A Common Thread
I've become fascinated by the work of Dr. Richard Dawkins. As one who had a very negative experience with Christianity, his books immediately appealed to me. Being biased, I realize that the following is coming from someone who has very strong opinions regarding Christianity. I also realize that Dawkins' work is not outside the realm of critique. However, I do not understand a common thread I find in those who critique him.
Robin has been devouring Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" and we have watched his documentary The Root of All Evil?. In it, he details the malicious influence of what happens when religion is taken seriously. In reading criticism after criticism, I keep coming across the same thing: Dawkins is making blanket statements about religions and moreover, showcasing religious extremists and radicals; he is not paying enough attention to the more peaceful, benign sects of western religion.
To begin, the question Dawkins wanted to pose had nothing to do with being fair to all of western religion. He never said it was. His point is that religion (particularly organized religion) has a pattern of devolving into these extreme forms. In a way, he is highlighting the logical conclusion of what the Good Book preaches. Now, of course he is not suggesting that everyone falls under this category, he even says so, but there is a malevolent force behind religion, one that focuses hatred, bigotry, and segregation. All this happens in the name of religion, so it is excused when other races or classes or genders are slighted because they aren't religious. Do you actually believe that the root of segregation and bigotry in the United States is scientifically motivated? The where does it come from? How is it justified? In my opinion, it comes from the seeds of religion.
It's all well and good if one isn't a religious extremist. Let's say you go to church, contribute to your society and lead a peaceful existence; but this is topical. In the case of religion, doing those things doesn't remove one from the viral effect of religion. I would take it a step further than Dawkins and suggest that quiet Christianity, the one I described above, does as much damage to one's social compassion for others as does radical extremism (and if you think radical extremism is only of the violent persuasion, I give you the Evangelicals). Dawkins' work is trying to unearth what lies underneath the influence of Christianity. Just because you don't strap a bomb to your chest doesn't mean that you don't use religion to justify misogeny and bigotry. In my opinion, the step from "quiet Christian" to "radical extremist" is not as far as one might think.
This brings me to my second point. The criticisms of Dawkins then go on to say that Dawkins is being unduly harsh; that religion has contributed positively to the world. They say that our sense of ethics, morals and the like have all come from religion. I hope you're laughing as hard as I did when I first read that. I'm honestly at a loss when people say these things. Ethics, morals and values developed because humans had to evolve and live together. As sentient beings, we have developed an evolutionary need to deal with one another outside the realm of hunting and gathering. Our relatively feeble bodies have survived because of our conscious ability to separate and decide, to plan and create. Our complex system of interaction has indeed been influenced by religion, but in no way did it develop because of religion. On this point, I'm not sure my rebuttal of the critique will hold for one, very simple reason: these critics either don't believe in or don't understand evolution.
So what about the people who live religiously but don't take everything it says literally? I know many people who I love deeply that just take the "good parts" of Christianity and leave the hateful, bigoted ones aside. Dawkins has a wonderful point on this and basically wonders then at what point is one still religious? The point of being religious is following the tenets set forth by a founding scripture of some sort. The point is to do certain things and act in certain ways that will garner one the ultimate reward of heaven after we leave this "test" of an existence. I would say that these people either are or are not religious. The reason being, their religion demands a definite stand on its values. There is no gray in Christianity. At least, there isn't gray in the bible. Regarding bigotry specifically, the homosexual is dealt with quite clearly in the Bible. While I can certainly appreciate those Christians who let that part of the bible slide, why do they call themselves Christians? Is is because they believe the majority of the Bible is good? Seriously? Have they read the Old Testament and 60% of the New Testament? I can only speak to the Bible of course, but I know that Islam falters under the same problem.
I am far from callous. I believe in having a spiritual side, one that is open to new possibilities and grapples with the philosophical dilemma that is our consciousness. This excess of our consciousness, call it spirit, call it whatever you want, is beautiful, meaningful and challenging. I think it is much harder to face the here and now than it is to think that you're just biding your time, waiting until those pearly gates open. To be faced, truly faced, with one's humanity is not something western religion asks its constituents to do. Instead, people who buy into religion are content to wait until something better comes along. Rather than affirm life and live joyously in the here and now, they live trapped under a regime that from them draws immense wealth and power.
And yes, that is what I think religions do at a fundamental level. Their purpose is a viral, self-propagating machine bent on complete world domination veiled under good will and charity. On this point, Dawkins and myself are in total agreement. I do however welcome your arguments and would love to be proven otherwise.
Addendum: In this post, I used the word "religion" without qualifying it in some cases. In all cases, I take "religion" to mean organized western religion.
Robin has been devouring Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" and we have watched his documentary The Root of All Evil?. In it, he details the malicious influence of what happens when religion is taken seriously. In reading criticism after criticism, I keep coming across the same thing: Dawkins is making blanket statements about religions and moreover, showcasing religious extremists and radicals; he is not paying enough attention to the more peaceful, benign sects of western religion.
To begin, the question Dawkins wanted to pose had nothing to do with being fair to all of western religion. He never said it was. His point is that religion (particularly organized religion) has a pattern of devolving into these extreme forms. In a way, he is highlighting the logical conclusion of what the Good Book preaches. Now, of course he is not suggesting that everyone falls under this category, he even says so, but there is a malevolent force behind religion, one that focuses hatred, bigotry, and segregation. All this happens in the name of religion, so it is excused when other races or classes or genders are slighted because they aren't religious. Do you actually believe that the root of segregation and bigotry in the United States is scientifically motivated? The where does it come from? How is it justified? In my opinion, it comes from the seeds of religion.
It's all well and good if one isn't a religious extremist. Let's say you go to church, contribute to your society and lead a peaceful existence; but this is topical. In the case of religion, doing those things doesn't remove one from the viral effect of religion. I would take it a step further than Dawkins and suggest that quiet Christianity, the one I described above, does as much damage to one's social compassion for others as does radical extremism (and if you think radical extremism is only of the violent persuasion, I give you the Evangelicals). Dawkins' work is trying to unearth what lies underneath the influence of Christianity. Just because you don't strap a bomb to your chest doesn't mean that you don't use religion to justify misogeny and bigotry. In my opinion, the step from "quiet Christian" to "radical extremist" is not as far as one might think.
This brings me to my second point. The criticisms of Dawkins then go on to say that Dawkins is being unduly harsh; that religion has contributed positively to the world. They say that our sense of ethics, morals and the like have all come from religion. I hope you're laughing as hard as I did when I first read that. I'm honestly at a loss when people say these things. Ethics, morals and values developed because humans had to evolve and live together. As sentient beings, we have developed an evolutionary need to deal with one another outside the realm of hunting and gathering. Our relatively feeble bodies have survived because of our conscious ability to separate and decide, to plan and create. Our complex system of interaction has indeed been influenced by religion, but in no way did it develop because of religion. On this point, I'm not sure my rebuttal of the critique will hold for one, very simple reason: these critics either don't believe in or don't understand evolution.
So what about the people who live religiously but don't take everything it says literally? I know many people who I love deeply that just take the "good parts" of Christianity and leave the hateful, bigoted ones aside. Dawkins has a wonderful point on this and basically wonders then at what point is one still religious? The point of being religious is following the tenets set forth by a founding scripture of some sort. The point is to do certain things and act in certain ways that will garner one the ultimate reward of heaven after we leave this "test" of an existence. I would say that these people either are or are not religious. The reason being, their religion demands a definite stand on its values. There is no gray in Christianity. At least, there isn't gray in the bible. Regarding bigotry specifically, the homosexual is dealt with quite clearly in the Bible. While I can certainly appreciate those Christians who let that part of the bible slide, why do they call themselves Christians? Is is because they believe the majority of the Bible is good? Seriously? Have they read the Old Testament and 60% of the New Testament? I can only speak to the Bible of course, but I know that Islam falters under the same problem.
I am far from callous. I believe in having a spiritual side, one that is open to new possibilities and grapples with the philosophical dilemma that is our consciousness. This excess of our consciousness, call it spirit, call it whatever you want, is beautiful, meaningful and challenging. I think it is much harder to face the here and now than it is to think that you're just biding your time, waiting until those pearly gates open. To be faced, truly faced, with one's humanity is not something western religion asks its constituents to do. Instead, people who buy into religion are content to wait until something better comes along. Rather than affirm life and live joyously in the here and now, they live trapped under a regime that from them draws immense wealth and power.
And yes, that is what I think religions do at a fundamental level. Their purpose is a viral, self-propagating machine bent on complete world domination veiled under good will and charity. On this point, Dawkins and myself are in total agreement. I do however welcome your arguments and would love to be proven otherwise.
Addendum: In this post, I used the word "religion" without qualifying it in some cases. In all cases, I take "religion" to mean organized western religion.
posted by Infused Confusion at
8:13 AM
8 Comments:
"[Religion]is a viral, self-propagating machine bent on complete world domination veiled under good will and charity."
Heavy shit, dude. I don't completely agree, though. That may be the case with ORGANIZED religion... or perhaps more specifically ORGANIZED WESTERN religion.
But I think the problem there has less to do with believers so much as the "leaders." Or worse, people in power who use religion to manipulate believers into giving them money or following a certain political stance. THAT'S the self-propagating machine, in my eyes.
To my knowledge (and I could be wrong), Eastern religions don't really have this problem because they focus more on the individual than the group following a leader.
Thoughts?
By
Mr. Burns, At
8:39 AM
Yeah, I was kinda on a roll there. In this post, I am definitely taking on western religion; I could have made that more clear.
I also agree on the point of Eastern religion. They are certainly less viral than their western counterparts, and much can be said about their approach to a thoughtful life. What little exposure I have to eastern religion (read: basically none), I can say that their aim is towards a personal enlightenment, whatever that looks like.
That said, eastern religion still suffers from division and the mine-is-better-than-yours mindset. While I don't think this is their guiding mantra, it exists nonetheless.
I would say that the reason eastern religion doesn't suffer the same negative consequences as western religion (at large) is because their focus is on the individual, who is counseled by a leader. In that, we agree. But I think there is something more to western religion.
The whole "sheep following the shepherd" demands no critical thought from its constituents. The problem is not so much in the leaders of the church, for they are fulfilling a role set out for them in the scripture (in Christianity and Islam that is). We could easily point at the Pat Robertsons and Ted Haggarts and laugh (which we do), but they are really extreme cases. In your normal everyday church, you have someone who is just "trying to follow God's law as closely as possible" and that's what I have issue with.
Intellectual apathy is actually encouraged in western religion. "Because I said so" is the ultimate parent/God edict, and one that is followed without question. Now, of course leaders of religious organizations are questioned, but they are rarely challenged. Allow me to say that I probably have a very different idea of what "challenge" is than most western religious leaders.
So the problem, for me, lies equally on the "leaders" and their "flock". I think leaders manipulate believers, true, but I think that they truly believe they are doing God's work. In that regard, they aren't manipulating believers.
I would say that the true manipulation occurs within the believer. They manipulate themselves into buying their religion even when reality begs them to question their beliefs. The form of discipline and conquest over the self, in my opinion, is not something pure and good, it is insipid and destructive.
By
Infused Confusion, At
9:29 AM
Hmmm...
I'll admit my exposure to eastern religion is sparse (i.e. limited to conversations with people from India and China, and what I've gathered from National Geographic). So I'm having a hard time picturing the division and mine-is-better-than-yours mindset. Since what I've gathered led me to believe the Eastern mindset is to mold the religion to the individual (a far cry from the Western tradition of molding the individual to the religion). Maybe from there, it's almost like keeping up with the Nielsens: My lawn is greener than my neighbor's, my perspective on Buddhism is more colorful that his....
I have no clue. Can you give me an example?
And maybe Religion does get people to believe in crazy things (Scientology, anyone?), but it provides them an answer to an age-old question that scares their pants off: What happens when you die? People are pretty willing to buy into some pretty outrageous things if they think it'll save them from the cold clutches of death.
Another thing that draws people to Western religions is the social aspect. And they buy into everything else after that. I've known a few people who went from mildly liberal to fiercely conservative in less than a year because they found fellowship at a church. Suddenly, they were plugged into a vast social network... surrounded by instant friends, so long as they believed the same thing.
Two very powerful magnets pulling people into the herd and manipulating them to obey.
The point is, I find it hard to blame the "flock," because they're motivated to "manipulate" themselves to satisfy two powerful, primal drives: The drive for social acceptance, and survival.
By
Mr. Burns, At
10:19 AM
Gosh, all I know about criticism of eastern religion came from an article we read in one of my Philosophy of Religion courses. The critic was from India and was doing basically the same thing I am, only far more eloquently. But that vague reference doesn't really stand, so I'll just leave it at that.
My only problem with what you're saying is that you are basically removing personal responsibility from the whole thing. Because someone is motivated by a drive (albeit powerful) doesn't mean they should act on it. Particularly when the base of that drive is to give up one's critical faculties.
Social acceptance and survival are simple things to achieve when you're surrounded by people who believe exactly the same thing as you and moreover, have stopped questioning their existence. In that regard, how can we solely blame the leaders? Or how can we mostly blame the leaders? It's up to the individual to decide what's best for themselves. I'm not trying to say the influence of such ideas isn't extremely powerful and highly effective. It is, however, external to the self. One can be socially accepted and survive outside such institutions. We don't live in a fascist state (yet?). I think what you mean to say (if I'm right) is that there's a HUGE amount of social acceptance, so much so that it's hard to turn away from.
Fair enough. But to beat down one's ability to question is not a matter of survival. Though in some cases (politics?) I'm sure it is. When it comes to one's personal beliefs, however, if one is capable of such theoretical maneuvering, they are doing so through self-manipulation; convincing themselves not to question or think.
By
Infused Confusion, At
10:45 AM
This is a fun conversation.
I don't totally blame the "shepherd," I was just saying I have a hard time blaming the followers, and I certainly can't blame them nearly as much as the leaders.
Survival was probably a poor word choice. What I was trying to get across isn't that people follow religion to stay alive. They follow religion because it quells their fear of death. Religion provides people with hope that there's something beyond this life - that when they die, they won't just disappear into oblivion, but that they'll keep living... in a different form.
I don't think religion stops believers from questioning their existence. It just provides them with some very simple answers to some very tough questions. And I think it's a lot easier for most people to accept a simple answer rather than a complicated one. Even if the truth is much more complicated at times.
By
Mr. Burns, At
12:51 PM
I realize that I'm being extremely critical here, and I also understand your point about how religion quells someone's fear of death. However you take that word (as either "vanquish" or "diminish"), I have issues. SEXUAL issues ;)
(you're right, religious topics CAN be fun!!)
But seriously, I don't think it quells someone's fear of death as much as it replaces it with something of a fairytale. The reality of death is still there, but people are able to go to their "happy place" when truly faced with it. Watching my uncle get eaten alive by cancer was one of those instances for me. This was when I was 16, so I had fully renounced all ties to Christianity by that point, and something amazing happened. By facing his death, by letting it in, I became more comfortable with death than I ever thought possible. I saw it as natural, real and life-affirming. Okay, so that was my personal experience, which is hardly something I expect everyone to take up, but I likes my soapbox.
Dr. Dawkins makes an excellent point about this (not my soapbox, about life after death). Though atheists have been vilified to the harshest degree, they are in fact more in tune with the here and now than those from organized religion. They see each day as an opportunity to take in what is around them. If this is the only life, if this is truly our only consciousness, that makes one want harmony with others, they actually want to live peacefully. They want, in a sense, everything western religion does without the ignorance and bigotry. Of course it is easy to say, "well if you don't believe in anything, what do you believe in?" which is horse shit. Atheists DO believe in something: each other and our earth. Sorry to get all ooey gooey on everyone, but they do. What they DON'T believe in is superstition and hyperbole, which doesn't make them non-believers, it makes them realists.
"It just provides them with some very simple answers to some very tough questions", you said. Yep. Completely. And that is precisely why they stop questioning their existence. Simple (read: wrong) answers to complex questions don't beg one to continue searching. I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say that western religion is not the core of existence. It is predicated upon and spread upon the fact that it is, but surely it isn't. The simple fact that there are countless others who believe just as strongly as westerners should prove that. But of course, they would say that "well, some people are wrong and some people are right". Again, simple answer to a complex question.
And by the way, the form in which I hope to live eternity is a Panda Bear. I'll be cute and cuddly but if you get close I'll totally fuck you up. Just a warning.
By
Infused Confusion, At
1:23 PM
Interesting.
uhhh... I have no follow up.
By
Mr. Burns, At
7:35 AM
Some may feel squeamish about eating it, but rabbit has a fan base that grows as cooks discover how easy they are to raise — and how good the meat tastes.
By
Anonymous, At
12:33 AM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home