The Crucible of Religion: Culture, Civilization, and Affirmation of Life

By Wojciech Maria Zalewski

Religion is commonly viewed through the lens of the world's religious traditions, stressing the differences, and often the conflicts, among them. The author of this book instead presents religion as a common and universal human phenomenon, based deeply in a human nature shared by all. In this view, the underlining and unifying principle of religion is a particular affirmative attitude toward life, which he presents as the Ultimate Value, and as such the key cultural constituent and defining factor of all religion. This Ultimate Value finds its expressions in various civilizations, and results in a variety of forms; these are what we know as the world's religious traditions. By analyzing the roles of both culture and civilization in their attitudes toward life, the author places religion beyond religious traditions, and shows how the latter, regardless of whether they are theistic or atheistic, draw their principles from the former, mainly by promoting the Golden Rule in its applications.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Release date: Feb 13, 2012
• ISBN: 9781630875329

Wojciech Maria Zalewski

Wojciech Maria Zalewski is the Curator for Slavic and East European Collections Emeritus and Bibliographer for Religious Studies at the Stanford University Libraries. He is the author of Untersuchungen uber the literarische Gattung der Apokalypse 1-3.

Book preview

The Crucible of Religion

Culture, Civilization, and Affirmation of Life

Wojciech Maria Zalewski

6822.png

The Crucible Of Religion

Culture, Civilization, and Affirmation of Life

Copyright ©

2012

Wojciech Maria Zalewski. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers,

199

W.

8

th Ave., Suite

3

, Eugene, OR

97401

.

Wipf & Stock

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199

W.

8

th Ave., Suite

3

Eugene, OR

97401

www.wipfandstock.com

ISBN

13

:

978

-

1

-

61097

-

828

-

6

EISBN

13

:

978

-

1

-

63087

-

532

-

9

Cataloging-in-Publication data:

Zalewski, Wojciech,

1937

–

The crucible of religion : culture, civilization, and affirmation of life / Wojciech Maria Zalewski.

+ p.

23

cm—Includes bibliographical references and index.

1

. Golden rule—Comparative studies.

2

. Values—Religious aspects.

3

. Culture—Religious aspects. I. Title.

BL

85

. Z

11

.

2012

Manufactured in the U.S.A.

All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright ©

1973

,

1978

,

1984

by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide.

I dedicate this confession of my faith

to my Granddaughters: Nadia, Sofia and Naomi

Preface

Prominent members of the Stanford University community, where I am employed, regularly participate in a lecture series called What Matters to Me and Why sponsored by the Office for Religious Life. Although the speakers have a variety of life experiences and religious attitudes, the one prevailing trend—perhaps the most important common denominator that unites them all—is their attitude toward life . Along these lines I address the same question seen through the prism of religion, because religion matters to me.

I have always been immersed in some form of religion and I experienced clash between culture and civilization, thus this book has a personal meaning for me and I hope for persons who feel alike. My first memories come from when I was about three years old. Expelled by the Germans from our family home in Gdynia, Poland, at the beginning of the World War II, we lived in Nazi-occupied Warsaw. During that time I had my first lessons in conspiracy. When I was about six years old I started attending an underground school run by nuns, under the pretext of praying in their chapel. Schools during the war were forbidden. Around that age we children were playing at soldiers. It was not only a game: we learned how to throw gasoline bottles at German tanks in order to incinerate them. My parents had a collection of Polish underground newspapers. If discovered, possessing them would bring a penalty of concentration camp, at least, if not death. I was told not to talk about the newspapers to anybody. My life was engulfed in prayer. In the courtyard of our housing bloc was a statue of Mary, Mother of Jesus. People often gathered in front of it to pray. I believe this helped us all to alleviate the constant feeling of menace and the fear of being captured on the streets to be enslaved or killed. I can still recall the prayers we recited during the bombardment of Warsaw while sitting in a basement that shook from the nearby exploding bombs. Which one will hit us? One day during the Warsaw Uprising we were taken out of the basement and ordered to lie down flat on the ground, where we were surrounded by German soldiers with machine guns. My mother covered me with her coat, telling me that bullets could not penetrate it. We prayed. Then we were taken to Germany: my father to the concentration camp in Oranienburg-Sachsenhausen, and my mother and I to a factory in Hameln. My mother and I were purchased out of this slavery. My grandmother simply bribed some German officials. We returned to a still-occupied Poland, only to go through another battle, the one initiated by the victorious Soviet Army. Again, there were shootings and bombs; again fear; and again, more prayers. There were times in my life when there was nothing else left but prayer, and nothing else important but life.

Under Communism in Poland, Catholicism was a major force of opposition to the Soviet occupation. The Church was a place of freedom. Participation in religious activities was a form of political resistance. In such a situation the distinction becomes blurred between religious conviction and patriotic duty. The personal motivation of people involved in the social machinery is often difficult to judge. This is perhaps common in all coherent communities, from aboriginal societies to the forced cult of Roman emperors. It is the same, whether in countries under the Catholic Church’s political domination, in Jewish communities gathered around synagogues, in contemporary Hindu and Muslim communities, and even in Communist communities that require some kind of loyalty from their subjects. To what extent must one compromise one’s own convictions either to subordinate them to the greater social good or merely to be able to function under political or social pressure? Is religion, then, more a social, communal act, or does it remain a purely personal attitude? I ask this question because I have so often experienced both compromise and sincerity; both the pressure of indoctrination and resistance, the friction between the utilitarian and the ideal. I have experienced the contemporary prejudices that frequently place blame for violent acts on religion. What constitutes a religious act?

Religion’s ideological principles, as embodied in religious traditions can be viciously applied for the sake of some particular civilization’s goals. Throughout history many civilized countries and civilized people, proud of their civilized behavior—and often staunchly adherent to specific religious traditions—have been slave holders and oppressors, violators of human rights and human lives. (I see in the same light the rash of economic dishonesties committed today by large and supposedly civilized institutions.) How is this obvious contradiction, between religion and supposed civilization, to be resolved?

The American reader, despite the separation of Church and State might consider the meaning of, and belief in, such expressions as God bless America, or In God we Trust. Are these religious or political expressions? Two other examples may serve to illustrate the ambiguity of certain acts. Some influential religious communities in our country seek to (and even to impose their opinions on others) present Creationism as if it were science. The fanatical mass suicide by the members of the People’s Temple led by Jim Jones in Jonestown, Guyana, was explained as being required in the service of God. What is the actual motivation of acts committed in the name of God?

We are living in a frictional space between personal freedoms and social structures; between culture and civilization, two important concepts utilized in this book. How much breathing space does civilization leave for personal freedom and sincerity? I have personally witnessed and experienced (especially under the German and Soviet occupations of Poland), the enormous pressure and influence of ideology, both political and Catholic, on action. Any ideology—not only religious tradition—is manipulative in some way. It is difficult for me, personally, to sort out my own life decisions; whether and to what extent they were influenced by external (familial, social, or political) circumstances. For example, my social background as a member of the so-called intelligentsia limited my chances for admission to institutions of higher learning in Communist Poland. I entered a Seminary, and was ordained a priest. After one year in parish work I was sent by my superiors to Italy to study. For four years, however, I was denied a passport by the Communist authorities. Instead, I studied biblical sciences at the Catholic University in Lublin where I received the degree of License in Theology and began work on my doctoral dissertation. When I was finally granted a passport, I spent three years in Rome at the Pontifical Biblical Institute, and received a License in Biblical Studies (the equivalent of a Master’s degree). Subsequently I received a doctorate in Theology at the Gregorian University. In the course of my studies, my vision of the institutional Church changed. This forced upon me a traumatic process of re-evaluating my former life. It was similar to a divorce; and eventually led to intellectually-binding life decisions. I left the priesthood, emigrated to California, married and had children. I have worked at the Stanford University Libraries for 28 years as Curator for Slavic Collections. Upon my semi-retirement in 1999, I became Stanford’s Bibliographer for Religious Studies. I realize that there is a dynamic contemporary interest in the study of religion.

Searching for a common denominator among the world’s religious traditions, I travelled in Africa, Japan, Kalimantan (Borneo) and Sumatra to experience what I call ecological (animistic) religious traditions. In Tibet and India I experienced a deeper understanding of Buddhism and Hinduism. I read widely, studying various aspects of religious traditions and capitalizing on my biblical studies. I wanted to understand the phenomenon called religion and whether and why it was a common human experience. This work results from that interest.

Many of those who write about religious traditions focus their attention on doctrines that divide rather than those that unite. The generic term religion should not be applied blindly to all the great variety of ideologies and theologies. There is a single underlying factor underpinning them all. I find this factor most evident in a common for humanity attitude toward life. I therefore see religion as a phenomenon inextricably linked with life, the practical attitude toward life, behavior (morality) motivated by Value (Life/God) that is common to all humans—whether they are theistic or a-theistic. I address this book to all who, as I, search for the essence of religion.

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my gratitude to a number of people who read parts of my manuscript corresponding with their expertise and offered valuable comments. In this, I am especially grateful to Stanford faculty members Robert Gregg, Shahzad Bashir, Thomas Sheehan, Michael Zimmermann, and librarian Glen Worthey. Other scholars to whom I am indebted for their subject as well as editorial contributions are professors Cameron Ainsworth, Kenneth Graham, Dariusz Iwański, Betty Pex, Rev. Michael O’Berg, Rafał Jan Felbur and, for editing, to Czesław Jan Grycz.

Introduction

Too much devotion to one’s own religion

And slandering other people’s religions

So the result is hatred and strife. Is there any greater stupidity?

The righteous religion

In every era

Is one that illuminates people and leads to a peaceful way of life.

People of religion should never draw swords against each other.

—Dogen, also known as Joyo Daishi,thriteenth-century monk in Japan. Inscription at the Zen Buddhist monastery in Eiheiji, Japan.

Can religion exist without religious traditions? Yes it can, with far reaching implications. This book approaches religion through the lens of culture and civilization, viewing its function as the affirmation of Life. ¹ I reflect on religion understood as a universal humanistic quest for life, the life we experience. My main premise is that religion functions as affirmation of life. Conceptually, there is only one Life, and only one Religion. Each is manifested in many forms. Religion addresses life, and is as indefinable as life. Discussion of religion is prolific in almost all the major disciplines in the humanities and social sciences, and even in the natural sciences. After reviewing several attempts to define religion, Roger Schmidt concludes: there is no such thing as religion in general. ² And yet, the term religion exists in all discourse, both common and scholarly, and is so open to interpretation that almost any personal or social behavior that is guided by some abstract principle could be subsumed under the term.

The phenomenon of religion is always seen through an observer’s own prism, dictated by his or her individuality, predecessors, educational background, and social pressures. Scholar after scholar, reviewing previous visions, findings or ideas, proposes his or her own understanding of precisely what religion is. I dispense with a broader review of the many definitions of the term religion, which can easily be found elsewhere. But I wonder why it is that such diversity and discrepancy of opinions should particularly proliferate with respect to religion. It seems to me that the problem for many scholars may be that they are looking for something out there—something supernatural—as the primary factor of religion. Often they, themselves, are alienated from religious practice.

My claim is that religion is something in here, a part of life, a phenomenon whose purpose and intent is to dignify life. None of the so-called sacred texts of the world’s religions were written for scholars or theologians. They were compiled, instead, for ordinary people and meant to enhance their lives. The texts themselves flow from life experience and they belong to the literary classics of universal value for humanity. That is why religion is so firmly anchored in human nature, is universal, and is a permanent part of human culture. The quest for life is eternal—and, thus, religion has always existed.

In this work I propose to examine religion, not from the point of view of the supernatural or of God, but from the point of view of life, thus reversing the prevailing approach. The idea of God (or of the supernatural) serves Life, not the other way around (Life serving God). This is how people experience religion. Take any prayer book from any religion, and you will see the expressions of people who hope to draw benefits for themselves while relating to a divinity.

I introduce, here, two terms: Ultimate Value of Life and Absolute Life—that is, all-encompassing Life (in which case I capitalize Life). These are the main points of reference for religion, the points in which rests the dignity of life. I believe that any person, whether declared as a friend or a foe of religion, should reevaluate this phenomenon, personally, free from both simplistic prejudices and dogmatic restrictions, because it is here that humans searching for answers to their existential problems have found a home for their personal spiritual needs, and for strenghtening their communal bonds.

We live within two universes that are merged with each other: culture and civilization. I build my argument, first, by distinguishing these universes from each other; and, next, by proposing to understand how religion acts in the separate context of each. I understand and define culture as an individual attribute. As such, it constitutes the foundation for civilization, a social structure imposed on cultural principles. Civilization can manipulate individuals, and can, in turn, influence culture by structuring it as group-level phenomena. Manipulated this way, civilizations form ideologies, and even compel individuals through a sort of applied herd psychology. Consequently, there is a tension between culture and civilization. The higher a person’s standing in civilization’s hierarchy, the greater is the requirement for his or her conformity. The most tragic examples of how communal behavior can violate cultural (that is, life-affirming) principles are in conflict situations: in the insatiable need of civilizations to win, and not to surrender, no matter the odds (and, consequently, no matter the violation of life). Every war attests to this. Once a war is in progress, it rolls on, creating both heroism and cruelty leading, in either case, to violations against Life. Leaders order, without regard for life, (especially life on the other side of the baricade). Soldiers kill because they are told to do so (regardless of their personal belief). Looking for examples only to wars of recent memory, we can observe that neither the Japanese nor the Germans would surrender in World War II. A generation later, Americans would neither surrender nor seek peace in Vietnam. Now, again, we refuse to do so in Afghanistan, despite horrendous costs and lack of purpose.

Since religion functions within both the realms of culture and of civilization, it experiences tension. Religion, itself, is the cultural factor upon which religious traditions (as products of civilizations) arise. There can be tension between religion and some aspects of religious tradition, just as there can be tension between pure science and its application as technology. By distinguishing between the cultural and civilizational features of religion, I reveal some different meanings of religion than those stressed so often by its adversaries. I wish to free religion from overly broad and largely unjustified accusations of the kind we’ve read lately: that religion is irrational by nature, or that it, itself, promotes violence.

By disassociating religion in a general sense from religious traditions, I stress the benign character of the former, and the potentially compromising nature of the latter. I argue that the sometimes violent aspects of some religious traditions are caused mainly by extra-religious forces such as territorial ambitions and other political goals of the civilizations within which religious traditions function. This is a major topic that would require broad discussion of many historical circumstances, and is one that, accordingly, will be touched upon but not analyzed here. The fact that, historically, religious ideas, like all other humanistic ideas, have been misinterpreted and used for counterproductive purposes is something that we must accept, but must not necessarily dwell upon; just as in describing health, one does not necessarily have to discuss illnesses. Unfortunately, an ugly house can be built on a perfectly sound foundation. It is not the foundation’s builder who is responsible for the entire house. Religion cannot be held responsible for interpretations and applications of its principles beyond those intended by its builder.

When we observe the use of the term religion in conversations (and even in scholarly works), we can recognize that the term is mostly used and defined through the prism of some particular aspect, and pertains to some given religious tradition. For example, in a discussion of Christianity and Darwinian Evolution people focus on a single religious aspect rather than on religion at large.

Religion, as I use it in this text, is a much more general term. It is not meant to describe any particular system. It cannot be used pars pro toto. To my mind, such pars pro toto usage would be like employing the term humanity to refer, for example, to a single country. Inappropriate use of terminology has far reaching negative consequences, and leads to fundamental misunderstandings and unnecessary conflicts.

Brief essays in the first part of my book attempt to particularize settings for religion (in the singular) in various often controversial contexts, and in various aspects of life. Their purpose is to stimulate reflection rather than to exhaust the topics (and the reader’s patience). Some early readers of my manuscript suggested that these reflections should go into greater depth and lenght. However, the literature in the area in which I engage is immense, very rich, and inexhaustible. I hope, instead, that my very personal essays may be thought-provoking in ways that poems are: they are more or less self-standing reflections united by one common denominator: they examine the intimate, inextricable link between Religion and Life.

The aim of the second part of my presentation is to look at the bases of a few selected religious traditions and examine their main features in order to show how each has embodied the fundamental, universal, and cultural principle of religion as its common denominator: the quest for life and the affirmation of life through the Golden Rule. By that premise I claim a common origin for all of humanity’s religious traditions, despite the fact that each might employ different terminologies and concepts. Religious traditions, flowing from a common source, really constitute one single religion: in pluribus unum (one in many rather than many in one); a wonderful and deeply harmonious tapestry, a mosaic of expression of the most profound human desires, a rich offering of possibilities among which one can choose the most relevant for his or her own way of life. Even more, person is religious by implementing the comon denominator, not necessarily being tied to any specific tradition. Unlike the goal of comparative religion, my aim is to reveal religion as a single, universal phenomenon expressed in a multitude of forms. I do not wish to discriminate between differences of form, but prefer to view the multitude of forms as uniting humanity through common aspirations and common spiritual needs.

Readers should carefully keep this over-arching principle in mind, since my approach is explicitly not to present a given tradition in all its various schools and historic developments, but rather to show its deeper function, its justification for existing, and its enticements to adherence by its followers.

In order to present the various religious traditions I refer to passages from sacred texts as primary sources, because they contain the wisdom that nourished people for generations. I realize that any selection of quotations is biased, since on any particular question one can always find texts that seem to contradict those cited. Religious traditions have grown within various cultures and civilizations, mainly in urban/civilization environments. They intertwine in their corpus both culture and civilization factors, and are therefore subject to interpretation from within their own milieus. Understanding such texts is not an easy task, since we only know, partially, the ancient native environments of the world’s religious traditions. Vast bodies of scholarly literature tries to explicate each. My selection of texts focuses on those that in my opinion refer to cultural rather than civilization messages.

Sacred texts need to be experienced. Those readers who are capable of engaging with the texts will benefit the most. Religious texts retain their persuasiveness over centuries. We can perceive, through them, the soul of humanity without borders. As human beings, we share a deeply common attitude toward life and logic, which is precisely what allows languages and ideas be translated among cultures in spite of linguistic imprecisions. Though our religious traditions may speak in many voices, still they address common and crucial human values. These are voices worth listening to.

Religion sees life in a positive light, but it also warns about life’s pitfalls. Those who see life and religion as violent phenomena are seeing them through a lens of failing humanity. I believe, perhaps naïvely, that human failure, pain and evil, are circumstantial, but not essential. We cannot foresee the consequences of our actions that may breed failure, pain, or violence. Good intentions may well have disastrous consequences, but ultimately we strive toward the enhancement of life regardless, because nature itself tends toward the perpetuation of Life. In the same way, religion tends toward a mediation between contrasting poles, in accord with the most ancient wisdom of human life: the Golden Rule (in any of its many instantiations), and in the Aristotelian assertion: virtus stat in medio, virtue takes the middle ground.

1. I will capitalize Life to refer to life in general and Absolute Life as a concept, while lower case signifies individual life.

2. Schmidt, Studying Religion,

10

. Among other famous commentators is Smith, The Meaning and End of Religion.

Part One

Religion and Life

1

Religion the Undefinable

Religion: Behavior (morality) motivated by Value (Life-God)

The term religion stands in the context of other abstract terms such as culture, justice, and love. These are conceptual words that are difficult to define adequately and yet it is generally assumed that their meaning is commonly known. Each of them, however, describes broad and complicated realities with many possible nuances and implications. I do not intend to engage in a survey of possible definitions of the word religion but I feel it useful to indicate the range of possible interpretations.

Benson Saler, reviewing academic efforts to define religion, states in the preface to his book:

For well over hundred years, Western academics have labored at the task of refining and deepening the folk category, writing definition and explication after explication. They variously identified the essence of religion as the supposed fact of, or a special sensitivity to, or a belief in, or commerce with, the supernatural, the super-human, the spiritual, the sacred, the transcendent, the numinous, the wholly other, and the partially other (that is, the anthropomorphized). Or they have sought to locate religion’s center of gravity in something special about people in their solitude, or people in their effervescent sociability, or people asserting self, or people projecting, or people otherwise engaging in therapy, or people symbolizing, or people being reflexive, and so on and so forth. While these efforts have sometimes contributed to our understanding of the longing, hopes, ideas, expectations, and practices of our fellow human beings, the task of identifying the essence or universal core of religion has largely been a failure, considering the lack of consensus among scholars.¹

In his book Saler provides and overview of an almost exhaustive list of approaches to religion.

Frustrated by the difficulty of defining religion, leading Harvard University scholar in Religion Studies, Wilfred Cantwell Smith,² suggests dropping the word religion altogether as indefinable and its meaning illegitimate. He suggests using religiousness or piety instead. In that case, his approach to religion becomes rather more popular than academic. Most of the academic approaches to religion analyze religious traditions in their doctrinal, theoretical aspects, including supernatural, historic, and institutional contexts. There are comparative studies of religious traditions and their relation to other disciplines in the humanities and social sciences. Significant attention has also been given to the relation between religion and science. Robert Buckman promotes religion as a natural feature of the human mind: The experience of God is built into the human mind. The God of mind is undeniable; the mind of God will forever remain a matter of personal belief.³ Of similar opinion is Todd Tremlin. He states at the end of his book: Taking account of the way individual minds function ultimately explains the durability and development of religion itself.⁴

Both scholars see religion as emerging from natural, biological and psychological causes or foundations. Rudolf Otto in his work Das Heilige,⁵ which is still frequently cited by scholars, explains the phenomenon of religion through experience of human frailty, nothingness, of being created (Kreaturgefühl) measured against what stands over all creation, which he calls numinose. Numinose is experienced in several forms: as mysterium tremendum, an awe (rather than fear) inspiring mystery, mystery of majesty, tremendous mystery. His is a mystery that is something different (Ganz Andere), unexplainable and amazing. As fascinans it is something towards which we are inexorably pulled. Immensity (Ungeheuer) is another overwhelming experience. Otto also ascribes to Numinose the term Augustum meaning ultimate value; sanctum, which a person recognizes and adores. Mircea Eliade in his magisterial work The Sacred and the Profane⁶ refers to sacred reality that presents itself to humans as something different from profane, mysterious act—the manifestation of something of a wholly different order, a reality that does not belong to our world, in objects that are an integral part of our natural ‘profane’ world.

That approach implies a personal relationship to the sacrum, that is, from a cultural point of view. Eliade analyzes sacrum in the context of space, time, myth, nature, human existence, and sanctified life. He shows how various facets of life are sanctified in various religious traditions. He concludes his chapter on space: Religious nostalgia expresses the desire to live in a pure and holy cosmos, as it was in the beginning, when it came fresh from the Creator’s hands. Both of these authors refer to life as a sacred mystery; that is, they link religion with life. We may also look at Moojan Momen’s⁷ approach to religion that consists of three independent aspects or components:

The first, at the individual level, is religious experience . . . The second, at the conceptual level, is the universal idea that there is some Ultimate Reality, and that the most important activity for human beings is to establish and clarify their relationship with this Reality . . . The third, at the social level, is the fact that all religions are to a greater or lesser extent involved in creating social cohesion and the integration of the individual into society. All of them create some form of social and institutional order. From this, the ethical and social aspect of religion derived.

To rephrase Momen’s concept, I see the first component of his description, the religious experience, within the cultural, personal realm; and the last, the social, in the realm of civilization. The second statement pertaining to the Ultimate Reality raises questions concerning the nature of this reality and how one can establish a relationship with it.

Finally, there is the etymological approach to the word religion. Its derivation comes from the Latin verb religo, religare: to tie, to bind, perhaps even to unify. But with what? I understand it to be with the most precious asset human beings possess: life. Therefore, leaving the discourse among scholars as an instructive background, I will discuss religion as a factor alerting humans to the Value of life or the Life.

Religion in the Mirror of Life

Humans seem to have an innate need to penetrate the unknown in search for the Ultimate. Perhaps this tendency follows from the fact that we are part of the universe, fruit of the cosmic dust, a residue of the Big Bang. Science tells us that dark matter makes up 26 percent of the mass of the universe, being fundamentally different from luminous (visible) matter, which makes up only 4 percent. The remaining 70 percent of the cosmos is dark energy.⁸ The universe is an unknown in our lives. We exist between neutrinos and anti-neutrinos, quarks and anti-quarks, protons and anti-protons, electrons and positrons. We are hidden somewhere among 100 billion visible galaxies and possibly a universe(s) beyond; between gravitation and expansion of the universe. The universe is in a constant movement from neutrinos to galaxies. We also depend on the sun and minerals. (Although some bacteria have been found in places where light does not penetrate, they depend on elements in their environment that would not exist without sunlight.) Bacteria stand at the beginning of the food chain. Plants draw their living substance from minerals and decaying organic elements that, in turn, are consumed by progressively more complex organisms and species, that consume each other, culminating with humans, considered to be at the top of the food chain and the height of biological development. In brief, we are part of the interdependent universe. All these interdependencies play a role in our life. Due to the complexity of these relationships we do not completely understand the majority of the ways each impacts the other. We cannot detect the extent of their impact on us.

The mind that probes the universe and its mysteries also establishes an unconscious (perhaps we can call it spiritual?) relation with the universe. As a part of the universe, ourselves, we strive to better comprehend it whenever we gaze at stars with a naked eye, through the Hubble telescope, or use a microscope to see the smallest beings. We search, like Albert Einstein, for a single underlying principle of the universe that will explain its meaning to us. It can also be observed that humans strive to apprehend the unknown according to the level of development of their culture and their civilization. Throughout history humanity reaches out to the Ultimate with whatever tools may be available at any given period. Answers are expressed, now, in scientific and, prior to the present era, in theological terms. The quest, now as then, originates from the same internal need of conscious beings. In this broad context, religion as well as science defines our longing to understand the unknown. Religion, then, must be seen within the broad context of a human quest.

It seems reasonable to accept that abstract thinking (and the ability to verbalize ideas in abstract or symbolic terms), led to an encoded program of common logic, and was the stage at which the animal brain transitioned into the human mind. In fact, this has become a defining distinction between the animal and human worlds. Once this ability developed, abstract thinking became an essentially human brain function. It is presumed that this process occurred about two hundred thousand years ago, which is not long in biological time. Because of this remarkable ability, humans perceive the universe not merely in the immediate and the concrete, but also conceptually or dimensionally as a tri-unity composed of matter, energy, and life.⁹ Given the advantage of abstract thinking humans understandably identified life as being most essential and subsequently placed life, itself, on an intellectual pedestal. Humans recognized that life was a mystery, differentiating it (over time) from