Religion – Part I of VI
Belief – A Personal Perspective
The topic over the next six weeks is one I have mostly avoided since I began writing these essays 14 months ago, although I did briefly touch on my perspective in the posts, Insignificance and Spirituality Reconsidered. This avoidance has not been because I have so little to say on the subject, but because I have a number of good friends and family members who are immersed in religious traditions. These are traditions that are heartfelt and important in their lives, so I have wanted to step lightly. Still, to them, I will start with an apology. My thoughts as expressed here are my own and not meant to denigrate anyone’s personal faith.
To be clear, I am an atheist. And as arrogant as it may sound, I know with absolute certainty and without any reservations whatsoever that no omniscient deity exists. That an entity sitting in judgement over our actions is fictitious, for I believe it is up to each one of us, independently, to find a moral and ethical center by which to live. Most of the time, when asked about how I view the church or religion in general, I respond by saying that I’m non-religious. The term “atheist” seems to be a catalyst for an argument, so I find it less threatening to avoid that word. In addition, arguing with a person about their faith is a fruitless endeavor and usually leads to unnecessary antagonism, though I was not always of this mind.
Years ago there were times I would relish “sticking it” to a group of Seventh Day Adventists who would show up at my front door. It was a simple construct to undermine the missing logic in their religious dogma. The problem with that approach is that, ultimately, belief is about an intense feeling that some kind of entity exists beyond the scope of empirical evidence and there is really nothing that can be said to counter the emotions of devout faith. There is just no place for a rational and logical conversation in this kind of dialogue, so it is usually best just not to engage.
The friends and family I know who incorporate religion into their lives do so out of a personal desire to connect either to a greater tribal diaspora through shared ritual, or to find peace of mind in the tenets of whatever religious doctrines they have come to believe. But there are many others who adamantly view their beliefs to be the one and only righteous way of living life. In this context there are those who feel they have a mandate to either convert non-believers to their way of thinking or to destroy them. The philosophical concept of “Live and Let Live” is an anathema to many of those who have this calling to “save” the secular members of society by offering them salvation. For me, aside from this extended analysis, I do not spend my days figuring out how to turn true believers away from their way of thinking. It just doesn’t make any sense.
Every day we listen to the news or read articles about how religious fanaticism is fomenting hatred and whipping up fear, creating behavior that leads to atrocities beyond imagination. This kind of barbarism, justified by perceived religious heresy, has been enacted for millennia. Any deviation from accepted cultural norms has been greeted with torture, burning at a stake, dismemberment, imprisonment, and ultimately execution. Even speaking in private about something akin to atheism was considered grounds for obliteration. One of the blatant hypocrisies I sense in many religious reactions throughout history is the edict that a god will rain down retribution on the heretics, so why do humans believe they should be the ones killing in their god’s name?
Now, despite my ranting on the dysfunctional nature of much of religious belief, I feel quite strongly that the edifice of a church, synagogue, mosque, or temple has been critical for the survival of humanity. Not because of sermons or prayers, but because these places offered a way to physically gather on a Saturday or Sunday. Homo sapiens are social animals. We have an extremely strong desire to be around others of our species; communicating, touching, engaging in ritual, and generally socialization. These buildings have given us the opportunity to come together for a mutual reason, be it religious or perhaps for a Sunday picnic on the church grounds. This was of particular importance when a majority of the population lived in an agrarian culture where people were fairly isolated on farms. Over the past few centuries, as urban lifestyles became more prevalent, the church began losing followers since the social connection was fulfilled elsewhere.
Many extreme believers will suggest that without the promise of heaven or the threat of eternal damnation, people would run amok. There would be no restraints on our behavior, and we would descend into anarchy and chaos. Of course that’s absurd. A number of the most caring and morally decent people I know are non-believers. Their moral compass is intact and their empathy for the poor and those in need is strong. On the other hand there are others (none of whom are in my circle of friends and family) who espouse a belief in the teachings of Jesus and yet they spew hateful rhetoric, calling for retribution on those who aren’t like them, all while turning their backs on strangers and the destitute. Embracing religious ideology (or not) doesn’t appear to have any bearing on an individual’s ability to express empathy nor does it impact their concern for others or even on how they might view our connection to the world around us.
As John Lennon wrote in his extraordinary song, “Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for and no religion, too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.” It’s such a simple, poignant, and beautiful point of view. Just imagine. It isn’t hard to do.
[Part II will explore my views regarding how and why religion came to be and why it plays such a prevalent role in human culture.]
Return to Home Page & Archives
Click Here to Add a Comment & Join the Conversation
Amen!
Thank you for sharing this. Quite often, I wish I could express myself as beautifully as you. I look forward to part two.
Thank you Dean. Working on writing Part III at the moment. Exploring my perspective on this subject has been an interesting journey.
“I know with absolute certainty and without any reservations whatsoever that no omniscient deity exists.”
Everyone now knows how to find the meaning of life within himself. But mankind wasn’t always so lucky.
I agree, Michael. Your point is covered in Part II
As I get older and inevitably closer to the end I find I take comfort and solace from the ancient wisdom; Vonnegut, Heller, Dr. Seuss.
I believe we find comfort in the brilliance of those who came before and made sense, at least to us. I think I would add George Carlin to your list.
Thanks for sharing this, Tobin, I eagerly await the next installments in the series!
A few disjointed points or reflections to consider as you develop the next posts, admittedly from one of your religious relatives. These may appear to be pushing against some of what you said, but I think you’d prefer that I make counter arguments than not.
1) People make war because conflict is part of human nature. The worst killers of the 20th century were not motivated by religion and in many cases tried to shape societies that explicitly marginalized or eliminated religion. Of course, religion has been used to justify wars and other ills such as slavery and colonialism, but the flourishing of these structures in societies that were not organized with religious authority playing an important role demonstrates, I think, that for ultimate causes, we must look beyond religion. I love Lennon and the Beatles, but take away country and religion, and you still don’t have peace!
2) You identified two extremes along a religious spectrum, and while I don’t think you meant to suggest there aren’t many in between those extremes, it’s worth making explicit. I do think there are many religious people who do not follow a “live and let live” approach, yet in engaging with others to promote their own set of values, do so not to dominate or erase the other person for some eschatological goal, but because they sincerely care about the welfare of others. Religion can motivate people and societies to be extremely destructive, as you correctly said, but religion is also among the major sources of altruistic, self-sacrificial kindness in the world.
3) Really building on the first two points, I think it’s important to reflect on the role of religion in affecting human conduct, but, I believe humans shape religion more than the other way around. You said religion has no effect on the empathy people show, and I think we can debate that, but ultimately even religious people are not human manifestations of religious values, but rather they are humans driven by human impulses and are affected by religion to different degrees alongside other influences.
I very much look forward to continuing the conversation, and please say hi to my aunt!
Yoni – I can’t thank you enough for your thoughts and insights on this latest piece. I agree with much of what you are offering in your reply. As I discuss some of your points, I don’t mean this to be argumentative. This is a salient discussion of two diverse perspectives where we can find common ground and also places where we might agree to disagree. This is why I started writings these weekly pieces, for exactly this kind of conversation. So here goes:
1. On the surface, yes, some regimes gave lip service to eliminating specific religions, but it seems to me that they wanted to replace those belief with their own versions of religion. Lenin and Stalin strove to eliminate Christianity and Judaism so that they could install the false god of their version of communism. I can’t even call it Marxism since I think that Marx and Engels would have been horrified by what the USSR became. It’s the same with the Third Reich. The intent, at least from this limited vantage point, was to create the Ubermensch as god to replace the existing system, not just an ideal human. In addition, you’re certainly correct in that a utopian society cannot be created just by removing borders and religious doctrines. But my sense is that Lennon was an idealist who understand that the division in society were a part of the tribal imperative that led to conflict.
2. I agree that I did not go into as much detail as I might have with regard to the altruism expressed by many organizations affiliated with religious groups. Nor did I give enough credit to those who have, for instance, taken the beneficial teachings of Christ to heart and lived a life of caring and generosity. There are also, as far as I know, a great number of passages in the Torah encouraging anonymous generosity along with the care of strangers. But there are also secular groups that do the same. To me it comes down to a matter of personality, not necessarily religious institutional affiliation. A good and kind person is just that. They don’t need motivation, such as the potential of a heavenly reward, to act in this manner.
3. I can’t really argue your points here. In some ways what you’ve noted relates to what I just wrote at the end of #2. For a long time I’ve observed that people take what they want from religious doctrines, cherry picking the Bible for instance to find rationalization for a certain type of behavior. That thought process is the same for the Quran. As I’ve said many times, there are 7 billions humans on Earth and to me, there are 7 billion versions of religion (this is just as relevant for non-believers). Ultimately we are subjective creatures who view the world through a flawed set of subjective senses. Truth is elusive and slippery, so we need to go with what we know and try our best to see life as clearly as we can.
As always, a true pleasure. Thanks again for your comments and, yes, I will pass along your greetings.
I look forward to your essays on this subject, Tobin.
I find the spiritual part of life fascinating and enriching. That other dimension. Even with the animals. Watching our old dog Eli making peace with his nemesis, Gladys the sheep. He went up to the pasture with me and just stayed up there, quietly staring at Gladys. And she stood staring at him even when the rest of the flock grazed away. She felt no need to stomp her foot or lower her head. Nor did he need to pace and bark at her. I’d look up from my kitchen window and see them just standing there together. Finally he came down. He passed away the next day.
Gladys actually passed on the day after he did. I guess I like to think there was something spiritual being exchanged between them. Even some apologies. And those energy sparks of life go somewhere.
Maybe I let myself feel this because I want it to be for animals and people with all my heart. Or, maybe it is so.
Georgia – Thank you for that very tender and poignant story. As much as I am steadfast in my belief that there is no deity watching over us, I’m also acutely aware that life holds a great number of mysteries to which we have no answers (yet). That Eli and Gladys may have come to a place where there was an innate connection we can only guess at is certainly possible. Or at least I want to believe that it is possible. Not being religious doesn’t negate my own desire to believe there are secrets to life that I don’t know and probably can’t know. A magician uses sleight of hand to trick us into thinking that magic exists. But the magic and the sense of awe we FEEL when we experience the wonders of nature and our environment are not manifested by sleight of hand but by something deeper and unexplainable. So yes, I think there may be something extraordinary about your story.
Tobin, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. In the first sentence of the second paragraph of your essay you stated; “…I know with absolute certainty and without any reservation whatsoever that no omniscient deity exists.” Then you swing around 180 degrees in the last sentence of your reply to Georgia and acknowledge the wonders of nature as being something deeper and unexplainable. Ummm… is it not conceivable that nature is deity? If it is then indeed, we all can have our cake it too… with nature’s compliments.
A valid point my friend. At least to me the difference is (or at least how I justify this seeming dichotomy) that I don’t see nature as having a specific consciousness. Even though we anthropomorphize our environment by giving it a name such as Mother Nature, Gaia, or any number of names, nature just is. It exists without purpose but even with that statement I know that nature, without intention, offers us a home and a place that we should be taking care of. So is there hypocrisy in my ramblings? Sure, to a degree.
This discussion may also hinge on the interpretation of words. What exactly do we mean when we use the word deity? If one wants to interpret it as respect, then yes, I can buy that. Respect for each other. Respects for nature and our environment. But not in the sense that a conscious entity is passing judgement on humans. That’s my line in the sand. As always, thank you for your thoughts.
Nothing is to be gained by shying away from this topic. Also full disclosure of the writers position on the subject is a good first move in so far as your bid is to have a candid conversation. As a recovering fundamentalist, seems that I have an orientation to religion inscribed in my DNA. Whatever one’s default upbringing we live in a world that is pluralistic in the extreme. Wherever one may to be, we are surrounded by individuals with outlooks, self understandings formed by customs, rituals, community affiliations that are different than one’s own. Everyone needs “a bigger box” as Joko Beck, a Buddhist instructor writes. Our experiences differ. And we have the privilege, and the obligation to learn together, from one another the dimensions of a fulfilled life.
Like you, I do not have any inclination for argument with anyone over religion. I am interested in having encounters where we, in the usual manner, step by step build a level of comfort, then informally work out a vocabulary buoyed by good will as we ease into offering our experiences, and reasons for our current life commitments. This is not simple or easy because words are inadequate for describing what is ineffable. Yes, devotion is a matter of emotion, the moments of wonder when one feels as if he has been addressed, spoken to in a direct way by the universe. Using another mode of expression, one might say “feeling the presence of the risen Christ.”
Just a few hours ago I was attracted, stopped cold by a dozen or so intense orange and yellow tulips that blossomed today. I viewed the blossoms and stood for a few seconds to absorb/appreciate the beauty. I absolutely felt as if I had been addressed by name. I had to gaze at them. Was that a facet of faith? According to my standards it definitely was.
We are not alone. Humans are “of nature” and we belong in the cosmos.
We need to compare notes about the experiences that inspire us. Such conversations are timely as the promise of capitalism has proven to be empty if you desire to experience a satisfying life. And I agree that places designated for religious gathering are a critical physical anchor for belonging to a locale. Presently one of the Starbucks shops suffices, but is a poor substitute for a temple or a shrine in a beautiful park. I envy the French for their churches in cities and towns that are maintained at public expense. A majority of French people, though secular recognize the role of these physical places.
As to heaven and hell, – a questing or a fear of such fantastical geographical places is a psychological poison pill that alienates and embitters. These words are metaphors. Want to experience heaven? – have a conversation with a good friend. How about hell? – Imagine yourself to be Latino or Latina stopped and interrogated by ICE. Heaven and hell come in many forms in this life.
The quotation from the John Lennon song Imagine is a superb concluding thought. There is an ancient One that calls each of our names. How can one not respond, answering “present” – when one’s name is called?
Jerry – As always your replies are both thought provoking and greatly appreciated. After having visited Notre Dame in Paris prior to the fire, I could only imagine what a peasant from the countryside would have thought upon entering that magnificent edifice. I don’t know how anyone would have been able to comprehend that this structure wasn’t built by the hand of God. What more proof could anyone have wanted for the existence of this deity? Fortunately many of us are no longer awed by the supernatural, but we can still marvel at the extraordinary architectural beauty and amazing engineering feats of the 14th Century.
As to humanity being a part of nature, this is always a loaded topic, so full of potential discussion. That we are a product of the natural selection of mammalian evolution is a given. And yet many people somehow believe we are above the other creatures on earth. That we are special, selected by that same magical omniscient entity to stand out as the heirs of the kingdom of heaven. Again, from my perspective, this couldn’t be further from the truth. We are made from organic material. We eat, sleep, and digest food. We are born and we die. We have an overarching desire to survive, to procreate, and to play, just like any other creature. That we have developed ways of manipulating our environments is inconsequential because we continue to be those tribal groups of Homo sapiens running around the Serengeti plains, hunting and gathering. Our behavioral patterns are little changed regardless of technology and innovation.
From the cheap seats, I still see that ultimately religion is an archaic remnant of a time when we did not have the means to understand the world from a scientific standpoint. That perspective doesn’t mean we are devoid of awe or wonder or that there are still unknown aspects of life to uncover. It just means that we should use the knowledge we have to move beyond the systems that once gave us skewed answers and embrace the tenets of factual science over a belief in the supernatural. Perhaps that sounds harsh, but I’m not sure how else to put it.
A few months ago while in France I had opportunity to see the rebuilt Notre Dame in Paris. I agree with your view that our European ancestors in the 13th an 14th centuries would have viewed the cathedral as a demonstration of the glory of god. What choice did they have? They had none. In a time when the cross and the crown aligned one’s day to day however severe was to be compensated by life after life.
I am persuaded that we 21st century “moderns” have at best marginally more “freedom” of choice than the medieval nobleman or peasant. Our upbringing, the culture(s) that we partake in, afford us the categories of interpretation by which we understand our experience. It strikes me that our age is a culturally pluralistic one, by comparison to that of most of our ancestors. Still when one operates in an ethos of market capitalism as the dominant logic, one is obliged to a greater or lesser degree, pay homage to the high god. Therein lies the nub of the matter, as I see it.
Perhaps soon enough the personal dysfunction, as well as the political and economic conditions will reach impasse to catalyze a movement to protect and become caretakers, rather than predators. That would be a metaphysical sea-change from what we have known most of my lifetime. A journey into the future informed by a panentheistic, GAIA flavored, diffuse religious sensibility to qualify the old, indigenous religions, including Christianity.
Time will tell.