One of the few areas in which religion does seem to thrive (regardless of whether its premises are true or not), that current secularism doesn't quite know how to deal with yet is consolation in its various forms: community, identity, tradition, reverence.
In the following fascinating TEDTalk presentation, atheist philosopher Alain de Botton (narrator of the documentary series Philosophy: A Guide to Happiness) argues that there is much in this area that a more advanced and nuanced and less reactionary atheism can actually learn, and steal, from the lessons developed by religions for thousands of years.
And for more, there is a short Q&A in the TED Blog.
Interesting idea but his main assumption in this presentation is that we need consolidation, morality and ritual. Morality, that is, how we view our fellow humans is needed but it is a product of reason, reflection on scientific truth will provide insights into how we should treat each other. We are here to survive and prosper, we are all very similar and need to construct a social infrastructure to accelerate intellectual and health progression.
ReplyDeleteWe might be evolving out of consolidation, why do we need consolidation? Well at the moment it is a consequence of a brain process which stimulates our emotions in such a way as to make us need consolidation. We are training our brain to be more rational, we may need emotional comfort but this need can be fulfilled by friends (independent of religion).
Religion is pointless, I still hold to that, it may sound simplistic but religion and fundamentalism are simply incorrect inventions of the human brain.
Luke, I disagree that morality is the result of thinking only; reason, reflection, "truth". On the contrary, how can you talk about "truth" when morality is such a subjective thing?
ReplyDeleteSure there are many things we all hold true, but often what is immoral behaviour to one person is fine by another. There's nothing reasoning or universally true about most issues of morality.
But then again, there is. I like Alain, and I'm an atheist. But I think he's missed something very fundamental, which goes to source of all this.
People need certain things to feel happy. We all need a sense of connection, to be respected, to find "meaning" in our lives, to feel there is something greater than our individual selves. To feel useful, cared for, respected, s sense of security and "certainty" about life.. I'm sure there's a finite list we all share.
Religion is a cultural ecosystem that provides a great deal of all that. In fact, considering all those emotional needs, I'd suggest that religion is an inevitable result - an emergent property if you like - of a social, imaginative and emotional species such as ourselves.
So while what Alain says is pointing in the right direction, I think what's more important - the real goal - is structuring our workplaces, cultural spaces and indeed our society as a whole, so that all these needs can be met.
I think discussions like these arise in a culture where it is felt that a lot of those needs are either lacking or far too difficult to obtain. And I think that's what we should be focussing on.
Religion is symptomatic of the human condition. That's not a bad thing, it just is. However I do think religion is a dangerous drug - people can easily take it too far. It taps into very extreme emotions for some. Also the "groupthink" and peer pressure it facilitates is very problematic for us as a species. We're susceptible to those things - with or without religion, people can do terrible things just because it's "expected", like any soldier following orders.
Anyway, it's the underlying human condition we should be considering in how we shape society. At the moment, the focus is way too much on economics and "if we just make more money, if we "grow", things will be fine".
I think that, in many ways more so than religion, is fantasy and wishful thinking.
Religion is based upon false premises, why would humans need anything based on something which is false? Answer: We don't.
ReplyDeleteThere may be no certain truths but we can live prosperously according to modern science (even as it changes). If morality is subjective and based upon vague moral concepts which cannot be observed than I think too morality is an illusion.
This may sound extremely reductionist. I find myself living well according to science and I take comfort in not knowing everything, that we as humans may not comprehend everything. What keeps me going is trying to comprehend the world as best we can and using this knowledge to better our lives.
You speak as if you know exactly with empirical certainty what our bodies (including brains need) we may have needed more emotional comfort. Evolution and more so cultural evolution is showing that we are becoming more rational creatures. Obviously research into our cognition in neuroscience will help answer this.
I enjoy fiction in forms of entertainment, but fiction has no role in the governance of people.
We should live by fact and science and I say this not out of a assumed moral compass but I say this out of experience. Science will improve if used wisely. False theories cannot be applied for they are false.
> Religion is based upon false premises
ReplyDeleteWhich part? Religion, as a phenomena, is simply the result of our emotional need for certainly, security, love, meaning, all that stuff.
Have you ever stood, all alone, out in the middle of the desert, surrounded by nothing, with the sky above as big and real as the earth below, throwing thunder and rain down on you as if you were nothing but dirt to be washed away?
It's easy to see how religions were formed, when you put yourself at the mercy of the elements and feel how powerful the forces are - at one time providing food and shelter, at another howling to extinguish your life.
Now that we have "conquered nature" and are secure (another story we like to tell ourselves), we have replaced the need for benevolent gods to understand our world, with the certainty of repeatable experiment. Both of these behaviours, however, are equally valid expressions of how the human brain works.
> I think too morality is an illusion.
And you'd be correct. :) At least, morality is a human construct and much of it is inapplicable to other species. What we call morality is mostly a result of the empathic functions of the brain. Seeing someone else hurt triggers an image of ourselves being hurt. Same with pleasure. Look up "mirror neurons" on TED - fascinating stuff.
> I find myself living well according to science
We live according to the stories we tell ourselves. What we know scientifically contributes somewhat, as so social interactions, personal experience, things you hear anecdotally, your fears, your dreams, a whole bunch of stuff. Science is a part of the picture, not all of it.
> we are becoming more rational creatures
We have not "evolved", in any real biological sense, in recent history. As "creatures", we are the same as we were when we hunted bison on the plains. Indigenous races, not having seen civilisation in tens of thousands of years, can use a smartphone and study mathematics as well as any "modern" person. We don't change that quickly.
As for being "more rational", that's merely an illusion. We have always had rational brains - that is, able to reason, project, create, assume, hypothesise and deduce.
No, we have always been, and will be for a long time still, governed by emotion and the stories we tell ourselves about the world. Every decision you make is, in the end, an emotional one. Informed of course by experience and knowledge, but always and ever attached to your feeling of what is a desirable outcome.
Those feelings take into account your relationships, your self-image, your dreams, desires, how you feel about the world, life, your future, your past. We are no more or less rational than we ever were. Our environment and considerations have changed.
For example, it is just as rational for a "cave man" to wonder if the stars are other camp fires, as it is for us, now, to wonder if there is life on other planets. Same brain, same thoughts, different context.
> fiction has no role in the governance of people
ReplyDeleteDepends what you call fiction. We all imagine a future where we all live in peace. This is what government ostensibly shoots for, but is this just a fiction? It does not seem to be supported by the evidence of history, does it? And yet we choose this story - this fiction - as a guide. There is nothing wrong with "constructive fictions" in our collective vision, or in one's personal life. We all have them. It's how the brain works.
> We should live by fact and science
And emotion and imagination. They can't be turned off anyway, so we have to accept and understand them. Accept we will always have fictions and stories, always have religions and dreamers and art and love. And all the bad stuff. :)
Science will not give us a sense of meaning. It cannot. Science deals with parts of the brain that are, yes, inspired and fired with imagination, but also once something is understood it is no longer "other". Emotionally, we need the "other". Because we are, all of us, in a way alien to each other. And that's a wonderful thing.
Imagine if we knew everything there was to know about human behaviour. If we could predict each other's reactions to a fault. We could make someone love us just by pressing the right buttons, and they would know it. Wouldn't that be a hideous world to live in?
We need the unknown, and to make stories about it. Even if we know each other, we will never know "what it all means". Science can't provide that, by it's very nature as I've said above. "Meaning" is an emotion. And it can only exist in the mind in relation to something unknown - something "other", something bigger than yourself.
Meaning, by definition then, is irrational and unscientific. It's an emotion, so of course that's the case.
Why should life have meaning anyway? At least to us, in a way we can understand? We have the perspective of a single species amongst countless millions. Who says we can possibly understand what all this means?
Yet we all feel the need to believe we know - or *can* know - what our lives mean. We believe we are secure on this planet - mostly. We don't like feeling otherwise.
All these beliefs, and those of all religions, are really just psychological defences against things we really, really do not want to feel. Confusion. Insecurity. Uncertainty. Irrelevance. Despair.
It could be argued that, for many people, removing religion from their lives is a form of cruelty, as sure as removing a child from its parents. We cannot live by science alone. We live by emotion, and it is a very subtle and complex thing.