One of the oldest tensions in human experience has been the divide between belief and reason. Religion champions the former and science champions the latter, and at either extreme we have fundamentalist certainty and nihilistic relativism. The two noteworthy compromises have been secularism, which allows everyone to believe in something but asks that societal decisions take place outside that framework, and atheism, which asks us to find solid logical grounds for what we believe in.
Of course, ever since the Enlightenment, advances in science have not only raised doubts about old ideas like the soul, but have started to shed light on the mysteries that religion has always played on in order to persuade. The question for society, is whether this is a good thing.
An atheist's defense of religion
In a recent interview with CBC Radio's Tapestry, Sam Harris argued that religion obstructs society because faith is illogical, lacks the self-correction of science, and helps people rationalize the suffering and injustice in the world. To some extent this is true, given the way that humans are not rational animals but rationalizing animals, and this is most apparent in the positive correlation between personal wealth and the likelihood of believing in a just world.
Of course, this tendency within religion is not entirely a bad thing in that it can promote peace of mind and good health. According to cognitive scientist Max Coltheart, in a discussion about the nature of belief at this year's the Australian Science Festival, a belief can be considered good if it makes you happy or promotes the good of society. One example of this is the case of indigenous psychology, where many professionals have found that involving religious ideas and practices in psychotherapy can have a positive impact on the treatment of non-westerners and ethnic minorities.
Politically, the helpfulness of religion in society is a little more iffy. As Stephen Stockwell points out in his book Political Campaign Strategy, religious leaders since the dawn of man have served the useful purpose of building consensus for collective action using the art of rhetoric. From shamans to bards and preachers, the influence of a decorated message has been powerful in maintaining the status quo, where constant debate might very well shatter a society.
Article comments
1 - David Ben-Ariel
Do You Prefer TRADITION Over Truth?
When Caesar Plays God: When the State Oversteps Its Bounds
God's One Government Has Two Branches!
2 - Brent
Is this post actually about faith and society? Or about religiously-fueled politics and society? I know there's a lot of crap going on in Australia with churches and tax-exemption (and, even though I am a charismatic Christian, I loathe what some of these churches have done there), but don't misunderstand political religiosity for authentic faith. There is a huge difference, theologically and philosophically.
What it all comes down to is that the role of Christians (or anyone, for that matter) in the world is neither a political (religious right) nor educational (ID/evolution) question. It is one philosophy (yes, that old, dead study) and religious studies can help understand.
3 - Baronius
I found this article to be superficial and inaccurate from literally the first sentence to the last.
4 - Michael J. West
Let me point out, first of all, that I have a couple of problems with this article. For example, this:
A big part of why I converted to atheism, aside from the logic that seemed absent of every defense I had for faith, was that the true believers were prone to act in a very ethnocentric manner.
I don't believe ethnocentrism is mutually exclusive of atheism. In fact, I would argue that almost everyone in the world is "prone" to act in a very ethnocentric manner, because almost everyone in the world is raised in a very ethnocentric environment. It's human nature, instinct, to regard the world in one's own image. It takes concerted, conscious effort to do otherwise, and that's the exact opposite of "prone."
Nonetheless there's a lot to agree with, and a lot more to think about, in this article.
5 - Michael J. West
Baronius, your comment, in the context of this article, leads to three possible conclusions.
6 - Vern Halen
You've shared some interesting personal perpectives here - thank you. In part, your position seems to be based on your observation that, "...the true believers were prone to act in a very ethnocentric manner."
Perhaps these weren't the true believers - I hope they weren't, at any rate.
Also, in a country that is grounded firmly in a two party political system, it's easy to see why people see the world in terms of "ingroup-outgroup." So I think maybe your article is pretty accurate in terms of religion & society - the rituals, the dogma, etc., but maybe not an accurate portrayal of faith as it ought to be practiced by a bonafide true believer.
7 - Vern Halen
Sorry - those are just a couple of stray thoughts - they're not meant to connect to each other or anything ('cause they don't!).
V.
8 - Les Slater
A few beliefs of mine:
It matters more what one does rather than what one believes.
Belief does not determine action nor does reason.
The lack of understanding something does not preclude its use in making progress.
Faith is a necessity for making progress. So is the challenging of faith.
There need not be one atheist for society to progress or to more fully understand the true nature of things and their dynamics.
9 - Baronius
"One of the oldest tensions in human experience has been the divide between belief and reason."
Not really. There is nothing inherently unreasonable or unreasoning about belief, and nothing inherently anti-religious about reason. The classical Greeks approached mathematics and logic as forms of mysticism. Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas were among the most learned men of their day, and argued that that all forms of finding the truth must necessarily point to the same truth. Newton relied observation, math, alchemy, and Bible study in his search for knowledge. Pascal and Descartes, arguably the two most important figures in French philosophy, were both Catholics and mathematicians. And outside the Western tradition, the line between reason and belief is often nonexistent.
The modern intellectual world was created by the university, a religious institution. Jesuits and Dominicans have educated more people than any state college. The modern "divide" between belief and reason dates to German biblical literalism in the 1600's and French anti-religious sentiment in the 1700's, and even since then, the divide hasn't exactly been great. The Copenhagen school of physics was explicitly philosophical, as was Jesuit paleontologist and evolutionist Teilhard de Chardin.
The second sentence labels the extreme of science as "nihilistic relativism". In what sense is that true? The relativist believes that all things are equally true (or untrue). The scientific approach is exactly the opposite. I suppose that some of the English empiricists allowed the possibility of relativism, so maybe that sentence isn't entirely wrong. The third sentence callw athiesm a good compromise between faith and reason, and labels atheism one of only two noteworthy compromises. In so doing, the author ignores all the above examples (and many more, such as the Muslim and Jewish intellectual traditions), finding - surprise! - his beliefs to be a sound compromise. Atheism as a compromise with faith... words fail me.
The next paragraph declares that post-Enlightenment science has raised doubts about the existence of the soul. Where is this scientific evidence? Advances in our understanding of, for example, brain chemistry have been remarkable, but they don't refute a metaphysical argument, much less construct one of their own. It's worth noting that most Enlightenment thinkers didn't see science and faith as opposites.
I could go on picking at this article; suffice it to say, I think the author took on an intersting subject and didn't do much with it.
10 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Baronius,
Don't be too hard on the kid (the author). He needs to shave and dry the shaving cream from behind his ears. He's an undergrad, for heaven's sake.
When I was his age, I would have done as well as he did(n't) trying to tackle this subject. It's a rough one that requires a few trips round the block to begin to write about intelligently...
John, I'm not trying to be nasty. I'm trying to be kind. Please take my remarks in that light.
11 - Jonathan Scanlan
Hey, I never meant to suggest that science was equatable with nihilistic relativism. But when you take doubt, which is central to science, to the out most extreme, that's where you're bound to end up.
True, my experience with religion is limited. And I did rush to press with this topic because I am not certain how long the above links will be open.
The above article is limited in terms of new ideas it can contribute to an old debate, but based on some of the response I've at least given a few people something to think about.
On the existence of a soul, materialism has been a popular philosophy in neuroscience over the last 50 years. That we can already reduce emotional and cognitive processes to physiological changes is presenting an ever growing body of evidence.
12 - duane
I am not well versed in philosophy, but I can make a couple of comments here anyway.
First, scientists are not doubters, they are skeptics. That simply means that, to the extent that a scientist is adopting a scientific approach to nature, he does not accept claims regarding the workings of the physical universe without evidence. Skepticism should not be construed as some kind of defective personality trait. It is nothing more than a Method. The word "doubt" tends to suggest that a scientist does not accept the body of scientific knowledge with which he deals on a daily basis, which, in a general sense, is not the case.
Second, nihilism, as far as I understand it, has as its core concept that the human race has no grand purpose. Isn't that just a by-product of atheism? And is there anything fundamentally harmful about that idea? Couldn't it be true? Another definition that I found on The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy says:
"Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence."
I don't know of any scientists that take such an extreme position. I also don't see how science could push anyone into that mindset. Especially the "nothing can be known" aspect. Scientists, taken as a whole, dedicate their lives to the proposition that things can be known.
Third, relativism is a philosophical concept, and has nothing to do with science. Scientists may "philosophize" after hours, like anyone else, but the advocacy of philosphical schools of thought, such as the ethics of relativism, is not within the purview of science. I know that people sometimes confuse relativism with relativity (I'm not saying that you are, Jonathan), but there is no connection.
13 - ss
Here's a juicy story on the science versus faith debate I just heard last night (this will mesh with the post, I swear)
Did anyone see 60 Minutes last night? Scientists have made a pretty strong case linking adrenalin and memory (the more adrenalin in your system when you experience something the better, and often more emotionally, you remember it). But now one medical researcher has taken the next step and found the chemical that dulls this link after the fact. They're already manufacturing this chemical as a drug and testing it on victims of severe childhhod abuse. So far these victimized people's overall stress levels have gone down and most describe this therapy as an incredible relief. One woman, a victim of childhood rape, came pretty close to saying she was fianlly able to enjoy sex with her husband since recieving this drug.
The Army finds this study so promising they are interested in using the drug for treating post traumatic stress disorder.
The White House is against this, however, as it is against this whole line of research on the grounds that this therapy degrades us as individuals when it degrades our memories, even of terrible events; and they further argue that removing apprehension from the memory of terrible events may erode our conscience, and leave us less able to draw moral lessons from our experiences.
First of all:
Shit, I guess maybe George did read The Stranger.
Secondly:
Now that materialism and moralism are locked in an 'existential struggle', who's side do you come down on? It's all well and good to condemn organized religion for the obvious short comings in some of it's moral pronouncements, but do you want to live in a world where people can do horrible things without a trace of guilt?
On the other hand,
Some people do horrible things without much guilt already.
Should thier victims have to suffer more so religious philosophers can cling to the hope of saving the perpetrators soul?
I think the post was really more about the benifits of materialism over moralism anyway, one I'm inclined to agree with in the abstract. So here's a real world situation, now try settle this one neatly by staying on side of the moralism v. materialism fence.
I dare ya.