Respecting Religion

Religious folks are a diverse lot. In their public acts, they exhibit a host of inspirations, both religious and secular. We can guess but usually can't be sure about the mix. Forget the average pious bloke, even a suicide bomber's inspirations are rarely plain. Yet, to the extent a religious inspiration is evident in a public act -- whether good or bad in its effect -- what should we make of it?

Religion is so entwined with history that it's hard to imagine what an alternate world would have been like. It is not sensible to say that the world would have turned out better (or worse) without it. When militant atheists like Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens attack religion as pernicious and irrational, they tend to equate secular with rational. They forget that being secular (or an atheist) is not a positive virtue; it doesn't make one more reasonable, kind, or caring. History is also replete with secular horrors. Might as well aim for rational rather than merely secular.

Reacting to militant atheists, moderate atheists often wince and point out the mixed record of religion -- that religiosity is not all bad; in many, it has also inspired charity, altruism, and resistance to inhumanity and injustice (e.g., the Civil Rights movement, Anglican Church on Apartheid, etc.). Without their religiosity, many of these folks may not have acted as they did. Religiosity can also hold society together, provide comfort and strength in trying times, etc. Moderate atheists call this "good religiosity" and prefer to object only to "bad religiosity". As a corrective and a call for greater tolerance, this seems reasonable. We wonder: Is there a downside to this "mixed record of religion" argument?

Allow me to use an analogy. If I know that a socially good outcome came from a selfish motive (fame, glory, thrill, riches, power, etc.), I won't dignify the doer. I recognize that without the selfish motive (which, perhaps like religiosity, issues from an evolutionary instinct), the doer may not have acted and thus prevented the good from occurring. I readily appreciate the good but, privy to the motive in this case, I still refuse to put the doer, or his instincts, on a pedestal. Many such acts might make me more tolerant of others' selfishness, but they won't make me respect it. When evident, I'll elevate enlightened motives over selfish ones. Looking at motivation (and means, not just the ends) is rather central to how I make value judgments.

Likewise with the "mixed record of religion". Good deeds inspired by religiosity still do not raise my respect for religiosity. Sure, without it they may not have happened at all, yet the doer and the inspiration fail to earn my respect to the extent the motive is religious. I readily appreciate the good results; they tend to make me more tolerant of public religiosity, even as I continue to see its roots in fear and unreason. But even if falsehoods comfort, bind, and keep the peace, do they deserve my respect? Many moderate atheists perhaps go too far with respect, thereby sounding like apologists for religion (not to mention paternalistic). As an atheist myself, I dislike the intolerant zeal of militant atheists but also harbor no respect for religiosity, including the "good" kind.

Comments

[Usha]

I had to share this news here about a $27,000,000 Creation Museum now opening in KY. I won't attempt to quantify where this falls on the continuum of "good religiosity" vs "bad religiosity," but I must say there is something more than deeply distressing about a force that would try to sway the most powerful nation in the history of the world into a new Dark Age: New museum says dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark

[Ruchira Paul]

Usha:
Not only is there this ridiculous "Bemusement Park" of a museum but three of the Republican presidential candidates proudly proclaimed their non-belief in evolution.

Namit:
There are two debates here - one about truth and the other involves ethics/morality. I may be on different sides on each depending on who the player is.

The strident atheists like Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens are playing the role of truth seekers when they clash with believers regarding god, superstition and the unverifiable claims contained in musty books written during the infancy of human civilization. I am with them in this respect and wish for more decibels in their voices and more calcium in their backbones.

But when it comes to how I should lead my life and what I would like to see as our collective conscience, I am not sure I would automatically be on the side of the atheist. If an atheist is an autocrat, callous and a self seeking jerk, I have no use for him/her on the stage of public policy and national ethics. On the other hand, if a moderately religious person has social instincts which are more to my liking, I will align with that person in seeking redress of social wrongs.

And there is the huge dilemma. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) the battle lines are not that clearly defined here. While the extremists on both sides are easily recognizable, the moderates are difficult to predict. But as you said, it is important for us rationalists to make it clear to the believers that what impresses us about their ethical actions are the actions themselves and not what motivated them. After all if our rationality brought us to the same ethical decision as theirs based on religion, who is to say which is the superior belief? That is for us to figure out in private just as we make decisions regarding our health and well being.

I wish religion indeed would be treated like palliative medication - those who need it can resort to it and leave the rest of us alone. A diabetic or a heart patient needs daily doses of medication to function and stay alive but the rest of us, lacking the same condition, don't have to take the drug for solidarity and neither do the afflicted expect us to.

But contrary to hope and logic, the twenty first century is yet to show the promise of the coming of the rational age. The gods are not yet defeated, much as some see hopeful signs.

[Shunya (Namit)]

Ruchira, your point about the two debates is a good one. On related topics, check out Atheists With Attitude in the New Yorker.

[Victoria]

Well, I enjoyed reading your commentary on religion and I welcome you to inquire about the Bahai faith. There is a wonderful Bahai temple near Dehli in the shape of the national flower, the lotus. I hope to visit it someday. I hope that you include it in your amazing and vast array of pictures from around the world! God Bless~~

[Namit]

Thanks Victoria. I know a bit about the Baha'i and have visited that beautiful Baha'i temple in Delhi. Here are some http://www.shunya.net/Pictures/NorthIndia/Delhi/LotusTemple.htm>pictures.