Liminoid Liberation
Victor Turner (1979) argues that he sees the separation between cosmology and theology as liberating. Based on this, I will first develop two arguments – one in favor of and one against his statement. Finally, I will present my own conclusion on the issue.
Both cosmology and theology address questions concerning the existence, creation, and ultimate fate of the universe. The separation between cosmology and theology has led modern cosmology to employ scientific explanatory models, while theology offers interpretations concerning meaning, purpose, and creative forces.
The separation can be regarded as liberating because science provides empirically grounded answers to these questions rather than answers based on subjective experiences. Human beings also possess an extraordinary ability to explore the world around us through observation and the development of measurement tools. Furthermore, according to Turner, the separation makes it possible for us to choose how we interpret the world, rather than being confined to a single true cosmological explanation.
The separation can also be regarded as oppressive because questions of meaning and experiences of something greater have been pushed into the background. The world and the universe become reduced to what is measurable, physical, and mechanical. This risks creating a worldview in which that which cannot be measured appears less real, potentially marginalizing religious experience rather than merely distinguishing it. The loss of a shared cosmological framework also contributes to everything becoming individualized and, in turn, fragmented and rootless.
When I wrote the first draft of this discussion, I primarily focused on science versus religion. However, when I reread Turner’s text, I realized that this was not primarily what he was addressing; rather, his focus was authority versus interpretive freedom. I have therefore revised the discussion accordingly, while still retaining my original arguments because I do not entirely agree with Turner’s reasoning. From my perspective, we have not moved from authority to interpretive freedom, but rather from one authority to another – the scientific cosmology functions in many respects as a new normative framework for what is considered real. This does not mean that scientific explanatory models are problematic in themselves, but rather that in certain contexts they are granted an exclusive status as the only valid path to knowledge.
The conclusion I arrive at is therefore that the separation provides freedom, but also creates a new form of limitation. We are freer from a unified religious authority, yet at the same time bound to new norms concerning what counts as valid knowledge and reality. At the same time, this does not exclude the possibility that different ways of understanding the world can coexist; rather, it points to the need to navigate consciously and actively between them.
I arrived at these conclusions by first misunderstanding the assignment and then reflecting on that misunderstanding in relation to what Turner actually meant. These conclusions also resonate with my own life and practice, in which I relate both to scientific explanatory models and to a simultaneous need to make space for subjective experience, meaning, and relationship to the divine. For me, the separation between cosmology and theology does not mean that one replaces the other, but rather that I must navigate between them.
Sources
Turner, V.W. (1979) ‘Frame, Flow and Reflection: Ritual and Drama as Public Liminality’, Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, 6(4), pp. 465–499.