Photo by Sharon Mollerus
Two weeks ago, I wrote an article debating that, while there are problems with modern religion, aspects of religion were both true and helpful, and could not be discounted as being a factor concerning the validity of religion as an institution. This was in response to Greta Christina’s article regarding the nature of the debate between atheists and theists. While I was hoping to garner the attention of the queen bee herself, she made it quite clear that she may not have the time to respond properly. No problem. I figured if she didn’t have time to respond that there was an atheist somewhere who would rise to the challenge.
It wasn’t until this past Thursday that I received a response. John B. Hodges was polite enough to comment on my lonely post and point out a few weaknesses in my argument. He wrote, “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… If ethics and practices are based, in any degree, upon false stories, thay (sic) are likely, to that degree, to be bad ethics.”
While I wouldn’t say he disproved my argument with this, he did manage to dent it. I hadn’t sufficiently addressed why I felt that religion and/or spirituality was “true”. The problem is that, Mr. Hodges and I are speaking about two different types of truth, neither of which are incompatible or all encompassing.
Logic, one method of understanding the universe, derives truth from a series of binary decisions. This method of inquiry has the amazing capability to allow us realize technologies and live richer then we would otherwise be able to do. Only fools dismiss the possibilities. Logic is mankind’s greatest tool for understanding the perceivable world. Yet it isn’t perfect.
The universe does not conform to logic, rather it is logic that must conform to the universe. We may only apply logic to something that we can perceive and that can be verified independently of any outside influence. Most importantly, logic does not describe the totality of the human existence.
We human beings have an emotion element, which defies logic, cannot be perceived or quantified, and yet plays an essential part in our experience. Emotional truth, found in art and spirituality, is far undervalued. It is also a type of truth, but unlike logic, does not fit nice little boxes. To be sure, emotional truth should not be applied to outside world, but by the same token, logic should not be applied to the world within us.
It is this that I am defending when I defend religion. It should be understood that religion is emotional truth, not logical truth. When I talk about the stories of the Bible being taken literally, I’m talking about applying logic to something that should remain only emotional.
Morality, however, is one of those tricky animals that deal with both emotional truths and logical truths. When logic or emotion overcomes the other as the primary deciding factor of morality, we have frightening results. Religion should not have the final say in regards to morality, but neither should science.
I conclude by saying, yet again, I don’t know how well I’ve defended my position. I like putting myself in the precarious position of agreeing and yet disagreeing with those whom I debate. Inevitably, someone will come along and find yet more holes in my argument. I personally think that’s the fun part of theist-atheist dialogue - being challenged to think.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
