Atheism is fashionable
Atheism has become fashionable. A number of books have been published lately whose aim is to rationally tear religion to pieces and put forward atheism as the only intelligent and honest alternative. Atheism certainly has much to commend it, so I set out to read some of those books and see what they had to offer. I started with Sam Harris's The End of Faith, and now I'm halfway through The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins (1 million copies!). I have been halfway through it for about a month already, and that's because, just as it happened with The End of Faith, Dawkins' book leaves me cold.
Once it is established that religion has been the cause of millions of deaths throughout the history of mankind, that creationism is stupid, that dogma is an intellectual suicide, once you realise that God's existence doesn't solve the mysteries of the physical universe while good old science does, once all the well-constructed arguments for atheism have been laid out and I perhaps have agreed with many of them, atheism still seems unconvincing. It's not that religions as a whole is much more convincing, but there are shades of grey, aren't there?
That is one of the weaknesses of these atheist books: that they consider religion as a whole, not doing any justice to the actual diversity of religious experience. It reminds me of those people for whom environmentalists, pro-Palestinians, weed lovers, Basque separatists, anti-arms campaigners and Amnesty International are all one and the same: communists. "These communists." What communists? "Religion." What religion?
In their seeming unwillingness to distinguish between the innumerable varieties of religious experience Harris and Dawkins show a complete lack of empathy towards that very experience. I don't think religion is ultimately about dogma, brainwashing, Islamic terrorists, sexual repression and laughable cosmologies. I think it's about men needing to find meaning to their lives, full stop. On top of that, layers of nonsense have solidified down the centuries and across different cultures, but that doesn't invalidate the primordial need for meaning, but, if anything, shows us how inherent it is to human nature. Science is the perfect antidote for much of the nonsense involved in much of religion, but cannot possibly be an answer to my deepest existential concerns. If you set out to convince people that religion is stupid, you should, if not tell them what to do with those existential questions, at least acknowledge their legitimacy and show that you understand what it feels like to be tormented by them. If you think that knowledge of the structure of the atom and the theory of natural selection will soothe my angst, you don't understand the first thing about religion.
(a week later)
Having now also read Cristopher Hitchens' God Is Not Great (extremely interesting book, by the way) and the comment cheekily posted by my friend Álvaro before I'd finished writing this post, my point remains the same. I admit that religion is usually perverse (thirteen years in a Catholic school gave me some first-hand experience I'd rather have not had), but does that mean it is inherently perverse? Going back to politics, how many millions have been killed in the name of political ideologies? How many millions have been indoctrinated or had their most basic freedoms taken away from them? And yet nobody with their feet on the ground suggests discarding politics altogether. In response to some totalitarian ideology, many turn to another totalitarian ideology, like those that, as a reaction to America's global abuse of power, align themselves with all things anti-American: communism worldwide, poor Arab nations, anarchy, you know, the whole lot. Others, more sensibly, reject wickedness (what a lovely word) in politics wherever it occurs, be it right-wing wickedness, left-wing wickedness, Western, Eastern, rich or poor. And then some are apolitical (to the extent that is possible), which is fine by me. But, again, all the atrocities perpetrated in the name of political ideologies don't seem to lead anyone to the conclusion that we should reject politics as a whole. Why do they when it comes to religion?
I know, I know, you can only take this comparison so far. I know politics is an aspect of social reality whether you like it or not. But let me continue with the argument. Despite overwhelming evidence seeming to point to the contrary, politics is not intrinsically about mass murder, nor about manipulating history, nor about bank accounts in Switzerland. It is about ... er ... I don't want to dig myself into a hole here ... it's about something else, something which is good, or neither good nor bad. Likewise, religion, unless you chose to define it thus, is not intrinsically about child abuse, bride burning, foreskin removal, sexual repression, revealed truths, however many virgins at one's disposal in paradise and bloodthirsty gods performing miracles when they are in an interventionist mood. It's about something else, which is good, or neither good nor bad. For me it's about a human being looking at existence, the universe, life, death, and then asking "What is this all about? What am I supposed to do now? Why? How? Who? What?", and setting out to find the answers.
So then religion is not a concept describing a clear-cut reality. You have to decide what you mean by it. Talking of which, there's something that irritates me about Dawkins:
The metaphorical or pantheistic God of the physicists is light years away from the interventionist, miraclewreaking, thought-reading, sin-punishing, prayer-answering God of the Bible, of priests, mullahs and rabbis, and of ordinary language. Deliberately to confuse the two is, in my opinion, an act of intellectual high treason
(The God Delusion, page 19)
He concedes that what he calls "Einsteinian religion" is intellectually sound -- "In this sense I too am religious" (ibid) -- but then he disallows the use of the term "religion" to describe that sort of experience on the grounds that it is confusing. What he's saying then is that religion, by definition, is nonsense, and if there is some religion that isn't, we mustn't call it religion because, as previously stated, religion is nonsense. I mean, please ...
6 comments:
Breaking every rule of blogging etiquette I publish my comment before the definite posting is there!
Well, what some people call "communist" is indeed a plurality (hey, I'm actually a communist, and I look like... my father!). But all the human groups you name could be as well summoned in some kind of supra-cathegory, like "anti-hegemonical mass mouvements" or "anti-bourgeois body-snatchers". Many (if not all) religions might have something in common, like some "trascendental eagerness" or "non empyrical cosmology". I think that's worth criticizing, and that's what Dawkins, Harris &c. criticize.
I don't think that the "existential question" was there before religion. I mean, of course it was, but the answer of that primitive existential question was "go and hunt a mammoth".
Besides, Dawkins actually makes a difference between different forms of "trascendental experiences", and ackowledges the eastern meditation schools a far wider proficiency in the undestanding of every kind of states-of-mind (I think I saw it in YouTube, can't remember exactly where).
Dawkins' problem and Harris' problem is about trying to fight irrational ways of life with rational arguments. It's bleak. But the church has often the opposite problem: trying to make rational people believe in irrational ideas.
sdlr: Many (if not all) religions might have something in common, like some "trascendental eagerness" or "non empyrical cosmology". I think that's worth criticizing, and that's what Dawkins, Harris &c. criticize.
I agree that "non-empirical cosmologies" are not something to celebrate. I don't see anything wrong, however, at least in principle, about "transcendental eagerness", which, incidentally, I think is a beatiful expression.
sdlr: I don't think that the "existential question" was there before religion. I mean, of course it was, but the answer of that primitive existential question was "go and hunt a mammoth".
I don't think the need for academic research was there before the creation of universities, and now take a look at yourself! Neither do I think that there was a need for reading before the invention of writing, etcetera.
I would argue that the very nature of human beings (or at least that which makes them people and not just another primate) evolves with the development of culture. Perhaps the first members of our species didn't have anything that could be construed as existential or spiritual needs. So what? Our bodies might belong to the same species, but out mental reality is millennia of cultural evolution apart. We have invented philosophy, human rights, art, etc., and that is now an intrinsic part of what we regard as human.
sdlr: Dawkins actually makes a difference between different forms of "trascendental experiences", and ackowledges the eastern meditation schools a far wider proficiency in the undestanding of every kind of states-of-mind.
Perhaps so. I mean, you'd have to be very stubborn not acknowledge that. Harris is particularly fond of Eastern contemplative traditions (much to my surprise, rather uncritically). Still, Dawkins is very hostile towards anything that looks vaguely religious or spiritual, for instance:
"Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a different reason: it gives them something to do. More generally, as I shall repeat in Chapter 8, one of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding." (The God Delusion, pages 125-126)
Apart from being an unfair portrayal of mysticism (again, lumping all mystics together) that amounts to kicking contemplative traditions in their behind.
Of course the need for academic research was there long before the universities. "Academic research" started in the so called "academies" of the 17th century —but this is more a bad pan than an argument. Indeed, some moving signs of yearning for knowledge can be traced back in the cloisters (Miguel Servet described first the blood circulation in a book entitled "Christianismi restitutio", for instance). Or in the art schools of the Renaissance (look at Leonardo). And (I quote) "a human being looking at existence, the universe, life, death, and then asking "What is this all about? What am I supposed to do now? Why? How? Who? What?", and setting out to find the answers",
well, it could also be science —or alzheimer.
There is also something very anthropocentric in your point of view: there are animal cultures. Is culture the very nature of human beings? I mean, other animals use tools or and languages. I don't know if there are animals who dress themselves, but I'm pretty sure that there are people who don't.
The religious side of science is something I, too, find regrettable. The professors who profess, the academic ceremonies, the canonicity of texts (there's a literary term borrowed from christian history): it really makes you sick.
Let's talk about the something else —that "good or neither good or bad thing"— politics and religions are. Politics is about social life. Religion, deprived of its political side (laws, traditions, ceremonies), is about something else, is about the individual. It is, as you say, something else, a personal exercise of instrospection and self-control. As a communist, I am not very kind of individual-oriented attitudes.
I don't forget it: I owe you some calamari.
There are many whats and hows about life, death and the universe that can only be sensibly looked at from the perspective of science. But science would embarrass itself trying to answer questions such as what is the meaning of life and death. Some would retort, "Wrong questions!" And I would reply, "Says fucking who?"
sdlr: There is also something very anthropocentric in your point of view: there are animal cultures. Is culture the very nature of human beings? I mean, other animals use tools or and languages.
That's not quite what I said. I said that our nature changes with the development of culture. I then tried, admittedly without much success, to qualify what I meant by "our nature" in a way that exposed me as an evil speciesist. Anyway, it's up to bonobos to decide how relevant culture is to their self-identity. I can say that the things I cling to the most self-identity-wise and the things I care about in other people are, for the most part, of a cultural nature. Even how I relate to my biological body and that of other people is culturally informed!
Besides, isn't applying the concept of culture to animals perhaps a bit anthropomorphic?
sdlr: As a communist, I am not very kind of individual-oriented attitudes.
Singling out religion as an "individual-oriented attitude" seems a bit disingenuous. How much of what you do in your life can you honestly say is not in some important way self-orientated? 20%?
sdlr: I don't forget it: I owe you some calamari.
Rest assured. Nor do I.
Questions can't be wrong. Or only grammatically wrong. Personally I don't think that questions about the meaning of life are wrong. They are just pointless. I mean, everyone shold ask oneself every once in a while about the meaning of his/her own existence, like "do I agree with the consequences and personal fulfillment of what I do?". But there is obviously not just one answer to the meaning of life in general, and it is no use to try to get a universal rule.
Even if it were convenient, it is to some extent a matter of taste. As I told you the other day, I like more the question (and I quote from the great song of Momus), "what is the cultural meaning of coming on a girl's mouth?" (and vice versa). It is just an example.
Footnote: I am aware of the history of the term "straight edge"; I'm not vegetarian, and trink caffee (but hey, I tried to like punk music!); I meant it just like I say I'm communist but don't make a five-year plan to wash my clothes.
Amplification of sense is one of the (possible) effect of hallucinogenic drugs. Besides, I would not say than seeing dragons is to increase your conscience. You put it right: consciousness is "the less" psychoactive drugs can do to your brain (as W. Allen would say, or maybe already said, "the second favourite part of my body"): they can do a lot of other things: emulate psychose or something like that. But maybe it is only in a high dose, or with some drugs, I must admit that you surely read a lot more about that matter than me.
"Besides, isn't applying the concept of culture to animals perhaps a bit anthropomorphic?" I don't think so, if you define culture as something not-specific-human. Anyway that was a twisting (and therefore good) point.
"Singling out religion as an «individual-oriented attitude» seems a bit disingenuous" What I meant is that many religions argue in this way: "don't fuck your neighbour because, if you do, YOU'll burn in hell". They don't give a damn about the neighbours, actually; the main thing is you don't go to that frightening imaginary sauna. You know the lack of empathy this attitude implies. In the end it is only about the individual, and not about the society. As for me —since you seem to have a special interest in the attack ad hominem—, much of what I do in my everyday life is determined by the (not always fair or rational) needs of the society (and those of my girlfriend). Of course, I work most of the time, or clean, or do the buying, and I do it for a living, which certainly is "in some important way self-orientated". But it is also social —though unfortunately not socialist.
Be aware of the squids.
sdlr: Personally I don't think that questions about the meaning of life are wrong. They are just pointless.
"Pointless" is just another variation on the same theme, and I disagree with it on exactly the same grounds: "Says frigging who?" I mean, what if they don't seem pointless to me?
As regards the cultural meaning of coming on a girl's mouth, I'm at a loss for words.
The more I know about hallucinogens the more reassured I am that, if taken responsibly, they are completely safe. Alcohol, which we all merrily consume, is infinitely more dangerous. Did you know, for instance, that LSD does not have a known lethal dose, is not adictive and does not cause any physiological damage?
I apologise if my "20%" argument came across as a personal attack. It was only intended as an example. I could make the same point about the rest of hominibus (or something), and that wouldn't be an attack on them anyway. I, for one, am increasingly self-centred as I grow older.
I just don't think that having existential or spiritual concerns is in any way detrimental to society. It all depends on what those concerns are. Buddhism, for instance, will tell you that, there not being an ultimate self, you're no different from your neighbor, and that for that very reason you should reach out to them and alleviate their suffering. Well, that's what some people say anyway.
You know what? It seems to me that, for the most part, you (like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens) are criticising the same religion I myself detest. All I'm saying is that there is another kind of spirituality.
Post a Comment