‘Tis the season to be jolly …
the
carol goes, so appropriate to the Holidays
that are upon us, at least for those in the Christian world. Keeping up with
the spirit of this season, I offer the following as my Christmas Gift.
So,
in penning this post, I am following the dictates of the season – to be jolly.
It is a different matter that my happiness fist may reach out and bump against
the nose of the religionists, particularly Christians (Christmas) and Jews
(Hanukkah), and my proactive apologies. In self-defense, I must claim that a
religionist’s stinking fist had already reached my nose. I am referring to what
Joseph Harker says: many atheists “may have lost sight of religion’s
underlying good.” [1]
In
his rush to the defense of religion, Harker condemns himself to inconsistency, leavened
with loads of irony. He wants to compare religion to political philosophy –
every political philosophy has been showed to be flawed and hence religious
philosophy too should be allowed to be imperfect. This is the first time I am
hearing from a religionist even an implicit connection between religion and
politics. And, politics has no embedded spirituality; ergo, neither does
religion.
Harker may not have explicitly stated that religion is just another political philosophy. However, this indeed is how Jared Diamond traced the roots of religion in Guns, Germs and Steel – a system to authenticate exploitation among humans, a prop for political economy and philosophy. The inconsistency resides in the fact he would not find any other religionist accepting even this implied categorization.
If
my point above is muddle-headed, then blame religion that offers no clarity!
Harker’s thesis falters at the starting gate and he must offer other reasons
for not demanding perfection from religion.
That
leads me to the second inconsistency. He says that religion is “run by humans.”
It may have been established by God (Moses’s Burning Bush and Ten Commandments;
Krishna’s Bhagvad Gita and so on), but religion is run by humans and hence
corruptible. Therefore it should be excused for not being perfect.
This
is it. If religion, as being run by humans, is not perfect, why claim, “My
religion is truth and yours is not.” It can at best be claimed, “My religion is
less corrupt than yours. It is not truth and indeed, as corrupt as any religion
is, we do not know whether the original kernel of truth can ever be discerned
through any religion.” Try to get any religious congregation to accept this
dilution, which, by the way, is the truth. Religion does not allow you to utter
the truth while claiming that it itself is truth! Inconsistency and irony – two
trucks moving in tandem.
If
the subsequent explanation is that religion should be kept personal and
non-comparative, is it any different than having personal morality?
Well,
that challenge aside, let me scroll down the article.”[R]eligion … offers
clarity, and the opportunity for regular self-assessment in an atmosphere of
genuine humility.” Gag me with a spoon, please.
Religion
survives by being inscrutable and not by offering clarity. Anytime an
explanation is sought from religion, the template answer is, “God’s ways are
inscrutable; but He loves you. It is better you do not pose this question to
Him or to me, His earthly agent.” Wasn’t this the starting point of
Reformation?
Harker
says that, “the meaning of life is not to be found in material things, but in
looking after our fellow humans.” This, in the immediate aftermath of the la affaire City of London-St. Paul
Cathedral-Occupy London-eviction in the cold of October/November! Irony, wouldn’t
you say? It was an instance of religion lining itself with capital to evict
people from a religious campus. So inclusive religion is, is it not?
When
has any religion assessed itself and not been riven? If self-assessment leads
to irreconcilable division will any religion survive in its original form
(assuming there was one)? This is precisely why, as I said earlier, the origin
of religion remains obfuscated.
A
mere assertion and a request to prove me wrong: religion personifies arrogance.
“I am religious; ergo, I am good!”
There
is more. The tract is against Richard Dawkins brand of in-your-face atheism, a
fully justified counter-arrogance. Fist for fist and one bloodied nose for another. Harker sets up a straw man – atheists want
each person to create her own morality and each should have a go at the
morality of others. These atheists “do not recognize the power of the religious
leader’s words, with the purity that comes from the lack of political taint.”
Now, what is Harker saying? Does he or does he not want religion to be compared
to or with political philosophy? He can’t have it both ways. By the way, as I will show later, humanists offer a morality that lies outside religion.
Further,
each and every religion has been a source of avoidable human misery, and this
is precisely why atheists have “lost sight of religion’s underlying good.” If
it is a negative-sum game, evil trumping good in the aggregate and often when
disaggregated too, why play the game? Simple things do not seem to register
with Harker!
And,
I am coming towards the end of this diatribe. Harker says, “[H]umanists [conflating science, atheism and humanism] should
organize their own churches, where they could talk in praise of science (which
few of them actually understand), and create their own commandments (or maybe
principles of particle physics) …” Harker
equates Dawkinsian atheism to science, and in turn to humanism. This is worse than
nonsense. Does Harker imply that religionists understand religion, even as they have organized their "own churches"? Bah Humbug, says this Scrooge who is not going to be visited by ghosts of Christmas!
Humanism
does not – indeed does not need to – come to the defense of science. Science
offers a palette for the society to mix colors as it finds comfortable with.
Humanism, on the other hand, tries to show the way the mixing should be done
(The “should” really translates into the Biblical “shalt”, the Kantian imperative).
Humanism is not a scientific thesis; it is rather a guide to the use of science,
indeed any other endeavor of knowledge that enjoys being self-skeptical.
Apparently
Harker is unaware, or is unable to comprehend this nuanced difference between
science and humanism. Humanism does not leave “everyone to create their own
morality with no guidance,” as implied by Harker. Humanism’s play book is not a
secret, is available to all and is universally applicable. Let any religionist
dare say the same of his religion. The inconsistency is in mixing science and
humanism.
Dawkinsian
atheism is a humanist philosophy. What else will you tag it when it calls
children being brainwashed into the exclusivist philosophy of religion (no
matter which religion it is) as an instance of child-abuse?
Why
am I cut up so with this particular piece? Because, as it concludes, it says
that over time humanism and its proxy Richard Dawkins will spot “the odd
inconsistency,” while offering nothing but inconsistent arguments as I have shown above.
If
‘Tis the season to be jolly, non-religionists
can also partake, I suppose. Humanists and even Dawkinsian atheists can be
jolly. And, that is the precise reason behind this piece.
Merry
Christmas!
Raghuram
Ekambaram
References
1.
For
all its flaws, religion remains a force for good,
Joseph Harker, The Guardian, December
17, 2011 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/dec/17/religion-force-for-good?INTCMP=SRCH)
4 comments:
Raghuram, now it's my turn to ask you the question you asked me in one of my recent blogs about Advani (in a different way): why do you bother again and again with religion? Let me tell you with the air of a know-all that religion will never die. It will go on, whether you like it or not. I don't like it. But I accept it. Just like I would accept the weeds in my garden (if and when I can afford a garden).
No matheikal, I had already answered that question ... when I find an article that leverages a situation, a time, like Christmas now, to take potshots at the other side, I respond vehemently.
Harker must have expected that he would slide this nonsense while taking cover from Christmas. I do not allow such subterfuges.
I do this in a majority of cases ... I am not too selective who the target of my ire is ... At the beginning I had said that I am going to punch the other's nose because he unnecessarily punched my nose. If Harker wanted to celebrate Christmas, I would have had no problem. But he wanted to take advantage of the season to put the other side down. He failed miserably as I had incontrovertibly shown in my piece. He was all over the place as he was bound to be. He literally has no place to hide. I can out him from wherever he wanders into.
In one of my earlier pieces I had admitted and resigned to religion's eternity. But I did not give up my right to fight. Perhaps this is how you feel about Advani and quite possibly I did not catch that. mea culpa.
Enjoy your vacation in Kerala!
RE
I am with you in your rejoinder to
Harkar...This know all absolutism gets my goat.."we are all the same but my sameness is different" gets my goat..only easterners understand the simultaneity of both sameness and differentiation.
I agree with your "simultaneity of sameness and differentiation" absolutely DS sir. Thanks for that pithy comment.
RE
Post a Comment