© 1999 François Dupont
© 1999 Urantia Association International (IUA)
| The Future of our Planet as a “Known” and “Unknown” Reality | Journal — May 1999 — Index | Decisions — The Human Process |
François Dupont
Brussels, Belgium
Speech presented on October 27, 1998 at the Free University of Brussels before the Agora Society
The 21st century will be faced with tasks such as social reconstruction, economic reorganization and the re-establishment of responsible citizenships. How will all this turn out? It will only be determined by whether confrontation or understanding prevails between these two tendencies: religion and secularism.
The boundaries between these two streams are almost the same, which only separate believers from non-believers. But for both believers and non-believers there is the other side of the coin: true religion, which I would describe as internal religion, or religiosity, and its opposite, external religion, or institutional religion. Just as for secularity there is the choice between the true, i.e. humanistic secularism and the fanatical kind.
The need for societal adjustments finds its justification in the fact that many great writers and philosophers of this end of the cycle are in search of a new kind of philosophy, a new style of religion, marked by the recent failures of modern ideologies such as communism, socialism, capitalism, trade unionism and, most importantly, fundamentalist, integrist and spiritualist movements.
The following statement has been attributed to André Malraux: “The coming century will be religious or it will not be…” But Francois Périn, Professor at the University of Liège, in his article Le Vif Express (April 18, 1997) proved that this was a clear distortion of the authentic text and is shown below:
«The main problem at the end of this century and at the beginning of the next will be the religious problem, but as different in form as the religion of today is in its Christianity as its conception was from the preceding, older ones.»
This expression is not a flash of wit; for Prenves, 1949, Malraux tells us about a reality within man, about a transference of a sacred content that he experienced in the temples of Ise, Kyoto and Nara in Japan. From his point of view the religious sense of his description foreshadowed future religion, even though Malraux’s thought was generally linked to an incurable agnosticism.
Secularism is a way of thinking that favors the exclusion of churches from the potential exercise of any administrative power, and in particular from influencing the education provided in public schools.
Religion is the creeds and practices that attempt to maintain man’s connection with a higher reality, through the mediation of priests, pastors, rabbis and the entire hierarchy of institutionalized religion.
Religiosity is a kind of sensitivity, caused by a religious attitude, and directed towards an outline of a personal religion.
Not being satisfied with this last definition, I would rather define religiosity with these words: It is characterized by a religious feeling or sensation, totally independent of any institutionalized religion. This individualized sensation establishes a relationship with a transcendental reality.
The latter is the kind of religious thought described by writers and philosophers such as Emmanuel Kant, Henri Bergson, André Malraux, Gérald Messadié and others.
In his L’histoire générale de Dieu Gérald Messadié comes to the conclusion that throughout religion and beyond the official religions, “there has always been an irrepressible anxiety for God.”
H. Bergson, in Les deux sources de la morale et de la religion, asserts that there has never been, and never will be, a society without religion. He distinguishes two moralities and two religions. The first of each is primitive, static and immobile, attempting to safeguard the cohesion of society, and includes rites, ceremonies, dogmas, saints and rigid traditions. The second are dynamic, open and personal; they elevate mankind above its empirical conditions, towards still new and higher levels of understanding.
The views of these three philosopher-writers are similar to Immanuel Kant’s conception of religiosity. In his Critique of Pure Reason Kant professes his belief in God and in life after death. But he admits that this is based on a moral sentiment, not entirely logical. Yet he advocates a transition from the religion of the church to the exclusive domination of pure religious faith. In other words, Kant comes out in defense of the inner religion, the religion of the heart — religiosity. It is highly plausible that these three prevailing attitudes — religion, religiosity and secularism — will go on for quite some time, and their interdependence has been confirmed throughout history.
In the fifth century B.C., Athens was renowned for its governmental system. The great philosophers of the age discussed and analyzed its progressive political organizations. On the sidelines, there was something strangely similar in Greek philosophy and in the teachings of Jesus of Palestine, more than four centuries later. They had a common goal: both aimed at the emergence of the individual. The Greeks taught intellectual liberalism leading to political freedom, and Jesus taught spiritual liberation leading to religious freedom. In all fairness we might say that Jesus was a layman, a secular phenomenon, and the greatest teacher the world has ever known. He rejected the authority of the temple and its rabbis; he discarded fossilized creeds and dogmas.
The Athenians did not allow representatives of the mysteries into their institutions; theirs was a secular state. Aside from these strong similarities between Greek aspirations and the teachings of Jesus, it is worth noting that a strange relationship of complementarity prevailed between the first centuries of the existence of Christianity and the Greco-Roman Empire. The Christians found themselves with one God, a great religious concept, but without an empire. The Greco-Romans found themselves with a great Empire, but without any God to serve as the adequate religious concept of worship and spiritual unification of the empire. The Christians accepted the empire; the empire adopted Christianity. The result was the religious unification of the Mediterranean world: the Romans provided the political norms of unity, the Greeks the unity of culture and learning, Christianity provided the unity of thought and religious practice.
Now, let us take a great leap forward into Western history, all the way to the 16th century. Christians had undergone and gone through a series of metamorphoses. In stages, they experienced Hellenization, Romanization, paganization, secularization, and institutionalization. Further, they went through a moral hibernation during the dark ages and simultaneously experienced intellectual decline, so that they finally dared to hatefully persecute those free thinkers, scholastics, and scientists who did not conform to their theological proclamations. The result was the birth of a new atheistic science, slowly but surely, to fight against the superstitions of a totalitarian church, which was regulating the minds and hearts of men, and which at the same time owned vast estates and maintained its own courts of justice. In the next century, a genteel third class of writers, scientists and middle-class people all of them self-consciously secular came into existence, engaged in centuries-long struggles against the prejudices and dictates of the sovereign Christian church which stubbornly refused to give up its appropriations of all aspects of medieval and late medieval societies.
This feeling of rebellion against spiritual and intellectual intolerance constitutes the beginning of modern secularism. This spirit of revolution literally began as a protest against ecclesiastical totalitarianism. And we could quite rightly state that the mother of modern secularism is the totalitarian church itself, and that its father is scientific atheism.
During the 17th century (the Age of Enlightenment) and 19th century, science and scientists gained more and more prestige. The 20th century, characterized by the irresistible emergence of nuclear science and genetic engineering, witnesses a world largely dominated by scientists, which is again seen as a threat by some people. Their importance is an exact replica of that of the times of the ancient prophets in the Old Testament.
Below we will explore the positive and negative aspects of both religion and secularism. Religiosity has neither, except when it is veering towards mysticism, which could evolve into a technique of escape from reality.
(1) Positive aspects
(2) Negative aspects
(1) Positive Aspects
(2) Negative Aspects
Christianity suffers from a great disadvantage because its identification in the minds of the whole world has been transformed as part of the social system, industrial life and moral standards of Western civilization. And therefore Christianity appears to be the sponsor of a society which falls under the guilt of tolerating:
There is no excuse for the Church’s involvement in commerce and politics. Such unholy alliances are a flagrant betrayal of the Master. And genuine lovers of truth will not forget that this institutionalized and powerful Church has frequently threatened to stifle and persecute bearers of the new faith who agreed to appear in unorthodox garb.
Institutional religion is now caught in a vicious circle at the dead end. It cannot reconstruct society without first reconstructing itself; and being an integral part of the established order, it cannot reconstruct itself until society has been radically reconstructed.
Christianity has defied the challenge of human greed, war madness and the lust for power by lowering its ideals. Religion has thus become a second-hand experience, endorsed by accepted religious teachers whose teachings were not based on their own experience.
From all the above, we can conclude that religiosity - true religion - and humanistic secularism are all potential factors for the gathering of all healthy forces for the coming struggle of the 21st century. Men and women will agree on a new form of religion or humanistic ideals, and, totally independent of a legal religion or a secularism gone astray, will be able to commit themselves to the social, political and economic reforms of the near future.
Urantia is now quivering on the very brink of one of its most amazing and enthralling epochs of social readjustment, moral quickening, and spiritual enlightenment. [UB 195:9.2].
Are we prepared for a struggle between the forces of religion and secularism, waged until one or the other achieves total victory? If so, it would mean a bitter end for both the defenders and the victors.
We have seen that official religion disqualifies itself when it compromises itself with the systems of political power and becomes part of secular government. Let us hope that this will bring about the necessary re-evaluations and find the path to return to its true purpose: to relate people, races and nations to one another, to nature, to the cosmos and to a transcendent reality.
Let us hope that humanism will direct itself towards a purely humanistic goal: to reconnect men with the treasures of their rights, freedoms and duties.
These new human beings, shaped by a sincere religiosity or secularism, will be equipped and endowed with a talent that will enable them to follow their own paths towards all human paths of thinking and acting; that is, research and activities in the scientific, philosophical, artistic, moral and religious fields, with respect to all other individual ways of acting and thinking.
All this will lead the seekers of truth to the discovery of the need to converge and complete the different intellectual and spiritual currents, preparing the way for sincere individuals to a better understanding and for centers of collective research.
Secularism seems to have been favoured by fortune, apart from its slow separation from political and socio-economic systems and ideologies. Official English churches are shaking to their foundations, and concurrently a host of sects, both spiritually motivated and fundamentalist, are springing up all around the world.
We have seen Messadié evoking an irrepressible longing for God and Bergson proclaiming that there never has been, and never will be, a society devoid of religion. As a confirmation of these observations, philosophers of all schools are organizing regular meetings in philo-cafés, searching for new ideals, ethics and methods of government. Despite its historical ups and downs, Western civilization has long satisfied to some degree political and intellectual liberation and religious and spiritual freedom. Recently we have witnessed a movement that is emerging with an inclination towards the assurance of socio-economic freedom, that is: liberation from the political domination of multinationals, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
Future generations will have to determine, in a democratic perspective, what to do about the urban environment, the management of the planet; how to shape the future of their children and their education; where they will find the socio-economic instruments necessary to liberate the people of the Third World; how to save the developed Western world from an appropriation of its economic systems by supranational institutions, which in due course will be bound to suffer from the negative impact of their own policies.
The younger generations need to be prepared for these vital tasks. They need to acquire the tools and resources necessary to bring this enormous and substantial effort to a successful conclusion. But the main thing to be generated in their minds is a critical spirit, both constructive and tolerant, in relation to all aspects of the human activities of its proponents.
In the end, what really matters is the incessant evolution of man and his projects in the right direction.
The centre of gravity of our aim of having a better humanity in the future lies in the domain of education. An educator once said that none of the activities proper to humankind must remain unconsidered or uncultivated out of fear of an unhealthy development of society.
Also of great concern is the formation of a balanced personality within a healthy body.
We recognize that the two principal and deepest tendencies of the human soul — religiosity and secularism — have equal rights to progress in freedom with the only restriction: that they must not obstruct the equal rights and liberties of others.
One part of humanity is always inclined toward the belief in a loving and transcendent Father God, while the other part seeks to enhance the welfare of mankind. These apparently conflicting situations constitute the object of the future total reversal of teaching and education. But nothing can prevent these two tendencies from converging themselves to express themselves in the same way with respect to creation, creatures and nature; at the same time to demonstrate a profound respect for truth, beauty and welfare; and finally to reveal an identical anxiety to unravel the secrets of man, life and the stellar realms. The efforts for future welfare, those respectful attitudes and yearning intellects, are applications, practices born of a personal religious experience - conscious or unconscious. And this is understood thus by many religions and philosophies.
From this point of view, these men and women – humanists, scientists, philosophers and artists – must take responsibility for education, both secular and religious, which will generate new forms of consciousness – in other words, this is: being aware of the relativity and validity of all these things, facts, beings, theories, ideologies, philosophies and religions.
The most important goal of the knowledge of this relativity and validity is the emergence of an original spirit of heightened criticism, tempered by a resolute constructive spirit and by an acceptable tolerance for other people, ideas, and behavior. This external criticism is directed toward all worldly phenomena and toward the achievements of all other members of society.
Concurrently, this new kind of criticism has to be taught and encouraged, that is, within oneself, directed toward one’s own thoughts, feelings, emotions, imaginings, and intuitions. But as a matter of study, neither of these two essential forms of critical observations must be destructive of the personality.
In this way, the youngest will recognize and respect their own internal evolutionary norms and will recognize the similar or divergent evolution of their student friends and coworkers.
As regards education, there is one more factor that must be taken into consideration: young people must be ready for marriage, family life, and for the multiplied sexual, emotional, sentimental and intellectual components, and the responsibilities, rights, pleasures and risks that come with it. The number of failed marriages is disastrously high, and it is urgent to prepare the young for the difficulties and obstacles of life in society. All this requires a profound transformation of teaching and education, a reform free of passion and pressure, whether secular or religious. This is the way to take into account all aspects of personality, the fragility of the human soul, and the diversity of behaviors and understandings. What kind of services are necessary for all this discernment? For a deeper penetration into the material makeup and substance of our cosmic and planetary environment, the exact sciences, such as physics, chemistry, etc., will forever be indispensable. But to explain the relationship between matter and spirit, body and soul, quantity and quality — philosophical, religious, sociological and psychological procedures and techniques will always be available.
Morality and ethics always contribute to the dignity and security of life in society. Both the material environment and the spiritual longings of the human mind will forever be beautified and improved through artistic achievements and appreciations.
Individual men and women are feeling abandoned by those authorities and institutions whose job it is to guide them and ensure their safety. The cause of this confusion is the present procession of images, sounds and words which distort and disfigure reality, misinform the intellect, obstruct and prevent the indispensable balanced reflection. People are becoming disdainful, anxious and even hateful of what is happening, whether at home or away, whether in conference rooms or entertainment centers, as meaningless as it is expensive—and they no longer feel responsible for anything. They are at a crossroads and at the end of their wits. This is a great time to reconnect man, first with himself, then with his friends and his environment, with nature and the starry sky, and finally with a transcendent force or entity, giving it whatever name pleases: God, the Universal Father, the Great Architect, the Supreme Being, the First Cause, the Uncaused One.
In other words, it is time to teach men a new:
| The Future of our Planet as a “Known” and “Unknown” Reality | Journal — May 1999 — Index | Decisions — The Human Process |