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.