Arguments for Religion, By Josh Travis

Without religion, civilization could not exist. Without civilization, freedom itself would be in peril. Or so I'll play the devil's (or god's) advocate and argue for the subject of this blog.

You see, the debate between atheists and believers about the existence of God is not the same as a debate about the importance or necessity of religion. Whereas I can more quickly ridicule a baseless belief in some sort of omniscient, omnipotent, Super Being (Zeus, Baal, Jehovah, God of the Fiery Volcano, the Spaghetti Monster, etc...), I can't as easily demonize religious institutions and religious practices because I don't have the scope of knowledge to determine whether their overall affect has been negative or positive for human progress.

This could come as a shock to friends who know me. The general line of thinking that we've all shared is that religion is not just a joke, but a primary source of "evil". See the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, and so on; as well as Religion as Justification, such as justification for owning slaves, hating "fags", treating women like property, guilt abuse for having hormones, flying jumbo jets into skyskrapers, genital mutilation, cognitive quarantine, etc, etc. So yeah, I haven't expressed much sympathy or understanding for religion for the last half of my life. And I like to think that it could be understood why I haven't done this, though I admit I can sometimes be naive.

I've sworn never to stop considering all sides of an issue, especially the issues I feel the most passionately about. I try to play devil's advocate whenever I can, for practice. In law classes we were encouraged to think this way. There's a term for a weak counter argument that's constructed and easily dismantled for the sole purpose of making your main argument look better. Its called a "strawman". My law professor warned us against using such a low, obvious tactic. To do so would demonstrate an unwillingness to fully understand and appreciate whatever is legitimate and logical in your oppossition's argument. You'd come across as insensitive and underhanded. And you'd probably loose the case. How can you possibly expect to convince others that one belief is right and other is wrong if you yourself don't recognize the strongest foundations and reasons for the opposing belief?

So let's argue that religion has been amazingly constructive and good for all of humankind. The most direct, uncontroverial good is the aid religious organizations provide for the sick, poor, outcast, and troubled people of the world. I imagine the nuns, preists, and the common church members providing help for innumerable needy people. It would be impossible to quantify all the good that's been done for the world by religious believers over the ages. And whose to say what the world would be like today if that love, good will, and those services had never been gifted to humanity?

Peace and harmony are fragile states. Human's have a capacity for love and caring, but it has been demonstrated many times that we are corruptible, that we are capable of not loving and not caring. In fact, there have been periods in history during which nations have found no value in human life and human suffering, especially the life and suffering of "others". There are countless examples of horrible crimes committed against other nations and other people that instill us with a real fear, a genuine concern, for the moral foundations and continuing good will of the human race.

Religion acts as a receiver, transmitter, and amplifier of good will. A church, synagogue, or mosque is a place for friends, families, and neighbors to strengthen communal bonds. Any peaceful, ammicable gathering of people instills in an attendee a sense of security that comes from knowing your neighbor and belonging to a group. Religion has civilized the world by removing a natural and irrational fear of outsiders. And it seems to me that one of the keys to good mental health is having a semi-active social life. It rids dispels fear and anxiety, offers an outlet for both negative and positive emotions, and helps solidify our own sense of self, our own identity.

So when we think of what it means to be a happy healthy member of society, we can see how religious organizations might help foster those traits. And we can understand that for good will to spread quickly and efficiently throughout a society, people must gather and interact. And finally, when we try to think of what life must have been like before televisions, telephones, telegraphs, or printing presses, we can also understand how religious gatherings were an even more effective civilizing force.

To say that things have changed in the last few hundred years would be the most obvious statement. Modern technology, industrialization, governmental reforms, and population growth have transformed social dynamics. As is often mentioned, we (individuals, family, community, and strangers) are both closer together and farther apart than ever before. With cell phones and the Net, this paradox will only strengthen. No one really knows what this means for religion. As society becomes more and more tied together through technology (atleast superficially so), will more scrutiny be placed on the founding claims of religion? Without an emotional need compelling members to attend church services, religion will have to defend its continued existence in purely logical terms, arguing for the "truth" that serves as the basis for its authority and influence in society. And a church without its members, without its social bonds, is a naked church, completely vulnerable to reason and unlikely to survive reason's assault.

Its an interesting thought, though a little off topic.

I had a few ideas I wanted to share on the natural selection of relgious belief and how it has led to civilization as we know it, but I think the topic will require more time and thought than I have to devote to it right now. Until next time, bye.