My Lazy Blog or An Observation About Religion in Want of an Explanation

I thought I would try something a bit different in my blog today. Usually I pronounce my words of wisdom for all who have the wit to understand to receive and be enlightened. Today though I am going to post an observation of mine in regards to religion and various social issues. And then, instead of expounding on the reasons why this observation is true – since I have only the vaguest of ideas on why – I am hoping those who read it will provide some of their own thoughts.

Atheists have a strong tendency to point out all the problems and flaws with different religions and argue that they have held up needed social change. As a result, they usually only see the obstructionist role religion has played in needed social change and overlook the other side.

Religious people though often go the other way and emphasize the positive while downplaying the negative.

My own personal view is that religion has been both positive and negative, has fought against social progress and needed cultural change (not surprising since one of the roles of a religion is to foster and support the current society as a sort of glue) but has also often been the sharp end of the stick in regards to creating and promoting social progress and needed cultural change. For example:

• – Much is made of how religion controlled the state in times past (although often it was the other way around, and even more often both controlling the other in a partnership). However, religion also had a leading role in the development and promotion of the idea and reality of separation of church and state and is a vital component of our current secular government and societies. I detailed a part of this history in my blog “The Religious Root Leading to the Separation of Church and State”.
• – The church and religion have a long history of providing aide to the poor and sick. The development of hospitals came from our religious history, for example. This link and this one provide some information on this.
• – The abolition of slavery was led by Christians and churches. As was the Civil Rights movement. And Christian beliefs morphed in such a way that they provided not only comfort to the slaves in the years before the Civil War, but also caused them to fight back in various ways against their oppressors. For example, whenever a religious revival swept through an area there would be more slave unrest and uprisings.

There are other areas where religions also led the way in providing much needed progress and change – including science.

However, in one very recent movement, and one relatively recent movement, instead of seeing this dichotomy in the role of religion, I have seen much more uniformity in religion opposing both movements. These movements are the feminist movement and the gay rights movements. The church and religion have not played as prominent a role in the promotion of either of these two human rights movements as they have in past ones. Yes, some individual religious people and churches have supported these causes, but they are even more of an exception (until recently) than were the churches that supported past progressive movements.

And I don’t fully know why this difference exists between these causes and those of the past.

So, rather than speculate and research further, I will instead let those readers who wish to comment on this. Consider it my lazy way to do research on this topic.

Now, there is no pressure to respond. After all, even if no one responds what am I going to do? Send hit men out? Refuse to let ungrateful and lazy readers read this blob by sending it only to myself from henceforth?

Instead, I will probably whine to my wife and sulk a bit. Perhaps have a good cry at the realization that I am not as popular and thought provoking as I had believed myself to be.

Now, respond!

Please.

Read Full Post »

The Religious Root Leading to the Separation of Church and State

The creation of the idea of separation of church and state, arguably one of the most important innovations in government, has many roots.   Most people tend to know only of the secular root.  However there is also a religious root to this idea, a root that goes as deep if not deeper into time than does the secular, and which actually came to full fruition before the secular one did.

Most people, both religious and secular, are surprised upon finding this out.  I know I was when I found out.   However, upon a little reflection, what is really surprising is that Americans are surprised that Christian thought can lead to the separation of church and state, since most Americans are also already aware of one of the primary Biblical arguments for the separation of church and state.

 ¹⁷ Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?”

¹⁸ But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? ¹⁹ Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, ²⁰ and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

²¹ “Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

Matthew 22:17 – 21

Although I quoted from Matthew, the same story appears in Mark and Luke also. So, within the Gospels, from the mouth of Jesus, there is already Biblical support for the idea that there are two separate spheres – the church and the state.    However, within the Bible, these verses are not the only ones cited for support of this idea of two separate spheres – or domains, kingdoms, swords, or a host of other terms for this idea.   The Old Testament was also often cited as support for this idea.

For example, Exodus 18: 13-26 and Exodus 28:1 are cited as showing that the position of civil magistrate and that of priest are created separately, demonstrating, again, the existence of two separate domains.   Jehoshaphat, the righteous king of Judah, is another example that was often cited.  In 2 Chronicles 19:11 Jehoshaphat appointed one man to administer to matters “concerning the LORD” and another man to matters “concerning the king”.

¹¹ “Amariah the chief priest will be over you in any matter concerning the Lord, and Zebadiah son of Ishmael, the leader of the tribe of Judah, will be over you in any matter concerning the king, and the Levites will serve as officials before you. Act with courage, and may the Lord be with those who do well.”

Several other verses and examples were also used to support the idea that there are two different domains, one of civil government and one of the church.

Now, let me state here, that this is not separation of church and state yet.   However, it is the beginnings of it.   It is a recognition that the church does not control all and that the civil government does not control all – each has their own domain.   Without this basic concept there can be no separation of church and state.

And lest you wonder if this is a reading backwards from today’s views about church and state and imposing those views to the past, this doctrine of separate spheres of authority was introduced by Saint Augustine (354 – 430 CE) in his book City of God.   From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 

A distinction between Church and State—more exactly, between the priesthood and the power of the emperor, each independent in its own sphere, though the priesthood has the higher function. The classic place for this doctrine is the canon Duo sunt. Another canon, Cum ad verum, gave reasons for the separation: mutual limitation of their powers would restrain the pride of priest and emperor, and those on God’s service (the clergy) should be kept free of worldly entanglements. This was also the force of the canons Sicut enim and Te quidem.

Just as a quick aside for those who do not think religion had anything to do with modern rights and freedoms, you might like to read more of this link than just the part I quoted.   Augustine also argues that the source of political power lies in the people who have then entrusted this power to kings and emperors.  Further he advances an argument for the natural rights of all men as well as a belief that all men are equal and because of this slavery was contrary to natural law.   Both ideas sound strikingly familiar to what later, secular, enlightenment philosophers would argue.

Getting back to the separation of church and state now, these ideas and arguments of Augustine were then developed by Pope Gelasius (Pope from 492 – 496 CE) into an explicit political statement.

“Writing to Anastasius, emperor in the east, Gelasisu stated, ‘There are, then, august Emperor, two powers by which the world is chiefly ruled, the sacred power of the prelates and the royal power. ‘”

Spheres of Sovereignty by Robert Joseph Renaud and Lael Daniel Weinberger in the Northern Kentucky Law Review.

So, the theory of two separate spheres has existed since very early in church history.  Theoretically these should be co-equal, each having total and complete dominion over their area.     However, as is usual, theory tends to get bent and broken upon meeting reality.  The reality is that there were times when the church was dominant and ruled over civil matters.  There were other times when the state was dominant and ruled on church matters.  This varied dependent on various political and social factors.

In fact, in the 11^th century Pope Gregory VII morphed this doctrine into one of papal supremacy.   Pope Innocent III followed up by adding what had formerly been one of the emperor’s titles to his own, that of “Vicarius Dei”.   Pope Boniface VII openly declared that both spiritual and temporal power were under the pope, with temporal only being on loan, so to speak, from the pope.   In other words, while they were two separate spheres, the spiritual reigned over the civil, which was a modification of what had been originally understood.

It will probably surprise many to find that the Protestant Reformers also made this distinction between the two spheres.   John Calvin for one, despite his reputation and his actions in Geneva, believed in the separate jurisdictions of church and state.

“Calvin believed in an independent church supported and reinforced by a godly civil magistrate.   In this we see hints of a blending of roles, where church and state cooperate to maintain purity.   This is what most observers think of first when they think of Calvin’s contributions to church-state relations.   But what is often missed is that even when Calvin speaks of the cooperation of church and state, eh does not speak of the subordination of one to the other.   Calvin believed that the church and state coexisted as two forms of government separated from one another by God, but both under God and subject to his law-word….An example given in the Institutes illustrates what Calvin meant by this:

Does any one get intoxicated.   In a well ordered city his punishment will be imprisonment.   Has he committed whoredom?  The punishment will be…more severe.  Thus satisfaction will be given to the [civil] laws, the magistrates, and the external tribunal.   But the consequence will be, that the offender will give no signs of repentance, but will rather fret and murmur.   Will the Church not here interfere?

Spheres of Sovereignty by Robert Joseph Renaud and Lael Daniel Weinberger in the Northern Kentucky Law Review.

Here is another quote from Calvin about the relationship between church and state, again from Institutes:

Some…are led astray, by not observing the distinction and dissimilarity between ecclesiastical and civil power.   For the Church has not the right of the sword to punish or restrain, has no power to coerce, no prison nor other punishments which the magistrate is wont to inflict.  Then the object in view is not to punish the sinner against his will, but to obtain a profession of penitence by voluntary chastisement.   The two things, the fore, are widely different because neither does the Church assume anything to herself which is proper to the magistrate, nor is the magistrate competent to what is done by the Church.

Although not exactly the same, Luther’s views of church and state paralleled that of Calvin; Luther saw two realms, the church and state, both under God but each being institutional equals.  James Madison, one of the principle creators of our Constitution, the creator of our Bill of Rights, and one of the staunchest proponents of church/state separation, acknowledged that this idea of the two being separated came from religious sources first.   In a letter to F. L. Schaeffer dated Dec 3^rd, 1821, Madison writes that, “It illustrates the excellence of a system which, by a due distinction, to which the genius and courage of Luther led the way,  between what is due to Caesar and what is due to God, best promotes the discharge of both obligations.”

Although Madison does not say so, I believe that he is referring to Martin Luther’s book On Secular Authority. From this work:

God has ordained the two governments: the spiritual, which by the Holy Spirit under Christ makes Christians and pious people; and the secular, which restrains the unchristian and wicked so that they are obliged to keep the peace outwardly…The laws of worldly government extend no farther than to life and property and what is external upon earth. For over the soul God can and will let no one rule but himself. Therefore, where temporal power presumes to prescribe laws for the soul, it encroaches upon God’s government and only misleads and destroys souls. We desire to make this so clear that every one shall grasp it, and that the princes and bishops may see what fools they are when they seek to coerce the people with their laws and commandments into believing one thing or another.

And later in the book,

We are to be subject to governmental power and do what it bids, as long as it does not bind our conscience but legislates only concerning outward matters…But if it invades the spiritual domain and constrains the conscience, over which God only must preside and rule, we should not obey it at all but rather lose our necks. Temporal authority and government extend no further than to matters which are external and corporeal.

Surprisingly modern in its ideals about separation of church and state, however, this is still not there yet.  That is because for the great majority, the church still has control over doctrine and what people should and should not believe.  While believing that the state should have no power to determine and enforce religious belief, most did believe that the church had this power and that, as the guardian of men’s souls, had a responsibility to do so.

Further, many of the sects and denominations had no problem integrating the two domains; others could not resist the lure of having the state support the church.   Nor could the state resist using the church in this way.  So, the elements were in place for a modern understanding of the separation of church and state, it only needed someone to put it together and add the individual’s right to determine his own spiritual belief, without coercion from either church or state.

Now, there were many who started to piece this together and started to promote an ideal of separation that more closely approached our own.   But in the interest of keeping this from getting too long, let me jump to the fruition of religious thought on separation of church and state, the writings and actions of Roger Williams.

Religious Argument for Separation of Church and State 

Roger Williams, in his book The Bloody Tenet of Persecution, for Cause of Conscience, was the first person, either secular or religious, to forcefully argue for the total separation of church from state.  Being a Protestant Theologian, a Puritan, and the founder of the Baptist church in America (although he did not stay a Baptist for long), his arguments were, of course, religious; building on all the elements I mentioned above, from the Bible and the works of such men as Luther and Calvin.   What is even more important, he did not just talk the talk, but he walked the talk too. To all of this he also added in his own critical look at both the current state of affairs and recent history.

Williams was also the founder of Rhode Island, and he managed to convince King Charles to let him set it up along his principles as set out in The Bloody Tenet.  Rhode Island thus had the first government in which state and government were fully separated; a much more thorough separation than ours is today.  And this was well before a similar secular case was made for the separation of church and state.  Williams founded Rhode Island in 1636.  The Bloody Tenet was published in 1644.   John Locke, widely considered the chief proponent of the secular argument for the separation of church and state, was born in 1632.   In fact, John Locke was influenced by the religious arguments for the separation of church and state, either directly through Williams or indirectly through John Milton, who knew Williams and was much influenced by him.

Williams agreed with Augustine, Calvin, Luther and the others that the civil magistrate had no power and jurisdiction on matters of faith, belief and the church.  Where Williams disagreed with most of his fellow Christians though, is that he extended this to the church, parting company with them on the power of the church over individual beliefs, the power or the church to enforce doctrine and beliefs, and over the link between the state in supporting one religion over another.  He believed that the church, far from being an instrument of God was a creation of man, and thus flawed.    After all, there is plenty of Biblical support for this – view the Bible’s condemnation of the religious institutions of their times in both the Old and New Testament, how they all fall short – as well as historical support in the form of religious wars, religious persecution, and competing doctrines.

From an article on the Smithsonian site:   

Williams’ main purpose was to prove, “It is the will and command of God that, since the coming of his Sonne the Lord Jesus, a permission of the most Paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or Antichristian consciences and worships, bee granted to all men in all Nations and Countries.” Over hundreds of pages he lays out his case, expanding upon his view that the state will inevitably corrupt the church, rebutting Scriptural arguments for intolerance with Scriptural arguments for tolerance.

Then he countered the almost universally held view that governments received their authority from God, and that in the material world God favored those who were godly and punished those who were not. If it were that simple, then why did He subject Job to such an ordeal? And Williams noted that at that very moment in European conflicts, Catholics had “victory and dominion.” If “successe be the measure,” then the evidence proved that God had chosen Catholics over Protestants.

What caused Williams to make this next step was his understanding of his religion, both of the Bible and theology, and his critical examination of the world he lived in.   At that time religious wars and persecutions were common, and often bloody.   Williams had himself been persecuted for his beliefs, both in England and in America.  There were numerous varieties of Christianity, all claiming to be doing what God wills.   Given that this was not possible, then there was something wrong with the idea that the Church had been entrusted by God to keep men from straying.   Roger Williams identified that wrongness by use of standard Christian theology.   Man was a sinful and fallen creature living in a sinful and fallen world.   That means that all of the institutions he created, both secular AND religious would be flawed and imperfect.

Further, one could never be certain of anyone else’s salvation other than one’s own.   God and God alone is the final judge.  Given the flawed nature of man, no man is going to be correct all the time, and their judgment on another’s soul could well be in error.   Given this, then best to let that be between the individual and God.  He believed that only individuals could be redeemed, not nations, not institutions, but individuals.  So there was no such thing as a Christian nation or Christian school, only Christian individuals.

Taking this even further, if one could never be certain about the state of another person’s soul, and if all persons and all human institutions are flawed, then should any institution try to force another to believe against their conscience?   What if the Puritan church were wrong and had forced people for all of its years of existence to believe wrongly.   Now, all of those souls damnation was their fault.  Far better to let each person choose to believe as they wished, to relegate all conversion attempts to words only and not to government strictures and force; “The civil sword may make a nation of hypocrites and anti-Christians, but not one Christian”.   In fact, this extends not only to those professing to be Christian but to all of humanity.   Jew, Muslim, Catholic, Quaker, Atheist…. all.

I would like to point out that Roger Williams separation of church and state was even more absolute than that of John Locke’s.   Locke would have limited the freedoms of conscience for Catholics and atheists (although he did later back of outlawing atheism).   Williams allowed all of whatever faith or of none to enjoy full civil and personal liberties.

Further, building upon the thoughts of Augustine (that I had earlier briefly alluded to) and other theologians about human rights and the source of political power, “I infer that the sovereign, original, and foundation of civil power lies in the people.” The governments they establish, he wrote, “have no more power, nor for no longer time, than the civil power or people consenting and agreeing shall betrust them with.”

So, far from being a purely secular ideal, the separation of church and state came first from religious thought, with the goal of preserving the integrity of both the church and of the individual believer, and then influenced the secular thinkers to argue the same, but from the view of the benefits such an ideal provided to the state, and also the individual.

While it is easily understandable why secularists today might have forgotten this history, being focused on the secular, Enlightenment thinkers who directly influenced the men creating the first nation with separation of church and state and ignoring those who came before them; but it is truly a shame that so many Christians have forgotten this important part of history too.    The separation of church and state is one of those areas where there are both good religious and good secular reasons for not only maintaining, but jealously guarding.  It is an institution that protects both the state and the church and, most importantly of all, the individual.

Read Full Post »

Organized Religion and the Formation of Morals

All too often I see and hear atheists claim that organized religion has nothing to do with morality; that a person is good in spite of their religion.   They point out that morality is based on our own nature and not from religion; that our sense of sympathy and empathy as well as of fairness along with such things as our bonding behaviors, reciprocal altruism and other traits built into our species through our evolution into a highly social species are the true and apparently complete source of human morality.   I find it rather interesting that they seem to believe that morality can spring from our nature without help and without further fashioning, rather like Athena springing fully formed and ready for action from the forehead of Zeus.   For those who believe this, sorry, just as the Athena story is a myth, so too is this version of the source of our morality.  The social traits that underlie our morality are only the basic bricks of the structure.  And just like bricks need more than their mere existence to become a building so too do our evolutionary derived traits need more to become morals.

Further, in addition to our evolved social traits, we are also evolutionary inclined to cheat and be selfish, to look out only for ourselves.   This too is part of our nature.   It is our society and cultures that take these often conflicting impulses and vague traits and turn them into a system of ethics and morality that can sustain a society.  They do so through the use of different governmental and social institutions.   Organized religion is one of those societal institutions that helps bring this about and maintain it, and until fairly recently it was a necessary one.    To understand why let me make a slight digression into the formation of larger social groups, governments, and organized religion.

Many atheists seem to believe that organized religion and governments came into being separately with religion then casting its baleful and bitter influence on governments.   However this is not true.   Organized religion and governments came into being at the same time.   In fact, in the beginning, there was no separation; they were one entity.   The idea of separating religion and government is an idea that had to evolve along with the necessary institutions that would allow their separation.   Because of this organized religion cast no baleful influence but instead was a necessary part of government and society, without which we might not have ever formed groups larger than kinship groups.

Organized religion and large governments came into being as a result of the agricultural revolution around 10,000 years ago.   Until we discovered how to grow crops we were limited in size to family groups ranging in size from small family groups of just a very few members to tribes consisting of hundreds of individuals, For these smaller, family based groups, kinship ties and informal power structures worked well in making decisions for the group and in deciding how to allocate resources.

However with the coming of agriculture we found ourselves able to sustain much larger populations.  Instead of dealing with groups of just a few hundreds, all of whom are related in some way, we found ourselves creating societies with populations of many thousands who are made up of several different family groups.   The problem then became of what to do when conflicts arose between the different family groups making up a nascent large society?   If left up to kinship groups a larger society would dissolve into bitter feuds between these groups, or if they managed to hang together somehow despite these conflicts, they then become an easy target for those societies that had figured better ways to solve this problem.

 

Another issue involved in the transition from small family groups to larger multi-family groups involved the distribution of resources and organization of labor.  I am about to quote extensively from part of Jared Diamond’s book, “Guns, Germ, and Steel”, but before I do I wish to make one thing clear.  When Mr. Diamond refers to “kleptocracy” he is referring to any government in which resources are taken from the many and then concentrated in the few.  This act by itself has no moral value either good or bad; all governments both good and bad engage in this.  The good ones use those resources for the benefit of their society whereas the bad use it for their own personal benefit.  Do not let the usual negative associations of this word prevent you from understanding what is being said here.

As for the quote, from pages 277 – 278:

“Bands and tribes already had supernatural beliefs, just as do modern established religions.  But the supernatural beliefs of bands and tribes did not serve to justify central authority, justify transfer of wealth, or maintain peace between unrelated individuals.  When supernatural beliefs gained those functions and became institutionalized, they were thereby transformed into what we term a religion.  Hawaiian chiefs were typical of chiefs elsewhere, in asserting divinity, divine descent, or at least a hotline to the gods.  The chief claimed to serve the people by interceding for them with the gods and reciting the ritual formulas required to obtain rain, good harvests, and success in fishing.

Chiefdoms characteristically have an ideology, precursor to an institutionalized religion, that buttresses the chief’s authority.  The chief may either combine the offices of political leader and priest in a single person or may support a separate group of kleptocrats (that is, priests) whose function is to provide ideological justification for the chiefs.  That is why chiefs devote so much collected tribute to constructing temples and other public works, which serve as centers of the official religion and visible signs of the chief’s power.

Besides justifying the transfer of wealth to the kleptocrats, institutionalized religion brings two other important benefits to centralized societies.  First, shared ideology or religion helps solve the problem of how unrelated individuals are to live together without killing each other – by providing them with a bond not based on kinship.  Second, it gives people a motive, other than genetic self-interest, for sacrificing their lives on behalf of others.  At the cost of a few society members who die in battle as soldiers, the whole society becomes much more effective at conquering other societies or resisting attacks.”

I would add here that these changes in superstitious belief mentioned above were, for the most part, not done in cold blooded calculation.  Rather it was changes that made internal sense and flowed naturally from the beliefs and the society.  Those changes that worked stayed.  Those that did not were changed or forgotten.

I am going on at length about this in order to make the point that organized religion and government were inextricably linked 10,000 years ago, and for good reasons.   That since they were linked and if not exactly the same, then very close (many cultures of the time did not have separate words for government and religion) that meant that organized religion had the responsibility of doing much of what secular institutions do now.

For example, as part of their role in creating a new identity beyond that of the family was their role in teaching and maintaining the values and morals of their society.   Many see religion as nothing more than a set of theological beliefs linked to certain historical acts.   While this is to an extent true, it is very much not the whole picture.   Organized religion is also a social institution that fulfills a role in the maintenance and change of a given society.

In other words, organized religion reflects the society’s values, enforces them, and is the means of transmitting them to the next generation.   All of which is not only valuable but also a requirement for any society that is going to last longer than a few years.   And, again, until recently organized religion was instrumental in the formation and shaping of those societal values and morals in individuals with no viable alternative in existence.

They did this in many ways, one of the primary ones being through religious instruction and services.  That still remains the domain of organized religion today.   Teach the young and they will grow and become parents and then pass those values on to their children.  These values will also then be reinforced by religious services and communion with other believers.

Parents were and remain the main force in teaching and passing on morality.   Today the difference is that organized religion no longer has sole responsibility for the other ways in which morality is passed on in a society.  Secular alternatives that were not available in the past have evolved to take their place.   One of the most important of these is education.

Education is a method in which not only knowledge but also a society’s values are passed on and molded.  Until recently education of the masses used to be the sole responsibility of the church.   No other real organization was available to provide instruction about the world, and I am discussing not just the religious world but the natural and social world.   It was also churches that created the first universities with their gathering of different experts and expertise.  Until their secular form evolved, without organized religion there would have been on or little education.   Which, again, makes organized religion a prime creator of a society’s morality.

Organized religion also upheld the worth of a government (or the government the religion – given their mix it is often hard to say which is which) with its many laws regulating human behavior, which in turn shapes and molds morality.

Then there were the many other societal roles that organized religion that also helped maintain a given society’s morals and values – resolving conflicts at both the local and governmental levels, setting up and distributing charity, setting up of hospitals, establishing courts and dispensing justice, etc.

One common criticism I get at this point is that, yes organized religion filled these roles but they are not necessary for such and therefore unnecessary at all.   My answer to this – yes… and no.

In terms of being an absolute necessity, I would agree that organized religion is not an absolute necessity.   Obviously so since we have secular institutions filling those roles today.  However, organized religion was a historical necessity.

Let me use Columbus’s voyage of the ocean blue in fourteen hundred and ninety two.   The ships that he sailed were caravels of different sizes with a crew of between 18 to 52.   Now, was it an absolute necessity that Columbus use these caravels to make his famous trip?   Of course not.   He could have, for example, used a 19^th century Clipper ship instead.  In fact, had he used such a ship he would have crossed the Atlantic  in much faster time, more safely than he did in his three caravels, and would have had more men and cargo.   For that matter, he could have made the crossing using the QE 2 and been a great deal more comfortable.   There was no absolute necessity for him to use caravels in crossing, either one of the ones I just mentioned would have done just as well and in fact done a better job of crossing.   However, while there was no absolute necessity there was indeed a necessity involved, one of historical necessity.   Clippers and the QE 2 did not exist at the time of Columbus.  In fact, they had to evolve from the caravels of Columbus’ time.

So too with our modern secular institutions and outlook.   They did not exist in anything except the most basic, small, and nascent stage for the vast majority of our history.   Religious thought and organized religion did.   In fact, secular thinking and institutions grew largely from religious thought and institutions.   Organized religion was a historical necessity for our modern day.   And even today, with the rise of secularism, for many religion still plays a large role in protecting, shaping, and transmitting a society’s values and morals.   Today though it is not an exclusive role.

Let me now address one more aspect of the relationship between organized religion, society, and morality – it is not a simple one.   Indeed, it is a complicated and often contradictory relationship.

Many see organized religion as only being the defender of tradition, of being concerned only with maintaining things as they are no matter how unjust or immoral it be; as the resister of all change.   While it can and does play that role, to say that this is the only role it  plays is to greatly oversimplify reality.   Nor does the evidence of history support such a simplistic view.   In fact, it strongly goes against such a view.

One reason why this static view of religion is wrong is that organized religion is not a static entity.  Organized religion varies, both across geography and across time.  It is not a monolithic, unchanging entity in which all believe and behave alike.  In fact, the exact opposite is true.  It is because of this variety that religion has played often conflicting roles within cultures and societies, acting as both defender of tradition and at the same time as the catalyst and promoter of change, often radical change.

The anti-slavery movement is a good example of this.  The larger organized religions usually defended slavery for a variety of different reasons; from enthusiastic Biblical justification, to slavery being good for the salvation of the African souls, to slavery being a necessary social institution that the Bible does not condemn.

However, it was also organized religion that led the fight against slavery and which was largely responsible for ending that barbaric institution.   Within Christianity there had always been a strain that denounced and condemned slavery.   For a variety of reasons, both internal to organized religion and external to it, these voices and their influence grew stronger as time went on, especially among the newly developed evangelical religions – Quakers, Baptists, and Methodist (although the first anti-slavery society in the United States was create by a Puritan, John Williams, in the 17^th century).

Now, I am not going to make an already long blog even longer by going into all the reasons for this change except to say, again, that some of the causes for this change lay within organized religion and some were external to it.   I will also point out that even in those cases where an outside force – social movement, intellectual changes, political events, etc. – creates the change in a religion, organized religion then often acts to magnify that change and spread it faster and more effectively than could any other institution at the time.  Although it may not the originator of the change it can act as a catalyst, greatly speeding the change.  And afterwards, once established it can maintain that change within a society.

 

 

So, bottom line, until recently organized religion was necessary for the formation and continuance of a given society’s morals and values. However, as societies grew, changed, and evolved so too did the functions of organized religion (religious service, government support, education, health, etc) within that society.  Often these changes were in the direction of more inclusive and/or more secular institutions.  It was not until modern times – the 17^th century – that institutions and ideals evolve that would finally separate organized religion from government and still allow governments to fully function.   In fact, at that time secular institutions became necessary because from being a benefit organized religion was becoming a liability.

Today I think (and hope) that organized religion is dying out.   I do not think it will ever disappear, but with the separation of church and state and the growth of those not affiliated with any religion its influence will wane.   I do think that individual belief in God and religion will remain the majority belief for a long time to come – but without it being organized as in the past and without being joined to government that this becomes a matter of individual belief and conscience rather than governmental policy.

Read Full Post »

One Atheist’s View of Prayer, Humanity, and Sandy Hook Elementary School

At this time of great loss and tragedy, when the lives of so many young children were mercilessly extinguished forever, many in our nation are praying – for the children lost, for the children left behind who now must deal with matters beyond their years, for the grieving parents who have lost their child, and for the many parents who have been freshly made aware of how precious is the life they have engendered and how fragile.  Some among my atheist community have strongly questioned these prayers.

Too often too many atheists blow off and denigrate prayer.  Often they should; I myself have done so at times, even to the extent of writing a blog doing so.  When prayer comes at the expense of action, when it is done for selfish gain and purposes then it should be held up and mocked.

However not all prayers are like this.  Probably not even most.

While I agree that prayers do not connect with a divine being and will not have a supernatural effect, they nonetheless do connect; they do have an effect, often a beneficial, one for the believers.

Humans are social animals.  In times of pain and suffering, in times of loss and grief, we find the presence of others not only helpful but needful.  We need the presence of a comforting friend, of a supporting touch, of a shoulder to lean on and cry on.  When people hear that someone is praying for them they feel all of this; they feel that social contact and that human support.  When people hear that someone is praying for them they derive some measure of comfort and strength.  They connect.

When people gather and pray together they feel a sense of shared loss and shared pain and in that sharing derive some measure of comfort and strength.  It is not only an individual who has suffered loss here but that of the whole community.  This sharing of prayer, of gathering in prayer is the community of believers sharing their grief and finding strength in each other.

Religion is a social construct that has existed for so long because it does meet human needs.  This is one such need.

Yes, it fails in regards to doing anything objectively for the children, but it helps in terms of meeting simple human needs.   And yes, it is possible to do the same without the superstition of a God, but for most it does no harm to have it with the belief in God.

For the majority prayer does not cause them to do nothing – many go on to work for good causes and to change things for the better:  gun control, foundations set up in memory that provides education for others or help victims of violence to recover, etc.  Prayer and action are not an either/or proposition; it can and often is both.

For the majority of believers praying does not mean that they will not grieve, they will.  It does not mean that they will be happy that the child that they loved and cherished is no longer with them for them to share in that child’s growing; they most assuredly will not.

For the majority of them, it does not lead to any mad plans or actions.

For the majority of theists prayer provides a means of social support and comfort that they can derive strength from.

I do not begrudge them this.

While I do not pray since I am an atheist, my thoughts are with them along with my best wishes in their time of sorrow, fear, and loss.  My wishes are just as effectual as prayers in regards to changing what has happened, but it too is meant as a means of human support.

At these times we need to share our humanity and wait to argue our differences on how best to derive comfort for another time.

Read Full Post »

Not Dying, Not Evil: Part 2

 

Many atheists believe that religion is evil.  Some even believe it is responsible for most of the evil done in history.  They will cite such actions as religious wars, the Catholics/Protestants in Ireland, the persecution of those of differing religions, the Inquisition, witch trials and on and on and on.  Superficially they seem to have at least the beginning of a case.  However, on looking a bit more deeply their case is lacking. 

Yes, religion has done many evil things.  I would argue though that many of those actions would have occurred anyway since the main motivation was not religious but power, control, and property. 

For example, take a look at the Spanish Conquest of Central and South America.  Specifically, let us look at Pizarro’s conquest of the Incans.  Here is an excerpt from a letter written by one of Pizarro’s companions about this conquest, in which a force of only 168 Spanish soldiers defeated an army of many thousands of Incan warriors and brought down the Incan Empire.  This passage is relating Pizarro’s words to Atahuallpa, the Incan Emperor, after he was captured and his army defeated.      

“We come to conquer this land by his {the Spanish King} command, that all may come to a knowledge of God and of His Holy Catholic Faith; and by reason of our good mission, God, the Creator of heaven and earth and of all things in them, permit this, in order that you may know Him and come out of the bestial and diabolical life that you lead.  It is for this reason that we, being so few in number, subjugate that vast host.”  From “Guns, Germs, and Steel” pg 74, by Jared Diamond. 

Does anyone really believe that the Spanish would not have conquered and enslaved the Indian population if religion had never been created?  Or that they would have foregone conquest had they not been religious?  The goal here was power and riches.  If there had been no possibility of riches or power then there would have been no Spanish conquest. 

The above is a very clear and obvious example of what I believe to be a basic reality of religious wars – their cause are not usually religious at all, but instead about power and riches;  not all, but most.  Because of this, if religion had never been created the wars and atrocities would still have occurred with only the reasoning changing. 

Reflect back on what I wrote in my first blog on this subject, specifically cause 11.   This is the one in which religious institutions and identities were necessary for the transition from small kin based units to larger ones that encompass many different kin groups.  Religion helped provide a needed structure for governing such larger social groups.  They also helped provide it with a new identity that transcended that of kin.  Without religion such larger groups would not have formed.   Without these larger social groups and their ability to support individuals who do not provide food but who instead work in arts, crafts, literature (eventually), and other specialized areas we would not have developed the science, technology, and medicine that we have today. 

Consider the fact that all of these conflicts involve large social groups – states.  Yes, religion was often cited as a cause for conflict between states; however without religion those states would not have existed in the first place.  Religion, in this case, became part of a larger group identity and it is two of these larger group identities that were in conflict. 

If religion had never developed, something else would have had to come about that would fill the same function.  Whatever that something would have been would then become the reason, the cloak for the conflict in the same way that religion was.  The atrocities committed by religions in order to maintain themselves, for example the Inquisition and laws against other religions, would also have been created to support whatever had taken the place of religion.

For evidence of this, take a look at the French Revolution, Pol Pot, USSR, and Communist China.  None of these were dominated by a religious group, but all committed reprehensible atrocities anyway.   

This is not to minimize the blood that is on most religions hands.  However it is pointing out that much of that is in its role as a social institution that allows the creation of larger social groups and not necessarily because of its theology and superstitious belief system. Divorce it from its role of being part of the state then you also get rid of most of the blood and persecution.  I would further argue that something would have had to fill its place even if it did not exist that would have spilled the same blood in much the same way. 

Given this – the fact that the creation of religion helped to foster the creation of larger social groups –  then I would say that religion, despite its often bloody and repressive history, is an overall good.  As I said earlier, the creation of larger social groups allowed the advances of science, technology, and medicine that we enjoy today. 

But beyond this, religious history is not just a history of atrocities, violence, and suppression of knowledge.  Before I go into the specifics of this though let me make a two more general points here. 

First, I believe that our social structures have evolved and improved over the ages.   Just like modern aircraft are faster, stronger, and fly much higher than the Wright brothers plane; just like the way that we walk upright today much more efficiently than did our Ardipithecus ramidus ancestors; so too have our societies improved over the years.   And religion has been a part of that change and improvement. 

Second, given that our default way of reasoning is emotional and intuitive and involves ascribing personalities to the unknown was there ever any realistic chance of a non-superstitious institution coming about that provided the same functions for large social groupings as religion?  I would strongly say – No.  Those secular institutions could not come about until societies had evolved some.    This argument that some secular institutions could have served the same function as religion did in the past just because it does now is rather like saying that the horse was not essential to the history of transport because today we have cars.    Until cars were invented horses were essential to transportation – until the secular social institutions were created the religious ones were essential to the creation and support of the state. 

Now, what has religion done positively beyond that of allowing the formation of larger social groups? 

1)    As part of the formation of larger social groups, but transcending it, is its emphasis on moral behavior.  Yes, between different religions there have been conflicts on what is moral and what is not, and yes, religion has often been heavy handed in its promotion of such behavior it has often declared immoral what was moral and moral what was moral; nonetheless it has also often promoted morality and often improved it. 

It has encouraged charitable giving, support of the widows and orphans and of the stranger in need.  It has encouraged honesty and fair dealing.  I noticed almost all of this in my re-reading of the Iliad and the Odyssey (they had a tendency to promote lying and theft though) and it most definitely is present in Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the other world religions. 

Consider the many varieties of the Golden Rule that have appeared in all the major religions and in some variety in almost of the religions in history.   I consider such words a very good moral precept.   

Consider also that the leaders of the abolition movement in both the United States and Great Britain were largely ministers and men and women of strong religious beliefs. 

The Civil Rights movement here in the United States was also led by a great many ministers and religious people – most prominent among them being Martin Luther King Jr.  

That is not even considering the actions of everyday people in resisting evil whether from secular or religious sources – the many Muslims who saved the Jews from the Nazi’s in Albania, the many Christians who decried religious persecution by the fellow believers (try reading Roger Williams someday in this regards – his ideas on church state separation are spot on), the Muslims who are working to improve the role of women in their religion and working to improve relations with Jews, the contributions many religious people give to help those in need regardless of the religious beliefs of those in need, and on and on and on. 

2)    Religion has also tended to be the social institution that until fairly recent times created hospitals.  It was these hospitals which eventually led the way to our modern secular system. 

Consider the evolution of the hospital.  Care for the sick has from the beginning been associated with religion.  Our modern ideas about the hospital originated in Christianity. 

From Edward T. Babinski – History and Theology.  Mr. Babinski by the way is an agnostic. http://etb-history-theology.blogspot.com/2012/03/origins-of-hospitals.html

“It can be said, however, that the modern concept of a hospital dates from AD 331 when Constantine , having been converted to Christianity , abolished all pagan hospitals and thus created the opportunity for a new start. Until that time disease had isolated the sufferer from the community. The Christian tradition emphasized the close relationship of the sufferer to his fellow man, upon whom rested the obligation for care. Illness thus became a matter for the Christian church.”

…….

“Religion continued to be the dominant influence in the establishment of hospitals during the Middle Ages . The growth of hospitals accelerated during the Crusades , which began at the end of the 11th century. Pestilence and disease were more potent enemies than the Saracens in defeating the crusaders. Military hospitals came into being along the traveled routes; the Knights Hospitalers of the Order of St. John in 1099 established in the Holy Land a hospital that could care for some 2,000 patients. It is said to have been especially concerned with eye disease, and may have been the first of the specialized hospitals. This order has survived through the centuries as the St. John’s Ambulance Corps.

Throughout the Middle Ages, but notably in the 12th century, the number of hospitals grew rapidly in Europe. The Arabs established hospitals in Baghdad and Damascus and in Córdoba in Spain. Arab hospitals were notable for the fact that they admitted patients regardless of religious belief, race, or social order. The Hospital of the Holy Ghost, founded in 1145 at Montpellier in France, established a high reputation and later became one of the most important centres in Europe for the training of doctors. By far the greater number of hospitals established during the Middle Ages, however, were monastic institutions under the Benedictines, who are credited with having founded more than 2,000.”

3)    Religion has a mixed record on science.  There has been much destruction and suppression of those views that do not agree with a particular religious stance.  However there has also been support for science and its endeavors, so much so that I do not see how one can make a blanket statement that religion and science are incompatible without defining exactly what type of religious belief you are talking about.  

We always hear about the Catholic Church and Galileo and about its suppression of knowledge (again, I would argue that such suppression would likely have occurred even if religion were not involved since whatever institution that would have taken its place would have done similarly – witness Lysenko and the USSR).   However, religion has also supported science.  Consider these scientists who were also priests:

Roger Bacon (1214 – 1294) – one of the earliest European empirical thinkers who helped develop the scientific method and engaged in important work in optics.  

Robert Grosseteste (1175 – 1253) – his works helped create the framework for modern science.  His work on optics with its surprisingly modern conception of color was continued by Roger Bacon. 

Nicolas Steno (1638-1686) – he is considered one of the founders of stratigraphy and modern geology.  He also did some important work in both anatomy and fossils.  He was considered a saint after his death and has been canonized by the Catholic Church. 

Francesco Maria Grimaldi (1618 – 1663) – investigated the free fall of objects and along with Giovanni Battista Riccioli, another Catholic priest and astronomer, calculated the gravitational constant through observations and experiments with pendulums.  He was also the first to make accurate observations on the diffraction of light and coined the term diffraction.

Gregor Johann Mendel (1822 – 1884) – it was his experiments with pea plants that led to the development of modern genetics.  His work on the inheritance of traits caused the laws to be referred to as Mendelian inheritance. 

Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître (1894 – 1966) – an astronomer who was the first to propose the theory that the universe is expanding.   He also was the first to derive what is now called Hubble’s law and in 1927 made the first estimation of Hubble’s constant.  He is also the scientist who first proposed the Big Bang theory. 

These are just a few of the many Catholic priests who have made significant contributions to our understanding of the universe.  That is not even considering the number of important scientists who were also religious but not priests but instead were Catholic and Protestant believers, Muslim believers, Jewish believers and so forth.  A great many of these scientists cited their religious faith as one of the reasons for why they became scientists.   Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the creators of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, was one such scientist. 

To summarize Part 2 then, yes religion has done a great many evil things.  However, I believe the good outweighs the bad with the first and most basic good being its role in allowing human society to grow from small kin based groups to large states. 

Given our natural way of thinking, there could have been no secular alternative to religion that would have worked as well.   That possibility had to wait until the structures of societies had evolved or developed enough.  

Also, although the wars and persecution are too often laid solely at the feet of religion, most often they are the result of the role religion plays in society in regards to forming a national identity and not so much a result of its superstitious beliefs. 

Finally, to look only at the evil acts done in the name of religion without looking at the good and moral acts done in religions name is to give a vastly unbalanced view of reality – unbalanced and also unjust.             

 In Part 3, I will go over some of the reasons why I believe religion will still be here and in force a thousand years from now.

Read Full Post »