By Arthur M. Jackson
Copyright 1998, 2006
In recent time I have had the opportunity to carry on an e-mail dialogue with Austin Cline of the Council for Secular Humanism. This correspondence helped to remind me that the religion issue is a long way from dead in freethought circles. It continues to hypnotically divert atheists, Secular Humanists, and others from effective action and keeps them plowing barren ground. So instead of working to build solid structures based on science that would replace folk religions -- because we can do the necessary jobs better -- we spend our energy doing things that are totally ineffective or if we find what appears to be an effective action, eventually suffer an end-run by the entrenched power of folk religions and being further immoblilzed. And this must happen since we misunderstand the role religion plays and must play in any society. A society's very existence depends on this institution.
In my more paranoid moments I have thought that all the leaders of freethought organizations must be agents of folk religions. I fantasized that they couldn't so effectively divert our focus, energy, and time from our obvious goal without a conscious intent. But then I meet them and talk to them and realize that nothing being done is part of a conspiracy by the forces of evil. Our problem is more subtle than that. We are imprisoned by the memes of religious indoctrination.
What is the best way to understand what the "true" nature of religion is?
There are various ways to define religion. But to understand them it is important to develop a context.
My approach is to attempt to understand the underlying human needs that religions fill and have filled since the beginning of human history. This presents a new paradigm that will be accepted to the degree that one agrees with what this approach is trying to accomplish.
In this context I define religion as follows:
Religion is the social institution that has traditionally been the repository of wisdom and the sustainer of vision. It is concerned with definitive issues including the meaning of human life and how this meaning can be achieved. It provides the binding institution within a society that connects every person with every other and furnishes the shared values that guide individual and group behavior. See, Science of Religion.
However, there are other appoaches. The one suggested by Austin Cline is written by William P. Alston and presented as the "Religion" article in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (Paul Edwards, Editor in Chief, p. 140-145, Macmillan & Free Press, New York, 1967).
The author claims that, "This article is not a survey of the various forms that religion has taken in human history; rather, it treats the nature of religion as a problem in the philosophy of religion. It will be concerned with attempts to develop an adequate definition of religion, that is, to make explicit the basic features of the concept of religion." [p. 140]
In spite of his initial claims, Alston diverts our attention from what he plans to do by presenting the elements of specific religions and taking them as the components used to define a religion. The core of this presentation is provided below:
Austin Cline introduces it this way,
"Perhaps it would help to examine what a religion is. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, in its article on Religion, lists some characteristics of religions. The more markers that are present in a belief system, the more "religious like" it is...
1. Belief in supernatural beings (gods).
2. A distinction between sacred and profane objects.
3. Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.
4. A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods.
5. Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual, and which are connected in idea with the gods.
6. Prayer and other forms of communication with gods.
7. A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it.
8. A more or less total organization of one's life based on the world view.
9. A social group bound together by the above."
On the face of it the above would not seem to conflict with traditional wisdom that religions differ in very fundamental ways. Obviously points 7, 8, and 9 do not require supernatural beliefs.
However, the author soon moves into a new framework which allows him to ignore items 7, 8, and 9. He achieves this as indicated below:
"In the case of so complex a concept as religion, it is desirable to supplement the very general portrayal of basic features with some indications of the varying emphases placed on them in different religions. To do this, we must develop a classificatory scheme."
"William James has reminded us that in every religion there is some sort of awareness of what is called divine and some sort of response to this divinity. This being the case, a very fruitful way of classifying religions is to ask in the case of each: 'Where is the divine (the object of religious responses) primarily sought and located, and what sort of response is primarily made to it?' In answering these questions for a given religion, the religion-making features most stressed in that religion will also come to light. According to this principle of division, religions fall into three major groups: sacramental, prophetic, and mystical." [p. 143]
Now it is time to remember that Alston's claim was that, "This article is not a survey of the various forms that religion has taken in human history; rather, it treats the nature of religion as a problem in the philosophy of religion. It will be concerned with attempts to develop an adequate definition of religion, that is, to make explicit the basic features of the concept of religion." [p. 140]
I take that to be a well chosen goal. However, in my mind, this goal has been subverted by his use of James' claims regarding divinity. Rather than searching for a definiton that reaches the essence of religion, he defines religion as having a supernatural component (divinity) and then uses this as the basis for analyzing religions.
When the author adopts the classificatory scheme using sacramental, prophetic, and mystical he disregards the nine elements previously adopted. But what is the justification? Some ideas presented by William James. And that's all the justification there is! Is this an adequate basis for making key decisions about the nature of religion, let alone a basis for definitions? When this is done we are thereby moved almost entirely into the supernatural box. This is not acceptable to me!
The author's goal whether intentional or not can only have the effect of reinforcing the freethought model of rejecting religion because it depends on the supernatural. It becomes one more barrier preventing us from breaking out of the prison that has contained modern thinkers for at least the last 200 years.
To that I say, Freethinkers of the world, throw off your chains! They exist only in your own minds (which still belong to the Church)!
If you would like to know more about this endeavor visit Science of Religion, or drop a line to Arthur Jackson.