Having sincerely been an agnostic, an atheist and a religious person in my life I feel relatively comfortable open mindedly discussing religion despite the sensitive nature of the subject. My mother took me and my Irish Catholic grandmother to church on Sunday's, my primary school taught the bible in similar ways to how it taught maths and science. I knew nothing else and assumed, like the other things I had been shown, that these things relating to the Bible were facts. At around the age of seven or eight I began to question the logic of the religious teachings, I had discovered there were other religions with differing views, science and religion didn't agree with where we came from and so forth. Not finding that the teachings of religion agreed with my observations in life and my understanding of the world I chose to fully reject their ideas and revert to a scientific atheist outlook. These pessimistic atheist views of mine had no evidence to disprove them, much like religion in that it is unable to offer proof in favour of it's existence. Thus remains the stand off between religion and atheism.
From about eighteen onwards I gradually grew less resentful for having been tricked into religious belief in my youth and became slowly more open minded, accepting and spiritual. This process has continued to this day and I now consider myself, as I have for several years, to be an agnostic, this however is a term that is undergoing a change in meaning. Technically an agnostic is someone who asserts that the existence of a god is un-knowable, more of a philosophical stance on the difference between belief and knowledge. Commonly the word is used to describe those people who sit on the fence in this debate, generally through an apathy towards the whole topic rather than a strong philosophical stance on it. My personal take on agnosticism is an outlook which does not depend on either the existence of god or the non-existence of god but that works equally well in both cases.
Being even more technical I should probably call myself an agnostic theist but given my particular outlook this only really suggests that I am an optimist within my own belief system. I would like to see the introduction of some new words to describe the difference in types of agnosticism, one for the person who just doesn't care either way, one for the philosophical stand point and yet more to describe the proactive and spiritual of agnostics such as myself. I do not really hold the philosophical view of an agnostic as I do believe that the existence of god is knowable, that I do not presently know the answer does not mean that I cannot in principle. I will return to my particulars of my religious outlook at the end of this essay. First we must look at religion in more general terms so as to appreciate the reasons for my religious outlook.
There are two distinct categories in which we can place the effects of religions. We can call these macro and micro, or social and personal, or even internal and external. The point is that religion has a profound yet different effect on these two areas. In general I would say that the micro effects are positive while the macro ones are less so. In the latter case this is not a rule but rather a trend, and need not always apply. It is the result of how the religions have developed alongside society that have caused much of the large scale interactions of religions being detrimental to those societies and others. It is common place to site the various atrocities, inhumanities, wars and genocides that have occurred in the name of religion as an argument against religions in general. This appears only to be a mechanical problem that is well explained by Adam Smith in a section of The Wealth of Nations which may be found by following this link;
In summary, religions act much like companies. When allowed to grow to monopolistic sizes they tend away from a mutually beneficial relationship with the society. They operate best and are least able to have pernicious effects when there is much competition. In a religiously cosmopolitan society there will be no atrocities, inhumanities, wars or genocides in the name of a religion. I agree with Smith's reasoning and am able to somewhat support it with social changes since the Wealth of Nations was published. The various arguments against religion due to the negative macro effects it can have I regard as soluble, and as such, not a sound basis for argument.
The macro arguments against religion because of socially damaging consequences assumes these negatives outweigh the macro positives alone, before we even consider the micro ones. This is a big assumption to make as much art, culture, charity, scientific discovery and many more have all come from religious belief. It is however an impossible comparison to make between “A Convalescents Prayer of Thanksgiving to the Deity in the Lydian mode” and something like the Crusades. This is not problematic as we have mechanisms to remove the negative aspects of macro religion leaving a predominance of the incomparable positives. Thus even on a large social level religion can be a purely positive force, which is a significant kicker as I consider the micro religious reasons to be those of most benefit to humanity as I shall attempt to describe.
Religion, from the outset, has helped individuals come to terms with the paradoxes of human life and live a fuller, happier and more productive life. All other animals inherently have in them a will to live, this is something that humans must justify to themselves before they are able to revel in life. The human concept of self is a powerful tool as it offers us great reasoning capacity but it comes at the cost of subsequently requiring a reason to live.
Self esteem and self worth are terms to describe reasons for living and may be acquired in many ways. This topic was covered in general terms in my essay entitled The Meaning of Life in which I intentionally avoided discussing religion in detail as it is such a vast topic requiring at least an essay of it's own. I discussed it in general terms with all other forms of higher cause which included political, social or cultural as well as religious. I then concluded the essay in a pragmatic manner that could allow devout atheists the capacity to appreciate the sentiments, but that only related to my outlook in life that applies specifically to the non-existence of god possibility.
This essay will expand a little on the merits of attaining meaning of life in religious ways and will look more at the aspects of my life outlook that apply to the existence of god possibility. It may be easiest to show how religion can be helpful to the individual by illustrating the social effects of a more atheist or indifferent society. Western society has undergone a general loss of faith over the past hundred or so years. Around a hundred years ago western societies were predominantly mono-cultures. They were mostly white and Christian, those that were not tended to be somewhat segregated from the rest of the society. Neither I nor Smith would advocate this position but it was a relatively recent period where the vast majority of the people held religious belief and so useful for comparison. Since then we have observed a marked decline in the traditional religions of the western nations, a general accelerating decline in attendance to religious events and an increased apathy towards religion in general. This may be used as a case study to show some of the changes that this may have caused or aided. Such things can never be an exact science due to lack of control on the many other variables but it can provide good evidence when used in combination with good reasoning.
Over these years in which religious following has declined both science and technology have come to the forefront in terms of enhancing our lives and producing miracles. While religion has remained dormant for millennia, science has made countless medical breakthroughs, put men on the moon, created the atomic bomb, made communication instantaneous and offered bounteous rewards in ease and comfort of living. Science has made giant leaps in making a Heaven on Earth, which is great in many ways but is also not devoid of consequence. It has often seemed as if there were this war between science and religion, this as with the other macro religious problems is the result of unforeseen developments in society. Science and religion need not be mutually exclusive, it just so happens they find themselves in disagreement on a few issues which causes the problems.
Science having gained so much ground in understanding and the affections of people over the last century has had the effect of diminishing the value of religion. Religion now offers less to people than science and technology offer relative to a century ago. In essence people now hold more stock in the teachings of science than those of religion in modern western society. Many people who still actively practice religion do so with more open interpretations of the teachings rather than more traditional literal understandings which are more conflicting with science. While I feel that society has more to gain from the investment of resources in science than it does by investing in religious pursuits I do not think this is the case on an individual level at all. The downside of the more scientific outlook is the inability to provide suitable meaning for life.
As science has improved the tendency to place significance and meaning in material objects has increased. I summarised this well in an essay I started almost a year ago but never completed - As western cultures develop and advance scientifically, the understanding of our circumstances becomes clearer. We rely less on the spiritual and mystical, focusing more on the material and tangible aspects of our lives. This understanding helps humanity build ever better tools and machines, it allows for great medical breakthroughs and generally improves the physical quality of life however it does little to improve the methods in which people justify their existence.
While it is possible to attribute meaning to various material objects it is both dangerous and superficial. This does not stop it occurring, most frequently in affluent or non-spiritual persons. Ernest Becker calls a material thing from which we derive self esteem or self worth from a pseudopod. He describes them as an extension of the mental understanding of the self and as such the individual who has grown one of these pseudopods is able to feel as if things done to the pseudopod is done directly to them. He then cites a few examples, in the first a man parked his convertible outside a shop and returned to find another man sitting innocently in the car to see how it might feel. Unfortunately this particular car was a pseudopod of the owners, who promptly shot the other man for such a direct violation.
The second example is of those brokers who threw themselves out of their office block windows upon their balances reaching zero during the nineteen twenty nine Wall Street crash. So much of these persons self worth was tied up in their funds that when they ceased to exist these individuals effectively died, the act of suicide of the body was just a formality. The real world is one of constant change which means that beliefs, outlooks and understandings that relate to the real world must be adaptable and flexible so as to avert potential disasters.
Religion has always offered the individual a permanent and indestructible source of self esteem and worth. The idea of god lies outside the realm of the tangible and cannot be destroyed or disproved. All religions offer their followers this secure bedrock as foundations for their existence. Religion offers what nothing in the world of change can. It allows people to live with peace of mind, security, comfort, self worth, guidance and happiness, all with relative ease compared to the material world. Many more people seem capable of finding this inner peace through religion than seem capable of fashioning one via material wealth which is reason alone to lament the decline of religion in the more developed areas of the world. In a search for the meaning of life, religion is an oasis in a desert, offering abundant nutrition and refreshment to the soul.
Although religious ideas are able to endure physical changes in the real world they can be undermined with alternate ideas of the same nature, namely other religions. If I believe in my specific god and you believe in a different god we cannot both be exactly correct. Alternate belief threatens the security and sanctity of ones own beliefs. This mirrors the world of reality in that two contrary proofs undermine each other. In the realm outside of proof belief is able to perform the same role. The simple reason there has been so much hatred in religious feuds is because each religion threatens the very basis for existence for the members of the other religions. To cope with this threat when not in direct conflict religions will try to alienate and discredit others. This is easy when those beliefs are held by people in distant lands but when differing entrenched religious ideas are on each others door steps there is either conflict or decline in faith.
Another problem that exacerbates this issue is the immutable nature of most religious doctrine. It is a very hard to preach the word of god for several centuries and then to admit inaccuracies in those teachings as a result of scientific understanding or cultural change. This undermines the credibility of the religion and is dangerous in the same way that other religions may be to individuals who require the religion for their mental nutrition. The more rigid the religious doctrine the greater difficulty the followers will have in maintaining the positive benefits of their belief when confronted with other religions and cultural changes.
In the article by Smith the mechanism by which religions tend towards more rigid doctrines is described and solved. He elegantly asserts that by having a religiously free and neutral state that interpretations of religions would become more open as competition grew, and thus any pernicious effects from the undermining of self justification systems would be removed. Smith was half right in that this can be observed in developed western democracies with cosmopolitan cultures. What he failed to predict was the general decline in faith and increase in esteem for material worth.
When discrediting a religion or a particular aspect of a belief system it is the followers that stand to lose most. I see attacks on religions as an attack on a whole group of people. As mentioned in the meaning of life essay, each persons system of self justification is incredibly specific and personal, not to mention important to their well being. I see few differences between waging a war on a nation in which supply chains are cut off and people begin to starve and a powerfully persuasive argument discrediting the merits of a religious belief. Both harm and deprive innocent individuals more than the institutions. It is for this reason I strongly disagree with the recent efforts of Mr Dawkins. His work on The Selfish Gene showed his genius. His work on the god delusion is not only a waste of genius but unnecessary tampering in the delicate affairs of others. It is exactly the same as trying to convert people to a different religion but with none of the reasonable justifications for doing so, it undermines belief systems and makes life harder for those affected. When it comes to belief systems, if an individual is capable of finding any stability and happiness they should be allowed that comfort, not have the personal systems of others imposed upon them.
Returning to the issue Smith did not foresee in which a decline in faith is observed I see only one solution. To cope with the strains that science and close proximity to other religions puts on faith a new kind of religion is needed. A religion which is not contradicted so frequently in reality would allow the benefits of faith and higher meaning in this era of society. Ramakrishna was one of the first to tread such paths. In his life he practised Hinduism, Islam and Christianity, teaching that all religions lead to the same end. Having not yet read the Sri Sri Ramakrishna Kathamrita I am not in a position to talk further on his specific views or teachings and will have to make do with my own. I suspect a good translation of the Sri Sri Ramakrishna Kathamrita would be a good place to start for any person wishing to explore their spirituality without ascribing to any particular religion.
Upon finding I had the room in my soul for some faith I set about looking for ways to satisfy this fancy. It is rather hard to place into words what reasons I have for accepting the possibility of there being a god. Three of the main reasons I would cite if pushed are; the distinction I place between body and conciseness, the unhelpful fact that I feel it in some vague indescribable way, and that the vast majority of people throughout history have and do hold some form of religious belief.
It is far less hard to describe the acceptable ways I found to allow an idea of god into my life. The things that drove me away from religion were a combination of the contradictions with other faiths and science, and also the obvious artefacts of a pre-industrial era left over as tradition. What enabled me to return to religious ideas are the beneficial commonalities between the religions. These are;
Suggestions on how to lead a good and moral life in the real world.
The potential to attain immortality.
The existence of a higher purpose, power or god.
Solid foundations to attain meaning for one's life within the internal realm of the self.
Without a purpose for existence morality is meaningless. I can logically construct a moral and ethical code which mutually affords the best outcomes for those people I interact with and myself. Over a large enough time-scale all our actions are likely to be utterly irrelevant and as such any logic based purely on reality that commands moral conduct towards others is also irrelevant. I am not suggesting people are purely self interested (although many are) and as such require an incentive such as Heaven so that they treat each other well. I am suggesting that more and more people will start to conclude that nothing matters at all as faith is lost in society. The amoral person is far scarier than the immoral person. An immoral person is just a moral person with differing views from the norm. My form of agnosticism does away with this issue as in the non-existence of god option nothing matters so any action is equally reasonable. However in the existence of god option there is purpose and therefore morality (and other things) apply. As both are possibilities, one of which dictates action while the other doesn't it is logical to act as if god does exists and thus morally.
On this premise I have to envisage a god that does not contradict reality so as to remain consistent. Given that my whole system is based on logic is somewhat assumes that my god obeys the laws of logic. This alone disproves certain things regarding religion, things like how in Christianity good people can wind up in Hell due to unfortunate circumstances, which a loving god could not allow. Beyond this my particular ideas of how god is manifest are far beyond vague or ill defined containing very little substance at all. Essentially I am willing to accept any of the ideas as to what god is that are possible as far as logic goes.
Society wide morality is rather like personal outlook/belief systems in that it is unique to societies based on their circumstances. Morality having the capacity to vary suggests that god will allow for any persons code provided it is justified and not an absolute doctrine of morality. In my Ramakrishna style interpretation of all religions being different interpretations of the same thing I feel under no obligation to make sacrifices or attend rituals to uphold a belief. I am obliged only to live a life in which I can look back at the end and call it a good life well spent by my own criteria. It is an accepting religion that allows many interpretations and understandings, all specific faiths are able to worship in it's churches and all other religious buildings may be used by it in return. It never tries to convert people or suggest new ways of looking at things, all it does is accept people for how they are. It is a humble religion that claims to know very little, willing to try any idea of for fit. It would be a religion based only on faith and not books or idols made by man.
It could be that god is consciousness and we are all tiny fragments of one great being. It could be that god is the universe and we exist as part of god's imagination. Both sound ridiculous when put in words and matter very little in reality. The point is accepting the possibility of a god, the faith is waiting to experience the actuality upon death. Sadly I think the era of new religious formation is past. Part of the allure of religion are the answers it can provide to big questions, while my personal take on religion does away with the harmful macro social effects of religion it offers few answers. This combined with a religious scepticism in an environment of monopoly religions makes it very unlikely any religion with similar values to my own will come into mainstream existence.
The real solution to the problems of religious conflict and lack of self worth in areas of declining faith are acts of humility from the notable figures from the established religions. If god does exists we can guarantee that it is not man made, which all religions are. For religions to survive they will need to start accepting the possibility of human error within their doctrine so that they can offer people the chance of faith without contradictions. I believe a society without faith would be duller, unhappier and less likely to endure. As with my stance on democracy and capitalism I find myself again with the topic of religion; I am for them all in principle but must elect for 'the none of the above' option when offered the choice of those that exist or have ever existed.
No comments:
Post a Comment