A world without religion
Can you imagine a world without religion? I don’t mean any specific religion (e.g. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc) or a particular sect or denomination within a religion (e.g Baptist, Reformed Judaism, Sufism, Mahayana Buddhism, etc.) Try to imagine a world without any religion. I am not talking that you just wish it were so (if you were so inclined to wish such a thing); I am asking, can you actually envision what that world would look like?
Can you do it? Maybe you can. But for most, even for some atheists I suspect, the idea of a world without religion is almost, if not completely, impossible to imagine. Why do I think that? Well, during this post I would like to reflect on why I don’t think it’s possible to imagine a world without religion.
Before beginning with those reasons, it seems only right to provide a definition of religion; however, that is not as easy as it sounds. If we look up the word “religion” in the dictionary, this is what we’ll find:
A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
That’s actually not too bad of a definition. Certainly “faith” is a property shared by all religions since they ask people to believe in things they can’t see or empirically prove. But religious faith is not simply a “system of beliefs.” There has to be something more to it than that. The reason I say there has to be something more to it is because people are not willing to die for a set of beliefs, even strongly held beliefs; however, people throughout history have shown a willingness to die for their faith.
The object of a mental opinion (i.e. belief) is an idea. The object of religious faith is more than an idea. The object of religious faith is God, or gods, or Nirvana. Notice I did not say “the idea of God, gods, or Nirvana.” That is a very important distinction. However, what religion claims is not so much that we know God (i.e. we have fashioned him in our minds), but rather that God knows us. And not only does he know us, he has made his truth accessible to us through the use of our reason (ST I, Q. 12, Art 12).
Polls have been tracking the trends associated with religion for decades. What the most recent poll data suggests is there has been a rise in the number of people who claim to be either atheist or agnostic, but an even sharper rise in those who claim, “no religious affiliation.” I think this is significant because I am going to give those who identify themselves as either atheist or agnostic the benefit of the doubt and say they have at least thought about the question of God, the possibility of his existence, and what that means or doesn’t mean for their life. But those who claim “no religious affiliation” strike me as people who have not really taken the time to think about God or religion. They are indifferent towards the subject. That indifference is now at an all time high.
What disturbs me about this trend is religion has always been a subject people feel very strongly about (positively or negatively). Religion, and it’s primary object (i.e. God), is the thing countries have gone to war over, it is the ecstasy of the Saints, and it has been the reason martyrs willing lay down their lives. Historically, people have cared about religion a lot! Religion is arguably the most controversial subject in the world. Nowadays people aren’t entertaining the subject as something even worthy of their consideration. This indifference is something to be concerned about in my opinion.
Why?
Religion has been so controversial for so many millenniums because people are passionate about it. And why are they passionate about it? Because it is so interesting. Why is it so interesting? Because of the questions religion claims to answer. For example:
- What is the meaning of life
- How can I find inner peace?
- What happens when I die?
- What is the origin of life?
- What does it mean to be good?
Religion attempts to answer these, and other, significant questions. Of course, different religions have come up with different answers to life’s big questions, and their answers, whether true or false, are typically “game changers” for individuals. People will radically alter their lives based on the answers they discover in religion. The range of alterations go from the sublime (e.g. inner peace) to the deadly (e.g. suicide bomber). What we can glean from this is while the truth claims of different religions may be disputed, the fact is the effect for people’s lives is significant. Religion is not a small, boring topic.
So why do I think religion is so important to think about? Many reasons. First, for many people in the world, [their] religion, more specifically the object of their religious faith, is the most important thing in their lives. It seems too cold, too callous of us as a people to not care, in some form or fashion, for what others hold so near and dear to the heart. To dismiss religion out of hand and deem it not even worthy of consideration is arguably one of the cruelest things one person could do to another.
Second, religion makes the most outlandish claims. If the claims religion makes are true (e.g. there is eternal life after death), then they are far and away the most important truths we could ever know. If the claims are false, then they are the biggest lies ever told. It is either fact or fantasy. If the claims are fact, then it needs to be treated as such. And if religion’s claims are fantasy, then they are the world’s largest, most commonly shared fantasy, dating back to the beginning of humanity. The fact is, the claims religion makes are either true or not; they can not be both.
Those who scoff at the claims religion makes tend to say religion is a man-made invention. Napoleon Bonaparte is credited with the quote: “All religions have been made by men.” In many ways, I agree with that. As I said earlier, the most important claim religion makes is God knows us and he has made his truth accessible to us. Religion is our best attempt, as contemptible as it might be sometimes, to adequately worship the God who revealed himself to us.
But if religion is man-made, it is, hand’s down, man’s greatest invention. Consider the sheer magnitude of religion’s impact throughout all the annals of time. Consider all the causal effects generated by religion over the span of tens of thousands of years. Compare the “man-made invention” of religion against all the other ideas mankind has ever put forth. Take an imaginary scale and load it up with all of man’s most note-worthy triumphs:
- Control of fire
- Domestication of animals
- Agriculture
- Navigation of the world’s oceans
- Electricity
- Walking on the moon
- Climbing the highest mountains
- Nuclear energy
On the other side of the scale place one idea. This idea is of a being who is
- Actual
- Absolute
- Ideal
- Perfect
- One
- Eternal
- Omnipotent (i.e. all powerful)
- Omniscient (i.e. all knowing)
- Perfectly just
- Incorruptible
- Immutable (i.e. unchanging)
If we further consider the idea of such a being in the context of the three Abrahamic Religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), this being is a person, a self, an “I” who possesses consciousness and a will. It is disputable if such an idea is fact or fantasy; however, it is indisputable that this idea is humanity’s biggest fact or the biggest fantasy.
Now return to the question offered at the beginning of this this post and try to imagine what the world would look like if no one ever conceived of religion, any kind of religion. Look back at all of history and rewrite it, removing the “religion factor” from the equation. You can’t do it. Religion has inspired more people to action, good or bad, since the beginning of time. Nothing else has had that kind of impact, not even all of man’s achievements combined! Religion has, without question, been the driving force for all of human history.
And that is why the rise of those disinterested, “no religious affiliation” people is so alarming to me: they are not even engaging in the most important conversation of their lives.
Print 
PDF
Related posts:
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
And on further reflection regarding my lack of reading comprehension, so correct me if I’m wrong, if we are to believe the Pew poll then there are an increasing number of people who absolutely and without doubt believe in god(s) but subscribe to no organized religion and in fact consider themselves unaffiliated.
Maybe Christopher is correct and there are a significant subset of these individuals who are disinterested, unengaged and have put no thought into it. This begs the question as to how they know they are theists/deists in the first place if they lack engagement and interest? Perhaps a number of them would be atheist/agnostic if they were to pursue it.
Several years ago I read a book called “What We Believe but Cannot Prove”*, which queried a bunch of scientists and thinkers what they believed without convincing evidence. Of course there were things like “true love” (metaphysics) and “alien intelligence” (cosmology), etc, but as an exercise it’s useful in that it shows that ALL of us have beliefs in stuff that is not or cannot be proved empirically. That’s the human dilemma… Homo religiosus. We look for order and agency everywhere.
* http://www.amazon.com/What-Believe-but-Cannot-Prove/dp/0060841818
Which brings me back to the Pew poll and it’s lack of utility. Non-churchgoers have cited the poll as evidence that our culture is becoming healthier by eschewing superstition. While this may be heartening, the distinct possibility is that these so-called nonreligious individuals merely replace one superstition for another: free market capitalism (ala atheist Ayn Rand) is an excellent example, or Maoism might be another… Dr Oz selling vitamins on TV…but examples are myriad. Beliefs without evidence.
The most important thing is to realize that we all “believe” stuff and to know when we are doing it. Personally, and I know I’ll get pushback from the Deacon here, I interpret the evidence to show that when individuals or cultures put a disproportionate value on their religions and superstitions that is when they become dangerous and often self-destructive. Fundamentalist Christian sects that ignore medical science are an example. Religion is okay, but when you interpret the bible to mean all science is heretical, well maybe that’s too much “belief”.
I like reading Christopher’s blog especially when it shows that the Pope or some theologian or church father incorporates empiric thought processes into their interpretation of the scripture. I read and don’t always comment (Hard to believe I know). It’s important to keep the superstition moored to the reality of empiricism, and that is when catholicism, or any religion, is the strongest.
Whole cultures have been shown to become unmoored from reality and devolve into extinction when they ignore empiric evidence in favor of beliefs. Jared Diamond wrote an entire book (Collapse) outlining examples of such social devolution: one example are Easter Islanders who eschewed evidence of their dwindling natural resources to the point of extinction of their society. (His subtext is that we may be doing the same thing on a planetary scale by ignoring the possibility of anthropogenic climate change, but that’s another issue).
I’ve drifted into GYOFB territory. Apologies.
Frankly, Tony, I think it is a big step in your thinking to admit that we all “believe” stuff that may not have empirical evidence to back it up. Kudos!
I’m interested in your reading of the “evidence” that says that “when individuals or cultures put a disproportionate value on their religions and superstitions that is when they become dangerous and often self-destructive.” I don’t agree that disproportionate is the right word. I would replace the word with “distorted”, and then I would agree with you!
Please grant me a little leeway here. If the Christian God is as he is is presented in the Catholic faith, supported by the Bible and Tradition, then what can ever be disproportionate about following that God absolutely? If God is the creator of everything, and wills the good for all, then how can it not be right for the creature to follow the creator without reservation? I think the false proposition is that in following that God absolutely that one will necessarily cause harm to others. But in a clear reading of the Catholic faith, one cannot follow that God absolutely and at the same time not have concern for others.
I think it can definitely cause problems when the understanding of that God is distorted, such as “if you are not with us, you should be killed”. I’m thinking here of a group like Westboro Baptist Church. They are following without reservation what they believe to be true, but I believe that what they believe is such a distortion of the truth (and thereby a distortion of God’s will) that it cannot help but be dangerous and destructive.
Regarding the faiths that disregard some of the medical sciences. I don’t think they are against the science itself (as in saying taking insulin injections would not help diabetes). What most would say is that they do not want it, for one reason or another, and choose other paths. They are rejecting those biological solutions because of what they believe to be the spiritual implications. One might put the Catholic Church in this category regarding the rejection of artificial contraception. No one says that a diaphragm with spermicidal jelly will not prevent a pregnancy. What the Church would say is that it has spiritual implications that make it incompatible with the faith.
Finally (sorry for the long comment), I do not interpret the Pew Forum report in the same manner I understand you to be interpreting it. I do not see the “nones” has being “people who absolutely and without doubt believe in god(s) but subscribe to no organized religion and in fact consider themselves unaffiliated,” although the report does indicate that 68% of the “nones” believe in “God” (no qualifier as to what that means), with just over a third claiming to be “spiritual but not religious”. I don’t think the “none” is really saying “I believe but I just haven’t found a church yet”. In fact, according to the report, 88% of the “nones” are not looking for a religion that would be right for them. That is the exact disengagement that gave rise to Christopher’s post in the first place. At least there is some evidence that atheists/agnostics have engaged the question.
Deacon Sean:Frankly, Tony, I think it is a big step in your thinking to admit that we all “believe” stuff that may not have empirical evidence to back it up. Kudos!
Tony: Really, you think I haven’t recognized that we all believe stuff? In fact, I think the threshold of rational proof is so high that there is very little that we can know without at least some doubt…thus Agnosticism. But it’s important to differentiate fact from definite maybes.
DS: I’m interested in your reading of the “evidence” that says that “when individuals or cultures put a disproportionate value on their religions and superstitions that is when they become dangerous and often self-destructive.” I don’t agree that disproportionate is the right word. I would replace the word with “distorted”, and then I would agree with you!
Tony: No, I like the word disproportionate but you can use whatever word you like. Examples: Maoist China, Catholicism during the Crusades and the Inquisition, Islam under Wahhabism, homebirth midwifery, fascist nationalism in Nazi Germany. Granted, I’m inserting my own value judgement by using the terms “dangerous and self-destructive.” The Muslim suicide bomber does not see his behavior as self-destructive since he is going to heaven to meet 72 virgins; likewise the self-proclaimed martyrs who conquered the Holy Land for the Pontiff a thousand years ago.
You can call these few examples distorted, but that would mean that there is some irrational belief system that is fully ordered (not distorted) and that might turn out to be consistent with reason; sure, I guess if enough monkeys bang on enough typewriters for enough millenia Shakespeare’s Sonnets would be produced. In other words, the chance of that happening is too remote to be considered. (I know, I know…Christianity is!!!) I would argue that for all practical purposes ALL non-empiric practices tend to blossom into self-destructive and dangerous practices unless they are tempered with rational examination. In short, without reason ALL religion and superstition devolves. Kudos to the Catholic Church: You can credit Aquinas and others with incorporating a form of reason into the church teaching. But it begs the question why not just go to the source and pursue reason and genuine experience and trash all the superfluous superstition? Why not just follow the lead of Aristotle and Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius and their intellectual descendants?
DS: Please grant me a little leeway here. If the Christian God is as he is is presented in the Catholic faith, supported by the Bible and Tradition, then what can ever be disproportionate about following that God absolutely? If God is the creator of everything, and wills the good for all, then how can it not be right for the creature to follow the creator without reservation? I think the false proposition is that in following that God absolutely that one will necessarily cause harm to others. But in a clear reading of the Catholic faith, one cannot follow that God absolutely and at the same time not have concern for others.
Tony: “If the Christian God…If…If…” Bottom line: As long as the Christian God comports with reason then He’ll be allowed to exist. There is a long line of dead gods that have been cast aside because they have not bowed to reason and experience. As long as your God benignly remains aloof and untested then his mystery will allow the belief system to remain intact. Set up a randomized controlled study to empirically examine God’s omnipotence or omnibenevolence and the mystery is threatened.
DS: I think it can definitely cause problems when the understanding of that God is distorted, such as “if you are not with us, you should be killed”. I’m thinking here of a group like Westboro Baptist Church. They are following without reservation what they believe to be true, but I believe that what they believe is such a distortion of the truth (and thereby a distortion of God’s will) that it cannot help but be dangerous and destructive.
Regarding the faiths that disregard some of the medical sciences. I don’t think they are against the science itself (as in saying taking insulin injections would not help diabetes). What most would say is that they do not want it, for one reason or another, and choose other paths. They are rejecting those biological solutions because of what they believe to be the spiritual implications. One might put the Catholic Church in this category regarding the rejection of artificial contraception. No one says that a diaphragm with spermicidal jelly will not prevent a pregnancy. What the Church would say is that it has spiritual implications that make it incompatible with the faith.
Tony: I politely disagree. Christian Scientists really do believe that their prayers heal better than modern medicine. Homebirth midwives really do believe that their methods are less stressful to the fetus and result in safer births than conventional obstetrics in a hospital despite compelling evidence to the contrary. Scientology really does teach that all psychiatry is ineffective and dangerous despite empiric evidence to the contrary. Christianity really does have a long history of eschewing science that contradicted their belief system until which time they were compelled to change their belief system. Superstition is in a constant battle with reason and it isn’t a choice between two equal systems: oftentimes, one is right and the other is wrong. Empirically.
DS: Finally (sorry for the long comment), I do not interpret the Pew Forum report in the same manner I understand you to be interpreting it. I do not see the “nones” has being “people who absolutely and without doubt believe in god(s) but subscribe to no organized religion and in fact consider themselves unaffiliated,” although the report does indicate that 68% of the “nones” believe in “God” (no qualifier as to what that means), with just over a third claiming to be “spiritual but not religious”. I don’t think the “none” is really saying “I believe but I just haven’t found a church yet”. In fact, according to the report, 88% of the “nones” are not looking for a religion that would be right for them. That is the exact disengagement that gave rise to Christopher’s post in the first place. At least there is some evidence that atheists/agnostics have engaged the question.
Tony: I think the Pew survey is useless and we cannot really know what the respondents meant, but that’s my opinion. I respect your analysis and at least we got some mileage out of the discussion. Christopher can rest assured that religion is here to stay…until Homo sapiens evolves into something else.
Those are good points and I’ll accept some heat in my verbiage. But I guess the question remains how does Christopher know that the unaffiliated (unaffiliated monotheists, deists, and polytheists?) are disinterested and have not engaged the issue? Maybe they are engaged on another level that is not considered religion.
I appreciate Christopher’s choice in definitions of religion (albeit #4, it’s his blog he can pick whichever one he wants), but I’m not sure the Pew pollsters fleshed out the “nones” who might still subscribe to a “belief system with ardor and faith.” Someone might believe in Tarot card reading or astrology but not consider it a religion by their personal definition. A lot of people might consider themselves religious only if they subscribe to one of the mainstream creeds.
To wit: From the poll, “With few exceptions, though, the unaffiliated say they are not looking for a religion that would be right for them. Overwhelmingly, they think that religious organizations are too concerned with money and power, too focused on rules and too involved in politics.”
They seem to be including only institutional organized religions and not just any old “belief system…ardor and faith.” Using Christopher’s definition Jungian psychologists, Bradley Method midwives and most homeopaths would be consider devoutly religious.
I tend to agree that humans are largely religious (one anthropologist suggested the Linnean classification be changed to Homo religiosus), but the poll might just point to a distrust of large Church organizations and not a reduction necessarily in belief systems.
As for war, Christopher, you were the one who brought up religion as a cause for war. Personally, I think the primary cause for most (all?) wars can be traced to political themes: land and resources, and religion has been merely co-opted secondarily to serve the political ends.
“Religion, and it’s primary object (i.e. God), is the thing countries have gone to war over, it is the ecstasy of the Saints, and it has been the reason martyrs willing lay down their lives. Historically, people have cared about religion a lot!”
Maybe that’s the point: we need less war we might be better off with fewer emotionally charged man-made “belief systems” that render conversations ended and armed conflict necessary.
I think your characterization of those without religious affiliation as “disinterested” and “not even engaged” belies your prejudice. You should get out and meet agnostics and atheists; some are really interesting and engaged.
For the record, following your definition of religion, I would consider myself “religious” on several issues; in fact I would probably even qualify as “clergy” in at least one field to which I “hold beliefs with ardor and faith.” Where do I sign up for my tax-exempt status?
For many (and growing parabolically), religious affiliation is NOT the most important thing in their lives. To me, that’s not a negative at all, but I know you disagree.
Link: http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/picture-4.png
Sorry to be blunt, Tony, but I think you totally missed Christopher’s point. He specifically did NOT lump together atheist, agnostic and “no religious affiliation”. He said,
So who’s prejudice is being revealed? The point is not about atheists or agnostics, but those that are so “disinterested” and “disengaged” that they can’t even commit to that!
And if you have a problem with the definition, then take it up with Merriam-Webster, because that’s where it is from (albeit #4).
Regarding your potential status as “clergy”, Christopher and I have gotten tattoos from a self-proclaimed Satanist that is considered “clergy” and is licensed to marry in Maryland. So your chances of getting that tax-exempt status are pretty good. ;-)
The good Deacon made the exact point I would have before I could get to my computer. I made a very clear distinction between atheists, agnostics, and those who claim “no religious affiliation.” It was the same distinction the Pew Forum made in their survey.
I am not sure why non-believers persist in trying to make a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to linking religion and war. It is undeniable that religion has been the impetus for violent conflict in the past, but the connection is not nearly as numerous as some non-believers attempt to make it. Consider the following detailed in the Encyclopedia of Wars:
Not to mention the 20th century was one of the bloodiest centuries in human history. Two major world wars, which had nothing at all to do with religion, the Jewish Holocaust, and the Communist Revolutions in Russia, China, Southeast Asia and Cuba, have accounted for anywhere between 50-70 million deaths (some estimate upwards to 100 million). The same Encyclopedia of Wars estimates that approximately one to three million people were tragically killed in the Crusades, and perhaps 3,000 in the Inquisition, nearly 35 million soldiers and civilians died in the senseless, and secular, slaughter of World War 1 alone.
So anyway, I think you were inferring something about me ignoring facts and only putting forth my prejudice….please continue.
Great post, Christopher! Very thought provoking.
I wonder if one of the reasons there are so many people that do not even consider the question is because maybe one of the statements you made is not as true as we’d like. Namely,
My thought is that with so many people claiming faith and claiming something to be so important, yet so obviously not living in a manner that reflects that import, I wonder if other folks might just see that and say “it isn’t even worth it”?