I am not a religious person. There may or may not be a God. And if there is, I'm not sure the supernatural law and order that springs from Him can be translated into a certain way of behaving here on earth, for humans. Nevertheless, I think religions need a little defending right now because they're being blamed for much more than they deserve. There are a number of high-profile atheists these days, like Richard Dawkins, that attack religion and claim religious people are morons for believing in such superstition. Evolution is patently correct, they argue, and anyone that doesn't see that is beyond approach. Now, this is bad enough. Religious people are not morons: it's very natural to believe in a higher power (in fact, some evolutionary psychologists now say there may be evolutionary explanations for religious belief). But there is another very important claim.
Some of these atheists believe that if religions were to disappear, so would many of our conflicts and wars. They cite examples like the Crusade, religious fundamentalists-turned-terroists, and others. The explicit justifications for fighting for these groups is often religious. These groups say that God expects certain things from people, and their enemies are not living up to these expectations. Therefore they should be overcome, and possibly destroyed. It seems so clear then that if religion were out of the picture, so would the justification for many of our wars.
But this is to take an overly literal approach to the reasons for fighting. At times religious arguments are employed to mask more worldly reasons for war. War may be undertaken to address poor economic conditions; to consolidate lands; to get back at an aggressor; or to simply conquer another people. And the only way to ensure public support is to argue that God is on your side. But it's only rhetoric. The leaders of violent movements are not necessarily religious when making religious claims. Getting rid of religion will therefore solve nothing.
Of course, there are other cases in which movements are genuinely backed by religious conviction. About those I would admit the uncompromising certainty of religious belief is at fault. And yet, I can't help but believe there would be a balancing out if religion were to disappear - in the form of more conflicts and wars. We would get rid of one reason for war, but find that human beings are increadibly adept at dreaming up new ways to oppress one another. In this respect, I've been influenced by Sigmund Freud's book, Civilization and its Discontents. In it he argues that war and conflict is an unavoidable feature of humanity. We might develop communities of good will and cooperation, but only in relation to an opposing group. A group we conceive of as the Other, in relation to which we define ourselves. So, if war and conflict is unavoidable, perhaps religion is ultimately excused.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Great post, D. I couldn't have said a lot of that better myself.
The one little quibble I might have is that while I won't defend the strong claim: Religion is responsible for war, I might defend the much weaker claim: Religion may intensify war-prone feelings in individuals. Also, the cards are stacked against atheists for lack of social organization, thereby breeding feelings of ressentement in them (perhaps).
I am just overly cautious of the notion that conflict is necessary. What is meant by necessity in this context? I haven't read Freud, but does he mean necessary like ingrained in the individual, or as a social consequent? To be sure, there is a big difference.
As a continental philosopher, lots of the literature I read deals with the notion of the fundamental relationship with others: do we see them inherently as threatening, or all we all part of a Heideggerian Mitsein? I don't know exactly, but declaring war inevitable (whoever might hold that claim, I attribute it to a straw man in the sky for now) is to erase morality. If something is just "natural" then its beyond evaluation, but if it is the result of individual choice, then it is always worth fighting against.
I am sympathetic to your overall view. Religious people are not stupid, only some of them are, like atheists. The only thing that I might argue is different is that many people base religious beliefs on emotions, while atheists tend to have come to atheism by way of a choice (which, no doubt, may have been full of feeling also).
Yeah, so....great topic. And Dawkins is an idiot.
Freud doesn't say we shouldn't fight against conflict. He doesn't argue the need for conflict is irreplaceable. He only seems to say that for now, at least in our current stage of evolutionary development, we are the kinds of creatures that will tend to find ways to oppress and injure each other. With work, of course, we can become different. But we shouldn't expect a radical alteration. Incremental change is all we can hope for.
I'll address your points a little later. I'm on the run at the moment.
The only thing that I might argue is different is that many people base religious beliefs on emotions, while atheists tend to have come to atheism by way of a choice (which, no doubt, may have been full of feeling also).
Isn't deciding-by-emotions also a choice, existentially speaking? ;=) Okay, my serious point is this: it might be true that atheism is "more rational" than theism, but I'm not sure rationality is all it's cracked up to be. I don't believe that the moral impulse, for example, is backed by rationality. Beauty and art don't seem to be rational either. They're all still valuable.
Anyway, I, too, agree with Daniel's post. I agree that religion doesn't make monsters out of mice (if you get what I mean), and I used to believe that it had almost no effect on actual human behavior. But experience has forced me to reconsider that.
I have a female Christian friend who's told me that she's been in love with another girl (who's a lesbian, and feels the same way). She's never really acted on those feelings, though, because of her religious commitments. Obviously, I don't agree with her stance on homosexuality, and we've talked about that, but I've also told her that I admire her commitment to her principles. And she's good friends with this person, despite their radically different beliefs about homosexuality, which I also admire.
This story brings me to something that's worth mentioning, and directly relevant to this discussion: if religion can make people worse (or, in my friend's case, less happy), then it can also make people better. I know lots of religious people, including most of my family, and I'm not sure the world would be better off if it was extinguished altogether.
I too like the topic. Just one thing, though: How come Dawkins is an idiot? (Rodier's word, not yours Daniel) I just finished reading The God Delusion and i found it very agreeable, but perhaps a little pretentious. He maybe chooses the wrong word now and then when talking about the hyper-religious, but generally his points are bang-on, in my opinion. Oh, wait, there is the chapter that discusses the origins of morality in evolutionary terms and i recall cringing here and there.
anyways i'm pro-Dawkins right now, but that is open to change.
The point that struck me, Daniel, was the one regarding religion as a 'mask' or (perhaps?) a convienient label-maker when it comes to war. It reminds me of an analysis of the Rwandan genocide from an environmental viewpopint that Jared Diamond gives in his book 'Collapse'. Yes, artificial Hutu and Tutsi designations and historical/political grievances were a spark, but Diamond argues that the uderlying environmental crisis in Rwanda was the fuel.
I don't think Dawkins is dumb. I've read his book Selfish Gene, and a few of his shorter articles. My conclusion is that he's increadibly knowledgeable and is, as a bonus, a very good writer - and not just for a scientist.
Religion is used as a mask in two ways: consciously and inadvertently. Sometimes leaders use it to convince their people into battles they would otherwise refrain from. In this case, the leaders may actually be atheists or at least believe religion is irrelevant here. Other times, religion is inadvertently employed. It seems like a case of exaggeration. "We eat corn and you eat barley! Well, GOD eats corn!"
While I'm not sure that religion is the cause of human conflict, it does often seem to be complicit. Whether that is the fault of humans or religion itself is another question. One of the major problems I see with religious ideologies is that they tend to be dogmatic, and wrapped up in emotion and strong social approbation. True or false, shared ideologies are strengthened greatly by numbers of adherents.
Perhaps of great concern is that the often non-critically held nature of religious sentiments tends to make it rather difficult to reason with those with strong religious convictions. However, emotional appeals combined with large populations of like-minded adherents can be very successful at moving the otherwise benign religious mindset into political action and war.
This is where I think great danger lies - and how a great number of skilled politicians like Karl Rove (an atheist!) manipulate the religious sensibilities of the masses by using not reason, but fallacious appeals to emotion. Throw a couple of contentious "religious" issues like homosexuality, creationism, and abortion on the political platform, and you've got the American electorate signing the neo-fascist, hegemonic, manifesto for the New American Century....
Post a Comment