Musings on the value of religion

[tagryn]

One thing I think the anti-theist movement has a blind spot for is how religion acts as a means to build community among strangers. Case in point: in the recent Haiti disaster, much of the relief efforts were provided by religious organizations such as Catholic Relief Services, Lutheran World Relief, the Latter-Day Saints, the Salvation Army, etc. To be sure, non-religious organizations such as the Red Cross were also major providers of relief...but, I think there's tremendous value in forces that remind us that we are connected to and responsible for one another, especially in the West where we are more individualistic than is the case in other cultures. And religion is one of the major, if not the major, connecting forces in the world today.

Perhaps it shouldn't be this way, ideally, but I know I've grown more sympathetic to things like the plight of the Haitian people, the difficulties of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S., etc. because I know that many of those are Catholics just like me, and that we share a common faith. It breaks down the tendency to see others as a "them" and turns them into an "us," which like it or not does make it harder to ignore. We are tribal creatures, something I think we underappreciate in Western countries as the traditional tribal structures such as the extended family have declined in importance.

Heinlein (through his Lazarus Long character) once wrote that:
Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid excessive wear. Honorifics and formal politeness provide lubrication where people rub together. Often the very young, the untraveled, the naïve, the unsophisticated deplore these formalities as "empty," "meaningless," or "dishonest," and scorn to use them. No matter how "pure" their motives, they thereby throw sand into machinery that does not work too well at best.
...which feeds into this criticism of the anti-theist movement: it is throwing sand into something which is one of the great means by which humanity gets connected to one another. The anti-theists may like to believe that it shouldn't have to be this way, that other social structures will come along to take religion's place which aren't burdened with what they see as "lies." Maybe...but I'm dubious that would be so. More likely, the replacements would be much weaker and less able to overcome our natural tendency towards selfishness, or alternatively would tend to narrow the tribal instinct to only a very select group.

Comments

[erikred.livejournal.com]

And yet I, a secular humanist (with an emphasis on the lowercase letters and a decided thumb against the nose towards assholes like Dawkins) who does not share a common religion with Catholic Haitians or South and Central American illegal immigrants, am just as sympathetic to their plight. Could it be my lack of religion that leads me to this sympathy?

Also, note that it's not secular organizations that were trying to steal children from Haiti. Cheap shot? Perhaps. But it's also possible that a sense of religious superiority led to the white-man's-burden-like disregard those missionaries showed toward those children's parents and the laws concerning child abduction.

It's nice that the RCC, the LDS, and others are meeting their religious obligations, but that doesn't mean that religion is the only motivator of common bonds. After all, Medicins sans Frontiers played an enormous role as well. And, again, I have nothing against religion as long as people practice it without trying to ram it down people's throats; Dawkins' and Hitchens' repeated attacks against religion are more about their own sense of ego than they are about the good or evil that organized religion does, and I wish they'd concentrate on constructing rather than destroying.

Well, apart from Hitchens. I just as soon see him destroy his own liver and get it over with, the nut.

[mdlbear]

Well said.

[tagryn]

I'd probably say your education and upbringing contributes to your ability to have sympathy and empathy, at a guess. A lot of folks don't have the benefit of that, though, and for them perhaps religion is a positive force to encourage them to help others.

Would you agree that that Haitian adoption case was an isolated one, and not representative of the vast majority of the relief efforts by religious groups there?

Never said religion was the "only" bond-builder, just that it should get credit for the good it does do. When national publications have as their headline "Did Christianity Cause the Crash?", it becomes harder to say that Hitchens and Dawkins are lone voices in the wilderness anymore re: depicting religion as an on-balance negative force.

Hitchens actually does some good work talking out against fascist groups like the SSNP in Lebanon, but on religion he's off the reservation a lot of the time. Andrew Sullivan has the same problem: still good on balance, but when he's talking about gay marriage, torture, or Sarah Palin, he's pretty much unreadable for me because he speaks as an ideologue rather than a thinker.

[erikred.livejournal.com]

Since my upbringing was as a Navy brat in the Enlisted-folks quarters, and since my education was, mostly, public (and across four states and a military base), I suggest to you that those elements are if not common, at least a common cross-section of experiences. However, this seems to be drifting toward an assumption that people, if left to their own devices, are withdrawn, xenophobic, and paranoid that others may be getting what they're not. I don't know that I buy that. Do people need help and support to rise above circumstances? Sure, that I'll sign on for. But if left to their own devices _and_ not subjected to crushing poverty, I submit to you that people will generally play nice. Gordon Geckos excepted.

The Atlantic story you were trying to point to has a much more sensationalist headline than its material supports. In broadest strokes, it's pointing out the greed-and-superstition message of "prosperity gospel" churches; note that this sentiment was just as ridiculed before you and I could walk as it is now.

I think the most honest and self-reflective piece Hitchens has written in over a decade was his recanting of his position that waterboarding is not torture.

[tagryn]

Erik, I think we're talking different reference groups. Your experience (and mine) may not be that unique in the U.S. or in the developed world in general.

However:
* Globally illiteracy is still at 20%.
* Only about 27% of the world population lived in countries ranked as "very high" or "high" on the UNDP's Human Development Index (table L).
* Global enrollment in tertiary (college) education is only 26%, compared to 71% in N. America and western Europe.

Does education help expand one's horizons and perspective? Almost certainly. Lack of education doesn't doom one automatically to a Hobbesian perspective on life, but considering it tends to go along with lack of other basic resources, it will tend to narrow one's focus. Despite it's shortcomings, I think Maslow's triangle is still basically valid for this: if you are constantly trying to scrounge out a living, higher-level goals such as overcoming prejudice and creativity will take a back seat.

This leads into macro issues of whether rising education corresponds with declining religiousity, whether greater education tends to increase societal isolation and individualism, and whether increased individualism can coexist with strong tribal/familial/religious ties. One could devote a life's work to trying to answer any one of those, and I won't pretend to have simple answers to those questions.

[mdlbear]

Speaking as someone without religion, I don't need one to feel a common bond with my fellow humans, no matter what they believe. I have trouble understanding someone whose sense of compassion, generosity, or pity requires a litmus test.

[mdlbear]

I do understand the sense of community that goes along with religion. The dark side of that is the way religious communities tend to exclude everyone who doesn't share their beliefs.

[tagryn]

Granted, and let me say its not simply between religious/non-religious that this happens, but also within what we commonly define as one religion, not to mention between religious sects. On the other hand, this isn't isolated to religious communities by any means; you can see it in practically any discussion that involves belief or ideology, whether it be religious, political, cultural, etc. Ideally, IMHO the message would be that everybody is "us," and that's one of the fundamental messages of many of the great religions. But because its such a hard message, and goes against what I call our basic tribal instinct to divide people into "our tribe members" and "everybody else," it doesn't get lived out as well as it should.

Myself, I've seen in action how Christianity has been a force to overcome that us-vs-them tendency. Probably you've seen the opposite? I'd say the former is closer to the main intent than the latter, but like any community its composed of fallible members, and I'm not blind that the implementation of the message all too often falls far short of what it should be, and indeed sometimes gets twisted around so the emphasis becomes exclusion rather than combination.

[mdlbear]

"Myself, I've seen in action how Christianity has been a force to overcome that us-vs-them tendency. Probably you've seen the opposite?"

As an outsider, it's hard to see anything but the us-vs-them side, often in the form of hatred stirred up for political gain. I see a handful of thoughtful, caring Christians on my friends list, but they're not the kind I see on the news.