Max Muller, the nineteenth century philologist and orientalist,
delivered lectures in 1891 on the subject of Anthropological Religion. Obviously
these lectures are dated now, but he used the oak tree as a symbol of the
history of the human attempt to come to grips with the concept of a higher
power. I still find that symbol helpful.
Muller said:
I should go so far as to say that the history of religion is the
best proof of religion just as the growth of the oak-tree is the best proof of
the oak-tree. There may be excrescences there may be dead leaves there may be
broken branches but the oak-tree is there once for all whether in the sacred
groves of Germany or at Dodona or in the Himalayan forests. It is there not by
our own will but by itself or by a Higher Will. There may be corruptions there
may be antiquated formulas there may be sacred writings flung to the wind but
religion is there once for all in all its various representations. You can as
little sweep away the oak-tree with its millions of seeds from the face of the
earth as you can eradicate religion, true religion, from the human
heart.
Some think there will be a day when religion will have run its course in
the hearts of humans. But I doubt it, just a Muller did.
Our ideas about God have evolved over the millennia and will continue to
evolve in the centuries ahead.
I believe God has hardwired into the human mind the impulse to seek him. To
quote Muller again:
There will be and can be no rest till we admit, what cannot be
denied, that there is in man a third faculty, which I call simply the faculty of
apprehending the Infinite, not only in religion, but in all things; a power
independent of sense and reason, a power in a certain sense contradicted by
sense and reason; but yet, I suppose, a very real power, if we see how it has
held its own from the beginning of the world — how neither sense nor reason has
been able to overcome it, while it alone is able to overcome both reason and
sense.
Yes, the growth of the oak tree is the proof of the oak tree.
I've been listening to a bit of Sam Harris on youtube today and although he is convinced that religion is not good, he doesn't throw spirituality out as I don't.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to imagine that this is all there is, we just don't know.
I don't agree with Harris and Hitchens and those who feel religion is not good. That seems a rather broad indictment. I do feel religious fundamentalism and extremism aren't good and are a perversion of true religion and spirituality. And when atheists go about declaring themselves "Brights" and I suppose by implication the rest of us "dumbs," I think they are slowly drifting into extremism themselves.
ReplyDeleteI don't know about Hitchens, but Harris does see spirituality as a legitimate thing, but it doesn't have to be religious. I also don't know much about the terminology (brights/dumbs) as I am not a huge follower as such, but I was refreshed to hear that not all atheists deny that we do have something "more" about us.
DeleteI think the "Bright" thing didn't really catch on, although I do remember reading James Randi's anti-religion rant in which he declared himself a vociferous Bright. Oh, well.
DeleteYes, some atheists recognize a form of spirituality and I think that's fine. In fact, I think it is rather natural. I guess I just take my spirituality in a different direction.