VENERATIO PROFANI | home
2. The Longer Now
The second insight proposes that the importance of spirituality has been played down historically ever since the European renaissance, in favour of acquisition of material objects and technological progress. He suggests that the loss of certainty in spiritual life, brought about by the loss of faith in the spiritual leaders of the renaissance period, created a deep sense of insecurity. His theory is that the interest in technological progress came about only through a need to distract ourselves from the frightening reality of spiritual uncertainty and the daunting task of having to discover a new avenue of belief. He refers to the great technological advances since the renaissance (such as the industrial revolution) with evident scorn, saying:
"During the industrial revolution, we saw major technological gains, reaffirming the mindset of "progress". Our need for spiritual knowledge was almost lost. Preoccupying ourselves with secular concerns, we accepted the illusion that we lived in a rational and predictable universe, where chance occurrences had no meaning. In the last decades of our century, led by science itself, this worldview, devoid of spiritual mystery, began to disintegrate."
Firstly, I need to address this misunderstanding about why we lost faith in our spiritual leaders in the renaissance. We did not lose faith in them because they were no longer adequate for the provision of our spiritual needs, we lost faith in them because they were corrupt, greedy and completely abitrary in deciding what was right and what was wrong. The people of the time were simply not willing to put up with being controlled by a religious dictatorship. Secondly, technological progress was not an excuse to distract ourselves from spirituality, it was a necessary advance to improve our quality of life. Agricultural technique, travel, communication and especially medicine were all fields that were woefully inefficient and in need of serious attention. Had we not had the foresight to realise that the current state of things would inevitably lead to a perpetual state of suffering and hardship, we would no doubt still be mulling over how best to remedy it today. Thirdly, he says we acepted the illusion that we lived in a rational and predictable universe. The fact is, the universe by and large is rational and predicatble. There are very few phenomena which cannot be explained by the simple application of the scientific method. If he had a specific idea(s) in mind, he should have given an example, which he did not. Finally, he mentions that the scientific view, in this last century, has begun to disintegrate. Where exactly has it begun to disintegrate? All the same scientific laws still apply, all the same scientific facts still remain. He mentions it with the same kind of dillusionary tone that socialists use when they say the country is on the brink of revolution; that is, he is trying to convince himself as well as us. Again, the extent of his own belief in this statement is shadowed by a lack of examples.