To:    Guardian CiF
Re:    Atheism, religion, identity and replacing the nation state
Date: Monday 9 May 07

In response to the Guardian article, "The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it" by Madeleine Bunting critical of militant atheists and their anti-faith proselytising

Link to article and thread at The Guardian.
 

 
The word, religion, is derived from Latin, "religare", meaning "to bind together". Does that not suggest a possible social function and significance?

Religion developed in response to the needs of individual human psychology, combined with and complicated by those of social bonding and control. It's importance cannot be overstated, so to dismiss it, for whatever reasons, is madness. What we need is a much better scientific understanding of it.

What clearly distinguishes humans from other animals is our "level of awareness", consciousness, the acquisition of which is beautifully described (symbolically) in the first part of the biblical story of Adam and Eve. But why did God curse them for it? Because the ancient Hebrew priests who adopted or made up the story wanted to control their society by instilling fear and obedience in them, I suggest.

Imagine how very different the development of Western civilization might have been if instead the priests had had God praise us for taking such a bold and courageous step, and instructed their people not in blind obedience to God's word (and thus to themselves), but in taking considered responsibility for their own behaviour.

With awareness (and imagination) comes fear of "known unknowns". Death is the classic example, but before the development of scientific knowledge and explanation the everyday world was full of them. Religion provided explanations. Of course, they were wildly wrong, but believing them at least calmed our ancestors' nerves and helped them get on with their lives.

We have a psychological need to "believe" that we understand the world. Nothing has changed in that respect. And a lot of what we believe today is still irrational nonsense. We believe it because it suits us (subconsciously) to do so. For example, we believe (certainly our politicians would have us believe) that we are tackling our massive social and environmental problems (e.g. global warming). We are not - not really - because we have not yet even recognized their "root causes" (which also has a psychological explanation), but we need to believe that we are, in order to allay our fears for the future and for our children.

2nd Post:

Much of the disagreement on this thread is in fact misunderstanding, with both sides tending to concentrate on the silly excesses of the other.

I like to think of God as a "concept" for something (although it's not a "thing", of course), the reality of which we cannot grasp. Most disagreements arise from us confusing reality with the different concepts we have of it.

Perhaps the "reality" of our need for God just boils down to some chemical processes in our brains - or perhaps not.

A Rabbi provided the best justification I've ever heard for assuming the existence of God. He said, I cannot prove that he exists, but if I assume he does it helps me to better understand myself, the world and my place in it.

It is interesting, and perhaps of some importance, that religion is capable of bringing out the best and the worst in us.

3rd Post:

I would describe myself as an atheist in respect to the Abrahamic (concept of) God. Notwithstanding its immense historical and cultural importance, I certainly do not "believe" in the Bible. But I have a strong faith (trust) in what I prefer to call Providence.

If I want to have a chat, though, unload my fears, express my gratefulness for my good fortune, or my appreciation for the wonders of life the universe and everything, I sometime find it useful to imagine an old man with a beard.

4th Post:

[ArtNouveau], I'm pleased that you liked my Rabbi quote, but I forgot to include the last piece, which nicely rounds it off and is perhaps the most important part: " . . . and to lead a better life."
 
If someone's beliefs help them to lead a better life than they would otherwise, it would be a crime, surely, to deliberately undermine them.
 
Or would it? Does the truth not have priority?
 
Disillusionment is difficult, often impossible, to handle, so we need to tackle it with great care - in respect to ourselves, and to others. Our illusions (view and interpretation of reality) are vitally important to us. We cannot just let them go - not without something (hopefully better, i.e. more truthful/less illusionary) to replace them. Otherwise we are faced with the abyss, and if we slip into it, possible clinical madness.
 
The truth is that we are ALL far more deluded than we think (because our brains are programmed to resist disillusionment). The name, Homo sapiens, is not just a bit of a misnomer, but perilously misleading us towards global catastrophe.
 
I've written an essay on "The Insanities of Normality", which I think is of some relevance here: http://www.spaceship-earth.org/PoS/Uncommon_sense.htm
 
5th Post:
 
As I suggested in my first post, yesterday morning, a healthy and sustainable society NEEDS religion: an interpretation of reality and associated values and morals (rules of behaviour) which binds its members together (L. religare = to bind together).

At the moment we are unsatisfyingly and unsustainably bound together by the myth of "British identity" and our dependency on the power structures of this nation state, which we need to replace with something less delusionary, more personally satisfying, and (most importantly) sustainable, before it starts to tear itself apart - which for those with eyes to see, it is already beginning to do.

6th Post:

http://www.spaceship-earth.org