To the guest reader

Monday, 12 September 2011

V: What's wrong with religion?

There is a lot wrong with religions, in my view, and I propose to set out a few thoughts on the subject.

But in my post “Mission Report”, elsewhere, I attempted to establish an important thing that is not wrong with it.

A common attack on Christianity (to name the religion we know best) is that its beliefs are false. But this is not what is wrong with it, even if Christians insist that their beliefs are true and we know they are not. In “Mission Report”, I claimed that “all religion is magic”, and so by definition beyond reason and the laws of nature. For magic to work, it must be believed, and so it is not surprising that in a modern world which is well-educated in reason and the laws of nature, Christians want to claim that reason and nature are on their side: even if, for some, it means denying Evolution. If you want to stop a limpet clinging to a rock, you will not persuade it to let go by argument. If you use a hammer and chisel to get it off, you can do it, but it will claim martyrdom and the moral victory, so no point trying. A limpet is a limpet and will relax its grip only when it wants to.

OK, so what then is wrong with religion? I’ll confess that I have not drawn up a list of topics under this heading. There is just one I have in mind, which inspired me to write the article. Let me be leisurely (let us be leisurely, dear reader!) so that I can start with the background to asking the question “What’s wrong with religion?” It started from a Sunday morning conversation, in bed. It’s that time when the BBC gives a nod towards Christianity, and sometimes it plays hymns that we both remember from childhood. In Jamaica where she grew up religion is taken very seriously indeed. For me, the boarding school system was based on full-blown lip-service, hypocritical where necessary, to the Church of England. It was part of the landscape, one of the great shrines to worship at, along with cricket, the responsibilities of Empire and the Queen. Together they were a kind of unified package. Alfred Lord Tennyson in his poem The Charge of the Light Brigade got the spirit precisely:

Theirs not to reason why;
Theirs but to do or die.

There was an element of military discipline about it. We were being trained for adult life, wherein the rules might seem arbitrary and cruel. To us, kept in order by fear of the cane, they sometimes seemed that way already. Knowing the Old Testament was a good way to get into that spirit, for the Lord God of the Children of Israel set a more violent example than anything we’d ever be asked to do. I mentioned this topic in a Bible-reading post, “The anointing of Saul”.

For K, brought up in an ex-colony, favourite destination of missionaries,the emphasis was somewhat different. If you were a church member, much would be demanded from you. That was part of the price to be paid for salvation, I guess. The Pentecostal Church was one of the most demanding. You’d be in trouble if the hem of your dress was an inch higher than approved, and so on.

But then I reflected that every religion shares this characteristic of a price to pay. It would be false to say that it’s imposed from a higher authority and forced upon the worshipper, just as false as saying that in capitalism, you are forced to buy the products you see advertised on television. You are attracted to them, and part with your dollars voluntarily. The more you have paid, the less you are willing to ask yourself whether the benefit you have received was worth the cost or matched up to the expectation. But if you do so ask yourself, you may well come to the conclusion that you did not invest enough: you shouldn’t have gone for the cheapest option. Translating this back into the price you might have to pay (I mean in commitment) to be one of the faithful in church, you can understand the pressure (from within your own self) to do penance, to repent your sins, to attend revivalist meetings and all the rest. It is human nature “to throw good money after bad”. If you will forgive the change of metaphor, no one is going to choose a moment when you are on the deepest ocean and furthest from shore, as a good time time to jump ship. Or to put it even more simply, the true believer is in it up to his or her neck. Treat such a person like a poor animal stuck in a trap: with compassion.

The half-mad street-preacher, who rants about damnation in the marketplace to heedless passers-by, is desperate to recapture that feeling of being saved. He’s willing to be mocked and ignored for it. In this act, he is taking up his cross and following his Lord, the better to knock on Heaven’s door.

This, then, is wrong with religion. It is very bad indeed for those who take it too seriously, the screws in whose heads might loosen during life’s bumpy ride. What makes it worse is the pastors whose income comes from their flock. The shepherd metaphor has its sinister side, for in real life, metaphors apart, every lamb is being nurtured for ultimate slaughter. Real-life shepherds don’t just love the pretty lambs who gambol in Spring. It’s a business which works best when your flock is sheepish.

I’d better stop. Metaphors have a life of their own. They can run out of control, like wolves in sheeps’ clothing!

8 comments:

  1. "...it is not surprising that in a modern world which is well-educated in reason and the laws of nature, Christians want to claim that reason and nature are on their side: even if, for some, it means denying Evolution."

    You raise an excellent point here. Defending Christianity on scientific grounds has never been the point, and even now seems like an absurd digression with things like The Creationist Museum. It's like a way of "keeping up with the times." I suppose if, hypothetically speaking, some approach to understanding the world other than science were currently in vogue, Christianity would be trying to stand it's ground on that basis.

    If we take the magician as the metaphor, then science is perhaps like the incandescent bulb. Previously, the theater was lit by candles and the magician could work his illusions on the basis of what could be seen in the dim light. Then electricity comes along, and the stage is lit brighter than ever. Now the switches, the pulleys, the string and levers in the apparatus are all visible, and the magician has to retire back stage to rethink his tricks, literally, in this new light.

    ReplyDelete
  2. ... while the audience colludes by their wilful blindness. For there isn't a sharp distinction between magician and audience. All are members of the same team, all trained to see what they want to see. The switches and pulleys are beside the point, from their point of view, for this is theatre, where the willing suspension of disbelief is called faith.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, the switches and pulleys are absolutely beside the point. The light bulb makers and the magician are working at cross-purposes. The magician isn't looking to defend his apparatus on the grounds of realism; it's just that the lights force him further into that position so that he can engender that "suspension of disbelief" in the audience. The audience, as you point out, are his willing conspirators in this because they came to be entertained and they paid good money for their tickets. They've come not to see the box, with all it's trappings and mechanisms, established on the grounds of absolute science, but to see the box generate the illusion, that ethereal thing called "magic."

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's funny too that you mention "Knocking on Heaven's Door" That song came on the radio yesterday, and I was thinking about this business of magic and religion.

    I think that in a sense the majority of people would continue to reject atheism as long as it doesn't provide this magic you speak of, or at least something to take its place. Now, in once sense, this might sound like a cynical way of saying that the atheists have to put on as good a show under their tent as the religious people do under theirs; that it's all about drawing the crowd. But I don't mean it that way. This "magic" is a real thing, and the hunger for it is genuine. It may be generated by myth and illusion, but once generated it becomes a real thing in its own right, like a soap bubble. It is, if I can borrow from that Prestige quote, "...the look on their faces." It is that sense of wonder, a vital and necessary thing.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Is there a way of generating this without "trickery"? Is there a way to leave us free, like in "The Human Variable"?

    ReplyDelete
  6. What is "The Human Variable"?

    I think the "trickery" you refer to is what's required to separate us from the confines of our closed mind. I think that the experiences of life can do that for us. But life being short, people want short cuts. Or perhaps they don't know what they want.

    Now that has just inspired a topic. Watch this site.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "The Human Variable" is a post I wrote. I was referring to my closing remarks there about science not providing "meaning" (or "magic" I guess, although I do find many discoveries of science to be wondrous, so I guess it hinges on the denotation and connotation of "magic." Are we talking about the generation of illusions or the feeling of wonder. I think it can provide the latter, but it runs completely contrary to to the former.) I said that science, instead, leave me free. So, I guess what I'm asking is: Can freedom provide the magic in some way, or does the audience absolutely need the magician?

    ReplyDelete