Is 'Religion' relevant anymore?
Sociologists in the 1960s came to the conclusion that 'religion is dead', basing this conclusion on their belief that there is a logically inevitable connection between the advancement of 'modernity' and the spread of 'secularisation'. In 2004, it would seem necessary to come to a rather different conclusion : the more that 'modernity' spreads to different parts of the world, the more 'religious' these (have) become.
One reason why conclusions of such nature do not really 'say much' is because of the difficulties involved in defining terms such as 'modernity', 'secularisation' and 'religion'. What, for example, is 'religion'? If religion is viewed through sociological perspectives, it is indeed the case that the number of people going to churches, synagogues, and mosques has been steadily declining in Western Europe. Does this sociological observation in itself prove that religion has been cast to the shadowlands? Much would depend on how 'religion' is defined.
All that this observation points to really is this : in the specific socio-historical context of Western Europe, the trajectory of modernity includes in itself a rejection of certain forms of institutionalised religion. It does not show in the least that (a) the majority of the people, even in Western Europe, have become less religious, if by this is meant a rejection of any belief in the transcendent, or, even more crucially, that (b) people in other parts of the world too will become less religious with the spread of 'modernity'.
It is indeed (b) that is interesting, given the fact that the United States (the standard-bearer of 'modernity'?) has always been a standing refutation, since the early eighteenth century till the present day, of the popularly-held belief that the spread of modernity has a corrosive effect on the religious fabric of a community. How, then, can one explain the persistent belief that 'modernity' and 'secularisation' are two sides of the same coin, in spite of so much overwhelming evidence to the contrary from different sections of the globe? Irrespective of how that question is answered, I wish to bring out one reason why what is often vaguely referred to as 'religion' has not become irrelevant, and this reason has to do with the 'decision' either to have or not to have a baby : I submit that this decision is ultimately of a 'religious' nature.
Suppose that John and Mary wish to have a baby. By playing the Devil's Advocate of a person who believes that human beings should not have babies, I shall try to demonstrate how this decision ultimately requires 'religious' backing.
I : Suppose a woman, Susan, walking down a road is hit by a car, who is to blame?
JM : The car-driver.
I : So if the car-driver had not been there, Susan would not have been injured?
JM : Yes.
I : Why was the car-driver there in the first place?
JM : Proximately, because he was rushing to a party; ultimately, because he was born into this world nineteen years ago.
I : So if the car-driver had not been born into the world nineteen years ago, there would have been no Susan injured in a car-accident?
JM :Yes.
I : Which state of affairs is better? A world with a reckless car-driver and an injured Susan, or a world with a careful car-driver and a non-injured Susan?
JM : The latter.
I : Now which is better, a world with the potentiality of reckless car-driving and an injured Susan, or a world without the potentiality of reckless car-driving and a non-injured Susan?
JM : The latter.
I : Extending this example in space and time, think of all possible ways in which Susan could have got injured in her life. Which is better, a Susan who lives but has the potentiality to experience suffering at any moment of her life, or a 'Susan' who was never born into this world and hence will never suffer in any way? That is the fundamental 'religious' question in this context. Which is better : existence, and its necessary co-relate, suffering, or absolute non-existence and hence absolute non-suffering?
Now a lot depends on whether JM are 'religious' or not. First, let us say that JM are 'religious'. Under this heading, let us make two sub-divisions (A) and (B), so that the replies will take the following form :
(A)
I : In what sense are you 'religious'?
JM : We are Buddhists/Jains.
I : Do you then believe that existence itself is suffering, and that one of the first steps towards liberation is therefore, to say the least, not to produce yet more life into this world?
JM : That is what we have been taught.
I : So why do you not live according to what you have been taught?
JM : Well, we are perhaps not enlightened enough.
I : Do you see any contradiction here between 'belief and practice'?
JM : Unfortunately, we do.
(B)I : In what sense are you 'religious'?
JM : We are Jewish/Muslim/Christian.
I : Do you then believe that you have been given a commandment by God to 'go forth and multiply'?
JM : Yes, we do.
I : So there is no contradiction between 'belief and practice' in your case?
JM : No, there is none.
Let us now move on to consider the atheist reply/replies, continuing my role as the Advocate of the Devil who will try to persuade an atheist couple not to have a baby.
I : In what sense are you 'atheist'?
JM : We deny the (possibility of the) existence of any transcendent entity.
I : So why do you want to have a baby?
JM : Well, to begin with, why not? Everyone else does, and so why not us?
I : Is it not a part of your atheism not to leave any belief unexamined, and not to do something simply because others around you do it?
JM : All right, then, we want to have a baby because it is good to have one.
I : Is it not a 'tenet' of atheism that the distinction between 'good' and 'bad' is ultimately an illusory one, in the sense that it is a human fiction?
JM : Yes, it is our subjective fiction that having a baby is 'good'. For others, it may be 'bad', but that is their idiosyncratic belief.
I : So, then, having a baby is 'good'. But 'good' for whom?
JM : Good for us, of course. It will make us feel happy.
I : Is that not a ruthlessly capitalist attitude to take towards the world? That a baby is 'good' simply because the baby will make you feel happy? Have you considered the happiness of the baby itself? How can you be sure that the baby will be happy in this world, full of misery and suffering?
JM : Well, we have enough money to feed, clothe, and shelter our baby, and later to pay for our baby's education and growth.
I : Yes, but that concerns only what you refer to as 'basic needs'. Consider this. Suppose when your baby grows up, s/he suffers from cancer at the age of 30. Who is responsible for his/her suffering? At a proximate level, it is the cells in the body multiplying in a bizarre fashion. But at the ultimate level, are you not morally responsible for his/her suffering? Had you not produced this baby in the first place, his/her suffering at 30 would have been non-existent.
JM : But that is such a pessimistic world-view, a world without babies! You are such a coward, running away from life! Come with us, and we shall teach you how to accept life, and revel in its various experiences.
I : One should be careful in throwing labels like 'optimism' and 'pessimism' at people. You see a world without babies, and consequently, without human beings, as a bleak world. I, the Advocate of the Devil, see it, on the other hand, as a most joyful prospect : that there will be a world without the potentiality of producing manic depressives, cancer patients, starving refugees, victims of natural calamities, political detainees, premature babies, and so on and on. Besides, is yours not a highly anthropocentric view, to believe that the world exists for the creation of new human beings? Are you not fond of castigating religious believers as being anthropocentric, claiming that they make 'God' in their own image? Are you not now guilty of making the same, or at least a similar, mistake? Are you not making the 'world' in your own image, believing that the universe is 'hospitable' to human beings, that is a 'good' thing to have babies? Whoever told you that it is a 'good' thing to do so? Your parents? Your religious instructors? Your school teachers? But, then, does not atheism imply the rejection of all authority? If you have indeed made such a rejection, why accept the authority of the past on this matter of having babies?
JM : Well, if we were given a choice between (i) a world with human beings, and associated suffering, and (ii) a world without human beings at all, and no consequent suffering, we would always choose (i).This is why we have decided to have a baby though we know that our baby might grow up to be a woman of 30 who will suffer the agony of cancer, and that we shall then be ultimately responsible for having produced a being with the potentiality of such future agony.
I : Perhaps so, but according to your own admission, you cannot declare (i) to be a universal 'good', since according to your atheism, 'good' and 'evil' are idiosyncratic fantasies that individuals suffer from. That is, you have no grounds for justifying your acceptance of (i) : just as some people like tea and hate coffee, so too you happen to accept (i) and reject (ii). There is nothing 'rational' or 'irrational' about your choice of (i).
JM : Yes, I agree that (i) is, for us, some kind of a 'faith-claim'. We have no way of proving that a world under (i) is better than a world under (ii). It is just a 'gut-feeling' that we have that (i) is a 'good' choice.
I : Do you not regularly claim that religious belief too is a 'gut-feeling'?
JM : Yes, we do.
I : So it would seem that when you decide to have a baby, and hold (i) to 'be superior' to (ii), you too have your own pet 'gut-feelings' which you cannot justify?
JM : So it would seem!
I : In that case, I, as the Advocate of the Devil, who believe with my Master Lucifer that non-existence is the highest value, must declare that you are not atheist enough for us. You have not truly rejected God, you have rejected only your subjective fantasy of who you think God is. For there is at least one statement that you subscribe to without being able to justify or prove it, and this is E : Existence is a Good. As the Devil's Advocate I most resolutely reject E, and refuse to give you the coveted title of 'True Atheist'.
What has been brought out through these (somewhat) imaginary conversations? That every couple who decides to have a baby --- implicitly or explicitly --- does this on 'religious' grounds. This is, of course, clearly evident if the couple are say Jewish or Muslim; they can share the belief that the world is 'hospitable' to the production of babies, and that this 'good' activity is in some way or the other willed by the divine reality. I have tried to show, however, that even in the case of an atheist the decision to have a a baby is of a 'religious' nature. This is because such an atheist must make the claim :
X is a higher or more valuable world-view than Y, where Y : there should be no babies, and consequently no potentiality for future suffering, and X : there should be babies, even if the production of babies leads to future suffering.
I cannot share this 'religious faith' of the atheist in this matter, for I do share the conviction that X is indeed superior to Y. For all I know, Y may be superior to X (and some forms of Buddhism such as Theravada Buddhism say this in so many words, though, to be sure, for their own specific reasons). This is one reason why, as I said in the beginning, 'religion' has hardly become irrelevant, 'modernity' notwithstanding. Even after all religious temples, mosques, synagogues, and churches have been de-populated, the gynaecological wards in hospitals all around the world will, perhaps, continue to be be populated, and if that is the case, these wards will remain the birth-temples of what I have here called the 'religious'. (And, incidentally, this is my explanation for why Stalin's Russia ultimately failed to abolish religious belief; this is because it failed to abolish gynaecological wards. 'Religion' is not always about asking seemingly abstract questions such as 'the number of angels who can dance on the tip of a pin'; it is more often about more 'down-to-earth' realities such as parenthood. Every parent who has decided that it is a 'good' thing to have a baby in spite of the potentiality of future suffering has already made, even if unbeknownst to themselves, a choice that I can only describe as 'religious'.)
One reason why conclusions of such nature do not really 'say much' is because of the difficulties involved in defining terms such as 'modernity', 'secularisation' and 'religion'. What, for example, is 'religion'? If religion is viewed through sociological perspectives, it is indeed the case that the number of people going to churches, synagogues, and mosques has been steadily declining in Western Europe. Does this sociological observation in itself prove that religion has been cast to the shadowlands? Much would depend on how 'religion' is defined.
All that this observation points to really is this : in the specific socio-historical context of Western Europe, the trajectory of modernity includes in itself a rejection of certain forms of institutionalised religion. It does not show in the least that (a) the majority of the people, even in Western Europe, have become less religious, if by this is meant a rejection of any belief in the transcendent, or, even more crucially, that (b) people in other parts of the world too will become less religious with the spread of 'modernity'.
It is indeed (b) that is interesting, given the fact that the United States (the standard-bearer of 'modernity'?) has always been a standing refutation, since the early eighteenth century till the present day, of the popularly-held belief that the spread of modernity has a corrosive effect on the religious fabric of a community. How, then, can one explain the persistent belief that 'modernity' and 'secularisation' are two sides of the same coin, in spite of so much overwhelming evidence to the contrary from different sections of the globe? Irrespective of how that question is answered, I wish to bring out one reason why what is often vaguely referred to as 'religion' has not become irrelevant, and this reason has to do with the 'decision' either to have or not to have a baby : I submit that this decision is ultimately of a 'religious' nature.
Suppose that John and Mary wish to have a baby. By playing the Devil's Advocate of a person who believes that human beings should not have babies, I shall try to demonstrate how this decision ultimately requires 'religious' backing.
I : Suppose a woman, Susan, walking down a road is hit by a car, who is to blame?
JM : The car-driver.
I : So if the car-driver had not been there, Susan would not have been injured?
JM : Yes.
I : Why was the car-driver there in the first place?
JM : Proximately, because he was rushing to a party; ultimately, because he was born into this world nineteen years ago.
I : So if the car-driver had not been born into the world nineteen years ago, there would have been no Susan injured in a car-accident?
JM :Yes.
I : Which state of affairs is better? A world with a reckless car-driver and an injured Susan, or a world with a careful car-driver and a non-injured Susan?
JM : The latter.
I : Now which is better, a world with the potentiality of reckless car-driving and an injured Susan, or a world without the potentiality of reckless car-driving and a non-injured Susan?
JM : The latter.
I : Extending this example in space and time, think of all possible ways in which Susan could have got injured in her life. Which is better, a Susan who lives but has the potentiality to experience suffering at any moment of her life, or a 'Susan' who was never born into this world and hence will never suffer in any way? That is the fundamental 'religious' question in this context. Which is better : existence, and its necessary co-relate, suffering, or absolute non-existence and hence absolute non-suffering?
Now a lot depends on whether JM are 'religious' or not. First, let us say that JM are 'religious'. Under this heading, let us make two sub-divisions (A) and (B), so that the replies will take the following form :
(A)
I : In what sense are you 'religious'?
JM : We are Buddhists/Jains.
I : Do you then believe that existence itself is suffering, and that one of the first steps towards liberation is therefore, to say the least, not to produce yet more life into this world?
JM : That is what we have been taught.
I : So why do you not live according to what you have been taught?
JM : Well, we are perhaps not enlightened enough.
I : Do you see any contradiction here between 'belief and practice'?
JM : Unfortunately, we do.
(B)I : In what sense are you 'religious'?
JM : We are Jewish/Muslim/Christian.
I : Do you then believe that you have been given a commandment by God to 'go forth and multiply'?
JM : Yes, we do.
I : So there is no contradiction between 'belief and practice' in your case?
JM : No, there is none.
Let us now move on to consider the atheist reply/replies, continuing my role as the Advocate of the Devil who will try to persuade an atheist couple not to have a baby.
I : In what sense are you 'atheist'?
JM : We deny the (possibility of the) existence of any transcendent entity.
I : So why do you want to have a baby?
JM : Well, to begin with, why not? Everyone else does, and so why not us?
I : Is it not a part of your atheism not to leave any belief unexamined, and not to do something simply because others around you do it?
JM : All right, then, we want to have a baby because it is good to have one.
I : Is it not a 'tenet' of atheism that the distinction between 'good' and 'bad' is ultimately an illusory one, in the sense that it is a human fiction?
JM : Yes, it is our subjective fiction that having a baby is 'good'. For others, it may be 'bad', but that is their idiosyncratic belief.
I : So, then, having a baby is 'good'. But 'good' for whom?
JM : Good for us, of course. It will make us feel happy.
I : Is that not a ruthlessly capitalist attitude to take towards the world? That a baby is 'good' simply because the baby will make you feel happy? Have you considered the happiness of the baby itself? How can you be sure that the baby will be happy in this world, full of misery and suffering?
JM : Well, we have enough money to feed, clothe, and shelter our baby, and later to pay for our baby's education and growth.
I : Yes, but that concerns only what you refer to as 'basic needs'. Consider this. Suppose when your baby grows up, s/he suffers from cancer at the age of 30. Who is responsible for his/her suffering? At a proximate level, it is the cells in the body multiplying in a bizarre fashion. But at the ultimate level, are you not morally responsible for his/her suffering? Had you not produced this baby in the first place, his/her suffering at 30 would have been non-existent.
JM : But that is such a pessimistic world-view, a world without babies! You are such a coward, running away from life! Come with us, and we shall teach you how to accept life, and revel in its various experiences.
I : One should be careful in throwing labels like 'optimism' and 'pessimism' at people. You see a world without babies, and consequently, without human beings, as a bleak world. I, the Advocate of the Devil, see it, on the other hand, as a most joyful prospect : that there will be a world without the potentiality of producing manic depressives, cancer patients, starving refugees, victims of natural calamities, political detainees, premature babies, and so on and on. Besides, is yours not a highly anthropocentric view, to believe that the world exists for the creation of new human beings? Are you not fond of castigating religious believers as being anthropocentric, claiming that they make 'God' in their own image? Are you not now guilty of making the same, or at least a similar, mistake? Are you not making the 'world' in your own image, believing that the universe is 'hospitable' to human beings, that is a 'good' thing to have babies? Whoever told you that it is a 'good' thing to do so? Your parents? Your religious instructors? Your school teachers? But, then, does not atheism imply the rejection of all authority? If you have indeed made such a rejection, why accept the authority of the past on this matter of having babies?
JM : Well, if we were given a choice between (i) a world with human beings, and associated suffering, and (ii) a world without human beings at all, and no consequent suffering, we would always choose (i).This is why we have decided to have a baby though we know that our baby might grow up to be a woman of 30 who will suffer the agony of cancer, and that we shall then be ultimately responsible for having produced a being with the potentiality of such future agony.
I : Perhaps so, but according to your own admission, you cannot declare (i) to be a universal 'good', since according to your atheism, 'good' and 'evil' are idiosyncratic fantasies that individuals suffer from. That is, you have no grounds for justifying your acceptance of (i) : just as some people like tea and hate coffee, so too you happen to accept (i) and reject (ii). There is nothing 'rational' or 'irrational' about your choice of (i).
JM : Yes, I agree that (i) is, for us, some kind of a 'faith-claim'. We have no way of proving that a world under (i) is better than a world under (ii). It is just a 'gut-feeling' that we have that (i) is a 'good' choice.
I : Do you not regularly claim that religious belief too is a 'gut-feeling'?
JM : Yes, we do.
I : So it would seem that when you decide to have a baby, and hold (i) to 'be superior' to (ii), you too have your own pet 'gut-feelings' which you cannot justify?
JM : So it would seem!
I : In that case, I, as the Advocate of the Devil, who believe with my Master Lucifer that non-existence is the highest value, must declare that you are not atheist enough for us. You have not truly rejected God, you have rejected only your subjective fantasy of who you think God is. For there is at least one statement that you subscribe to without being able to justify or prove it, and this is E : Existence is a Good. As the Devil's Advocate I most resolutely reject E, and refuse to give you the coveted title of 'True Atheist'.
What has been brought out through these (somewhat) imaginary conversations? That every couple who decides to have a baby --- implicitly or explicitly --- does this on 'religious' grounds. This is, of course, clearly evident if the couple are say Jewish or Muslim; they can share the belief that the world is 'hospitable' to the production of babies, and that this 'good' activity is in some way or the other willed by the divine reality. I have tried to show, however, that even in the case of an atheist the decision to have a a baby is of a 'religious' nature. This is because such an atheist must make the claim :
X is a higher or more valuable world-view than Y, where Y : there should be no babies, and consequently no potentiality for future suffering, and X : there should be babies, even if the production of babies leads to future suffering.
I cannot share this 'religious faith' of the atheist in this matter, for I do share the conviction that X is indeed superior to Y. For all I know, Y may be superior to X (and some forms of Buddhism such as Theravada Buddhism say this in so many words, though, to be sure, for their own specific reasons). This is one reason why, as I said in the beginning, 'religion' has hardly become irrelevant, 'modernity' notwithstanding. Even after all religious temples, mosques, synagogues, and churches have been de-populated, the gynaecological wards in hospitals all around the world will, perhaps, continue to be be populated, and if that is the case, these wards will remain the birth-temples of what I have here called the 'religious'. (And, incidentally, this is my explanation for why Stalin's Russia ultimately failed to abolish religious belief; this is because it failed to abolish gynaecological wards. 'Religion' is not always about asking seemingly abstract questions such as 'the number of angels who can dance on the tip of a pin'; it is more often about more 'down-to-earth' realities such as parenthood. Every parent who has decided that it is a 'good' thing to have a baby in spite of the potentiality of future suffering has already made, even if unbeknownst to themselves, a choice that I can only describe as 'religious'.)
posted by The Transparent Ironist @ 10:50 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home