Friday, November 25, 2011

Would The World Be Better Off Without Religion?


Would the world be better off without religion? This was the question debated on NPR’s Intelligence Squared the other day, and, like most debates, left me annoyed.

The pro side argued that religious people were happier, more generous, more likely to volunteer for community projects, and more civic minded than nonreligious people, and didn’t care if one was Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. as long as one wasn’t atheist. But if any religion is better than no religion, do religious differences matter at all? And if they don’t, what does that say about the religions themselves?

The con side argued that religion stymied science, dumbed down the human capacity for reason, and imposed outmoded mores on what would otherwise be liberal progressive societies, and didn’t care if you were religiously liberal or religiously fundamentalist, going so far as to call the former hypocrites. One ought to be a fundamentalist or nothing at all. Since this has never been the case historically, insisting that it be so now is silly.

The question I would rather debate is this: Given that religion in one form or another seems to be intrinsic to humankind, what kind of religion is best suited to the 21st century? Of course this isn’t a debate-style question, but it seems better than what was actually being debated.

I would argue for religions that recognize their theologies as myth (stories conveying truths and wisdom in a non literal way); that see science as a corrective to superstition and that continually take the wisdom of science into account in their quests for meaning; that recognize evolution, evolutionary psychology, and evolutionary morality (civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights, animal rights, etc. are something new on the human scene and not intrinsic to ancient religions) as central to the human spiritual unfolding;  that recognize contemplative practice as essential to testing the truth claims of religion; and that essentially see each religion as a unique cultural expression of a universal call to universal justice and compassion, and which, therefore, honor their cultural diversity without mistaking that time-bound heritage for timeless truth.

I don’t think we can do away with religion or religiosity, but we can shape new forms of the religions we have as well as create new religions for a new age.

So for me the answer to the question posed on NPR is this: The world would be a better place without imposing Iron-Age texts and medieval mores on postmodern society, but that in no way means doing away with religion itself.

11 comments:

Charles Kinnaird said...

You hit it out of the park once again with this one! I particularly like 1) your statement that religion is intrinsic to humankind, 2) that religions should “recognize their theologies as myth (stories conveying truths and wisdom in a non literal way)” 3) “recognize contemplative practice as essential to testing the truth claims of religion”

It was liberating for me in college to realize that “myth” did not mean lies or fabricated stories, but rather were, as Mircea Eleade, Joseph Campbell, and Carl Jung would argue, were stories that tell us important truths about our nature. I also find those arguments against religion to be very tired, in that the ills they name in reference to religion are actually human ills that will go wherever humans go, religious or not. I also found contemplative practice to be a quantum leap in how faith and religion are appropriated.

Tricia Datené said...

Myth is the way we educate our children about the unknown. It is the process by which we can cope with life’s changes and make sense of our world. Without myth (faith) we have no culture, and without culture we have no humanity. Myth helps us develop customs, traditions, rituals of living and rules of conduct, which are the underpinnings of a stable society.

leannemcginney said...

Just think you are right on all counts!

Denucho Attarian said...

Religion isn't the bad guy here. It's a lack of true understanding and what is needed is better teachers. This post bears witness to the caliber of teacher the Rabbi is. Wouldn't it be nicer if Charles Kinnaird didn't have to wait till his college days to understand the need for religion. What if he never went to College? Could have been permanantly confused on the religious issue. Great post and comments.

irreverance said...

I really like what you've said in this article. And I agree with you. I share your hope.

>>The question I would rather debate is this: Given that religion in one form or another seems to be intrinsic to humankind, what kind of religion is best suited to the 21st century?<<

Then why not bring it up in its own topic? I'd like to hear you elaborate more. And, it would be interesting to hear what others think.

Matthew said...

I'm interested in the "religion is intrinsic to mankind" thread that seems to be developing on these comments. Certainly this seems to be true globally; that the religious impulse, the search for capital-M Meaning is spread throughout history and cultures. What puzzles me is where I and others like me fit in:
I have no religious impulse. The many intelligent, thoughtful people I know who are seekers, who cannot be content with the universe as it is but who seek something "deeper', baffle me in the same way social interactions must baffle those with autism. I find great wonder, awe, mystery and joy in trying, to my very limited capaticites, to understand the universe and my place in it, but I don't understand why anything "beyond" or "behind" the universe needs to be invoked to access those feelings. I'm not making a Dawkins-esque attack on religion - or I hope I'm not - I'm honestly asking; what does it mean not to lack faith but to lack understanding of the need for faith?

Denucho Attarian said...

67% in a recent exit pole agreed that religion played a significant part of their lives. That's a lot of folks.

Jeff said...

@ Matthew - I don't think it means anything except we should not judge. Some people are tone deaf, have no appreciation of music. This doesn't make them better or worse people in an ultimate sense.

I might say that it is sad that they are lacking this appreciation, but we all are lacking something in this regard.

Bob R said...

I am interested in spirituality and the 2nd axial period. I believe you will speak on that at the Spiritual Directors conference in January. I feel that speakers like Eckhart Tolle have made it clear that civilization has raised its consciousness, but that may not be enough to insure survival of humankind this century. I am practicing "Being Present in the Now"
and "Loving What Is" to help my awareness of nondual consciousness. Now I find that I can finally go deeper into spirituality, but find religion is quite shallow. I can see that "Everything Belongs", but see that only 1% of the people are awakened at all. Where does this all lead?

OGD said...

More or less like Matthew, my beliefs have revolved to a point where I have acknowledged that the need for religion (or religious beliefs) is a sociological/psychological condition for which I maintain a high level of ambivalance. I am amused,intrigued and often disconcerted, if not alarmed, by the actions people take in the name of one religion or another. My favorite quotation - "And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." - Nietzche - I'm just out here dancing...

OGD said...

More or less like Matthew, my beliefs have revolved to a point where I have acknowledged that the need for religion (or religious beliefs) is a sociological/psychological condition for which I maintain a high level of ambivalance. I am amused,intrigued and often disconcerted, if not alarmed, by the actions people take in the name of one religion or another. My favorite quotation - "And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." - Nietzche - I'm just out here dancing...