The opinion was expressed on Wednesday that all religions are crazy and that they are all crazy to congruent degrees of craziness. I would like to address this claim, but I shall treat it as two separate claims and thus respond to them in that manner. As a preface, I consider myself an atheistic agnostic.
"All religions are crazy."
This is an un-nuanced understanding of religion. I would proffer that such a view is strictly incorrect but I shall refrain from doing so until some terms are clarified. It seems that the term 'crazy' requires some elucidation by means of definition. Furthermore, was the intent to ascribe craziness to all religions themselves or the institutionalized forms thereof? My objections to this view will be applicable to both religions themselves and the institutions. In what manner are religions crazy? The most obvious answer would be that maybe they, the adherents thereof, believe in something for which there is inadequate evidence? I, for one, do not contend that this is sufficient to call someone crazy. Seeking a supernatural answer to questions for which science is thus far insufficient is not, I think, necessarily crazy. The tenets of Christianity, the teachings of Christ, for example, are mostly very sane.
"All religions are equally crazy."
Equally nuanced. There is much sense in comparing the relative sanity, while we're still using that term, of religions. There is a marked difference between the sensibility of reformed Judaism compared to some orthodox, conservative protestant sects. Scientology, for instance, strikes me as significantly more inane than many other religions.
------
Disagreeing with the ontological position of people of faith does not afford us the privilege to categorically dismiss them as insane. It is insulting and demeans us as much as it does them.
I agree that there was a point in time when science was insufficient to explain worldly phenomena and therefore seeking the explanation in the supernatural was legitimate. I would, however, say that now we have sufficient scientific understanding of the world, and so little proof of the divine (as in, none), that to persist in these beliefs nonetheless is unreasonable. I wouldn't go so far as to call religious individuals crazy, but perhaps childish in the sense that a child also believes in invisible friends and the Easter Bunny.
ReplyDeletePerhaps it would be well to distinguish characteristically religious metaphysical propositions about the nature of ultimate reality (gods, souls, hell...), which we are probably not epistemically warranted in deploying except as metaphors, and many other elements of religious life and practice, to which such claims are largely irrelevant. These include moral teachings, grieving protocols, social relationships, etc. The former are credibly 'crazy,' though far from equally so. Of the latter, some are nuts-o, and some quite unobjectionable.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that religion is "crazy." In fact, I think it is incredibly sane. People start wondering about things or they hope and they find a place to turn. People find solace in religion. It is like group therapy. "Oh, you believe what I believe? Thanks, I feel less crazy now."
ReplyDeleteHowever, I have felt, since about midway through my career in Catholic schools, that religions are not much more than large cults. Of course there are the subtle differences... not as much mass suicide. Still, I can't tell you how many times I have been to mass and heard the masses reciting in unison a phrase that when asked about, they have little to no knowledge of its meaning. "Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed." It irks me to this day.
Perhaps religions are illogical in that they often rest their philosophical foundations on the assumption of an intangible, omnipotent being (or beings) that (most) people cannot meet face-to-face. However, many religions don't have such a foundation: Theravada Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism are a few examples.
ReplyDeleteI also think it may be useful to parse what we mean by crazy. I've assumed that it means illogical, but 'crazy' also has a connotation of negativity - something is unacceptably and even dangerously illogical. Certainly, this may apply to some forms of fundamentalist religion and perhaps to Scientology as well. However, since the tenets of fundamentalist sects often contradict the laws of the greater religion (for example, encouraging suicide attacks in the context of a holy book that condemns killing innocents), this tells us nothing about the craziness or sanity of religion generally.
Religion is in my opinion something people turn to naturally. Some great person who I now forget once said 'people are born as metaphysicians.' There are many branches of psychology that state the brain naturally turns to religion, and I for one agree with them. It is something that people are born doing.
ReplyDeleteAs a religious person, I felt very much insulted by the statement made in class because I do not consider myself or my religion insane by any means. I would agree with Griffin that we naturally turn to religion, and I think there is only a problem with this when we refuse to look at other explanations. I have ever maintained that there is nothing wrong with practicing a legitimately held belief so long as it does not infringe on the natural rights of others. I also maintain that I have no problem with atheists, only with anti-theists, and the statement made in class reeked of anti-theism. I would like to thank Jacob for addressing this statement.
ReplyDelete