[Commentary on the essays in Felix Adler, Life and Destiny, "Religion," pp. 17-27.]
¶ Religion has been so eager to supply us with information concerning the universe outside of us, its origin and its destiny, because our life is linked with that of the universe, and our destiny is dependent on the destiny of the universe.
¶ The dependence of man on outside forces which he cannot control is the point of departure of religion.
Close, but no cigar, I would say.
It is difficult without being flooded with images from fiction and films, not to mention Western cultural biases, to imagine that moment when our far distant ancestors became human. What they experienced had to begin in infancy within a band that was not entirely human. At some point, however, the first human(s) began to see the surrounding environment, to experience the impact of natural forces beyond his/her control or comprehension, and to think in a different mode from his/her own parents about self and world. Some basic questions may already have been answered in the family band. Where can I find food? How can I keep warm? I am, at this moment, keenly interested in the prospects for a sexual encounter with my neighbor. How can I make that happen?
Such questions deal with fundamental human needs, with technology and environment, with social organization. So does religion, but not quite, I think, in the way that Adler frames it. Adler speaks of religion as if it is a source of authority over human lives: Religion, he says, “supplies us” with information. Religion is, I assert, a human construct. As such, it is humans who construct the religion that then informs us of how we are to see the universe and live in it. Humans, then, are the source of authority over their own human lives, reflected in a myriad of beliefs about who, what, when, where, how, and why their piece of the universe came about and continues to function.
Let’s take Adam and Eve. In some belief systems, Adam and Eve are First Man and First Woman. In other belief systems, there are others who fill those roles, some more ancient than Adam and his rib. So Eve, sometimes called a temptress, decided (Genesis 3:6) to eat a fruit which had been forbidden to her and Adam. She did so because she was informed, by The serpent, that The local deity had lied when he told her that she would die if she touched the tree or ate the fruit. Without any particular evidence that The serpent was more trustworthy than The local god, Eve nonetheless exercised her reason on three points: (1) the fruit was good to eat; (2) the fruit looked appetizing, and (3) both The god and The serpent said that she would gain wisdom if she ate the fruit--and she wanted to be wise. Then she did a very human and ethical thing: She shared the fruit with her husband. Adam took the food from his wife’s hand, as he had presumably done before, and, without considering The god’s prohibition, ate it.
True, not true, it’s a myth (see definition 1). The point of the story--in the tradition of those who believe it--is to assert the power and authority of the deity to command obedience, to explain the causes of certain natural phenomena (the pain of childbirth, why snakes have no legs, etc.), and to justify patriarchy (women are to be blamed for the Original Sin and can never be trusted, they have poor judgment, they lead men astray, etc.). The earlier chapters of Genesis did link humans on the planet Earth to the vastness of the known (and unknown) universe, but the major function of the text is to lay out social order and cloak it in religious terms. This function was a positive one as long as those in the society believed the stories, including their origin and their authority.
Believing the stories also included interpreting the stories in a particular way. Even without reading Genesis 3:6 in the original language, we can see the various translations trending in the same direction. Eve thought about the fruit: She was tempted vs. she reasoned. Eve gave the fruit: Eve shared with Adam vs. Eve tempted Adam. Which was it? Look at the story with a different interpretation and we see Eve as caring, sharing, thinking, reasoning. Instead of blindly following the orders of an authority figure, she gets a second opinion and decides to rely on her own agency to gain benefit for both herself and her husband. The bad guy in the story is not the Old Deceiver who now crawls on his belly, but the deity that promised death but delivered exile.
This story is central to at least three major religious systems. The interpretation of the role of Eve in the Garden of Eden has been determinative of social order and gender roles in those systems for millennia. Yet it is not Religion (or even religions) that interpret Eve’s behavior as an archetype for all women: It is humans who do so. In those early days (centuries) when humans began to try to understand the world around them, there were observations followed by questions, questions followed by stories, stories follows by beliefs and norms and a social order that reflected and depended upon the structure created by human curiosity, ignorance, and determination to bring order out the chaos of existence--even if it was wrong. Substitute “humankind” for “religion” (plus some grammatical finesse) and these statements come closer to what we now know of science and history.
¶ [Humankind] has been so eager to supply us with information concerning the universe outside of us, its origin and its destiny, because our life is linked with that of the universe, and our destiny is dependent on the destiny of the universe.
¶ The dependence of [humankind] on outside forces which [we] cannot control is the point of departure of [our creative construction of] religion.
In the former statement, as edited, I think that we are now looking at a simple truth. Humans are part of the universe, curious about it, and are understandably interested in finding out more about it. Looking at the material universe as a scientific puzzle to be solved, we eagerly await the news of space exploration and and the new understandings we may gain. We are not reliant on some outside source (religion) for our understanding of what is discovered through science. We know that there is more to discover, and we can live with lack of information while we seek our answers.
The latter statement is my own conception of religion, something closer to home, something more directly related to our daily lives, which are subject to forces of nature in our environment and in our bodies, where we still seek understanding within our desire to be better persons and live better lives. In Ethical Culture that desire includes the added dimension of becoming better persons through the work of making the world better for others. For other religions, that desire may include dependence on a deity for guidance and security, clear statements of permission and prohibition, set rewards and punishments for behaviors that meet (or fail to meet) prescribed standards. As a religion, Ethical Culture may seem uncomfortably unstructured, but it is a religion that forces us to be self-reliant, to seek understanding, but also to adjust our thoughts and actions as we learn. Our responsibility is not to a deity but to each other. I can live with that.
No comments:
Post a Comment