It has not been a good time for religion. Scandals involving abuse of children by Catholic priests, terrorist acts committed by Islamist fundamentalists, and support for the continued spread of settlements in Palestine by a government in Israel propped up by religious conservatives are just some of the more prominent examples of acts that seem to fly in the face of what religion is supposed to be all about: cultivating an enlightened relationship with the Creator that guides our values, goals, and everyday actions by providing a moral compass. But has it ever been a good time for religion? Of course, it could be argued that it is religious extremism and/or the abuse of power by those in positions of religious authority that are the causes of all of these problems, and not religion itself. But some would counter that this is being too conciliatory: that there is in fact something fundamentally wrong with believing in myths that have no basis in fact or reason, and that it is this adherence to belief in absurdities that is the rottenness at the core of religion and that makes irrational behavior almost inevitable as a consequence. The goal of the Enlightenment, in the 17th and 18th centuries, was to replace religion with reason, and bring about a better society as a consequence. Perhaps the strongest rebuttal to a complete renunciation of religion is that the project of the Enlightenment ultimately failed. The cataclysmic wars and mass murders of the 20th century were not caused by religious zealots, and the underlying beliefs and world views of the leaders responsible for these (to the extent that they had any), were based upon secular ideologies, some of which ostensibly had science at their base.
The project of nobler living through science – if such a project ever was seriously pursued – seems to be stumbling, and may have already failed. I have written elsewhere about my own cynicism about recent advances in physics – particularly in its quest to find “a theory of everything”. And my opinion of the sciences of psychology and particularly psychiatry is just about as low. Contemporary psychiatry seems to favor the administration of mood-altering drugs as the cure of choice for mental and emotional disturbances, and the distinction between these and the illegal drugs which are abused by addicts seems to be a difference in degree, rather than in kind.
Is there a direct relationship between a rational – rather than faith-based – belief system and a stronger moral character? I must say that I have met and known persons who believe some pretty incredible things – based upon their particular religious faiths – who are very good people, and who seem to be incredibly rational in their life choices and activities. (In fact many would argue that this is to be expected, since it is the very belief – even if it might be illusory – in some sort of ultimate divine reward and punishment that causes the religious to live more moral – and perhaps even well-ordered – lives.) And I remember reading a study once on the brainwashing of persons who had been prisoners in the Korean War. The study found that those who had strong religious faiths prior to the experience tended to be more resistant to such programs, while agnostics and atheists tended to be more susceptible. It seems that there is truth to the old maxim, “he who believes in nothing can be made to believe in anything”. I remember, too, a recovering heroin addict who I knew many years ago, and that the one really strong personality trait that stood out was that he was a person who didn’t believe in anything, and had the deepest contempt for anybody who did. In the absence of a faith in some type of deeper, more sublime happiness that will be found in this world and/or the next, I suppose that all is left is a sort of hedonism. One would have to be content with finding pleasures of a worldlier sort, and this could tempt one to follow either the Nietzschean project of becoming bold enough and strong enough to find the sources of these and exploit them, or the path of the addict, who attempts to produce his or her daily joys through “shortcuts”, often involving artificial means.
In my own life, I have explored a number of alternative religious pathways, and have ultimately come away feeling dissatisfied and disillusioned with each one, particularly when the pathway has involved belonging to a formal religion. There is the inevitable hierarchy, their need for money, and the eventual discovery on my part that this money is being used for other things than merely supporting the spiritual development of the flock, or the alleviation of suffering in the world. But I have never been able to adopt instead the mindset of the atheist, or even the agnostic. It seems to me unthinkable that intelligent beings could exist in this vast universe – really a miracle in its own right – without some greater Intelligence, something that is capable of comprehending the fullest extent of this existence – across the limitless stretches of both time and space. I know that efforts over the centuries for formal proofs along these lines have repeatedly fallen short, but this does not dissuade me from my own personal conviction that there is a vastly superior intelligence out there, which probably coincides with that of the Creator of this existent universe. And I believe just as strongly that what we do in this existence matters: that in the great scheme of things it is better to be good rather than not good. Now this second tenet really does require a leap of faith, and I cannot defend it on any logical grounds. I can only appeal to admittedly piecemeal support of it from personal experience, as I have seen, repeatedly, evidences of the “law of karma” – of “what goes around comes around” – when actions of mine or of those around me have led to consequences which either suitably chastened, or suitably rewarded, the author of them.
Is it possible to have a rational religion, or is this an oxymoron? Can one create a religion devoid of antiquated myths, empty rituals and ceremonies, and the intellectual chicanery that accompanies much of occultism and religious mysticism, without going down the sterile path of scientific enquiry? Such a religion would, I think, have to be more than just a synthesis of what is perceived to be the best of all existing religious views. It would have to go beyond these, and beneath them, to the genuine, vibrant core of human spirituality, purged of the dross of cultural biases, prejudices, and mythology. It would have to be passionate and dispassionate at the same time: thoroughly, meticulously, rooting out the “noble lies” of past religious endeavor, while finding something that would truly uplift, inspire, and provide a vital, sustaining root for the aspirations and endeavors of modern humanity.
Perhaps it is time for the appearance of another Moses, Buddha, Jesus, or Mohammed: a prophet who could guide our souls into the next age of modernity. The contemporary world would be much more demanding of such a prophet. But there is a gaping, spiritual need to be fulfilled, and it is perhaps vital to the ultimate survival of our species that we find a higher direction to guide us in what seems to be the final, most critical phases of the evolution of our collective civilization.
In my next blog entry, I will describe the plan that I had developed as a young man for this project, but which I ultimately realized was foolhardy, and certain of future failure.
