The Relevance of Religion Revealed
March 5th, 2008
“Fatally powerful as religious systems have been, human nature is stronger and wider than religious systems….” George Eliot
I reject religion as a yardstick to measure ideas. Doing so looks at the issues backwards – human behavior explains religion, not vice versa. However, for my first post I thought I should explain where I stand on religion so that I do not have to constantly address the relevance of religion on any given topic. To be sure, religion has been given a free pass on issues of ethics and morality. The assertions of the religious and the claim they stake on ethics and morality deserve vigorous challenge. However, to do so here would present a never-ending distraction from our primary objective – discussion of ethics from the perspective of an atheist.
So does religious thought play any role in the formation of human ethics? As a human invention, religious thought cannot guide us to an understanding of human behavior. In fact, religion actually hampers this understanding. At best religion is a cop-out which allows a person to rely on blind acceptance of religious teachings rather than truly scrutinizing her or his beliefs. At worst it is a distraction which complicates honest examination of ethics and morality by injecting overly-simplistic and inconsistent ideals into the process.
My goal is to look past the smoke screen which religion places between us and our understanding of the world to identify the real sources of human behavior. This has been done before by thinkers far more intelligent than I! However, I write not as a thinker but as an average Joe who is genuinely interested in these issues. I invite you to join me (and criticize me!) as I explore these issues and their effectiveness in giving meaning to our lives.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:00 am
Freud viewed religion as a projection of a father figure into the sky. It is an appropriate analogy, but only explains religion insofar as the anthropomorphic metaphor can go. Like your point about the “cop out” though (which is what reminded me of Freud), you and Freud are both right.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Brian, the topic of your post made me remember the writings of Daniel Quinn, the author of Ishmael and The Story of B, among other works. I am simplifying, but he claims that religion as we know it today came about as a result of the agricultural revolution–once humans began farming, they began controlling their environment to meet their needs, instead of living off of the land as it naturally existed. Coinciding with this “totalitarian agriculture” was the invention of “modern” religions, and shortly thereafter, written laws. Somehow, the organic tribal laws that had governed the people for thousands of years were no longer sufficient. I’m rambling, but I think Quinn’s writings really address the idea of the “smoke screen” that you mention in your post, as well as the formation of human ethics.
See http://www.ishmael.org/welcome.cfm