Unpacking Religion

My last blog post "Danger" is a bit of an embarrassment.  The whole thing is disjointed, and my main points and prefaces are muddled.  So, no, I didn't post a link on Facebook to encourage my friends and family to read it.  But please be my guest and read it if you have a chance.  I feel strongly that what I was trying to convey is very important, and perhaps the post did a better job of expressing itself than I thought it did.  I won't delete it just in case the lingo works for someone.

In the last few days I've done a little more thinking about how I can present my argument more coherently, and I certainly believe the subject matter is worthy of delving into further.  Without further ado...

If we hope to be as fair and effectual in our targeting of evil (for lack of a better word), we need to "unpack" phenomena like religion and examine what they consist of.

Imagine a piece of luggage labeled "Religion".  We open it and pull out various items.  We find things labeled "Faith", "Scripture and Doctrine", "Divine Leaders & Symbols", "Prayer", "Prophecy or Signs", "Charity", "Values", "Worship", "Institutions", "Community", etc.

Someone else might find other things when they unpack religion.  Religion may mean different things to different people.  For some authority-and clarity-on the matter, let's refer to Merriam-Webster's definition:

The belief in a god or in a group of gods

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or gods

: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

Apparently, religion can be just about anything, but I think most of us would agree that it involves a belief (or at least very strong hope) that God exists.  The reason we can expect to find much much more in religion's suitcase is the simple fact that religion as it exists on this planet takes specific forms, most of which share many important attributes like the ones I listed above.

We haven't uncovered everything hidden away in the suitcase.  If we keep unpacking, we find more than definitive features of religion; we also find human tendencies or inclinations...  Things like:

• Being loyal to a group because it makes you feel proud or less fearful, or because you are labeled a member of the group by society (Jewish, Texan, Black, etc)
• Believing something is true because it feels good to believe it
• Believing something is true because it just seems "right"
• Going along with something because it allows you to be one of the group
• Believing something is true because someone or some book claims that it is, despite the lack of adequate scientific support
• Believing that someone is divinely chosen to lead; believing that he/she is infallible and must be obeyed...
• Believing that one's sole purpose is to serve the will of a divine leader or god

What's significant is that most of these human tendencies are not exclusive to religious affiliation.  Atheists could engage in the same kind of potentially dangerous behavior.  Indeed, history is bursting with examples of people making the same kinds of mistakes: believing things on faith; viewing individuals as divine or next to divine and doing their bidding; believing that what makes them feel good is true; giving up their individual freedom for purposes set by others; participating in conflicts not because of reason, but due to simple ethnic, national, or familial loyalties; and so on...

So it is not religion in general that should be the target of our ire; but specific beliefs, concepts, doctrines, states of mind, tendencies, etc that are presently or potentially dangerous.  Religion has redeeming content, but that material is not inseparable from the less redeeming (and in many ways terrible/dangerous) content.  Let's excise what is bad and uphold what is good.  It just so happens that if we remove the bad from the suitcase of religion, it can no longer be defined as religion.  We are then left with humanism.  Religions greatest crime is that it acts as a container that protects unwise and dangerous beliefs/inclinations against criticism and discussion.  We can justifiably condemn religion for this reason alone, but I argue that we may reap greater rewards and speak more fairly when we bring a laser focus to the specific evils in our suitcases.

Clearly not all religions are equally dangerous.  It is perfectly fair to examine different sects of the three major religions and compare their various doctrine and practices and come to the conclusion that some pose a greater threat to humanity than others.  We can have that conversation and we should.

We should also broaden our discussions to include human behavior in total.  National, political, ethnic, and cultural events are shaped in part by false beliefs and unwise tendencies like the ones listed above.  Of course, there are many many more false beliefs and unwise tendencies worth uncovering and discussing.  In my last blog, I listed a few.

When we unpack religion, we discover "evils" that go unrecognized as such by adherents.  Evils like the glorifying of belief in something when evidence supporting its existent is absent (faith).  We're also likely to find the evil of believing someone has divine authority/wisdom.  I don't have the time to explain now why these two tendencies/beliefs are worthy of abject condemnation; but if you haven't read The End of Faith, by Sam Harris, rest assured the author destroys any remaining notion that faith is acceptable.

Its commonly thought among nonbelievers that believers are gullible.  I'd argue that gullibility is a trait of humans in general.  Nonbelievers may not recognize that the ideas they hold dear may be "evil" as well.  For example, unmanaged giving may do more harm than good in the long run.  If large charities overrun local economies and remove any incentive for individuals to make personal investments to secure a viable livelihood, significant long-term damage can be done to the region.

Furthermore, nonbelievers are not immune to bouts of unreasonable faith and hero worship.  We are certainly not above in-group loyalty; and all the divisive, erosive effects of such identity.

My goal here is to get the conversation started by declaring that "evil" does exist, and that it consists of false beliefs and natural behavioral tendencies that go largely unrecognized as presently or potentially dangerous.  It is time we start laying these false beliefs and unwise tendencies out, to recognize them for what they are, and to begin banishing them to history so that humanity will no longer have to fear self destruction.

Danger

I'm fascinated by the subject of religion and concerned about the phenomenon in general not because I was abused by a bishop as a young child-I wasn't.  I'm not angry about having to pay tithing or being forced to fast for half a day, once a month (a piece of white bread never tasted so good as on Fast and Testimony Sunday).  And its not because I'm a trouble maker and rabble rouser by nature.  On the contrary, I was a "pleasure to have in class" for my teachers, and a content, helpful companion for my mom as she went about her daily errands.  Going to church early Sundays sometimes meant being dragged out of bed, but it was my brother who simply refused to go. In my mind, I was goody goody Able and Seth was disobedient Cain (if he ever wanted to kill me for my self-righteous attitude, I never knew.  We got along just fine).  So no, I'm not preoccupied with religion because I naturally oppose "goodness" or "doing what's right".  The opposite is true-I have always felt a strong allegiance to "the good", to use philosophical jargon.  That's why I was such a well-behaved Mormon at a young age; and that's why I'm so adamantly against religion now.  What, then, does religion represent?

What does a super-hero look out for?  DANGER!  You can blame the action flicks of the 80s for this particular trait of mine if you'd like; but whatever the reason, I'm programmed to perk up at any sign of potential trouble.  Call it my Spidey Sense.  Jennifer is familiar with how this manifests itself during our road rides together.  Intersections, off-ramps, on-ramps, big trucks, pot-holes, goatheads-the streets are teaming with DANGER that must be avoided or combatted (usually avoided).

My (eh hem) Spidey Sense extends out beyond city streets and county borders.  If a threat is particularly large and menacing, I can pick up its signals from across continents and even time.  Terrorism is an example of one such threat.  Its not my job to prevent the next 9/11, but I can't help but feel concerned.  And this concern translates to some degree of interest in the subject; and yes, an ever present will to act if and when action is needed.

No, religion is not terrorism.  Terrorism is not genocide.  Genocide is not war.  Global warming is a different phenomenon all together.  An angry bee, a pot hole in the road, a tailgating SUV, a crack in the sidewalk.  Non of this can be fairly equated.  But they all harbor a threat in some form and to some degree.  Therefore, the extent to which each should be removed, fixed, or reformed will vary greatly.

This particular blog post is not meant to be about religion as a whole.  My purpose here is to be more specific; to break apart religion, terrorism, racism, war, etc, and discover the specific human tendencies or social phenomena that are truly to blame for the evil and suffering of this world.

We can blame Islam for the deaths of innocent people caught in a suicide attack.  Or we can blame Al Qaeda.  Perhaps the blame should be placed on the individual bomber?  And shouldn't we blame society for failing the bomber?  What kind of education or government assistance did he/she receive to rescue him/her from a desperate life?   Foreign governments may deserve the blame for their oppressive/invasive policies.

The problem is, everyone we can blame is acting either naturally, or in accordance to what they think is right.  If you or I born and raised in the impoverished, war-torn, and isolated regions of northern Pakistan and Afghanistan, we'd likely view The West as a threat to our religious tradition and freedom. Our immediate family and friends would likely have connections to the Taliban, and our allegiance to the home team might lead us to join the fight against foreign intruders.

When we try to empathize or understand why people do things that we consider bad, we realize that things are not as black and white as they seem.  This doesn't mean we cannot draw a line and say that murder, oppression, needless suffering, etc aren't genuinely bad.  It just means that maybe we're looking at things the wrong way.

So, who is most responsible when a suicide bomber detonates himself in a crowd of innocent shoppers?  Pinning the blame on the individual bomber is a useless exercise, and it's not just because the perpetrator is dead.  Our concern should be with WHAT is most responsible.  Suicide bombings are more than single, unique incidents.  They are apart of a larger phenomenon.  That phenomenon cannot fairly be called "humanity".  This would be far too nebulous.  It can more fairly be called religion; but still, this is not fair enough.

One cannot simply dismiss religion as harmful when there are significant components of most major religions that are responsible for immense good.  Feeding the starving, educating children, building peace, inspiring goodwill:  These are good effects that often originate out of religion.

Furthermore, so much of what's gone wrong in this world cannot be blamed on religion as a whole, nor does much of the blame lie at the feet of specific religions and specific religious teachings.  Evil does not depend upon faith, scripture, religious personal identification, obedience to God's word, etc-all necessary attributes of anything considered a religion-to prey on innocent victims.  In a world where religion never existed; murder, theft, abuse, injustice, chaos, poverty, etc would still exist.

But faith, scripture, religious personal identification, obedience to God's word, etc can be explicitly dangerous (as when his word promises paradise to martyrs); and when they are not presently so, their mere existence allows more specific dangers to survive, to incubate, until a later date they do harm.  Sam Harris's The End of Faith presents a compelling case to support the charge against religion as a whole.

Religion is not off the hook, but it is wise for us to momentarily release it of responsibility and search for the underlying dangerous phenomena/tendencies that inhabit religion and other manifestations of humanity.  We don't have to talk about individuals, specific religions, or any other kind of entity that could take personal offense.  Good is so often packaged with bad.  It should be our mission to identify the dangerous components of life-of entities and of tendencies-and abolish them.  Whatever is left standing will be better for it.

Danger!:

• The sense that your problems exist because no one is helping you.
• The sense that all of your problems are caused by others.
• The belief that your harmful actions are justified because of a perceived injustice/threat to you.  
• The complete abandonment of "doing what's right" in favor of doing what makes you money (doing what is right is doing things that ensure peace, harmony, stability, and fairness in one's society.  Corruption.
• Too much charity and help without an ultimate plan of growing self-empowerment and self-reliance.
• Laziness and inefficiency.
• Unthinking loyalty to a group based on pride/comfort and not reason.  Nationalism, Religious Identity, Racism, Sports Team Worship, and other arbitrary ways of dividing people. 
• Abuse of others for being different or outside your group.
• The belief that something is true because it makes you feel good.
• The belief that something is true because it feels "right".
• The belief that something is true because someone or some book claims it is, despite inadequate evidence to support the claim
• The belief that someone is "called of God"-that someone is divinely elected to lead, infallible, and must be obeyed.
• The belief that one's only purpose is to serve the will of a divine leader or god.
• The belief that you do not have the right or power to make decisions in your own life.  
• The belief that you deserve better than others.
• Hurting others.
• Eroding or destroying a healthy environment, including the living things in it. 
• The feeling that an intellectual disagreement or challenge to something you believe is an actual threat or grave offense.
• Ignorance or lack of education.
• Viewing mistakes by others as purposeful slights/attacks against you.
• more to come...

Authority

This one shouldn't take long.  Let me just get right down to it.  Authority should arise directly from reason.  One man or woman's preference should not trump that of his/her's coworkers, comrades, family members, teammates, etc UNLESS his/her preference is genuinely better for all involved.  Whenever deliberation doesn't thwart or threaten an endeavor, all present stakeholders should be treated as equals-their preferences/ideas should be given equal consideration.  This egalitarian principle benefits society by simply allowing more good ideas to flourish.

We tend to think that the titles "President", "manager", or even "father" denote raw authority in the old-fashioned sense of a general having authority over his army or slave owners having possession over their slaves.  While there is undoubtedly situations where it is of the utmost importance that underlings react immediately and unquestionably to a command ("I say 'jump', you say 'how high'"), I believe that that kind of authority is not called for in most endeavors.

We no longer live in the dark ages.  We may not all be equals in terms of education, intelligence, or ability, but several generations of public education along with widespread literacy and social connectivity should have dispelled any lingering notion that "commoners" are dimwitted ignoramuses.  What I'm trying to say is that in the modern era, there is even less reason to consider oneself "above" any other.

In the last few centuries, great strides have been made in the name of equality.  Blacks and women were given the right to vote.  The traditional role of women in society has disintegrated-now, a young girl freely considers all (minus becoming a professional football player) the options available to men when she sets her own future course.  An untold number of every-day heros have fought for equal, dignified treatment of the poor and those with special needs.  Equality has won battles in government and made strides in society, but I see opportunities for further advancement in the way we think of authority.

The president of the United States is no "better" than the vice president, a congressman from Alaska, a city councilman, or a kindergarten teacher.  These people are all equal in terms of constitutional rights; and, I argue, deserve equal respect (until we are given reason to question their integrity).  Each have their own job to do.  Hopefully the training and selection process for each position ensures that well-qualified individuals are hired.  The President's job includes being a figurehead and representative of our country.    He's/she's a head diplomat, chief executive, leader of his party, figurehead and mouthpiece, and manager.  Its a big job, but its still just a job.  He/she may be supremely intelligent and charismatic (or, then again, he may not), but he/she is no better than the rest of us.  (Its always refreshing when politicians say that they are working for us, though the that is not precisely true. We are all working for one another.)

We must resist the urge to view society as a complex structure of hierarchical arrangements.  That is the way of the past.  Kings and queens, lords, pharos, priests, prophets, masters-we have a lingering inferiority complex a few thousand years old that came from perpetually bowing down to these people.  Now, in ever day life, there's still an inclination to see ourselves positioned somewhere on a totem pole; with people in authority "over" us, and people whom we have authority over under us.  Hierarchical structures are sometimes explicit and purposefully built and enforced (in which case I question their need or wisdom), and other times they are just felt (in which case I recommend we all strive to treat each other with equal respect and try to shake off the old way of thinking).

What IS authority, if everyone is equal?  The world "authority" might as well be discarded.  The concept still has a place if we think of it as being inseparable from reason.  There is either a very good reason for someone to be in a position of old-fashioned authority, like an officer in the military, or else the most reasonable idea is the idea that has "authority".