the weakness of religion
I have a brief essay on this topic in today’s WSJ. Sample:
If there is one agreed-upon point in the current war of words about religion, it is that religion is a very powerful force. Perhaps you believe, with that vigorous atheist Christopher Hitchens, that “religion poisons everything”; or, with the Christian historian and sociologist Rodney Stark, that religion created modern science and ended slavery. Or, like a significant majority of the British public recently polled by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, that religion is a “social evil,” a “cause of conflict and confusion.” But in any case you’re likely to think that, for good or ill, the sheer impact of religion is enormous.
Is it, though? Was Alan Wolfe right to emphasize, in a recent article in The Atlantic, the “unique fervor that religion inspires”? I have my doubts, and they begin with personal experience.
Check it out if you dare.
This matches very strongly with my view of the situation. In Dawkins’ case (the one I’m most familiar with), he seems to have a very simplistic view of belief and culture.
— Justin · Jun 6, 05:05 PM · #
Back in the 1990s, scholars who studied religion and its connections to politics, culture, etc. would often begin their essays and books with some bow to how it was that no one paid any attention to religion and how such lacunae blinded everyone else to what was really happening in the world. For too long, much of our intellectual elite (in and out of academia) basically operated within something of a Weberian framework, where modernization and religion stood opposed and the more you got of the former, the less you had of the latter. But once that proved not to be the case – or at least once it proved to be a lot more complicated than that – there was a rush to recalibrate our understandings of things and maybe too much attention paid to religion. (I say that as someone who has a book manuscript on religion and politics circulating among publishers!) Or, at least, perhaps we have too much attention paid to claims made in religion’s name. Maybe it’s a more general case of the religious right, where its actual impact has been not-so-great, but its perceived impact (theocracy on the march!) has been much greater.
Two points in the other direction, though. First, what we usually describe as “religion” looks to me to be tied up (in some way) with broadly human aspirations to reflect on and grasp some meaning in our lives, meaning that stands beyond ourselves. One of the reasons reading Plato is such a fruitful exercise is that it offers a fairly unapologetic claim about the human need for things transcendent – and that such transcendent things have a habit of disrupting our more temporal, mundane (“middle-aged American”) existence.
Second, why think that you’re at all representative? Might you just not be an outlier on these issues, given your education, temperament, etc.?
— Michael Simpson · Jun 6, 07:00 PM · #
Michael, I may well not be representative, and don’t claim that I am. But that doesn’t affect my argument.
— Alan Jacobs · Jun 6, 09:07 PM · #
It is a little weird hearing this from a Christian. I agree with you, though, and I am a Christian. I just didn’t think we were allowed to say things like this :) I mean, we’re from a tradition that is built on story after story of individuals doing plenty of big things based on the power of their religion.
Should we start considering the possible selfish reasons Moses did what he did? Or Isaiah, or St. Paul, or Bonhoeffer etc…?
— Dave · Jun 6, 09:49 PM · #
great essay. no time to comment in detail, but i agree in the generality.
a minor quibble though, you term rodney stark a christian historian. if by historian of christianity, yes, but last i heard (and this might have changed) stark is a pro-christian agnostic. over the past 25 years his work has become more and more pro-christian to the point where its character does resemble apologia for christianity, and i’ve seen people refer to him as a “christian” because of the tone of the work, but has he professed to belief in christianity? (in 1984 he wrote a book where he expressed a wish to be christian, but lacking in the faith)
— razib · Jun 6, 10:53 PM · #
Some of what happens, on a daily level anyway, for believers absolutely impatient to “will” and “produce” the faith-life we claim, is a need to name experiences in ways that sound religious, even when they are obviously not. How many times can a person claim God’s presence in her choice of oatmeal, or in the provision of a parking spot? I have heard these and other meager choices claimed in God’s name. And, at times, I find it touching that some folks seek to see the provision of the Divine in all we experience. On the other hand, it usually strikes me as fooling oneself (at best) and cosmic narcissism (at worst). Write this kind of self-delusion and narcissism on a large scale and you end up with some pretty catastrophic results. God’s parking space can quickly become God’s war? To believe will mean, at least for me, to find habits of faithfulness in the face of some pretty daunting evidence that I need to face straight on, without the bathos of naming it otherwise. The faith that Dawkins, et. al attack is easy to destroy because it’s the hackneyed invention of those of us who have replaced belief with simplistic labels that help us to bear the unbearable banality of our own days and ways.
dw
— dw · Jun 7, 12:26 PM · #
Dave: Yes, my argument is a little disconcerting. As for Moses et al., two points: first, that there are certainly many people who are motivated primarily by religious devotion, just not everyone who claims religious belief; and second, in my theology “there’s no such thing as an unmixed motive” (as Rebecca West said), and God isn’t very interested in motives anyway.
razib: It’s my understanding that Rodney Stark became a Christian some years ago, which led to his move to Baylor University, where a profession of religious faith is required of faculty. (That faith doesn’t have to be very specific, and doesn’t have to be Christian — but I’m pretty sure that Stark hasn’t converted to Judaism or Islam!)
dw: I think it’s interesting that the kinds of habits you talk about can coexist quite easily with the functional secularism I talk about. It’s easy to become what John Bunyan says that he was before his true conversion, “a brisk talker in matters of religion.”
— Alan Jacobs · Jun 7, 01:07 PM · #
Do you think there’s something distinctively “modern” about this? I guess I’m thinking of Taylor’s The Secular Age and his idea that we’ve developed a kind of “buffered self” where there religious no longer pervades our sense of ourselves (to make a hash of the claim).
On reflection, my “unrepresentative” question was a bit unfair – sorry about that. Perhaps it’s more interesting to ask if there’s something particular about your (and my) location in 21st century America that makes it more likely for folks to hold their religion “lightly,” so to speak. It is, after all, fairly easy to practice one’s faith in our country (aside from a few exceptions) and so it might be tough to tell when that faith is really driving things and when it’s just along for the ride. The extreme alternative might be, say, North Korea, where the mere fact of having a Bible in your possession can bring about a death sentence.
— Michael Simpson · Jun 7, 02:55 PM · #
“It’s my understanding that Rodney Stark became a Christian some years ago, which led to his move to Baylor University, where a profession of religious faith is required of faculty”
alan, thanks. that makes a lot more sense, i’ve read most of his works and his books have become far more pro-christian at about that time, so it would make sense.
— razib · Jun 7, 05:24 PM · #
i responded (sort of)
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/06/on-causes-and-religion.php
— razib · Jun 7, 11:27 PM · #
Your point that people have non-relgious motivations for just about all things is well taken. But my response can only be “but of course”, because religion is after all a means to ends. For example, Southern Baptists taught that their black slaves didn’t have souls like white people; this allowed them to justify their slavery and it allowed kind and empathic people to allow and participate in the process.
“Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” – Steven Weinberg
I don’t doubt that Osama bin Laden and other terrorists have other motivations than Islamic beliefs. However, would they have engaged in the fervent terrorism without thier religious beliefs? Would they have been able to recruit so many for suicide missions? Just because there are other motivations, doesn’t mean that religion doesn’t play a huge role.
— si · Jun 9, 04:03 AM · #
The books I read, the food I eat, the music I listen to, my hobbies and interests, the thoughts that occupy my mind throughout the greater part of every day — these are, if truth be told, far less indebted to my Christianity than to my status as a middle-aged, middle-class American man.
How can you tell? Aren’t most middle-aged, middle-class American men Christians? You don’t have to buy into the “America is a Christian Nation” myth to recognize that a whole lot of what goes on here is indebted to Christianity.
When I ask myself how much of what I do and think is driven by my religious beliefs, the honest answer is “not so much.”
Seems like this can only be true for an extremely strange and narrow definition of religion, something like “actions motivated by beliefs held only by my sect that are undertaken while I am specifically thinking of this particular sectarian motivation.” I think it would be more true to say that most of what you do every day at home and at work is profoundly, pervasively shaped both by your specific Christian commitments and Christianity in general.
— Michael · Jun 9, 06:35 AM · #
Si, you write: “Just because there are other motivations, doesn’t mean that religion doesn’t play a huge role.” Agreed. My point was simply that when someone says he’s doing something for religious reasons, he may not be telling the truth.
“I don’t doubt that Osama bin Laden and other terrorists have other motivations than Islamic beliefs. However, would they have engaged in the fervent terrorism without thier religious beliefs? Would they have been able to recruit so many for suicide missions?” To the first question I would answer yes, almost certainly; to the second, I’m not sure. But these are arguable points.
Also, if you want to know what southern Christians really thought and taught about their slaves, you should check out the work of Eugene Genovese, especially A Consuming Fire and The Mind of the Master Class (the latter with his wife, Elizabeth Fox-Genovese). You’ll be surprised. Of course, there are other books which summarize those arguments briefly, but modesty forbids me to name one.
Michael, you write, “I think it would be more true to say that most of what you do every day at home and at work is profoundly, pervasively shaped both by your specific Christian commitments and Christianity in general.” Apparently you know me better than I know myself — in the future I will defer to you rather than spending so much time and effort in self-examination. :-)
— Alan Jacobs · Jun 9, 12:40 PM · #
Alan, I’m arguing that it’s a very strange view of religion that you believe introspection is required to determine whether a given action is “really” religious. Or that you think the primary way in which religion has power is measured by people’s conscious motivations.
You work at a college that wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for Christianity! That fact is a far more important indicator of the power of religion than whether or not you pray before each class or whatever it is that you think would make your work “really” religious.
— Michael · Jun 9, 10:04 PM · #
I guess I’m not following you, Michael. You seem to think that the subject of my essay is “the power of religion” in some general sense, but I’m actually only dealing with a small subset of that topic: the question of whether we should automatically trust people who claim to act out of religious motives.
— Alan Jacobs · Jun 9, 11:06 PM · #
I guess, Michael, I’m thinking that you can’t be saying what you seem to be saying (in this most recent post), which is that whether human acts are religious or non-religious has nothing to do with the motives or character of the people who perform those acts. But that would make no sense. For instance, I’ve known a teacher at a Christian school who started out as a committed believers but later lost his faith — yet he maintained the pretense of belief in order to keep a job he didn’t want to lose. (The same thing happens to many pastors.) The outward form of his acts remained the same, but the substance of the act changed, because of the difference between honesty and deception.
If I’m going to know whether my own acts are (mostly) sincere or (mostly) manipulative and deceptive — especially if there’s a chance that they’re self-deceptive — introspection is one of the time-honored ways of finding that out. It’s also something that’s mandatory for Christians.
— Alan Jacobs · Jun 9, 11:21 PM · #
pfft
religion is just tribalism with the added value of the supernatural.
is tribalism powerful?
— matoko_chan · Jun 10, 01:25 PM · #
Hitchens and Stark are talking about religion as this huge, culture-shaping force. And your response is “well actually, some of the time when I teach at a Christian college, write books on religious topics, worship in a Christian church, and live in a Christian marriage, I’m not having religious thoughts. Or at least not genuine religious thoughts.”
If Hitchens were to lament that we have entire universities devoted to teaching every subject from a Christian perspective, I doubt he would be mollified to find out that a handful of the professors don’t really mean it. If anything, their need to pay lip service to something they don’t really believe would prove his point about how pervasive religious motivations are.
You say that when people claim to be acting on religious motives, they are often acting from more mundane motives that are “not religious at all” as if such everyday motives could possibly be uninfluenced by religion (both the individual person’s religion and the effects of religion on the entire culture). You speculate that Osama Bin Laden’s motives may be more ethnic than religious, as if you could draw some neat separation between the two.
You seem to be buying into this Evangelical (really it’s more like fundamentalism) dichotomy between things are “really” Christian because they’re explicitly labeled as such and the rest of life which is, by default, secular. When, in fact, anything a Christian does is going to be affected in some way by his faith and the faith of the people who have influenced him. That’s true whether you believe in the Holy Spirit or if you just see religion as one of several cultural forces that shape who we are and what we do.
— Michael · Jun 10, 06:44 PM · #
Michael, you say that “anything a Christian does is going to be affected in some way by his faith and the faith of the people who have influenced him.” Okay, so, a couple of months ago I bought a plasma TV. Since you are so confident that you know how all this works, tell me how my faith affected that decision. Or my decision to finally get “The Royal Tennenbaums” from Netflix. Or my decision to cook the lovely but expensive salmon I got from Whole Foods on the grill tonight. If we go to Mackinac Island this summer for a few days of vacation, how will my faith affect that decision? If we decide to do something else, what role will my faith play there?
This has nothing to do with a supposedly fundamentalist sacred/secular distinction; you’ve imported that from another conversation altogether. My article concerns something I’ve learned through many years of experience: that it’s really, really hard to act consistently according to my own core principles, or the ones I think are my core principles. I want to be a Christian, to make my decisions according to Christ’s teachings, but again and again and again I find that my decisions are governed by the standards of my surrounding culture, standards that are either inimical or indifferent to Christ’s teachings. And years of practicing my Christian faith have not eliminated that, even though I’d love to say that they have. In fact, I’d so much love to say that that I have sometimes used Christian language in an after-the-fact attempt to sanctify my thoughts or actions — without any real warrant. It was just pious bullshit.
Perhaps I am the only pious bullshitter in the world, but somehow I think not. So if you want to believe that every time someone claims to have acted on the promptings of religion they’re telling the truth, by all means go ahead. I, however, will continue to be suspicious and to recommend suspicion to others. And that was the point — the whole point — of my little essay in the WSJ.
— Alan Jacobs · Jun 10, 07:39 PM · #
Christopher Hitchens is an idiot. I have read his book and watched a couple of interviews. What a sad, pathetic man. The connection between spiritually and business success is obvious to those who want to scratch beneath the surface. In my new HR book, Wingtips with Spurs, the longest chapter in the book is devoted to the spirit and the successful career. It also covers the connectiveness of our actions and the important of spiritual wisdom. Michael L. Gooch, SPHR www.michaellgooch.com
If you find spiritual beliefs contrary to science, then spiritual beliefs are viewed as measly superstitions and fallacies. This popular view is simply wrong. Science and religion operate under vastly different parameters. In my management book, Wingtips with Spurs: Lessons From the Ranch, I devote an entire chapter in this ‘business’ book to the connection of business success and aiming for a higher calling. In spite all of the majesty and awe that the scientific world inspires, science is not designed to answer the questions that religion asks. Nor should we use religion to fill in the ‘God of the gaps.’ Religion should embrace science as it improves our ability to explain how God put things together. Indeed, elites of organized religions hate the efforts to seek a scientific context for the appreciation of spiritual phenomena. They seek to control humanity with doctrine and dogma. Science in its intellectual, methodical, peer-reviewed processes can deepen our wonder and amazement at the power of God. Instead of warring factions, the two sides should encourage each other. I saw a newspaper headline recently that read, “Darwin vs. God, Round 2007: Kansas Declares Darwin Winner.” This is wrong on many levels. Splashy headlines are one thing; gross irresponsibility is another. I cannot stress it enough. God and science are not at odds. They never have been. Francis S. Collins, the scientist who lead the Human Genome Project, stated it best when he said, “Science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced.” Michael L. Gooch, SPHR www.michaellgooch.com
— Michael L. Gooch · Jun 10, 09:23 PM · #
I just think your definition of “acting on your core principles” is way too subjective. You are, objectively, a person who has been shaped by Christianity in many ways. I don’t believe that you are able to transcend those influences and act in a way that is wholly untouched by your religion. Or to put it in the language of your own liturgy, “You have been sealed by the Holy Spirit and marked as Christ’s own forever.”
I understand that you and I and our culture do not live up to the standards of Christianity. But as I said before, your article draws artificial lines between motivations that are, in reality, inextricably entwined. It makes no sense to say that Osama Bin Laden’s motives are ethnic rather than religious when in reality it is impossible to separate religious and ethnic identity.
My whole point is that I am suspicious when someone claims to have acted in a way that is not influenced by their religion and the religion that has shaped their entire culture.
— Michael · Jun 10, 09:40 PM · #