I have atheist friends, and many atheists that I have seen commenting here on the interwebs, which say that religion is truly an evil thing. These individuals constantly comment on the fact that religion is doing more harm than good, and that it should be necessarily eradicated from society.
I do not challenge the fact that religion does more harm than good; one could make a good case for this very idea. I am altogether unconcerned with this idea and with what religion does in society, to a certain extent. As a sociology student, I am keen to the fact that just the opposite is true in many schools of social thought; that religion has a socially unifying effect and is part of an institution (or institutions) that helps sew the fabric of society together. To the dismay of someone like Sam Harris, understandably, these ideas about the positive or negative effects of religion are not my main concern.
As a student of sociology, I have recently been reading literature on religion and how it operates in society. In the study of this literature, it had been brought to my attention that the term 'religion' is not an easy one to define; and this fact has perplexed sociologists and their subsequent studies of religion for a long time. This brings me to my main point.........
Can you define religion?
No. You truly cannot.
If, in your attempt at a definition, you used words like belief, or faith, then you have missed the boat. Similarly, if you used terms like supernatural, god, spirit, deity, spiritual, or essence, then you are wrong as well. All these terms may, in your opinion, define religion, but they are not necessarily EXCLUSIVE to only a definition of religion. For example, I personally am not religious, but I do believe in things (e.g. human rights, individual freedoms, democracy). Similarly, for example, there are groups out there that we consider religious in nature that do not specifically follow a religious doctrine, a god(s), and nor are they spiritual.
To all the atheists out there who are calling for the eradication of religion: If you cannot properly or specifically define religion, then how can you eradicate it? How can you eradicate something whose definition (that you imply on it) steps on one or more of your own personal morals, ethics, or espoused beliefs?
Think about it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would not argue for the irradication of religion, per se, since I do not see that as the root of the problem. Religion is merely the symptoms of a plague to rational thought: faith.
ReplyDeleteMerriam-Webster defines faith as "belief without proof." It completely undermines rational thought because it does not require empirical evidence in order to believe a highly improbable claim. In fact, it makes a virtue out of not questioning.. not using one's own critical thinking skills.
I think this idea can be expanded upon further outside of religion as well. Hitler had faith (belief without proof) that the Aryan race was superior. Many have faith (belief without proof) that African-Americans are intellectually inferior. In the mind of a racist, in this example, it must be noted that these ill-founded beliefs are not based on any empirical evidence. In fact, if they were to review the evidence we do have, you would have to note that there is no correlation between skin color and IQ (taking into account environmental factors like poor education).
This notion of certainty that we seek as humans is fleeting. Most glady trade true knowledge and understanding for comfort. It is my hope for the continued existence of the human race that in the future faith will no longer hold such a lofty place in our minds.
Ben
I do see your point Ben, and I wholeheartedly agree.
ReplyDeleteBut how can there possibly be an eradication of faith? Perhaps educating people about the dangers of faith and faith's application?
Either way there seems to be a dichotomy between the colloquial usage of 'faith' and it's true denotation.
I certainly see it being an easy task erasing the word 'faith' from the dictionary, but I'm not so positive of its erasure from people's collective conscious.
Religion: a tradition of rituals and a belief in the associated mechanics of these rituals.
ReplyDeleteI concur with xnn99, that religion is not the root of the problem. I would place the root not in "faith," however, but from the human condition. We are born from a position of complete ignorance, yet we yearn to explain everything. Our errors often come from things like:
- believing the first idea presented to us
- discomfort from changing our view
- being unable to say "I don't know"
Your definition of religion Ginx still does not properly apply. 'Belief' and 'rituals' are not exclusive to religion, to suffice as a proper definition.
ReplyDeleteThere are many things that people believe in and do as rituals that we normally wouldn't necessarily conclude as religious things.
I'm just giving you the definition of religion according to Ph.D's in Theology. Ritual is not exclusive to religion, but ritual is present in all religion and religion itself is a system of transferring the information related to those rituals (which fulfill basic needs).
ReplyDelete[Which is not to say all rituals are religion or that religion is required in order to fill basic needs.]
ReplyDeleteThere are certainly several points of agreement there Ginx.
ReplyDeleteI just had never really thought about the original idea that religion is difficult to define and exclusively identify.
I find religion to be almost indistinguishable from cults and philosophies. The word we choose to use in a given situation is just a value judgment.
ReplyDelete