Defining a "fully informed 21st century sensibility"

Defining a “fully informed 21st century sensibility”

Introduction
On this blog site and in the forthcoming book, Thinking About Religion in the 21st Century, we frequently refer to a “21st century sensibility,” and suggest that in light of that sensibility, religion in the coming years will change dramatically as certain aspects of traditional religions, founded 2000 and more years ago in the Axial Age, lose their credibility. So given the significant role of this phrase, perhaps we should take a moment to define what is meant by a “21st century sensibility.”
 
First, let’s clarify what a 21st century sensibility does not mean: it certainly is not meant to suggest that humans in the 21st century have achieved some superior state of enlightenment. Intellectually, morally, spiritually, and in many other ways contemporary humans remain very imperfect creatures with a remarkable capacity to think irrationally, make mistakes, do great harm to each other, do perhaps even greater harm to the non-human parts of the planet, and just in general, think and act in a manner that is indicative of a very imperfect species. As traditional Christian theology would put it, humanity continues to provide ample evidence of our “fallen” status.
 
But amidst that general continuation of human imperfection, there clearly are certain ways in which humans today think and act differently than humans did during the Axial Age when the existing world religions originated. Humanity, while still far from perfect and, one might argue, a threat to the existence of the entire planet, has nonetheless changed in some meaningful ways, and it’s those meaningful changes (existing side by side with the perennial human flaws) which we are referring to when we reference a 21st century sensibility. Specifically, we would suggest that this sensibility includes (but is not limited to) the following components:
 
1. Historical awareness
Humans in the 21st century display a widespread historical awareness. We recognize that things change over time. This change includes human institutions, including religion. In order to understand the nature and value of something, it is necessary to investigate its historical context and development: what were the circumstances that led to its origin, what circumstances influenced its changes over time, etc. As applied to religion, this entails a considerable skepticism about the belief that religious texts, doctrines, rituals, and authority structures have a divine origin. Indeed, an entire field of study, the History of Religions, developed in the twentieth century based on this basic premise.
Any credible perspective on religion must take into account this historical dimension.
 
2. Scientific awareness
The explanatory power of science in explaining phenomena in the world of matter, or the “natural” world, is so overwhelming that the acceptance of scientific explanation in the 21st century hardly needs elaboration here. As applied to religion in the 21st century, however, acceptance of this role of science means that any credible religious perspective must be compatible with the scientific explanation of the natural world. Science works as an explanatory device for understanding the realms of matter/energy, and a credible religion must acknowledge this.
 
3. Post-mythic consciousness
The existing traditional religions emerged at a time when myth (stories about superhuman beings performing super-human tasks) was commonly used as an explanatory device, especially with regard to aspects of the world which were seen as mysteries. Lacking an explanation of why the sun consistently rose in the East and set in the West according to a rather precise pattern, stories were created about a god (Apollo, Surya, and many more) who rode or otherwise controlled the orderly movement of this heavenly body.
But mythic explanations have been supplanted by scientific explanations with regard to natural phenomena, and a credible 21st century religion must accept this fact. Religion which is rooted in supernatural explanations of scientifically explainable natural phenomena is not credible to a fully-informed 21st century citizen.
This does not mean that religion has no basis! To the contrary, this entire site, and Thinking About Religion in the 21st Century, are both an extended argument in support of religion, but a religion that is credible to a 21st century sensibility. This means a religion that is grounded not in mythic explanations of natural phenomena but rather in faith in the basic assertion that we live in a Universe in which meaning and value are real, fundamental, ontological elements. A 21st century spiritual outlook is one that affirms that while there is indeed a transcendent meaning to our existence, that meaning and its related moral value can no longer be effectively described and communicated through ancient mythic language.
 
4. Critical sensibility
The notion of a critical sensibility is not so much something different from the above three components of a 21st century sensibility, but rather a category that underlies all three.
By “critical”, of course, we do not mean negative criticism per se, but rather an orienting perspective that always looks for deeper explanations and does not settle for how things look at first  glance or how things are commonly understood by the prevailing unexamined beliefs and ideals of one’s culture. Whether looking at natural phenomena or human/cultural phenomena, including religion, a 21st century sensibility seeks to understand the origin and nature of things, incorporating the categories of historical, scientific, and post-mythic consciousness which we have described above.
 
This is problematic for certain aspects of traditional, Axial Age-based religions. A 21st century religion must be one that can stand up to such critical scrutiny, and traditional religions, at least in certain ways, cannot do so for many contemporary citizens. Hence, as we have proposed from the beginning: religion needs to change, and in some ways radically so.
 
4. Cross-cultural/global perspective
The existing religions all originated at a time when communication between distant cultures was non-existent for most humans and severely limited even to the elites who had sufficient wealth and power to travel long distances. This meant that, 2000 years ago, it was easy to believe in the god of your own culture since you had little or no exposure to any alternatives.
But dramatic changes in transportation, communication, and literacy are slowly but steadily transforming humanity from a localized to a global species. Given this accessibility to the ideas, values, practices, etc. of other cultures, it is irresponsible for a 21st century citizen to narrow-mindedly cling to the notion that only his/her culture holds the “right” ideas. We live in the context of global knowledge, and our consciousness should reflect this accordingly. When applied to religion, this global consciousness means that allegiance to claims of religious exclusivity by traditions which emerged in isolated cultures of the past loses all credibility. The religion of the future must be a religion that incorporates elements from any and all traditions. The religion of the future must be globally-grounded, not parochial, and to the extent that traditional religions refuse to recognize this, they are likely to wither away.
 
5. Global moral sensibility
Over the centuries, the human sense of moral responsibility has moved in a slow but ever-widening circle. Whereas early humans might have felt a sense of responsibility only to their family, this eventually expanded to a sense of moral responsibility to larger units, from tribe to clan to ethnic group. With the emergence of the classical civilizations, we see moral responsibility extended beyond kin and tribal connections to members of one’s larger socio-political unit, such as a nation-state or empire. But in a 21st century sense of moral responsibility, that sense of responsibility is extended, at a minimum, to all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality, etc. Moral responsibility has assumed a global scope. Some would further suggest that a truly contemporary morality extends beyond the human species to other sentient beings – animals, plants, perhaps the entire biosphere, as we see in the ecological/environmental ethics that, while virtually unknown a mere century ago, are now quite commonplace, taught to children as early as kindergarten.
As applied to religion, this means that a credible, morally acceptable 21st century spirituality must be one that includes such a global morality, and existing religious traditions, which emerged in the Axial Age with a more confined and restrictive sense of moral responsibility, may find it difficult to remain relevant in the coming years and decades.
 
So what’s the point?
 
We are suggesting that these components of a “21st century sensibility” are representative of how increasing numbers of people are thinking today. Certain ways of thinking have become widespread in the early 21st century to a degree which simply was not the case as late as the mid-20th century. The “average” sensibility has changed. What could once be found in the thought of exceptional individuals is now found in the general population.
 
As applied to religion, this means that there are certain aspects of the way that many people think today that are incompatible with components of the traditional Axial religions. Consciousness has evolved. Hence our view of the world has evolved.
And now religion, or our understanding of Spirit, must play catch-up and similarly evolve.
 
To the extent that we are simply honest with ourselves (intellectually, morally, and spiritually) at the beginning of the 21st century, adherence to many traditional religious texts, creeds, doctrines, and practices won’t work. But the alternative isn’t disbelief: rather, the alternative is a form of belief that is appropriate to our time, a 21st century spirituality which is still in its infancy.