Non-proliferation
In the carpool this morning, we were talking about our looming insane confrontation with Iran, and somehow got to talking about the Middle East in general, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the persecution of Christians in the Sudan, and whatever else. I said something like, “poverty in combination with religion tends to breed violence.” This formulation was met with strong disagreement from the two-thirds of my carpool that is devoutly religious, which is no great surprise.
After some further reflection, I’ve come up with an imperfect analogy that describes my evolving attitude towards religion (or more precisely, towards devout religious faith): nuclear power.
Religion, like nuclear power, can be a weapon (see, for instance, the modern Middle East, the medieval Middle East, Spain in the 15th century, England in the 17th century, Ireland in the 20th century, etc…) but it can also be used productively. Nuclear energy is incredibly useful, in that it’s considerably more efficient and less polluting than fossil fuels (leaving aside the whole issue of radioactive waste, for the moment). By the same token, many of the great humanitarian acts and programs of history have been religiously motivated. (Mother Theresa. Martin Luther King. Jesus. And on and on.) Of course, even when the intent of its use is for the good, both nuclear power and religion carry grave dangers (Three Mile Island on the one hand, Jerry Falwell on the other).
Of course, this analogy is especially imperfect because nuclear power is a tool while religion is an ideology. A hunk of plutonium is quite material, but the belief in a higher power is somewhat more intangible. Perhaps it’s better to say that I see a similarity betweeen religion and nuclear technology in the impact both can have on the world. Both, regardless of the intent, can have spectacularly bad failure modes.
The question, I believe, that modernity faces is this: can religion safely be a part of a peaceful, progressive, and modern society? Do its benefits outweigh its dangers? And if not, what is our non-proliferation and disarmament strategy?
(I’m going to attempt an answer to these questions. But, you know, later.)
Popularity: 26% [?]
The analogy continues to work insofar as you don’t *need* either thing to get their results. Just as you can find energy sources without nuclear power, so too can you find charity, morality, and ethics without religion.
But it does make me wonder what those folks you mention would have been like in the absence of religion — would Martin Luther King been have as great? I don’t know! Even if *he* were the same, how would he have delivered his message? My biased conviction is that he would have found some way.
The analogy also makes me wonder if something would replace the dangers of each in their absence. Without nuclear arms, you could still have an equally terrible threat of biological weapons. Without religion, you could still have genocide. So it leads to a similar question: does the absence of each reduce, or simply shift, the bad stuff?
I don’t think you need to sweat the tool vs. ideology question, either. A tool is an implement designed to aid a given task. As such, religion - institutionalized doctrine with specific requirements of behavior and belief - is a tool. A sermon is a tool designed to aid the task of indoctrinating the faithful, or reinforcing doctrine; communion is a tool designed to aid the task of remembering the messianic sacrifice; turning toward Mecca is an implement designed to aid the task of remembering the origins of Islam. A specific pantheon or cosmology or set of moral or ethical guidelines may be an ideology, but the observation of those guidelines - the functional religion - is a tool, designed to aid the task of reinforcing that ideology.
Also, it’s 1am and I am babbling.
It’s my personal opinion that religion can safely be a part of a peaceful, progressive and modern society. My sister’s Christianity is one of realizing that if all sins are equal, and all are sinners, then judgement has no place in our lives and the only honest and consistent philosophy is one which embraces all people as equally loved by her God. However, I am pessimistic as to anyone’s ability to make a buck off that attitude, and religions - the institutions, not the ideologies - exist in the most cut-throat of all markets.
I would be interested to know if your fellow carpoolers came up with the Mother Theresa counter-argument to your original statement or if they merely reacted with shock because they felt accused by association.
Mr. McManlyPants: your sister’s Christianity sounds pretty good to me, too. I’m just not optimistic that it’s the majority view.
Mother Theresa is, as usual, the exception to almost every rule. P’raps I mean “poverty in combination with religion tends to breed violence among large groups of people” or something like that. I don’t doubt that individual believers can behave with quite remarkable goodness.
Actually, the more I think about it, what I probably mean is: “poverty tends to promote violence, and religion can make it worse.” But that’s hardly ground-breaking.
Anyway, thanks for reading.
I’m just not optimistic that it’s the majority view.
And I think you’re right not to be optimistic. If it were the majority view, the easy money in organized religion would be in kindness, not divisiveness and hate.
Religion has never safely been part of any society, so I can’t see that changing now, its not as if any of us live in a peaceful society is it? Since religion is something invented my man to control the masses however, I presume it will be here for as long as man is here. Which will be until some (most likely religion based) confrontation results in worldwide annihilation or near annihilation.