believeth in me shall be saved, etc. If you don't believe in Christ, original sin, resurrection, etc. then you're not a Christian. But if your mom was Jewish, so are you, regardless of what you believe. Therefore, I'd amend your statement to read "secularism and certain religions can co-exist". I think secularism and Judaism can coexist just fine - most of the Jews I know are secular. So are most of the Jews in Israel -- the secular Jews in Israel are *far* less religious than American Jews tend to be. I don't think secularism and Christianity can coexist particularly well because they rely upon distinct faiths. I don't think secularism and Islam can coexist at all because Islam requires both faith and duty of its adherents, but I admit to being less educated on the nuances of Islam than the other two main Abrahamic religions so I could be wrong.

No, that's a pretty fair assessment. With Judaism, it is all about using your faith in deeds and doing the right thing to make the world more whole.

Thank you Mosca for such thought provoking and beautiful quotes.

My hope with such a cyclical pattern of inevitable conflict or violence described in the quote is that there could be a way to break the cycle. This happens when the curtain is pulled back and the magic is unveiled so that people can see that God is the source and inspiration behind both science and religion, that reason and faith go together, that history (including archeology) and myth coincide. I am thinking about the work of Rene Girard or the ideas of Gil Balie. I am also of course thinking of the Incarnation. I am also still jet lagged. Thanks for the interesting thread and the good posts already.

You're welcome, FrGamble. His Declaration of Interdependence reminded me of you, and your generosity of spirit when discussing faith with us. I try to act the same in return. I know we all tweak each other pretty good, but "annealed in fire" and all that.

The Durants fascinate me. They fell out of favor around the middle of last century, and when I read them as a younger man I thought they were simple. But reading them from the vantage of 35 additional years I am struck by their wisdom. It is possible to know without understanding; it is possible to understand without knowing.

If I had to accuse them of anything, it would be "middlebrow"ism. For every philosopher striving for moral and esthetic perfection, there are tens of thousands of souls enslaved by poverty and wretchedness, and likewise thousands of elitists who simply are above thinking about such things. I know he understood this, but nevertheless he had to write and think and live within himself:

"What if it is for life's sake that we must die? In truth we are not individuals; and it is because we think ourselves such that death seems unforgivable. We are temporary organs of the race, cells in the body of life; we die and drop away that life may remain young and strong. If we were to live forever, growth would be stifled, and youth would find no room on earth. Death, like style, is the removal of rubbish, the circumcision of the superfluous. In the midst of death life renews itself immortally."

The Durants didn't write for the elites, and they didn't write for the poor; they wrote for the reasonably comfortable, for the vast people in the middle who keep focused on what they can control. Since I fit that description, they resonate well with me; that might not hold true for someone else, in a different situation.