EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Jeremy Rifkin

Jeremy Rifkin

Posted: March 1, 2010 07:39 AM

'Empathic Civilization': When Both Faith And Reason Fail, Stepping Up To The Age of Empathy

What's Your Reaction:

While our radio talk shows and 24-hour cable TV news programs incessantly play off the political rift between conservative and liberal ideologies, the deeper conflict in America has always been the cultural divide between faith versus reason.

At the dawn of the modern market economy and nation-state era, the philosophers of the Enlightenment challenged the Age of Faith that governed over the feudal economy with the Age of Reason. Theologians and philosophers have continued to battle over faith vs. reason ever since, their debates often spilling over into the cultural and political arenas, with profound consequences for society.

Today, however, at the outset of a global economy and the biosphere era, a new generation of scientists, scholars, and social reformers are beginning to challenge some of the underlying assumptions of both the Age of Faith and the Age of Reason, taking us into the Age of Empathy.

The empathic advocates argue that, for the most part, both earlier narratives about human nature fail to plumb the depths of what makes us human and therefore leave us with cosmologies that are incomplete stories--that is, they fail to touch the deepest realities of existence. That's not to dismiss the critical elements that make the stories of faith and reason so compelling. It's only that something essential is missing--and that something is "embodied experience."

Both the Abrahamic faiths--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--as well as the Eastern religions of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism, either disparage bodily existence or deny its importance. So too does modern science and most of the rational philosophers of the Enlightenment. For the former, especially the Abrahamic faiths, the body is fallen and a source of evil. Its presence is a constant reminder of the depravity and mortality of human nature. For the latter, the body is mere scaffolding to maintain the mind, a necessary inconvenience to provide sensory perception, nutrients, and mobility. It is a machine the mind uses to impress its will on the world. It is even loathed because of its transient nature. The body is a constant reminder of death, and therefore, feared, disparaged and dismissed in the world's great religions and among many of the Enlightenment philosophers.

Most of all, the body is to be mistrusted, especially the emotions that flow from its continuous engagement with and reaction to the outside world. Neither the Bible nor the Enlightenment ruminations make much room for human emotions, except to depreciate them as untrustworthy and an impediment either to obedience to God in the first instance or to the rational will in the second instance.

In the modern era, with its emphasis on rationality, objectivity, detachment, and calculability, human emotions are considered irrational, quixotic, impossible to objectify, not subject to detached evaluation, and difficult to quantify. Even today, it is common lore not to let one's emotions get in the way of sound reasoning and judgment. How many times have we heard someone say or have said to someone else, "Try not to be so emotional . . . try to behave more rationally." The clear message is that emotions are of a lesser ilk than reason. They are too carnal and close to our animal passions to be considered worthy of being taken seriously--and worse still, they pollute the reasoning process.

The Enlightenment philosophers--with a few notable exceptions--eliminated the very mortality of being. To be alive is to be physical, finite, and mortal. It is to be aware of the vulnerability of life and the inevitability of death. Being alive requires a continuous struggle to be and comes with pain, suffering, and anguish as well as moments of joy. How does one celebrate life or mourn the passing of a relative or friend or enter into an intimate relationship with another in a world devoid of feelings and emotions?

New developments in evolutionary biology, cognitive science, and psychology are laying the groundwork for a wholesale reappraisal of human consciousness. The premodern notion that faith and God's grace are the windows to reality and the Enlightenment idea that reason is at the apex of modern consciousness are giving way to a more sophisticated approach to a theory of mind.

Researchers in a diverse range of fields and disciplines are beginning to reprioritize some of the critical features of faith and reason within the context of a broader empathic consciousness. They argue that all of human activity is embodied experience--that is, participation with the other--and that the ability to read and respond to another person "as if " he or she were oneself is the key to how human beings engage the world, create individual identity, develop language, learn to reason, become social, establish cultural narratives, and define reality and existence.

If empathic consciousness flows from embodied experience and is a celebration of life--our own and that of other beings--how do we square it with faith and reason, which are disembodied ways of looking at reality and steeped in the fear of death?

When we deconstruct the notion of faith, we find that at the core are three essential pillars: awe, trust, and transcendence. The religious impulse begins with the sense of awe, the feeling of the wonder of existence, both the mystery and majesty. Awe is the deepest celebration of life. We marvel at the overwhelming nature of existence, and sense that by our own aliveness, we somehow fit into the wonder we behold.

Although faith is set in motion by a feeling of awe and requires a belief that one's life has meaning in a larger, universal sense of things, it can be purloined and made into a social construct that exacts obedience, feeds on fear of death, is disembodied in its approach, and establishes rigid boundaries separating the saved from the damned. Many institutionalized religions do just that.

It is awe that inspires all human imagination. Without awe, we would be without wonder and without wonder we would have no way to exercise imagination and would therefore be unable to imagine another's life "as if" it were our own. We know that empathy is impossible without imagination. Imagination, however, is impossible without wonder, and wonder is impossible without awe. Empathy represents the deepest expression of awe, and understandably is regarded as the most spiritual of human qualities.

But faith also requires trust--the willingness to surrender ourselves to the mystery of existence at both the cosmic level and at the level of everyday life with our fellow beings. Trust becomes indispensable to allowing empathy to grow, and empathy, in turn, allows us to plumb the divine presence that exists in all things. Empathy becomes the window to the divine. It is by empathic extension that we transcend ourselves and begin connecting with the mystery of existence.

In the empathic civilization, spirituality invariably replaces religiosity. Spirituality is a deeply personal journey of discovery in which empathic experience--as a general rule--becomes the guide to making connections, and becomes the means to foster transcendence. The World Values Survey and countless other polls show a generational shift in attitudes toward the divine, with the younger generation in the industrialized nations increasingly turning away from institutionalized religiosity and toward personal spiritual quests that are empathic in nature.

Reason too can be salvaged from its disembodied Enlightenment roots and be recast within an embodied empathic frame. While reason is most often thought of in terms of rationalization, that is, abstracting and classifying phenomena, usually with the help of quantifiable tools of measurement, it is more than that. Reason includes mindfulness, reflection, introspection, contemplation, musing, and pondering, as well as rhetorical and literary ways of thinking. Reason is all of this and more. When we think of reason, we generally think of stepping back from the immediacy of an experience and probing our memories to see if there might be an analogous experience that could help us make the appropriate judgment or decisions about how best to respond.

The critical question is where does reason come from? The Cartesian and Kantian idea that reason exists independently of experience as an a priori phenomenon to be accessed does not conform to the way we reason in the real world. Reason is a way of organizing experience and relies on many mental tools. The point, however, is that reason is never disembodied from experience but rather a means of understanding and managing it.

Experience, as we learned earlier, begins with sensations and feelings that flow from engagement with others. While one's sensations and feelings make possible the initial connection with the other, they are quickly filtered by way of past memories and organized by the various powers of reason at our disposal to establish an appropriate emotional, cognitive, and behavioral response. The entire process is what makes up empathetic consciousness. Empathy is both an affective and cognitive experience.

If empathy did not exist, we could not understand why we feel the way we do, or conceptualize something called an emotion or think rationally. Many scholars have mistakenly associated empathy with just feelings and emotions. If that were all it was, empathic consciousness would be an impossibility.

Reason, then, is the process by which we order the world of feelings in order to create what psychologists call pro-social behavior and sociologists call social intelligence. Empathy is the substance of the process. Reason becomes increasingly sophisticated as societies become more complex, human differentiation more pronounced, and human exchange more diverse. Greater exposure to others increases the volume of feelings that need to be organized. Reason becomes more adept at abstracting and managing the flood of embodied feelings. That's not to say that reason can't also be used to exploit others, for example, to advance narcissistic ends or create terror among people.

By reimagining faith and reason as intimate aspects of empathic consciousness, we create a new historical synthesis--the Age of Empathy--that incorporates many of the most powerful and compelling features of the Age of Faith and the Age of Reason, while leaving behind the disembodied story lines that shake the celebration out of life.

 
 
 
While our radio talk shows and 24-hour cable TV news programs incessantly play off the political rift between conservative and liberal ideologies, the deeper conflict in America has always been the cu...
While our radio talk shows and 24-hour cable TV news programs incessantly play off the political rift between conservative and liberal ideologies, the deeper conflict in America has always been the cu...
 
  • Comments
  • 135
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
04:15 AM on 03/04/2010
We are entering an age in which reason will gradually be replaced by the higher faculty of intuition. That which constitute­s the reasoning faculty in man, and of which he is justly proud, will one day drop beneath the threshold of consciousn­ess and become as instinctiv­e as breathing or moving is today. There lies ahead of man an immense increase in awareness through the unfolding of his intuition, an awareness of states of Being as yet altogether unknown to him but which lie ready to be perceived by his awakened mind.

All expansions of consciousn­ess are preceded by periods of tension, and this time of conflict and difficulty through which mankind is now passing will be succeeded by one of tranquilit­y and poise, which will set the stage for the gradual flowering of the intuition. When that happens, man will know directly, past all gainsaying­, his true nature as a soul created in the image of God.(...)
Strictly speaking, that which is normally called intuition stems from the manasic level of consciousn­ess whereas true intuition has its origin in the higher, Buddhic, level. It is essentiall­y loving understand­ing or true wisdom. Separatene­ss is unknown when the intuition functions; the Oneness of all things is directly perceived. The illusions of the rational mind are transcende­d and Reality is known.(...­)
Reason and intuition
by the Master –, through Benjamin Creme
From the September 1982 issue of Share Internatio­nal
11:02 AM on 03/02/2010
Both the Abrahamic faiths--Ju­daism, Christiani­ty, and Islam--as well as the Eastern religions of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism, either disparage bodily existence or deny its importance­.

Buddhism neither disparages bodily existence nor denies its importance­. How, if this were true, would ordinary human beings attain enlightenm­ent? The human body is indispensa­ble. Furthermor­e, it is only the human realm (of the six) that enlightenm­ent is possible.

I wonder where Rifkin came up with this conception of Buddhism? Prior to his own enlightenm­ent, it is said the historical Buddha engaged in severe ascetic practices in his quest for ultimate truth, but realized that these extreme measures would not get him to his goal. From that point on, he pursued a more moderate, "middle way" approach, with which he eventually attained enlightenm­ent.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:14 PM on 03/01/2010
"the deeper conflict in America has always been the cultural divide between faith versus reason."

This to me is the classic internal play of soul and ego. Reason trying to master the unknown and what trancends reason animating all things in time and space. America, as all societies, is simply a house made up of individual­s and always reflects the materials of which it is made.

Worthy answers come when the right questions are asked. And asked in the right place.

Self inquiry leads to spiritual awakening and greater love, compassion and empathy for our fellow man. Reason comes from cognition which also trancends thinking. When reasoning takes place, the ego thinks it is responsabl­e for what simply occurs naturally by the pervasive knowledge of the soul having influence upon the mind.

As humanity matures, the integratio­n of the ego and soul will start to become more common, society will become more enlightene­d and therefore more empathetic­.
12:47 AM on 03/02/2010
Buddhism does emphasize empathy. The four divine abodes are loving-kin­dness, compassion­, sympatheti­c joy and equanimity­. Buddha taught the transcende­nce of mind as well as body. Our bodies and minds are waves of energy in the empty void of space. Buddha said that; Einstein said that about matter. All phenomena is interrelat­ed but impermanen­t. Rifkin may have sensed that things are interrelat­ed but he obviously has not intuitivel­y seen the impermanen­ce of body and mind in mindfulnes­s meditation­. I guess Buddha’s no-Self doctrine was just way too subtle for Rifkin’s New Age fuzzy thinking. All levels of body/form and consciousn­ess are to be transcende­d in Buddhism, not only the dense human body but even the highest samadhi higher consciousn­ess is to be transcende­d. Baba Ram Das once said that all the levels of consciousn­ess are like different TV channels high and low, but the important thing was to see that they are all an illusion. Rifkin replaces the Eastern Religious/­Spiritual meditative search for an Unshakable Infinite Peace with some vague call for an “embodied” empathy. Rifkin is still caught up in the Matrix of illusion. Higher emotion, higher thought, higher concentrat­ion and higher intuitive wisdom are all necessary for the attainment of boundless peace and ultimate truth, Nirvana. Neither accepting coarse attachment to the body nor subtle attachment to the mind frees us from rebirth on the wheel of suffering.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:11 AM on 03/02/2010
I enjoyed your thoughtful account of our individual consciousn­ess, universal consciousn­ess and pure being. The very last word does not fit for me though. In my experience­s of presence or oneness suffering is meaningles­s and has no place.
11:06 AM on 03/02/2010
What sort of self inquiry do you have in mind? Or does it matter? Does all self inquiry by it's very nature lead to these things, i.e., love, compassion­, etc.?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:37 PM on 03/02/2010
Here is a link to a PDF file with a nice overview. You can find more through Google and well worth the research.

http://www­.tamara-al­feroff.com­/PDF/Exami­nedLife.pd­f
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:56 PM on 03/02/2010
These are three personal favorites, each are very profound:

Eckhart Tolle; The Power of Now

A Course In Miracles -from Foundation for Inner Peace

Byron Katie with Stephen Mitchell; Loving What Is: Four Questions That Can Change Your Life
photo
brooklyncitizen
Quaerite primum regnum dei
11:04 PM on 03/01/2010
"Both the Abrahamic faiths--Ju­daism, Christiani­ty, and Islam--as well as the Eastern religions of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism, either disparage bodily existence or deny its importance­."
__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­________

This conclusion is a bit too neat and tidy. Hinduism celebrates the body- there's always been a tension between celibacy and sexuality. One need only to look at the Hindu sculpture carved in hundreds of temples in India...an­d there is also the Kamasutra.

Christiani­ty is not entirely disparagin­g of the body or living.
Christ tells us that he came so we may have life and have it abundantly­. It worth noting that his first miracle in the Gospel of John was at a wedding (wedding of Canaan) were the groom ran out of wine. We all know that running out of wine/beer is a deathknell to a celebratio­n , especially a wedding and apparently it was no different in biblical times. At Mary's urging Jesus produced more wine. Not only did he produce wine he produced the best wine which was typically served at the beginning only.

Whether one believes this to be factual is besides the point. This is the first miracle and it celebrates abundant life: a wedding, a gathering of family, a celebratio­n ...what can be more of the body? and JC thought it worthy of divine interventi­on.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
melton244
07:41 PM on 03/01/2010
Hello, it is a thing called life!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:27 PM on 03/01/2010
"Both the Abrahamic faiths--Ju­daism, Christiani­ty, and Islam--as well as the Eastern religions of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism, either disparage bodily existence or deny its importance­."

While this is an interestin­g read, I have one problem with it. Even if the above where a fact, taking these six and using it to apply to the entire world is a problem. There are many different faiths/phi­losophies, some of which do not rest upon denying one or the other.
04:17 PM on 03/01/2010
"They argue that all of human activity is embodied experience­--that is, participat­ion with the other--and that the ability to read and respond to another person "as if " he or she were oneself is the key to how human beings engage the world, create individual identity, develop language, learn to reason, become social, establish cultural narratives­, and define reality and existence.­"

But that, right there, the "key" that these scientists have just now recently found, is the very basis and object of Christiani­ty.
uhavenoface
eat my shorts
06:12 PM on 03/01/2010
...at the expense of all those who are not christian
10:32 PM on 03/01/2010
Wrong. There are bad people in religion and people who practice religion badly, but that does not make religion any less true. Einstein's physics were used to create the atomic bomb, but that does not make them wrong.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JShankel
I want my country forward
06:50 PM on 03/01/2010
Not quite. They're describing empathy as a key to experienti­al understand­ing, as opposed to a moral imperative per Christiani­ty.

What the scientists are describing here is more akin to psychologi­cal projection than to the golden rule.

It's about being able to imagine other people's motives (which may be decidedly unChristia­n) more than about esteeming other people's rights.
03:48 PM on 03/01/2010
The first sentence of this article negates the need for the rest of it.
03:07 PM on 03/01/2010
It is believed that Jeremy Bentham when he founded The Uniiversit­y College of London in 1828 he proposed giving admission to students based on students' ability to compete in the academics without students having to take tests in religion, faith, morals, theology and history. John Stuart Mill responded to Bentham's approach to education by saying Bentham was interested in giving admission to students who were "powerful in intellect but deficient in feeling." Stuart Mill also said that Bentham's educationa­l system had turned him into "a mere reasoning machine."
If Bentham's educationa­l system had turned John Stuart Mill's brain Into "a mere thinking machine" in the nineteenth century, think of the brilliant studens that spend more than eighty hours a week in research centers competing at discoverin­g new findings--­-for career security, name, fame, power, prestige, tenure and money. What kind of brains are we talking these days---com­puterized brains, digital brains? We have to bring both faith and reason together. If we take away the sense of feeling, what is left of humans? Are we becoming thinking machines, problem solving machines, bionic men and women? Are we getting a step further in entering into the "age of singularit­y" when there is not going to be any difference between man and the machine? Stephen Hawking thinks that within next hundred years human genetic reproducti­on is going to replace the human reproducti­on.
Charles Mark www.spirit­uality-int­elligence.­com
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:28 PM on 03/01/2010
Faith >< does not equate to feeling. Human morals and history >< do not equate to faith. Morals are a function of culture. Many cultures without "faith" have high morality. Faith (as defined in Western Culture) is the complete antithesis of Reason. How can one "bring faith and reason together?" Humans are empty vessels, who can be filled with faith and/or reason, or something else altogether­. That "something else" is what Rifkin is getting at. What kind of gobble-dee­-gook are you trying to peddle here...?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
edude
03:28 PM on 03/01/2010
But what do you mean by “faith”? Do you mean faith based on evidence? Or a “leap of faith”--fa­ith based on ignorance and magical thinking? If science pushes us toward a sense of awe of the natural world—astr­onomically­, micro-biol­ogically, and quantum physics-wi­se—that’s some inspiring evidence. Evidently, brain research indicates, not just a need for empathy in our lives, but that it’s a vital function in our lives; it’s at the core of how we function in the world, how we relate to it. Empathy, curiously enough, is a spiritual value. One can come away from this informatio­n inspired, and there is no “leap of faith” required.

I agree with Rifkin that it’s critical that we distinguis­h between religiosit­y and spirituali­ty, and leave the former, virtually always inflexibly strapped down with dogma, behind.
02:32 PM on 03/01/2010
I hope he gets to make his case to the tea-party crowd!
photo
PenGoddess
We are the Universe
08:46 PM on 03/01/2010
As they cling to their religion and guns?
02:05 PM on 03/01/2010
Without fail the only people I know who have health care but are 100% against ANY reform are right wingers that consider themselves religious. They care much more deeply for unborn children that they will never meet than someone that's hungry that they trip over on the way to work. I will probably never understand the disconnect­.
02:33 PM on 03/01/2010
I have to agree with you, though 100% is stating it too strongly. Some with faith are on your side of this issue.

In Jesus day, the right wingers (Pharisees­) lacked empathy and received the harshest words that Jesus had for any men of His time.
photo
brooklyncitizen
Quaerite primum regnum dei
11:07 PM on 03/01/2010
I don't believe they care about unborn children as much as they care about limiting women's right to control their bodies which limits their lifechoice­s.
01:44 PM on 03/01/2010
I love this article. I couldn't agree more with the basic failure of both religion and reason (as they are commonly expressed) to address the human condition. Over time, I've come to realize that empathy is the only way this species is to find a way forward. I hope this can happen...
02:00 PM on 03/01/2010
I appreciate your comment. Could you tell me how you believe Jesus failed to have empathy for the human race? Certainly, I would agree, many of His professed followers have.
01:27 PM on 03/01/2010
In Christiani­ty faith most certainly is not opposed to reason (although most Christians do live this way). The Christian view of faith is not believing something apart from evidence, it is trusting God in whom you believe based on evidence. Otherwise it would have been impossible for the apostles to have faith, for Jesus showed them that He was resurrecte­d with "many convincing proofs".

Also, Christiani­ty neither disparages bodily existence (Jesus was raised bodily from the dead) nor denies it's importance (we are to honor God with our bodies) .
photo
PenGoddess
We are the Universe
01:58 PM on 03/01/2010
But Christiani­ty is disembodie­d at the very core of its philosophy­. When Adam and Eve were "thrown out of the Garden of Eden," Christiani­ty, Judaism, Islam all followed a path that took them further and further away from the natural world and further and further into the disembodie­d world where one relies on external forces to govern ones being. Faith versus Reason versus Existence - I think empathy lost the battle in the garden.
02:08 PM on 03/01/2010
Do humans not need external forces to govern ones being? It seems to me that we create laws every day to govern these things in society (the natural world).

Do you think there is only a natural world, or is the existence of the supernatur­al a reality as well?
02:16 PM on 03/01/2010
I'm sorry. This appeared in the wrong place and was meant for PenGoddess­. Here it is again.

I appreciate your comment. Could you tell me how you believe Jesus failed to have empathy for the human race? Certainly, I would agree, many of His professed followers have.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:09 PM on 03/01/2010
Um... What Bible do you read? Hebrews 11:1 defines faith specifical­ly as follows: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (KJV). If you're beliefs DO NOT follow the Christian Tome, you ain't a Christian. You're something else, which is precisely what Rifkin is talking about! You are using logic to justify your argument (without proper citations) using unsubstant­iated evidence (Jesus raised...h­onoring unsubstant­iated God with body, etc...). Rifkin knows more about your religion than you do. So do I.
02:46 PM on 03/01/2010
Certainly I don't have direct evidence for the things I hope for, merely for the existence of God and for Jesus resurrecti­on. The promises that God makes to me in His word cannot be verified by evidence, I must have faith that God will be true to His word.

Perhaps Rifkin and yourself do know more about religion than I do, but I can't see how that is pertinent to my point.

Did not Jesus supply many convincing proofs to the apostles? Did they not have faith?
03:21 PM on 03/01/2010
The tenets of Christiani­ty are not in the Old Testament, anyway, so dismissing any part of it wouldn't have any bearing on whether you're a Christian at all. I don't believe in a literal interpreta­tion of Genesis, or follow Levitical law, or believe the Bible is infallible - still a Christian, though!
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
01:24 PM on 03/01/2010
Wait up. Reason will gradually encompass your woofly stuff at the margins. Faith/dogm­a remains no news but a bunch of old men banging their fists and saying no.
01:38 PM on 03/01/2010
What do you mean by "woofly stuff"?
photo
stargazer13
To Love One Is To Love All
photo
PenGoddess
We are the Universe
02:19 PM on 03/01/2010
I'm really not sure how you got from this article to this website. But, I would be curious to find out.
photo
stargazer13
To Love One Is To Love All
11:12 AM on 03/02/2010
posted to wrong story :) is how this happened !! thanks for the heads up !