Why religion isn’t to blame for everything
“Organized religion has been at the basis of too many wars. I see very little good in it. I’m raising my children without any talk of God, as I don’t think it’s fair to push God down their throats when they’re too young to think logically.”
I came across this comment in what is otherwise a very intriguing reflection on the Passover and religious identity by Judith Warner in her New York Times blog, “Domestic Disturbances.”
One can find comments like it all over the place: the lazy dismissals of religion as the root and cause of every single thing that has ever gone wrong in the world. And I’ll confess that they drive me up a wall because (1) they often come from people who are simply buying into other people’s thoughts without thinking for themselves, and (2) they’re often wrong.
If someone is looking for something to blame for all the worst things that have happened in the last century or two—two world wars, genocide, colonialism, (fill in your blank)—go to the source: the Enlightenment. Why? Because the basic intent of the Enlightenment was to subject everything under Reason (with a capital “R”). And what we’ve discovered as a human race is that Reason, along with the systems of rationality that have been built like temples all around it, tends to dominate, and dominate absolutely. It is a particularly Western way of thinking that will not allow other ways of thinking to produce what it deems to be legitimate knowledge. You can sense all of this in the quote above: “too young to think logically,” as if the only way to talk about God is to force-feed it. And the only way to talk about life is through “logic.”
But don’t take my word for it. Consider these opening lines from Dialectic of Enlightenment, the fiercely classic critique by the post-Marxist (and agnostic) 20th century philosophers Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer:
In the most general sense of progressive thought, the Enlightenment has always aimed at liberating men from fear and establishing their sovereignty. Yet the fully enlightened earth radiates disaster triumphant.
At the heart of their critique is the irony of these two opening lines. Even as the Enlightenment sought to “liberate,” it only produced “disaster” on a more monumental scale. Their irony becomes prophetic when you consider that these words come from two exiled German Jewish thinkers just as the worst genocide of the 20th century was perpetrated by an essentially secular state against a religious group.
Or take the ecological crisis. The engine that first started our world on the course of environmental destruction was the Industrial Revolution. What fueled (intellectually) the Industrial Revolution? Enlightenment modes of thinking that essentially subjected nature to Reason. Of course, if you’re looking to religion as a culprit, you will take the easy way out and point to Genesis 1 and 2. Only problem is, if you actually did the work of looking at the whole biblical witness, you’ll discover that the injunction to “subdue the earth” (a short-sighted translation, by the way) is actually a command to tend the earth in such a way that it remain fruitful and a sustainable home for all God’s creatures. It took the Enlightenment to turn the initial injunction into the petard that it is today.
Of course, some may say that I’m only doing to the Enlightenment what others are doing to religion. There’s probably some truth to that. But the truth would only prove my point. We often look for simple culprits to problems rather than recognize their complexities for what they are.
And this is not to say that religion isn’t at fault for the conflicts it causes. But one of my teachers in divinity school makes a very helpful distinction between the “functions” and “malfunctions” of religion. Of course religion malfunctions, and religious extremism is one of its mal-formities. And religions must face up to their malfunctions with honesty and repentance. But to discount religion entirely because of religious extremism is like discounting science because of the atom bomb. Or to use the old cliché: it’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
In short, religion is much more meaningful, diverse, and sustainable than the “New Atheists” make it out to be. And at its best, religion values reason (notice the lowercase) as one of many beautiful ways that human beings gain knowledge of our world. But I suspect that Reason (with the capital “R”) has deafened too many ears to hear those subtler melodies.
There. Glad I got that off my chest. Now I can move on to the mysterious beauty of Tenebrae.
Travis Scholl, 35, is managing editor of theological publications at Concordia Seminary. A graduate of Yale Divinity School (MDiv), he is an ordained Lutheran minister. Despite some time away, he and his wife are native St. Louisans, as is the child they are now raising. 
First of all,
“they often come from people who are simply buying into other people’s thoughts without thinking for themselves”
This is what most people belive of Religious people, there is no thinking involved, that is the point of religion. All your answers are in your Bible, no need to think or ponder “what about the dinsaurs”. Etc.
Is it religion that is the cause of all that is evil….I would say , probably not…Man is to blame…Religious Men who lead others to be exact.
Here is an example that also goes to your Reason argument.
The earth is overpopulated with humans…so much so that man-made environmental disasters are looming. If the earth had 1/16th the population, we could all be pouring oil onto our lawns and the earth would hardly notice…but when there are 6 billion of us ( 12 billion in 10 years) the impact is terrible…so what does this have to do with religion.
Many Religions make it a “SIN” to use contraceptives. This practice came about because Religions needed more people in order to dominate their “worlds” both politically and militarily. This need for more followers is no longer necessary due to the population explosion…but will religions change their rules to align with Reason? NO, they will not. There is no REASONABLE reason that a woman this day and age that doesn’t need to staff an entire farm herself needs to have more than 2 children (replace yourself and mate). However due to their “Religion” they keep making babies, which causes ill on the earth.
Maybe in the future som plague will wipe out most of us, then once again the need to “be fruitful and multiply” will come back to the forefront…but until then, please bend the rules for a while and let people step into the MODERN age of REASON.
Religion has its place, it makes us feel warm an fuzzy with ritual chanting and a sense of a local community of “us” (vs. “them”) to be a part of. Also, like i mentioned takes away the need to philosophise and THINK for ourselves questions like “why are we here” etc. Religion gives people purpose (false as it may be sometimes) without needing to think of your own purpose. Religion gives some people an excuse (i guess some people REALLY need an excuse) to be nice to eachother for a change.
ok, I got that off my chest, I can go back to punching babies and other atrocities that non-religious people do.
Poor Bard…..you’ve shattered the laws of Order by impossibly evolving into an increasingly ordered state. Amazing! But now you must realize that you really have no purpose, your accidental creation only serves to feed its or others hedonistic desires. Laws have no basis for you and being nice merely keeps you out of jail…a place that would slow you from feeding your self-interests and desires. According to you, your purpose should be to help with overpopulation by extinguishing your own meaningless existence.
The logical person realizes that the risk of being wrong about God, Heaven and Hell are much too great, too long lasting, too potentially wonderful and too potentially excruciating to be totally ignored. Is living our few years on earth in a manner of love and self-sacrifice really that difficult? And don’t those who give of themselves appear so much happier than the self-centered atheists of this world?
just wrote some excellent comments but they disappeared after I submitted. Won’t do that again…
Wait a second—genocide, colonialism and other such atrocities are the result of the use of reason and aren’t justified by religious beliefs???
I agree with many of Mr. Scholl’s points.
To me, all you have to do is look at the carnage of the 20th Century due to governments that were DEVOID of the free exercise and influence of religion (Nazism, Communism). Millions and millions murdered, primarily through their own governments.
The influence of the religious in America (particularly, Christianity) should give even non-believers gratitude for the freedoms we all have.
Jews flourish in America. Jews are not doing well in Europe which is getting increasingly more secular - and we all know the situations of the Jews and Israel in the Middle East.
The pervasiveness of comments similar to the above SHOULD make people of all faiths stop and consider. After all, there have been those (and are those) who are bringing disrepute to matters of faith, and that should worry us all.
It’s not just about passing on the message, it’s about dealing strongly with those who dishonor the faith.
One SMALL example of a good thing that religious people are doing, right now, today: Since Katrina/Rita, untold hours of volunteer labor have been organized by, led by, and donated by religious groups in the gulf coast areas. Rebuilding houses, one at a time. Oh, most of these groups are considered hopelessly liberal by the likes of the late Jerry Falwell and his ilk. I’m proud to have a couple of dark blue t-shirts in my drawer that say, “Out of Chaos, Hope; Presbyterian Disaster Assistance”
We’re planning a trip in June to central Iowa, where flooding destroyed large sections of Cedar Rapids and surrounding areas. Religion is worthless? Why don’t you ask people who are moving in to rebuilt homes, who are saying every chance they get, “if it wasn’t for the church groups, we’d have nothing.”
“All your answers are in your Bible, there is no thinking involved, that is the point of religion.”
To maintain integrity in the conversation: in my view, this is not, and has never been the purpose of the Bible or religion. Almost every wise religious leader would dispute this view of themselves and the faith they exercise.
Yet a person maintains it as a valid view of religion, and maintains and promotes it as a “reason” to support a view of religion or those who practise faith in being.
To the post’s point: the abuse of reason, intellect, thought, and the resulting loss of integrity in our language is not exclusive to religion.
The Age of Enlightenment did not provide the much needed breakthrough, only the pretense of it.
This is not a personal attack on the “Bard.” It happens to be a good example at hand.
If someone needs a “reason” to “not” choose relgigion for himself, (and he does not in my religion) is it possible to create one that honors both himself and the person that believes in religion.
That would be a breakthrough.
PS: The following would also not be reasons to choose a faith: Jesus, Mohammed, Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, Gandi, Dr. Albert Switzer, Albert Einstein, Confuscious, Martin Luther, Gallileo, Leonardo Davinci, Benjamin Disraeli, Moses, Nelson Mandela, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Greg Mortenson, Aristole, Socrates, Plato, Copernicus, Newton, Descarte, Boyle, kepler, Faraday, Kelvin, …
Test everything. Hold on to the good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
Using reason to dismiss an entire realm of people who believe in free will, choice, and faith is ironic, and it highlights the fundamental misunderstanding of religion.
Humility is an authentic outcome of wisedom.
Of course it is not organized religion that is extreme. It is the people that ascribe to organized religion that are the problem, particularly those christians who love their enemies. How can you love the unsavory and not be associated with what they do? And, if you are a member of an organized religion, how does your activity not reflect on the organization? Jesus is the answer. Happy Easter!
There are many who have rejected religion because of the hypocrisy they see in the very public actions of religious leaders. Most people actually DO know what the basic teachings are, and they expect those who proclaim that they follow them to live up to them daily.
hs,
You make a great point. Especially that the actions of others are used as a pretense for our own, for example, “that person who professes to be a Christian just said something very unchristian, therefore I will not be a Christian.” No grace for what it is to be human.
And most importantly, we already know. We are born knowing. Everything else, the reasons, the excuses, the blame, are all designed: to not be held accountable for what we have in our lives, to look good, and to be right above all else and others. Maintaining the ego while pretending not to at the expense of our integrity, and ultimately our relationships with others.
And the expectation (”to look for with reason and justification”) we hold that others live up to us is more of the same. It is a form of judgment. We are our most powerful when we live our life, and not judge through expectation.
Expectation is the source of all upset, and is judgment. This is the integrity in the language that is missing today.
Do not project expectations, honor your choices and commitments.
Another way of Jesus saying, “Do not judge. Go and sin no more.”
The constant manipulation of the language to justify and blame is the original sin. The Age of Enlightenment did not change this, it only fueled the fire with more material, and the pretense that we now know better.
I appreciate what you contribute, and enjoy reading it. It stays on message. Thank you.