A Poisonous Dish
Religion is not the problem, people say. Criminals and tyrants, division and war, ignorance and conformity, oppression and depression-these would all still plague society in the absence of religion (a fact, it seems, that would be news to some atheists).
And besides, they say, you cannot talk about religion as though every group centered around belief in god is the same, or is equally guilty of the charges atheists put forth. Generalizing about religion treats groups and individuals unfairly by failing to appreciate the multifarious nature of reality.
And besides, they say, you cannot talk about religion as though every group centered around belief in god is the same, or is equally guilty of the charges atheists put forth. Generalizing about religion treats groups and individuals unfairly by failing to appreciate the multifarious nature of reality.
And lastly, the defenders of religion will point out that people can be happy, intelligent, open minded, peaceful, and genuinely good...and still believe in God and belong to a religion (again, news to some). Just look around and you'll find that this is, by and large, the case. How, if religious people are typically good, can a person speak of religion in general as one of the world's great evils?
These are fine, legitimate arguments whose premises I mostly agree with. They have in many instances successfully put the brakes on some of my anti-religion trains of thoughts. Just recently, my mother (who is a devout Mormon and raised me as one) chided me for generalizing about religion. As I fully expect, a sweeping condemnation of religion is difficult to understand, let alone accept. And as someone who claims to value and deal in truth, I have an obligation to make my arguments crystal clear, and to continuously challenge them. For these reasons, sincere believers (including my mom) deserve a serious, honest, and well considered reply.
In Reconstruction of Disbelief I have accused religion of a long list of crimes. And no, I don't think any religion is blameless. My charges are placed against religion in general, not any individual or particular creed.
I'll begin to defend my position with something like a concession: its not strictly religion which is so oppressive and dangerous. I should state instead that it's institutions which make truth claims about the the universe and our purpose in it-truth claims which are considered above debate because they originate from an unseen supreme authority-an authority which demands obedience and worship from all people-an authority which is represented by "holy" text and "chosen" individuals who help guide and organize the lives of members so that they may accomplish the will of the unseen authority. These kinds of organizations are much more likely to be the cause of social division, unrest, mindless conformity, etc, than other types of organizations. It is these unique groups which are guilty of countless crimes against humanity.
Are there any institutions so divisive, arrogant, and power hungry yet not religious? ("Divisive", because they label and separate believers from nonbelievers despite what could be near identical cultural similarities between them. "Arrogant" due to their outlandish, unsupported claims about the nature of existence; because they pretend to possess the solutions to our most pressing temporal and spiritual problems; and because they typically place individuals without any real professional qualification in higher positions of authority and wisdom over ourselves. "Power hungry", because they hope to add to their numbers. They strive to grow, prevent members from leaving, collect funds, and influence the broader communities/nations that they reside in. If they don't seek to recruit new members and grow stronger, they at least claim to possess the Way for everyone.)
So are there non-religious organizations like this?
Political parties may come close, and by natural extension, so might nation states. Certainly cults do, but from my perspective they are distinguishable from popular religions only in number. And then we have ideology in general, which we may examine as part and parcel of political parties and states.
Before we take a close look at our candidates for non-religious-yet-nearly-identical-to-religion groups, let's address the issue of our chosen sociopolitical preferences or ideological dispositions. Are you, for example, a social conservative, fiscal conservative, religious conservative, or libertarian? Perhaps you fancy yourself a humanist, secularist, or liberal? Even if you happen to find that one of these labels seems to match your ideological leanings; even if you willingly describe yourself as, say, a liberal; you are under absolutely no obligation to answer one way or another on specific social or personal questions. Usually, within each kind of sociopolitical preference label, there is no authority or authoritative source to which to turn to for the "correct" answer. A social conservative may or may not support dress codes in schools. A libertarian may or may not endorse the selling of crack cocaine in candy stores. A religious conservative may or may not believe in banning contraception. And a fiscal conservative may or may not support a tax payer subsidized bullet train. All are free to think for themselves and act according to their conscience. Certainly we are never completely free from the influences of people we interact with or the information we consume, yet absent a clear authority and doctrine, we remain as free to make our own decisions as we can ever hope to be. The important point is that these sociopolitical preferences and ideological dispositions lack teeth-they do not attempt to hold us to a specific set of claims or principals nor do they ask for our loyalty. And standing alone as mere preferences, they lack the backbone of social organization and institutionalized processes.
In contrast, we can speak of political parties and nation states as genuine threats because authority and doctrine are now active ingredients. Members of a political party are obliged to follow the party line, to place the judgement and decisions of party leaders above their own, and actively support the party's cause. The ideology and agenda of the party trumps deliberate, thorough, rational consideration; and resists the influx of corrosive information and new understanding. Like a religion, a political party organization acts as a vessel which protects its rigid ideas from the battering waves of individual and cultural challenges, and it strives to do so from generation to generation. Both religion and political parties are much more dangerous and persistent than mere ideological dispositions thanks to the fact that explicit doctrines lie at their core; doctrines that stand as ultimate authorities, doctrines that the institution is designed to protect and nurture in the face of any challenge. For the sake of comparison, one might say that the more rigid an institution's doctrine, the more authoritative it is, the less supported it is by reason and science, the more it demands obedience to its dictates, and the more it strives to assimilate non-members, the more dangerous it is.
I like the way this analysis is progressing. Religion and similar phenomena are being sorted out in order to discover their component parts, just like deconstructing a dish to discover its recipe. We're finding that the "spicier" (more dangerous) dishes contain key ingredients-or else they've got just the right combination of things. The analogy gives us a way to think about social phenomena in general-these could be dishes of any sort-while allowing us to talk about different kinds of dishes based on their shared ingredients (like chowders, chili, soup, salad, etc/gangs, religion, parties, nations, schools, etc). And finally, we can see how, within each type there are different specific recipes with varying amounts of key ingredients (salt, pepper, butter, sugar, basil, etc/authority, openness, education, political involvement, etc). This analogy shouldn't be necessary to illustrate how generalization can legitimately coexist with discernment, or how both approaches are useful when judging individual recipes or groups. But I think it helps.
Distinctions are important. Some political parties are far more rigid, authoritarian, and dangerous than others. Some religions do a great job of compelling their members to live responsibly and do good, while others are markedly better at stoking submission and hostility from their subjects. We could even say that in rare cases some religions are more like gangs or political parties than they are like other religions.
But with all of this granted, there is still nothing contradictory in the recognition of religion's myriad manifestations and the claim that all religions necessarily possess the same key ingredients-ingredients that harm and threaten humanity. Nor is it illogical to make this argument and still grant that other non-religious organizations share some of the same ingredients as religion. Finally, one can legitimately argue that what makes religion special also makes it far more dangerous.
Well then, what are religion's poisonous ingredients? To find out, we need to pin down a definition.
Google defines religion as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." Also, "a particular system of faith and worship" and "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance."
Marriom-Webster online states that religion is "the belief in a god or a group of gods" or "an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or group of gods."
The phrase "a superhuman controlling power" is excellent fodder for satire. What does this mean? Is God Superman? Why couldn't he be just a slightly superior, part-time controller? Why not an alien, passive observer? "A superhuman controlling power" is a very precise way to describe an extremely vague concept (god). But let's not get too distracted...
I'm comfortable dismissing Google's third definition. The example it uses is "Consumerism is the new religion." It's a modern, creative use of the word, almost like slang, which shouldn't be taken too seriously (though some do...adding to the confusion about everything being religious or faith based). Its a useful definition to make a point. But can you imagine a religious scholar making a serious comparison between Catholicism, Islam, Mormonism, and Consumerism? I'm not saying there isn't something worth talking about here, only that "religion" as it's traditionally defined is more than just a lifestyle or obsession.
I think Google and Webster's first definitions are close; but simply believing in a god and worshipping him is not religion. If it were, we could have as many religions as there are people on this planet-7 billion individuals believing in and worshipping 7 billion different gods. Its OK if someone wants to think that each and every instance of personal spiritual communion is "religion", but to me the word describes something more like Webster's second definition: "an organized system of belief, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or group of gods," ...which implies an organization of more than a few individuals. Religion, incidentally, can then be more easily located if we go looking for it in the real world. It has structure. It's not something so nebulous either-there are approximately 4,200 religions on Earth (according to Wikipedia), so the way we define and think about religion should be informed by the limited number of forms it actually takes on the only planet that has it (as far as we know).
Something else is missing from Webster's definition of religion that I think is fundamental and universal to the concept. Its the simple fact that the god or group of gods being worshipped are nowhere to be seen. If they were actually there in person (or whatever wacky form they chose to take), we would not call the belief and worship of them "religion"; we'd call it something more like "dictatorship," "oligarchy," "rock concert," or whatever. Religion, I believe, necessarily requires faith because that "superhuman controlling power" doesn't bother to show its face; or if it does, it supposedly reveals itself to a few individuals before *poof* disappearing for a few millennia.
Because this is an embarrassing fact, the habit of believing something you can't actually prove exists has been given its own special position at the top of religion's list of exalted things. Its called "faith" and its an inseparable element of religion. Its a curious fact that believers discriminate against pretending to know things that don't fall under their religious umbrella. Among Christians, for example, faith in Zeus, a Great Underworld, the living Elvis, and the claim that you'll survive a jump off a 2000ft cliff do not get the same respect as faith in Jehovah, Heaven, Angels, or Immortality.
I like this definition of religion:
"An organized system of worship centered around a faith in god(s)." (definition of "god" yet to be determined. "worship" meaning acts acknowledging the god's existence, superiority, and command over us...including doing his will as it is derived from holy text, oral tradition, or personal revelation [first, second, third, or x-hand]).
This is a pretty open definition-it would not at all make clear to someone who had never heard of religion what one would look like in practice. As we can easily observe, religion can take almost any form and stick to the parameters above.
A problematic fact (and tangent) for our topic is that while religion could take an infinite number of forms based on this definition, religions as we know them have taken very distinct forms.
The founders of particular religions didn't ask to belong to a larger, generic grouping. Its like someone-let's say Noah-led his tribe (incestuous family) to believe very specific things and act in very specific ways, and then an outsider (stood on top of highest mountain during flood...) came along and declared that what they were doing would be called ______ (in this case "religion") as though how Noah and his tribe were living was a general phenomena, and that this know-it-all flood survivor had a right to make such a conceptual leap when in fact what Noah and his tribe were doing was something very unique and singular (phew!).
One could say (but I won't) that there is no such thing as religion, just a bunch of tribal beliefs and practices that are distinct yet somewhat similar. Religion, this person might say, does not exist in this universe in general-it is only found on this planet as the myriad manifestations of humanity's social exuberance. Some of these manifestations have names; like "Judaism," "Christianity," "Buddhism," etc, etc.
Let's leave the thought exercise behind and return to the point of this post. Can I justify a sweeping condemnation of all religion by explaining how the phenomenon is both dangerous and oppressive to the individual and humanity as a whole? If I can't, then I must, from this day forward, stop criticizing religion and instead turn my attention to Islam, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Republican Party, the KKK, or whichever specific religion/groups are the actual offenders. Perhaps I'll be compelled by reason to give up all criticism of groups (in general and in kind) and only single out the fanatics and criminals which claim to represent them. As always, if I remain convinced of my own argument but you are not, I welcome feedback that points out what I missed.
I've explained how I think "religion poisons everything" (though not so well as Christopher Hitchens in God is Not Great). I've done so repeatedly over the last several years in this blog. Now that I've settled on a definition of religion, I'll begin again. First we should understand something about human nature.
We are desperate creatures; overwhelmed by instinctual urges and needs, complex emotions, bothersome memories, runaway thoughts, blinding awareness, and more. The turmoil that all of this creates in our minds is compounded by a world-a universe-that is infinitely more complex than we ourselves are. Religion steps in and establishes a focal point. It turns our minds to God. Momentarily, at least, there is calm.
We are also passionate creatures. We cannot be content knowing that our heavenly father simply exists-we want to please him...or avoid angering him. Religion provides the guidance that allows us to always be in our god's favor.
Inner peace, freedom from the fear of external threats (because we're on God's side), a purpose in life-aren't these all good things? How could any of these gifts be considered curses?
First, the peace that religion grants comes at the expense of truth, health, and progress. The best strategies for combatting confusion and inner turmoil are learning, practice, and social support. When we embrace God and his "Word" as solutions to our problems, we effectively turn away from answers based in real truth. It may be a far more complex and at times unsettling truth; but there can be no lasting, effective substitute. Our wellbeing and progress should not be hamstrung by delusions and an allegiance to ancient teachings. Yes, modern believers can and do utilize science and reason when deciding on their courses of action; but some don't and others only partially do. Any reliance on superstition or outdated ideas is a shame and counts against our efforts to secure health and happiness.
Just imagine what we might have achieved in the last 5,000 years if, on civilization's list of priorities, knowledge and human welfare had not been placed below worship and religious interests? The monumental abuse and neglect that historical religious interference represents is immeasurable.
Today, many nations and individuals have shaken off the influence of religion when it comes to managing their lives. Still, religion claims to know our lives' purposes, and offers answers to our temporal and eternal problems. Billions continue to turn to religion for guidance when its more clear than ever that it has no business providing it.
Another reason to refuse religion's psychological comforts is that they come with strings attached. In our makers absence, our desire to please him or avoid his wrath becomes a willingness to do what religion tells us to do. Religion provides that guidance in the form of oral or written doctrine. You cannot have doctrine without a mortal to author it (its curious that men were always involved in the writing of holy scripture: Muhammad and his scribes, Jesus's disciples, Moses, Ved Vyasa, etc. If he existed, wouldn't you think it reasonable for God to author some of his own books? Why wouldn't he choose to write every word without the help of a middle man-prophet, angel, or otherwise? Why wouldn't God just drop a scroll on the 50 yard line during the Super Bowl? Just wondering...)
Believers bristle at the claim that holy verse originated from mere mortals. Their reaction only supports the proposition that belief in revelation is an essential element of every religion, one that necessarily follows from a belief in God. If either belief is threatened, the other is also threatened, as is the entire foundation that religion stands on.
My personal experience reinforces the idea that in religion the beliefs in God, his word, and his divinely chosen messengers are interdependent and inseparable. In the Mormon Church, every first Sunday of the month was Fast and Testimony meeting. Members were given an opportunity to voluntarily stand up and share their testimonies (personal beliefs and thoughts) with the congregation. The most common line used by those brave enough to speak up was "I know this church is true, that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and that the Book of Mormon is the true word of God." Now the language wasn't required, but more often than not it was used-I used it myself many times. Even at a young age it struck me as insincere to recite the same line as everyone else, particularly when it was spoken by children who couldn't possibly know what they claimed to know (though I'd put the same charge to adults).
Upon reflection, you'll realize that religious worship is so often like this. It involves reaffirming over and over again the divinity of its holy men and its doctrine. Why is this so? Because for religion to be religion, it must make the connection between its outward manifestations and a belief in god unbreakable. Also, while it is easy to convince people that God exists; folks are naturally skeptical of so-called prophets or "chosen ones". Finally, while believers want to know God, they may be quick to question the authenticity of pamphlets or books that claim to contain his will.
So where is this leading? Why does it matter that within religion believing in God means believing in his word, and believing in his word means believing in the divinity of whoever delivered it? (Remember I'm not speaking of the most basic, personal belief in God or spirits-I'm talking about religion, an organized system of worship, as opposed to a mere belief...)
It matters because true believers fly planes into buildings. They blow themselves up in a crowd of shoppers. They go to war. They abandon their families and friends. The potential for great evil is there. But its the simple fact that the truly righteous will do whatever it is their God commands which is religion's biggest flaw-it turns free individuals into servants.
I'll be the first to admit that in our world today religion as a whole compels believers to do more good than evil. I give particular religions immense credit for their role in spreading love and charity in the world. The good that has come from believers who were inspired by religious teachings is hugely important and not to be dismissed out of hand. Its a topic I'd like to write more about in the future.
But the fact that religions can command and inspire great good in no way undermines my assertion that religion is fundamentally harmful and dangerous. It is harmful because it suppresses and trumps individual freedom. The mere existence of a supreme doctrine from a supreme authority halts independent thought and collective scrutiny. As I've discussed, religion's interference in every aspect of human existence adds up to immeasurable harm. Moreover, religion seeks to create a dangerous combination of submissive followers and supreme doctrine/leadership. No organization or individual should ever stand in a position of such power-the risks are just too great.
We do submit to man-made laws enacted by powerful governments. But in modern societies these kinds of rules serve practical purposes that seek to solve specific logistical and societal problems. They are written by us, by us, for our own good. They can be discarded or changed if they are deemed ineffective or unwise. And of course, the only laws that individuals should accept are ones which are created by a government in which they have a say and in which they have an opportunity to participate in.
Religion, out of its very definition, establishes a totalitarian system consisting of a supreme overlord and submissive followers. One thing that makes religion uniquely different from other historical or conceivable totalitarian systems is that its leader is thought to be so much greater than humans themselves. Most popular religions claim that he is a perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal creator who decides our fates. Who would question such a being?
The fact that we all don't simply bow down to our respective gods (and, by logical necessity, his inspired leaders) and commit our every action to their dictates is a testament to human intelligence and spirit; and evidence that religion, despite its arrogant claims, stands on a transparently weak foundation.
Another poisonous ingredient that is unique to religion is its supreme leader's non-existence. If someone had the gall to challenge the word of God, who would she direct her questions to? Most believers accept that God listens to their prayers and responds to them in whatever manner he chooses. Typically, answers come to believers as strong feelings, dreams, messages from religious leaders or text, random events that seem like strange coincidences, or larger natural occurrences that are construed as divine messages writ large. In the Mormon church, God's answers were said to come in a "still, small voice" (which, incidentally, is how my own thoughts usually sound in my head. I see the potential here for some confusion...).
Call me crazy, but I think that these alleged answers to prayers are actually what they really are, nothing more. I cannot discount other's personal experience in these matters-I clearly was not there when the "answer" came to them-but I can say I have yet seen or heard from God myself, and I remain unconvinced that anyone else has.
Its a big problem when the boss cannot be found. His absence leaves a power vacuum that can conceivably be filled by any charismatic leader with any possible agenda. And as mentioned, it leaves established holy doctrine untouchable by the people-no one can walk into God's office and have a discussion with him about the merits of his word. This notion may sound absurd to believers (who would do something like that..?) which just serves my prior point: religion equals submission to god(s). Incidentally, it's a great strategy for an organization's long-term survival: hide the supreme leader so he doesn't have to do anything.
Its entirely possible that God might not be found because he does not exist. It goes without saying that if this were true, then believers are misdirecting much of their energy doing things that they need not do; placing restrictions on themselves that they need not place; and, in general, submitting to an authority that truly has no right over them.
The final poisonous ingredient in all religion that I want to touch upon is faith. Some have defined it as believing something based on no evidence. Other may add that faith is the use of emotion to determine what one believe. Both are clearly unwise practices to say the least. For the sake of brevity, I'll once again refer readers to Sam Harris' The End of Faith if they need to be convinced that faith is as bad as we claim it to be.
So, what do we get when we combine invisible, untouchable, supreme authority; holy doctrine; and submissive adherents who believe things on faith. We get one of the most volatile, corrosive, and poisonous cocktails on the planet.
Let's wrap this up with one more useful analogy:
Religion is like a bus filled with passengers, idling on the side of the road. The passengers originally boarded the bus because they were promised the most competent pilot would take them to the most wondrous locations. The reality is, anyone can jump behind the wheel and hit the accelerator. It can be a pleasant trip or it can be a nightmare, depending upon the condition of the bus, skill of the driver, and his chosen destination. The bus may go to Disneyland, run over a few pedestrians, or fly off a cliff. The only thing for certain is that everyone is in for a ride.
I say the passengers should be let off and the bus needs to be towed.
In Reconstruction of Disbelief I have accused religion of a long list of crimes. And no, I don't think any religion is blameless. My charges are placed against religion in general, not any individual or particular creed.
I'll begin to defend my position with something like a concession: its not strictly religion which is so oppressive and dangerous. I should state instead that it's institutions which make truth claims about the the universe and our purpose in it-truth claims which are considered above debate because they originate from an unseen supreme authority-an authority which demands obedience and worship from all people-an authority which is represented by "holy" text and "chosen" individuals who help guide and organize the lives of members so that they may accomplish the will of the unseen authority. These kinds of organizations are much more likely to be the cause of social division, unrest, mindless conformity, etc, than other types of organizations. It is these unique groups which are guilty of countless crimes against humanity.
Are there any institutions so divisive, arrogant, and power hungry yet not religious? ("Divisive", because they label and separate believers from nonbelievers despite what could be near identical cultural similarities between them. "Arrogant" due to their outlandish, unsupported claims about the nature of existence; because they pretend to possess the solutions to our most pressing temporal and spiritual problems; and because they typically place individuals without any real professional qualification in higher positions of authority and wisdom over ourselves. "Power hungry", because they hope to add to their numbers. They strive to grow, prevent members from leaving, collect funds, and influence the broader communities/nations that they reside in. If they don't seek to recruit new members and grow stronger, they at least claim to possess the Way for everyone.)
So are there non-religious organizations like this?
Political parties may come close, and by natural extension, so might nation states. Certainly cults do, but from my perspective they are distinguishable from popular religions only in number. And then we have ideology in general, which we may examine as part and parcel of political parties and states.
Before we take a close look at our candidates for non-religious-yet-nearly-identical-to-religion groups, let's address the issue of our chosen sociopolitical preferences or ideological dispositions. Are you, for example, a social conservative, fiscal conservative, religious conservative, or libertarian? Perhaps you fancy yourself a humanist, secularist, or liberal? Even if you happen to find that one of these labels seems to match your ideological leanings; even if you willingly describe yourself as, say, a liberal; you are under absolutely no obligation to answer one way or another on specific social or personal questions. Usually, within each kind of sociopolitical preference label, there is no authority or authoritative source to which to turn to for the "correct" answer. A social conservative may or may not support dress codes in schools. A libertarian may or may not endorse the selling of crack cocaine in candy stores. A religious conservative may or may not believe in banning contraception. And a fiscal conservative may or may not support a tax payer subsidized bullet train. All are free to think for themselves and act according to their conscience. Certainly we are never completely free from the influences of people we interact with or the information we consume, yet absent a clear authority and doctrine, we remain as free to make our own decisions as we can ever hope to be. The important point is that these sociopolitical preferences and ideological dispositions lack teeth-they do not attempt to hold us to a specific set of claims or principals nor do they ask for our loyalty. And standing alone as mere preferences, they lack the backbone of social organization and institutionalized processes.
In contrast, we can speak of political parties and nation states as genuine threats because authority and doctrine are now active ingredients. Members of a political party are obliged to follow the party line, to place the judgement and decisions of party leaders above their own, and actively support the party's cause. The ideology and agenda of the party trumps deliberate, thorough, rational consideration; and resists the influx of corrosive information and new understanding. Like a religion, a political party organization acts as a vessel which protects its rigid ideas from the battering waves of individual and cultural challenges, and it strives to do so from generation to generation. Both religion and political parties are much more dangerous and persistent than mere ideological dispositions thanks to the fact that explicit doctrines lie at their core; doctrines that stand as ultimate authorities, doctrines that the institution is designed to protect and nurture in the face of any challenge. For the sake of comparison, one might say that the more rigid an institution's doctrine, the more authoritative it is, the less supported it is by reason and science, the more it demands obedience to its dictates, and the more it strives to assimilate non-members, the more dangerous it is.
I like the way this analysis is progressing. Religion and similar phenomena are being sorted out in order to discover their component parts, just like deconstructing a dish to discover its recipe. We're finding that the "spicier" (more dangerous) dishes contain key ingredients-or else they've got just the right combination of things. The analogy gives us a way to think about social phenomena in general-these could be dishes of any sort-while allowing us to talk about different kinds of dishes based on their shared ingredients (like chowders, chili, soup, salad, etc/gangs, religion, parties, nations, schools, etc). And finally, we can see how, within each type there are different specific recipes with varying amounts of key ingredients (salt, pepper, butter, sugar, basil, etc/authority, openness, education, political involvement, etc). This analogy shouldn't be necessary to illustrate how generalization can legitimately coexist with discernment, or how both approaches are useful when judging individual recipes or groups. But I think it helps.
Distinctions are important. Some political parties are far more rigid, authoritarian, and dangerous than others. Some religions do a great job of compelling their members to live responsibly and do good, while others are markedly better at stoking submission and hostility from their subjects. We could even say that in rare cases some religions are more like gangs or political parties than they are like other religions.
But with all of this granted, there is still nothing contradictory in the recognition of religion's myriad manifestations and the claim that all religions necessarily possess the same key ingredients-ingredients that harm and threaten humanity. Nor is it illogical to make this argument and still grant that other non-religious organizations share some of the same ingredients as religion. Finally, one can legitimately argue that what makes religion special also makes it far more dangerous.
Well then, what are religion's poisonous ingredients? To find out, we need to pin down a definition.
Google defines religion as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." Also, "a particular system of faith and worship" and "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance."
Marriom-Webster online states that religion is "the belief in a god or a group of gods" or "an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or group of gods."
The phrase "a superhuman controlling power" is excellent fodder for satire. What does this mean? Is God Superman? Why couldn't he be just a slightly superior, part-time controller? Why not an alien, passive observer? "A superhuman controlling power" is a very precise way to describe an extremely vague concept (god). But let's not get too distracted...
I'm comfortable dismissing Google's third definition. The example it uses is "Consumerism is the new religion." It's a modern, creative use of the word, almost like slang, which shouldn't be taken too seriously (though some do...adding to the confusion about everything being religious or faith based). Its a useful definition to make a point. But can you imagine a religious scholar making a serious comparison between Catholicism, Islam, Mormonism, and Consumerism? I'm not saying there isn't something worth talking about here, only that "religion" as it's traditionally defined is more than just a lifestyle or obsession.
I think Google and Webster's first definitions are close; but simply believing in a god and worshipping him is not religion. If it were, we could have as many religions as there are people on this planet-7 billion individuals believing in and worshipping 7 billion different gods. Its OK if someone wants to think that each and every instance of personal spiritual communion is "religion", but to me the word describes something more like Webster's second definition: "an organized system of belief, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or group of gods," ...which implies an organization of more than a few individuals. Religion, incidentally, can then be more easily located if we go looking for it in the real world. It has structure. It's not something so nebulous either-there are approximately 4,200 religions on Earth (according to Wikipedia), so the way we define and think about religion should be informed by the limited number of forms it actually takes on the only planet that has it (as far as we know).
Something else is missing from Webster's definition of religion that I think is fundamental and universal to the concept. Its the simple fact that the god or group of gods being worshipped are nowhere to be seen. If they were actually there in person (or whatever wacky form they chose to take), we would not call the belief and worship of them "religion"; we'd call it something more like "dictatorship," "oligarchy," "rock concert," or whatever. Religion, I believe, necessarily requires faith because that "superhuman controlling power" doesn't bother to show its face; or if it does, it supposedly reveals itself to a few individuals before *poof* disappearing for a few millennia.
Because this is an embarrassing fact, the habit of believing something you can't actually prove exists has been given its own special position at the top of religion's list of exalted things. Its called "faith" and its an inseparable element of religion. Its a curious fact that believers discriminate against pretending to know things that don't fall under their religious umbrella. Among Christians, for example, faith in Zeus, a Great Underworld, the living Elvis, and the claim that you'll survive a jump off a 2000ft cliff do not get the same respect as faith in Jehovah, Heaven, Angels, or Immortality.
I like this definition of religion:
"An organized system of worship centered around a faith in god(s)." (definition of "god" yet to be determined. "worship" meaning acts acknowledging the god's existence, superiority, and command over us...including doing his will as it is derived from holy text, oral tradition, or personal revelation [first, second, third, or x-hand]).
This is a pretty open definition-it would not at all make clear to someone who had never heard of religion what one would look like in practice. As we can easily observe, religion can take almost any form and stick to the parameters above.
A problematic fact (and tangent) for our topic is that while religion could take an infinite number of forms based on this definition, religions as we know them have taken very distinct forms.
The founders of particular religions didn't ask to belong to a larger, generic grouping. Its like someone-let's say Noah-led his tribe (incestuous family) to believe very specific things and act in very specific ways, and then an outsider (stood on top of highest mountain during flood...) came along and declared that what they were doing would be called ______ (in this case "religion") as though how Noah and his tribe were living was a general phenomena, and that this know-it-all flood survivor had a right to make such a conceptual leap when in fact what Noah and his tribe were doing was something very unique and singular (phew!).
One could say (but I won't) that there is no such thing as religion, just a bunch of tribal beliefs and practices that are distinct yet somewhat similar. Religion, this person might say, does not exist in this universe in general-it is only found on this planet as the myriad manifestations of humanity's social exuberance. Some of these manifestations have names; like "Judaism," "Christianity," "Buddhism," etc, etc.
Let's leave the thought exercise behind and return to the point of this post. Can I justify a sweeping condemnation of all religion by explaining how the phenomenon is both dangerous and oppressive to the individual and humanity as a whole? If I can't, then I must, from this day forward, stop criticizing religion and instead turn my attention to Islam, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Republican Party, the KKK, or whichever specific religion/groups are the actual offenders. Perhaps I'll be compelled by reason to give up all criticism of groups (in general and in kind) and only single out the fanatics and criminals which claim to represent them. As always, if I remain convinced of my own argument but you are not, I welcome feedback that points out what I missed.
I've explained how I think "religion poisons everything" (though not so well as Christopher Hitchens in God is Not Great). I've done so repeatedly over the last several years in this blog. Now that I've settled on a definition of religion, I'll begin again. First we should understand something about human nature.
We are desperate creatures; overwhelmed by instinctual urges and needs, complex emotions, bothersome memories, runaway thoughts, blinding awareness, and more. The turmoil that all of this creates in our minds is compounded by a world-a universe-that is infinitely more complex than we ourselves are. Religion steps in and establishes a focal point. It turns our minds to God. Momentarily, at least, there is calm.
We are also passionate creatures. We cannot be content knowing that our heavenly father simply exists-we want to please him...or avoid angering him. Religion provides the guidance that allows us to always be in our god's favor.
Inner peace, freedom from the fear of external threats (because we're on God's side), a purpose in life-aren't these all good things? How could any of these gifts be considered curses?
First, the peace that religion grants comes at the expense of truth, health, and progress. The best strategies for combatting confusion and inner turmoil are learning, practice, and social support. When we embrace God and his "Word" as solutions to our problems, we effectively turn away from answers based in real truth. It may be a far more complex and at times unsettling truth; but there can be no lasting, effective substitute. Our wellbeing and progress should not be hamstrung by delusions and an allegiance to ancient teachings. Yes, modern believers can and do utilize science and reason when deciding on their courses of action; but some don't and others only partially do. Any reliance on superstition or outdated ideas is a shame and counts against our efforts to secure health and happiness.
Just imagine what we might have achieved in the last 5,000 years if, on civilization's list of priorities, knowledge and human welfare had not been placed below worship and religious interests? The monumental abuse and neglect that historical religious interference represents is immeasurable.
Today, many nations and individuals have shaken off the influence of religion when it comes to managing their lives. Still, religion claims to know our lives' purposes, and offers answers to our temporal and eternal problems. Billions continue to turn to religion for guidance when its more clear than ever that it has no business providing it.
Another reason to refuse religion's psychological comforts is that they come with strings attached. In our makers absence, our desire to please him or avoid his wrath becomes a willingness to do what religion tells us to do. Religion provides that guidance in the form of oral or written doctrine. You cannot have doctrine without a mortal to author it (its curious that men were always involved in the writing of holy scripture: Muhammad and his scribes, Jesus's disciples, Moses, Ved Vyasa, etc. If he existed, wouldn't you think it reasonable for God to author some of his own books? Why wouldn't he choose to write every word without the help of a middle man-prophet, angel, or otherwise? Why wouldn't God just drop a scroll on the 50 yard line during the Super Bowl? Just wondering...)
Believers bristle at the claim that holy verse originated from mere mortals. Their reaction only supports the proposition that belief in revelation is an essential element of every religion, one that necessarily follows from a belief in God. If either belief is threatened, the other is also threatened, as is the entire foundation that religion stands on.
My personal experience reinforces the idea that in religion the beliefs in God, his word, and his divinely chosen messengers are interdependent and inseparable. In the Mormon Church, every first Sunday of the month was Fast and Testimony meeting. Members were given an opportunity to voluntarily stand up and share their testimonies (personal beliefs and thoughts) with the congregation. The most common line used by those brave enough to speak up was "I know this church is true, that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and that the Book of Mormon is the true word of God." Now the language wasn't required, but more often than not it was used-I used it myself many times. Even at a young age it struck me as insincere to recite the same line as everyone else, particularly when it was spoken by children who couldn't possibly know what they claimed to know (though I'd put the same charge to adults).
Upon reflection, you'll realize that religious worship is so often like this. It involves reaffirming over and over again the divinity of its holy men and its doctrine. Why is this so? Because for religion to be religion, it must make the connection between its outward manifestations and a belief in god unbreakable. Also, while it is easy to convince people that God exists; folks are naturally skeptical of so-called prophets or "chosen ones". Finally, while believers want to know God, they may be quick to question the authenticity of pamphlets or books that claim to contain his will.
So where is this leading? Why does it matter that within religion believing in God means believing in his word, and believing in his word means believing in the divinity of whoever delivered it? (Remember I'm not speaking of the most basic, personal belief in God or spirits-I'm talking about religion, an organized system of worship, as opposed to a mere belief...)
It matters because true believers fly planes into buildings. They blow themselves up in a crowd of shoppers. They go to war. They abandon their families and friends. The potential for great evil is there. But its the simple fact that the truly righteous will do whatever it is their God commands which is religion's biggest flaw-it turns free individuals into servants.
I'll be the first to admit that in our world today religion as a whole compels believers to do more good than evil. I give particular religions immense credit for their role in spreading love and charity in the world. The good that has come from believers who were inspired by religious teachings is hugely important and not to be dismissed out of hand. Its a topic I'd like to write more about in the future.
But the fact that religions can command and inspire great good in no way undermines my assertion that religion is fundamentally harmful and dangerous. It is harmful because it suppresses and trumps individual freedom. The mere existence of a supreme doctrine from a supreme authority halts independent thought and collective scrutiny. As I've discussed, religion's interference in every aspect of human existence adds up to immeasurable harm. Moreover, religion seeks to create a dangerous combination of submissive followers and supreme doctrine/leadership. No organization or individual should ever stand in a position of such power-the risks are just too great.
We do submit to man-made laws enacted by powerful governments. But in modern societies these kinds of rules serve practical purposes that seek to solve specific logistical and societal problems. They are written by us, by us, for our own good. They can be discarded or changed if they are deemed ineffective or unwise. And of course, the only laws that individuals should accept are ones which are created by a government in which they have a say and in which they have an opportunity to participate in.
Religion, out of its very definition, establishes a totalitarian system consisting of a supreme overlord and submissive followers. One thing that makes religion uniquely different from other historical or conceivable totalitarian systems is that its leader is thought to be so much greater than humans themselves. Most popular religions claim that he is a perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal creator who decides our fates. Who would question such a being?
The fact that we all don't simply bow down to our respective gods (and, by logical necessity, his inspired leaders) and commit our every action to their dictates is a testament to human intelligence and spirit; and evidence that religion, despite its arrogant claims, stands on a transparently weak foundation.
Another poisonous ingredient that is unique to religion is its supreme leader's non-existence. If someone had the gall to challenge the word of God, who would she direct her questions to? Most believers accept that God listens to their prayers and responds to them in whatever manner he chooses. Typically, answers come to believers as strong feelings, dreams, messages from religious leaders or text, random events that seem like strange coincidences, or larger natural occurrences that are construed as divine messages writ large. In the Mormon church, God's answers were said to come in a "still, small voice" (which, incidentally, is how my own thoughts usually sound in my head. I see the potential here for some confusion...).
Call me crazy, but I think that these alleged answers to prayers are actually what they really are, nothing more. I cannot discount other's personal experience in these matters-I clearly was not there when the "answer" came to them-but I can say I have yet seen or heard from God myself, and I remain unconvinced that anyone else has.
Its a big problem when the boss cannot be found. His absence leaves a power vacuum that can conceivably be filled by any charismatic leader with any possible agenda. And as mentioned, it leaves established holy doctrine untouchable by the people-no one can walk into God's office and have a discussion with him about the merits of his word. This notion may sound absurd to believers (who would do something like that..?) which just serves my prior point: religion equals submission to god(s). Incidentally, it's a great strategy for an organization's long-term survival: hide the supreme leader so he doesn't have to do anything.
The final poisonous ingredient in all religion that I want to touch upon is faith. Some have defined it as believing something based on no evidence. Other may add that faith is the use of emotion to determine what one believe. Both are clearly unwise practices to say the least. For the sake of brevity, I'll once again refer readers to Sam Harris' The End of Faith if they need to be convinced that faith is as bad as we claim it to be.
So, what do we get when we combine invisible, untouchable, supreme authority; holy doctrine; and submissive adherents who believe things on faith. We get one of the most volatile, corrosive, and poisonous cocktails on the planet.
Let's wrap this up with one more useful analogy:
Religion is like a bus filled with passengers, idling on the side of the road. The passengers originally boarded the bus because they were promised the most competent pilot would take them to the most wondrous locations. The reality is, anyone can jump behind the wheel and hit the accelerator. It can be a pleasant trip or it can be a nightmare, depending upon the condition of the bus, skill of the driver, and his chosen destination. The bus may go to Disneyland, run over a few pedestrians, or fly off a cliff. The only thing for certain is that everyone is in for a ride.
I say the passengers should be let off and the bus needs to be towed.
posted by Josh at
8:59 AM
0 Comments
