A friend recommended I read philosopher Roberto Mangaberia Unger’s book “The Religion of the Future.” It’s an examination of religion, religions of the past, and how we might deliberately construct one for a better future. That summary barely does it justice, so a review is most certainly in order.
Early on, Unger clearly takes religion seriously as a social force – perhaps an inseparable part of human experience. His goal is to deconstruct religious trends to see what we can learn to deliberately create a helpful religion, The Religion of the Future. It’s obviously a heavy lift, but Unger is more than ready to do so.
In examining the human condition, he argues humans confront death, groundlessness, insatiability, and belittlement. We end, we are unsolid, we can be more than we are and do more than we ever do, and it’s very humiliating. Starting from this almost-Buddhist like realization, he analyzes what he sees as three major “advanced” religious trends.
Unger classifies religions into three categories for analysis. Overcoming the World (represented by Buddhism) seeks to transcend the world. Humanizing the World (represented by Confucianism) is about building society in an all-to complex world. Struggling With the World (represented by salvation religions like Christianity) is about people being a spirit who can grow and transcend. Unger believes the Struggling With the World holds the most promise, that promise of growth and being more than we are.
I found this section the weakest of the book, ironically, because even with my limited theological knowledge, his classification as related to existing religions is far too simple. There are salvation-driven forms of Buddhism, neo-Confucian schools that tended to mysticism, and Chrisianities that were basically pagan, and so on. His take on pagan religions ignores their complexities – and indeed how many survived in various forms, such as religious Taoism.
Unger also seems wary of some syncretic trends, whereas I’d argue most religions are inherently syncretic in practice. In fact Unger’s entire effort is essentially syncretic. This wariness is just odd, even when he actually has points about specific events.
This may seem that I’m down on this section of the book, whereas I’d argue it felt incomplete. Its’ salvation (ha) is the fact that despite what I’d argue is a deliberately narrow view of religions, Unger has spot on ideas of their benefits and flaws. Several times I found myself surprised by his conclusions only to agree with him – he at least “has enough” from his classification system to go places.
Unger also seems aware of his own bias. It’s clear he comes from a Christian background and that affects him – but he also comes to the conclusion that Christianity can’t evolve into The Religion of the Future. This book also has him wrestling with ideas, repeating things he’s clearly thought through.
The other benefit is that Unger, despite being an experienced writer and philosopher, hasn’t lost the enthusiasm of a second-year philosophy student stoned out of his mind. There’s a generosity to his work, he wants to share, he wants to wrestle with ideas (Struggling with the World indeed). Even though he has areas of deep opinion about certain philosophers, he’s not coming from a position of prissy judgement. Most importantly, it’s clear that he cares about people.
After analyzing religion, Unger then goes on to propose the framework, ethics, society, and challenges of an ideal Religion of the Future. I’d say this part of the book is superior to his initial analysis as he’s constructing an effective framework, though I’d have liked more historic examples. Critique aside, Unger opens up even more.
The funny thing is that ultimately Unger’s proposal reads as – dare I say it – a kind of syncretism. His confrontation with the instability of human existence more than echoes Buddhism. His emphasis on creating a functional society resonates with Confucianism and humanism. The ultimate goal is an evolution, a Salvation.
His Religion of the Future is a very pro-human religion, emphasizing what he calls Deep Freedom, the basis of a society that evolves and grows and encourages that in all people. To Unger – and more power to him I say – the goal of religion is a happier society and happier people who can reinvent themselves, and include as many people as possible. Each human is an embodied spirit, an infinite potential, to be given space to evolve and to connect to each other in love and cooperation.
However his proposals, though often abstract, are neither naive nor bereft of action. He has plenty of thoughts, from a general belief in limited market forces to the need for wide-scale education. He recognizes the flaws, often brutal, in society and religions – and he’s not here to make excuses.
He gives you an outline, albeit one that is hard to summarize unless you’re, well, him. Unger needs to release a condensed outline of his book, similar to Timothy Snyder’s On Freedom. This review indicates how hard it is to summarize easily as you’ll notice how general had to be.
It’s obvious that, flaws aside, I’d argue this book is well worth reading. Unger’s commitment to his cause, thoughtfulness, concern for humanity, all come together to create something special. I could argue with many things (yes, oft related to Taoism and syncretism), but I’d say he and I are about 80% on the same page. You might have a different 80% than me, but my guess is you’ll find yourself agreeing with him more often than not.
However, again fair warning, the book is deep and verbose. It is not written for everyone – it’s for people deep into philosophy and religion and applying it.. You might want to read a preview or borrow a copy to see if it’s for you.
As for me, it was well worth it. My copy is marked up with a bunch of those small page-stickers people use to mark passages without writing on the book. I’ll be reviewing it in time – and I rather imagine you’ll be reading some of what it inspires here.
May we, as Unger says, live so we die only once. As he closes out this book, he hopes we have a religion where how we live lets us “be deathless, temporarily.”