One thing that religions typically do — although certainly not the only one — is to make claims about how the world works. How important are those claims to what religion really is, and how we should think about it?
PZ Myers has posted a very interesting letter from Stephen Asma that talks about this issue. Asma earlier wrote a critique of New Atheism in the Chronicle of Higher Education, to which PZ responded, but I think the new letter is more interesting than the previous salvos. Russell Blackford has also chimed in.
This is a very healthy discussion to be having — moving a bit beyond the caricatures of atheism by believers, and of religion by atheists. Much of what Asma says I find quite persuasive. The crux is something like this:
My argument is that religion helps people, rightly or wrongly, manage their emotional lives. And while it doesn’t do very much for me and other skeptics (I prefer art), I would be very inattentive if I failed to notice how much relief and comfort it gave to other people.
Asma wants to consider the aspects of religion that are closer to those of art or literature than those of science. There’s no question that religions have beneficial effects along with their bad ones. If we’re being rational about it, we should try to understand how those effects work, even if our only agenda is to find some sort of acceptable substitute.
If we were starting from scratch I would put it this way: some of the sense of wonder and anticipation of possibility that defines us as human is often categorized under the heading of “religion.” We can raise questions about the truthfulness of religion’s attempts to describe how the world works, while at the same time respecting some of the careful thought that religious people have put into understanding the human condition.
But … there’s usually a “but.” I have to wonder about these attempts to completely downplay the role of truth-claims in religious belief. In my experience, when I hear someone arguing that the important aspects of religion are moral or aesthetic, and the statements about how the world works are an unfortunate bit of historical baggage, it usually is not coming from a religious person, but rather from a sympathetic non-believer. My impression is that the way a religion views the world is actually quite important to a typical believer. I have in mind both very specific kinds of claims, that God created the world some number of years ago or that we are sorted into various afterlives depending on our Earthly track record, or more vague ones, that God allows the world to be or that moments of transcendence represent connection with a higher power. I don’t think these are unimportant to most religious believers, even most very sophisticated ones (I could be wrong).
And, needless to say, views about how the world works are very often central to the other aspects of religious belief. If you really believe in Heaven and Hell, you’d be crazy not to let that belief influence your view of morality here on Earth.
So, while I’m all in favor of understanding the nature of religious belief and also exhibiting a willingness to learn from believers who have thought long and hard about philosophy or ethics or what have you, I don’t foresee having a truly open and respectful dialogue without putting questions of how the world really works front and center. If we took a religion and removed from it any claims about how the world works, leaving a set of ideas about morality and human life, would it make sense to even call the result a religion? It would be more like a philosophy or worldview, and those are things that even we atheists are more than happy to engage with.
Still, we don’t always do a good job of that engagement. I look forward to the day when “atheism” as a worldview takes difficult emotional human questions more seriously in a public way.
“People have an apparent and sometimes almost insatiable need for ‘ekstasis’ or ecstasy, to give meaning to their lives. This so-called ‘stepping outside’ finds expression in many ways such as music, dance, sport, sex and sadly in drug- and alcohol-abuse as well. It can also be found in religious fervour, attending religious gatherings in churches, mosques and synagogues, Satan worship; participating in secret societies, group activities and community projects. It also forms an important basis for joining radical groups, labour movements, political meetings, and for fundamentalism and radicalism.
It is not strange therefore that the emotional expression and participation in these activities can become addictive or that the expectations of what benefits are to be derived from such activities, are often totally unrealistic and indeed silly.
It is not evil or abnormal for people to have this need, it is merely human. However, when the derived and perceived benefits impinge upon reason and one’s grasp of reality, it becomes problematic. Unfortunately there are no boundaries drawn by those who promote such participation. In fact it is probably the opposite.
Disciples of these activities actively seek to increase and deepen participation to the n-th degree, sometimes leading to mass hysteria, mass suicides, murder, gang-rape, fanaticism, suicide bombings etc.
Mysticism and its attendant practices – which include religion, and political activities creates its own “realities”, e.g. false standards, guilt where no guilt exists, external deities and magic powers.
Mysticism is the ultimate primacy of emotions over reality and reason and when the human need for ‘ekstasis’ overrides reality and reason, one enters the realm of the unreal and indeed of the actual surrender of man’s mind to the ceremonial reverence of objects, deities, visions and external influence. Primitive man used emotions to create his own ‘platonic reality’ (Reality is what the mind thinks or imagines ).
Homo dialogicus (reasoning or thinking man) on the other hand reflects a critical consciousness which explains man’s capacity to reason and question anything in terms of its opposite. It implies that s/he can question issues of importance, evaluate alternatives and make choices of his/her own. Such a mind is light years away from the mind of primitive man who relies on imagination but does not grasp the implications that he does so and who creates an own reality, a false reality.
When myth and legend become inextricably intertwined through the application of emotions with reality, consciousness and evaluating alternatives, it is no wonder then that people become confused and are unable to make reasoned and rational choices in life. It is this confusion which leads to control and manipulation; it is this lack of the conscious will of man to distinguish between the real and the unreal; this illogical preparedness to accept what he is fed through the controlled media, from religious- and political platforms which is promoted by the mystics of the world, by the religions and by the political leaders.” (Preface to my book: ‘Moses was a Liar’ Raider Books NY 2009).
My apologies for using this quote but it did seem to be quite appropriate to the thread. Supplanting reason with the illogical adherence to external powers in a fatalistic manner is not only damaging but leaves a person/society open to manipulation and control for whatever purposes by others, often under the false credo that it is “for the common good” or in the “public interest”.
I see the problem as religion being misused. It is fine as a self-actualization tool and emotional comforter, but the second you use it in a literal sense then you have corrupted it. And 99.9% of the world corrupts religion.
I would like to see more clarification of the statement “I would be very inattentive if I failed to notice how much relief and comfort it gave to other people.”
1. Is the author asserting that “other people” would not be able to find relief and comfort if they did not have their particular religion with them?
2. Why doesnt the author himself feel the need for this relief and comfort? Does he consider himself superior to the people who do need such relief and comfort?
3. What if the relief and comfort are actually useful evolutionary tools with which most people are born equipped. They just take on whatever story is convenient and available nearby. They will take on new stories even if the current story disappears. This formulation would imply that there is no need to walk on eggshells here. Relief and comfort are not dependent on religion. Religion just happens to be the way they are delivered in a particular setting, but its neither essential, nor primary. Its an epiphenomenon.
How would you fit Buddhism into this framework? Perhaps your generalisation ‘Religion’ could do with a little refining?
The Dalai Lama has said that if any part of Buddhism is in conflict with scientific knowledge, then Buddhism must adapt.
Pingback: Review – Finding God: The Enlightenment (DVD 1 of 3) « Michaelwclark.com
Pingback: Religion and Truth at Religion and Spirituality in Society