... in a way, religion is almost irrelevant to the troubles that afflict our planet, except for the extent to which it intensifies them, and when it does it is mostly because it is a product rather than a cause, an expression of reaction, though one which can also reinforce reaction, and also to that extent an irritant and an obstacle. Perhaps it is safer to say that it is 'good' religion that is almost irrelevant.
The thing that we most have to contend with is human nature in its negative aspects, and all we have at our disposal is our own nature in its positive aspect, and it is already in our nature to make that distinction in those terms. All that really matters is states of mind and their expression in conduct, as I constantly tell my students. Those men and women of 'good will' who profess religious convictions may be inspired by their spiritual traditions, as any of us might be by the right kind of literature, and our admiration for them is entirely a matter of our moral judgment about what they propose and what they condemn, about what they do. Basically, what we contend against is greed, hatred and delusion, grasping, cruelty, indifference, narcissism, self-preoccupation, sloth and arrogance. And all we have to contend against them with is generosity of spirit, energy and compassion. Who cares whether there is an uncaused cause of all there is? Well, yes, lots of people care about that, and some will say that it is because it is true, but even if it is, what difference does it make? Answer, it makes no difference at all except as one source of ethical inspiration among others.
This is also basic Buddhism as well as 'humanist' and maybe the point for me is that humanism just needs to develop its moral language and learn from the kind of ascesis found in that tradition, an ascesis that seeks to overcome the hindrances, undermine the sway of the passions without repression, in favour of a newly energised compassion for sentient beings, including, naturally, oneself, 'let me be to my sad self, hereafter, kind/ Charitable ...' as Hopkins wrote.
The thing that we most have to contend with is human nature in its negative aspects, and all we have at our disposal is our own nature in its positive aspect, and it is already in our nature to make that distinction in those terms. All that really matters is states of mind and their expression in conduct, as I constantly tell my students. Those men and women of 'good will' who profess religious convictions may be inspired by their spiritual traditions, as any of us might be by the right kind of literature, and our admiration for them is entirely a matter of our moral judgment about what they propose and what they condemn, about what they do. Basically, what we contend against is greed, hatred and delusion, grasping, cruelty, indifference, narcissism, self-preoccupation, sloth and arrogance. And all we have to contend against them with is generosity of spirit, energy and compassion. Who cares whether there is an uncaused cause of all there is? Well, yes, lots of people care about that, and some will say that it is because it is true, but even if it is, what difference does it make? Answer, it makes no difference at all except as one source of ethical inspiration among others.
This is also basic Buddhism as well as 'humanist' and maybe the point for me is that humanism just needs to develop its moral language and learn from the kind of ascesis found in that tradition, an ascesis that seeks to overcome the hindrances, undermine the sway of the passions without repression, in favour of a newly energised compassion for sentient beings, including, naturally, oneself, 'let me be to my sad self, hereafter, kind/ Charitable ...' as Hopkins wrote.
No comments:
Post a Comment