Before moving on to something other than my nominalism about the word 'religion,' I'd just like to point out a few more problems with it.
First of all, 'religion' as the term is used in 'comparative religions' is relatively meaningless. If by 'religion' those who use the term mean one's view of the world, the ultimate reality, and human nature, then those who study comparative religions should study atheism, deism, the Transcedentalism of Emerson, hedonism, and all the other sorts of beliefs that have brought about comparative religious studies. If by 'religion' they mean any belief in something greater than man or existing on a level different from him, they still should study theosophy, fairies, UFO's, hero-worship, and other similar phenomenon. Either way, the term 'religion' is being used inconsistently. And the result of this inconsistent usage is that people separate themselves from what they are studying so that they think they have an objective, third-person viewpoint, when in fact the worldview from which they look at religion is just as parochial and limited a worldview as every other.
The other problem with the word 'religion,' unlike all those previously mentioned, comes from the internal perspective of those who might consider themselves religious.
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Friday, January 28, 2011
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Newspeak: Religion (part 2)
The last post was rather long-winded. Allow me to summarize.
Suppose there is some quality, X.
I wish to pass a law that I believe that will help the nation. Not everyone agrees that it will help the nation, but that is true of all laws. It might be difficult to enforce; but that is also true of many laws. This law, moreover, expresses my deepest beliefs about the good for the nation and about human nature; to ask me to suppress these beliefs is to ask me to suppress everything that I am.
I am not, however, allowed to pass this law, because it would be based on X.
Consider another man, who also wishes to pass a law that he believes will help the nation. Not everyone agrees that it will help the nation, but that is true of all laws. It might be difficult to enforce; but that is also true of many laws. It expresses his deepest beliefs about the good for the nation and about human nature; to ask him to suppress these beliefs is to ask him to suppress everything that he is.
He is, however, allowed to pass this law, because it is not based on X.
Anyone who saw this comparison would see that the people of nation X have written into their laws (or court systems) the belief that X is a Bad Thing. Even if most people would deny that X is a Bad Thing when asked, their behavior implies it. They act like it is, and actions are more eloquent than words. They certainly don't believe that X is a Good Thing.
Now, X is Christianity. We cannot pass laws based on it in the US because of the court system and public libertarian spirit. This is why the US is simply not a Christian nation.
I prefer the atheists who speak of banning Christianity and limiting its exercise as a danger to human well-being--and that means you, Sam Harris et alia--to those who use the rhetoric of tolerance to mask the reality of a secular confessional church: everyone who reaches public office is obliged, more or less, to state that they will not pass laws based on their 'private religious beliefs.' At least the atheists are more honest.
Suppose there is some quality, X.
I wish to pass a law that I believe that will help the nation. Not everyone agrees that it will help the nation, but that is true of all laws. It might be difficult to enforce; but that is also true of many laws. This law, moreover, expresses my deepest beliefs about the good for the nation and about human nature; to ask me to suppress these beliefs is to ask me to suppress everything that I am.
I am not, however, allowed to pass this law, because it would be based on X.
Consider another man, who also wishes to pass a law that he believes will help the nation. Not everyone agrees that it will help the nation, but that is true of all laws. It might be difficult to enforce; but that is also true of many laws. It expresses his deepest beliefs about the good for the nation and about human nature; to ask him to suppress these beliefs is to ask him to suppress everything that he is.
He is, however, allowed to pass this law, because it is not based on X.
Anyone who saw this comparison would see that the people of nation X have written into their laws (or court systems) the belief that X is a Bad Thing. Even if most people would deny that X is a Bad Thing when asked, their behavior implies it. They act like it is, and actions are more eloquent than words. They certainly don't believe that X is a Good Thing.
Now, X is Christianity. We cannot pass laws based on it in the US because of the court system and public libertarian spirit. This is why the US is simply not a Christian nation.
I prefer the atheists who speak of banning Christianity and limiting its exercise as a danger to human well-being--and that means you, Sam Harris et alia--to those who use the rhetoric of tolerance to mask the reality of a secular confessional church: everyone who reaches public office is obliged, more or less, to state that they will not pass laws based on their 'private religious beliefs.' At least the atheists are more honest.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Newspeak: Religion
Most take it as an unquestioned fact that religion and the state should be separate from each other, and that religious ideals should not stand behind the state's laws. Few attend to the fact, however, that the word "religion" is used somewhat idiosyncratically in this statement.
If by "religion" one means ones ultimate beliefs about human nature and about the world, then the statement is simply false. Atheist, utilitarian, secular humanism can be such an all-encompassing worldview; arguments based on it are often used in the public sphere. Indeed, we rarely encounter arguments in the public sphere based on anything else.
If, on the other hand, by "religion" one means belief in a super-human personal Entity or entities, then it is true that religious arguments are not permitted to stand behind laws.
On the other hand, such an interpretation destroys the statement's pleasantly neutral facade: it shows that the statement favors the secular worldview over the religious, just as theocracy favors the religious over the secular. To say that religion and the state should be separate becomes the same as saying that secularists should be able to pass laws that are based on their values--and which thus promote their values--while those who believe in God should not be able.
One might object that nearly everyone can agree on certain good things that secular humanism endorses, like food and shelter. This is true. But to base laws only on the principles of secular humanism will be satisfactory only to those who recognize only secular humanist goods--that is, only to secular humanists. Because man is finite, any attempt to promote solely a certain sort of good will injure man's chances of attaining other kinds of good. A life organized around making money will fall short by Christian standards; thus a state organized around humanist goods will also.
The same argument could be reversed: nearly everyone can also agree on certain good things things that Catholicism endorses, like food and shelter. But no non-Catholics would be satisfied with a state that only permitted laws based on Catholic principles.
Similarly, no one who is not a secular humanist should be satisfied with a state that only permits laws based on secular humanist principles.
And no one, save secular humanists, would be satisfied with current western states, if it were not for their veil that language draws over reality.
Thus, the separation of religion from the state masks the imposition of the secular worldview.
This is but one example of how a vaguely used term, such as 'religion' is often used in an incoherent or a deceptive way in private thought or public discourse. I am going to begin a series on this theme, because it is extremely important.
"Man thinks his word before he speaks his thought," according to Louis de Bonald. Thus, words change how we think, and words that do not reflect reality can change it for the worse.
Allow me to quote George Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language" explaining how degenerate language and degenerate thought reinforce each other:
"A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible."
Our slovenliness serves the purposes of others, he continues.
"When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims [in politics], one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as "keeping out of politics." All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer."
This is why our language fails to cut reality at the joints: those who use it have no desire to do so.
Take a look at "religion" again, for instance.
If this means that politicians should not base laws on their principles and beliefs about the good, then we are simply asking politicians to be unprincipled, and therefore venal and corrupt. If this means that politicians should not base laws on beliefs about something greater than themselves, then we are asking them to pass laws like atheists. Neither alternative is terribly attractive to me.
If by "religion" one means ones ultimate beliefs about human nature and about the world, then the statement is simply false. Atheist, utilitarian, secular humanism can be such an all-encompassing worldview; arguments based on it are often used in the public sphere. Indeed, we rarely encounter arguments in the public sphere based on anything else.
If, on the other hand, by "religion" one means belief in a super-human personal Entity or entities, then it is true that religious arguments are not permitted to stand behind laws.
On the other hand, such an interpretation destroys the statement's pleasantly neutral facade: it shows that the statement favors the secular worldview over the religious, just as theocracy favors the religious over the secular. To say that religion and the state should be separate becomes the same as saying that secularists should be able to pass laws that are based on their values--and which thus promote their values--while those who believe in God should not be able.
One might object that nearly everyone can agree on certain good things that secular humanism endorses, like food and shelter. This is true. But to base laws only on the principles of secular humanism will be satisfactory only to those who recognize only secular humanist goods--that is, only to secular humanists. Because man is finite, any attempt to promote solely a certain sort of good will injure man's chances of attaining other kinds of good. A life organized around making money will fall short by Christian standards; thus a state organized around humanist goods will also.
The same argument could be reversed: nearly everyone can also agree on certain good things things that Catholicism endorses, like food and shelter. But no non-Catholics would be satisfied with a state that only permitted laws based on Catholic principles.
Similarly, no one who is not a secular humanist should be satisfied with a state that only permits laws based on secular humanist principles.
And no one, save secular humanists, would be satisfied with current western states, if it were not for their veil that language draws over reality.
Thus, the separation of religion from the state masks the imposition of the secular worldview.
This is but one example of how a vaguely used term, such as 'religion' is often used in an incoherent or a deceptive way in private thought or public discourse. I am going to begin a series on this theme, because it is extremely important.
"Man thinks his word before he speaks his thought," according to Louis de Bonald. Thus, words change how we think, and words that do not reflect reality can change it for the worse.
Allow me to quote George Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language" explaining how degenerate language and degenerate thought reinforce each other:
"A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible."
Our slovenliness serves the purposes of others, he continues.
"When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims [in politics], one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as "keeping out of politics." All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer."
This is why our language fails to cut reality at the joints: those who use it have no desire to do so.
Take a look at "religion" again, for instance.
If this means that politicians should not base laws on their principles and beliefs about the good, then we are simply asking politicians to be unprincipled, and therefore venal and corrupt. If this means that politicians should not base laws on beliefs about something greater than themselves, then we are asking them to pass laws like atheists. Neither alternative is terribly attractive to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)