"We believe that the Universe itself is conscious in a way we can never truly understand. It is engaged in a search for meaning, so it breaks itself apart, investing its own consciousness in every form of life. We are the Universe, trying to explain itself."
"The molecules of your body are the same molecules that make this station and the nebula outside, that burn inside the stars themselves. We are star-stuff. We are the Universe, made manifest, trying to figure itself out. And, as we have both learned, sometimes the Universe needs a change of perspective."
--Delenn, "Babylon 5"
Recently, I've been reconsidering religion.
In my religious ethics course on creating sustainable communities within the context of globalization, I'm learning to embrace the rejection of andocentrism, a concept that previously felt anathema. I feared there was a slippery slope from letting go of our beliefs in human beings as the most valuable form of life to the devaluation of particular human beings on the basis of race, gender, class, sexuality. In part because of the frequent scapegoating of poor people of color for environmental degradation, I felt it was important to emphasize human rights as a higher priority than environmental health. But increasingly, I find myself understanding biodiversity as a prerequisite for human justice. To understand advocacy for environmental sustainability as somehow opposed to the welfare of marginalized human communities is but another manifestation of "divide and conquer." Environmental wholeness facilitates diversity in human communities. I am claiming new concepts of "relationality." Until now, I've embraced intersectionality in relation to systems of domination and oppression, yet have not considered myself intertwined with creation at a more individual and embodied level.
I found the above quotes, delivered by the Minbari Ambassador Delenn on the sci-fi series "Babylon 5," to be deeply resonant. It is mildly embarrassing to find inspiration in a television character. Posting this dialogue here, I am afraid it sounds like new-age drivel. Even before my disconnect from institutionalized religious practice, when I was still involved as an activist within the United Methodist Church, I avoided all expressions of belief that did not highlight justice, liberation and resistance to oppression; they seemed to me to be hollow and sentimental. But at their best, professions of faith are cosmological. They situate us, clarifying our relationship to creation and to one another. This is far from sentimental.
I am the universe, trying to explain itself.
Last year, as Diversity Outreach Consultant for DePaul University's Queer student organization, I screwed up royally by intellectualizing religion as "cultural systems" for meaning-making, forgetting the extent to which individuals' identities are emotionally embedded in religion. Seeking a more grounded experience of myself within community, I find myself wanting to re-embrace the emotionality of religious practice through tradition and ritual. I want to humble myself to mystery and the unknowable, to consider my body a loaner whose stewardship I'm entrusted rather than an object that I own. I do not know where this development will lead me... but as Delenn says, "faith manages."
Posts
3 comments:
First, let me express my enthusiasm for your embrace of television as a possible vehicle for meaningful cultural, intellectual, and philosophical dialogue. Televised narratives are simply the latest phenomenon in the long pedigree of human story telling. As with orally transmitted stories, stage dramas, novels, short stories, and cinema, some television shows are terrible and pointless, while others are downright transformative. So huzzah! Up with good TV!
Now on to your main point. I don't believe that Delenn's insight is necessarily a religious one, rather it is metaphysical and more specifically ontological. In fact, I think that quote implies a philosophical practice that, in many ways, runs counter to the practice of religion.
As with so many of the meaty questions, a great deal depends upon definition of terms. My definition of religion is that human practice of defining a set of beliefs about the universe and extrapolating from those beliefs a set of behaviors designed for maximum social cohesion. Unlike Delenn's practice, there is no "explanation" in religion and certainly no exploration of possibilities. There is only enumeration and control. Religion enumerates the precepts of its orthodoxy and then seeks to control the population's deviation from that orthodoxy. The very nature of religion requires the suppression of dissent. Any tolerance that modern religious practice has shown for dissent, debate, and ecumenicism is the result of the penetration of the scientific method in public consciousness. This tolerance it has only given grudgingly, and still seeks in almost every way possible to wrest control of the public imagination away from women and men of reason.
Obviously, I am an atheist. :) But in all honesty, I find my atheism a sort of faith as well. I maintain a healthy appreciation for many mysteries. I am perfectly willing to entertain the possibility of a creator and a divinely transmitted set of beliefs and behaviors. However, I ultimately *chose* to reject that possibility because of religion's one fatal flaw. Because its moral codes cannot be explained reasonably (only accepted as the will of a higher being) they cannot be argued against. This characteristic makes religion easily hijacked by people whose only goals are self aggrandizement and personal power. I believe religion will prove to have been one of the most destructive aspects of human history or at least the location of its worst philosophical, technological, and legal inertia. I also believe that justice is very difficult to achieve without ethical and legal systems based on philosophical and sociological rigor rather than scriptural or mystical tradition.
I nearly broke my twat falling off of this high horse...
As always, a fantastic post Tim!
Huh. I posted a comment on this excellent article, but it isn't showing up. I'm not always the brightest computer user... maybe it was too long?
Yeah, I like how Jason put it. My kind of atheist. :-)
I've always appreciated and enjoyed the spiritual and religious content in B5 (such a fantastic show in all ways), variety. The Minbar beliefs as conveyed through Delenn (awesome character played by the perfect actress for the part, Furlan is feckin amazing) are my favorite though... Somehow, it just makes so much sense, beauty in the simplest equation.
But then maybe since my lack of affiliation with any religion leaves me piled in the agnostic bucket, I might just enjoy new ideas about the universe because they make me feel better about staying on the fence about it all. ;-)
Post a Comment