The American Religion?
Fifteen years ago the prolific Harold Bloom published The American Religion: The Emergence of the Post-Christian Nation. As I recall, Bloom identified that religion, whose avatars were Emerson and Whitman, with “gnosticism.”
Now another Avatar has appeared and Ross Douthat, in today’s New York Times, thinks “pantheism” is the proper name. He writes:
As usual, Alexis de Tocqueville saw it coming. The American belief in the essential unity of all mankind, Tocqueville wrote in the 1830s, leads us to collapse distinctions at every level of creation. “Not content with the discovery that there is nothing in the world but a creation and a Creator,” he suggested, democratic man “seeks to expand and simplify his conception by including God and the universe in one great whole.”
Today there are other forces that expand pantheism’s American appeal. We pine for what we’ve left behind, and divinizing the natural world is an obvious way to express unease about our hyper-technological society. The threat of global warming, meanwhile, has lent the cult of Nature qualities that every successful religion needs — a crusading spirit, a rigorous set of ‘thou shalt nots,” and a piping-hot apocalypse.
At the same time, pantheism opens a path to numinous experience for people uncomfortable with the literal-mindedness of the monotheistic religions — with their miracle-working deities and holy books, their virgin births and resurrected bodies. As the Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski noted, attributing divinity to the natural world helps “bring God closer to human experience,” while “depriving him of recognizable personal traits.” For anyone who pines for transcendence but recoils at the idea of a demanding Almighty who interferes in human affairs, this is an ideal combination.
As they say: “I’m spiritual but not religious!”
Douthat’s is an interesting piece, though I think I’ll ignore Avatar (a movie I just heard of a few days ago, despite the fact that apparently $150 million is budgeted for marketing — wonderful what we as a society will spend money on). Though Douthat doesn’t quite say so, he’d probably agree that an educated reading of Darwin would do much to show “nature red in tooth and claw,” and remind us of Huxley’s arguments against social Darwinism and its presumption that we ought to behave in “natural” ways, sending to the wall all those who don’t quite cut it. Huxley was far from being an orthodox Christian, of course, but he had a view of humanity’s ability to transcend nature’s cruelties.
Some folks are wild-eyed environmentalists who border on being religious fanatics, their “religion” being mother earth of course.
The difference (I think) between the conservationist and the extreme environmentalist, is that the conservationist cares for tends, and tries to conserve, but does not worship the earth. The conservationist is less emotional, the environmentalist is more emotional and heretofore, this has not usually been problematic. While the environmentalist thinks animals have feelings and personalities and the conservationist does not, they both understand how important it is that river water be kept clean and natural; they both understand the need to reduce pollution and consumption of natural resources.
However more recently, a more fanatical environmentalist has emerged, who tends less toward reasoned consideration of how we can conserve natural resources, and more toward some form of shrill zealotry that in addition to being odd, is also truly worrisome.
The conservationist does not think he can control the weather or that he has the right to tell nations what to do with their money; the more radical environmentalist does.
The conservationist thinks he ought to take care of, be a good steward of the earth, first because it is God’s creation, and also so he can hand it on to his children in good condition. The newer radical environmentalist thinks he should care for the earth because he thinks he is in charge of her, that he has power over her. He also feels far more emotional toward the earth and the animals; most of these folks are either strident and loud, some are constantly teary-eyed and sad, some go so far as to be worshipful.
Everyone can agree we ought to tend God’s creation and not eat our great-grandchildren’s lunch. That is different however, than thinking we have the power over the weather and that we should use the ecology as a club to wield over people’s head in order to extort money from them.
And so with their expertise in propaganda and lying (for the cause of course) in hand, International Socialists geared up and went to work on the Greens, and now seem to have effectively hijacked environmentalism and are the driving force behind the “man-made global warming” scam. They have basically given both conservationism and environmentalism a bad name.
After the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the Soviet system, what was a European Communist to do? The Red Chinese are still in business, but they do not listen to Occidentals, communist or otherwise.
Religion? I do not think so. But in the world of situational ethics, propaganda and useful fools, if this sort of “religion” works for the purpose at hand and for helping advance the agenda, they are willing to let nature worshipers do as they like. For now anyway.
My Marxist uncle, an ardent atheist, celebrates the Winter Solstice. That is not to say that he worships the seasons in some kind of throwback to paganism.
Rather, he seems to crave ritual, but not ritual that is loaded with the historical baggage of sexism, war, inquisition, etc.
Your historical baggage wording carries large connotations. What exactly are to referring to when you cite ‘sexism, war and inquisition, etc.’?
I am trying to understand your point; please elaborate a bit.
Thanks -
Hmmm…a fascinating piece. As usual, Douthat is thought provoking…
And yet, there is an opposite extreme that he needs to be wary of, which is a transcendental anthropology that fails to take our connection to the natural world seriously enough. Human beings may be the summit of creation, but they are not the whole of it. All things are created through Christ and bear His imprint and our future hope is not merely for a disembodied ‘spiritual existence’ but the “resurrection from the dead” and a “new heavens and new earth.” As Pope Benedict has recent suggested, reconnecting ourselves with the rhythms of the natural order–and its constraints–can be a powerful check on our tendencies toward Promethean arrogance.
When I was in Australia a few years back, I was surprised at the kind of vague pantheism I encountered several times. One definition of faith I heard: “openness to being perceived as gift.” I said that I thought that something might be made of it for some general faith, but that it certainly wouldn’t do as a definition of Christian faith.
Ken,
My point was that my uncle, and many like him, say they are loath to believe in Christianity’s validity, and by extension, God, when all he sees is the shortfalls of Christianity in history, e.g. the Inquisition, the exclusion of women from the priesthood, etc.
To use one example, he cannot believe in a God if those who believe in that God use religion as an excuse to go to war, as in the crusades.
What is ironic, and what Douthat seems to be pointing to, generally, is that my uncle still craves & performs the kinds of rituals that he appears so to disdain in the religions. By removing them to the realm of the natural world, he has neutered their religious connotations, as it were, at least in his own mind.
Now, before everyone on the blog starts jumping down my throat for what I’ve said above, let me be very clear: I do not share his viewpoint – I am interpreting the position of my uncle, and those like him, from my perspective. It should also be stated that my uncle appears to have a highly selective sense of history, by associating himself with Marxism despite its many negative historical associations.
“The threat of global warming, meanwhile, has lent the cult of Nature qualities that every successful religion needs — a crusading spirit, a rigorous set of ‘thou shalt nots,” and a piping-hot apocalypse.”
Every successful religion? Where in the world did Douthat come up with this generalization? It strikes me as patently false. A piping hot apocalypse? What about Buddhism? Islam- is more defined by a rigorous set of practices–shalls, not not “thou shalt nots”.
I find him, in general, very glib–but not very well informed.
From what I see and hear from people I associate with the kind of pantheism (or panentheism) is becoming a very popular form of spirituality.
Couple that with concerns for the environment and ecology and you have the ingredients for an ecospirituality which is an eclectic blend of native American culture and spirituality with Eastern and Christian mysticism.
I think materialism, in its scientific or political (orthodox Marxism) forms has proven unsatisfactory.
I also think that there is certainly something to Ratzinger’s and others critique of modern liturgy. If you strip it from its restorationist sympathies, it is a desire to recapture the kind of mysticism and the sacred that is missing from most liturgies today.
But in the main, I have to agree with the author of the piece in terms of how many people are interpreting their religious experience.
Just shows how so much of this is much ado about nothing on both sides. But keep neglecting the truly transcendant Beatitudes and Matthew 25:31-46. There is more beauty in the Good Samaritan story than in all the rumnations of philosphers and theologians.