Le Monde des Religions, November-December 2004 —
Editorial —
For some years now, we have been witnessing a resurgence of religious certainties, linked to a tightening of identity politics, which has captured the media's attention. I believe this is just the tip of the iceberg. As far as the West is concerned, let's not lose sight of the progress made in a century. The special feature we are dedicating to the centenary of the French law separating Church and State gave me the opportunity to revisit this incredible context of hatred and mutual exclusion that prevailed at the time between the Catholic and anticlerical camps. In Europe, the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries was marked by certainties. Ideological, religious, and scientific certainties. Many Christians were convinced that unbaptized children would go to hell and that only their Church possessed the truth. Atheists, for their part, despised religion and considered it an anthropological (Feuerbach), intellectual (Comte), economic (Marx), or psychological (Freud) alienation.
Today, in Europe and the United States, 90% of believers believe, according to a recent survey, that no single religion holds the Truth, but that there are truths in all religions. Atheists, too, are more tolerant, and most scientists no longer consider religion a superstition destined to disappear with the progress of science. Overall, in barely a century, we have moved from a closed universe of certainties to an open world of probabilities. This modern form of skepticism, which François Furet called "the insurmountable horizon of modernity," has been able to become widespread in our societies because believers have opened themselves to other religions, but also because modernity has shed its certainties inherited from the scientistic myth of progress: where knowledge advances, religion and traditional values recede.
Have we not, therefore, become disciples of Montaigne? Whatever their philosophical or religious convictions, a majority of Westerners subscribe to the postulate that human intelligence is incapable of attaining ultimate truths and definitive metaphysical certainties. In other words, God is uncertain. As our great philosopher explained five centuries ago, one can only believe, and also not believe, within the context of uncertainty. Uncertainty, I should clarify, does not mean doubt. One can have faith, deep convictions, and certainties, but still admit that others may, in good faith and with just as many good reasons as we do, not share them. The interviews given to Le Monde des Religions by two men of the theater, Eric-Emmanuel Schmitt and Peter Brook, are eloquent in this regard. The former fervently believes in "an unidentifiable God" who "does not come from knowledge" and asserts that "a thought that does not doubt itself is not intelligent." The second makes no reference to God, but remains open to a divine "unknown, unnameable" and confesses: "I would have liked to say: 'I believe in nothing…' But believing in nothing is still the absolute expression of belief." Such remarks illustrate this fact, which in my opinion deserves further reflection in order to move beyond stereotypes and simplistic discourses: the real divide today is less and less, as in the last century, between "believers" and "non-believers," but between those, "believers" or "non-believers," who accept uncertainty and those who reject it.
The World of Religions, November-December 2004