I received yet another notice today about a group where I can use past-life regression to explore my previous existences so I can better understand how to live well and happily in this life.
I declined the invitation. I'll work on one life at a time, thanks.
But while I do want to decline, I don't want to do so derisively - with a scornful laugh at "those foolish New-Agers." I find myself torn between having that dismissive reaction and wanting to keep myself open to all kinds of ways of thinking, believing, and practicing.
I am not surprised at all that the traditional religionists are ready to dismiss the New Agey stuff without a second thought. They don't have to wrestle with such questions. For them, it is either part of the accepted dogma or it is nonsense.
Now, let's recognise here that if anyone came to you with a modern day story of a god walking around the earth, getting executed as a criminal, and then coming back to life - and that believing the right stories will guarantee you a place in heaven - you would be at least as dismissive as many of the people who believe that story are of the healing power of crystals.
Just as the great age of a story should not make it more credible, neither should the newness or unfamiliarity of a story or belief make it incredible.
What is an open-minded Unitarian to do? By what standards are we to evaluate beliefs and practices, whether old or new?
Unitarianism has long placed a strong emphasis on the use of reason, but while this has been interpreted by many as a requirement that beliefs be scientifically and logically sound, this is neither historically accurate nor - I would argue - a spiritually helpful stance. Spirituality and religion are about having faith - about holding onto hope - about working for justice even when these positions are plainly irrational. We believe in love not because it is about to break out in the world and break in to our lives, but because we faithfully cling to our conviction that this is what the world needs and that we will do our part whether or not it is rational to do so.
In the UK, about five-fold more people say they are "spiritual but not religious" than attend any kind of traditional religious observances. Because they are exploring beyond the bounds of western tradition, some of us are ready to mock and dismiss them. If so, then we are the ones who will be relegated to history's vast dustbin.
The "spiritual but religious" are doing what human beings have always done - seeking new ways to make meaning in their lives. We ignore them at the risk of our own increasing irrelevance.
Let's return to the question I posed above: By what standards are we to evaluate beliefs and practices?
The standard must not be scientific. And even though there is some truth to the notion that better systems survive the test of time, there are some truly awful beliefs and practices that have done so.
I would begin by looking at the organisations promulgating a particular path. Have they made themselves wealthy? Do they use coercion to keep people "in the fold"? Do they condemn those who believe differently? If yes, then run - do not walk - in the opposite direction.
My test has more to do with how a belief or practice leads its adherents to live. If the path makes its followers more loving, more connected, more respectful, and more ready to seek justice for all beings, then I'm ready to take a closer look.
Past-life regression fails many of these tests, but I will not assume that everything new is bad. And that - quite simply - is a part of my faith.
"I care not for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it." - Abraham Lincoln, apparently.
ReplyDeleteI would think that many UUs might instinctively shun such fringe elements just to lend more credibility to UU, which historically has had a hard time being taken seriously as a religion (just ask the Boy Scouts). Not that I condone the instinct; even things such as past life regression can be of some interest, if only to delve into the thought process behind it. Maybe that's the sociologist in me talking.
ReplyDelete"The standard must not be scientific. And even though there is some truth to the notion that better systems survive the test of time, there are some truly awful beliefs and practices that have done so."
ReplyDeleteI am torn, because I'm inclined to think unreasoned, uncritical belief in things is why some awful beliefs and practices have persisted. So to me, use of reason ("scientific" approach, in a sense) is a key element in ensuring that beliefs/practices are good. But at the same time I don't think rationality alone would make the world a better place, and some of these spiritual philosophies might work better for some people and might have something to offer the world.
Andy, this is an interesting topic.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your stances of looking for the good/noble/inspirational in various belief systems, and of not rejecting an idea just because it's untraditional, odd-sounding, or new.
I value (and have personally experienced) your open-mindedness and honoring of others' truths even if they may not match up to your own views / belief system. That's pretty rare. :-)
---
A couple of comments -
"...[Look] at the organisations promulgating a particular path. Have they made themselves wealthy? Do they use coercion to keep people "in the fold"? Do they condemn those who believe differently? If yes, then run - do not walk - in the opposite direction."
Unfortunately, this describes nearly all religious organizations -- nearly all *human* organizations of any type -- ancient or modern. My view is that one cannot judge the value of a belief or a religion by looking at how some or all of its adherents, even the main power structure of the particular religious body, have behaved. What people and organizations do "in the name of ____" (God, Jesus, love, truth, etc.) can't be equated with God, Jesus, love, truth.
--
"My test has more to do with how a belief or practice leads its adherents to live. If the path makes its followers more loving, more connected, more respectful, and more ready to seek justice for all beings, then I'm ready to take a closer look. Past-life regression fails many of these tests...."
How does past-life regression fail those tests? I don't know much about past-life regression, but I could see how it might make people feel more connected (to the past/humanity), more respectful of others (if they believe that random, ordinary people living today might be the reincarnated Napoleon, Buddha, Lincoln, St. Teresa, or whomever), etc.
Additionally, the belief in past lives/reincarnation is pretty common across the world, even in some major religions. Tibetan Buddhism uses some kind of past-life testing to locate the newly-born successors of deceased holy men (such as the Dalai Lama). The current Dalai Lama talks about memories and urges he had as a small child that indicated that he was the reincarnation of the previous Dalai Lama: http://www.dalailama.com/biography/questionsand-answers.
So, even though past-life regression might seem "New Age", it deals with an ancient human belief -- albeit in a modern American way (using cheesy hypnotists who seem like snake oil salesmen, from what I gather).
---
continued below
second half of my comment
ReplyDelete---
"The standard must not be scientific."
I think many aspects of the scientific approach are valid when evaluating some religious/spiritual beliefs -
observing, defining, measuring, postulating explanations, predicting, experimenting, viewing all phenomena with an open mind, having no predetermined expectation of the way things are/might be.
One problem is that some professional scientists are quick to dismiss certain ideas/phenomena as impossible or illogical, without researching them, or without taking into account that the tiniest margin of error still means that a conclusion just might be in error. And if something is not testable by science (like the existence of God), it's not more "scientific" to claim that God does not exist than to say that God does.
So many facts that science has uncovered are astoundingly unlikely and fascinating -- by reason alone, most people would probably say they were impossible. For example, the oft-cited double-slit experiment in physics ("This experiment clearly displays the way in which nature is counterintuitive on the quantum scale and makes it clear that our ways of thinking based on our everyday experiences in the classical world are often completely inadequate to understand the quantum world." http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/).
Going beyond "reason" to actually look at the world as it is (insofar as humans can experience and can conceive of the world), is what being scientific is about.
some quotes:
“It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but conservative scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they start with the preconceived idea that what they are investigating is impossible. When this happens, the most well-informed men become blind by their prejudices and unable to see what lies directly ahead of them.” Athur C. Clarke, 1963
"A miracle is not the breaking of physical laws, but rather represents laws which are incomprehensible to us." Guirdjieff
"... [S]cience in general can be considered a technique with which fallible men try to outwit their own human propensities to fear the truth, to avoid it, to distort it." Abraham Maslow, 1966
"...[W]herever a debate between the mystics and the scientifics has been once for all decided, it is the mystics who have usually proved to be right about the facts, while the scientifics had the better of it in respect to the theories." William James
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." Robert Jastrow :-)
Yes - 'by their fruits shall ye know them'!
ReplyDelete