Thoughts on RER's Areligious Religiosity

Dr. Ramsey Eric Ramsey's essay "Communication and Eschatology: The Work of Waiting, an Ethics of Relief, and Areligious Religiosity" pushes back against traditional critical and enlightenment theory in attempting to reclaim an ostracized piece of our philosophical history: religion. Utilizing critical theorist's views on Religion and the Enlightenment, Dr. Ramsey explicates a way to open a space so to necessarily save religiosity from religion while, also necessarily, not inviting dogmatic doctrine back in with it.

Although some might argue that ethics doesn’t get called out in this argument and it is consistently a battle of science versus religion, I choose my categories carefully: the battle of science and religion is one of ethics. A focus on ethics is important to note in this battle, for this is what (at least in part) I believe Dr. Ramsey is referring to when lamenting what has been lost with religion.

As inhabitants of the 21st century western world, we find ourselves constantly (at best) witness to or (at worst) caught in the purportedly epic battle of science versus religion. For any enlightenment thinker this of course isn’t a problem because the dogmatic disciplines and unfounded claims of the church have been laughed out of the room. The situation, of course, is never that cut and dry.

Simply laughing religion out of the room, however dismissing in the realm of theorists, doesn’t quite work for those who consider themselves traditionally religious. This is a common oversight by countless many in an attempt to clear a path for their philosophy. Although it works well in theory, it simply isn’t practical to dismiss traditional religiosity.

What I mean to get at is that this question of an areligious religiosity isn’t just begging critical theorists and enlightenment thinkers to start smuggling in a sense of religiosity, it is in fact a two-headed beast that must not only help us regain a sense of religiosity with care for critical and enlightenment theory, but also bring about a shift to where religion can find a way into the fold of critical and enlightenment theory. An areligious religiosity isn’t just for the privileged few who already understand critical and enlightenment theory, it is a salve for the huddling masses who feel left out in the cold by both warring factions.

I might seem to be working backwards here, but I needed to make sure that I am being fair to all parties before I start explicating the backdrop whence we find ourselves needing this paradigm shift. Now with the “who” underneath our belt, we can investigate the “why” and then move to the “what” and “how.”

Critical and enlightenment theory have come to an impasse. Although they can explicate the inner workings of uncountable phenomena, they still struggle with the one question that society consistently raises: the question of ethics. Reason as we know it has not given us a substantive ethic that allows us to interact in this world humanely, it has examined, collected, and calculated in a way that precludes ethics; reason has created a world-view in which the ethics and morality into ways-of-life simply do not seem part. Without a clearing for ways-of-life, I doubt it will be possible to find us out of the quagmire of pre-emptive rationality that reason has gotten ourselves into. What I mean to say is that, however many wonderful things critical and enlightenment theory have afforded us, reason remains lacking in the most important one of all: how to live well. This is the charge of ethics and morality, which has been distanced, rightfully so, from critical and enlightenment theory for quite some time.

The tutelage of morality and ethics has been cared for, traditionally at least, within the realm of religious institutions. This is problematic for any anti-metaphysical anti-dogmatic thinker such as critical and enlightenment theorists. When religion was laughed out of the room for resistance to dialogue and clinging to dogmatism and metaphysics, it also took its dogmatically and metaphysically imbued ethics and morality with it. This is what I would call “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.” In the interest of humanity (and for the metaphor’s sake, the baby), critical and enlightenment theory needs to reclaim the lost ethics and morality. The question isn’t why (that part is intensely obvious), the question lies in how to reclaim ethics and morality from the religious while avoiding the metaphysical and dogmatic pitfalls that religion is so famous for. Religion, on the other hand, needs something completely different.

Religious institutions have been suffering a gradual loss of active membership for years. Infallible dogma and unassailable viewpoints are not welcome in the public sphere – this is why religion has been faltering for so long; the advent of the Enlightenment was also the advent of the descent of active religious subscription. (Don’t get me wrong, this was necessary – without the Enlightenment we would not have the wiggle room against the metaphysical and dogmatism that religion utilizes to retain control.) This paradigm shift that humanity has taken towards science has been problematic, to say the least, for religion, which struggles to maintain viability in a world that finds its truth through scientific inquiry and not through metaphysical, infallible, and unsupportable claims. This is where an areligious religiosity finds its place. The way of an areligious religiosity brings religion into dialogue with the enlightenment by refusing to allow metaphysical or dogmatic claims. This is helpful not only for critical and enlightenment theory, as stated before, but also for religion as it allows for a more valid (as far as the public sphere is concerned) dialogue in regards to the indispensable community and ethics that religion can provide. Now that we have an understanding of the “who” and “why” of an areligious religiosity, we can turn to the “what.”

The “what” in our investigation is the case of what has been left behind. Religion is known for its deeply rooted way-of-life as regards to ethics and morality. For the most part religion, noting that here I am speaking from a western point of view, purports a preaching of love, charity, and what Latin Christian Theologian writers call “misericordia” (compassion). Compassion, of course, is also one of the main tenets of Buddhism; so, I do not believe I’m far off in saying that this is roughly a shared set of values through many popular world religions. However, the Enlightenment doesn’t seem to make space for compassion in its reason-driven thinking. I believe this is a sad oversight on the part of the enlightenment thinkers. We should do something about this.

Sadly, the concept of compassion, as with charity and love, has, as with many other tenets of religion, remained grounded in infallible metaphysics and dogma. Religious teachers will be quick to point out the vertical transcendence involved in all three – charity, love, and compassion are, in religion’s eyes, intertwined with the holy, the infallible metaphysical. Some may see this as a problem for enlightenment. I see it as a solution.

The problem that religion makes for enlightenment is in its claim to transcendence. Many religions claim to be the link to what is holy. There is no way but theirs. This is incredibly problematic when you take into account that each and every one has its own set of dogmatic dictates that one must subscribe to in order to receive this transcendence. Furthermore, a vertical transcendence also presupposes all which is linked to as infallible. This is antagonistic at best, definitely not in the interest of communication and dialogue. One can easily see how this would be a problem for enlightenment thinkers. However, there might be another way.

If we can open a space for an areligious religiosity, a returning of what was lost and must be found, I would believe it to be through those tenets – compassion, love, and charity. Compassion, love, and charity should not be owned by a dogmatic discipline because they are wonderfully and simply human and not something that should come with metaphysical baggage. It is not and should not be necessary to believe in anything other than humanity to claim these tenets of compassion, love, and charity as a solid ethical and moral backbone. This humanity, of course, is where we can find our wiggle room.

These elements of a solid ethical and moral backbone (amongst others) are found to exist (insofar as they are elements of this purported solid ethical and moral backbone) only in human interaction. One cannot be compassionate, loving, or charitable towards an other without an other. This is important.

If people cannot be compassionate, loving, or charitable by themselves than it seems that it might lead us to find that these aspects of ethics and morality might not be found without an-other. This raises the question of whether these are actually “held” by the practitioner solely or if it might be the case that compassion, love, and charity are only found in the midst of the happening. If this is the case, then we must say that these phenomena are only available in-between human beings. This is called intersubjectivity.

Because compassion, love, and charity are only found within the space created in-between, it might not only be a new way to see these previously religiously held tenets, but a new way to see transcendence. If we see this intersubjectivity as a way to make a space for such wonderment and holy acts as compassion, love, and charity, then that intersubjectivity itself might be the place in which transcendence itself takes place. This I believe is the core of an areligious religiosity.

This ethic is of course not simply an ethic of mere prescription. This is the difference between what the strict follower of a dogmatic discipline understands as ethics and what an areligious religiosity would understand as ethics. Areligious religiosity’s ethics are a way of life in discourse rather than obedience. Much like religiosity itself is a way of life, an areligious religiosity would not rely on a metaphysics and dogmatism but on dialogue and intersubjectivity.

This is the place where we can start to free ethics and morality from the battle between science and religion. This “horizontal” transcendence completely ignores the dogmatic discipline and scientific reasoning while paying homage to fundamental understandings of humanity. Rather than the infallibility of a vertical transcendence, the horizontal transcendence presupposes the fallibility of each and every other and makes room for dialogue through that understanding. Asserting control of our ethics and removing them from the realm of idols allows us the space to enter into a dialogue with critical and enlightenment theory, as well as with religion. This is where we can begin to think of how we might apply this to the science, ethics, and religion argument.
Thankfully for our science, ethics, and religion argument we have removed the highly contested piece (ethics) and asserted our own control over it. In acknowledging the human element in ethics and morality, we can bring some humanity back into it – namely discourse and understanding. Stepping back from this argument, with ethics firmly (or playfully, even) in hand, we can start to see science and religion in a different light. If we can offer our ethics to dialogue through this intersubjective horizontal transcendence then what we have done is what neither science nor religion could: we have de-dogmatized it. Rather than grounding ourselves by attaching our ethics and morality to some infallible or uncontestable doctrine, we have created the groundless ground of dialogue and understanding. This is necessary.

This groundless ground of dialogue and understanding as ethics, morality, and (most importantly) a way of life is a complete detachment from the prescribed doctrine usually found in religion and science. The admission that there is no definitive answer opens up fantastic opportunities for the betterment of humanity as a whole. This is the key to, ironically enough, religion’s salvation.

Religion, in turning away from dogmatism and metaphysics, as an areligious religiosity, finds itself once again not only useful but absolutely necessary. Churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques alike can rejoice in a dialogue with community rather than institutionalizing doctrine that only serve to distance humanity rather than bring it together. Opening dialogue would revitalize religion in a way that it would hardly resemble the religion we know today in the public sphere.

Critical and enlightenment theory also needs this type of dialogue and understanding. It needs an ethic to which we can turn to, and turn with. Ethics and morality was and has always been a guiding light – now we can assume control of that light rather than have it assume control of us. This is an areligious religiosity.

An areligious religiosity brings critical and enlightenment theory together with religion for both of their betterment and salvation. This salvation is within an ethic that we can wiggle away from religion’s dogmatic grasp and fold into an intersubjective horizontal transcendence. This brings about not only a new way of thinking about ethics, but it brings ethics and morality as-a-way-of-life back into the public sphere where it rightfully belongs. Welcoming this way of life back into the public sphere can only happen, however, after it has been freed from dogmatism and is allowed to participate in the dialogue of the public sphere.

Not only will this dialogue help the science, ethics, and religion argument unfold in new and wonderful discourse but it will also help dissolve other more strenuous problems between competing dogmatic theologies. Ethics and morality as participants in the public sphere as an areligious religiosity frees the metaphysical to be cherished rather than prescriptive and allows the sacred to be renewed in the hearts of man rather than combatively in the depths of our fears.

Technorati Tags: enlightenment, eschatology, ethics, religion, science