Or, One Theist’s Response to Greta Christina’s Article.
On November 19th, Greta Christina wrote an article concerning the nature of debate between atheists and theists. The general premise of the article is that both parties are actually debating two different questions regarding the nature of religion: (1) are religious beliefs true or are they false and (2) are religions helpful or harmful to mankind? She argued that because we do not differentiate between the two debates, the discussion often devolves into a messy tangle of circular logic. Her conclusion was that we needed to debate the two issues separately, but that both sides also needed to recognize that incorrect assumptions about reality are always harmful.
I honestly can’t debate those points. She is absolutely correct in her conclusion. So why am I writing an article about it? Two reasons. First of all, I would like to try to make a convincing argument on the behalf of spirituality and religious practices, while properly separating the two discussions. The second reason I am writing about this is because I believe that the discussions could be divided even further. To inject a sense of irony in this article, I won’t be attempting to achieve those two objectives independently from each other; I like making it difficult on myself.
First of all, let’s look at the “true or false” question. Is religion true or false? The first problem I have with this question is that it lumps all religion into one category. Are we talking about Christianity, Hinduism, Islam or Buddhism? Each religion has different teachings to be proved or disproved. If the teachings of one religion is disproven, that does not necessarily invalidate another religion. The Zen sect of Buddhism, for example, have no mystical assumptions associated with it, and thus could be considered an atheist religion.
We also have to consider which aspect of religion is true or false. Religion is fairly complex social phenomenon. When we discuss religion, are we just discussing the laundry list of convictions, or are we also discussing the traditions, values, and practices of that particular religion? These are each separate things. It is one thing to argue that Jesus Christ was a composite of various teachers alive before or during the first century, but it is a completely separate thing to claim that the symbolic act of baptism should not have any meaning to the person being baptized.
Dogma, or the literal interpretation of, and belief in, religious stories, is always false. There are no choirs of winged chubby babies up in the sky, nor is there an angry white old man who will send you to a fiery pit of brimstone if you don’t do exactly what he tells you to. Religions need to let go of this insistence upon the absolute truth of their own stories and we need to realize that dogma isn’t their defining characteristic.
If dogma isn’t the defining characteristic of religion, then what is? Spirituality, as well as the values, practices, and artwork that support that spirituality. Spirituality cannot be called “false” because it is feeling. Spirituality is a feeling of being in harmony with the world around you and finding meaning in life. An individual can participate in those spiritual practices and find no meaning in them. An individual can lie and claim to value something that they do not. In these cases, it is the individual who is false and not the practice or the value.
Since it is a fair assumption that anything that is proven to be false is also, by it’s very nature, harmful, we know dogma to be inherently harmful. I won’t argue against that. Religions that still cling to absolute authority and literal interpretation are undoubtedly harmful. If we strip them of that dogmatic approach, and leave only their practices and values, are religious institutions harmful or helpful? It really depends on the practice or value. Many Christians put a great deal of value on family, but some will only value heterosexual relationships and the families that are built upon heterosexual relationships. Muslims practice celibacy before marriage for both men and women, but for some Muslims female circumcision is apart of that practice.
The practices and values of a religion gives spiritual substance and can be psychologically therapeutic, but some practices and values can be simply inhumane. The good news is that the more abusive practices and values of the world’s religions are due to their insistence on the inherent truth of their dogma. As each religion becomes more liberal and less literal, these practices and values will cease to be relevant and fade into obscurity. The bad news is that, for the majority of religious institutions, this is yet to happen.
I know that much of my argument is based on what I envision religion to become in the future. Even though I admit that weakness in my argument, I still cannot help but see that as the direction in which western society is moving. By no means do I feel that my defense of religion should be reason enough for an atheist to convert to theist; at no time was that my intent. My intent is to show that religion does not need to be irrational or inherently harmful, and to show that there is more to this discussion than flat “yes/no” answers. I welcome any additional comments regarding this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
December 6th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
AFAICT you seem to be saying that (1) religion minus claims of Truth = Practices and values, and (2) the practices and values can be beneficial, even if the associated story is fiction. So, for example, one could live like a Narnian even if there isn’t any Narnia. (I have a fondness for Valdemar, myself.)
Though a longtime atheist myself, I once proposed deliberately creating a false religion designed to give the sorts of comfort that religions do, while implying and teaching the sort of ethics that would do the most good and the least harm. I suspect that the founder of the Bah’a'i Faith was making his best effort to do just that. My own effort was much simpler: Sequential Reincarnation; the doctrine that when you die your soul goes to the back of a line, and when you reach the front of the line you go into the next available human body. This, I hoped, would allow folks to deny the reality of death, which they so desperately want to do, and motivate them to try to make this Earth a good place to live for everyone in all lands, in a way that could last indefinitely, a Just and Sustainable society.
You noted that Zen (and perhaps other forms of Bhuddism) can be entirely naturalistic is also to the point; but IMHO any philosophy of life that is entirely naturalistic does not qualify as a “religion”. That is, I think, the defining difference between religion and philosophy, that religion makes at least some supernatural claims. It would be unusual (unheard of?) if any religion made supernatural claims WITHOUT those claims having some relevance to the ethics and practices that they teach.
My major complaint about religion is that it (typically) teaches a false theory of ethics, that ethics consists of conforming to the Divine Will, obedience to the Divine Mandate, however that may be expressed. This (a) makes ethics a matter of obeying some Authority, which consequently prohibits applying reason to ethical questions, and (b) severs ethics, to at least some degree, from concern for the consequences to real people in this world.
If ethics and practices are based, in any degree, upon false stories, thay are likely, to that degree, to be bad ethics.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Wow… Thank you for your reply - really! I’ve been hoping someone would come along and rip into this post. You bring up a large number of valid points, each of which I hope to address in time. As of right now, I’m still busy digesting your reply. I want to give a decent response, though, so please be patient while I think of how best to tackle the several flaws and/or weaknesses in my argument. I have to ask, is the sentiment behind “Namaste” insulting to Atheists?
Thank you again.
December 21st, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Here from Greta’s blog…
I’d say that your argument is attempting to separate two basic themes of religion, which I consider inextricably entwined. I call these the “Promethean” and “Jovian” phases of religion.
The Promethean phase is based on individual religious experiences, what today is called “spirituality”. This is the “primal” form of religion, exemplified by a tribal shaman, and frequently in direct conflict with secular authority (”the chief/king”). The thing is, as the religion grows in numbers and influence, it eventually becomes *linked* with the secular powers. It doesn’t really matter whether the shaman dominates the chief, or vice versa, or if they simply become allies, or if the shamans evolve into a priestly hierarchy….
The point is that once the shaman (later priest) acquires significant power, they start acting like it… and the faith shifts into a Jovian phase, where a priesthood not only holds, but actively maintains power over the populace. Of course, this attempt to maintain control will occasionally encounter resistance, if only because individual people will continue to have their own religious experiences! Thus the Jovian phase eventually experiences revolts and/or schisms, some of which will yield Promethean faiths (as opposed to competing Jovian hierarchies).
Applying this pattern to the Biblical faiths is straightforward, but not relevant to your original topic — my point is simply that the distinction between these two aspects of religion is more political than theological — indeed, the theology tends to *follow* the power shifts, rather than influencing them.
December 21st, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Hello David,
I really like how you define the Promethean and Jovian phases of religion… really cleaver. Yes, these two phases of religion effect and feed off of each other, and I agree that the Promethean phase gives way to the Jovian phase when political power is placed into the hands of the few rather than the many. For thousands of years, the Jovian phase has held power over religion. However, it has been my observation that we are now witnessing the return to Promethean phase. I believe that the Promethean phase of religion is more adaptable to reason and less likely to become extremist than the Jovian phase of religion. Why? There is no political power to lose.
In fact, I would suggest that the pressure placed upon religion by science necessitates a return to Promethean religion. I honestly don’t see this as a bad thing! It’s the religious institutions that give religion a bad name - not individual spiritual seekers. When each person starts taking responsibility over their own spirituality, rather than relying on someone else to tell them what to believe, I think you’ll find less reason to believe religion and spirituality to be harmful and false.
In any case, thank you for comment… I appreciate the fact that you are taking the time to discuss this with me.
Namaste.