One of the more self-evidently stupid arguments that anyone could make on behalf of religion is that people need religion to be moral. Given that most of today's wars and atrocities have a religious component, and given how often clergy are involved in scandals, it's hard to argue from empirical evidence that religion makes people behave better than they would behave otherwise.
Indeed, awhile back some researchers argued that in the world's industrial democracies, higher levels of church attendance and other marks of religiosity correlate with higher levels of homicide, sexually transmitted disease, and other social ills. The more religious a society is, the more dysfunctional it is, the researchers concluded.
Of course, one could ask whether a society becomes dysfunctional because it is religious, or if it becomes religious because it is dysfunctional.
Phil Zuckerman writes about Denmark, a nation largely indifferent to religion, that it is "rational, humane, civil, safe, and calm." The Danes provide themselves with universal taxpayer-paid health care and other services that improve everyone's quality of life, for example, because it is rational. In the very religious and increasingly dysfunctional United States, even programs that provide medical care for poor, sick children are controversial. Calm, rational, un-religious Denmark sounds almost like heaven.
Historians say that religion played an important role in the development of human civilization. Primitive religious organization and authority evolved into the first governments, for example. Others argue that early religions encouraged in-group adaption and cooperation that enabled group survival. Religions also function as "containers" for passing the moral values of the group on to children.
Yes, but -- say others -- hasn't religion outlived its usefulness? "Whatever religion's virtues during our long evolutionary history, the balance has clearly tipped," writes Clay Ferris Naff.
If you accept that our survival now depends on a transition to a peaceful, sustainable global civilization, and right soon, then it becomes clear that religion is the single biggest obstacle blocking that transition. Not all religion and not only religion, but chiefly religion. To be specific, the fastest-growing versions of religion promote a militant hatred of other religions, a rejection of science and its findings, an absolute belief in the authority of doctrine, and a catastrophic reproduction rate.
I don't know about the catastrophic reproduction rate, except among a relatively small number of religious extremists, but the "militant hatred of other religions" and "rejection of science and its findings" seems to be reaching plague levels in the U.S. And I have a truckload of gripes about the "absolute belief in the authority of doctrine" that I think I will save for another time.
But there's religion, and then there's religion. If we stop and look at how and why religion might have such a negative impact on societies, I'm not sure religion itself is really to blame.
Again to take the U.S. as an example (I live here; I know the place pretty well), what exactly is it about the dominant religion, Christianity, that causes these problems? I don't see anything in the teachings of Jesus that would encourage people to be, well, mean and ignorant. Indeed, Jesus taught his followers to be kind to strangers, to care for the sick and hungry, and to not be judgmental or vindictive. And I am personally acquainted with devout Christians, even Christian clergy, who are as rational, pro-science, and humane as they come.
If the problem of religion isn't religion itself, then what's the problem with religion? I say it depends not on whether one is religious, but how one is religious.
For religious people, religion is an important part of our interior landscape, or the way we understand and experience our lives. Religion can be illuminating and open us to greater compassion and understanding. Or, it can harden into an armor, a tribal identity, a means to protect ourselves from whatever frightens us.
It's that second manifestation of religion that is the problem, and I don't think Buddhism is completely off the hook, especially not in Sri Lanka .
In her book The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism, Karen Armstrong writes about fundamentalist movements in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. She says these movements are a reaction to modernity and our ever-shrinking globe. "Fear is at the heart of fundamentalism," she writes. "The fear of losing yourself."
The more people feel threatened by the rapid changes of our time, the thicker the armor of religiosity grows. We've all heard stories of people who campaign to display the Ten Commandments in schools and courthouses who can't remember all ten commandments when put on the spot to do so. In this case, the Ten Commandments aren't so much religious teachings as symbols of tribal dominance.
Eventually, fearful people can be buried in armor so thick that all religious meaning is lost, and all that matters is loyalty to one's tribe and its totems. It's at this point that any religion becomes very dangerous, indeed.
As modern travel and communication technology turns the world into one global neighborhood, we shouldn't wonder that people not ready for it are retreating into increasingly fanatical religions. I'm saying that religion isn't the cause of this retreat, but rather a handy means. And if religion disappeared off the face of the planet tomorrow, fearful people would seek shelter in some other kind of mass movement or tribal identity.
But what about religion that is not social pathology, but just religion? All of the world's great religions, or at least the ones I know anything about, encourage the faithful to be charitable, truthful, and honest. Of course, non-religious people can be charitable, truthful, and honest, also. Being "good" often has more to do with good socialization than with doctrines. It's absurd for religions to declare themselves indispensable to civil order.
I can only speak for myself to say that religion -- and I'm speaking now of both religions I've practiced in my life, which are Christianity and Buddhism -- has opened me to be more compassionate, more caring, more aware of how my actions impact others. But religion only "works" if you keep it in your heart, not just wear it on your T-shirt.
Nice post. In my view religions at their heart are meant as spiritual practices to understand the self, find more peace within ourselves, find a greater understanding about life and to learn to be kind to others. Everything, including the self, are therefore an object within the realm of the religious/spiritual practice to be processed.
When the religious practices becomes an object of the self then that is where there are problems. The self turns the religion into another “thing” in its life bound by craving and aversion like everything else. The self then tries to protect the religion or try to enforce its views and practices on others, or it tries avert away from practices, beliefs, or ideas it doesn’t agree with that it sees external to itself that threatens its own sense of identify or affiliation to the religion.
When a group of people take religion like this it becomes a case of the blind leading the blind, no proper understanding about the religious practice at is heart is shared or taught within the group. They in essence become a collective identity running the same patterns as the self that has taken the religion as the object.
So I agree, the problem isn’t the religion itself but the process by which we as people take religions and turn them into another object we attach to and hence create suffering. At the end of the day its like eating food, it doesn’t matter if you use a fork, spoon, chopstick or simply your hand to eat. There are many kinds of ways eating, it doesn’t matter what style you choose, the point is “Are you full?”, this is what religious practices are about
Metta
Dean
Religious folk think they are the only moral folk. I once was a christian but now have grown up to become an Athiest. When I finally admitted this to my wife she thought I was immediately going to find myself a whore, drink a bottle of liquor down, go push an old lady down in the road and other un-moral crap.
She has come to find out I still love her, am committed to our relationship, and still have the same moral compass even tho I no longer believe in the sky god. Religion has no bearing on moral compass.
If I saw my dad kick kittens when I was young and laugh at the effect i might unfortunately grow up and do the same. If I saw my father treat my mother with loving kindness I would probably do that to. Young persons watch older persons with eyes wide open eager to find instructions on how to act.
Lessons in Morality are passed on from old man to young man, old women to young women regardless if they are religious, what kind, or not at all.
Very interesting, and timely post! I lean towards the “Spiritual but not Religious” movement.
A parable
“God and the devil were walking down a path one day when God spotted something sparkling by the side of the path. He picked it up and held it in the palm of his hand.
“Ah, Truth,” he said.
“Here, give it to me,” the devil said. “I’ll organize it.”
the whole article is found here….
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-06-03/living/spiritual.but.not.religious_1_spiritual-community-religious-god?_s=PM:LIVING
This post brought to mind the amazing film Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter … and Spring — a visual exploration of Buddhist teachings on morality in relation to an understanding of karma.
I agree with the spirit of what you’ve written here. The problem with most religions is that it is very easy to form narratives which may justify one’s prejudices and fears, and the alternative, well, overcoming fear takes, you know, work. So when you ask,
what exactly is it about the dominant religion, Christianity, that causes these problems? I don’t see anything in the teachings of Jesus that would encourage people to be, well, mean and ignorant.
The answer’s really simple: nothing in Jesus teachings’ per se of course, but Jesus’ teachings are but a minuscule portion of the Christians’ scriptures, whatever the flavor Christianity. There’s St. Paul. And that nasty genocide stuff in the Old Testament. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob could hardly be called a paragon of morality.
[Armstrong] says these movements are a reaction to modernity and our ever-shrinking globe. “Fear is at the heart of fundamentalism,” she writes. “The fear of losing yourself.”
I’ve said it too, long before I ever heard of Armstrong. Such thinking is referenced in Nietzsche’s Thus Spake Zarathustra.
Finally, for that reason I must confess that I see Buddhism, with its emphasis not on a scriptural or pastoral authority or blind faith but on finding for yourself the answers to the Great Matter as the last best hope for religion. The fear inside one’s self is simply greed, hatred, and ignorance all rolled into one. Unlike the explicitly non-religious (who can be susceptible to this virus as well) we have tools to deal with it.
And I just wanted to also add, you’re also right about Sri Lanka: even Buddhism can be co-opted to fan the flames of the three poisons.
It really is very important to question everything.
I became religious for two reasons: To find truth, ultimate reality, and to develop compassion and lovingkindness. This is an individual quest, and is not tribal or nationalistic. Superficial religion is like a tortoise shell without a turtle in it.
Interesting article, while I do agree with it to some degree I would like some clarification of “given how often clergy are involved in scandals.” Yes the scandals are on the news a lot, yes the clergy necessarily has a higher need to answer for these scandals due to their perceived standing in the community but… They are human and is their rate of abuse, stealing, etc more or less than the population in general?
I have read (and unable to site at this time) that these issues/crimes are committed less frequently by clergy than in the general population. Any chance you can site information either way?
Great commentary. Too often Religion as institution is self serving. The collective consciousness of the organization develops an agenda that many times doesn’t serve the spiritual path of its origin. Ie.Terry Jones, Jim Jones, Marshall Applegate (Haill-Bopp) etc.
Quoting Mahatma Gandhi:
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
To borrow the argument from the US gun lobby “Religion does not kill people (in fact all the main ones enjoin us not to kill each other)… People do! (mainly power crazed political leaders who use religion for their own twisted purposes)!”.
Most of the sacred texts in this world are not to blame for the violence and bloodshed perpetrated by the supposed devout followers. Consider the sacred texts sublime and a blueprint for good living. Now consider those with axes to grind who take the sublime and shred it in pieces with their claws of hate, self-protection and strife. We on this earth are meant to live in peace and constrained hostilities. If we follow the sublime and rise above our own selfish desires, we would find happiness.
Religion and politics are a toxic mix in the wrong hands. It seems that the wrong hands are the norm rather than the exception in religious disourse. Deeply relgious people are very introspective, it seems to me, and generally shun political involvement. Politics churns up divisive emotions, contrary to the emotional structure that true religion attempts to engender in us. It’s love vs. hate. Most professed “religionists” all to often fall on the wrong side of the divide.
Where there is an institution there is power. Where there is power there is corruption. Given the most angelic of all angels a position of power eventually the angle will become corrupt!
The corrupt have little or no trouble in acquiring followers in this predominate world of adolencent mentality.
Isn’t that how government and religious instutions thrive and survive?
The human need for respect and comradery are so powerful that they often will gladly sacrafice their life to participate in the cause!
One last thought: Today’s governments and religions will be tomorrow’s mythologies. However the corruption formula survives!
Oh, such a paradox, for society can’t do with them, and can’t do without them!