While skootching about on ye olde World Wide Web (that’s Webbe in “ye olde” speak), this irresistible title caught my eye: Is Religion Bad for the Universe?
One can’t help but be intrigued by such a question. I dare say the Universe probably won’t be harmed in the long run by whether or not we believe or don’t believe the kinds of zany and sometimes implausible things we believe. I do think the Earth suffers hugely and unnecessarily as the result of some of them, and I do think that we make each other suffer for some of them, and yes, there are theologies that should be held accountable for their historical and contemporary results – you betcha – this is all bad enough. But really, I don’t think that the Universe, the Universe, is really impacted a whole lot by what we believe. Bit o’ hubris going on there. We humans are not so important as to have an affect on the Universe just because we have certain notions about the nature of divinity or the reality of the afterlife. Kind of a big place, the Universe – at least that’s what they say.
The actual article, however, turned out to be an opinion piece by a mainstream Protestant pastor who has a mild-mannered bone to pick with that recently ubiquitous champion of “reason” Sam Harris, who finds Christianity and other dominant faiths wildly, historically and increasingly problematic and is certainly not afraid to say so. The opinion article takes issue with Harris’ latest book, Letter to a Christian Nation, which is a response to the overwhelming amount of criticism he received after the release of his first book, The End of Faith. Which got me to thinkin’ about a couple of things.
First, let me say that Sam Harris, or rather what I percieve Harris to represent (let me be clear) gives me a bit of a pain (please note – I have not read Harris’ books – just a number of articles by and about him, therefore I’m making statements that are my perceptions and may be inaccurate – Harris has become a figurehead for scientific atheism and humanism, and I’m mostly talking about my perception of that argument, not Harris’ work in particular). Not because he takes fundamentalists to task, and moderates to task also for sitting in the sidelines of the same theologies – every religion should be subject to healthy criticism. Every religion ought to examine itself with an eye for justice. No – it’s his ilk’s slavish attachment to Reason and Science that leaves me in a bit of a rash. Science and its golden-boy-cousin Reason too have a few things to answer for in the destruction of the planet and the oppression of others, and demonizing all religions in the name of some kind of shiny perfection embodied in the impossible ideal of Star Trekkian globalized secular humanism smacks of a bit on the creeptastic side for me. Not to mention, just a hair arrogant. If you’ll pardon my nerdism, I’m reminded of a particular Star Trek: The Next Generation episode where Captain Picard is accidentally mistaken for a god on a developing planet (populated by “primitive” pre-scientific peoples on the cusp of technological “enlightenment”…yes, already a bit of a problem here), and when it is suggested that he play out this role in order to save his inevitably compromised crew members, he delivers a shockingly gross rant about how he just refuses to plunge the people of the planet back into the “superstitious dark ages” of religious belief (here’s a great question from my seminary days – is Star Trek itself a religion? Discuss). Excuse little ole silly superstitious me, but I take offense to that on just a few levels. The legacies of colonialism are built on that attitude as much as they are built on certain theologies. Do I think Harris is saying all this? Not really – I’m just musing here. What does a world without religious faith look like? Does it really look better? I don’t know.
But I digress from my whole original thought regarding this opinion article. I would quibble with those who hate all religious faith on these points, sure. But mostly, what really gets me is the pervasive use of the term “religion” to refer specifically to a mere handful of faiths, most notably Abrahamic ones (and maybe Buddhism and maybe Hinduism if you’re going to get all crazy liberal about it). In all the media hype over Harris’ books, this happens constantly – and so does the aforementioned opinion article. The terms “religion” and “Christianity” are constantly used interchangeably in various discourse, and this drives me freakin’ bonkers.
I’m religious. I am an adherent to a religion (though of course the sticky question of what defines a religion can be debated on and on into eternity, I think most folks consider cultural structures that involve a series of beliefs that assist human beings in finding meaning in their world and can include ritual, deity, and some kind of mental or mystical discipline religions). Religion is the method by which I am reminded of my bonds with the Earth, with my ancestors, with the Mysteries. I have faith – I belong to a faith tradition. Now, if some folks truly want the world to rid itself of all belief in anything not provable by modern science, that’s fine (is this the argument, or are they talking specifically about Abrahamic faith? How can we really know if everyone keeps using the words interchangably?) - I’m happy to begin an argument there. But first, can we at least get specific on what we’re talking about? Religion and Christianity, or Religion and Abrahamic faiths, are not synonymous. This used to bother me at the bookstores I worked in as well – the “Religion” section had all the Christian books in it – then next to that, we had the “Judaism” section, the “Islam” and “Buddhism” sections, etc. (with all the Pagan books, naturally, thrown into a section next to the alien channeling books and labeled a number of different things, from “Non-Ordinary Reality” [I'm not making that up], to “New Age,” and “Metaphysics” to “Phenomena”). Say what?
I’m reminded of the time I lived with a fundamentalist Christian in a house for a little over a month (long story) – and the first time we conversed he asked me “are you religious at all?” To which I, in my naivete (I swear I was totally sincere), replied enthusiastically “Oh yes! I’m a Pagan!” It is remarkable how fast the human face can register delight and then consternation all in the course of those five words. He didn’t want to know if I was religious. He wanted to know if I was a Christian. Duh.
So yeah, it’s a semantics thing. People accuse us lefties of being overly focused on “politically correct” language all the time. But the truth is – our language belies our underlying assumptions about people, about culture. And when Christianity becomes the default for a term that should encompass an enormous array of religious expressions, I think this is a symptom of something that is deeply problematic in the face of cultural competency and religious tolerance (tolerance being a word I also would quibble with for its connotations of silent suffering – but perhaps I’ll tackle that one later…it is true that toleration would be a step above at least). These assumptions are the same ones that underlie the great Christmas Wars (Good Lordisa I’m sick to death of the War on Christmas…I mean, enough already) – as I’ve said before, Christmas is just a symbol for something bigger and year-round. As long as the true nature of spiritual (and biological and otherwise) diversity is glossed over in our common speech – can we ever say we are ready for the reality of an honestly egalitarian multicultural, multireligious culture? Or am I just playing at mincing words?
Mmmmm….mince.