(Mis)Understanding Religion –– Part 2
(Mis)Understanding Religion –– Part 2
Is secularism a religion? Ten reasons why religion (and secularism) is not what you think it is.
If you have not read Part 1, I recommend you do so. Part 1 outlines the scope of the problem, the accusations against religion, and the cultural confusion and misapplication of the word itself. That being said, Part 2 can be read stand alone.
You can also download the full PDF here.
Giulio Romano, “Chamber of the Giants (Sala dei Giganti)” (c.1532-1535). Fresco on wall in the Palazzo Te, Mantua, Italy.
In this part of the series, I will compare properties of world religions side-by-side and skim over the prevailing arguments used in scholarship that attempt to prove there is no pure religion against the typical, colloquial rhetoric used to label, misappropriate, or condemn religion. Not only that, but I will also compare world religions to matters often considered irreligious or secular. In this, I hope it reveals that there is a deep misunderstanding of what religion is in our all too civilized milieu, and that these tactless accusations against religion are hurled at strawmen–––ill-informed caricatures of religion. Consequently, I hope it also becomes clear that the line between religion and secularism is quite blurry, if not, muddled, and that secularism as we conceive it today, whether as a personal identity or cultural ideal, is not only contingent upon religion but is a façade. There is no religious neutrality.
1. Naturalism v. Morality
It is fashionable nowadays to plainly say ‘religion is evil’. Outside the fact that ordinary folk and academics identify religion differently, in this instance religion is still insinuated and characterized to be solely an institutional relic, wedging a gap between individualism (personal identity) and our “natural” worldview. This conclusion is usually drawn by two views that both claim non-religious ground: naturalism and spiritualism. I will address spiritualism near the end, but as for naturalism there are a few things that come to mind.
Folks who are heavily conditioned by atheism, naturalism, or scientism that also claim ‘religion is evil’ must also presume to be on the ‘good’ side. It is self-evident that if there is evil, then there is good. But if there is no good, then there is no evil. However, if naturalism is true, then the line to distinguish ‘evil’ from ‘good’ is extremely difficult to draw. In fact, most argue that morality – good and evil, right and wrong, justice and injustice – is not real at all, and nor can it be real if God does not exist and material existence is the only thing that is, in fact, real. Nature, empiricism, and the scientific method yield no evidence or interpretation that can prove objective morality exists, or that altruism is good. Richard Dawkins summed it up well: “In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”[1] Unlike Dawkins however, this is a very common struggle and conundrum for many natural philosophers who hold to some form of objective morality because objective morality not grounded in reality. If the physical world is the be-all and end-all, then the objective nature of good and evil is a mere by-product and presumable delusion brought about by matter with no biological imperative that distinguishes it from self-interest, survival, and hedonism. Whence morality? It is reduced to a social construct caused by, say, a belief or attitude; a mere biological proclivity we impose on ourselves. Good and evil cannot truly exist if nature is determined by neutral blind forces. It is not a universal fact, it is fiction. In a nutshell, if naturalism is true, then there is no rational justification that moral beliefs and attitudes are obligatory because they are not actually real.
Furthermore, religion is often considered evil, toxic, pathological, and uniquely dangerous due to their irrational and immoral claims. All in all, religion is a longstanding lie perpetuated by an insatiable desire for power and control. But if objective good and evil are not real, how can religion be evil? How can naturalism be good? And how can someone legitimately hold a moral point of view? Both secular and religious folks alike firmly hold to objective moral principles like murder, rape, genocide, sex slavery, child sacrifice and other revolting kinds of power trips and inequality are morally reprehensible and objectively wrong. But is it religious to believe such? If morality is fabricated and religion is a lie, then is everyone holding to a religious belief? When a person has a visceral reaction to morally reprehensible acts of evil, it is not considered a mere expression of preference but an actual repulsion and moral objection to truly horrific deeds. But to many atheists such as Dawkins, it most certainly is a social fiction. This is especially concerning given the fact that many of these immoral practices were evident and/or required in atheistic political regimes like Nazism, Maoism, and Communism, as well as ancient religions like Semitic polytheism (i.e., Assyrian, Akkadian, Canaanite), Mesoamerican polytheism (i.e., Aztecs, Toltecs, Mayans), Japanese Shintoism, and some forms of Roman religions, all of which emphasize power above objective morality. Opposing these detestable practices, however, are the necessary religious beliefs of ancient and modern Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike) as well as Judaism. Objective moral beliefs and attitudes are not restricted to secularism or religious observers, nor are they modern notions. Morality alone is insufficient to distinguish religious from irreligious belief. Likewise, good and evil seem to exist within a religious framework, not outside of it. What, then, is the argument ‘religion is evil’ if not one religion opposing another? Therefore, when a person makes a truth claim that ‘religion is evil’ there is a very strong possibility that they are teetering on the edge, if not, totally succumb to a religious belief themselves, believing in a faith-based claim that evil and, therefore, moral truth exists.
2. Faith v. Reason
Likewise, it is trendy to assume stubborn blind faith or non-factual unquestioned rhetoric is religious, yet popular belief full-heartedly embraces the philosophical predicament and existential crisis that there is no definitive knowledge whatsoever (that is, epistemological skepticism) and that ‘all is a matter of interpretation.’ It even goes as far as to suggest that the external world is illusory, a dream-state, a lesser reality or even non-existent (i.e., Buddhism, Solipsism, Platonism, etc.). Would this all not render everything a matter of faith as Søren Kierkegaard supposed? It is that same scientific rhetoric that will firmly claim blind forces dictate every move that will also claim blind faith is clearly worse. For one, if ‘faith means religion’, would faith, then, in your wife’s fidelity be a religious belief? Or faith that the bridge you are crossing over will not crumble or the building you work in will stand tall? Or faith that your hypothesis will be substantiated as fact? The electron, after all, is a theory and can still be disproven. And if one were to argue that a hypothesis is simply intuition or a degree of instinct that is based on a set of facts, consider that the objects of faith (i.e., God) are often labelled illusory, illogical, or fabricated ideals, and that not all scientific proposals or hypotheses are substantiated as fact – does that render your faith in your intuition a plausible religious belief if the result is not true? If the electron is disproven, was it a religious belief?
On that note, does that mean faith in the future is religious? If belief that holds to future-tensed idealism or eschatological variants is religious, then Obama’s presidential mantra “Change” or the modern secular slogan “Progress”, all of which entail a better and brighter future, are religious ideals to pursue. Or what of that dream of Utopia longed for by humanists, how can that be free from religious pursuits? It can’t if faith equals religion. Faith itself is not solely religious, nor is it solely secular.
It is often said that faith is the enemy of reason. But what of the overwhelmingly large number of famous Jewish, Muslim, and Christian philosophers throughout the ages – Philo, Augustine, Anselm, Avicenna, Averroes, Maimonides, Aquinas, Pascal, Descartes, Leibniz – who all point to God as the most rational Being in all of existence? In fact, many of them argue that reason itself needs a reason, cause, or ground in order to exist at all (called the principle of sufficient reason) and God fits the bill necessarily. God is the one who set the laws of logic in motion to begin with, and in turn, God alone provides an epistemic reason to trust our noetic and sensory equipment (mind, reason; sight, sound, smell, taste, touch). That is, because of God there is an ultimate foundation to trust, judge, and interpret our sense experience accurately and proportionately. God also provides coherency for consciousness in relation to the cosmic order of things as well as a concrete reason for something to exist rather than nothing or reality being in total disarray. There is a real reason for reason, and it comes from a rational, orderly, conscious Source rather than it being shaped by arbitrary, chaotic, mindless forces (after all, chaos organizing itself has yet to be observed). Over the course of history, reason was and still is encouraged as a form of devoutness, righteousness, and worship in the Abrahamic faiths. Reason works from religion, not against it. In other words, reason complements religion, as Islamic philosopher Averroes said, “the [rational] truth does not contradict the [divine] truth; rather, it agrees with it and bears witness to it.”[2] And if I remember correctly, the scientific method rose out of Christendom, did it not? It certainly did not rise out of atheism nor was it inspired by other religious theologies or nation groups. Christianity theology led to the birth of modern science because the Christian God is a rational lawmaker, so rational men expected rationality in nature. They expected laws in nature because “they believed in a Legislator”[3]. A rational and orderly God produced rational men and orderly laws of nature. I think it is fair to say the Christians who founded modern science – Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Sir Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel, James Clerk-Maxwell, Louis Pasteur, and Lord Kelvin – were not baboons!
3. Divinity and the Afterlife
Or perhaps you’ve heard it is ‘faith in God’ or ‘the idea of a Supreme Being is religion’. Religious philosopher Roy Clouser answers this accusation, “What is more, in Hinduism, the divine (Brahman-Atman) is not considered a being at all, it is instead an indefinite “being-ness,” or “being-itself”. For this same reason Brahman-Atman cannot strictly be called a god, if a god is taken to be an individual and personal. Buddhism also denies the divine is a being, but goes even further. For fear that “being itself” is still too definite an expression, it insists on such terms as “Void,” “Non-being,” and “Nothingness” for the divine. So all these religions believe there is a divine reality, they do not believe the divine is a being at all, let alone a supreme one.”[4] I do not find it surprising that the sharp rise of Buddhism in the West runs parallel with the long-founded cultural dissemination of epistemological skepticism and atheism, which is relatively impartial to the Eleatic philosopher Parmenides’ (c.510–?440 BC) metaphysical concept of unthinkable states, “Unbeing you won’t grasp–––it can’t be done–––”[5].
Furthermore, since there is no godhead in either one of the religious beliefs mentioned above, what then defines faith if not the belief in unseen things hoped for? With all things considered, even the next day is a religious belief by that account. And for those who devote themselves to tomorrow, it is not unusual to assume the afterlife, immortality, the infinite/eternity, or simply ‘the beyond’ is a religious belief, but then again not all religions have such notions either, whether it be Taoism’s transference of being to ‘non-being’, Jainism’s reincarnation of identity until “liberation” or Epicureanism’s belief that the ‘soul’ will just decompose with the body not unlike what the Judaic Sadducees believed during the time of Jesus Christ (c. 4 BC – 33 AD). Much like naturalism, not all religions invoke a Supreme Being, divine beings, afterlife, or transcend beyond the physical world.
4. Material v. Metaphysical
‘But religion is not grounded in material!’ If religious belief pertains to the invisible or unseen, relating to stuff that is not physical, then perhaps aspects of our reality that are not based in material such as mathematics, aesthetics, language, semantics, higher abstract thought, imagination and mental images, meaning and narrative, sheer nothingness, and belief itself ought to be religious beliefs, too. For instance, most people today would never consider “1 + 1 = 2” a religious belief, however to the Pythagoreans of Ancient Greece numbers were self-existent objects of worship. Or what of mathematician Kurt Gödel, who full-heartedly believed in mathematical Platonism, a belief that mathematical sentences (i.e., 2 + 2 = 4) provide true descriptions of nonphysical and nonmental objects existent outside of space-time in a special mathematical realm called, “Platonic Heaven”[6]. Is a philosophy of mathematics religious?[7] Even today, Max Tegmark, professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, claims that at the heart of everything in the universe are numbers and the entire point of physics is to use mathematics to describe the world around us: “If you grant that both space and everything in space is mathematical, then it begins to sound less insane that everything is mathematical.”[8] He even goes as far as to believe that there is a mathematical equation for consciousness. However, there is no physical evidence to draw this conclusion. Is his scientific analysis and pursuit, then, a religious belief? Lacking physical correspondence does not determine if it is a religious property.
If one stretches this notion that religion lacks physical correspondence too far, then does this mean when Ancient Greek thinkers such as Leucippus of Miletus (c. 475? BC) and Democritus of Abdera (c. 460? BC) were contemplating the elemental physical forces that hold everything together and conceived of the “atom” it was religious? What, then, of modern physicists who are looking for even more rudimentary particles?
Furthermore, everyday presuppositions often associate the miraculous and things of an unbelievable nature or the mere improbability of occurrence with religion due to some perceived lack of physical evidence. Meanwhile, cosmic plurality raised by Presocratic philosopher Anaxagoras of Clazomenae (c. 500-428 BC) and later proposed by Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), which is known today as the multiverse or M-theory, is commonly believed to be real among mainstream secular physicists, irrespective of sufficient (or any) empirical evidence to substantiate the claim; it is an unfalsifiable belief. And is it not often said that “religion is unfalsifiable”, it cannot be proven or disproven, it is not founded in evidence and reason, it cannot be contradicted by observation or physical experimentation, it is, as they say, neither here nor there. So, not only are faith and probability blended, but phenomenon is openly accepted.
Some might think, “Okay sure, but religion just reeks of metaphysical, spiritualist and transcendental thinking; anything actually real is grounded in our capacity to physically sense it.” Beyond the fact that this statement in itself is self-refuting because it, too, is metaphysical and invisible to the senses (a direct result of intentionality or aboutness, a naturalistic phenomenon[9]), this truth claim fails on several fronts: (a) In order for the naturalist to claim any absolute truth with global certainty, they must be able to transcend the self in order to view all things with total objectivity and free from bias (and in this case, it includes the external world) – this is that Archimedean point repeatedly advocated by scientism; (b) it is incapable of answering how metaphysical or transcendental beliefs have any long-lasting, dominating effects over our physical senses and behaviour if it is, in fact, not real at all (because Santa Claus is the root of all sorts of evil in our world!)[10]. This is largely problematic given that there is longstanding crisis in neuroscience for how consciousness could emerge from physical properties alone, and how the brain generates the mind (and behaviour) in its current state because there is no place in the cerebral cortex that will cause you to believe or decide[11]; (c) if mental entities, higher abstract thought, or metaphysical and transcendental subject matter equals religion, then by a naturalistic account no one on earth would be free from religion! Just by thinking about or addressing the idea of religion, philosophically or leisurely, one must partake in religion. Perhaps, that is what existential philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche was hinting at when he said, “Modern philosophy, as epistemological scepticism, is secretly or openly anti-Christian, although (for keener ears, be it said) by no means anti-religious.”[12]
5. Miracles and the Supernatural
Of course, there will be some who protest: ‘Okay sure, but does it not all sound supernatural to some extent?’ This depends on what you define as super-natural. Supernatural can either mean (a) something that is beyond the physical world or supersedes over the laws of nature like God, angels, spirits, and miracles; or it can mean (b) something other than natural, something unnatural, or something that defies the laws of nature like nothingness, ghosts, psychics, witchcraft, and even aliens.
Consider the widely held secular belief that before spacetime, matter, energy, and force, there was absolutely nothing–––nothingness, as it were. It is a belief that cannot be proven by evidence, lack of evidence, or even self-evidence. And yet, somehow, secularism teaches that miracles are seen as “a violation of the laws of nature”[13] when the very beginning of the universe is as much a miracle as any. Something outside the universe had caused the universe to exist (i.e., Big Bang), and there is no alternative (a self-generating mechanism) to be found in the cosmos.. And is it not true that strange phenomena, paradoxes, and enigmas that include time-travel, eternal universal energy, “the infinite”, the multiverse, teleportation, and other unnatural cases are openly acceptable within scientific communities? Despite many of these beliefs, say, the multiverse, has no observable or empirical evidence to support its claim to science. So long as it all has a physical derivative or is thought to be rational, it is not seen as religious. But as already shown, metaphysical or nonphysical does not equal religion and rationality does not equal secular. Which suggests the gripe is either that God or purpose in nature invokes religious belief/experience. Where a scientist welcomes strange phenomena in order to explain it, a religious person is content with mystery and may anthropomorphize or invoke teleological explanations. But this is mistaken also.
6. Teleology: Purpose or Design
First, as mentioned earlier, the scientific method and its canons of observation and experiment blossomed out of Christian theology in order to explain how God’s creation (nature) works as a way to understand God better. Second, if it is religious to attribute greater purpose to something because it invokes God or a personal sense of greater purpose (which is beyond the scope of the physical world), like saying nature looks “designed”, then a Supreme Being who designed the universe would need to be a necessary criterion for religion, and as we already saw, it is not. God (or gods) do not equal religion. But suppose they did. Take the Hindu tradition and God’s motive for creating the world. According to the authors of Brahma Sutra, Brahma (the supreme creator God) fashioned the world through an act of līlā, translated “play” or “sport”. This act of creation was purely spontaneously, with no greater purpose at all, in order satisfy any desire, assuage any need, and loosen any purpose[14]. Third, there would need to be proof that purpose distinct of material existence does not truly exist in order for the claim to be verifiable. If you are motivated to do such, then you just proved my point. Fourth, if there is no concrete evidence (and there is none) to disprove God, then there is no evidence or justification to say that there is no purpose behind the design we intuitively perceive in nature. If God even possibly exists, then positing greater purpose behind creation is justifiable, intuitive, and natural (and self-evident at times). Further, if God is a natural inference (as Aristotle thought), why is inferring God seen as religious? God is the reason why purpose exists.
Now, what of the emergent modern wave of panpsychism, the philosophical view that everything contains bits of consciousness and the universe, from rocks to humans, is organized by varying increments or degrees of conscious states. Would they also not be religious like Native American tribes who held to animism? This is often seen as a philosophical or atheistic option, not a religion. In this instance, purpose is embedded in the physical universe with no proof in the pudding. And by invoking purpose at all, then, consciousness itself (subjective, first-person experience) turns into religious experience.
Now to return to this idea that If religion is defined by things that were supernatural, paranormal, mystical or the like, then it must pertain to that broad sense of Spiritualism and New Age beliefs that in no way strive beyond or against natural phenomena. Spiritualism, New Age, Wicca, as well as superstition, can integrate into naturalism fairly easily, and tend to follow cultural permissibility and normality. In the West, there seems to be a much larger melting pot of traditional, cultural, religious, scientific, and philosophical belief. Too often, ‘spiritual’ people adopt a wide-ranging (even contradictory) hybridization of belief, say, an unexplainable phenomenon ‘open’ for interpretation found in the sciences that is mixed with the belief in horoscopes, numerology, and ancient Chinese traditions of “Fortune” or “Good Luck” (the etymological root of “Happiness”). People also seem to subconsciously mix multiple beliefs into a single unit of belief as a way to fulfill that existential crisis that dominates Western culture, as if to supplant certainty with its own absence. Take for instance, the metaphysical orientation and teleological implications found in everyday dialogue: “It's cosmic”, “the universe will guide your path”, “this is what I am meant to do”, and “there are no coincidences” that have no substance beyond what's fashionable. And is it not popular to say, “Happiness is all that matters,” bolstered by that platitude: “Nothing is certain, all is a matter of interpretation,” so “Live your truth”? It also contrarily uses a strong sense of global certainty that entails the universe, cosmos, and nature. It attempts to bind the belief of something greater (from the third person) to a personal, subjective experience (in the first-person).
Yet, far too many spiritualists (and postmodernists) who would never personally classify themselves as religious, and more often than not identify as secular, atheist, or agnostic, believe in things like souls, spirits, ghosts, necromancy, mediums, witchcraft, psychics, extraterrestrials, superhumans, and go as far as to claim they have experienced (or practiced) such eerie and strange activity. Many of these peculiar beliefs, attitudes, and practices run alongside other peculiar cults, secret societies, and conspiracy theories like Scientology, UFO cults, Vampire cults, Occultism, Freemasonry, Flat Earth Society, belief in the Illuminati, Reptilian Elite, Area 51 and Aliens, et cetera. So, despite the greater context – natural, unnatural, or supernatural – it can all still be very religious. And again; if false interpretation does not equal religion, and if rationality does not equal secular, where do we draw the line?
7. Superstition or Tradition
There are numerous secular and religious athletes who display extreme teleological devotion in order to win, as if the match at hand were a literal battle, and that they or each player on their team were fighting for the ‘greater good’, which can either be for their self, team, city, or country. At times, these feelings are very superstitious and pious. Before a game is played, they are compelled to repeat an instance for good fortune: Wearing ‘lucky’ socks or lucky numbers; dressing to a precise dress code or style the same way each game; extreme cleanliness, hygiene, and uniquely specific urinary locations; ceremonial dances; eating or chewing the same food of the same portion in a precise order at an exact time, and the list goes on and on. These superstitious instances are both beliefs and rituals, and usually do not extend outside of the sport or relate to a deity–––it is entirely self-reflexive. While there is still an element of these rituals that transcends the self and game to appeal to or obtain good luck, it is still assumed that the individuals who enact the ritual or hold the object have power to activate or deactivate the luck. In other words, it begins with self and ends with self. Such superstitious rituals and tendencies also become a form of tradition to the athlete(s), often intertwined with their daily routine. This spirit of carrying out rituals or holding objects for good luck is present in many contemporary religions, cultures, and tribal traditions of “ritual warfare”, where the blend of culture and religion were non-negotiable (such as the way Lacrosse was used in Native American cultures). And if superstition is not spiritual or supernatural, but secular in its purpose, where do we draw the line between superstition and religion?
8. Codes of Conduct, Rituals, Morality or Worship
‘Well, what of moral practices, worship practices and codes of conduct? Surely our moral behaviour indicates some sort of religion, no?’ Of course, ethics is under much scrutiny, and has been for eons, but not all religions demand such moral regulations, devotion, worship, or commitment. For instance, many immoral religious practices such as human sacrifice, cult prostitution and sex slavery were evident and required in ancient religions like Semitic polytheism (i.e., Assyrian, Akkadian, Canaanite), Mesoamerican polytheism (i.e., Aztecs, Toltecs, Mayans), Japanese Shintoism, and some forms of Roman religions. Moral virtue was not obligatory. In terms of worship, according to Greco-Roman religions such as ancient Epicureanism and several pagan cults, the gods cared nothing of earthly affairs and for moral duties (in fact, you could be as rotten as you wanted!) and, therefore, inspired no need to worship, perform rituals, or have any devotional or moral obligations. Aristotle contended for a Supreme Being he called the “Prime Mover,” but insisted that the Being would care nothing for humanity and need not be worshipped either; any worship or work for such a Being was futile. And if ethical devotion were to mean religion, then all businesses from sole proprietorship to big corporations, sport clubs, military and government institutions, and even criminal organizations that demand a code of conduct or moral code such as honour, respect, and ‘do as your told’ or have a “philosophy” they follow such as “do not judge” or the Golden Rule (“treat others how you want to be treated”) would all be religious, or at least, demand a form of religiosity. Modern day sects of Hinduism and Buddhism, especially those rising in the West, need not practice worship either (at least, in the typical way we identify worship); only in rare occurrences do some ‘pay homage’ for sake of tradition. Is ritual or tradition, then, a subtle mark of religiosity?
‘But what of rituals?’ It has proven tricky to identify what rituals differentiate from non-religious. Consider that the Aztec’s ritual of killing a human (human sacrifice) was seen as pious in a ceremonial context and was otherwise regarded as murder and wrong outside of the religious ritual. The ritual was conducted for power. So, rituals for a morally good life do not equal religious belief or practices, even though the moral code prevailed in everyday life. Also, most modern forms of Spiritualism and select accounts of westernized Buddhism do not demand rituals at all. Even still, consider the Ni U Konska, or Osages, who among most Native American tribes made no distinction between religious, cultural, communitarian and individual acts, and maintained the belief that all habitual, ritual and ceremonial actions, enactments and customs, which included sleeping, dreaming, dancing, picking corn, harvesting bark, buffalo hunting, tanning hide, praying, architectural designs, structural arrangement of the village, going to war and so on, reflect the inseparable spiritual infusion of unity in duality in all of existence[15]. If truth is relative (‘all is a matter of interpretation’), and if we apply the Osages religious/cultural values, everything we do must be a religious enactment. Our everyday behaviour is ritualistic. Compare that to Puritanism, a reformed Protestant movement from the 16th to 17th centuries, who held that there was no distinction between the secular and sacred, all areas of life and creation belonged to God. This may be a tough pill to swallow.
For some, eating bread and drinking wine is not religious, but once again, in Catholicism it can be “transubstantiation” or to Anglicans it is “consubstantiation”. All cultures contain traditions and ceremonial formalities such as a moment of silence, setting off fireworks, shaving your head, fasting, feasting, singing, washing, cutting oneself, circumcision, methods of sexual intercourse, killing an animal, killing a human, and so on, all of which correspond to a religious rituals and non-religious practices[16]. And since not all religions have deities, then a ritual may include the meditation after yoga, daily grind, going to school, working nine-to-five and the necessary routines to survive. One could argue it is all a matter of intent, but this would assume you know what religious intent to be – and if there are no divinities, deities, or in some cases anything at all such as that “Void”, who or what is it intended for? –– Yourself?
9. Wishful Thinking
Some might point out that this is a kind of wishful thinking. Some scholars have even tried to chalk religious belief/experience up to be “wish-fulfilment” as well, and that religion sprouts out of the deep-rooted desire for solace or to alleviate our greatest fears such as death and suffering. Religious philosopher Tim Bayne explains that “David Hume once claimed that religion ‘arises chiefly from an anxious fear’; Sigmund Freud took religion to be ‘born from man’s need to make his helplessness tolerable’; and Karl Marx viewed religion as a mechanism that enables us to cope with miserable social conditions–––it is, he wrote: ‘the sigh of the oppressed creature’.”[17] And then famously said, “It is the opium of the people.” But this doesn’t work. Consider the countless number of people who believe in the afterlife of Heaven and Hell, many of whom have loved ones in Hell yet still believe in God and His final judgment, and many of whom go to their grave expecting God’s judgment upon them yet still believe. This far from alleviates suffering, it welcomes it. Bayne continues, “there is little evidence that religion dissipates with the development of benevolent social conditions”. By contrast, one could argue just the opposite, that naturalism (and atheism, too) holds to a sense of wish-fulfillment. Naturalists need not consider the consequences of their poor moral behaviour or the depravity of their innermost desires since God will not judge their thoughts, affections, and actions in the afterlife–––death is final. Rendering morality to be a strict cultural appeal, whether for autonomous control or to a greater authority or power (say, bureaucratic hyperagency). No final judgment can offer a great sense of relief and liberation, especially when God cannot be proven false; hence, wishful thinking.
10. Highest Value or Ultimate Concern
Which brings us to the final straw: ‘but religious people deeply value their beliefs.’ This stems from Paul Tillich, a Christian existentialist philosopher and theologian, who theorized religious belief or faith is identical to “… [T]he state of being ultimately concerned: the dynamics of faith are the dynamics of man’s ultimate concern.… Some of them are urgent, often extremely urgent, and each of them as well as the vital concerns can claim ultimacy for a human life or the life of a social group”[18]. This holds the earmarks of religious experience because, namely, personal obsessions are often seen as one’s “religion” (cf. Matthew 6:21). To be pulled away from the obsession or to not be completely inundated or devoted to the obsession is often said to be “against my religion”. As famous filmmaker (and movie fanboy) Quentin Tarantino once said, “Movies are my religion and God is my patron”. But this also doesn’t cut the mustard for religious belief/experience. If one’s ultimate concern or highest value of something equaled religion, then a mother’s love for her children would be a religious belief; an athlete devoting his entire life to a single sport would be a religious experience, too; or better yet, there are polytheisms where the gods have little value and are even hated – no devotion or commitment whatsoever[19]. If religious belief was equal to what people valued most, then belief in these gods would be non-religious! And if belief in God or gods is not religious, and neither is faith in them, nor is it religious to value, esteem, or worship them, then what is religious belief? Or rather, what is truly secular?
Now let’s take a less moderate approach to “ultimate concern” or “highest value” equals religion. Often religious extremism is seen as the biggest stumbling block for secularized political unity. What of secular forms of extremism, fundamentalism, terrorism, zealotry and revolutionary “activism”, radical manifestos and social movements that carry out violent crimes which are, practically speaking, no different than religious extremist groups. Consider: anonymous ‘hacktivists’, Proud Boys, Antifa, anarchists, radical Feminists (W.I.T.C.H.), Sexual Revolutionists, social justice warriors, “wokeness”, animal activist groups, radical environmentalists (who believe the world is ending due to “global warming”, which is now rebranded as “climate change”) and eco-terrorists (E.L.F.)[20], Ku Klux Klan, Black Panthers, nationalized fundamentalists such as Black Lives Matter, the Front de libération du Québec (“FLQ”)[21], Sturmabteilung (Brownshirts) and Neo-Nazism[22], or anti-theistic Communist Revolutionists from Marxism to Maoism, all of which are recorded as non-religious beliefs yet remain suspiciously similar in lifestyle, practices, and beliefs – many groups of which who were willing to murder on behalf of their own belief or commit horrific crimes like genocide[23]. When it comes to extremism, why bother calling it ‘religious’ extremism? There doesn’t seem to be a difference.
Fraternal extremism does not end in the sociopolitical arena. Most people would not consider sports religious, but hooliganism has all the hallmarks of religious devotion. Consider the fanatic sporting gangs, mobs, hooligans and futbol thugs throughout Europe and South America who not only worship players as idols, so to speak, but before a rival match will ritually chant and arm themselves with baseball bats, chains, tasers or whatever concealable, to fend their territory off-the-field; massive riots and clashes transpire before, during and after the game, even going as far as murdering rival gang members or unsuspecting away fans simply for wearing an opposing jersey[24]. Whenever first-degree murder is involved, I think it is safe to assume these people really believe in whatever it is they believe! It is, of course, more than just a sport to these ruffians, something much more – they are the player off-field, part of a bigger whole, something larger than self – where, in a sense, the sport club with its territory and culture is more sacred than the opposition.
Matlock Bobechko | January 15, 2017. Revised on June 14, 2022 – 9:00 AM EST
[1] Richard Dawkins. River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (New York: Basic Books, 1995).
[2] Carlos Fraenkel, Philosophical Religions from Plato to Spinoza: Reason, Religion, and Autonomy (Cambridge University Press, 2012), 1.
[3] C.S. Lewis, Miracles: a preliminary study (Collins, London, 1947), 110.
[4] Roy A. Clouser, The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories (by Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005), 12.
[5] It should be said that “Unbeing” in this ancient sense of it refers to total nothingness.
Anthony Kenny, A New History of Western Philosophy, 161.
[6] Mark Balaguer, Kurt Gödel. Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/biography/Kurt-Godel
[7] Interestingly, Gödel’s incompleteness theorem demonstrates that “mathematics contains true statements that cannot be proven”. He does so by constructing paradoxical mathematical statements which represent propositional statements and logic. Translated to our context, there will always be true statements that cannot be logically proven. Therefore, there is some element of faith in fundamental assumptions.
“What is Gödel's proof?” Scientific American. Published on February 19, 2006.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-goumldels-proof/#:~:text=Kurt%20G%C3%B6del's%20incompleteness%20theorem%20demonstrates,by%20constructing%20paradoxical%20mathematical%20statements.&text=The%20only%20alternative%20left%20is,fact%20both%20true%20and%20unprovable.
[8] National Post, “The concept there is not just a universe, but a multiverse, has come into the scientific mainstream”, Michael Hanlon, The Telegraph; April 22, 2014.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/the-concept-there-is-not-just-a-universe-but-a-multiverse-has-come-into-the-scientific-mainstream
[9] An overused example is to consider the fact that your mind can retain volumes and volumes of new information, but your brain will not grow in size. Likewise, you can imagine a pink elephant, but your head will not gain weight. The ontological division of mind and brain is concerning for naturalism, in my view.
[10] Interestingly, you will never find scientists scoffing in fury over and about one’s belief in the existence of absolute nothingness, but you will always find such crude brashness over and about one’s belief in God. Why such hostility over the matter if (a) it is all totally fictional, (b) there is no good or evil and (c) truth is epistemologically relative and culturally induced? Seems unreasonable to take a stance at all.
[11] Wilder Penfield, Mystery of the Mind: A Critical Study of Consciousness and the Human Brain, 77-8.
[12] Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good & Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future (54), 38. Emphasis added.
[13] David Hume, 1748 et seq., An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Tom L. Beauchamp (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
[14] Tim Bayne, Philosophy of Religion: A Very Short Introduction, 16.
[15] Vine Deloria, Jr., God Is Red: A Native View of Religion. (Golden, Colo.: Fulcrum Publishing, 1994).
[16] Roy A. Clouser, The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories (by Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005), 11.
[17] Tim Bayne, Philosophy of Religion: A Very Short Introduction, 80-1.
[18] Paul Tillich, Dynamics of Faith (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1957), 1.
[19] Roy A. Clouser, The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories (by Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005), 14.
[20] Consider Eco-terrorist Ted Kaczynski (also known as the “Unabomber”) or the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). Earth Liberation Front is responsible for over $100 million in damages in the United States for burning down apartment complexes with people inside, sabotaging industrial facilities, construction sites and other urban targets with homemade explosives and the like. ELF overwhelmingly advocates and rejects the use of violence against “life” to achieve their goals, and when such cases occur, they disassociate themselves with the culprits. Even if ELF members do not intend to hurt “life”, it does not negate the acts incurred by other radical ecological movements that have maimed and killed innocent people peripheral of the primary target. Eco-terrorism carries all the markings of a quickly growing dangerous belief, from the defiant attitude justified by self-righteous motivation and moralism to the extreme actions taken by established and fringe groups. In 2005, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) deemed these “eco-terrorists” the country’s biggest domestic terror threat with over 150 open investigations. Ed Bradley & Daniel Schorn. 60 Minutes, CBS News. November 13, 2005. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/burning-rage/
[21] Founded in the early 1960s, the “Quebec Liberation Front”, commonly referred to as the FLQ, was a militant separatist and Marxist-Leninist paramilitary group of the Quebec sovereignty movement and was responsible for over 200 bombings until the autumn of 1970. On October 5, 1970, four men posing as deliverymen kidnapped British trade commissioner James Richard Cross. Today, this event is well known as the October Crisis. In exchange, the kidnappers threatened to kill Cross, unless the government released over twenty prison inmates charged with crimes committed in the name of the Front and insisted their manifesto be read on national television. Five days later, they kidnapped Pierre Laporte, the Quebec minister of labour and the government's senior Cabinet minister. On October 15, as the nation hovered over their television sets, three thousand people gathered at Paul Sauvé Arena in Québec to show support for the FLQ's separatist ideas. The FLQ's lawyer, Robert Lemieux, famously rallied the troops: "We're going to organize, choose our ground, and WE WILL VANQUISH." In response, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau invoked The War Measures Act on October 16, 1970, which suspended basic civil rights and liberties. This was the first time in Canadian history that its citizens were deprived of their rights and freedoms during peacetime. The very next night, an FLQ communiqué led police to find Pierre Laporte’s body in the trunk of a car parked near St. Hubert airport. He was strangled to death. Again, with a movement that kills to preserve the French culture and language, what is the difference between Islamic Extremism radical nationalism?
Historica Canada, The Canadian Encyclopedia. Marc Laurendeau, revision by Dominique Millette. Front de libération du Québec. August 07, 2014. http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/front-de-liberation-du-quebec/
CBC, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: http://www.cbc.ca/history/EPISCONTENTSE1EP16CH1PA4LE.html
[22] ‘We don’t believe in candles and flowers’: Neo-Nazis bring violence to peace vigil in Brussels. David Chazan & Rory Mulholland, The Telegraph. March 28, 2016. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/we-dont-believe-in-candles-and-flowers-neo-nazis-bring-violence-to-peace-vigil-in-brussels
[23] These examples do not suggest that each religion automatically means a nefarious force of violence, corruption, and bloodshed. It is just to emphasize the point. There are plenty of non-for-profits, manifestos, social movements and the like that bring about positive action with a keen sense of urgency.
[24] Martha Newson, Tiago Bortolini, Michael Buhrmester, Silvio Ricardo da Silva, Jefferson Nicássio Queiroga da Aquino, Harvey Whitehouse. Brazil's football warriors: Social bonding and inter-group violence. Evolution and Human Behavior Volume 39, Issue 6, November 2018, Pages 675-683. Published online, 21 June 2018.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513817301939