Functions of religion

I guess the social function of religion is to maintain social cohesion by suppressing urges that lead to individuality (such as sexuality, magic and mysticism) and providing rituals to guide people through the trauma that this will inevitably create. Examples: the way that mystics, magicians and sexual and gender-variant individuals are shunned and persecuted by religions. Also, rites of passage are designed to negotiate the tensions created between individual impulses and the needs of the group. This is why they take place at times of stress.

This is all very well if the religion functions to maintain a just society, but not if the society being maintained is fundamentally unjust. I also suspect that all esoteric systems will eventually settle down and become religions in that sense - which is why Aleister Crowley rejected the idea of "Crowleyanity". He knew that his path would be turned into a religion for others to follow, and wanted to prevent that.

If you look at the way religious movements develop, their eventual assimilation into the host society is all too frequent. Sometimes they influence the host society, but all too often the reverse is true. Religions start out radically counter-cultural, and then gradually assimilate. If their rules are particularly demanding, this is probably a good thing, but in many cases, it's a bit of a disappointment. Christopher Partridge describes the assimilation process particularly well in The Re-enchantment of the West.

Of course, there are many values promoted by liberal religions which are worth having, like celebrating diversity, radical hospitality, community, and so on. But they still tend towards the sacrifice of individuality for the greater good.

Sometimes it can be painful to be in community with others. There's a certain element of impersonality about it. There is also an expectation of serving the community, and this can be in conflict with individuality, even in very liberal groups.

Does this stuff actually work?

So then, religion and spirituality - do they actually work?

Paganism claims to put its adherents in touch with Nature by celebrating the seasonal cycle of festivals (or at least that used to be its claim - this seems to have been largely sidelined in favour of talking to deities). Does celebrating the seasonal cycle of festivals really put you in touch with Nature? Does it really transform the psyche? Do the rituals actually have a beneficial effect on the practitioners? (If not, at least they are fun.)

Unitarianism claims that it is building the beloved community, and that by being in community together, we can model a microcosm of the world, and create meaningful connections and communities. Does hanging out with people, some of whom one doesn't actually like, really make you a better person? Possibly, in that it is supposed to rub off the corners and make you more tolerant by exposing you to different viewpoints. But you have to really hang out with them and make actual community, not just see them on Sundays.

Buddhism claims that meditation is the transformative ingredient. I do know that the metta bhavana meditation really helped me to avoid conflict with someone I found incredibly annoying - but then maybe I could have saved myself an awful lot of trauma by just having the conflict with the person, because I was damaged by acquiescing to their nonsense.

Quakers claim that their gathered silence transforms the participants. At least Quakers do engage directly in social justice work, and attempt to allow their values to permeate every aspect of their lives. The trouble is, I couldn't actually be a Quaker, because it wouldn't suit me.

Pick and mix spirituality - once memorably characterised as 'a glowing and useful term in search of a meaning' - where, at its worst, you get to do all the bits you like and avoid the rest - just makes people disappear up their own bottoms, lost in a welter of crystals, pastel colours, dolphins, quantum vibes, and Mayan prophecies. Yes, it is necessary to seek rest and refreshment before re-entering the fray of activism - but maybe that would be better gained by going for a nice walk in the woods or listening to a really good piece of music. It certainly isn't gained by paying megabucks for some dubious bullshit.

There's a joke in the Pagan community: "Q. What's the difference between Paganism and the New Age? A: a couple of extra zeroes on the end of the price."

The trouble is, there is no objective way of testing the effectiveness of religion and spirituality. I've done lots of  stuff, and I have become more relaxed and learnt to like myself, but did that happen because I practiced religion and spirituality, or would it have happened anyway? When I think of all the heartbreak and angst I have experienced over various aspects of religion and spirituality, I sometimes wonder if it was worth it. I do know that I have got spiritual burnout and need a rest.

I do not use my religion as a "crutch" - because it does not offer me the consolation of believing in life after death. I sort of believe in reincarnation, but I have no idea what form it might take, or whether the individual personality survives the transition; so there's very little consolation available there.

I guess I have been looking for "spiritual experiences" but I do not think they are really the point of spiritual practices; though they are an agreeable by-product of the process. The point of spiritual practices is (supposedly) self-development.

I started out on my journey because I decided the point of existence was to make the world a better place, and the most effective way to do that was to start on the self. The trouble is, it is very easy to get side-tracked into the whole self-development thing, and forget about the activism for social justice. I am an armchair activist, signing petitions, blogging and tweeting about LGBT issues and other causes - but I don't actually do any direct social justice work.

I think anyone who practices religion and spirituality should be constantly asking themselves, why am I doing this particular practice? Does it benefit me, and/or the wider community? Does it make anyone unhappy? Does it create false hope? Will it build up expectations, only to dash them later?

I think Walt Whitman really hit on something when he wrote:

I think I could turn and live with the animals, they are so placid and self contained;
I stand and look at them long and long.
They do not sweat and whine about their condition;
They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins;
They do not make me sick discussing their duty to God;
Not one is dissatisfied-not one is demented with the mania of owning things;
Not one kneels to another, nor his kind that lived thousands of years ago;
Not one is responsible or industrious over the whole earth.

I also think that the Abraham Lincoln quote that I used as the strapline of this blog is a good acid test of whether a religion or spirituality is any good: "I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it."

Perhaps also my favourite Carl Sagan quote:

A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later such a religion will emerge.

I do think that living by a particular set of values, rather than a particular set of beliefs, is a way forward, because beliefs about 'spiritual' matters are generally  not very testable or falsifiable, whereas values and practices can be tested empirically, and discarded if they do not work.

To be perfectly honest, I have got just as much benefit (possibly more) out of long walks in the countryside, making music, creating art, and reading novels.

Religious considerations

Interestingly, there's a poll on the Telegraph website to find out if people support same-sex marriage.

The options are as follows:

No - It would be too offensive for many religious people 8.41% (2,927 votes)
No - And I think that even civil partnerships go too far 10.81% (3,762 votes)
Yes - Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else 43.61% (15,182 votes)
Yes - Religious considerations have no place in a modern society 37.18% (12,945 votes)

I selected "Yes - Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else".

I am a secularist because I think that it is the best way to guarantee religious freedom (the freedom to profess whatever religion you choose, or not to profess any religion). But is it true that "religious considerations have no place in a modern society"?

So people who don't think that religious considerations have any place in a modern society obviously think that people of religion should not criticise abuses of power by the rich and powerful, then? (Well, obviously not if the churchmen concerned are themselves rich and powerful, because then they would just be hypocrites.) Many people seem to have conveniently forgotten that many reforms and freedoms were won because of campaigns by people from liberal religious traditions.

• Unitarians have campaigned for women's education since the 1840s.
• Unitarians campaigned for the humane treatment of prostitutes.
• Methodists and Quakers (and many Unitarians) campaigned against slavery.
• Unitarians, Quakers, Liberal Jews, Pagans and the Metropolitan Community Church are campaigning for same-sex marriage.
• Missionaries in China campaigned against foot-binding.
• Rammohun Roy (Brahmo Samaj) campaigned against widow-burning (sati).
• Many Christians who support equal marriage support it because they believe that God loves everyone equally, or that everyone, LGBT or straight, is created in God's image

Anyway, for whatever reason, I am pleased that over 80% of respondents support same-sex marriage.

Indigenous and autochthonic religions

There is often considerable overlap between indigenous and autochthonic religions, but the two terms are used differently in the study of religions.

An indigenous religion is one where its symbolism and mythology largely relates to the culture of the people with whom it originated.

An autochthonic religion is one which 'sprang from the earth' - in other words it is based on a relationship with the land from which it came; it is not revealed from on high.

An example of an indigenous religion which is not autochthonic could be Judaism, because it is very much connected to being Jewish, but you can be Jewish anywhere, you don't have to be in Israel (though apparently it helps) and it is based on revelation from on high.

An example of an autochthonic religion which is not indigenous could be pantheism, because it is not revealed, but emerges from a relationship to the earth, but is not specific to a particular people. It's also not very organised, but there is a community of pantheists online, so it just about qualifies as a religion rather than just a belief.

Dethroning Christianity

I posted my previous blogpost on Twitter, and received a response from an atheist commenter with a link to an article saying that most Christians do believe literally in the articles of their faith.

Did I mention Christianity in my previous post? (Feel free to read it again to check.) No, I did not. So why do atheists want to take Christianity (or indeed Abrahamic religions) as the norm for religion? I thought they wanted to dethrone it from its prominent place in Western discourse. Some news for you, atheists and Christians alike: religion is not synonymous with Christianity.

The notion that all religion is predicated on belief is a 19th century one, promoted by Christians and colonialists who wanted to discredit other religions, or insisted on seeing them through the lens of Protestant Christianity. This process is well-attested in the academic literature on the subject.

Karen Armstrong (if the New Atheists bothered to read her work properly, instead of relying on soundbites) is right -- belief was not always the most important thing about religion. It may have been the most important thing in Christianity for a great deal of its history; and indeed Western Christianity is rather well-known for murdering people for having the "wrong" beliefs. Though that behaviour gradually came to be regarded as uncivilised after the burning of Michael Servetus and other Unitarians.

In Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Paganism, Unitarianism / UUism etc there are a number of different schools of thought, giving rise to different practices and enjoying different mythologies. These different schools of thought co-exist happily and do not denounce each other as heretics. Nor do they take their mythologies literally.

There are many Christians who happily accept that they are not the only or the top religion, and who enjoy living in a world of pluralism where people of different faiths and none can learn from each other. Fortunately they are growing in numbers. Sadly, the New Atheists have either not noticed, or have wilfully misinterpreted the phenomenon. And they also don't get other religions, assuming that all religions must think theirs is the only truth and take their mythology literally. Funnily enough, not many New Atheists have studied the sociology of religion, or anthropology, or any other subject which might lead them to a more nuanced and accurate view.

New Atheism is so dim that it's no wonder many atheists and non-theists turned with relief to Atheism 2.0.

Missing the point (again)

PZ Myers and most of his commenters appear to have completely missed the point of Religion for Atheists.

They also completely exaggerate the importance of belief in religions. Alain de Botton is right that whether or not God exists is a boring question. It's been pretty well settled that God does not exist. Some theologians have got round this problem by saying that this is because God is existence, or the Ground of All Being, but then that leaves the question of what that might mean.

I'm glad that the New Atheism has raised the stakes in the theological game, and brought non-realist and apophatic theology to the fore again, but I dislike the way some New Atheists dismiss all religion as harmful rubbish.

Most religions are centred around practice rather than belief. In Hinduism, Paganism, Buddhism, Taoism, Unitarianism, Quakerism and Judaism, belief is not central to whether you count as a member of the religion or not. What counts is either values or practices. The question for Jews is not "Do you believe?" but "Are you observant?" For Pagans, what counts is your attitude to nature, the earth, and/or the land. There are many different schools of thought in Hinduism, Taoism, Paganism, Buddhism, Taoism, Unitarianism, and Quakerism, ranging from theists to non-theists. For Buddhists, deities may well exist, but they are irrelevant. Many Pagans and Unitarians would agree with the Buddhists on this. Many Unitarians are atheists and humanists.

So if it is not about providing an explanation of how the world works or how it came into being, what is religion for? It is about providing a system of shared meaning, and a set of spiritual practices (meditation and ritual), and a community to share ideas, joys and sorrows.

In liberal religions, you don't need to sign up to a set of axioms or propositions which may offend against your reason in order to be part of the community and make use of a collection of stories, mythology, symbols and practices.

Religious community also inspires people to band together to create social justice (although non-religious groups do this too). By consistently encouraging members to treat others with compassion, religious community can be a powerful tool for creating change. Think of Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, and others who were inspired to change the world.

Review: Religion for Atheists

Religion for Atheists (like Alain de Botton's other books) is fluently and entertainingly written. The arguments are cogent and well made. I didn't agree with everything in the book, but it certainly put out some interesting ideas.

One thing that surprised me was that, unlike some of his other books (such as The Consolations of Philosophy), it did not reference many other writers or efforts in this field, although it generously acknowledged the efforts of Auguste Comte to invent a universal religion in the 19th century. The acknowledgements at the end did mention Richard Holloway, Daniel Dennett, Mark Vernon and so on. I was a bit surprised there was no mention of Karen Armstrong, since she has done much to move the debate on from whether religions are literally true to whether they are of value.

Perhaps a supplementary work could survey the history of religion for atheists, liberal religion, creedless religion, the development of humanism, pantheism, naturalism and so on.

The basic premise of the book is that many of the areas of endeavour for religions - encouraging us to be more compassionate, build communities, connect with nature, and spend time reflecting and meditating - have been badly secularised, and in some cases not secularised at all.

Where, asks de Botton, are the temples of values such as compassion, community and love? Where are the secular places where we can be reminded that we are not alone in our suffering, and thereby be cathartically relieved of it?

The book also points out the techniques by which religions inculcate values into their practitioners: by having special days and special rituals to enshrine these values in our hearts, and by repeating these festivals on a regular basis, and allowing us to share our responses to suffering, beauty and love in a communal setting.

Actually, many of these techniques have been continued in liberal religions which welcome atheists without trying to change their mind about being atheists, such as Buddhism, Paganism, and Unitarianism. But Western practitioners of these religions - which may have thrown the baby out with the bath water in some aspects of their religious life - would do well to read Religion for Atheists to see what we have omitted. One obvious thing is the use of images, which many Unitarian chapels do not have.

The bit I was not sure I agreed with was the idea that institutions are a good thing. In many ways they are, and it would be great if lone thinkers like Nietzsche could have been accommodated somewhere where they could get on with thinking and writing, and not have to worry where the next meal was coming from - but perhaps Nietzsche's thought would have been very different if he had been a tenured professor. Institutions can be stultifying, produce conformity and complacency, and persecute minorities.

I do agree that the most boring question you can ask of a religion is whether it is true. Taking the story literally, whether you decide that it’s true or false, kills the multiple meanings that can be teased out of the story. It also ignores the many other great stories which follow the same mythological pattern: Isis and Osiris, Orpheus and Eurydice, Inanna and Dumuzi. The endless arguments about whether miracles can really happen, whether the earth was created, and whether God was really a man in Palestine, are boring to people who want to move on from the question of whether the story is literally true, to whether it will help us to live well.

The section on Auguste Comte's universal religion was very interesting. I suspect that his religion failed for several reasons; the fact that it was the idea of one person; but also the fact that it did not grow and emerge organically. Religions are like languages - they evolve and grow in their particular cultural and historical context. Esperanto failed as a universal language because it was not wedded to a culture and did not grow organically. Latin succeeded in remaining the lingua franca in Europe for several centuries after it ceased to be the language of Rome because people wanted to buy into the values of Romanitas and perpetuate the order and culture of the Roman Empire. The religions that will emerge from the wreckage of traditional religious belief in the West will be ones that builds on the traditions of the past, not a newly-invented one. Alain de Botton may well be hailed as a prophet in this newly emergent religion, but I doubt that he will be regarded as its founder - and I'm sure he wouldn't want to be.

As Richard Holloway pointed out in his review, I suspect the people who will like this book will be atheists and agnostics who are already involved in liberal religious organisations like the Sea of Faith, Unitarianism, pantheism, Paganism, Buddhism and so on. I certainly recommend it, and hope that it will start a more thoughtful conversation about where religion comes from, where it is now, and where it is going.

After religion, what?

As for ceremony, already the leaves have swirled over, the wind has spoken - Andrew Brown, Caute

We have just been through a week in which we have seen yet further examples of the deeply problematic nature of religion - especially in its monotheistic varieties.
...
My question - developing in various ways since 9/11 - is how might we continue to access these sacramental energies without resorting to the language of the gods/God with which they were once so indissolubly linked? In short, what religion might look like after religion - after God?

This is a wonderful post and very gently articulates what I have been struggling to say in several different ways: that religion is not all about fundamentalist nutters threatening to blow things up and burn things because the world isn't how they think it should be.

Many of my Pagan friends seek to blame fundamentalism on monotheism, claiming that polytheism is inherently more tolerant. This is understandable, but it does the liberal monotheists a disservice.  I think polytheism can be intolerant too - look at what happened to Socrates.

I think the problem is twofold: assuming that metaphors for the ineffable mystery are literal, concrete and graspable; and assuming that religion is an external process, something you do, a set of laws you adhere to, rather than an internal process and an internal apprehension of harmony.

Brain & religion

In response to these statistics about OK Cupid users, I decided to analyse my OK Cupid profile for reading grade level.

I am pleased to announce that my score was 10th grade (higher than all the atheists on OK Cupid, serious or otherwise). I suspect that, as Pharyngula warns, some other factor may be affecting these statistics, but anyway, I feel vindicated.

Here are the results:

Number of characters (without spaces) : 4,253.00
Number of words : 873.00
Number of sentences : 52.00
Average number of characters per word : 4.87
Average number of syllables per word : 1.64
Average number of words per sentence: 16.79

Indication of the number of years of formal education that a person requires in order to easily understand the text on the first reading

Gunning Fog index : 12.08

Approximate representation of the U.S. grade level needed to comprehend the text :

Coleman Liau index : 11.11
Flesh Kincaid Grade level : 10.27
ARI (Automated Readability Index) : 9.91
SMOG : 11.73
Flesch Reading Ease : 51.31

What I would say to the Pope

Apparently atheists are now "leading an onslaught" against the Pope. Funny, I thought it was all people of conscience who were banding together to protest against his visit.

Apparently the current issue of New Humanist has an article reporting what various famous people would say to the Pope if they met him. That seems like a good idea.

This is what I would ask him:

Why did you cover up the child abuse perpetrated by Catholic priests?

Why did you promote cardinals who were covering up the child abuse perpetrated by Catholic priests?

Why did you prevent the perpetrators from being prosecuted by secular criminal courts?

Why did you let them continue to be priests where they could carry on abusing children?

Why do you continue to preach against condoms which would prevent the transmission of AIDS?

Why did you then try to blame the epidemic of child-abuse in your church on gay people?

Why do you refuse to reform a system that fosters abuse of this kind?

And, not so important, but it kind of represents much of what is wrong with the Papal "state visit" - apparently our Queen is required to wear black when she meets the Pope, as only Catholic queens can wear white when they meet him. Er, excuse me, this is our country, and our head of state (I'm a republican but she's still our head of state) - why on earth should she be dictated to about what to wear by a person is responsible for a massive criminal cover-up?

I think much of the brouhaha about the papal visit is being fuelled by intolerance of religion in general and by a general Protestant feeling of anti-Catholicism. However, I still object strongly to his "state visit" on the grounds that the Vatican is not a proper state, and he is a criminal who has covered up child abuse, and his church is often responsible for oppression and misery (though many of its individual members do good charitable work and political activism).

redefining irony

The Jehovah's Witnesses redefine irony (Pharyngula - PZ Myers)

A new group of atheists has arisen in society. Called the new atheists, they are not content to keep their views to themselves.

That's right. The door-knockin', rabidly proselytizing cult is rebuking atheists for not keeping their views to themselves.

Wow, that really does redefine irony. I mean, you know, I have had quite a lot of atheists try to convince me that my participation in religion is deluded and strange, despite my constant explanations that my spiritual views and practices are consistent with reason and science, that I regard most theology as mythology and metaphor, and I'm only interested in practices that enhance my life. Also I have frequently pointed out to the atheists in question that religion is about practices and values, not beliefs (the idea that it is primarily about beliefs was introduced by Christian fundamentalists in the late 19th century, though sadly this attitude has spread to other groups).

But none of these atheists were complete strangers who were knocking on my door and trying to sell me irreligion. Though that might be quite fun - some of my best anecdotes involve the things that I and my friends have said to Jehovah's Witnesses and other doorstep evangelists. Let's face it, doorstep-evangelist-baiting is a national sport.

As I have said elsewhere, though, evangelism and proselytising are completely counter-productive and wrong. Interfaith dialogue is good; it's also good to communicate what your religion is about, so that other people can understand it, and join if (and only if) they feel the same way. And that goes for atheism too.

The thing that really annoys me about JWs is their rampant homophobia and the fact that they drag their kids around with them on their door-to-door evangelism.

The last time some JWs called at my house, I happened to have a copy of The Inquirer (Unitarian magazine) in my hand, so I brandished it at them when they tried to give me The Watchtower.

For the benefit of people who are unable to distinguish between different kinds of religion, may I refer you to my blogposts on liberal religion and non-theism? (for educational information only, of course).

Is religion inherently harmful?

Some atheists have argued that religion is inherently harmful. There are certainly harmful aspects of religion, but I do not believe that they are essential components of religion. And the effects of religion are often beneficial.

Harmful aspects

It is harmful to believe that your deity, or some other cosmic imperative, commands various body modifications (circumcision, genital mutilation, foot-binding, wearing all-over body-coverings that give you rickets, etc.) or that it is cosmically necessary for women to be second-class citizens, or not to use contraceptives, or to be stoned to death for adultery. These are all features of fundamentalist religions that believe they know what God's will is, and want to take the least possible liberal interpretation of books written hundreds of years ago in another culture as divine commandments for how to live. This attitude stems from a fearful, narrow and legalistic perspective on what religion is, and a basic pessimism about human nature. Not all religions do believe in this sort of thing; it is not a necessary or sufficient feature of religion.

It is harmful to think that your religion is the only truth (Christianisme, je t'accuse) and that adherents of other religions must be forcibly converted or die. Fortunately this attitude is increasingly a minority view (albeit held by a vociferous and powerful minority), as is well-attested by the growth of interfaith dialogue and religious tolerance generally.

A much more subtle problem is that when one is with a group of like-minded others, working on inner issues, one lowers one's guard, and can often be too trusting too quickly and then get hurt. I guess this would also be a problem in group therapy or amateur dramatics. I think this danger is outweighed by the benefits, but it is something that should be carefully guarded against.

Beneficial aspects

• Experiencing a sense of community with like-minded others
• Rubbing off the corners in social interactions (in grove, church, coven, sangha, etc.)
• Being able to band together with others to bring about positive change in the world (of course this can also be done in secular contexts)
• Being able to meditate and sing and do ritual with others is more effective than doing it on your own
• Having a shared sense of meaning and a shared set of symbols
• Sharing one's sense of awe and wonder at the Universe
• Finding out about poetry and spiritual texts that one otherwise might not have found out about (this is certainly true of Unitarianism, anyway, where a wide range of readings from poetry, science, world religions and so on are welcomed and encouraged)
• The opportunity to know some really wonderful people
• Being able to share one's problems 
• Finding your "tribe", the people you click with

Dissent in religion

I suspect that wherever there is a rigid dogma, there is someone dissenting from it - either quietly or loudly. In our own day, the hideous spectre of Christian Fundamentalism (and other fundamentalist groups) has given rise to a particularly intolerant form of atheism that cannot see any value in religion at all. Its model of religion is simply "belief in a supernatural deity" and that deity is a personal God, usually accompanied by a literal reading of the Bible (though obviously this is because that is what Christian Fundamentalists believe in). Other, more liberal, forms of religion are dismissed as "not religion" because they do not fit this narrow model. This is rather like the approach of the 19th century Christian missionaries who went to China and assumed that Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism were not religions because they did not resemble the European religion of Christianity.

Distinguished scholars of religion such as Jonathan Z Smith have pointed out that religion does not exist as such - it is a human-invented category, not a thing. This seems to me to be a much more fruitful approach through which to critique religion. Religions are discourses or languages which describe a particular way of engaging with the world. They involve shared symbolism and culture, and a body of shared spiritual practice. The more conservative forms of religion assume that there are divine laws which humans must adhere to, which curiously enough often resemble their own opinions. This is not a necessary or sufficient feature of religion.

If you assume that all religion involves an unthinking acceptance of a rigid set of beliefs and strict adherence to an outdated moral code, then it's pretty obvious that it should be abolished. No-one could argue with that. However, not all religion does involve these things. If, on the other hand, you observe (from studying it) that religion is a cultural form which evolves over time, then it can be changed and modified and improved (which is what has happened over time). In practice, you can make religious belief a private matter, and not allow religions to dictate what happens in the public sphere (though surely they can contribute to discussion about it, as that is part of the democratic process). But you will never succeed in extirpating the spiritual impulse; and attempting to crush religion and spirituality would be just as illiberal as attempting to crush atheism. So you might as well work with and encourage the liberal, heretical, mystical and dissenting aspects of religion - the thinkers and the lovers.

People brought up in the Christianised West assume that belief (and adherence to a set creed) is a necessary and sufficient feature of religion. That is not the case either; this view is peculiar to Christianity, and to the atheists who have reacted to it. In Islam it is adherence to the sunna which is more important in the case of Sunni Muslims, and adherence to the law which is more important to Shi'ites, according to Albert Hourani's History of the Arab Peoples. In liberal Judaism, the culture is more important; and in conservative Judaism, adherence to the practices laid down in Torah is more important.

The reason that belief and dogma became so important in Christianity is probably because early Christians were being persecuted in this world, they looked to the afterlife to provide them with hope. The idea that Jesus had already been resurrected gave them belief in life after death. In order to shore up this rather improbable belief, they had to create a whole raft of other dogma with which to support it.

A history of dissent
Having created a body of improbable dogma (a Triune God, a resurrected Saviour who was both human and divine, Original Sin, and so on) there were bound to be people who disagreed with  all or parts of it. The earliest form of heresy was the Gnostics. (The word heresy comes from haeresis, a school of thought. In classical paganism, it had been perfectly acceptable to have different schools of thought, as it is in Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism etc.) There was also the Arian heresy (the belief that Jesus did not exist from the beginning of time and so was not an equal member of the Trinity). This was denounced at the Council of Nicaea, but flourished in Europe until the 9th century, and then resurfaced in the Reformation as Socinianism, which ultimately led to the development of Unitarianism. Then there were the Cathars, who were a form of Gnosticism, though not descended directly from it. Then there were the Lollards, who were the first to translate the Bible into English (Wyclif's 14th century translation). After the Reformation, the Dissenters arose. The history of dissent is long and complex, but usually involved disagreement with the unpleasant doctrines of Calvinism, and a move towards more freedom of belief, including the freedom not to believe in things.

Mostly, when a group of nonconformists disagreed amongst themselves, there was then another schism and the group split into two groups with different doctrines. But in the 16th century, a very important development occurred. Unitarians realised that they were never going to agree on everything, and therefore decided to agree to differ, and embrace diversity of belief. As Francis David said, "We need not think alike to love alike". Thereafter, Unitarianism moved steadily towards increasing diversity, placing more importance on the values of freedom, reason and tolerance than on belief. The process was patchy and went in fits and starts (and was accompanied by much persecution from more orthodox groups), but it did help to create more freedom.

Similar developments occurred in Islam with the growth of Sufism. Many Sufis were non-theists, and focused on the mystical aspects of the spiritual path. They emphasised the importance of love.

Some very important groups among the Dissenters were Quakers (the Religious Society of Friends), Unitarians, Methodists, and liberal Baptists (Universalists in America). These groups campaigned for the abolition of slavery, the emancipation of women, education, freedom of thought and conscience, better treatment of animals, and social reform generally. Unitarians were campaigning for the emancipation of women as early as the 1840s. Unitarian belief (as opposed to Trinitarian) had only been legalised in 1813 - previously Unitarians had been persecuted. The list of distinguished Dissenters is long and varied, and includes many scientists (e.g. Isaac Newton, Joseph Priestley), social reformers (e.g. Elizabeth Fry, John Wesley), animal welfare campaigners (e.g. Frances Power Cobbe) poets (John Milton, William Blake) and other luminaries. We are the heirs to their struggle for freedom. Let's not forget their struggle and insult them by dismissing all religion as irrational and repressive. These were people with a profound faith, who worked tirelessly for a better world, and the world is better for their efforts.

Mystical and liberal religion is a very different phenomenon from conservative and fundamentalist religion. Mystical and liberal religion acknowledges and celebrates the existence of other metaphors for the way the world works, and recognises that it's all about feeling connected to the universe and becoming a more loving person.

What is liberal religion?

What is liberal religion? Some have derived the word religion from the Latin wordreligare, to reconnect; others have derived it from relego, to re-read. I like both these meanings, as the first implies compassion and connection, and the second implies the living of the examined life, the interpretation of experience, and the pursuit of knowledge. Religions have been compared to languages, in that they are embedded in particular cultures; even when a religion claims to be universally applicable, it is still modified by each new culture that adopts it. A religion is a set of shared practices, values and narratives that make the world meaningful for its adherents. Most of the world’s religions are not based on shared beliefs in the same way as Christianity, but rather on a shared worldview.

Even in the traditions that have codified beliefs that their adherents are supposed to subscribe to, individual interpretations of their creeds can and do vary wildly. Many Liberal Jews are atheists. Also, Jews (Orthodox and Liberal & Reform) say that there are many different interpretations of the Torah - they really enjoy debating them in the schul / yeshiva attached to the synagogue. In Christianity, there are 17 different models of the Atonement, and in practice, individual believers do not all believe the same things, even if they pay lip service to the idea that they should do. Even though Islam has a fixed set of beliefs, there's still room for interpretation of the Qu'ran. Surprisingly, the word fatwa means an interpretation or an opinion. So if you are unsure about what to do about a particular thing, you go and ask a mullah or a qadi for an interpretation of the Koran. So it is not assumed by most Muslims (except Wahhabis) that there is only one possible interpretation of the Qu'ran. (Personally I'd just do as I saw fit.) Even in evangelical Christianity, there are a variety of opinions about being gay (there was a study of this by Kirsten Aune, a sociologist).

There is religion as it's officially supposed to be according to the doctrine of the tradition in question; and then there's the reassuringly messy, fuzzy and human way that people actually do it. The problem is that no-one apart from liberal religionists will actually admit that the fuzzy messy human way of doing it is actually the best way.

In liberal religion, where the "divine" is usually viewed as immanent in the world, or as so diffuse that it's not a person, the source of authority is viewed as the self (as in one's conscience) and not a "higher power". Fundamentalists and orthodox types believe that God is the source of moral commandments. I do not believe this. There's an excellent book by Richard Holloway called Godless Morality which explains exactly why God being the source of moral commandments can't possibly work even if you actually believe in God (which he doesn't). The reason is this: because we cannot be sure what "God" wants, or even if s/he exists, we cannot claim in our moral pronouncements to speak for God. If two people both claim to be doing what God wants, but do exactly the opposite, how do we decide between them? By using ordinary evidence, reason and compassion to decide.

Many Unitarians prefer to emphasise shared values as the basis of religion, rather than shared beliefs. I think this is an important feature of Unitarianism, and is what holds it together despite the diversity of beliefs within it. It is there from the earliest beginnings of Unitarianism, in Francis David’s famous saying “We need not think alike to love alike”, and the tolerance of different beliefs is the basis from which our core values of freedom, reason and tolerance gradually emerged.

For myself, I see liberal religion as spirituality practised in community. Spirituality is another concept that is difficult to define, but I regard it as a sense of mystical connection with the universe and all beings within it. In feeling this sense of connection, we experience compassion for the sufferings of other beings, and empathy with their joys. We can enhance this sense of connection by finding a community with whom we can practice compassion and mindfulness; if we don’t engage in spirituality in a community setting, it can become self-centred and shallow, disconnected from everyday reality. We need the experience of actually living and sharing with others to enable us to grow and become our authentic selves. This can be done by the creation of a community of shared values, which models in microcosm the desired qualities of human community. Of course there will be conflicts and tensions, but it is in how these are resolved that the real values of the community will be tested and refined. It is only by this kind of radical openness and humility that the beloved community can become strong and genuinely inclusive.

I believe that the religious life is a shared spiritual journey towards greater communion with the cosmos, where Spirit descends into matter rather than escaping from it – but this communion does not involve the effacement of individuality; rather it is the celebration of diversity and the quest for authenticity, because the "divine" (the vision of ultimate worth) is the potentiality of all life to share in mystical communion. But we must expand our compassion to all beings, not just to those whose values we share, and we do this by engaging in social action – caring for the poor and the oppressed, protecting the environment, standing up for human rights, and promoting freedom, peace and justice.

Fundamentalist religion is often the cause of compassion being withdrawn from people whose beliefs are not shared. My ethics trump religion every time. I left Christianity when I was 15 or 16 because huge swathes of it conflicted with my ethics (it was homophobic, sexist, anti-life and believed that the only way to salvation was through Jesus' death on the cross — there are huge ethical problems with all of that). I would leave a religion if it was in conflict with my ethics. I am sure that not everyone feels this way, but I know a lot of other people who do.

Indeed, we cannot really expect others to be convinced that we are "mystical" or "spiritual" unless we put compassion into practice by helping others. The two aspects of religion go hand-in-hand: without a sense of connection there is no basis for compassion, and without the expression of compassion in the form of caring, the life of a mystic can be barren and unproductive.

Note: By "mystical" and "spiritual", I do not mean anything supernatural - I mean a passionate, poetical sense of communion with all that is. I know that atheists are capable of mysticism - e.g. Richard Dawkins describes a mystical experience he had in the introduction to The God Delusion. 

Further note: I do not think that religion is necessary to promote ethical living. There are many highly principled atheists.

Will atheism supplant religion?

According to a blog at Psychology Today, atheism will replace religion because it provides a better explanation of how the world works. This is based on a Frazerian/Tylorian assumption that the primary function of religion is to explain how the world works.

I would argue that the primary function of religion is to provide a community of shared meaning, values and practice. Belief is secondary to these functions. Of course fundamentalists' explanations of how the world works (both morally and physically) are way off reality as evidenced by scientific research, personal experience, and any sense of spirituality.

The article suggests:

The reasons that churches lose ground in developed countries can be summarized in market terms. First, with better science, and with government safety nets, and smaller families, there is less fear and uncertainty in people's daily lives and hence less of a market for religion. At the same time many alternative products are being offered, such as psychotropic medicines and electronic entertainment that have fewer strings attached and that do not require slavish conformity to unscientific beliefs.

Not all religions require "slavish adherence to unscientific beliefs". The liberal and mystical tendency in religion has been questioning dogma for centuries. In the West, this questioning has resulted in four great liberal traditions: the Society of Friends (aka Quakers), the Unitarians, liberal Judaism, and the Pagan revival (which includes various traditions). None of these traditions requires adherence to a creed or even belief in God(s). They are about exploring the meaning of life (drawing on both secular and sacred sources of inspiration) among a community of shared values. In Islam, the mystical tradition of Sufism fulfils a similar role; and Buddhism, Sikhism and Hinduism are similarly diverse and include liberal perspectives. Please do some research before dismissing all religion as irrational and dogmatic.

The second aspect of this argument, that religion is about providing reassurance in an uncertain world, depends on what is meant by reassurance. Liberal religion provides the reassurance of having a community of shared values and interests, but it does not provide reassurance on the subject of life after death. Liberal religion is about enjoying being alive now, not about a future existence which is very uncertain.

Mythology and religion

New Scientist: The imperfect universe: Goodbye, theory of everything

But are we really getting any closer? Do we dare ask whether the search is fundamentally misguided? Could belief in a physical theory that unifies the secrets of the material world - a "hidden code" of nature - be the scientific equivalent of the religious belief in oneness held by the billions who go to churches, mosques and synagogues every day?

Even before what we now call physics existed, ancient Greek philosophers pondered whether the diversity of nature could radiate from a single source, a primal substance. Thales, regarded by Aristotle as the first philosopher in the Greek tradition, proposed that everything was made of water, a substance he believed represented nature's dynamic essence. Later, Pythagoras and his followers believed that nature was a mathematical puzzle, constructed through ratios and patterns that combine integers, and that geometry was the key to deciphering it.

The idea of mathematics as a fundamental gateway to nature's secrets re-emerged during the late Renaissance. Galileo Galilei, René Descartes, Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton made it clear that the mathematical description of nature succeeds only through the painstaking application of the scientific method, where hypotheses are tested by experiments and observations and then accepted or rejected. Physics became the science of the "how", leaving the "why" for philosophy and religion. When Newton was asked why matter attracts matter with a strength that weakens with the square of the distance, he answered that he "feigned no hypotheses"; it was enough to provide a quantitative description of the phenomenon.

That, however, is only half the story. To Newton, God was the supreme mathematician and the mathematical laws of nature were Creation's blueprint. As science advanced, the notion that god interfered explicitly with natural phenomena faded away, but not the idea that nature's hidden code lay in an all-encompassing mathematical theory. Einstein's "God" was far removed from Newton's, as he famously said: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists." His search for a unified field theory was very much a search for the essence of this natural god.

I agree that many of the assumptions made by physics and other sciences are hangovers from religious discourse. For example, the idea that the universe has laws seems to be a hangover from the idea of a Lawgiver (i.e. God).

But the passage quoted above runs together some very different theological concepts. The "oneness" allegedly espoused by "the billions who go to churches, mosques and synagogues" is very different depending on which of those billions you ask. Many members of the Abrahamic traditions believe that God is the ground of all being and not literally a person.  Christians are usually Trinitarians (that's a very different idea of "oneness", and interpretations of the Trinity vary wildly, even among people who are supposed to subscribe to the same doctrine on it). And neither Muslims nor Jews nor Unitarians believe in the Trinity. 

The idea of the single source of all existence is a neoPlatonic concept, again very different from Abrahamic ideas of God, both then and now. And Spinoza was a pantheist (though the article does point out that his idea of God was different from that of Newton).

The tweet alerting readers to the posting of the article said:

The quest for a "theory of everything" is driven by the same urges as religion - so we should stop http://bit.ly/ckZJX1

... implying that if religion does it, it must be wrong for scientists to do it (or am I being paranoid?)

My response was:

please don't lump all religion together - not all practitioners of religion believe literally in their mythology

followed by this:

do you have any scientific evidence for the urges that drive what you refer to as "religion"? #SoBoredOfLiteralMindedPeople

Anyway, the article is really interesting, and the author seems to know a bit more about theology than the sort of people who usually write these things; and I appreciate that it's difficult to be subtle in a tweet. But I'm fed up with the way some scientific commentators persist in lumping all practitioners of religion in one box, marked IRRATIONAL, DO NOT OPEN.

Also available on my Tumblr blog.

The Bible: take it or leave it?

I have just been followed on Twitter by an atheist whose slogan is "The Bible... Believe ALL of it, or, Believe NONE of it!"

That is such a simplistic attitude that I nearly didn't respond, thinking it was scarcely worth it. However, I had one of those xkcd moments... so here goes.

The Bible is a book (or better, a collection of books) with different authors, all of whom seem to have had very different ideas about God, and what God wants. The earlier books of the Bible have YHWH demanding blood smeared on the horns of his altar; then the prophets bemoan the hard-heartedness of Israel and their inability to just be nice to people for a change (see Amos 5:24 for example). The theology expressed by Jesus is quite different from that of Paul, which is different again from James and Peter. (I think that's why I found it so very confusing when I tried, a very long time ago, to take it at face value.) All this is well-documented by liberal biblical criticism.

If you don't want to take liberal biblical criticism as your source, try Richard Dawkins, who says we should regard the Bible as a work of literature. Quite right - it is a work of literature, and has just as many insights into human nature as any other pre-modern work of literature.

Obviously (if you read other things I have written on this blog), I do not literally believe the cosmological accounts given in the Bible. They are metaphors, just as Pagan creation myths are metaphors. I also don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus, but I do think his mythology is a version of the stories of other Middle-Eastern dying-and-resurrecting vegetation gods, and if you read it as mythology, it is a good account of the archetypal experiences of the human psyche (the death of the ego and resurrection of the greater self, as outlined in the Hero Journey).

The method I use for interpreting the Bible is to compare it with the wisdom texts of other spiritual traditions. If you read what Jesus and other prophets said in the light of what the Buddha said, or what Lao Tsu said, it makes a lot more sense. Personally I find it easier to read the Buddha and Lao-Tsu, because I don't have to filter out the noise of conservative interpretations of Jesus' thoughts that I was brought up with. But this doesn't mean that the Bible is worthless. It means that if you're going to read it, you should read it carefully to see if its ethical guidance resonates with your own experience. And if it doesn't (as in some of the very dodgy statements in the Pentateuch), then reject it. It's not a supernaturally inspired book, it's a document of the spiritual journeys of a bunch of people, and should be read as such.

As the Buddha said,

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

I wonder if this is what Jesus meant when he said "He who has ears to hear, let him hear". If so, I wish he had been a bit less cryptic!

religion and science

Just been watching the absolutely marvellous Wonders of the Solar System (episode 1). Lots of beautiful imagery, lots of fascinating information about the solar system, and how the cycles of the sun drive river systems, and how to work out how much sunlight actually falls on the Earth.

Only one teensy little quibble. In the first five minutes of the programme, Prof Brian Cox says "science is different from all the religions that have been practised here in Varanasi; you can test science's explanations for things, you don't have to take them on faith".

Yep, that's true. Except that most religion is not about explaining how the universe works. Hinduism, the main religion of India, has multiple creation stories, all of which exist happily in parallel with each other and with science. They are symbolic stories.

I know there are lots of mad fundies who think that their religion explains how the world works, and I know they shout really loudly, and grab all the media attention, because for some reason journalists just love watching religious people frothing at the mouth (look how much media attention that old hypocrite Ratzinger gets).

But lots of religious people belong to a religion because they want the sense of community, and the mythological structure, the shared values, and the spiritual practices that go with it (meditation, prayer, singing, contemplation, yoga, whatever).

Most Unitarian Universalists and many Pagans and Quakers do religion because it reflects the inner reality of the psyche and they can share their spiritual journeys with others who share the same symbolism. It's not about belief, it's about spiritual practices (the efficacy of which can be verified empirically, by seeing if the people who do them are happier, calmer, etc.)

Many liberal people of religion enjoy science and find it fascinating and beautiful. I enjoy science very much, and wish that some scientists didn't think that all people of religion are nutters, just because some people of religion are out-and-out bigots and fools.

As Carl Sagan once said, "A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge." (But this should probably be taken in context with everything else that he said about religion.)

Secular bigotry

• National Secular Society's 'seasonal message'
• Ekklesia's excellent analysis of it
• Church Mouse blog: And a miserable Christmas to you too

What the National Secular Society doesn't seem to realise is that the rise of religiosity is very different from previous such resurgences, as it's much more about individual spirituality and building community and being compassionate than the bigotry which is actually increasingly the preserve of a noisy few. For example: Stonewall did a survey recently and found that most Christians were far more tolerant of gays and lesbians than the doctrines of their churches would suggest. Needless to say this received almost no coverage in the mainstream media, whereas Lilian Ladele etc got loads of coverage.

Research has shown that most people think in terms of "occult" concepts like reincarnation and karma, rather than traditional Christian ones like salvation. Much of the renewed interest in religion and spirituality has gone into non-Christian practices, and even Christians do stuff like yoga and meditation and crystals.

Interesting religions

A blog thing from Matt Stone, via Jarred, who tagged me.

what religions do you find most interesting apart from your own? Would you pick one of the major world religions? Say Islam, or Buddhism, or Hinduism or Judaism? Or would you pick something more obscure, like Wicca or Taosim or Rastafarianism or Gnosticism? Would you pick irreligion, say Atheism or Agnosticism? Or if you're not Christian, would you say Christianity?

To participate, state your own religion (or irreligion) as your first preference, state the other religions that interest you most as your second and third preferences, then pass onto five others. If you're feeling brave, say why they interest you.

OK, well, I practise two religions, Unitarianism (since 2007) and Wicca (since 1991), so presumably I can't have either of those on my list. I do this partly to remind me that all religions are metaphors for whatever is really going on (and this is made explicit in both Wiccan and Unitarian theologies). It is going to be quite difficult for me to pick three religions, as I find all religion fascinating, so I'm going to pick my favourites that appeal to me most at the moment.

I am fascinated by Taoism - I think the writings of Lao Tsu are the clearest expression of the mystery of life that has yet been formulated. Also, I like Taoism's positive attitude to life and the world (shared by both Wicca and Unitarianism).

I find Judaism really interesting - I love the rituals (though not the liturgy in many cases) and all the baroque twiddly bits. They also have great food, music and philosophy; they love life; and they cleverly integrate ritual and prayer into everyday life.

I'm currently really interested in spiritual and Christian atheism, as described by people like Richard Holloway, André de Comte-Sponville, and Andrew Brown. Holloway's books Doubts and Loves: What is left of Christianity, Godless Morality, and On Forgiveness are well worth a read.

Any mystical tradition that is based on a rational footing gets my vote, really: so Kabbalah, Sufism, the Quakers, Christian mystics and the Brahmo Samaj also interest me. And it's not a religion as such, but queer theology is really interesting. I also like religions with plenty of ritual and bells-and-smells (the only problem is that these often have elaborate theology to which I find it impossible to subscribe).

I disapprove of religions that think they have the only truth, or more truth than anyone else. Spiritual truths must be available to everyone everywhere in all times, and accessible by reason and intuition, not special revelation.

I tag Bo, Evn, Pax, D Miley, and James.