There is something that most atheist critiques of religion have failed to internalize. If there is no god, and there never has been, then religious practice is also a secular practice. Dan Dennett wrote a whole book about how religion is a natural phenomena but he didn't capture an insight that I found in Alain de Botton's book about religion for atheists.
Everything that every religion has done, they have done for natural reasons and with natural outcomes. Not all of those reasons and outcomes are bad, far from it. And I think being an atheist would be a little less difficult and a little less limiting if we realized that religious practice is human practice. Imagine if you will what a church would be like if you knew for sure that no one believed.
Religious people will tell you that what they do they do because of God, or because of scripture, or faith, or whatever supernatural reasons they believe in. But remember that this is not true, their god isn't there pulling the strings. When they give to charity it is because they are charitable. When they discriminate it is because they are bigoted. When they do violence it is because they are violent. And their religious practice plays a role.
But their god does not.
Theist: But how can you have morals if there's no god?
ReplyDeleteAtheist: Same question.
Well done.
DeleteI think I once briefly explained to you my theory of how my religious practices are beneficial independent of the empirical existence of God. E.g., in prayer I attempt to open myself and offer myself to God, which requires humbling myself and releasing my own fears, desires, and prejudices. This is difficult, and not something I would do otherwise. If in fact there's nobody on the other end of the line, it is still a worthwhile exercise to spend quiet moments releasing such attachments. I, at least, could not have this experience if I did not believe in God.
ReplyDeleteNow, if your personal experience has not led you to believe in God, and your scientific education (or whatever) has in fact led you to believe strongly that there could not be such a thing, the sort of argument I just presented is unlikely to change your mind. Without faith, though, you cannot simply go through the motions of religious practice and reap all the benefits, which is what you seem to want to do.
Thank you Liam, it means a lot to me that you engage with this project and your perspective is deeply valuable.
DeleteMaybe I'm missing something, but saying that religion is a human or natural phenomenon is different than saying it's secular. The fact that people think there's agency or intent in the universe, and that this agency makes it incumbent upon them to act a certain way, is the basis of religious belief. It's what differentiates it from a belief that's not religious.
ReplyDeleteSaying that's "secular" is, um, wrong.
This post is an effort to highlight a perspective that I think would be helpful to adopt. Just saying that it is a natural phenomenon doesn't grab attention in the right way. While saying that religion is secular is logically false, it points at a way to understand religious practice.
DeleteCouldn't we understand it without completely redefining it? I thought the point (as per Dennett) was to study religion as a meme-complex that has co-evolved with humanity, not to "grab attention."
DeleteI don't wish *merely* to seem impish, but my response to "This is difficult, and not something I would do otherwise" is to say, "Of course not, with that attitude."
ReplyDelete