At 3 p.m. on Saturday, Aug. 29, Gallery Sa:Yoo on the basement level of Center One in Haebangchon, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, was packed, with not enough folding chairs for everyone. A sizable crowd turned out despite the challenging subject of the guest lecture, “Talking Spirituality in a Post-Religious Age,” by Professor Oh Kang-nam, an emeritus professor at the University of Regina in Canada and a scholar of comparative religion. After listening to and filming nearly 90 minutes of remarks, I felt the event was less a lecture about religion than a lecture about how to approach life.
Why people who left religion are returning to meditation
Professor Oh opened by describing human beings with one of several names for our species: Homo religiosus. The term is based on the fact that no tribe without religion has ever been found, while no animals displaying religious tendencies have been discovered. Religious inclination, he said, is a uniquely human trait.
But Oh said the persuasive power of traditional religion is waning. Explanatory systems built on an old view of the universe lost their force as that worldview changed, he said. He quoted the Dalai Lama’s call to move beyond the framework of heaven and hell alongside theologian Marcus Borg’s assertion that transformation, not heaven and hell, lies at the center of Christianity.
Figures on the screen illustrated the trend. The share of South Koreans who identify as having no religion rose from 56.1% in 2005 to 63.4% in 2022, reaching 81.9% among people in their 20s. In industrialized societies, secularization is the dominant trend, Oh said, adding that the three Scandinavian countries are effectively nonreligious societies. He also introduced Bishop John Shelby Spong’s observation that the largest alumni association in the United States is the “Church Graduates Alumni Association.”
Yet religion may be disappearing without religious feeling disappearing, he said. People’s desire to understand the meaning of life has not diminished, but traditional religions have failed to provide answers, prompting people to look elsewhere. Young people without religious affiliations attending temple stays and filling meditation classes were offered as evidence.
Surface religion declines, while deep religion endures beyond its era
The lecture centered on the distinction between surface religion and deep religion, a concept Professor Oh has explored for many years.
Six characteristics were identified as belonging to surface religion: an “I”-centered desire for personal success, an emphasis on unconditional and blind faith, literalism that accepts scripture word for word, a worldview of separation in which the Absolute, the self and the world are divided, an exclusive and self-righteous attitude, and a focus on the afterlife.
Deep religion also has six characteristics: seeking the true self; understanding and awakening instead of blind faith; trying to read the symbolism and deeper meaning of scripture; recognizing that all things are one; inclusivism and pluralism; and an emphasis on the reality of “here and now.”
A statement by theologian Karl Rahner appeared on the screen: In the 21st century, anything that is not deep religion is nothing. Professor Oh did not reject the surface level. Just as it is natural for children to go through a period when they believe in Santa Claus literally, it is natural to begin at the surface, he said. The problem is holding people there and preventing them from going further.
The democratization of mysticism: Scripture is not information but transformation
One striking phrase was “the democratization of mysticism.” In an age when people could not read, faith was conveyed through images. Today, anyone can read scripture directly and reach profound experiences. Whereas people who reached the deep level once appeared only rarely, Oh said, they now emerge in abundance.
His simple metaphor for awakening also lingered. As you climb a mountain, you see a park; higher up, a lake comes into view, followed in turn by the sea, islands and the horizon. The “aha” that arises at those moments is awakening, he said, and religion is the continuation of those “ahas.”
He was equally clear about how to read scripture. Scripture is meant to bring transformation, not information, he said. Just as no one would exhume Picasso’s grave because he painted eyes in unexpected places, readers should look past the literal words to their deeper meaning and the context of the era in which they were written.
Oneness and awe: The two pillars of 21st-century spirituality
Professor Oh emphasized two ideas as especially important.
The first is the discovery that all things are interconnected, interdependent and one. On the screen appeared, side by side, the Buddhist concepts of mutual identity and mutual interpenetration, Won Buddhism’s Threefold Unity Ethics, the words “that they may all be one” from John 17:21, and the Neo-Confucian scholar Cheng Hao’s idea of the unity of all things. The presentation also included Albert Einstein’s description of human beings as part of the whole that is the universe, and separation as a kind of optical illusion and delusion.
The language of Donghak also received significant attention. If he had to choose the religion best suited to Korea, Oh said, it would be Donghak. Its teachings include Sicheonju, or serving Heaven; Innaecheon, or the unity of Heaven and the self; and Sainyeocheon, or serving people as one would serve Heaven. He also introduced Samgyeong, the practice of honoring Heaven, people and all things.
The second is awe: an attitude of being astonished by the mysteries of everyday life and finding meaning and joy through “aha experiences.” Oh said sociologist of religion Phil Zuckerman called this “aweism,” and quoted Einstein as saying that the most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mystical emotion.
Questions and answers from the audience
Audience members asked lengthy and serious questions. Asked whether spirituality could develop in the future when people seemed to be steadily losing their ability to think deeply, Professor Oh said, “The original 5% minority leads the 95% majority. I found hope in seeing young people gathering for temple stays and more young people taking up meditation.” Asked why people are turning to meditation and mindfulness, Oh answered that they need a real self they can discover for themselves, rather than a salvation carried on their behalf by someone else.
In response to concerns about whether the younger generation possesses that kind of depth, Oh acknowledged that not everyone can achieve it. But citing Arnold Toynbee’s observation that history is driven by creative minorities, he said the direction nevertheless appeared clear. Asked about religion in the age of artificial intelligence, he predicted that if work declines and free time increases, people may have more time to consider what it means to be human.
The answer that stayed with me most came near the end. Asked whether the deep level is the same in every religion, he said the traditions are not identical but communicate with one another. Some religions climb a mountain, some walk along a river, and others follow a forest path. He added that the distance between the surface and deep levels within a single religion can be greater than the distance between the deep levels of different religions.
As thoughtful questions continued, the discussion proved as substantial as the lecture itself.
Leaving the lecture hall
After the lecture, Professor Oh looked cheerful as he exchanged greetings with attendees.
The share of people who identify with a religion continues to fall. But the question “Who am I?” has not diminished. The rise of SBNR (spiritual but not religious) and the scene that afternoon, with young people who identify as nonreligious filling the chairs at a meditation center, reflect the same trend. I left with much to think about after hearing that if even a writer who has moved beyond religion can embrace a religion beyond religion, human beings remain religious at heart.
Reporting and photos = Reporter Oh Hye-sun