In my recent post on the concept of the noble lie I cited (approvingly) David Berlinski's contention (based on intuitions about human nature and on historical evidence) that religious belief - in particular belief in a just, all-seeing god - is conducive to good behavior and so socially beneficial.
I have just come across a report on some research which seems to support this point of view. The researchers found that one particular doctrine - a belief in punishment after death - was the most significant factor in determining whether a society had a low level of crime. Other studies have delivered similar findings, with one even finding that a belief in supernatural punishment promoted productive business activity. (Gross domestic product was found to be higher in developed countries when belief in after-death punishments was widespread.) Old time religion seems to trump the more liberal, postmodern varieties hands down when it comes to being socially useful.
This is an uncomfortable truth for those of us who reject such religious ideas, but it is also useful insofar as it exposes unrealistically optimistic views about human nature and society for what they are: wishful thinking.
Though I am religious, I can comprehend arguments that we "don't need God for morality". Obviously I'm melting a pile of separate points and arguments down together and simplifying them as well but stay with me.
ReplyDeleteIt's nonsense, we absolutely need God, at least in the abstract. It may be so that humanity could do fine without God, but we do need any number of useful social behavioral constraints, of which, real or not, God is one. Seemingly a useful one under certain circumstances, though it feels awkward to have an atheist confirm this to me.
I seem to recall the four horsemen, Dennett and Hitchins in particular, extolling the positive aspects of religion, the things they do well, like community and such. The point seemed to me to be that things like a sabbath can be positive and would be hard, perhaps impossible, to be converted into secular institutions. I did think Dennett's talking about the possibility of a secular sabbath was fascinating.
If this doesn't make sense cut me some slack, its almost 3 in the morning.
Alain de Botton has been putting forward his own - slightly nutty - ideas for secular rituals. I find that sort of thing a bit pathetic - or naive. Like Comte's religion of humanity. I think non-religious people need to bite the bullet and accept the consequences of non-belief. Traditions and rituals only work in the end if they (are believed to) have some kind of genuine meaning.
DeleteYou have a point, but consider that I am going to a grand secular ritual next Wednesday where we will dispose of more ordinance in an evening than they did in all of world war 2. I speak of course of the 4th of July.
DeleteSecular traditions and rituals are all over and can easily gain meaning, look at the number of atheists who celebrate Christmas.
You do of course have the government who could mandate all manner of rituals, depending on how the Supreme Court rules this week. Yippee, that would totally work!
I didn't mean to suggest that secular rituals can't have real meaning: as you say, there are many secular rituals that work very well. My criticisms were directed at the idea that we can just replace traditional religious rituals with secular equivalents. Generally the result lacks any real meaning and has an ersatz quality.
Deletetimber bifold doors
ReplyDeleteI believe in God, but as the one of the ten commandments state 'Thou shall not put the name of God in vain'. We should put this in mind and not use God's name in any way.
Spam, but I won't delete. Has a rather nice irony about it.
Delete