Below is an excerpt from my forthcoming book…
© Mahabodhi Burton
9 minute read
Diving into Chapter 1, ‘The Evidence Bases of Religion, Politics and Science,’ this excerpt goes into the way that secularity can foster its own religion: including, according to Professor of Religious Studies Jeff Wilson, the modern mindfulness movement.
The secular myth
The word ‘secular’ simply means ‘of the age:’ today this means ‘aligned with the Western paradigm of scientific materialism.’ The myth of Science holds that, in an age of technological advancement, it might be possible for man—if only he could perfect science–to exercise complete dominion over his environment, thus creating an ideal materialist society. Imagination from this perspective can be seen as a subjective sideshow, emotion-based therefore unreliable, for ’dreamy idlers’ who, incapable of meeting the demands of a materialistic society, opt for alternative lifestyles such as those rooted in religion or the arts, as a means of escape. Along the former lines, Christopher Hitchens wrote in his memoir, Hitch-22:
‘I try to deny myself any illusions or delusions, and I think that this perhaps entitles me to try and deny the same to others, at least as long as they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves.’
This view is bolstered by the belief that no life continues after death: a perspective criticized by the Buddha as speculative overreach[1] (and perhaps emanating from a disdain for current existence:) thus individuals replace the transcendent with the secular, investing the latter with a sacred quality and prompting the pursuit of a materialist or socio-political agenda with a fervour akin to religious dedication.
‘Death is certain,” [Hitchens] wrote in The Portable Atheist, “replacing both the siren-song of Paradise and the dread of Hell. Life on this earth, with all its mystery and beauty and pain, is then to be lived far more intensely: we stumble and get up, we are sad, confident, insecure, feel loneliness and joy and love. There is nothing more; but I want nothing more.’[2]
Hitchens articulates his personal code of ethics:
‘Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the “transcendent” and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don’t be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you.’[3]
This code is akin to a religion, if we understand religion outside of its conventional transcendental boundaries: a person’s religion emerges as they go over the options of how to best live their life: having considered those options carefully—whether they conclude that the best ‘fit’ for them is a traditional religion or a more secular philosophy–they choose one worldview among others and singularly and intensely place their heart upon it (the Buddhist concept of faith, ‘shraddha,’ means ‘to place the heart upon.)
‘Religio’ as moral duty
It is interesting that the modern word “religion” derives from the Latin ‘religio,’[4] which originally denoted conscientiousness, a sense of right, moral obligation, or duty (towards anything) in secular contexts.[5]
‘Religio was most often used by the ancient Romans not in the context of a relation towards gods, but as a range of general emotions such as hesitation, caution, anxiety, fear; feelings of being bound, restricted, inhibited; which arose from heightened attention in any mundane context.’[6]
This anxiety can be an anxiety to ‘get things right’ for their own sake: which we normally call conscience,
‘The term [religio] was also closely related to other terms like scrupulous which meant “very precisely …”
Superstition
or it can be a fear or anxiety centred upon protecting oneself:
‘…and some Roman authors related the term superstitio, which meant too much fear or anxiety or shame, to religio at times.’[7]
Which one allays with a superstitious act; this is the ‘religious’ response Hitchens’s criticism is centred upon. Individual choices then lead to the formation of orders and communities bound by similar religious persuasions:
‘When religio came into English around the 1200s as religion, it took the meaning of “life bound by monastic vows” or monastic orders.[8]
‘The medieval usage alternates with order in designating bonded communities like those of monastic orders: “we hear of the ‘religion’ of the Golden Fleece, of a knight of the religion of Avys.’’’[9]
Kant’s Categorical Imperative
The variety of religio as ‘conscience’ reminds me of Kant’s categorical imperative, which he introduced in his 1785 work Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
‘Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.’[10]
To give a topical modern example, if one allows the law to rule that excessive fines are allowed to be levied on one’s political opponents (Fox News $787 million for defamation in relation to Dominion Voting Systems, Alex Jones $1.1 billion for defamation in the Sandy Hook case, Donald Trump over $350 million in damages in a civil fraud case) then one would wish similar fines be levied on one’s political allies for similar misdemeanours.
Kant’s focus was on rationality: it is not in one’s rational interests to create a society whereby only subjective desires prevail:
‘According to Kant, rational beings occupy a special place in creation, and morality can be summed up in an imperative, or ultimate commandment of reason, from which all duties and obligations derive. He defines an imperative as any proposition declaring a certain action (or inaction) to be necessary. Hypothetical imperatives apply to someone who wishes to attain certain ends. For example, “I must drink something to quench my thirst” or “I must study to pass this exam.” The categorical imperative, on the other hand, commands immediately the maxims one conceives which match its categorical requirements, denoting an absolute, unconditional requirement that must be obeyed in all circumstances and is justified as an end in itself, possessing intrinsic value beyond simply being desirable.’[11]
Humanism
Hitchens’s values are humanistic:
‘During the Age of Enlightenment, humanistic values were reinforced by advances in science and technology, giving confidence to humans in their exploration of the world. … In the early 21st century, the term generally denotes a focus on human well-being and advocates for human freedom, autonomy, and progress. It views humanity as responsible for the promotion and development of individuals, espouses the equal and inherent dignity of all human beings, and emphasizes a concern for humans in relation to the world. Starting in the 20th century, humanist movements are typically non-religious and aligned with secularism. Most frequently, humanism refers to a non-theistic view centered on human agency, and a reliance on science and reason rather than revelation from a supernatural source to understand the world. Humanists tend to advocate for human rights, free speech, progressive policies, and democracy. People with a humanist worldview maintain religion is not a precondition of morality, and object to excessive religious entanglement with education and the state.’[12]
In parallel, the myth of Scientism prevails in contemporary scientific materialism, characterized by four key claims:
- The only kind of knowledge we can have being scientific knowledge
- The only things that exist are the ones Sciencehas access to
- Science alone can answer our moral questions and explain as well as replace traditional ethics
- Science alone can answer our existential questions and explain as well as replace traditional religion[13]
These assertions typify the religious undertones frequently ascribed to scientific projects in the current age.
The Religion of Mindfulness
Jeff Wilson—a Shin Buddhist priest and professor of religious studies—analyses the growth of the modern mindfulness movement in his book Mindful America. In the Fall 2014 issue of Tricycle magazine ‘On Mindfulness’ Jeff wrote an article entitled The Religion of Mindfulness,[14] where he examines the mindfulness movement through the lens of religious studies:
‘I find as a scholar that analysing the mindfulness movement as if it were religious is quite productive, providing insights derived from the study of other religious movements that seem to accurately and usefully explain phenomena we see going on with mindfulness.
‘From a religious studies standpoint, what I see before me is a movement of people who share common values and visions about human beings, life, society, and reality, who place great faith in a particular set of practices and engage in a ritual meant to bring about self-transformation and liberation from suffering, who are convinced of its worth for themselves and enthusiastic about promoting it to others, who react defensively to critiques and police the boundaries of who properly and improperly speaks for and about their movement, and who engage in an ongoing discussion about religion. Maybe that doesn’t meet your definition of a religion, but it sure seems pretty close to being religious to me.’ (My emphasis)
The act of ‘policing’ boundaries within a religious tradition is necessary if it is to possess inner coherence and distinguish itself from other traditions. Adherents consent to receiving training in a specific set of values, views and practices, often under the instruction of a master trainer: the Buddha was denoted purisadhammasarathi—‘guide unsurpassed of men to be tamed.’ However, a religion’s devotees will inevitably stray from their training and will, at those times, need to be ‘brought back’ into the fold. Being on the receiving end of such ‘policing’ can feel like a dog being brought to heel; one is repeatedly corrected until ones’ views are in line with tradition. Such corrective measures are effective only when individuals willingly submit to the process and place themselves under the guidance of a teacher or guru. Of course, some individuals’ guiding principle is to resist all external influence: thus, they are never trained in anything.
Identification of a situation’s religious nature becomes clear when one finds oneself being corrected to a specific viewpoint. I experienced this when a fellow order member, a secular mindfulness trainer, ‘corrected’ my understanding of mindfulness to align with Jon Kabat-Zinn’s definition.
If we accept Jeff Wilson’s proposition that the modern mindfulness movement is inherently religious, we can identify the ways in which it delineates its boundaries:
- Secular Definition: The movement defines itself as secular and trains its facilitators to avoid any reference to religion
- Prescribed Definitions: It adheres to specific definitions of mindfulness
- Scientific Validation: The movement substantiates the effectiveness of mindfulness by presenting scientific evidence
Triratna Buddhism
Within the framework of Triratna Buddhism, adherents hold fast to specific views and methodologies, known as the six emphases. Additionally, they engage in a unique culture of spiritual friendship, or kalyana mitrata, which distinguishes Triratna from both the contemporary mindfulness movement and other Buddhist schools.
For those who are part of the Triratna order and also work as secular mindfulness trainers, it’s crucial to align their job and other interests with Triratna Buddhism. In this context, commitment to the Three Jewels is considered primary, while occupation and other interests are regarded as secondary, though not unimportant.
Expanding the definition of religion in this context is driven by the idea that the most significant challenge to any religion comes from another religion. While cultural influences may present challenges, they are usually manageable through collective efforts. On the other hand, a competing religion or worldview inherently aims to replace one’s own beliefs and convictions in both heart and mind. This perspective becomes clearer when examining Religion as a field based on its evidence base.
The broadening of the definition of religion in this context is motivated by the belief that the most formidable challenge to any religion arises from another religion. While cultural forces may pose challenges, they can typically be addressed through concerted efforts. Conversely, a competing religion or worldview inherently seeks to supplant one’s own beliefs and convictions in both heart and mind.[15] This perspective gains clarity when examining Religion as a field based on its evidence base.
The chapter goes on to explore the evidence base of science.
[1] ‘How, monks, do some overreach? Now some are troubled, ashamed, and disgusted by this very same being and they rejoice in (the idea of) non-being, asserting: “In as much as this self, good sirs, when the body perishes at death, is annihilated and destroyed and does not exist after death—this is peaceful, this is excellent, this is reality!” Thus, monks, do some overreach.’ Itivuttaka 49. Held by Views. Translated from the Pali by John D. Ireland
[2] ‘Hitchens Remembered Through 15 of His Most Memorable Quotes’ ABC News. 16 December 2011. Accessed 10 August 2022.
[3] Ibid.
[4] The classical etymology of the word, traced to Cicero himself, derives it from relegere: re (again) + lego (read) where lego is in the sense of “go over”, “choose”, or “consider carefully” Modern scholars such as Tom Harpur and Joseph Campbell have argued that religio is derived from religare: re (again) + ligare (bind or connect), which was made prominent by Augustine of Hippo. See The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light. Toronto. Thomas Allen, 2004; and The Power of Myth, with Bill Moyers, ed. Betty Sue Flowers, New York, Anchor Books, 1991. See also Charlton T. Lewis. An Elementary Latin Dictionary. Tufts University.
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry=religio
[5] In general, religio referred to broad social obligations towards anything including family, neighbors, rulers, and even towards God. See Morreall, John; Sonn, Tamara (2013). “Myth 1: All Societies Have Religions”. 50 Great Myths about Religions. Wiley-Blackwell. p12–7. Newer research shows that in the ancient and medieval world, the etymological Latin root religio was understood as an individual virtue of worship in mundane contexts; never as doctrine, practice, or actual source of knowledge. See Harrison, Peter (2015). The Territories of Science and Religion. University of Chicago Press; See also Roberts, Jon (2011). “10. Science and Religion”. In Shank, Michael; Numbers, Ronald; Harrison, Peter (eds.). Wrestling with Nature: From Omens to Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 254; and Barton, Carlin; Boyarin, Daniel (2016). “1. ‘Religio’ without “Religion””. Imagine No Religion: How Modern Abstractions Hide Ancient Realities. Fordham University Press. p15–38.
[6] ‘1. “Religio” without “Religion”.’ Imagine No Religion: How Modern Abstractions Hide Ancient Realities. p15–38.
[7] Ibid.
[8] ‘Myth 1: All Societies Have Religions.’ 50 Great Myths about Religions. Wiley-Blackwell. p12–7.
[9] Huizinga, Johan (1924). The Waning of the Middle Ages. Penguin Books. p86.
[10] ‘Categorical Imperative.’ Wikipedia. Accessed 26 February 2024.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Humanism. Wikipedia. Accessed 26 February 2024.
[13] Mikael Stenmark. (2020) Scientism: Science, ethics and religion. Routledge. Chapter 2.
[14] Jeff Wilson. The Religion of Mindfulness. Tricycle Magazine.
https://tricycle.org/magazine/mindfulness-jeff-wilson/
[15] This reminds me of an idea my teacher Sangharakshita has concerning the difference between a problem and a difficulty; a problem embodies a self-contradictory situation and cannot be solved on its own terms; ‘I distinguish between a problem on the one hand and a difficulty on the other. A difficulty is something that can be overcome with effort. If we put a bit more effort in, a bit more energy, the difficulty can be overcome, it can be resolved. But a problem isn’t like that. If you’ve got a problem, and if you put a lot of effort into it, a lot of energy into it, to solve it, what happens is you make the problem worse. You increase the problem. It’s like pulling, we may say, the two ends of a piece of string in order to untie the knot in the string. You may have a piece of string with a knot in it, so you take hold of the two ends, and you pull hard. But what happens? You only succeed in tightening the knot. So, putting energy into the solution of a problem is rather like that—you make the problem worse, tighter, more difficult to solve. A problem often requires a person to change something within themselves; such as adopt a change of heart or attitude.’ Sangharakshita. Is a Guru Necessary? Free Buddhist Audio.
https://www.freebuddhistaudio.com/texts/lecturetexts/090_Is_a_Guru_Necessary.pdf
Users Today : 112
Users Yesterday : 110
This Month : 752
Total Users : 15909
