Everyone has something that drives them, that keeps the blood pumping through their veins, and gives them that warm fuzzy feeling in their belly. For some people it can be their family, for others their job and for quite a few people: religion.
I went to an Evangelical church service last Sunday, and far from being full of over zealous types attempting to convert me, I discovered the meaning of an equilibrium between fanaticism and open-mindedness. Even as a non-believer I was welcomed with open arms into this group, who are bound together through their love of Jesus.
Take away the bouncy songs, clapping and swaying in praise of their Lord, and you're left with people who are looking to do good. With their songs, emotive words and literature they declare that they're not interested in what other people do or say. They encourage their followers to do good by giving to the community to enrich the lives of people around them, proactively and not just with cash. My friend who took me to the service, showed me a derelict building that the church had bought. He insisted that there wasn't going to be any material advertising the church - not even subliminal messages, he joked! He said the only people who would know of the church's involvement in this scheme would be those curious enough to ask who their benefactor is.
My friend said that his interest in this church in particular stemmed from the pastors having lead "real" lives and converting much later in life, rather than having been born into religion. For example, one of the pastors had been part of a gang. He wanted a sense of belonging to a family and when he finally "found Jesus" he realised he could get it within a group that didn't need to use knives to gain respect from fellow members.
Now, don't get me wrong; the service wasn't all sweetness and light. On my way in I was given a "Welcome pack" which contained information on what the church does and how they can help you to see the light. It's a white bag, so highlights to everyone else that you're new - and because they're all such a friendly bunch everyone comes up to you to say “hi” and ask what your motivations for being at the church are. At the end of the service the pastor asks "Is there anyone amongst us who would like to receive Jesus?" - it's a chance for those that are looking to convert to evangelicalism to have their doubts put to rest so they can become part of this family.
Of course, let's not forget that fanaticism doesn't just manifest itself within the religious, but also the non-religious.
Richard Dawkins is one the most famous atheists around. He also leads services open to the general public under the guise of “lectures”. His welcome pack comes in the form of his many books full of powerful words in an attempt to convert the readers.
On the Richard Dawkins Foundation website (http://richarddawkins.net/), it lays out its purpose (akin to the Ten Commandments, perhaps?):
“The mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and human suffering”.
I don’t believe that religious fervour is the same as fanaticism. What I saw at the Evangelical service was pure fervour, whereas the antagonistic feel of the Richard Dawkins’ website is fanaticism.
I believe religion to be a human instinct to create a bond between people in order to encourage cohesion. Religion manifests itself in a variety of forms. It is this OBSESSION that unites people but also creates dissention.
Everyone has a religion, everyone has an agenda; be it God, football, or a boyband. Each side is looking to increase their numbers – either subliminally or by force - and do you know which side I'm going to take? NONE! When the collection tin comes round to me, I'd rather give my hard earned cash to my local pub than the pious or Mr Dawkins!
I met some nice Jehova's Witnesses the other day (they came to my door). The seemed very nice and, inadvertently, explained the historical context of a scene in the Life of Brian.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I find it hard to forget a former housemate screaming up the stairs at me 'you're going to hell' and meaning it. It isn't all live and let live. If you believe that someone is offending god by not believing, it follows that you think worse of them. Unlike (say) a favourite ice cream, where I know mint-choc-chip is best, but won't think worse of you if you like raspberry.
Richard Dawkins is a bit over the top, but if you think of the domination religious thinking has had over society for so long, it isn't surprising that people react against it. I guess that he is the equivalent of a bra burning militant feminist - fighting pervading religious ideas rather than sexism.
What gets me is when people say something like 'religious thinking has made our society what it is today'. I'm not quite sure what they mean, but I don't see the CofE as the last barrier between us and anarchy*. I guess once people also used that argument to defend a women's place being in the home (doing the washing up).
* We will never know how society might have been without a dominant religion, but we would probably have barbecued fewer Catholics and jews.
I'm off to do the washing up ;-)
ReplyDeleteNice false dichotomy you set up there. Comparing a happy, clappy evangelical group against one of the most outspoken, antagonistic atheists.
ReplyDeleteHow about you compare an outspoken, antagonistic religious group like the Phelps family, or the Iranian morality police, or the Taliban or so many other groups.
Let's see, on the one hand an annoying scientist who advocated separating religion from politics and on the other we have people who advocate stoning people to death for 'religious' crimes, or causing emotional distress by protesting at soldiers funerals.
Of course anyone can be a fanatic but there's a league of difference between the fanaticism of Richard Dawkins and that of suicide bombers.
It's disingenuous to compare your singular pleasant experience with *one* group of religious people to Richard Dawkins.
Not everyone has a religion, unless you are expanding the definition of religion to such a degree that it loses all meaning as a word. You yourself say that you are a non-believer.
Finally you end with a declaration of independence from all of the groups you describe including the pious and Richard Dawkins. Yet that very declaration can only be misleading or an outright lie. Dawkins is an atheist and unless you have an unusual definition of 'non-believer', so are you.
@ Fred:
ReplyDeleteAs much as religion creates division in a society, you simply cannot forget what it has given society… There are immense buildings throughout the world that have been built to celebrate “god”.
http://www.tropix.co.uk/themes/religious%20architecture.htm
Islam gave us mathematics, Christianity has produced some amazing works of art – so I certainly don’t believe that it is possible to say that religion hasn’t had some sort of positive impact on our lives…
@ G
OK, possibly not the best material to use for a comparison… But when I was standing in the throng of all those people, singing, smiling, and swaying, all I could think of was how much I disliked Richard Dawkins’ crusade against religion. The point I was trying to make was that Dawkins has said he dislikes brainwashing in all its forms – subtly or by force, yet what he does is ALSO brainwashing.
I agree that there is a difference between Dawkins and suicide bombers, but who’s to say that his words won’t have filled some individuals with the desire to fight fire with fire? I know that dwelling on “what ifs” may be a pointless past time, but there’s no harm in considering the implications of these ideas on future generations.
Apologies for not making my point clearer, but as said at the beginning of the entry, religion is purely a focus in life that an individual has – it’s their priority in life (writing this, I now, realise my mistake! J) and therefore everyone has a religion – whether it’s finding enough sustenance to make it through to tomorrow, or praying for the demise of the infidels – it’s all religion as defined by some dictionary on the internet!
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religion
“A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion”
And finally, yes, I am a non-belieber: an “atheist” believes there is no god, a “non-believer” believes in nothing.
Islam didn't give us mathematics nor did Christianity produce art. People performed both of those actions. Implying that the mathematics or great art would not exist without religion is giving religion more credit than it deserves.
ReplyDeleteYou make the claim that what Dawkins does is 'brainwashing'. In what way is asking people to be more skeptical and to question things 'brainwashing'? Again you should look into the history of brainwashing and compare the methods used therein with those of various religious groups. I think that you'll find little in common with what Dawkins or any secularist for that matter does.
You are right, there's no harm in considering the future implication of current actions. However that isn't a valid dismissal of the point that I made. Dawkins isn't a 'fanatic' and it's entirely wrong to use the term fanatic when comparing him to the religious. The religious 'fanatics' are on a completely different level. In fact, if you read what he says, he's quite willing to change his views if you present him with a convincing argument.
I totally disagree with the definition you are using for the word religion in an article about religion. Firstly because nobody reading will see the distinction between the 'christianity is a religion' and 'any focus in life is a religion', thus confusing your meaning.
Secondly because as I said before, diluting the word religion to mean any focus that you have in life robs it of any serious use. If we have a discussion about the teaching of religion in schools, are you going to argue that we should teach equally judaism and wanting to be a footballer? I think not.
Finally you're finishing point is incorrect. An atheist doesn't believe there is a god or gods. There is a subtle distinction between my definition and yours that many miss. That makes you an atheist. Whether you are also a non-believer is debatable, however I would argue that using your definition you are not.
The starting point you made is a good one, in my opinion - not every aspect of religion is wrong, ridiculous or a bad thing. There are good people who follow a religion like Christianity, for example, who do good things for their community, their friends and in their lives. It's what works for them. I personally dont believe in it but I'm tolerant of other people's beliefs and faiths because it doesn't affect or offend me in any way. There's a very convincing argument, however, that atheists who do good in their lives are coming from a purer place free of fear and instead stemming from strong moral values that are believed to be the 'right' way to lead your life. Still, it's all good! The end result is what counts.
ReplyDeleteBut during the course of history religion hasn't itself contributed solely to art and mathematics. Many, many other sources have also contributed to these areas. Sure, there are some beautiful pieces of timeless art which contain religious subject matter but that's not the same as saying religion is responsible for these works. The artists are responsible. And if religion had not existed, let's say, the artists would still have painted albeit different subject matter equally beautiful, I'm sure.
The comparison to Dawkins though is unfair. Richard Dawkins is a passionate man. Sometimes his passion gets misinterpreted for condescension. I put myself in his shoes. If I was intent on educating people on something and I was up against religion, a subject fraught with ignoring contradictions, asking people to have blind faith and a serious disregard for evidence I'd get a tad peeved sometimes! A good analogy is if a judge ordered a jury to disregard a CCTV tape of a crime that they'd seen because the local council failed to follow legal regulations on the placement of the camera!
Dawkins is not a brainwasher, he's a scientist. He writes having done an enormous amount of research and having looked at the evidence. If new evidence comes to light he changes his view accordingly. That's the essence of science. He has, however, brought atheism more media coverage and has found a platform in which to express his views. I admire that greatly and love that it's happened. He should be revered in my opinion. I guess I would say that - I am an atheist after all.
The irony is that atheists do not have an organised way of putting their views across and 'practising' their beliefs, which is probably what is required to educate people on atheism!