© Roger M Tagg January 2011
Welcome to FROLIO – a new attempt to merge philosophy and the "semantic web" . This website is under continuing development.
I wrote this longer essay after reflecting on my recent reading of a number of books on religion (see my index), particularly Aldous Huxley's 'The Perennial Philosophy' (see my highlights) and Richard Osborne's 'Introducing Eastern Philosophy' (Icon Books 2006, ISBN 1-84046-786-X; first appeared 1996); I also studied a web page 'Pluralism, Pragmatism and Instrumental Truth' from Emory University giving extracts from William James.
Religion seems to me to be clearly a product of the human mind and of the development of societies. Humans soon realize that the amount of power they have over their own destinies is limited, and they often need to look for help which may or not be available from other humans, the animals they can tame and the machines they can make or acquire. Individual wishes for such help can develop into a religion when there is enough consensus about an acceptable model of existence, so that an individual can adopt a religion off the peg, rather than inventing one from scratch.
History has seen the evolution of societies from groups of hunter-gatherers through to city states, nations and trans-national alliances. As civilization has proceeded, the size of groups that can share a common model increases, and the model becomes more closely defined. Since groups have usually tended to look to leaders, they have often entrusted the control of their shared religion to these leaders.
As human scientific and logical knowledge has widened, there have been many shifts in the balance between central control on the one hand and voluntary cooperation between knowledgeable individuals or smaller groups on the other. During periods of de-centralization there have been moves, by people who found the existing traditions inadequate or inappropriate to the times, to revise some details of that religion - or to propose a new one. This process can arise in part from a desire to express their independent identity and goals.
With the technological advances since around 1800, many people have been looking for a less mystical religion that addresses issues in the world as it now exists; but many others have preferred a return to a religion that does not regard the world-as-it-is as so important as discovering some coherent meaning beyond everyday concerns. So on one hand we have a move to 'scientific materialism', with pseudo-religions such as Fascism and Communism; on the other a move to more mystical religion, partly as an antidote to technology. Examples of the latter include charismatic Christian sects, fundamentalist Islam, New Age and Celtic mysticism and eastern meditative practices such as Zen and Yoga.
So - what are the likely motivations for following a religion?
Individuals - children: We start off by wanting to discover how the world works. We tend to accept what our parents or close relatives tell us.
Individuals - busy persons in the street, field or desert: We look first for means of survival; then we look to others (people or other things) we can trust or rely on. We often make a commitment to one or more groups, and may sacrifice some of our own self to go along with the ethos of the group. We like to have a good time, and we like to have heroes, leaders or people to follow - or gossip about. We like to feel that we are important, and that we matter. However we also need consolation when things don't go well, and we may wish to avoid personal responsibility, blame or shame.
Individuals - if educated and/or reflective: We like to have confidence in the future, to reduce worry, and to avoid or reduce risk. We like to have explanations for things we don't understand. Most of us have a desire to be constructive, to make things, to get on with the job and do it well. However we need a philosophy for coping with our own failure. Today, faced with a life of increasing complexity, we need simplification - our tendency to draw simple binary distinctions between opposites may be a symptom of this. Most of us naturally feel sympathy or pity for the plight of other people and living things that come into our orbit. Finally, we need some way of making sense of death, both of people we know and - eventually - of ourselves.
Individuals - if extremely inquisitive: We may experience a desire to find something more enduring than the concerns of worldly life, a philosophy that is more lasting than just our own lifetimes. If we are of an intellectual bent, we may want to explore the extremes of our existence, for example to seek perfection, the secrets of the universe, eternity and the meaning of life.
A common claim of traditional and mystical religions is that they address an objective reality, external to what we perceive through our senses, which our immediate time-bound world does not include. To a man from Mars, or from a world-wide perspective, it seems clear that the world's main religions have many incompatible views about this. Despite Aldous Huxley's best efforts, he could only find a limited common ground, and this was only between the most mystical hermits, sages, sufis and saints of the various traditions; - this is hardly enough to unite the vast mass of followers of the religions. Some of the mystics Huxley quotes would seem to be not typical of the mainstream of their own traditions. A few key questions - see below - can illustrate the biggest differences. The codes in the keys at the bottom of each section below indicate the relevant column in the 'Martian Consultant's Comparison' that follows.
All 'Abrahamic', i.e. Jewish, Christian and Islamic sects and their offshoots say yes, although their descriptions of that super-person's attributes vary widely, ranging from a judgmental, jealous and powerful potentate to benevolent father-figure, a sort of up-market Father Christmas.
Buddhism and Chinese religions do not generally talk about a personal God. But they do refer to a universal intelligence - or a 'Ground of our Being' (the latter a phrase coined by Paul Tillich, a Lutheran Christian). The original Buddha is claimed to be no more than a specially enlightened human, while Confucius, Lao Tzu and others never claimed to be that special.
Hinduism (with some versions of Taoism) appears to have many Gods, but they seem to be more like avatars, each representing a complementary, super-human aspect of an all-encompassing - but not personal - unity called Brahman. From this point of view, Jesus Christ would be seen as an avatar of the Godhead underlying the Judaeo-Christian God.
The orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity seems to hedge its bets. It offers a personal deity, a historical avatar and a non-personal aspect, the 'Holy Spirit'.
Key to entries in the comparison table: 3 (standard Christian Trinity); F (benevolent father figure); A (absolute despotic ruler); I (impersonal deity); T (non-personal 'universal intelligence', e.g. Brahman, Tao, Jedi Force etc); V (avatar); D (devil or Satan); M (mother); NP (nature polytheism); Option (it's optional, yes or no, take your pick)
Eastern religion, and some western mystics, suggest that the 'self' or 'ego' is an illusion - others go further, and say that the world we observe is an illusion, and objective reality lies beyond.. Philosophically, because whatever strikes us comes through our senses is something that our brains interpret, one could justify the view that the 'real world' - i.e. the consensus of what humans and other sentient beings experience - is indeed an illusion. But the claim that some other concept is 'reality' seems equally difficult to defend, because the fact that we are talking about it means that it is something arising in our brains, which is just as subject to our psychological make-up.
Plato argued that only the idea of things is real - he proposed the idea of Forms. The everyday things which we can observe are then just incomplete copies of the underlying form. This leads to the issue of Idealism versus Materialism.
The more materialist pseudo-religions regard the here and now - that most humans at least can agree about - deserves to be regarded as the more real, and philosophical, mythological and mystical concepts as illusions generated to satisfy human psychological needs.
This business of what is 'real' is tied up with the issue of Monism versus (Ontological) Pluralism. Eastern religions often stress the unity of everything, typically that it's all part of a single supreme intelligence. My Frolio ontology takes a pluralist approach, regarding the world we observe as a collection of different things which may or may not be related; the ways in which they can relate to each other being the basis of what we can agree about. Several Abrahamic - and earlier - religions have the story of Noah's Ark, and a big 'in-word' (at least in the west at the moment) is diversity.
This is different from the concept of Religious Pluralism, which is the idea that there are many paths to 'the truth'. This is obviously not popular with those sects who believe that only they have got things right!
Key to entries in the comparison table: S (only the universal spirit - or the idea - is real; the material world and self are illusory); M (only the material world is real; the rest is human invention); W (the material world is real, but so are some 'essential' concepts); 2 (2-level reality, 'apparent' and 'hidden'); D (direct experience - spirit but minus the philosophical stuff)
Christianity talks a lot about 'soul', often separate from 'mind', itself distinguished from 'body'. Buddhism theoretically does not believe in a soul, since that would be part of the illusion of 'self'. It then has to decide exactly what is re-incarnated in later lives (see below). Some writers also separate the idea of 'spirit'.
Scientific materialism sees the brain as part of the body, but that brain has a form of built-in bootstrap program that enables it to learn - and to form habits that don't require us to apply conscious thought. Our 'self' is then the characteristic combination of our brain and the rest of our body.
Key to entries in the comparison table: S (the human soul is separable from the body); C (there is character, but that isn't re-incarnated); U (individual souls are all one with a universal soul); B (it's not a separate part, but a body/brain combination); E (an eclectic view)
Free will has been a subject of much religious debate, although the 'common sense' view is that "of course we have it". However there are two main attacks on its existence.
The religious attack says that because God (if we have one) is omnipotent and all-knowing, then we can't do anything without God's say so, and according to God's plan. We are maybe not 'God's robots', but we are God's children, not to be let to roam too far. Hence the expressions 'God willing', Insh'Allah and the quote "Man proposes, God disposes".
The other attack is from science; it argues that since our bodies and minds (like those of other animals) are just pieces of automatic machinery, our actions are determined solely by our sensory inputs, our nervous system and our brain connections and habits. This sounds more like we are 'autonomous robots'. This doesn't mean to say that we can predict any human or animal behaviour - there are just far too many unknowns.
The problem I have with both these attacks, looking from a pragmatic or social viewpoint, is that they leave the door open for people to deny personal responsibility for their actions. They can say "it was God's will", "my voices told me to do it", "I couldn't help it, I was so angry (or drunk, or desperate)", or "I had a difficult childhood, my parents didn't take enough interest in me to teach me right and wrong". For a classic case, see this one from the Brisbane Times.
So, most religions do admit to there being some degree of free will, and scientists have to say that responsibility has to be taught through education.
Key to entries in the comparison table: Y (we are responsible for our actions, as we can refuse the divine will or grace if we want); P (our actions are pre-destined by divine plan); M (mixed - our free will is pretty limited)
Death being the main feared and inevitable event of everyone's life (one doesn't know much about one's birth), a big aspect of any religion is what it says about what happens after one's life ceases. Some of the options are:
The man from Mars can't avoid the observation that, for leaders and people in authority, the first three options are ideal ways of encouraging good behaviour from ordinary people. The leaders can usually find 'holy men' to confirm that what counts as good or bad in the view of the authorities is also good from a religious viewpoint.
Key to entries in the comparison table: 1 (we have one afterlife only); R (we are subject to a repeating cycle of re-incarnation); RB (re-birth; when we die there's no soul to be re-incarnated, but the karma finds another body); PS (psychic survival, e.g. ghosts); N (no - when we go, that's it)
No-one can deny that lots of bad things happen, both to individuals and groups.
Some religions take the view that whatever happens to us, if bad it's due to our fault, if good it's to our credit. Since this can't always apply (e.g. the person was totally innocent, or totally inactive, then an earlier sin or good deed has to be assigned, if necessary by some related person at an earlier time.
Other people wonder why, despite belief, there seems to be little justice and fairness in what happens. Others cop out by saying "it's all God's will", or "it's our fault for wanting things to be favourable".
It's interesting to look at the question asked of Jesus Christ in the Bible about a man who was born blind. The questioner asked, "Who did sin, this man or his parents?". Jesus said it was neither, but "so that the works of God could be revealed". However by contrast, in a book I have entitled About Buddhism, the answer given was that he must have sinned in a previous incarnation.
The Black Death in 14th century Europe wiped out a sizeable proportion of the population. Some clerics blamed widespread sin, and advocated self-flagellation. Buddhists extend Karma to groups and nations.
Scientific materialists would say that the processes of this world, both man-made and natural, follow seemingly random patterns. Randomness is a difficult concept, as is Reality. Maybe we could, with infinitely detailed knowledge, work out what is going to happen in the future, but to all intents we can't and probably never will be able to. Given this, we just have to accept what happens and react to it as best we can, assuming we haven't been wiped out in the meantime.
Key to entries in the comparison table: GW (if you suffer and it isn't your fault, then it's God's will); D (it's the work of the devil, or with Jedi, the 'Dark Side'); S (it's due to too much 'self'); K (it's Karma - either it was your fault in this life or in a previous life); P (it's just a part of living that we have to accept); ERM (it's due to 'engrams' and the 'reactive mind' in Scientology); Error (it doesn't exist - it's an error of thinking; God made all and it's all good); Many (there's more than one view possible)
Many religions have a sacred book. For some, this is it - for all time. Others rely on wise interpreters to say how the scriptures apply to today's circumstances, but in some cases the window for interpretation may have been deemed closed. Others say, it's up to each of us to make our own interpretations. A few religions suggest that we should pick the best from all the world's sacred writings.
Key to entries in the comparison table: F (yes, there is, and it's a major part of the religion, and it's literally true for all time); f (there are fixed scriptures, but they aren't so central); I (yes, but it needs qualified people to interpret it for today); i (there are seminal books, but nothing holy); C (there are scriptures, but interpretation of them is now closed); R (yes, but it's up to each individual to reflect on its relevance to their situation today; E (eclectic, pick from all religions)
Some religions have single prophets, some being divine or semi-divine. Others have a sequence of prophets, or one major prophet preceded or followed by several minor ones.
Key to entries in the comparison table: 1 (a single prophet only); n (a sequence of prophets); D (a prophet who is regarded as divine); H (a prophet regarded as a very special human); h (a not-so-special human). + after a code means that before and/or after the main prophet(s) there are a number of minor prophets; ++ means a whole series of sages, prophets, gurus etc.
Some religions have very powerful hierarchies, and have at times been 'states' of their own, rather like today's multinational corporations. Others try to avoid this out of principle, recognizing the risk of negative effects from a self-perpetuating oligarchy. My personal preference would be for nations - or alliances -to impose regular 'winding up' motions on religious organizations, to force any such hierarchy to justify its continuation.
Key to entries in the comparison table: HHH (a very army-like hierarchical structure, with e.g. a Pope, supreme leader, Fuehrer etc); HH (a federal structure with a central 'conference' of equals); H (there are priests, but no organized hierarchy); P (a presbyterian structure, e.g. where priests bow to 'elders' elected from the congregation); N (a minimalist structure, at most just local groups organizing themselves); many (there are multiple sects, rather than a single hierarchy); social (the hierarchy is a social one)
Some of the older religions have not managed to evolve with society into a position where any role that a male person can take, so can a female - apart from in the basic roles of generating children. Religions with a Father-type God or an Absolute Despot are stuck with a male-orientation that is difficult to redress. Religions without a personal 'God' have less of a problem. Only one religion on the list below seems to expressly see God as equally of both sexes. However several religions still don't allow women to be priests; they quote some quote scripture, e.g. St Paul said "let your women remain silent" in churches.
Key to entries in the comparison table: Y (positively in favour of equal roles in the religion); y (inclusion but not yet fully attuned to equality); n (tolerant of women but not to take too much part); N (very much a male preserve)
What does the religion say as to why people should live a good life? Some religions have a specific 'stick and carrot' system, e.g. lure of paradise or threat of hellfire; others rely on people learning that it makes sense to live a good life for its own sake.
Key to entries in the comparison table: HH (Heaven if you are good, Hell otherwise); HP (like HH but Hell is a temporary purgatory); GA (we should consider the good of all); GRB (getting good re-birth); NS (achieving no-self, getting rid of desire so as to negate suffering); RP (reward and punishment in this world); AL (advancing up a series of levels of merit); ST (not offending social taboos); PG (personal gain and/or satisfaction)
Aldous Huxley's consensus answer, taken from the sages he quotes in The Perennial Philosophy, is roughly "to escape from the bonds of self-will and desire, and re-unite with the Ground of our Being". There is also a lot of concern about eternity.
A more humanist view would be that we can't say for sure what the purpose is, but in the meantime we had better get on with it and make the best of our time here; this 'best' would involve recognizing that we are just part of a large and complex system, so we need to cooperate and sympathize with our fellow humans, animals and other life, take care of the resources we find presented to us, and where possible make the world a better place from our time here.
| Candidates: | God | Real | Soul | Free | After | Suff | Scrip | Proph | Hier | Equal | Motiv | Goal | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Christian Catholic | 3 | W | S | Y | 1 | GW | I | 1D+ | HHH | n | HH | Salvation | |
| Christian Orthodox | 3 | W | S | Y | 1 | GW | I | 1D+ | HH | n | HH | Salvation | |
| Chr. Prot. (Anglican) | 3 | W | S | Y | 1 | GW | I | 1D+ | HH | y | HH | Salvation | |
| Chr. Prot. (Armin/Meth) | 3 | W | S | Y | 1 | GW | I | 1D+ | HH | y | HH | Salvation | |
| Chr. Prot. (Calvinist) | 3 | W | S | P | 1 | GW | F | 1D+ | P | y | HH | Salvation | |
| Chr. Prot. (Lutheran) | 3 | W | S | P | 1 | GW | I | 1D+ | H | y | HH | Salvation | |
| Chr. Quaker | 3 | W | S | Y | 0-1 | Many | R | 1D+ | N | Y | many | Discovery | Avoids fixed doctrine |
| Chr. Unitarian | Option | W | S | Y | 0-n | Many | R | 1D+ | many | Y | many | Discovery | Many different shades |
| Chr. Pentecostal | 3+D | W | S | Y | 1 | GW/D | F | 1D+ | many | Y | HH | Salvation | Some say God is only one person |
| Mormon (LDS) | 3+D | W | S | Y | 11 | GW | F | 1D+ | HH | y | HH | Rejoin | 1 "Before-life" as well |
| Christian Scientist | FM | S | S | Y | Lev | Error | I | 1D+ | H | y | good | Victory2 | 2 over suffering. No clergy |
| Jehovah's Witnesses | A | W | S | Y | 0-1 | D | F | 1D+ | HHH | n | fear? | Salvation | Only 144k to heaven, others 'earthly paradise' |
| Islam Sunnite | A | W | S | M | 1 | GW | C | 1H+ | HH | N | HH | Afterlife | |
| Islam Shi'ite | A | W | S | M | 1 | GW | I | 1H+ | HH | N | HH | Afterlife | |
| Islam Sufism e.g. Rabi'a | A | S | S | Y | 1 | GW | I | 1H+ | many | y | GA | Alignment | |
| Universal Sufism | T | 2 | SU | Y | 1 | P | E | 1H+ | HH | Y | GA | Discovery | Law of Reciprocity |
| Druze | A | S | S | Y | R | GW | I | nH+ | HHH | y | GRB |
Continue | Forced to dissimulate; closed |
| Baha'i | T | S | S | Y | 1 | GW/S | I | nH | H | Y | GA | Join God | Forced to dissimulate |
| Zoroastrianism/Parsee | AD | W | S | Y | 1 | D | I | 1H | N | y | HP | Perfection | There are world bodies |
| Judaism | A | W | S | M | 1 | P | I | nH | HH | Y | HH | Beat evil | Re Satan, see this! |
| Hinduism | T+nV | S | U | M | R | K | I | ++ | N | n | GRB | Moksha | |
| Sikhism | T | W | S | Y | R | K | I | nH | N | y | GA | Enlight | |
| Buddhism (Mahayana) | T | S | C | M | RB | K | I | 1H+ | H | Y | NS | Nirvana | |
| Buddhism (Theravada) | T | S | C | M | RB | K | I | 1H+ | HH | Y | NS | Nirvana | |
| Buddhism (Zen) | T | D | C | M | RB | K | f | nH | N | y | NS | Nirvana | Cut the talk, go for direct experience |
| Chinese (Taoism) | T | W | S | M | 1 | ? | I | nH | HH | y | GA | Rejoin | Monism - it's all one; go with the flow |
| Huxley's Perennial | Option | S | E | M | PS | K | E | nH | - | Y | NS | No-will | Doesn't actually exist - just an idea |
| Shintoism | NP | W | S | Y | 1 | P | f | - | H | y | ST | Immortal | Polytheism, nature deities |
| Scientology | T | W | U | M3 | R | ERM | F | 1H | HHH | y | AL | Op'g Thetan | 3 One's free will may have become lost |
| Jedi religion | T | S | S | Y | ? | D | - | - | many | Y | GA | Enlight | Based on fiction, but not so crazy |
| New Age | I | W | S | Y | 1 | P | i | nH | many | Y | GA | Discovery | |
| Existentialism | Option | M | B | Y | N | P | i | nH | N | Y | GA | Do best | More an optional philosophy |
| Pragmatism | Option | M | U? | Y | N | P | i | nH | N | Y | GA | Discovery | More an optional philosophy |
| Chinese (Confucianism) | T | M | S | Y | N4 | P | I | nH | social | n | GA | Discovery | 4 If there is, it's incomprehensible |
| Communism | Party | M | B | Y | N | P | I | 1H | HHH | Y | GA | State good | |
| National Dictatorship | Nation | M | B | Y | N | P | i | 1H | HHH | y | RP | State good | |
| Scientific Materialism | Option | M | B | Y | N | P | - | - | - | Y | GA | Survive | |
| Free market, McWorld | Market | M | B | Y | N | P | i | nh | HH | Y | PG | Acquire | Adam Smithism? |
The consultant didn't include 'Postmodernism', as it seems to be more concerned with negation of any consensus of value than with anything positive!
I don't think we should treat this comparison like a 'Best Buy' article in 'Which?' magazine. Everyone's needs and backgrounds are different, and we have to live peacefully with our neighbours. If I am asked where the biggest differences are, I wouldn't look at rituals, creeds and doctrines so much as their lines on how to address the problems of evil and suffering. It's interesting to note that some of the more recent movements take a line similar to the pseudo-religions, i.e. that evil and suffering are things that happen - for reasons we cannot always know and for which no-one can necessarily be blamed (code P in the 'Suff' column).
'Consensus' is defined here as a point of view - or a plan - that is agreed (more or less) by a number of minds coming together. This sounds like a patchy and variable thing. However, it does represent a basis of what a group or culture can talk about, and so that its members can be reasonably sure that the other participants have the same underlying understanding as ourselves.
Because there is so much trouble associated with using words like 'real' and 'reality', we are led to ask - "Is reality something that is 'out there', or is it socially constructed?". The latter view is sometimes referred to as consensus reality, and I have to admit I have some sympathy for it. An example is that because most of us can see or feel it, we agree that there really is a big bright light in the daytime sky (which we call the sun).
This view is not popular either with materialists (who say that there really is stuff out there) or idealists (who say that the only reality is what's in our minds). The latter suggests that there are as many versions of reality as there are humans, although some religions get over this by saying that all our souls are parts of the one universal mind. Consensus is a more pragmatic version of the same idea. Islam has the concept of Ijma - a consensus of the faithful.
It seems a characteristic of most religions that there should be a 'right answer' or 'objective truth'. So the difficulty for consensus reality is that it is liable to change - and sometimes to disagreement. But perhaps that's how - with our reliance on languages and evolution of better means of observing and measuring - things inevitably are. Take some examples from history; large numbers of people thought that it was fact, truth or reality that:
... and in some of these cases, people still think it! We also have groups who deny many things that most people regard as reality, such as the holocaust in Europe around the time of the second world war. And for all the talk about climate change, many people still doubt whether human activity has a significant influence on current trends.
The relevance of this to a world-wide view of religion should be clear. Each religion and 'ism' appears - at least to a Martian - to have constructed its own version of reality, especially once one goes beyond simple material things and on to abstract concepts. Humans and other animals feel stronger in groups, so they are prepared to go along with the consensus of some group. Eventually the consensus may not be able to be maintained, so one gets schisms.
Common sense ought to mean much the same as consensus, but - in English at least - it has become part of a rhetorical tactic, in which it is implied that common sense is what I (or the majority round here) think - pity about the rest of you.
Religion is concerned with beliefs. In everyday human communication, if we say we believe something, we simply mean we are making an assumption in order to decide how to act next. We are prepared to accept that our belief might be wrong. Religious beliefs seem to be a more serious matter; we are not prepared to accept the possibility that they might be wrong, without abandoning the religion or downgrading our commitment to that of fellow-travellers or 'social members'. Religious leaders have a motivation not to admit that their set of beliefs contain any errors or illogicalities; and civil leaders don't want to upset a religion that keeps the mass of people docile and accepting of their lot.
Science is concerned with theories. These theories are partly developed to explain things, but their major value is that they enable us to predict. Most if not all of our advances as a civilization have arisen from applying theories. It has often been pointed out that one can never prove a theory to be true or correct - one can only disprove it (or modify/improve it) when the predictions it makes don't tally with our observations. True scientists are not fazed when theories turn out to be inadequate or wrong, although some academics with reputations and positions to protect might be reluctant. However, it seems clear that science does not address all our human needs, particularly our emotional and motivational ones.
However all science, all religions - and 'non-religions' - do have what we can call models, which are something rather less presumptuous than theories or beliefs. In all forms of communication, humans assume a set of related abstract concepts and relationships. By using such models, we can make some sense out of the things we experience, especially when we do not understand the physical mechanisms involved.
A natural human need is to understand why things in this world happen the way they do. In most languages this has given rise to the related concepts of 'cause' and 'effect'. Because we like a simple model though, we often get into difficulties and misunderstandings using these concepts. When we try to take them to their limits, we get into philosophical difficulties, like arguing that there must be a 'First Cause' of everything.
It seems to me that the question 'Why?' has at least 3 meanings: 1) 'What for?' (i.e. what is or was the purpose or the goal); 2) 'What or who triggered it?' (i.e. the origin, and hence maybe the blame); and 3) 'what's the mechanism or process' - which sometimes overlaps with the question 'how do (or did) the things involved combine to produce the effect?'.
Some of the things that often get ignored in our simple cause-and-effect models are:
The two diagrams below show what I mean:
|
|
| Simple model of cause and effect | More realistic model of cause and effect |
This relates quite closely to another of my essays on this website - see Motivation Cycle.
If we think about it, we all have to admit that we don't really know what the future holds. We can predict, or estimate, but things can fail to turn out how we expect (or hope). If we just live for the present, we have to accept whatever happens - we may say that it is God's will or our destiny. But many people think it makes more sense to recognize uncertainty, probability and risk, and to arrange things so that the worst types of outcome don't hit us too hard. Examples include: taking out insurance, immunization against diseases, hedging our bets, having a Plan B etc.
Religious leaders do seem to have a reluctance to talk about randomness. Christians pray "Thy will be done". But does this really mean that we should 'take no thought for the morrow" and behave totally reactively, like the "lilies of the field"? A line from a psalm in the Bible goes "Some put their trust in chariots, and some in horses". A modern version might be "Some put their trust in banks, and some in insurance".
From a scientific viewpoint, quantum theory suggests that says that when dealing with very small components of matter, we can't ever measure, without some uncertainty, both an electron's position and its velocity. So the world at its very basic level contains some element of uncertainty, as well as the fact that our human intelligence can't know everything in any case.
Even if they admit to some degree of individual free will, some religions either:
Personally, I prefer the existentialist position on this. I think it is irresponsible - and failing in our duty to those around us - not to consider the possible effects of our actions because everything is in the hands of some deity. We ought to understand what the risks are, and take pains to minimize them (which might include taking out insurance!) or to have a Plan B lined up which we can switch to if things start going wrong - and maybe a Plan C etc as well.
I also think it is wrong to think that, because a religion tells us that all our sins can be forgiven if we believe and confess, we can simply and continually "wipe the slate clean". On the other hand, we shouldn't carry around mountains of guilt for our errors, especially if we have really put in our best effort and considered the risks.
It may be a sin to fail to act when we should have done, but it's also culpable not to do things properly.
You might be interested in my essay on this topic elsewhere on this website.
Many religious leaders are also reluctant to grapple with concepts like extra sensory perception (ESP), psycho-kinesis (PK) and spiritualist forces in general; however they are happy to accept visions, voices and revelations of a God or some saint, since they tie in with their concept of a 'soul'. However if the visions aren't of an approved type, they may get rubbished as 'Black Magic' or 'work of the Devil' - as happened to Joan of Arc.
In his book 'The Perennial Philosophy', Aldous Huxley regards ESP and PK as scientifically proven, and refers to certain locations as being 'vortexes of psychic force'. For an example of this, see Sedona Vortex .
A couple of other variations on the 'psychic' theme that can be read about on the web are:
Such ideas often appeal to people who, although they find themselves unable to swallow the dogma of traditional religion, still search for something a bit more than the often humdrum and depressing round of everyday living. And I don't think the documented cases of ESP and PK should be dismissed easily.
On the other hand, if you - like me - are a bit suspicious of this sort of stuff, then a good place to start is The Skeptic's Dictionary by Robert T Carroll.
Some religions stress the 'essential unity' of all mankind - if not of absolutely everything in the universe (Monism). Regardless of where one stands philosophically on this point, we recognize that there are differences between those parts of the world that we can affect or concern ourselves with, and those where we can't . These differences arise from our geographical positions, our lines of communication, the other people or things we recognize, etc.
However there isn't any strict boundary to our individual areas of concern. Some things that we do have consequences beyond our immediate personal scope, but the size of those effects tends to get lost the further away from our orbit we go. The effects of course can become significant if millions of people do similar things, like wasting resources like water and energy, taking airline flights etc.
Some people have the urge to take everything to their extremes. For example, people may seek 'perfection' in some activity or behaviour, or they may try to take - to their logical conclusions - concepts that we build up in our minds. I feel that some religious arguments take this line, e.g. those arguing for the existence of a God as 'First Cause' or 'Designer'. Scientists, too, talk about the 'Big Bang' - and maybe the 'Big Crunch' too. In religious literature, there is much said about what happens at the end of the world - something that I suspect is of less concern to many people nowadays.
My feeling is that the models we have are good within a middle range of our experiences but they tend to get a bit shaky at the extremes. It's maybe nice to extrapolate a bit and look beyond the limits, but I suspect that if we take our models too far we will either be wasting our time or getting into philosophical difficulties. Even the best scientists get fuzzy when the talk about sub-atomic particles, quarks, quantum effects and string theory (at one extreme) and about the expanding universe, possible parallel or alternative universes (at the other). Stephen Hawking described the 'Big Bang' and 'Black Holes' as singularities - i.e. where the theories break down. I suspect religious beliefs on the beginning and end of the world (or the universe) are equally hypothetical.
Aristotle talked about he golden mean, i.e. avoiding extremes. A few contrasts where 'somewhere in the middle' would seem to make most sense are:
| One extreme | The other extreme |
|---|---|
| Asceticism | Worldliness |
| Not caring | Trying too hard |
| Self-denial | Self-obsession |
| Abstinence | Indulgence |
| Meekness | Pride |
| Fatalism | Taking pains |
| Focussed on the present | Focussed on the future |
| Intuitive | Intellectual |
These all apply to the 'Way' we should live our lives. I don't believe one extreme or other is 'right' or 'virtuous' in any of the above dimensions.
A child might ask a parent "Why should I be good?". A reply might be "You'd better, or else ...". That seems to be the approach of some religions, implying that if you are not good, you will suffer later, for example by being e.g.:
Socrates, as reported by Plato, said a number of things about the Good (see Rich East High School's web page), generally looking to self-knowledge and experience as the means of understanding what it is. He suggested that the purpose of Good might be to fulfil one's 'inner self'.
Robert Pirsig, in 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance', describes his thoughts just before his breakdown (page 389). He felt that Socrates and Plato had erred in trying to "define the Good in its intellectual relation to things". He had wanted to keep his ideal of 'Quality' as undefined, but realized that by making any statements about it he was backing himself into a corner.
Some people have said that Good is an 'intrinsic value', i.e. we do it for its own sake; and one view is that the Good is in fact the God that we really ought to be talking about. However the pragmatist philosopher John Dewey believed that the Good is only relevant to a situation, i.e. that thoughts of Good are only worthwhile if we do something of value for humanity, life and the world in general.
A quote from Lao Tzu says "Those who know do not tell; those who tell do not know". I had better side with Socrates and admit that I know that I do not know!
Returning to the start of this essay, it seems to me that the motivation - i.e. 'human need' - for religion is rarely a stable thing. It's true - at any time - that we all have to come to terms with eventual death of both ourselves and others. But over history, there have been big changes in the sorts of situations that have the biggest influence on individuals or groups. The nature of these situations may motivate quite different human needs, for which humans may look to religion for help.
One would suppose that people in a primitive tribe would look for security, group identity and models to explain the way things happen in the world. Multiple gods were identified with natural phenomena like thunder, the sea and rivers, or with human endeavours like wisdom, concern with death and the underworld, hunting, relaying messages, getting drunk and even stealing.
Security, group identity and the wish for a simple model seem to have encouraged development of the monotheistic Middle Eastern religions, where God is on the side of 'our tribe'.
An amusing observation, from Homer's Iliad, is that in the Trojan War (Greeks versus Trojans) half the Gods of Olympus seemed to be fighting with the Greeks and the others assisted the Trojans.
When a tribe or nation was living in peace, often with slaves taken from a defeated rival, different motivations seemed to emerge. Individuals wanted to proclaim their identity, to express their feelings, to have property and assets. The religion had to fit in with an orderly and stable government. The arts were encouraged, but people who thought for themselves were regarded as dangerous (e.g. Socrates, or Cassius in 'Julius Caesar'). So the message was "conform, and be seen to conform, or you'll be suspected". I would maintain that this environment lasted much longer than ancient Athens or Rome; in Europe it was still the norm into the 18th and 19th centuries, and still applies in many counties in the world today.
Most individuals have bad times and periods in their lives when things go wrong, usually through no fault of their own. Fate seems to be against them. It has always been an issue for religious leaders what to say to people in anguish when they ask how God could let it happen, when they have prayed as well as being good to their neighbour. Examples of situations that upset people are:
Many people, helped by religion, have managed to find ways of dealing with their grief. Often, it is the message that this life is not as important as future (i.e. after death) life or lives - which makes some sense given the shortness of an individual human life with the life of the world as a whole.
One might argue that, because we don't have any hard evidence for any future life, and so must rely on faith which we may or may not possess, we are fooling ourselves. However against this it could be pointed out that a lot of people, by just keeping up a cheerful disposition - helped by a few jokes - can see themselves through many difficult times; this may also be a case of 'fooling ourselves' - as in the song 'I Whistle a Happy Tune' from Rodgers and Hammerstein's 'The King and I'.
I think the last bullet above poses the most serious problem today, especially when it involves younger people.
It is not so long ago for western countries that peoples' living environments were threatened by the actions and aspirations of rival groups or nations. In a few parts of the world it is still like this. Examples of such threats are:
Added to the many personal tribulations, such periods seem to provide a lot of motivation for people to look for religious answers, as accepted common sense does not seem to be working. This contrasts with the feeling of others who might say that "God can't be up to much if he allows all this to happen". And of course, in wars both sides often claim that God is on their side - there's a witty poem about this.
Since World War 2, many western countries have experienced relative affluence, high-speed technological change and development in their material and social patterns. Partly as a result, many people do not now view their life as being primarily one of suffering, and because they don't have to compete so strongly to survive, they are often more considerate - if not actually benevolent - towards their neighbour. So they don't actually feel weighed down by sin or in need of "being saved". They admit they are not perfect, but they know they are making an effort to be good and don't need further assistance.
However there are always some - maybe a minority in some countries - who struggle in life. Religious groups often provide practical as well as spiritual relief. And of course many people still experience personal anguish - although with many more people surviving to a 'ripe old age' there is perhaps less distress over their death.
Sometimes, periods of affluence do lead to revivals of "our religion" - thriving groups and nations may come to think that they must have got things right, and maybe other nations ought to be encouraged to follow the same models. On the down side, these periods do tend to be fertile times for "holier-than-thou ramps".
Until relatively recently, there was a big gap between the well-educated and the normal working man or woman. Most people didn't have the ability to think things out for themselves, so they looked to leaders. Those leaders had many motives, but "that everyone should love his or her neighbour" was not usually a major one.
When mass media started with newspapers and, later, radio and television - people looked to the media to do their thinking for them. Those views were often biased towards those of the establishment, of big business or of political parties. But at least people could select which paper or channel they watched, or just switch off. Even with a relatively impartial news channel, one quickly gets overdosed with crises, problems, disasters etc.
With widespread general education, and more recently the information superhighway, a much higher percentage of people are no longer satisfied with accepting the models of previous generations. They are very cynical about the pronouncements of politicians, church leaders and business chiefs, and think that a lot of what they are being told is simply bullshit or spin in the interests of those who can manipulate the media. They hate the excesses of advertising - though there must be a large enough percentage of society that prefers just to accept what they are told. Otherwise advertisers could not justify spending so much money. (When people complained about the amount of advertising on New Zealand television in the late 1990s, we were all told "shut up, this pays for you to have the programmes".)
However a large number are often discouraged from thinking out their own solutions by sheer pressure of everyday life, and by information overload. The information society might not seem to be a fertile ground for religion. But many families, seeing the growth of anti-social behaviour among young people, have decided that religion may be the best approach to countering this, and are therefore setting an example to their own children by aligning themselves with a religious tradition.
Sometimes, if religion cannot provide an answer, pseudo religions or mumbo-jumbo may step in, and by an appeal to baser instincts, gain a foothold.
Nationalism (with its extreme form, Jingoism) is one of the earliest of these alternatives - it's "my country right or wrong", and it's OK to hate nations billed as enemies and to approve of killing their people.
With the rise of rationalism and science in the 18th and 19th centuries, a vacuum appeared when few good answers were offered by the religious traditions as to how to reconcile the scientific developments with their teachings. In the early 20th century there was a revival of absolute rule, regardless of its political colour (left or right) - the world suffered under Fascism, Stalinism, Naziism and Japanese absolutism.
I am not so sure that we should regard Communism itself (as opposed to its totalitarian practices) in the same group as those above. It does have a generally "good for all mankind" message as well as a lot of 'scripture' from Marx onwards. I think one can regard it as a materialist pseudo-religion. This is not to say that we are obliged to regard it as an effective way of running an economy in today's world.
A number of recent popular cults could also be regarded as 'alternatives' to religion, e.g. the Hippie cult, Celtic mysticism, Bikie gangs, Emo etc. For some horrors, see the website Top 10 Crazy Cults.
While this essay contains a lot of criticism, there are also dangers if people have no religion at all, or don't at least give some thought to the purpose of their lives. I don't so much mean that lack of religion or non-belief in a God is a direct cause of evil. Rather, the risk is that people can become aimless, uncaring, thoughtless, blinkered, workaholic or just obsessed with a pursuit of personal pleasure or 'kicks' (as on Route 66).
What I think religion - in general, rather than any particular religion - can do is to help each individual human work out and develop a model for living in whatever environment they find themselves - in a fulfilling and considerate way. Religious movements can help build up a consensus of value in life, but they should allow variations depending on the individual and his or her predicament. Religious groups can provide emotional and material support to people with problems - maybe even an informal agony aunt.
However we have to remember that a Martian observing practices of emotional and material support on Earth today would note that these do not correlate closely with religion as traditionally understood. We have Oxfam, Médecins Sans Frontičres, Shelter, Peace Corps and the Samaritans - and of course many UN and government provided services.
Almost all religions did silly things in the past, some so bad that I call them 'idiocies' (see below). At the top of the list I would put any killing of people whose basic offence is just to disagree with the orthodoxy of the people in power. Christ's Crucifixion probably wasn't the first example of this. Even though that event was significant in the birth of Christianity, the Roman Catholic church still burnt Jan Hus and Giordano Bruno at the stake, and Calvin and his Geneva Protestant authorities burnt Michael Servetus (see footnote). Even in England, Queen Mary the First's regime burnt several bishops, and then Queen Elizabeth's regime persecuted Catholics and Jews, though without the burnings.
[Footnote (June 2015): Regarding Servetus, in answer to a request by the webmaster of the website 'evangelicaloutreach', I have changed my link which was originally to that website. Apparently Google is running a campaign threatening to apply penalties to websites that have 'unnatural' links pointing to them and fining them if they do not have them removed. Goodness knows on what grounds Google determined that my link was 'unnatural' - one suspects they ran a broad brush crawler which gives too many false hits. Regardless, if you are interested, you can still go to www.evangelicaloutreach.org and find their stuff about Servetus - it's still there.]
| Burning at the stake | The Holocaust | Death for apostasy |
| Crusades, jihads and other wars of religion | The Spanish Inquisition | Honour killings |
| Persecution, scapegoating | Witch hunts | Animal sacrifice - especially human |
| Racial superiority and inferiority, slavery | Untouchability | Forced recantations, e.g. Galileo |
| Bans on contraception | Sale of indulgences | Intolerance of different viewpoints |
| Hierarchies in religion aping big business or the military | Dogmatism, Schisms | Holier-than-thou ramps |
| Theocracies - religious bigots ruling nations | Quietism, Asceticism | Millennialism - a future paradise on earth if everyone would fully follow 'our' model |
| Philosophical wrangling over minor differences | Book burning or indexes of prohibited books, films etc | Magic, e.g. holy water, sacred objects, relics |
| Antinomianism -"Sin strongly, that grace may abound" (Romans 6v1) | Insincere confession | More reverence for ritual than for love of one's neighbour |
| Papal infallibility (or any other sort) | Doctrine of Total Depravity | Complex logical arguments built out of necessity to patch up weaknesses in earlier models |
All religions should resolve to draw the line regarding their past vendettas and schisms. If they can face up to this and admit their past excesses, we can all move on.
Ecumenism: There's no doubt that there is a lot of goodwill today between the leaders of the different religious traditions. Not only do they talk to each other, they agree on most of the wider goals of having religion in society. The problem comes from the zealots, the fundamentalists and the 'holier-than-thou' brigade, and from people with a political agenda who attempt to hi-jack religious feelings to work up mass hate.
In a few places, different Christian churches have united, like the Church of South India and the Australian Uniting church. In other situations, offshoots get started where people no longer find mainstream doctrine appropriate. This has happened in Christianity over some centuries. The reaction of the mainstream leaders has often been hostile - they resort to tactics like saying "only our way is truly that of God, only our doctrine can save you". But very often the breakaway movements have led to valuable revivals. Similar things have happened with Islam, but with fewer and more divergent offshoots, e.g. Bahaism and Universal Sufism.
Making doctrine not compulsory: Many religions define themselves more through creeds than by the good things they bring to human existence. I suspect there are few people today (at least in the west) who can honestly say that they believe all the items in these creeds, even if they understand them. In the east, there seems less emphasis on such creeds, and more of a collection of valuable and useful ideas. I think it would be good if more religious groups offered multiple 'streams' of service for different 'grades' of believer, e.g. 'traditional believer', 'reflective non-believer', 'homely discussion and mutual advice' and 'youth group'. Some of these are practiced in many churches, mosques and temples, but there may be pressure to 'convert' to traditional belief. Some people may just be looking for 'social membership' - a bit like in a golf club - and this may still have some value in a wider religious sense.
In my view, there shouldn't be restrictions against 'multiple membership' in all grades except maybe the most traditional.
Religion as a component of education: I tend to support the arguments is Stephen Law's book The War for Children's Minds. That's partly because I don't think you have to be traditionally religious to be a good person. I agree that we shouldn't encourage a totally relativistic attitude to right and wrong, but I don't think we should take the line that children must do good "because God says so" or "because I say so" - "or else"! We ought to build up some self-motivation and understanding of the conflicting pressures that often apply in real situations.
I think children should be shown a variety of quality books and readings, and not just dragged (as I was) verse by verse through biblical scripture, rather like an additional History or English Literature course. The same would apply to reciting the Koran by rote, especially in a language that is not one's own - and probably without understanding the meaning or implications of the words.
Understanding other religions and philosophies should be a part of the curriculum by the teenage years, as should the mechanics of groups and societies. Two interesting books here are Jostien Gaarder's book Sophie's World and Bernard Guerin's book on Social Strategies . Experiments in teaching Ethics - either complementary to or as an alternative to Scripture - have been tried in some Australian schools (see these web pages A, B, C).
I think that something many schools lack is education in emotional fitness and in social skills. A lot is left - with very mixed consequences - to peer pressure.
Yes, I didn't say "abolish religion and all will be well". I think most religions do a good job. The main needs are to become less dogmatic and to become more tolerant of different models. It's not the other religious sect or tradition that we are in disagreement with - it's cultures of hate, ignorance, excessive self-centredness, mumbo-jumbo and bullshit, and simplistic cure-alls.
As with all my essays on this site, the observations on this page represent my personal view as someone who has been a citizen of 3 different nations and has lived in countries with different languages, religions and outlooks on life.
If there are any points you would like to take up with the Martian consultant, please write with a stamped addressed envelope to Earthling Advice Bureau, Canalside House, 666 Red Dust Drive, Mars Lander Meadows, Mars 2525.
A really fun collection of quotes about religion
Index to more of these diatribes
Some of these links may be under construction – or re-construction.
This version updated on 10th June 2015
If you have constructive suggestions or comments, please contact the author rogertag@tpg.com.au .