Lately, I’ve been having conversations with various friends and families (who shall remain nameless as a rule of this blog) concerning the questioned compatibility of religion and reason. I must admit that I have encouraged debates surrounding this subject ever since I came across the genius (or stupidity others might say) of Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens remains one of the most out-spoken advocates of atheism. To Hitchens, not only is it problematic that religion requires a certain amount of suspended disbelief and cessation of critical-thinking, but religion, he contends, is inherently destructive. How is it that religion could be seen as innately destructive? Hitchens argues that religion, specifically, the dominant three (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) are fundamentally exclusive. For example, for the Christian, there is the “Saved” and the “Un-Saved”. Many Muslims may distinguish non-Muslims from themselves as “Infidels,” divisive in it’s quest to categorize humanity in an isolating religious context.
Atheists feel strongly about their anti-theism and I do not believe it comes out of an unwavering (and misguided) loyalty towards rational thought. There are other motivations. Religion can literally kill; think inquisitions, Al Quaeda, Palestine and Israel, IRA, the Sunnis and the Shites, etc. Given these deadly scenarios, one cannot really say with any amount of credibility that religion is ultimately harmless.
So, let us come to the former question: Is religion compatible with reason? Well, is it reasonable to believe in, and dedicate one’s life, to a superior being whose existence remains empirically unprovable? True, I have never seen Alien life forms, but given the size of our galaxy, and the numerous other galaxies, I tend to believe something or someone could be out there. And I suppose many Atheists may hold this belief as well. So what is the difference between said belief and the belief in God?? Well for starters, I’d like to answer this question by first distinguishing between Deism and Theism. Deists believe in the possibility of a creator. Theists believe, as Hitchens suggests, that not only is there a superior being, but that they have a personal hot-line to this being. For Christians, not only do they talk to this superior being on a regular basis (think prayer) but they are also pretty tight with his son. That is quite something isn’t it?? Deists simply would not go that far. I mean, I may entertain the idea of Alternative Life Forms, but I don’t pretend to have a personal relationship with E.T. Nor do I claim that ALF has come to earth to save me, or even Willy. Atheists are anti-theists, not anti-deists right? Who knows? Deism, to me, is another alternative route, one that I believe would be acceptable to a logic-conscious atheist.
Might Atheism be just as divisive as Christianity? Well, let’s examine that. One might argue that Communist Russia and China have killed millions over the years for their religious beliefs. However, can this really be equated with, say, the Spanish Inquisition? Their motivations, for one thing, are completely different. Communist regimes quelled religion because of it’s clash with the political ideology itself. Let me be clear, I’m in no way supporting the genocide spurred on by these regimes, I’m simply pointing out that the motivation did not spring from a competing religion, but a faulty political ideology. Had communism been implemented in it’s purest form (some would say this will always be impossible) religious divisions would have been wiped out. Communism’s dislike of religion ultimately stems from the inevitable divisiveness of religion.
Again – is religion reasonable? I have never seen a miracle. I have never seen an amputee pray for healing, and subsequently, been healed. I have never heard God talk. But can I say there is no God? No, I don’t think I can. Can I say that the Lord Jesus Christ is completely accessible to me, a twenty-first century undergrad? No, I can’t say that either.
I know it isn’t reasonable to say there is, undeniably, a God. But saying there is no God, or that he’s dead, just might be crazy!
Anne
July 30, 2008 at 8:30 pm |
I don’t know. I don’t think that saying there is no God is all that crazy. I think that people are highly culturally indoctrinated, and that is very hard to all out say that God doesn’t exist. I feel that this is all it is, though. Cultural indoctrination. If you appeal to pure reason (you’d probably like Sam Harris’ The End of Faith even better than Hitchens), then you will not say that denying God is crazy. You would in fact come to the conclusion that it is quite reasonable.
P.S. Nietzsche’s phrase “God is dead,” is referring to something much different than what people generally associate with it.
July 30, 2008 at 8:47 pm |
Believe it or not, I was actually aware that Nietzsche’s version of “God is dead” is, as you say, “referring to something much different than what people” usually think. I was referencing the Christian Children’s song, “God’s not dead.” I might have been exercising a little bit of hyperbole by saying those that would say there is no God are crazy. Any way, I do not think that you can prove/disprove one way or the other. So to say definitively one way or the other is unreasonable. I believe religion can be culturally-indoctrinated. But the philosophical question of Deism is separate from this I think. The idea of Deism – separate from any sort of theist ideology – is, at the very least, plausible. Any way, I enjoyed your comment:D
July 31, 2008 at 2:34 am |
I think religion is compatible with reason provided that religion does not interfere in the domain of truth.
However, religion won’t do this because the earthly power of religions rests on the authority of their truth-claims. Take away the belief in the truth claims, and you take away their power.
If religion could keep its nose out of truth then I doubt that the topic of this discussion would even be an issue.
(I am an atheist and an anti-theist, by the way)
July 31, 2008 at 4:11 pm |
My own thought experiment is that if religion could be wiped from all of humanity’s memory, but science still existed, then religion would not come back. We have now answered enough questions that religion is no longer necessary (this doesn’t rule out some form of spirituality from arising which may be what you are referring to as Deism).
On the other hand if science was wiped from memory, and religion was allowed to exist, well, we already know that science would come back since that’s pretty much how it happened the first time around. This indicates to me that religion is just a replacement until science figures stuff out.
@Ubiquitous. I agree that if religion could keep its nose out of truth then the topic wouldn’t be an issue, but by its nature this is impossible. Suppose there exists religion X, and this religion is based completely on belief of claims that go against reason. If a follower asks if the beliefs are true, and the leader says no, it is only a belief, the religion will dissolve. It no longer serves a purpose.