I have a great deal of respect for the people who dedicate their lives to the pursuit of solutions that help everyone in the world. Notably, Karen Armstrong delivered a speech (found via Chris) at the TED conference this year discussing the current problems with religion in the world. I have tremendous respect for her scholarship and efforts put into this subject so far, and sympathize greatly with her desire for change, but I think her proposed solution is misguided due to a fundamental flaw often overlooked.
In order to elucidate my point, I’ll respond to bits of her talk, which I have paraphrased or quoted from below.
Religion is about compassion and has been hijacked for nefarious purposes
Compassion is crucial and necessary, but religion as a vehicle is fundamentally flawed. “Why be compassionate?” —”So you can achieve nirvana.” That’s not a reliable reason. There is no grounding in fact, so the ease of reinterpretation leads directly to the inevitability of “misinterpretation”. This is precisely how all people and all cultures have been able to hijack every religion for their own purposes.
The root of the problem is that religion is “the opiate of the masses”. The problem is that people give undue respect and pay tribute to the baseless collection of minutiae that have always been bent to the will of the reader. The “hijacking” of religion will never stop because that is precisely what its core design enables.
People want to be religious
What does that mean? People want to believe in magical sky gods? People want to spend time and money paying homage to invisible ideals? I think what it really means is that people want to be human. People want a sense of love, belonging, charity, freedom, compassion, success, trust and safety. Taking that collection of things and calling it religion is a misstep for the reasons previously mentioned: others will use the same exact sources to support violence, bigotry, hatred, cruelty, dishonor and annihilation. It is not a problem with the people, it is a problem with the structure of religion, and as such, is inevitable.
Move beyond “toleration” and move toward “appreciation”
Let’s take it a step further. Why don’t we move from “toleration” toward distillation, comprehension and integration? Why should we stop short, offering respect and acceptance for arbitrary religious tenets that are, by nature, abused by those who receive the respect? If the prevailing available choice is to rest one’s morals upon mythical and fundamentally subjective beliefs, it is positively foolish to expect the outcome to be at all rational or cohesive.
“…utterly mysterious transcendence which is God.”
This historical abdication of explanatory duty is possibly one of the most frustrating for those on the outside. The transcendence does not have to be mysterious. It can be warm and fuzzy and harmonious and emotional and great, but at the same time tangible and explainable. There need be no mystery in human affairs; attributing human emotional responses and qualitative experiences to a mysterious non-human is useless at best and dangerous at worst, as is seen throughout the history of religious dedication.
We need to create a movement among all people, including all three major religions…
Absolutely! A movement away from arbitrary subjective wish-based morality and toward a true manifestation of the golden rule: humanism. Instead of trying to “remember” the alleged roots of compassion in religions, show people that compassion can stand alone. There need be no mysterious faith to advocate for balance, harmony and compassion toward all fellow humans. This is something that can be taught to children because it is real and honest and tangible.
How to best prevent extremism in nations…?
The beauty of truly integrated humanism is that the solution to this question just comes naturally. There is no breeding ground for extremism in a society where children are taught to question and think critically, to avoid the trap of aesthetic appeal wrapped around intellectual rubbish; to accept, explore, engage and help every single other type of person on the planet not because someone or some invisible thing tells them to, but because it is demonstrably and rationally better for themselves, their neighbors and the entirety of the human species.
Read this author's blog.
Oh yay, someone who is obviously familiar with the opiate of Richard Dawkins.
Well, some opiates are less harmful than others, Lance.
“There is no breeding ground for extremism in a society where children are taught […] to help every single other type of person on the planet not because someone or some invisible thing tells them to, but because it is demonstrably and rationally better for themselves, their neighbors and the entirety of the human species.”
Yes, and this is EXACTLY why the majority of Christians do this. We don’t follow Christ’s instructions simply because “he told us to” - although there is value in obedience - we follow His instructions because we know it’s the best thing for us to do for ourselves and for our neighbors. When God says “DON’T” its usually because He doesn’t want to see us hurt ourselves or each other.
Secularism doesn’t have monopoly on true compassion.
I guess some people just want to be religious. But more than that, many of us want to understand the underlying reasons why we’re here, who we are, what we should be doing, and where we’re going. Certainly, each person can decide these things for himself, but only in the subjective way you indicate. On the other hand, if there really is a God who sent us here — a being who knows absolute truth and is willing to impart of that truth — then the search for religion is not futile, and the truth that is found is not subjective.
But that’s obvious. The difficult part is knowing whether there is a God, and whether He has imparted any truths to man. If He has, how can we identify His truths from everything else out there? Certainly not all religions can be absolutely correct since they teach some contradicting doctrines.
Interestingly, though, most of them teach compassion, which, as you indicated, seems to stand alone as a relatively obvious principle that usually results in win-win situations. Most of them teach honesty, obedience, repentance, faith, etc. Some of these principles seem to stand on their own, such as honesty and repentance (the definition that implies changing for the better), but others (read obedience) require a higher moral authority than our subjective selves. And those who recognize this, cannot be satisfied until they find that higher authority upon which they can base their goals and aspirations.
Can meaning be found in life without knowledge of, or faith in, God? I think you hit the nail on the head by recognizing that human relationships are almost universally recognized as meaningful, with or without a religious perspective.
But having an almost certain faith in God (not knowledge, but a strong belief based on experiences and feelings as powerful as any I’ve had) has helped me understand “the meaning of life,” order my priorities, have more compassion for others, refrain from doing things that might hurt myself or others, etc. It has brought a world of good to my life.
There’s no stopping people from twisting religion and using others’ blind faith for selfish ends. But they would find a way to do this without religion as well (political reasons abound).
It’s easy to decide that religion is man-made. It helps us justify doing whatever we want since there is no higher moral authority than our own, and, consequently, we get to decide what constitutes living a good life.
But if there is a God, it’s worth it to find and understand His plan for us. Not to avoid Hell, but to achieve greater happiness and fulfillment in this life for us, our family, and neighbors (everyone). At least that’s how it has been for me.
Old Indian proverb:
“Call on God, but row away from the rocks”
Belief is fine, but often it’s what you do in THIS world that counts.