Care of the modern souls - Can Culture replace Scripture?

It's not enough to go to a museum.
It is not enough to deal with aesthetically demanding films and literature.
It's not enough to spend a good time on the beach with my beloved.
It's not enough to watch my son's play in the school auditorium.
It's not enough to get together with my family.
It's not enough to work in the garden.
It is not enough to admire an impressive building.
It's not enough to have a romantic encounter.
It's not enough to want to understand the old philosophers.
It's not enough to stand on top of a hill and admire the landscape.

If all this were enough, I would lead a happy, cheerful and balanced life, accept strokes of fate, crises and the loss of friendship or partners simply as given, know how to take illness and the death of parents elegantly and look forward to my own death with humour and serenity. Is it not?

If all this were enough, I wouldn't be terrified if I heard about the suicide of an acquaintance, I wouldn't be shocked if I read about a massive plane crash in the newspaper and I wouldn't suffer if a friend got cancer.

Would I say: "Jeez, you! You had a great life, you were in the museum fifty times in your life, you found comfort and confidence in the pictures of your favourite artist, the author of "War and Peace" gave you a lesson for your whole life and you never had to read another book important to you again afterwards, in the theatre you cried and from now on you understood forever that sadness simply goes away again."

Yes?

No.

Everything mentioned is not enough to consider my life and the hurdles of this life sufficient in relation to the really significant questions. In my life there are crises and questions, I have times of greatest loneliness and insecurity. I see people getting sick or dying, I see couples brake up or struggle a whole lot in their relationship. I look for comfort and guidance when this happens to me.

For years I have been concerned that I see that the gap left by a formerly ruling religion is filled with offers not strong enough.

Photo by gustavo centurion on Unsplash

School of life

Alain de Botton, Philosopher and founder of the "School of life" speaks impressively about the fact that this gap is in principle accompanied by the assumption that it would be filled by culture. In fact, I have followed this approach for quite some time and have always been interested in art, literature and architecture.

It is not at all absurd to receive guidance, comfort and a sense of identification with the great philosophers and their writings. Everyone can do this for himself personally and possibly find more than that. But in general, the arts and those who could, neither offer determined answers to the questions of life nor do they really feel responsible for them. An artist who sees himself as such would not necessarily say that his art seeks to fill the gap left by a religion. Nevertheless, many artists produce works that deal with the dark questions of humanity, that reflect the sad and gloomy sides of human feeling. Just like the other way around.

The question is: Where, except within religions, can people turn when they are penetrated by the deeper questions of human life?

In fact, it cannot be denied that we have interpersonal crises and conflicts, that coexistence is not always a walk in the park, and that issues such as illness, old age, and suffering from losses and deaths concern all people on this planet and do not go away by becoming an atheist. And then ... period?

The majority of people believe that in principle everyone lives their lives relatively damaged and that no one is really good from the ground up. The assumption that people are innocent and good per se doesn't even apply to children and in honest moments we know that we are at least as crazy as the others in whom we notice this.

If we put the examples to the test - that culture can replace scripture or has already done so - then when we go to university we should be able to demand: "Please give me a way of life, I want to learn here how this life business works, I want to explore the deep questions of humanity. How do I learn to deal with challenges of the psyche?"
The people there would - as Alain de Botton points out - want to get you a doctor.

Photo by Alina Grubnyak on Unsplash

What about the museum? Does the curator want to give me a psychological help by focusing his exhibition on a general human need and offer me guidance in questions of relationship crisis?

Are the cultural houses of my city really places of contemplation felt to be common? Do I get something there that takes me out of my felt isolation in the long run, does it feel as if I am finding continuous refuge and hope there?

One would first have to really know what the religions stand for and have stood for.

A religion offers the framework conditions of an ethical kind, it functions as a moral authority for my way of life. I don't need to have endless, subtle debates about what is really good and what is evil. In fact, I also find it quite simple to understand what love means, what it means to treat each other respectfully, to nurture small children and old people, and so on.

For I have been small myself. When I was a child I experienced my share of damage. I know that I, as well, will become old and will die.

There's no comfort in finding that you're an atheist when questions of that matter arise.

No satisfaction is achieved when I declare war on the Church. When your mother, father or child dies, you say to yourself: "How good that I am an atheist!" You don't.

Do you find acceptance in someone who tells you: "Be happy again, life goes on, it is not helpful that you are sad and feel unstable. Be a true atheist and then you will feel better again." If you fear loneliness, well-founded or unfounded, will it help you to continue reading "Science now"? Does it really make an impression on you to read that your need to communicate is to be found in your "cortex where your communication center lights up"?

When you feel like you are the only person in the world who has a very special problem - that you somehow know is irrational, but it doesn't help you in any way to spot such irrationality with you alone?

Well, I haven't decided for myself yet.
I do not believe in God, I do not go to church, I am neither an agnostic nor an atheist, nor am I otherwise active in the church. And yet I am searching for community, for the fulfillment of my psychological needs, for the confirmation that these needs want to be heard. Can I expect to receive such from a therapist? Emotional guidance, help with the ethical questions that concern me?

The request made by Alain de Botton is nothing less than that culture can replace religions for those who are in a kind of no-man's-land and do not want to enter denominationally.

I am uncertain that this is not a task that religions could already face themselves and that could take advantage of their existing organisation and structure without betraying their virtues. The religions are said to be inflexible and their scriptures obsolete. I must say that I don't find this to be true. It depends on which time frames one looks at.

I have experienced Alain de Botton as a brilliant, inspiring and enthusing philosopher. His lectures on youtube are stirring, full of humour and very convincing. I deeply recommend listening to him.

He could make a damn good Buddhist. Perhaps his reputation is then too important and his leap into the Buddhist religion too radical for him. I could ask myself the same question: Why don't I convert to Buddhism, because in fact I've been able to find the greatest psychological support I've ever sought there. They do not have a God either.

All this also has to do with money. And with effort.

If the curators of cultural sites in modern cities really want to be hosts to schools of life, they will have to spend far more energy and money to ensure this, and they would compete with religious institutions. It takes a lot of courage to address a subject that has so far only been served by religious institutions. How, for example, can an art exhibition express the intention to become a "school of life" without running the risk of including a religious context and thus losing visitors? Would it then be a covert agenda? Hardly, that would be very risky, wouldn't it?

I asked myself the question whether, conversely, the religious institutions themselves would not become art exhibitors, stages for philosophers and writers, painters and therapists, social workers and architects etc. and not have to deceive their virtues and ethical intentions. Can this be achieved?

One thing I think de Botton should make more clear: That the existing religions do not have to be replaced. Though some of them could need a change. But I think: They must and they will. But maybe not in my lifetime. Which is somewhat painful but my pain cannot be the reason I should condemn what there is or become overly impatient. In fact, I am already in the middle of every change a world can go through.

Photo by Marie Bellando-Mitjans on Unsplash

Religions as a great source for exploration

The learning experiences that de Botton himself made through the study of religions and the things he picked out that are of great value to him - and to many many others - that he could not have experienced as significant, would not have been the religions with all their treasures of architecture, art and narrations that are available to us with consummate skill.

The libraries full of writings, the church philosophers, the beautiful sculptures and murals, the ceremonies and rituals. Without this treasure of the sensual, i.e. the visible, the tangible and the audible (Gregorian chants, incense, mandalas, bells ringing, blacksmithing and and and), de Botton would know nothing about the strict disciplined organisation and methodology of religious institutions. Without the traditions of thousands of years this wouldn't have been a source of exploration for him (and many others). What will become of religions and their haptic and psychological materials if they were completely gone?

He said, his own method to not be an enemy to religions is that he picks bits of the grand religious buffet and makes those things available to him and others. He takes the mental food and builds this into his own work and transports ideas to other places and people. Which is good and I find inspirational.

In fact, de Botton is right when he claims that the Church Fathers and others know very well how to convey their messages: By means of sensory impressions, repetition and the calendar. One must give such to people in order to succeed in the mission.

Change ist not accomplished by loners (poets, writers, artists) in their single chambers

No one will, on his own single initiative, spontaneously develop a habit out of a mood of spontaneity and insight, which will then offer him psychological stability throughout his life. People need other people and the framework and the permanent reminders that do so. "Repetition" is a key word here. In theory as well as in practice.

His comparison with the large corporations is also very good. Here he illustrates how the methodology, the use of money and marketing work. Very efficient and sustainable.

I can confirm that. I worked in marketing for more than ten years. I was a PR consultant for Masterfoods, where I was responsible for the M&M's, Snickers and Mars brands. I was trained very methodically to convey the brand characteristics continuously and in penetrating repetition of these characteristics. All press releases had to contain the core elements of the emotional messages. They were written in a kind of brand bible and we PR people couldn't just come up with something of our own. At first I was nosy about this form of work, but over time I realized how effective and intelligent such an approach is.

Photo by Ramakrishnan Nataraj on Unsplash

Now the written dissemination is by far not sufficient.

Just like religious institutions, big companies and their brands are great hosts. People don't just want to read something, they want to hear something, touch something and see something. Therefore larger premises are needed where many people can come together and receive the message the host has in mind. Of course, we all have very good noses for the fact that a company is not interested in our psychological well-being, but in selling chocolate, vacuum cleaners and smart phones.

To the extent that hybrids are to develop that want to provide their cultural offerings within a broader framework - the school of life - the question of how they can accomplish this without damaging their financial resource and making their non-religious visitors feel comfortable with it seems to me appropriate.

Purity of doctrine

One thing strikes me as worthy of criticism. The purity of religious teaching is not considered to be worthless to remain pure. As soon as a doctrine is mixed with other things, it loses its power and clarity. For me as a visitor of a school of life beyond established religion the question would arise: are all people in the room there because they are there as humans and not as art lovers or business people looking for their next clients or consumers? What inner intention do people have when they visit an establishment that does not provide a chrystal clear ethical orientation?

I was recently at an event that wasn't pure about how it should appear. It was a seminar which gave me the impression that I could do something for my psyche, a kind of life training aspect was advertised. But when I was there, I quickly got the sense that the organizers had proclaimed the topic as the main motive, but it was subliminally felt that the visitors were equally either looking for a possible life partner, looking for opportunities to promote their own business or to come up with new business ideas of their own. There's really nothing to say against that and it's also not reprehensible to want to use an evening to fall in love with someone or to exchange business ideas or just to drive away loneliness.

But then I end up back where I started: it's not enough.

The motives of the organizer were not very clearly perceptible. I liked the idea of "bringing people together for personal development and maturation", but the conviction of the speakers was missing. It needs much more charismatic speakers, eloquent and experienced people who stand in front. What is commonly understood today as capitalism and what causes discomfort on such occasions are indeed the missing virtues of those who act as friendly and well meaning hosts.

I would like to see an existing "best practice" example of what de Botton has in mind.

So I started looking for the "School of life". On youtube I listened to a video critique instead and read some comments, including one: "They (School of life hosts) are humanists trying to find common values without the need for religion."

The pros and cons in the comments section made me think: If the School of Life, as an established school, does not want to be a religion, but still wants to convey virtuous and ethical messages, and the world of cultural practitioners is supposed to serve as a catalyst and alternative to religion, how is it supposed to form what Buddhists call their "Buddha, Dharma and Sangha"? In Christianity one could translate that as the "figure of Jesus" as a role model, the "teachings of the holy scripts" and the "community". Wouldn't a circle be completed and a religion established but not called a religion?

The admiration of de Button for certain forms and methods of religious currents in past and present is obvious. He seems to want also to help philosophy to new greatness and meaning - that looks very appealing to me. But whether museums, concert halls, libraries, galleries etc. can ever serve my spiritual needs in the same way as religions - and I have Buddhism in mind here in particular, as well as my Christian background - is a mystery to me.

But maybe my imagination isn't powerful enough. I really wouldn't mind if religions persisted, developed and changed. Will there be alternatives created at the same time for non-religious people that give them inner guidance in a similar way and can become places of encounter?

Photo by Mathew MacQuarrie on Unsplash

Public Relation in it's true sense?

I imagine a PR campaign, such as a coffin parade through the streets by a funeral parlour that is really serious about making the topic of dying publicly visible again.

But then I think of one of my favourite abbots, Ajahn Amaro, who gives regular Buddhist lectures in his monastery in England, and I would ask myself: What answers would he have for the challenge de Botton is giving us? Would he be amused or irritated, would he be interested?

Perhaps over the next century we will lose many more people belonging to a religion. At least on the basis of my own lifetime, I am in a clear majority concerned nonbelongings and nonlived practices of religion.

If I could choose between Amaravati Buddhist Monastery in south east England and a Hamburg Museum where the school of life aspects are on display and between a curator and an abbot for my psychological well being I would choose the Buddhist abbot. But who knows, when things develop and thrive if that would be still the case, once I could physically walk into both and both is appealing and making sense to me.

What do you think about all this?