I was having a conversation with Bill Maher the other day -- in my own mind, that is. I was admitting that I agree with a lot of what he criticizes about religion, or more precisely the ludicrous nature of some religious "beliefs."
Since I consider Bill, at least, a fairly honest man who speaks truth to power and helps us to laugh at the hypocrisies and absurdities of what passes for normal in the United States today, I was reflecting on what is salvageable from his criticisms of religion, or "religulousness," as he calls it. And, beyond that, whether there's something at the heart of religion that humanity cannot afford to lose.
What is religion, essentially? Is it immature wish-fulfillment, a denial of our mortality, an abrogation of our human responsibilities, a sentimental lullaby for those unwilling to face harsh realities? Is religion a collection of imaginary and absurd beliefs that contribute to prejudice, intolerance and violence?
Of the great religions of mankind -- Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaeo-Christianity and Islam -- each has a core message, typically sourced in the original message of its founder(s), or, in the case of Hinduism, in its ancient texts. That original message then gets interpreted, commented upon, theologized, possibly dogmatized, until it becomes a secondary body of teachings, beliefs, rites and, very likely, a power structure, as well. Much of this secondary accumulation is teachings about that message or originating texts, i.e. less about how to live and more about what to believe.
To completely dismiss religion as corrupt nonsense presumes that one is in possession of a truth and practical wisdom that is uncorrupted by the human tendencies that express themselves in religion. Is there such an uncorrupted truth or perspective underlying Richard Dawkins', Christopher Hitchens' or Bill Maher's critiques of religion? Is there a contemporary secular rationalism that we can trust to save us from what is ridiculous in some religious beliefs?
Unfortunately, wherever we look in the contemporary world, we will see examples of toxic opinions, absurd beliefs, self-serving rationalizations and malicious mind-control -- in other words, what sometimes corrupts religion also corrupts so many human activities. In one form or another, we see these tendencies in politics, science, finance and even the arts.
It makes as much or as little sense to completely dismiss religion because of its excesses as to dismiss banking because of the breathtaking corruption at the top and the debacle it has brought upon us. Banking may need to be reformed or reinvented, but very few people would suggest that it should be altogether eliminated. It may be that there are "high priests" of banking that do not want the masses to question the fundamentals of today's banking orthodoxy, but that illustrates the problem we face in so many areas of human life: self-serving power elites who rely on the credulity of the majority to continue to control and exploit a situation for their own gain and self-importance.
Now we arrive at the heart of the matter: what can free us from those corrupting, exploitive and dishonest tendencies that seem to pervade so much of human activity? What if the essence of religion was the uncovering of egoism in ourselves, of all the ways we distort reality and justify our own arrogance, selfishness or privilege? What if religion were the key to cleansing ourselves of neurotic fear, accepting things as they are and having the courage to work to make them better?
Well, every so often a human being comes along who has attained a degree of freedom from the many negative, selfish pathologies of the human will. Whether these people are called avatars, saints, prophets, they are people who have attained a quality of humanness that removes the distorting lens of human egoism, charges them with a moral magnetism, and illuminates them with a humane wisdom that ripples through the centuries, or may even create a new civilization.
These liberated and relatively complete human beings seem to have arrived at certain convictions:
Reason alone is inadequate. The rational faculty is not the supreme human faculty and can be misleading. Reason, which has been exalted in the secular Western world, is, in fact, a very limited tool. Even if it has produced the accomplishments of science and technology, it does little to satisfy the needs of human beings.
Higher faculties. We have other faculties of perception. The human being exists on a threshold between two realms: one physical and the other a realm of value and inner experience.
Transformation through inner experience. The material, space-time universe is not the whole of reality. Our most valued experiences involve the perception of a realm of value. Material existence alone cannot satisfy us; we long for and require friendship, shared experience, emotional intimacy, personal integrity, love and an experience of the transcendent unity of existence. This last element, which may seem the most questionable to some, is, in fact, the most significant of all, because when it is experienced it has the power to transform a person's sense of self.
The most highly developed human beings are not politicians, businessmen, scientists, religious clerics or artists, but those who have penetrated reality with their consciousness and have come back as transformed human beings. Their insights, which were meant to guide us toward the realization of our full humanness, have too often been turned into belief systems, dogmatic thinking or worse.
Man-invented beliefs have been imposed upon these original insights. Religion degenerates as it move from the insights of the original exemplars to beliefs about the original messenger or revelation, leading to subservience to human institutions and man-made dogmas. What causes us to cling to "correct" beliefs, exclusive "truths" and "infallible" authority?
Nevertheless, the original insights into the nature of human possibilities are not completely obscured, nor are they inaccessible. In some cases, there may even be living traditions of human transformation that remain true to the original wisdom. And these "Ways" of spiritual development are based not on beliefs, but on an empirical process of verification and experience guided by the original insights of those human beings who have penetrated to the heart of reality. And this is where the interesting and essential question lies. What do these insights tell us about the nature of reality and the vital needs of the human heart? How can we be true to these insights and, possibly, restore them to their proper role in the guidance of our religious communities, our politics, our educational structures and human life in general?
Sam Harris: Drugs and the Meaning of Life
Bill Maher Takes On Religion In New Documentary "Religulous ...
Bill Maher Makes an Adolescent Case Against Religion in Religulous ...
"What causes us to cling to "correct" beliefs, exclusive "truths" and "infallible" authority?"
"And these "Ways" of spiritual development are based not on beliefs, but on an empirical process of verification and experience guided by the original insights of those human beings who have penetrated to the heart of reality."
These seem to be self-refuting so I must be reading it wrong. I think people "cling to "correct" beliefs, exclusive "truths" and "infallible" authority," because a belief is sometimes correct, the truth is sometimes exclusive and an authority is sometimes infallible.
___________
Why do religious people assume that the only reason the non-religious can't "understand" is their own unwillingness to accept the mysteries of spirituality?
Helminski's quote (above) is similar to the frequently stated "Only someone filled with the Spirit can understand what the Bible really means." No, Mr. Helminski, there's no presumption of truth. There is only possession of rational thought.
Some of my colleagues have suggested that, as more of the universe which lies "beyond our understanding" becomes understandable, there will be less need for spirituality. I disagree. Some of us prefer to solve mysteries. Others prefer the mystery.
"Atheists want to argue that there is no "in the name of atheism" because atheism is not a religion & only a "lack of belief in god(s)" & then claim righteousnÂess because allegedly (& erroneouslÂy) there aren't killings in the name of a lack of belief. Read Rabbi David Wolpe's analysis of these claims from atheists in his excellent book, Faith Matters. He proves you wrong with solid analysis & statisticsÂ."
You think a rabbi might be a tad bit biased in his assesment? Please give me an example of atheism or non belief resulting in the killing of believers.
think about it
For the first time in 'known' history, the answer to the question is YES! The first complete and wholly new interpretation of the moral teaching of Christ for two thousand years is on the web. Offering a teaching of wisdom and understanding perfectly objective to the human condition; preexisting outside the limits of natural reason and beyond any potential of human nature and evolution. Describing a precise and predefined individual experience of omnipotent power, called The Resurrection, and correcting human nature with a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human moral perception, the first literal, testable proof of God is a fact. To test or not to test, that is the question?
http://soulgineering.com/2011/05/22/the-final-freedoms/
To say that is to say you've been there and come back. Any assumption about the truth or falcity of religion must assume the one making the assumption has already experienced it in order to tell us what it is or is not.
So where is this place and what was it like?
it is no accident that spirituality, questions of the after life, the concept of God etc has been such a strong force in human existence for so long. to dismiss it as purely foolish is just not living up to the reason and scientific thought that people of that mind set claim to follow.
Hopefully some day people will be reasonable enough to not divide themselves so starkly on this subject. they will be able to recognize the dangers of religion while also realizing the good qualities. They will be able to see the real culprit of the negativities might be human nature not religion. but I fear people will actually have to start BEING logical, reasonable, and scientific and not just pretending to be before that happens.
People continuously condemn religion because of things like political activism against gay marriage for instance. but they never look at the other side of the coin and see how big of a role religious groups played in the politics of the civil rights movement for instance. thats not logical, reasonable, or scientific.
Also, again using gay marriage as an example. we have been seeing a lot of states legalizing gay marriage lately. and because of that we have always been seeing a lot of anti-gay marriage sentiment coming mostly from religious people because it happens to be an issue that is happening right now. so people blanket religious people as being bigoted because of their faith. yet, if we were scientific and logical we would look at the states that have legalized gay marriage and what would we see? that aside from Vermont, the rest of the states that have legalized it are actually very religious states statistically. so that seems to go against the conventional view a bit.
again, thats just two examples but there are plenty more.
continued....
religion makes some claims that can be disproven with science. sure. but is that the crux of religion? some inaccuracies in the scientific facts in scripture written before the dawn of modern science? it doesn't make sense to tear religion apart from top to bottom in search of scientific cohesion. thats not the purpose religion serves people. and to dismiss religion as a whole based on these inaccuracies is not logical, or reasonable.
yes. as I pointed out before, there are evils of religion. and they should be pointed out. and yes, when religion tried to dictate laws, or tries to write scientific facts, that should be pointed out also and stopped. but none of those things mean there is not any value in religion. and if someone can't find value in teachings that have been with humans for centuries, they just aren't looking.
- "come back transformed?" - Wait a minute - where did they go? Why doesn't Helminski tell us a little more about this mysterious place the Most Highly Developed Ones were able to reach by "penetrating reality with their consciousness?"
Can people like Helminski actually write this type of stuff with a straight face - or do they sit at their keyboards, laughing while they type?
Israel’s Kabbalah, Indian philosophy, Plato, Hegel , the German idealists embody this concept. Kabbalah, expressed symbolically, is projected onto philosophy. Symbols, however, are dynamic, intuitive and motivate action. Concept ultimately deconstructs in favor of symbol.
Kabbalah is a switching station between Biblical tradition, eastern mysticism and philosophy. When you examine its symbolism it becomes clear that it is an idealist or phenomenological derived ontology.
The world consists of archetypal ideas and values, and not some material substance that the mind then categorizes conceptually. These archetypes, the Sefirot, are intuited through human experience and are, in effect, the experiential components of the ideational, spiritual, aesthetic and material objects in man’s world. Each Sefirah represents an ideational (Wisdom), spiritual (Loving Kindness), aesthetic (Beauty) or material (Foundation) element in the world of experience.
The ten dimensional “Sefrotic†ontology serves as a more complete “basic metaphor†to describe and understand our world than materialism (science) alone. It incorporates ideas, volition, and values as elements of its world and thus can account for such things as human personalities, historical events, aesthetic objects, etc. This does not dismiss the value of “scientific†method, as part of a more encompassing world view.
(Adapted from Sanford Drob)
Wonderful post!!
it was important in establishing hierarchies, and getting through disagreements without resorting to violence when we were nomadic tribes and early civilizations.
think about it... how can two intelligent people be given the same information and argue opposite points in a debate class? because reason isn't about the truth... its about winning.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-win-scholars-assert.html
this is an up to date article in the NYTimes about the idea that reason and faulty reasoning is not at its core about truth.
Religion may have been created to assist humanity but that intent went out the window when men began to use it as a means to wield power through fear and manipulation. While it is true that from its ranks, religion has produced men and women of exemplary character, these people are exceptions and not representatives of the rule. Finally, inasmuch as I cannot dismiss the validity of experiential truth, I believe rationality and empirical truth should remain pre-eminent when common good is at stake. Religion is increasingly becoming irrelevant and, though it may have once been of use to men and women to regulate their lives, it has over-lived its function.
What you are ignoring is that power is a fact of life and not an invention of mankind. The group is dominance and territoriality balanced against empathy and cooperation; two sides of the same coin. It's how life forms of the social mammal variety survive and replicate. Religion with its many sides is an expression of what we are and not the cause of what we are. Humanism is just the mistaken idea that we are freed from nature; that life inside the mechanism is only conscious and rational; that we get to decide what we want.
I speak for myself when I say that I do not require semantics nor a psychological interpretation of history to understand that religion is not instinctual to man but a tool he used to cope with his need to understand non-tangibles. At this point in our history, most of these non-tangibles have been identified and explained by science and empirical data, thus, religion has outlived its role as custodian and dispenser of knowledge. If religion wants to transcend its impending irrelevancy then (if I may humbly recommend) it should turn back to its roots of compassionate service to humanity and discard the last vestiges of its temporal power.
You and others may argue that religion being of man, must be an un-expendable part of his humanity. While this may have been true before, I do not believe it to be applicable in our time. Instead, I see religion as having grown a life of its own - much like Frankenstein's Monster - unwieldy and dangerous yet not utterly devoid of the humanity of its creator.
Religion is nothing more than a fairy tale.
You can not honestly do that, of course. merely an assertion you take on faith, having heard it from others of a similar mindset..
I'm calling shenanigans on this statement! Just because I can identify a lie about something doesnt mean that I know the truth about the same thing. Example: If someone tells you the internet is run by internet gnomes living in your computer, you know that isnt true even if you dont know how the internet really works.
Nice try religious guy but you have been foiled again!
More the lack of testability is the problem. While you can use any explanation you want to explain something, it is rather useless unless you have some way of providing evidence. The internet gnomes explanation makes about as much sense as anything else, but without being able to prove that the gnomes exist and are doing the internet work it cannot hold up to scrutiny.
This is not to say that religion is not helpful to some people or that people without religion are superior. It is just saying that religion as it exists is something that cannot be proved to be true. It exists outside the realm of science (and is not trying to answer scientific questions).
I disagree, plenty of people, including myself, live full satisfying lives without religion. Morals and ethics, does not need religion.
-"We have other faculties of perception. The human being exists on a threshold between two realms: one physical and the other a realm of value and inner experience."
That has nothing to do with religion. Inner experience (whatever that means) is just that, an experience that can be interpreted a million ways, some of which need no religion.
-"Material existence alone cannot satisfy us; we long for and require friendship, shared experience, emotional intimacy, personal integrity, love and an experience of the transcendent unity of existence."
You don't need religion for this either. As an atheist, I value my friendships, know love, have integrity and feel united with my fellow humans as that, humans. No need for religion here.