People sometimes argue back and forth about whether religious belief is a good thing, because it induces believers to be moral or charitable. In a big-picture sense, I think arguments of this form completely miss the point; beliefs should be judged on whether they are correct or incorrect, not on whether they cause people to do good or bad things. (If the belief is not correct, but it makes people do something good, can we say they’ve been tricked into acting that way?) Certainly, nobody is going to convince me to believe something if they admit that it’s false, but it would be good for me to believe — recommendations of that sort are usually aimed at other people, not the one handing them out. Besides which, as a matter of historical record it’s pretty clear that religion has led people to do some really good things and also led people to do some really bad things, and trying to weigh the effects on some imaginary scales seems just hopeless. Or at least, an interesting and possibly never-ending source of discussion for sociologists and historians of religion, but fortunately orthogonal to questions of the truth or falsity of religious claims.
Still, I confess to being a bit amused by the news that, in the last years of her life, Mother Teresa didn’t believe in God. (Via Cynical-C.) Letters that she wrote have now been released as part of a book project, and they are shot through with serious doubts.
Shortly after beginning work in Calcutta’s slums, the spirit left Mother Teresa.
“Where is my faith?” she wrote. “Even deep down… there is nothing but emptiness and darkness… If there be God — please forgive me.”
Eight years later, she was still looking to reclaim her lost faith.
“Such deep longing for God… Repulsed, empty, no faith, no love, no zeal,” she said.
As her fame increased, her faith refused to return. Her smile, she said, was a mask.
“What do I labor for?” she asked in one letter. “If there be no God, there can be no soul. If there be no soul then, Jesus, You also are not true.”
I’m not someone who has strong feelings about Mother Teresa either way, and it seems sad that her doubts put her in such apparent torment. (To the extent that these letters paint a reliable picture at all, of course.) And, in the department of “things that are perfectly obvious but must nevertheless be said explicitly because it’s the internet,” this is only one individual case, from which no grand conclusions should be drawn. Except the obvious: motivations for altruistic and charitable behavior can be very complicated. We should keep them separate from our attempts to understand how the universe works.
We should keep everything separate from our attempts to understand how the universe works! For instance, whether the speculative multiverse idea is true or whether modal realism is true, is for our to posit, not for the universe to align itself with! Whatever is out there, that’s what it is, not what we DEMAND it to be.
Our=us
It’s sad that questioning the existence in god also (apparently) led her to question her labors. It’s as if one cannot do any good or have any morals without there being a god. Isn’t this one of the main stereotypes painted on atheists? but without religion morals aren’t forced on you — instead you form them yourself from your experience and keep them yourself, without the threat of punishment.
I’ve never cared for the term “religion”. It’s a shortcut for theistic beliefs, but theistic beliefs are but a subset of theories on “how the universe works”. I don’t believe that there is a fundamental difference in believing there is a deity out there and believing that there is not a deity out here. To me, these two beliefs are along the same lines as preferring chocolate and vanilla. (I’m referring to in your own mind, not the absolute truths or lack thereof.)
I’ve always found it odd that “religious” philanthropists always seem to get more airtime than the “non-religious”. To me, it implies that the “religious” are working towards some ultimate goal and the “non-religious” are just sorta screwing around. If someone dedicates themselves to abolishing hunger, does it matter if they’re trying to get brownie points with the almighty or if they just think it’s the right thing to do? People still get fed. It’s not the thought that counts.
To sum it up, our theories on “how the universe works” are all very internal, we all believe something that somebody wrote in a book and we should probably stop talking about it. “Religion” is a divisive force, even amongst the “religious”, an silence on the issue would just give humanity one less reason to kill itself.
But even if God would exist (together with the afterlife), why do stuff for him anyway? I mean, say you’re getting to keep on living in some other realm, perhaps meeting “it” along the way, so simply do good for the sake of goodness in this life, which might not be connected to that putative other life anyway!
Even if religion had a point about atheists not being able to draw their morals or what have you without God, I don’t see how can THEY do it even if his existence is not a clever ploy to scare the public.
Stevie, I’m only guessing, but I think that maybe she was expecting a pretty direct sign from god that she never got, and she assumed that she should get this sign because of the work that she felt like she had been doning for god.
Almost like a “Reverse Flew Syndrom”… 😉
Interesting take Sean.
lol Sean,
it is not only unsubstantiated religious beliefs people make people irrational.
it is not only religious beliefs or dogmas people question or disagree on.
Universes extra dimensions may be apple shaped
Holy Molly – “and a baby’s hand holding an apple” too.
I guess ultimately (undeniably?) the universe created life and humans, so that we could reveal its secrets and understand how the universe works. Will TOE or understanding how the universe works finally make us all more rational?
John Roach
While I agree with the gist of your message, science is not some book someone wrote years ago. We might not have all the answers, or might not have some at all (see Dawkins talk here for that: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6308228560462155344&q=richard+dawkins&total=1368&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0), but at least we do have a firm grasp on how reality functions, whilst religion is simply pure speculation borne out of an innate need for surviving death and undoing all wrongs.
If you say that we all believe what’s written in our books, then what can hold me back from believing in Lovecraftian mythology as opposed to the monotheistic & polytheistic ones?
Morals develop from internal and societal forces. They will develop with or without religion (organized or not). Religions have at various times assisted and hindered “good acts” and assisted or hindered “bad acts.” None of these things make me think that people should view religion, in general or a specific one, as good because it attempts to dictate a specific morality, nor should they view an atheist as bad because they don’t believe in a God. The two should not be related. Personally I find acts of charity a little more honest when they are performed out of compassion instead of a desire to impress a supreme being and get into a heaven.
Dima, when I said that we all believe something that someone wrote in a book, I mean that, for a very large part of humanity, we don’t have direct experiential evidence for what we believe. I’m certainly not questioning the validity of science; I’m stating that (to make it not personal) I believe in pulsars because someone told me about them. I never discovered pulsars. I’ve never seen one with my own eyes – a scientist (or scientists) told me about them.
I’m speaking about a personal, individual, level. John Roach believes in pulsars. I’m not saying, as I fear you took from it, “atheists are no better than fundamental religious psychos because they don’t think for themselves.” My contention is that, if we are honest, our beliefs are mostly drawn from external sources, not direct personal evidence.
And you are more then welcome to believe in Cthulhu if you want. Seriously, is it that much stranger (and harder to swallow) than most mainstream religions?
Stevie, did none of your morals come from your parents (or neighbors, or TV, etc)? Some morals, such as “do not murder” are purely neurologically based. Others, like “do not lie on your taxes” are social. I find it hard to believe that someone came up with all their morals on their own.
This is tangential to Sean’s point, but Teresa’s letters as quoted here seem to be poetic yearnings and philosophies and not declarations of sincere doubt. They read like psalms. I admit, though, that I haven’t read any more than what is printed here.
I suspect – with no evidence whatsoever – that Teresa’s writings and statements, taken as a whole, would give evidence of intense faith flavored with occasional yearning and doubt. I would expect that it is very rare for an individual to go through life with no crises of faith.
John Roach, actually, it’s not that much stranger… it’s just STRANGE in light of what science is telling us. The point you made about our beliefs being intertwined with external sources I have to agree with partly because we haven’t experienced any of it personally and we draw conclusions based on our apparatus.
Still though, it’s not strange for me to believe that there are pulsars out there, since you can just go into an observatory and see one for yourself.
My beef with religion is that not only you cannot experience anything of what they’re saying (as opposed to science), but it just sounds ABSURD. Science actually MAKES SENSE in light of the universe presented to us (small little planet earth, vast infinite space, physical laws, etc) and it bodes well with the universe I experience… with religion on the other hand, i’m supposed to believe some made-up stories (you can put any religious belief here, really, from monotheistic to polytheistic, to new-age and paranormal) that simply seem to be out-of-focus with the way I experience the universe.
Science makes sense even if I can’t experience 90% of it myself (except the usual earthly stuff), when religion simply doesn’t and honestly, I find out universe to be something much more incredible and beautiful than any religious or science-fiction story would ever attempt to depict.
It’s marvelous and it’s gorgeous, with us or without us.
Pingback: Mother Theresa « Meng Bomin
There was an interesting article in the Sunday Times last weekend on
religion and politics.
here’s a link (I don’t know if you need a password):
The Politics of God
John Roach,
In response to your post #4, I contend that belief does matter. Now, granted, it may not always matter. And how often a specific belief matters will depend hugely upon the properties of that belief. But, in general, belief matters, for belief gives us our picture of the world that surrounds us. It gives is, for example, the perspective from which we make moral decisions.
Consider, for a moment, a belief in heaven in hell. If you believe, and believe strongly, in the existence of a heaven and a hell, and you believe that whether a person goes to heaven or hell depends upon that person’s beliefs, then you are going to care a great deal, for example, what your children believe. You may not want them to be exposed to ideas that would cause them to question their belief. You may not want them to be exposed to alternative beliefs. All this because you are worried, due to your own belief in an afterlife, for their wellbeing.
This sort of thing has been the very motivation for a great deal of political debates here in the US, and almost certainly elsewhere. Whenever you hear the phrase, “eroding our family values,” it all ties right back to the worry that parents have that their children are going to go to hell, because they were exposed to something that caused them to believe in something incorrect.
As a result, I cannot, in good conscience, accept the idea that any belief is okay. After all, once we start saying that some irrational beliefs are perfectly okay for people to have, how are we able to draw the line and prevent these peoples’ irrational beliefs from harming others? Now, granted, thought police would be a very bad thing. But that doesn’t mean we should just consider it okay for people to be irrational. We should call them out for being irrational, make it a socially unacceptable thing to be willingly irrational.
Jason Dick
But they have no solid underpinning to rely on in order to substantiate their beliefs. Sure, then can say that atheists erode family values and turn their kids (who may be influenced by these ideas) into hell-bound targets, but think for a moment that there is no heaven or hell and that whatever they end up believing or not believing in is just that – wishful thinking.
It is a misunderstanding of religious belief to assume that its summum bonum is a continual series of happy smiling thoughts buttressed by motherhood, apple pie and the American flag. Religion – and specifically biblical religion – is painful. The Bible is filled with stories of abandonment, hurt and exile. The story of Israel is the story of the chosen people of God being sold into slavery in a foreign land far from home – `by the rivers of Bablyon we sat and wept….how could we sing the song of the Lord in an alien land?’ The Christian story that Teresa lived her life in witness to is the story of the *crucifixion* of the *son of God*. In terms of divine child neglect, this would get an alpha plus.
Accounts of religious experience that ignore the content of religious belief are not sustainable. The problem with this post is that it conflates emotion with belief and joy with faith. Doubt is part of having faith. Feeling abandoned is also part of having faith. That dark nights of the soul occur is a recurring theme in Christian prayer. Faith is the act of trust that carries on through these times of doubt and abandonment. It doesn’t mean spiritual ecstasy and it certainly doesn’t mean living life with a Cheshire cat grin and a doubt lobotomy. For this reason the above does not show a lack of faith in Blessed Teresa, but rather an abundance of it.
Subject for Sean’s next post: the spiritual doubts of Jesus, who on the cross cried out “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’
Let’s start at a basic level – is it rational to be optimistic or pessimistic?
E.g., when Mahatma Gandhi decided to take on the British Empire, and seek to remove India from British control, did it not take a irrational belief in the possibility of a good outcome to do so?
On the other hand, when Bush/Cheney set out to invade Iraq and depose Saddam did not an irrational belief in the possibility of a good outcome play an important role in their decision?
The same holds with rational decisions as well. They can lead to good or to bad actions and good or bad outcomes.
Dima,
That’s sort of my point. The problem is that some of these people really and truly do believe such things, things which have real-world implications on their decision-making, but which have no basis in reality. Such beliefs are invariably dangerous, simply because they separate our intentions from the results of our actions. This is one reason why I believe it is my moral duty to always try to be as accurate in my beliefs as possible, because if my beliefs are incorrect, then no matter how good my intentions, I will be unlikely to realize those intentions. Of course, there’s much more to morality than simply being correct, but maintaining accurate beliefs is necessary for my morality to be as good as it can be.
The next thing to note is that to most people what is far more interesting than “how does the universe work” is “how do other people work”?
This means that understanding “irrational beliefs” has to be a part of our education.
___
reader has a good point, the post reveals a lack of understanding of the nature of religious faith.
___
How do we prevent people’s beliefs from causing harm? (BTW, rational beliefs also lead to harm. Remember that rationality can be judged only with respect to the information available to the person.) The answer is the same way that we prevent people’s guns from causing harm. Anyone who breaks the law because of guns or because of belief is to be prosecuted and punished.
___
Arun
Your Iraq example is duly noted. But the Bush administration is the worst administration the US ever had. It’s practically laughing stock by now, so whether they had good intentions going to Iraq or not, they have proven to be completely unworthy to reside at the top-spot of the government.
Yes, it’s a little like Love by Command. In fact, it’s a much simpler thing to command people to be charitable than it is to command people to love.
It’s probably also good to note that this is a little Christian-centric, and that most of the people in the world who hold religious beliefs are not Christian. It is interesting to note the societal legacy of Judeo-Christian notion of One God, One Truth, however. It is not always easy to separate ourselves from deep-running things like this, regardless of how rational we like to consider ourselves.
Oftentimes it is considered within religions a beneficial exercise to meditate upon the various iconic imagery or abstractions that exist within the story. And as much as this can hold dogma in place, it can also have a liberating quality. As with many things even outside of religion, much of the “good or bad” outcomes depend upon the degree of blind zeal invested.
In terms of compassion, within the purely intellectual, there is a difference between morality and ethics. Both have a “rule-ish” feel, and both oftentimes come with coercive components. I think it is a very good thing that even Science is subject to ethics, and that ethics is an ongoing dialog. But we also have a large number of people who are overwhelmingly challenged by purely ethical discourse. For these people, a more moral ruleset can be a “shorthand”, and is something they can trust in their desire to be good people. Unfortunately, it is also something that others, with more nefarious designs, can exploit.
Sometimes we have to believe something uncertain in order to get where we would like to be. The test is, will our egos allow us to re-evaluate our decisions in the face of challenges — and then have the courage to maintain them despite external pressures, or have the courage to change if it looks like we should.
In the case of Mother Theresa, maybe she thought, despite her crisis of faith, that devoting herself to charity was, regardless of her religion, a good and worthy thing to devote her life toward. In that sense she would have transcended simple dogma, which would make sainthood all the more applicable to my mind, looked a iconically.
It is an act of honesty to express our doubts. It is an act of foolishness to cling to what we know cannot be true. And, it is an act of carelessness to believe or disbelieve in something with no basis. The question is, can “passion” be a valid basis? In the terms of Science, I don’t think so. In the terms of “we crazy humans”, what else is there? 😉
Jason, I agree that there are dangerous beliefs. Some are dangerous psychologically, some are dangerous physically. And the worst are dangerous to other people.
But that wasn’t my point. My point is:
1.) Every one of us capable of individual thought has a belief system that can not be categorized by a top-level hierarchy. Because we take in so much information and process and accept it into our mental make-up, if we were explicitly characterize exactly what we believe, there would be so many hyphens as to be wildly impracticable.
2.)Given (1), there are roughly 6 billion belief systems. There is no need to divide them up any less precisely than “John’s belief”, “Jason’s belief”, etc. So labeling someone as “religious” or “non-religious” is non-nonsensical and can only be harmful to society. “Religious” people can be good or bad, “non-religious” people can be good or bad.
Really, all I care about is people harming other people. I don’t care if you believe there is 0 gods, 1 god, 12 gods or that we are all gods, so long as you leave me alone about it and don’t harm myself or my family.
Essentially, I was advocating the abolishment of the term “religion”, as it is harmful.
And no, I don’t mind if someone else’s beliefs are rational, irrational, true, false, etc., so long as they don’t harm anyone else. Morality, I would say, is based on behavior.
Mother Theresa’s quote is rather interesting, but deserves a little explanation about the context of the Roman Catholic tradition. Her case reminds me of Saint Therese of Lisieux, a French Catholic nun of the 19th century who was canonized as a saint and declared “doctor of the church”. She was the first theologian to receive this title since the 14th century, and the last one to this date. Moreover, she is considered by Catholics as the co-patroness of France with St. Joan of Arc. So, you see she is not considered by Catholics as a minor character in the history of church (and that is an understatement!). During her religious life as a carmelite, she became ill of tuberculosis, and then temporarily suffered from “dereliction”, which is the name given by the church to an eclipse of the faith. In this state of dereliction, the would-be saint is supposed to make a heroic effort to recover his or her faith through prayer, charity, etc. Therese of Lisieux could overcome this state of deep doubt, but of course she was exceptional, and she found her own way which explains her popularity among Catholics. I recalled this story just to make clear that doubt, with its public expression by fervent religious people themselves, is a common and accepted thing in the Catholic church, even from the most exceptional of the saints. It should thus not be very surprising to read such things in letters from Mother Theresa or any other catholic celebrities. This will come as a surprise only to people ignorant of the inner workings of the Catholic religion. By the way, I am a Catholic, I received in my childhood a complete religious education, and learned this stuff during years in a Jesuit high school.
John Roach,
My argument is that irrational beliefs are vastly more likely to be incorrect than rational ones, and furthermore incorrect beliefs are vastly more likely to cause a person to harm others than correct beliefs (given that most people believe that harming others is a bad thing). As such, I think it does matter what others believe, and will argue against any belief that differs from my own when the opportunity presents itself. This way, if the argument is a good one, there is a chance the other person will recognize that my belief is better, or I will recognize that theirs is, in either case one of us benefits.