He begins his essay with the Bubble Boy, a particularly poignant episode that he describes as "the straw that broke the back of his religious faith." Indeed, one wonders how the religious mind can square tragedies of this kind with a loving God. I would think that if one must believe in a deity, it would make much more sense to see him as a sonuvabitch, or at least completely indifferent. Perhaps capricious, like the mythical gods on Olympus. Regardless, the faithful seem to have an almost infinite (one might say miraculous) ability to reconcile horrors of this kind with the Divine plan of a mysterious deity. Shapiro, like many of us, seems to have exhausted his supply of incredulity.
I felt that he did a good of conveying the sense of deep belonging and purpose that an immercive religious upbringing can convey to the young and impressionable. When this rigid structure is imposed at an early age, it is rare that the grown believer can shed it's burden without a feeling of having lost something important. This, more than almost anything else, is the source of religion's enduring power over our species. We are infected before we have developed the proper tools with which to fight off the infection.
Shapiro then moves on to his perception of the current state of religion in the world, and how it relates/interacts with science and philosophy. He stakes out three positions that can be taken in the intersection between faith and reason: a state of war, a rationalist approach, and one of incommensurability (NOMA.) After some soul-searching, and a positively painful tangent into the Abraham/Isaac debacle, he comes to the conclusion that a state of zero-sum conflict between faith and reason is indeed the reality that exists in our time. I am, of course, in substantive agreement with him on this point. Let religion join alchemy, astrology, and magic on the ash heap of discarded human ideas.
One amusing aside: I found it interesting how his daughter referred to "cold, hard logic." I wonder how much of our modern perception of logic is owed to its championing by Mr. Spock? He often came across as cold and calculating, devoid of apparent emotion. Of course, as informed Star Trek fans, we know this to be false. But Spock's place in our cultural consciousness as a cold and logical being is secure. I just found it...fascinating.
To clarify my statement about discarding religion: I don't dismiss the questions that religion attempts to answer. I just believe that religion has proven to be a terrible tool/avenue/approach for answering them. Religion was birthed in the infancy of our species, and I feel that it has outlived its usefulness. Indeed, I found Bertrand Russel's metaphor about religion being a dragon guarding the door to humanity's progress to be an apt one. Just as we abandoned alchemy in favor of chemistry and astrology in favor of astronomy, so too must we abandon religion in favor philosophy and reason.
ReplyDeleteThat is not to say that there aren't those who still cling to astrology or alchemy, because there surely are. They are just politely (or not so politely) pushed to the margins of the conversation. Let it be so with those of strong religious conviction: politely tolerated, but not taken seriously. #strident
ReplyDeleteRight, and Russell also admitted "unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind" - should nonbelievers acknowledge the potentially salvific and comforting properties of religious responses to suffering, or is that just a way of enabling the dragon to continue blocking our path?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I totally agree with your observation about childhood indoctrination: "When this rigid structure is imposed at an early age, it is rare that the grown believer can shed it's burden without a feeling of having lost something important. This, more than almost anything else, is the source of religion's enduring power over our species. We are infected before we have developed the proper tools with which to fight off the infection."
And Spock did get a bad rap, his human half is often dominant. Plus, he misused "logical" when he really meant "rational." Atheists do have an image problem in this respect, and should take care not to project the appearance of emotionless indifference to "the feeling of faith." There's a feeling of reason too, and it's not at all "cold and hard." Can you think of anyone warmer and fuzzier than Carl Sagan?
I agree that the suffering of mankind is pitiable. But, I view religion as a way that we let our collective selves wallow in our suffering, instead of doing the hard work of finding a better path forward.
DeleteIn a way, I view the history of religion as an extended breakup. We "woke up" as a species a few tens of thousands of years ago, to the knowledge that our girlfriend had left us. We were devastated. Religion has been our drug of choice, allowing us to drown our sorrows in ritual, stupor, and denial. But eventually, we have to sober up and do the hard work of moving on with our lives.
Those of us who have put down the bottle can still pity those who are drowning in their sorrows. But we do them no favors by pretending that languishing in the valley is preferable to cresting the ridge, clear-eyed and sober.
I'm not saying that anybody is Marxist in here, but it does remind me of Marx's critique of religion. People usually cite the line that "religion is the opiate of the masses" without actually understanding the context or quoting the rest of the passage.
ReplyDeleteMarx thought that religion was a wonderful thing, in so far as it helped salve the suffering of the common people. It provided charity, community, hope, and some sense of humanity in the face of the inhumanity of the societal system we've set up for ourselves. Opiates, it should be remember, are medicine. But it WAS his hope that we would move past needing that bandage, by directly addressing the causes of the suffering head-on.
"The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
ReplyDeleteReligious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.
It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked.
Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics."
There is the quote, in context. Does anyone else feel that Marx thought religion was a wonderful thing? I get the sense that he thought it was a false comfort, an illusory solution to a real problem, and a stumbling block to human progress. He is quite explicit, in fact.
David, I think we're rather saying the same thing - I never said he thought religion was real or the best thing, only that it was a comfort and salve to those who needed it. I find ample evidence for this reading in the text you quoted itself.
ReplyDeleteBut that only goes to prove my point that two reasonable people can read the same thing and come to different conclusions.
"It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality."
"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions."
"The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself."
I think my reading seems amply clear and sustained by the context of the entire passage: Religion is man's flawed attempt to realize himself, it is good in so far as it goes and expresses 'the soul of a souless situation', but needs to be moved beyond to get at /real/ solutions (which in Marx's mind was Communist values).
I'm not seeing what you think was supposed to contradict that?
My quibble was with your assertion that Marx thought religion was "a wonderful thing, in so far..." The fact that a man can turn his back on reality and drown his sorrows in alcohol doesn't make alcohol a wonderful thing, does it? It can be a bandage, or a salve, or a comfort, but it was Marx's point that to embrace religion was to ultimately embrace a false comfort.
ReplyDeleteProbably I was reading too much into your characterization of "wonderful", as though Marx was in favor of religion.
Perhaps wonderful was too strong a word, that I would be willing to concede. I think we can at least agree, that he saw it as providing imperfectly something to people that they could not get from mere consumerism.
ReplyDeleteLol, indeed. In fact, I would go so far as to say that pretty well sums up my whole attitude towards religion. It has provided people with X (meaning, purpose, knowledge, comfort) imperfectly, and we are long overdue in moving beyond it.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the spirited discussion, as always.