Another anti-religion diatribe

‘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)