Sep 25 2008
Anti-Religious?
Yesterday a reader asked why I am anti-religion. Sagely, he noted that it seems that way from my recent writings at this site. (Yes, there is more to me than what I blather about here.) Because I think it is a very important question, I thought I’d answer it in a post.
True, in the context of writing-slash intellectual discourse and exploration, and perhaps a few other areas as well, the classification “anti-religion” is probably fitting. Not coincidentally, I am currently putting the finishing touches on a manuscript tentatively titled, When a God Gets in the Way. That book fully explores my thoughts and experiences as a person opposed to religion.
Why the beef? Well, it seems to me that religion, like no other cultural phenomenon, impedes social and intellectual progress. How is religion unique that way? Strength in numbers thanks to an ideology to rally around, and the central idea of the “sacred.”
(Interestingly, atheists have no real ideology to rally around, so if religion were to disappear, so would atheism. I doubt the reverse is true.)
When something is sacred, thou shalt not question it, criticize it, or oppose it. And my group just might get violent with your group — of living, breathing, individuals — if you disrespect my sacred idea/object.
Talk about a barrier to progress and a threat to peace!
I write and sometimes speak about religion because, as a social being, I care about the social goings-on about me. Because I see religion as a net negative for society-at-large, I oppose it. In our country it seems cultural inertia is largely responsibly for the tolerance shown to our favored forms of religion even in/among moderate/liberal non-believers.
Consider this hypothetical. We live in a time and place of rampant “Freudianity.” There are psychiatrists going door to door to convince people that the only way to be saved is to attend their church and participate in dream interpretation. Meanwhile, politicians and throngs of believers attempt to get such concepts as the Oedipus and Electra complexes, castration anxiety, penis envy, etc., taught in health classes across the land. They claim that repressing sexuality, even during the teenage years, leads to neurosis, and they want this bit of their creed inserted into the public school setting.
Would I be likewise anti-Freudianity? I think so.
Beyond the above cognitive reasons why I oppose religion, I recognize that there are, no doubt, situational and dispositional factors involved as well (to use psychological jargon). If our present political situation were different, and if I didn’t reside in “the Bible Belt” – and thus not daily exposed to religious inanity of all sorts — my behavior might be different. Also, perhaps my innate disposition is that of a habitual contrarian, to one degree or another. I like to pick at intellectual puzzles and to debate. I tend to focus on ideas, sometimes at the expense of emotional consequences. So I can’t deny that there may be unconscious dynamics involved . . . Freud’s erroneous ideas notwithstanding.
To conclude, I have some ideas why I can be anti-religion, but no final answer.
I wonder: Would this world be better off if all people approached one another willing to both accept criticism of their ideas and to admit that their answers may not be final?
Do you believe someday our intellectual capacities will be able to override our natural animosity towards others (in-group/outgroup)? I believe religious conflict is in part to do with this, and if it wasn’t in between religions, it would be between something else. Impossible to know, of course.
I am not sure about religion being a net-negative for society as a large. With intellectualism comes “some answers are better than other”. Things which have been intensely scientifically proved to be wrong can’t be taken as true; example try holding the view that pre-Newtonian physics is true, one would be ridiculed. Intellectualism in the future may reduce the possiblites of the existence of a religious (anthropomorphic) God to an extreme (already starting with Darwinism), causing many people to be ridiculed if they hold a religious belief which may well be a emotional neccessity for them.
A religious God helps alot of people cope. An afterlife and someone looking over one is very comforting in a painful and uncontrollable world. Many intellectual repercussions follow from such beliefs, such as the plausibility of reasoning based off non-sensoriel data which can create a ton of problems. Some people believe this to be true to such an extent that they want to impose it onto others: maybe due in part to wanting to save them, maybe due in part to the fact that the more people who agree with you, the more sure you can be of the veracity of your knowledge. If you are alone in the world to know a contradictory Truth, you would be considered a madman, and you would be lonely. Some atheists surrounded by believers may feel to some extent this way, even though their “Truth” is far from being so (attempting to prove that God doesn’t exist is similar to attempting to look through a mirror).
But for many people the Truth isn’t important; it has no value to their eyes. Eternal bliss does, having some simple rules to know how to live their life does, that they come form a all powerful authority ensures them the quality of the knowledge. Is their an innate tendency to submit to dominance as with dominant males in apes? Maybe. All the same, intellectual matters are of no or little interest to them; they don’t need them; some may not be even capable of them!
Questions creep slyly into my mind: is it morally correct to, in the name of reason, attempt to challenge someone’s fundamental beliefs, if doing so would cause him psychological harm or distress? Is to “convert” someone to an intellectual model of the world (critical thinking for example) a good thing? I attempt to view the world in a most critical way as possible and in times it does cause me distress. We are nothing but atoms? What the hell? :) Note that if you are taught to think critically about your beliefs, very little stands up to scrutiny. Critical thought slaughters religions like cattle .
We are forced into a melting pot with innate in/out group feelings. We also have (most people, I believe), innate tendencies to satisfy one’s biological needs and pleasure (which is, before abuse, a method to know what is biologically good or not) first, then think about truth, logic or morality second: it is a quesiton of priorites. I wonder how many poor and hungry people think about the impact of materialism on the world?
To what extent is intellectual curiosity learned or innate? Do you ever have a “rush” from discovering something interesting? Do you think that most people feel this, or do some recieve higher biological “rewards” (dopamine, serotonin etc) from cognition than others. Is everyone capable of critical thought, and if they are, should they be tought it? These are interesting qustions.
Thank you for your post. I don’t know if my post is relevant to yours at all. Please let me know what you think!
Laurence -
You’ve made a number of great points and raised more important questions. I look forward to mulling them over and responding soon.
Andrew
Sorry it’s been so long Laurence . . .
Here are a few responses to what you wrote. I’m going to copy and paste your original message so you know what I’m responding to.
… “Intellectualism in the future may reduce the possiblites of the existence of a religious (anthropomorphic) God to an extreme (already starting with Darwinism), causing many people to be ridiculed if they hold a religious belief which may well be a emotional neccessity for them.”
May “inspire” it out of the public square? The “emotional necessity” part I’ll be addressing in an upcoming post.
… “A religious God helps alot of people cope. An afterlife and someone looking over one is very comforting in a painful and uncontrollable world.”
I’m not so sure about this. Again, I’ll address it in greater depth soon.
…” attempting to prove that God doesn’t exist is similar to attempting to look through a mirror.”
I don’t get it. How do we know there is anything beyond the mirror, if indeed it is a mirror we are looking in? Wouldn’t it all, including the concepts of deities, be projections?
…”But for many people the Truth isn’t important; it has no value to their eyes. Eternal bliss does, having some simple rules to know how to live their life does . . . ”
Sure.
…”Maybe. All the same, intellectual matters are of no or little interest to them; they don’t need them; some may not be even capable of them!”
Science works. Being able to function in our progressively more intellectual world will become increasingly more important, I believe. I don’t think the issue is capability so much as it is education and interest, which can be nurtured.
. . . “is it morally correct to, in the name of reason, attempt to challenge someone’s fundamental beliefs, if doing so would cause him psychological harm or distress?”
What psychological harm or distress? Depends upon the context. Private beliefs are private and out of bounds unless they endanger others. Public beliefs are another matter. Is it morally correct for religious people to attempt to challenge the beliefs of all those who don’t share theirs?
…”Note that if you are taught to think critically about your beliefs, very little stands up to scrutiny?”
Really? Beliefs like what? I invite the scrutiny of my public beliefs. As for personal beliefs — like my belief that my family is wonderful — they are just that, personal. I wouldn’t put them up for public scrutiny. And I am fully aware that I am deluded myself, to a degree (exaggerating the positive, ignoring the negative, etc. And for personal matters, it’s perfectly okay).
…”To what extent is intellectual curiosity learned or innate? Do you ever have a “rush” from discovering something interesting? Do you think that most people feel this, or do some recieve higher biological “rewards” (dopamine, serotonin etc) from cognition than others. Is everyone capable of critical thought, and if they are, should they be tought it? These are interesting qustions.”
I wholeheartedly agree. You ask some very good, intriguing questions.
Thanks for your comment!