Help
Sign In
agnostic
October 2009 
The Nature of Religion: Critique of the Theist - Atheist Debate
Earon
I know that it is "all the rage" to debate atheism vs. theism vs. agnosticism, but I believe that the nature of the debate does not address the real issues being faced by people. Attacking faith as illogical seems rather pointless to me. Faith (whether religious-based or not) is something that everyone needs and that can lead in tremendously positive directions. The more useful question is faith in what? If one is theistic, does one believe in a mean, angry god or a peaceful, loving god?
Does one believe in a God that forgives sins and loves all beings or a god that punishes them ruthlessly to the ends of the earth or condemns them to spend eternity in unspeakable pain and anguish? Even Mother Theresa had very serious doubts about God throughout her life, so belief certainly does not exclude doubt - and doubt makes us wiser, more compassionate, and thus probably closer to God (at least the loving one).
Like religion, belonging to a college fraternity or sorority also requires a leap of faith. Getting married requires a leap of faith, as does choosing to have a child, choosing a career, joining a fraternal order, relocating to another city, buying a house or car, etc. Sometimes, getting on a highway or walking on a dark street requires a leap of faith. Yet, we do not seem as troubled by the rationality of the beliefs which go into those decisions, focusing instead on the practical consequences of a particular decision.
Fraternities and sororities are organizations where people join a group to have a sense of belonging to a community and have fun and a greater ability to mix socially - and potentially develop career opportunities and connections. It is easier to make this leap of faith if one has family members who have had this experience or if one is on a campus where there is a high level of participation and where the "Greek system" has a strong reputation.
In order to belong to a fraternity of sorority, pledges of obedience and loyalty are often made, and even recitations of beliefs. However, most people don't take these beliefs literally outside of the group. They know that they have joined a club/organization and beliefs have little to do with it, although they generally accept and recite these beliefs pro forma. With the sorority or fraternity, there is no problem honoring the "separation of Church and State." There is little pressure to inflict these beliefs on outsiders, nor to pursue hidden agendas in the larger world (conspiracy theories about the skull and bones notwithstanding) : >)
Religions are also easier to join, and more difficult to resist, when the community has a high degree of participation/membership. People are often drawn in by family traditions, and camaraderie and community cohesion rather than the need to "believe" in a particular way. Often, people are drawn in by crisis.
If we view Theism as a side-effect of religion (belief following belonging), rather than the main issue, we may be better able to understand the power of belonging and how it becomes dangerous when we surrender our own ethical judgment and common sense. Zealotry is a corruption of faith, rather than a higher order of faith, because one's entire grasp of reality becomes dependent upon one particular delusion, as being the one and only truth.
I have heard numerous accounts of people staying with, or tolerating, theistic belief systems because of peer pressure or because they become so attached to the peer group that they naturally go along with its belief system. Likewise, many adhere to theistic beliefs because they fear that life would seem meaningless if there were no God. It is possible that these beliefs may be more functional in people with particular neuropsychological characteristics or life experiences.
In the debate over atheism vs. theism, the focus has been on whether it is rational to believe that God exists. Yet, this is not the chief outcome. Far more practically, people decide whether it is rational to suspend one's disbelief in order to have a more full social life and be more popular in the community. In such a situation, it would appear to be quite rational to transform one's beliefs, as with the fraternity. In the extreme, during an inquisition, is it more logical for an atheist to admit to atheism and die -- or to accept conversion and live? This is not about the rationality of belief, but about power and domination - and the instinct to survive.
In a community where everyone has the same religion, one might have to choose to accept a solitary, unpopular life as the price for being atheist. In a community where there are myriad beliefs, a robust secular social scene, and no social costs for being atheist, there are likely to be more atheists and agnostics.
My conclusion is that the problem with religion is not theistic belief, but rather attempts to spread those beliefs to others or manipulate the beliefs of insiders, fanning the flames of intolerance and domination. While the rationality of belief in God is being debated, the real ethical and rational problems of proselytizing and fundamentalism go unaddressed. When the light is shown on the extremism, judgement, arrogance and proselytizing of fundamentalist religions, their attempts to control civil society, and institutionalized tolerance of sexually abusing children, these do not fare well, because these have no social utility, and no place in a diverse world. When the debate shines light upon upon the utter irrationality of faith, it shines on Mother Theresa and countless acts of courage, self-sacrifice and grace.
As such, it is the fundamentalist position which benefits from the current debate on faith because most people will find it supremely rational to have a rich social life and feel like an important part of a community. By focusing on a philosophical critique of faith, atheists draw attention to the refreshing, attractive aspects of religion, such as the wish to transcend adversity and fear, coupled with the desire to be popular. They thus take the focus away from the arrogant, dysfunctional fundamentalist aspects of religion and let them hide behind the faith, love and belonging which are important parts of being human.
Perhaps more importantly, attacking the rationality of theism does an immense disservice to theists who are behaving ethically and serving as role models for us all. Progressive congregations abound, many of which are essentially deist, ascribing no omnipotent divinity to that which they worship. Others are multifaith or interspiritual, serving as important links of communication and compassion in our diverse world. When we elevate respect and love for all beings as primary beliefs, and the separation of religion from civil government, surely there must be some logic in embodying those values in a symbolic divine consciousness.
Access: Public
There is much to respond to here–too much.
I'm convinced J. Krishnamurti was right when he propounded in 1929 that “truth is a pathless land.” We cannot come to God by way of another's faith, some book, some creed, some societal norm, some taboo, some other-directed morality. It's all shared spit, nothing more.
Mind games satisfy most of humanity. You've alluded to this somewhat in your piece. The social setting–the fraternity–is the reason for the belief, or stated belief, or beliefs … these are games. Games intended to advance a purpose, gain cash, gain friends, gain status. Games … all with God in the title, but with nothing of God in the playing.
I would recommend highly Ray Billington's Religion Without God as a great start toward the notion of, as he puts it, “religion in the profane,” as a regular way of living, of being. (“Profane” meaning “everyday.”) There are many others.
I wrote an essay eight years ago, “October Communion.” In it I made a statement, quite out of left field, as I recall, which stated:
God is, or God isn't. And the difference may be less than five feet.
I stand by that statement today. Also by the sense of bafflement it has overwhelmed me with.
Excellent post, as usual, my friend.
Shawn
Shawn, your reasoning is impeccable, and the task is ineffable. Quite a combination.
I resonate with the thought that God isn't the issue. But we humans are a quirky lot and we love to obsess about questions that are unanswerable. We stare at sunsets, minute after minute, as if something is going to happen, and we might just have a profound experience. It is a contemplative practice, in a way, focusing so directly on a question that we experience all manner of thoughts and visions. Not so different from the 8 year old who is fond of spinning in circles and getting dizzy. Like the young seminarians or philosophers spending hour after hour chasing their tails, shaking their heads in puzzlement, gasping in amazement, or almost wanting to beat their chests when they experience a profound realization.
When we look at our lives, we see that all manner of needs and fears and desires come to play when we think or talk about God. So, what I propose is that we keep our human nature in mind when we address God, aware that humans know little, but rationalize much. (We believe we are religious while we violate the cornerstone of all religion, the golden rule. We believe we are a technologically advanced civilization even if we can't program a VCR, change a spare tire, or replace the mother board in our computer.)
I think that we see things as a “game” when we feel we are being manipulated or are vulnerable in some way. We see them as an “adventure” when we feel that we're on an even playing table and there is something to gain. And we see them as rituals when they unfold the same way, time after time, whether we particularly like them or not. Rituals can be exciting, boring and inspiring all at the same time.
The topic is dense, indeed, but I love the density of Krishnamurti. If we are social creatures, then games are always going to be part of us. Mating behavior is a game, a dance, a ritual. The parameters and styles may change and evolve, but a ritual it remains. Plumage is displayed, body language ensues, we approach, glances are exchanged, questions are asked, mood is assessed, the chemistry bonds us or not, temporarily or not, intensely or not.
Likewise, I see religion as a ritual of belief, rather than belief, itself. It is an exercise in team-building without the “high ropes course.” We feel the power of the group and it scares us, stimulates us, attracts us and repels us. We know what is possible, the belonging, the manipulation, the popularity and the ostracism. Reigion is a ritual of belonging, of having somewhere we can turn for support on basic life issues such as birth, commitment and death. Ethical humanist organizations perform the same functions, so it is not about supernatural beliefs as much as it is about having a supportive community.
I am in full agreement with your quote by J. Krishnamurti about there being no path to truth. I wonder, though, how many people are aware of their own journey to truth, daring to leave their peer group to seek their soul's fortune. For them, religion may be a gilded cage, or a wondrous sanctuary. Given my view of human nature as being more social than intellectual, the status of belonging to “something” is immensely powerful for us. Whether it is a religious/spiritual congregation, meditation or Tai Chi classes, a neithborhood bar (as in “Cheers”) where everybody knows your name, a group of sports fans at a game or in front of the TV, a political group, a neighborhood watch, professional associations or the PTA, we need to belong. But, at times, we need NOT to belong, to have our privacy and to learn or re-learn who we are apart from our groups. It is part of being human, to overcommit, to over-invest in a group identity, and to then withdraw or change that identity.
All groups have potential downsides. Any group can get off track and become incestuous, elitist, paranoid, violent or self-destructive. There is nothing special about religion in this way, except that religions have a long, long history of dividing communities and peoples, creating wars, supporting colonialism and inciting violence. What has changed, as our world has become more diverse and global, is that religious groups that once didn't interact much are now forced to operate in the same areas. So the ground rules must change.
Almost all religions honor the “golden rule” in which one is told to do to others only what we wouldn't mind having done to us. Yet, the religions which promote this concept to their members are often ignorant of how it also applies to how we treat people with different beliefs. A religion that teaches that it is the only right path to God, or the “one true way” is violating its own principles and defying the very precepts upon which it was founded.
Because of the diverse, interdependent nature of our culture, it is less and less functional for groups to tolerate or encourage hatred and views of racial, ethnic or religious superiority. Proseltyzing is one of the most direct ways of expressing one's superiority. We need to work and live together, and we can not afford fundamentalism and judgmentalism that refuses to accept the wide range of faiths and non-faiths which abound, keeping Church and State separate.
All of our religious traditions carry this as a core value, but it is human nature to want to feel special and superior to others. Congregations can behave as herds rather than flocks, and ministers, priests, imams and rabbis can turn into instigators and crusaders in an attempt to inspire or instruct, or build their own followership and careers.
At some point, I may turn comment this into a blog entry - but I am aware that it is in need of editing.
Peace,
Earon
No problems, Earon.
I guess I don't mind the whole 'games' scenario you've mentioned; but it seems removed from the entire topic, that being religion, that being God. Perhaps, however, that's the entire point, yes? For me, the notions of religion, of God, must be, in the end, filtered away from 'games' and other such distractions. To me, God, religion, spirituality is, literally, phenomenologically isolated: our experience of the divine is unsayable, unshareable–no matter what we may think otherwise, or how great a communicator we may be. Even if we were like Spock, mind-melders, that experience would be at least one degree removed from the actual experience the original observer experienced, and hence inauthentic.
Can we experience the numinous, the divine, within a social setting? Most assuredly. But what you, Earon, experience, and what I, Shawn, experience are, in the end, different. Unique. The gross 'wave front,' as it were, manifested by the group may appear uniform and consistent, but the reality, at core, puts it to the lie.
Of course, people don't care about these things: they want social interaction, they want bells and whistles, they want tribal dances and so on. And therein lies the danger. When we codify those activities as 'religious' we set dividers. We ignore our blessed isolation. And yes, I did just write blessed isolation. It is our unique call to freedom, probably our one and only. We codify and moralize it at our own extreme peril. And look at the result: hundreds of millions dead in the twentieth century alone. Many millions more in the preceding centuries. And–surely–many millions more this century. Look at the events of yesterday in Pakistan. We are seeing only the very tip of the iceberg.
The discussion you and I should have is: What is faith? Put into a social context, does it have meaning at all? Given our fundamental, phenomenological isolation, is the generically-accepted definition of faith workable? I have my doubts.
Sorry for the mish-mash of thought here, Earon. You've got me thinking lots. I appreciate the dialogue.
Shawn
Shawn, my definition of faith is that which helps us feel that tomorrow may be better than today. Belief could comprise some part of faith, but only to the extent a person is seeking their own experience of truth, independent of what others think or believe. Faith can not be turned on or off by beliefs, but is instead the manifestation of our internal state of mind. When we feel happy and content, we'll believe in just about anything. Many people are fine with changing their religion or congregation when they are in love, for example. When we are depressed, we have difficulty beleiving anything.
We may feel greater faith after being in a religious context, or getting a paycheck, or making a new friend, or having a manuscript accepted for publication, but that is about the social or practical connection rather than any particular beliefs. In that sense, atheists may tend to have greater faith than people with religious beliefs - because the atheist faith that it is worth waking up tomorrow morning is unconditional. Atheists may have that which religionists fear losing.
I am not convinced that the evils of religion are any different or greater than the evils of political, economic, racial, nationalist or technological ideologies. We want to belong, to fit into a social order in a predictable, productive way. We get carried away with our beliefs, time and time again, and our leaders exploit us for their own benefit, time and time again. And it all works when we have a civil society based upon the value that we should refrain from doing to others that which is offensive to us. Belief is window dressing. Religion is a red herring. Responsibility for our own actions is the issue. Revenge is not allowed.
The bottom line is that religion is no more holy than anything else that people do. The care with which a priest administers communion may be a beautiful thing, but not more beautiful than the care with which a parent bathes their newborn, or a caseworker helps a client receive food stamps, or a teacher explains a new concept to a class. The generically accepted definitions in our culture are accepted because of the forces that benefit from them - and because people don't want to risk being criticized by thinking independently.
Anyone who believes that another person's attitudes towards God are important has simply bought a bill of goods. There are merchants who believe that God is good for you, just as others believe that a chocolate bar is good for you. Which brand? Catholic? Jewish? Islamic? Scientologist? Hindu? Methodist? Church of Christ? Unity? And which sub-brand? Do me a favor. There are rules that everyone must abide by in a civil society whether or not they believe in a religion. Do unto others that which you would have others do unto you.
We have property tax exemptions for Churches because they have political clout, not because their brand of “bingo” or smiles or agape or sacramental wine is any better than anyone else's. We might like to attribute the best in the human race to God, and the worst in the human race to the Devil. This is fine, to the extent that we don't use these as testimonials to prove that our particular brand of God is better than all others, and to twist peoples' arms to change their religions. Ultimately, all religions are roughly equivalent and will appeal most to those who were raised under their influence. Today, as always, the honorable aspects of all religions teach us to be good neighbors and not attempt to control what other people do. Those which teach otherwise are bent on their own destruction, because they disgrace their own teachings through their obsession with power and control.
perhaps cliched but…when religion is good…it's very very good…and when it's bad…it's very very bad
Earon, when I think of faith in what, the answer i get, is “Faith in oneself.” with the stress on ONEself and Knowing who the Self is.
And another answer I get, reminiscent of Einstein's oft-quoted exhortation to decide whether the universe is af riendly or unfriendly place, is -” Faith in the rightness of things.” When i am upset by somethink, it means I need to look beyond, above, through, around till I find the pitfall that I was prevented from falling into, by the big wall in my path; if something seems right, faith again…that one acknowledges, is mindful, thankful that one can see what's right.
As to God, I agree with those who feel that humans have different ways of defining and relating to God, depending on their own awareness and needs. I blogged about something similar once.
Sherry, Welcome!
Meenakshi, does it matter whether one literally believes that the universe is designed as a friendly place and wants everyone to succeed - or does it work if we just conduct our lives as if that were true? I think that life works better if one believes they are safe and loved - and that life is most challenging when we believe that evil abounds. I see spiritual faith in the simple belief in goodness, even in the face of disease, disaster and danger.
To me, religious attitudes posit that a literal system actually exists in which there is order, reward, punishment, etc. In a way, this appears driven by dogma rather than faith. If faith is a measure of unconditional hope and optimism, then perhaps atheists are among those with the greatest measure of faith! Their faith is unconditional, residing in control of, and responsibility for, their own destiny. And perhaps what is so powerful about being a born-again Christian is not any dogma, but rather the simple, joyous feeling that one has been saved - regardless of how or by whom. Because of this joy and faith, the person is free to manifest love and compassion without fear. If they choose to judge others in a dogmatic manner, perhaps they have missed the entire point of their salvation. Both atheists and religious “true believers” rejoice in their freedom. Atheists and true believers are both freed from judgments about their past conduct in life and assured of the eternal disposition of their souls. Life is good.
Comments anyone?
Hi…..
Where should I begin…?
First…
I think the Universe just IS. It is neither good nor bad….
We humans have a need for support… in the form of God… or what ever we believe in… it makes our life so much easier to bear… And If I believe that I have been forgiven by my GOD for all my past sins… (as in the case of your Born again Christian) then I can truely be loving to all others… Perhaps I also learn to forgive and not judge others…. Makes me a lot nicer person to be associated with and so things begin to go better for me… I do not know if this faith would withstand a series of sad accidental disasters…??? I hope none of us is ever tested.
Most of us are so used to looking at everything through the coloured glasses of our own prejudices… that perhaps our perception only sees what we hate or what we love…. thus helping us attrace those things… ( it may or maynot have been there… but we act like it is.. so others respond to us like it is… ,most of us are so influenced by the positions of others…) We often do not notice the real thing at all… Perhaps this ability to just see what is…. is Enlightenment…???
Secondly….
The Universe is a wonderful place…. Perhaps not the safest place to be…. but stilll a wonderful place to be…. and Humans are perhaps are its most wonderful creation yet….
We can make it an ever more Wonderful place if we put our mind to it…. Humans are wonderful too…. Capable of so much love and happiness… that if there is a God… he'd want to come and be one of us to just experience the wonderful range of emotions we are capable of.. LOL Perhaps he is in each one of us ..just playing a part and enjoying the game… with enormous glee… and if we realize it… we might become just as happy as can be…. its a great show.. we have nothing to loose…. play well and enjoy!!!!!
and when the show is over… go back Home….
Or we could just marvel at the wonder of such a magnificient creation… the Universe… (including us) and the sense of wonder would carry us through anything that comes our way….
Then there is no good and bad(God/Devil) …. just us…
but we can be veryy good… perhaps better than God when we LOVE….
and Worse than the Devil when we HATE… they are 2 sides of the same coin….perhps one cannot survive without the other… I do not know…
I could go… on and on.. perhaps some other time..
Thanks for your patience… :)
Sincerely,
Theone.
Hello, Theone. Your nuanced, pragmatic, altruistic view resonates with me. When we are feeling supported it is easier to “go for it.” And what we “go for” will tend to help others feel supported, also. Thanks for stopping by!
Peace,
Earon
LOL…..
No problem here…
Thanks,,, And Peace to you too…
Sincerely,
Theone.
Seems like a very open-minded blog, brother. There is always the question what started it all? If there is evolution, what started it? If you believe in cause and effect, what is the first cause?
Some people become devoted and do great works, Mother Theresa was very motivated by her belief in God, she believe we should help others as a way of serving God.
Some people get really frustrated by religion, but I believe that religion is true, but very missunderstood. Each part of the Bible was written by a particual person for those of the time, people forget that. That is why we need to be logical about what we believe in.
Daniel, thanks for your kind, understanding words. We weren't around at the beginning of time, if time is even linear, so we can't know what forces created the big bang, or where God came from, etc., etc. Creation myths or scientific theories peel back some layers of the truth, but do not reveal everything as much as it feels like they do. Our brains are constructed to get excited at partial revelations and to generalize them and their importance so that we literally revere the religious or scientific theories as revealing “the way.” Similar to the way an ape who discovers a treeful of ripe banannas is revered by the rest of the tribe, perhaps.
Mother Theresa is a great example to use. She harbored very serious doubts about God throughout her life. I submit that what she believed in was human beings and our deep tendency to care for each other. She expended her efforts helping people - not promoting the Church - and used the archetypical religious role to accomplish great deeds. What an amazing human being, whether one views her as a saint or a humanist.
And I also agree with you about the Bible being interpreted in light of the times in which the various authors lived. It would have been most difficult to scare people into giving up their existing gods and religions without portraying God as a jealous God willing to wipe out anyone who got in their way. Animal sacrifice was so popular that any religion of the time would have failed if they didn't include it. And, Christianity needed to borrow heavily from Goddess worship (and pagan holidays such as Easter and Winter Solstice) to “sell” itself to the people of the time.
I appreciate the flexibility in your thinking, Daniel. I like the path of blending mysticism with pragmatism rather than focusing on dogma and literalism. Ultimately, I believe that we are all here, now, and it is our task to balance our lives and our cultures so that we may all live in peace, ecological balance, and modest, sustainable prosperity.
Peace,
Earon