One thing that religions typically do — although certainly not the only one — is to make claims about how the world works. How important are those claims to what religion really is, and how we should think about it?
PZ Myers has posted a very interesting letter from Stephen Asma that talks about this issue. Asma earlier wrote a critique of New Atheism in the Chronicle of Higher Education, to which PZ responded, but I think the new letter is more interesting than the previous salvos. Russell Blackford has also chimed in.
This is a very healthy discussion to be having — moving a bit beyond the caricatures of atheism by believers, and of religion by atheists. Much of what Asma says I find quite persuasive. The crux is something like this:
My argument is that religion helps people, rightly or wrongly, manage their emotional lives. And while it doesn’t do very much for me and other skeptics (I prefer art), I would be very inattentive if I failed to notice how much relief and comfort it gave to other people.
Asma wants to consider the aspects of religion that are closer to those of art or literature than those of science. There’s no question that religions have beneficial effects along with their bad ones. If we’re being rational about it, we should try to understand how those effects work, even if our only agenda is to find some sort of acceptable substitute.
If we were starting from scratch I would put it this way: some of the sense of wonder and anticipation of possibility that defines us as human is often categorized under the heading of “religion.” We can raise questions about the truthfulness of religion’s attempts to describe how the world works, while at the same time respecting some of the careful thought that religious people have put into understanding the human condition.
But … there’s usually a “but.” I have to wonder about these attempts to completely downplay the role of truth-claims in religious belief. In my experience, when I hear someone arguing that the important aspects of religion are moral or aesthetic, and the statements about how the world works are an unfortunate bit of historical baggage, it usually is not coming from a religious person, but rather from a sympathetic non-believer. My impression is that the way a religion views the world is actually quite important to a typical believer. I have in mind both very specific kinds of claims, that God created the world some number of years ago or that we are sorted into various afterlives depending on our Earthly track record, or more vague ones, that God allows the world to be or that moments of transcendence represent connection with a higher power. I don’t think these are unimportant to most religious believers, even most very sophisticated ones (I could be wrong).
And, needless to say, views about how the world works are very often central to the other aspects of religious belief. If you really believe in Heaven and Hell, you’d be crazy not to let that belief influence your view of morality here on Earth.
So, while I’m all in favor of understanding the nature of religious belief and also exhibiting a willingness to learn from believers who have thought long and hard about philosophy or ethics or what have you, I don’t foresee having a truly open and respectful dialogue without putting questions of how the world really works front and center. If we took a religion and removed from it any claims about how the world works, leaving a set of ideas about morality and human life, would it make sense to even call the result a religion? It would be more like a philosophy or worldview, and those are things that even we atheists are more than happy to engage with.
Still, we don’t always do a good job of that engagement. I look forward to the day when “atheism” as a worldview takes difficult emotional human questions more seriously in a public way.
Fascinating discussion. I am the son of a fundamentalist, evangelical minister and trained as an economist with emphasis on formal logic and political science.
*That* upbringing and training is enough to make one’s head spin until s/he finds a personal belief to stop (or at least slow) the spinning. Eugene advises [dogmatic] atheists, “I prescribe some time in a disaster zone.” I’ve had that experience also. If you never before had an altruistic thought, such an experience will cause it.
The result of all that has led me to become an agnostic. That is, there are things I/we simply cannot know. Indeed, physicists are now pondering the nature of reality and the relevance of entanglement. Does anyone know how or if these things affect human experience? I don’t think anyone can answer that.
Until such answers are available and provable, the sanest view (in my view) is to accept that there are two separate planes, for example the left/right brain … belief/emotion and provable reality. Yes, the two may be connected, but we don’t know that yet, assertions to the contrary not withstanding.
Sean wrote,
“One thing that religions typically do — although certainly not the only one — is to make claims about how the world works. How important are those claims to what religion really is, and how we should think about it?…
“I don’t foresee having a truly open and respectful dialogue without putting questions of how the world really works front and center.”
By “religion” do you mean “evolving tribal myth and ritual”, or “rules for living”, or “churches and similar institutions”, or what? The word is too vague to comment upon. But in the interest of a truly open and respectful dialogue about how the world really works, I have to ask, is the wave-particle mystery solved? Would a truly open and respectful particle physicist defend the truth, or assert the physical reality, of mathematical point particles and fields? On the large scale, in the public perception it is only a matter of time before cosmologists are able to run the universal evolution film all the way to T=0, a creation moment ~13.7 billion years ago. Would a truly open and respectful Big Bang cosmologist not admit that there is no way to contract the movie back to time zero, that at some point something has to be added to the movie – namely the movie itself? Or is it honest to fudge the beginning by applying the measurement uncertainty principle to it? I am not a trained mathematical physicist but I understand English, and I have never seen any solution in English to the wave-particle mystery. Feynman admits the machinery is not understood. Einstein cautions against putting particles in fields – maybe his advice should have been followed. Maybe the “truth” about how the world really works is yet to be found, and all the current “theories” (although not necessarily the math) are headed for the dustbin, while the thought controllers continue to flog the tribal myths.
Philosophical discussions of religion always become interesting. In part, because each person believes their religion to be the “best.” Much as one will argue that their school is “best.” Where these discussions break down is when those who hold more fundamentalist views (the world is only 6,000 years old), because they view things from a modern and limited perspective. That is, to an omnipotent omnipresent entity, time has no meaning thus a “day” could be billions of years.
On the flip side, the science-based discussion as it relates to religion has yet to answer the question, what existed before the Big Bang? Though I have no doubt that someday science will discover this answer.
Now, the kind of church “psmith” describes is what one should expect of all churches regardless of the religion. This also shows where religion can have a positive effect on the human condition. People feel good and can (and studies have shown) also gain up to two years of life helping others. That we are social beings, church fulfills the need to socialize and be with others–even better when engaged in something that helps people who need a hand. There are even groups of nuns now who have as their mission to be and teach others to be stewards of our planet. They read scripture to tell us that our mission as humans is to care for the earth and all its living beings.
Bottom line, religion developed in the human quest for answers: a quest for how nature works, why are we here, and what is my purpose in life. It brings comfort to many. I don’t think things happen because it’s “God’s plan” but that we hold in our hands the power to make heaven or hell on earth. Whether there really is an ethereal version of these is irrelevant, if one lives a life that is good, seeks to share with and help others and like we learned in Scouts, try to leave the earth a better place when we depart, then we have fulfilled our expectations as humans. it doesn’t matter if I cursed, it doesn’t matter that I’ve told a lie or two or three along the way. What matters is that I tried to improve the planet on which I live in some small way. JMW refers to spirituality over the term religion.
That humans are spiritual beings is part of our existence. Even the atheist finds wonder in the stars, the power of nature, and the birth of any new life, not to mention the incomprehensibility of the size of our universe. The difference is the atheist doesn’t see this as the “hand of God,” but the “miracle” of science in action. The search for meaning outside of our human existence is why science will not replace religion/spirituality in giving comfort as Bee hypothesizes. What we can hope for is that science levels the playing field, bringing disparate religious beliefs together for the common good and perhaps in that process, teaching a greater tolerance and respect for the different doctrines.
“There’s no question that religions have beneficial effects along with their bad ones.”
Hardly. this is so NOT true for those traditions that sprung from the middle east. You know the ones i mean, Judaic, and Muslim traditions do NOT spread the words of peace and give people a beneficial effect. They do however spread fear as a control mechanism of the masses. Do as i say and you might be able to experience peace love and happiness when you die. Using the uncertainty of what happens when one dies AGAINST someone is not my idea of beneficial at ALL.
The eastern religions do not control people by fear so I can totally see this for those religions. But to generalize and include those religions that operate on fear and that reinforce fear in the masses unless they obey their religious leaders is not helpful to anyone!
I think people here are missing the whole point at the core of the dispute. It’s not about philosophy or truth-statements or faith, despite what even religious people themselves say. Even they don’t fully understand why they’re so attached to their religion.
Most people need rituals, and lots of them. Personal rituals, rituals that reach into their private lives, give structure to their days, and connect them to the past to give them a sense of grounding. Rituals that involve old, familiar music and communal singing and dancing. Rituals that provide a sense of continuity and permanence and belonging in a world of constant flux and change and isolation.
Where are they going to get those sorts of rituals from, if not their religions? Despite the fixation on faith-beliefs and philosophy, 90% of what most people actually do in their religious practices (especially in the older religions) revolves around the rituals. Not everybody needs so much ritual, but many, many people do. What are you asking them to do? Just stop needing it? Good luck.
It’s one of those things that people just can’t understand unless they need it themselves. Ritual is extremely important to so many people, and it’s very difficult to explain to someone who just doesn’t understand and who doesn’t need it himself. It’s a form of social blindness, like trying to explain poetry or calculus or even humor to someone who just doesn’t process those things.
Now, when you challenge most religious people on the truth-statements made by their religions, they fear that if they give up those truth statements, they’ll lose all those other parts. They fear at some level (maybe at an unconscious level) that if they give up the truth-statements, then they’ll also have to give up that ritual and all the richness that goes along with it, and that immediately makes them feel defensive. And then the whole debate swirls around the truth-statements, when that’s actually just a red herring.
Interesting post. Asma makes some sense. But as to ‘truth-claims’ – does this apply to children ? Or are we always talking about adults ? I do not see how it is realistic to expect 7 billion humans to get into a scientific world view – and if they did -what would THAT look like ?everybody getting into String Theory ? Multiverses ? Would there be Scientific Wars that would tear apart China and India ? I just do not see how humans have the time to have any depth of understanding – especially when it is evident that we dont understand these things either.
Mike says,
“It’s one of those things that people just can’t understand unless they need it themselves. ”
This is one of the more profound statements about religion in the above comments.
The statement also applies to the desire to breath, to eat, to take alcohol or heroin (for an addict), to seek love and all the other good or evil things we feel a desire to perform. Is eating “true?” Is breathing “provable?” In the end, it isn’t necessary that the stories of religion be “true” in an historical or scientific sense because the desire to find God (or gods or spirit, etc) doesn’t “exist” (have its being outside of our body and mind) but rather it “insists” (arises from our being). So, do all of us have an inherent desire for a spiritual/religious life or do some of us not? Where is it in the genome? Does the desire arise from something essential to our humanity or is is adventitious?
And finally, are the really angry atheists attacking the religious because they are fighting to control themselves?
I’m a big supporter of research into if and how spiritual/religious belief confers particular benefits for ones sense of “well being”. With varying levels of qualification about standards of rigor, there is at least a somewhat persuasive body of evidence, on the whole, suggesting these beliefs really are efficacious in boosting health and happiness. Whether one feels it is appropriate to lump this in with the placebo effect is beside the point, as far as I’m concerned, but assume it boils down to the “power of faith”. What is it, exactly, that makes faith (be it in a god, a prophet, or a pill, I don’t care) powerful in this way? That’s a legitimate scientific question. And, IMO, to dismiss the importance of this power just because of how one came to access it is quite unscientific.
I’m firmly in the crowd who thinks there’s a fascinating but mundane explanation for the power of faith. What intrigues me about that is the potential for developing a rigorous therapeutic approach (psychotherapy, hallucinogens, transcranial magnetic stimulation, combination of all, more?) to physical and emotional healing that augments, or at least makes the most of, this innate capability. It might be a therapeutic approach that could work for anyone, because it doesn’t require faith in the unknowable and/or nonexistent.
It boggles my mind sometimes how fixated everybody is—on both sides of this argument—on belief, rather than on ritual. It’s ritual, not belief, that’s key.
All the debates over religion these days are all about belief, about truth-statements, philosophy, etc. But for a lot of religious people, that’s not what consumes the large majority of their religious practice.
I suspect at some level that people—especially those on the atheist side—avoid talking about ritual because they know that’s where their argument is weak. Debating beliefs is much easier, because the beliefs of religious people are often scientifically wrong. But what about ritual?
For the great many people in the world who need all that ritual, in its abundant and enveloping richness, what does atheism offer? What should these people do to satisfy this deeply human need for ritual?
That’s the argument that people should be having. Ritual, not belief. Belief is overblown; it’s almost a red herring. If you really want to convince religious people to stop believing foolish things, figure out how to convince them that they can keep their rituals while giving up their fairy tales.
But I seriously doubt anyone’s going to start on this more nuanced argument any time soon; arguing about belief is just so much easier, and it makes people on each side feel superior to the other. So instead we’ll just keep spinning around, talking about truth-statements and getting nowhere.
The most beneficial result of religion I know of is Bach’s B-minor Mass. But who knows, had Bach not been religious he might have composed it anyway.
@Mike, #34, there is no doubt that ritual is, as you say, important. It permeates our life in all spheres and not just religion. But ritual is simply a means to an end, not the end in itself. Ritual, in the first place, is a mechanism for reinforcing at set of beliefs, whether they be spiritual or social and secondly a means of declaring and maintaining a sense of identity. Related to this it helps create and maintain a sense of cohesion in the group.
But these are means to an end. Where I agree with you is that I have frequently observed that people become habituated by the ritual so that the ritual becomes a substitute for the things it is supposed to represent. Even then, I suspect it still plays a strong reinforcing role.
psmith–
I strongly disagree. Sure, on paper, rituals in most religions are portrayed by the religions themselves as a means to an end; supposedly, you chant and sing and pray as a means to obeying and worshipping God, to reinforcing a set of communal beliefs.
But whatever the worshippers themselves think, or anyone else thinks, in practice, in actual reality, ritual is most certainly not a means to an end. Ritual is the meat of most religions, especially the older ones. Ritual is itself the end, and belief is just an excuse for that ritual. Belief is like the MacGuffin in a lot of films; it’s just there so that the actors all have a reason to be there.
Even those people who are practicing the religion themselves don’t always understand this basic fact—and certainly most of those who oppose religion don’t either—but that’s the way it is.
In truth, for most worshippers, even if they themselves don’t always realize it at a conscious level, belief serves ritual, and not the other way around. Belief is there to justify the ritual. It’s one of the reasons why atheistic movements have been so ineffective at providing rituals of its own.
I can only speak for my own experience, and most of the people I knew in my religious experience, when I say that what kept me there and what kept them there was the ritual, and when I was apart from it for a while, I would begin to crave it.
Atheists often strongly discount the need by most human beings for ritual—serious, elaborate, intense ritual—and that’s one big reason why they don’t understand why people are so attached to their religions. And if you think that the everyday rituals that permeate all people’s lives can compare to the intense, overwhelming rituals that people often find specifically in their religious experiences, then I think you fall into the camp of people who don’t really understand.
And because both atheists and worshippers often aren’t even aware that ritual is the key thing, the underlying issue, they argue instead about stuff like belief instead. They miss the point altogether, and so they never get anywhere.
This whole debate reminds me of one of my favorite Gary Larson ‘Far Side’ cartoons:
In what appears to be a setting purposely reminiscent of a forest of hair sprouting from skin, a gathering of Fleas around a particular hair seem to be vigorously arguing amongst each other; the caption below reads something like:
“The Flea Scientists and Philosophers Debate the Existence of Dog”.
@Mike and psmith
Not taking sides in your ritual/faith preeminence debate but…
Rephrasing my question from #24 which went “unnoticed”.
Can you have ritual without faith?
It seems not.
Then is it not the faith which give rise to conflicts, whether with atheists or believers in a different faith?
Whatever good religion is supposed to do, if it is contaminated beyond repair with an intrinsic vice something has to be done about that “vice”.
“Truth and belief are uncomfortable words in scholarship. It is possible to define as true only those things that can be proved by certain agreed criteria. In general, science does not believe in truth or, more precisely, science does not believe in belief. Understanding is understood as the best fit to the data under the current limits (both instrumental and philosophical) of observation. If science fetishized truth, it would be religion, which it is not. However, it is clear that under the conditions that Thomas Kuhn designated as ” normal science” (as opposed to the intellectual ferment of paradigm shifts) most scholars are involved in supporting what is, in effect, a religion. Their best guesses become fossilized as a status quo, and the status quo becomes an item of faith. So when a scientist tells you that ‘the truth is . . .’, it is time to walk away. Better to find a priest.”
—Timothy Taylor, archaeologist, Univ. of Bradford
New Aethist vs Fundamental Religion
Two small minorities of people having a very LOUD discussion and assuming that their discussion has resonance with everyone. It doesn’t.
There is a huge spectrum of views and skews on these ideas. Including a pretty large percentage of people who rarely give it much thought at all. As noted by a few people, there are many people who are perfectly OK with science doing science and religion remaining metaphoric.
Its important to remember that while Fundamentalists are certainly driving a very effective anti science program, they are supported by apathy by most of the public, not sympathy.
@Mike, the relationship between ritual and faith is rather more nuanced than that, see Alva Noë’s book, ‘Action in Perception (Representation and Mind)‘
“Perception is not something that happens to us, or in us, it is something we do.” In Action in Perception, Noë argues that perception and perceptual consciousness depend on capacities for action and thought — that perception is a kind of thoughtful activity. (taken from Amazon review)
@psmith–
I saw the book. Looks interesting, and has a pretty strong point of view. But a particular author’s thesis doesn’t put the matter to rest, or evade the problem exhibited by Sean here.
My only point is that everybody is constantly arguing over belief, and totally ignoring the elephant in the room, namely, ritual.
Has Sean on this blog ever seriously discussed the importance of ritual to most human beings, and how utterly ubiquitous rituals are to societies of all kinds all around the world? How about PZ Myers? Or Dawkins, for that matter? I’ve read plenty of Hitchens, and he rarely, if ever, brings it up. Instead, they attack truth-statements and belief, which are easier and more deserving of mockery.
If you don’t understand the importance of ritual, then you’re missing the boat.
I tend to be in agreement about the importance of ritual, but I see the efficacy of ritual as often being rather inextricably tied to beliefs about the reasons for the ritual. I think it’s more than a “justification”. My paternal grandmother seemed very comforted by Catholic rituals like going to mass, taking the Eucharist, reciting the Rosary, Confession, etc. If I do these things, I’m much more likely than no get really bored, if not annoyed. I’ve done the Yoga thing too, and while I do think I got a lot more out of the rituals of meditation and posing, the gabbing about chakras, flows of energy, the tendency of some instructors to conflate a lot of the ancient Hindu traditions with Chi and the flow of “energy” through meridians…the whole New-Agey mess is a major irritant, not a source of solace or tranquility. I’d rather just don the earbuds and go for a jog.
What’s a reasonable system of “rituals” for an atheist that would confer the same benefits as those tied to the complete experience of spiritual faith? Seems to me that nothing even close has yet been found. Atheists need to admit this and see if there’s anything to be done about it. If not, be honest about the costs of being right.
To Steve [see comment #2]:
I’ve had conversations with people who I’m truly convinced would act maliciously if they didn’t think they would be punished after death. That, for me, is a benefit of religion (and for Santa Clause for that matter).
It may be that evolution favors the belief in religion to allow such people to live long enough to produce offspring.
@Low Math—
Actually, my point was that a lot of atheists don’t need ritual. Not everybody needs it. People are all different. If you find the rituals of Catholicism boring, then maybe you’re in that camp. And that’s fine! We’re all different! So I’m not sure that “being right” really has a cost for atheists; losing the rituals doesn’t bother them, because they generally don’t have that inner need for ritual in the first place.
But the corollary is that because they don’t need it, atheists often don’t understand why religious people do; and they’re so unaware of that need that they don’t even realize that it’s central to the whole dispute. All this talk about belief misses the point, but it’s much easier terrain for atheists, because that’s where scientific fact is on their side.
The reason I keep emphasizing this central belief/ritual misunderstanding is not because I’m a religious apologist; far from it. I’m just tired of the total lack of progress in these atheism-religion disputes. If you want to make progress, you need to have a better understanding of the truly underlying motivations at the heart of religion, the reasons why people feel the need to hang on to those silly beliefs. They didn’t arrive at those beliefs through reason, so it’s going to be difficult to reason them out of those beliefs.
Ultimately, a lot of people need intense ritual and structure in their lives, and are defensive of their beliefs in large part because they don’t see how they can keep the ritual and structure while jettisoning the beliefs. And if you want to make headway in religious discussions, you really need to acknowledge that dynamic.
But this dynamic goes constantly unacknowledged by people like Sean et al, so instead we just go around and around in endless circles. That’s what I find so frustrating.
OK, I see what you’re saying.
I’m not sure, though, that I wouldn’t benefit from something approximating what my grandmother got out of Catholicism, at least occasionally. Maybe I don’t “need” it, but I don’t absolutely require a lot of things that I might nonetheless be better off with. Without being melodramatic, there have been a couple times in my life when believing that I really did have a big sky buddy looking out for me would have been quite a comfort. Knowing that I was truly on my own kind of sucked, to be honest. I really came to terms with what that meant when someone offered to pray for me. While I appreciated the gesture, it provided no solace.
Anyway, doom was avoided and life is pretty good, so I’m not preoccupied by these things. I just wonder what spiritual experience is really like. Maybe it’s nowhere near as nice as it looks, and I’m not missing anything. But if I could get something uniquely worthwhile out of intense ritual, instead of nothing at all, which is the case so far, and that ritual somehow wouldn’t cause explosive cognitive dissonance, I’d give it a whirl, certainly.
Living in a more secular country, I don’t see the conflation of ritual and religion as making very much sense.
We have plenty of secular rituals – birthday parties, workplace farewells, 21st birthdays, baby showers, naming and wedding and funeral ceremonies. There’s valentines and mothers day and remembrance day, and many more. And then there’s more by special interests, as groups have their own traditional special events – weekly dance, sport, sing, whatever, and regular special events.
Traditions can quite easily be broken away from religion – I know secular jews who do Shabbas, and lots of us do Xmas without believing in the spooky magic blood-sacrifice baby. Even the oh-so-fearsome atheist Richard Dawkins enjoys a traditional Xmas.
Cath—
This is precisely what I meant when I said earlier that only someone lacking in personal experience with highly ritualistic religious traditions would ever equate them with the mundane rites of secular life. Birthday parties, weddings, Mother’s Day (really?) are trivialities compared to the intense, intense rituals of many religions, especially the older ones.
Have you ever seen Orthodox Jews or religious Muslims pray multiple times each day? The kneeling, rocking, humming, and chanting that goes on and on? The same words, songs, and melodies, repeated over and over and over again, for decade after decade? A lot of people depend on that kind of ritual, and there’s nothing in secular life that comes even close.
You try telling a fervent Jew or Muslim or Catholic to replace their intense, many-times-daily rituals with “weekly dance” or “sport.” Or “workplace farewells.” (Are you joking?)
This is exactly the total lack of understanding that I’ve been talking about, and it’s a big reason for the huge gulf between the very religious and those with a secular attitude. Until you stop and ask yourself, “Why does this person really do what he/she does?” (a question whose answer requires real understanding of the other side), you’ll never come one step toward changing any minds.
Low Math–
It’s not the spirituality per se, or the sense that there’s a God watching over you. Those are components of the religious experience, but it’s the ritual itself that I’ve been talking about here. The question is whether the intense rituals of Catholicism fulfill a need of yours. If they don’t, well, then, good for you! But for a lot of people, that ritual is central to their lives. They need it. And if you try to pull them away from it, they’re just going to cling even harder.
I just wish this was something that people would seriously address in the atheism/religion debate. It rarely even gets mentioned. Do you really think that throwing scientific facts at people is going to change their minds? Please.
Another perspective I find useful is a historical one– that much of the tension between Science and Religion today owes to the fact that the sciences are displacing certain responsibilities that, in earlier times, were the exclusive purview of the clergy. Psychology, sociology, and cosmology, now address questions about how minds, societies and the universe work, and since their answers often work better than those we can get from clergymen, one might say that the University has displaced the Church as the authoritative source on these subjects.
However, certain mysteries of human life remain beyond the senses and beyond the reach of science, at least for now. For example, how to deal with the realization that all life feeds on other life, how to confront the loss of loved ones or one’s own death, how to find your place in the world, etc. These, too, have always been questions addressed by religion, and still are, arguably more effectively than by any other source. Unfortunately, debates about Science vs. Religion are rarely so acute as to distinguish different domains of inquiry and ask — which of us has the best tools?
For my part, I have no use for “all or nothing” defense of religion. We know better, for the better, about a vast array of things. I would welcome some spiritual guidance on my journey through life, but not if I have to surrender all judgment in order to receive it.