Religion as a Human Construct
Nothing has raised the hackles of public indignation of late quite so much as the recent spate of well-written, well-argued, well constructed arguments on religion, calling into question the true value to humankind of a belief in an Almighty Spirit, the very creator of all living things; the universe itself. But then, we know, we humans, that there is a god, the all-powerful, all-seeing, compassionate, understanding Being demanding of us piety and belief in the unknown, while puzzlingly standing back at signal historic events when humans have brought stark misery one upon the other, and letting horrors upon horrors unfold on His flocks.We know that God exists, and we know that for a fact because He has so informed us. God has carefully selected a series of messengers; humans, sometimes semi-divine beings in human form to bring the message of His existence to our knowledge, to impress upon us the fact of His existence, and His expectations of us. Of course one would have to believe that the selected messengers, be they a Buddha, a Prophet, a Christ, are as they claim to have been; the especially beloved of the Divine Will, charged with the task of informing, educating, securing assent in the faith.
We've been treated to interviews with individuals whose sterling scientific-medical credentials like Richard Dawkins' treat religion and the faith of mankind in the presence of an all-powerful God with the contempt of the reasoning and educated adult toward the silly beliefs of the as-yet-undeveloped adult, still in childhood's hesitant form. Dr. Dawkins brings reason and experience to bear on the matter of blind belief, placing that belief squarely in the realm of ancient awe and superstitions. His arguments have a definite resonance in the perception of those who have always eschewed religion and opted for the moderate rationale of living life as a responsible and mature adult.
And who could argue with Christopher Hitchins' broad descriptive strokes of religions' role in hallowing and giving structure and finally acceptance to bizarre anti-humane acts that most people, imbued with an inborn recognition of good and bad can recognize, when he points out religious symbols among unreconstructed theological literalists accepting of brutality against the vulnerable and the defenceless? As example, Hasidic fundamentalists for whom the truly primitive rite of circumcision by an appointed official, a mohel, biting a baby's foreskin away from the penis takes preference and precedence as a holy rite over a hygienic and safe medical surgery.
Or the practise in Muslim Africa where young girls are subjected to infibulation, involving slicing away the labia and clitoris, the stitching up of the vaginal opening with twine, leaving a small opening for the passage of menstrual blood. The result is a lifetime of pain and misery, infection, potential sterility, shame and childbirth death. The religious sects of "Christian Science" and Jehovah's Witnesses" have refused medical treatments and blood transfusions for their children. "Mormon" underaged girls are 'married' to elderly and often much-married men. Iran's Shia fundamentalists lowered the age of 'consent' to 9 years of age for girls. Hindu children are forced to submit to arranged marriages while they are yet children.
Child brides in India are often flogged and sometimes burned alive, if the dowry they bring to a marriage is judged to be insultingly insufficient. The Catholic church has sheltered pederasts in religious garb who have long preyed on the children in their congregations, making them complicit in the sexual abuse of young boys and girls. Not only have religions protected those among them who have abused the young, by refusing to bring them to justice, they actively shielded them, sending them on to other congregations where their vile predations were unknown, handily enabling them to continue the patterns of sexual abuse.
Religions have been responsible for great carnage through religiously-waged wars, through mass persecutions of unbelievers, through complicity with dictatorial political regimes, theocratic or otherwise, which have governed with brutal disregard for human rights. We know all of this, yet it cannot be denied that most human beings appear to have a great need for spiritual completion, an alliance with religion that complements and enhances their lives. The fact is, religious adherence appears to offer hope to people who would not otherwise be capable of summoning an inner hope and optimism for their future. Religious communalism can be deeply satisfying for many people, enabling them to feel surrounded and protected, while demanding of them the mere suspension of rationality in the embrace of blind faith.
Those who would argue against the faith-destroying logic of the unbelievers, the atheists among us, can often summon up wonderfully lyrical phrases in celebration of their shining faith in the unseen, the unproven, the fanciful, in defence of mankind's infantile need for reassurance in an often hostile, and unhappy world. If they're fortunate they can go through life in a calm, measured and healthy manner; if they're particularly vulnerable and subject to truly egregious suggestion, they are vulnerable to manipulation which offers them salvation through fanatical excess. And that's the really scary part about religion; the hold it has on peoples' intrinsic needs and frail imaginations. When matters align as they sometimes do, we're faced with the dreadful prospect of religion meeting science in the most threatening of ways. Religious fundamentalist jihadists arming themselves with nuclear weaponry.
It is to shudder. And then, one can read blissfully self-aware and innocently heartfelt paeans to religious belief such as those penned by Father Raymond J. de Souza. Who among us could possibly resist the poetry in Father de Souza's contention that mankind has "questions of divine power and human freedom" which require answers, and that God has those answers for the faithful? Or when he speaks of "divine foreknowledge and human uncertainty, divine inspiration and human agency, human nature and the natural law, as insuperable problems that must either be ignored or shielded from the penetrating reason of clever people like Chistopher Hitchins?" The power of his argument has a decided pull; a reasoned response in defence of that which defies and denies reason.
This man is capable of sizzling attacks against the hubris of those who would deny the presence and the nature of God. In response to Christopher Hitchins' assertion: "Charles Darwin was born in 1809, on the very same day as Abraham Lincoln, and there is no doubt as to which of them has proved to be the greater 'emancipator'. Father de Souza's reply: "Only in a world stripped of all that is distinctively human would Darwin's theories about the evolution of finch beaks provide greater emancipation for the human spirit than Lincoln's sublime words about human dignity, sacrifice and the better angels of our nature. On balance, Lincoln on our destiny is a better bet for a humane world than Darwin on our origins." There's a certain ring of authenticity there, a moral balance that cannot be denied.
Sad that this interceding device, the contrivance of divine intervention is required to entice people to reach for human dignity, self-sacrifice and the encouragement of the 'better angels' within our nature. That we cannot somehow muster the determination and the inner strength to attain to this higher ethical and moral place within ourselves without the assistance of an imagined higher being to whose good offices we entrust everything; our very souls, all that we hold most dear in our personal relationships, and the security of the world at large. We are capable of making intelligent choices of the greatest probity and charity, yet we deign to do so, preferring the purported oversight of a silent, invisible presence.
So, which is it? Will God please stand up and speak for Himself on the argument, on behalf of enlightening all of us? Were He to do so, Messrs. Dawkins and Hitchens et al would fall all over themselves in adoration and respect. Me too.
Labels: Religion
posted by Pieface @ Sunday, May 13, 2007
<< Home