I suppose I can get at this by first describing a theory on the components of religion. This theory is purely something that I made up when I wrote this post, and so is obviously subject to revision. I suggest that religion is composed of theory, mythology, ritual, and morality. Although these components interact, they can be distinguished. Theory concerns whether certain doctrines correspond to actual things in space and time. An example of a religious theory would be the idea that God created the world as described in Genesis, or the idea that the world has always existed as described by Hinduism, or the idea of reincarnation as described in a few religions. If the word 'theory' is too scientific-sounding, as it is, then perhaps the word 'metaphysics' will suffice to convey the concept in part, although mundane things such as the historical existence of Solomon could be included under the rubric of 'theory'. It is any point of claimed 'objective fact'.

The next component of religion is mythology. Mythology literally understood often leads to theory, but that is not the essence of mythology. Mythology concerns the stories that are taken as constitutive of a social identity and which serves as a shared reference point for inspiration. One mythology is the story of the Greek heroes such as brave Achilles or wily Odysseus who uphold the traditional values of Hellenistic society. Another mythology is the story of God's relationship with the nation of Israel, or the story of the righteous innocent who takes on the sins of man, or the story of the enlightenment of the Buddha about the nature of suffering. The thing about the mythology is the meaning of the story and the way that the story influences the people who refer to it.

Ritual is pretty straightforward and refers to the practices that are repeated by the devoted. These include the chants of the Hindu mystic, the regular prayers of the Muslim, the communion of the Christian, and the magic of the Wiccan.

Morality concerns what is right and wrong, what is obligatory and what is forbidden, what brings honor and what brings shame.

Now that I have described the components of religion, I can proceed to a criticism of religion. With regard to 'theory', I maintain that the best if imperfect way to form theories about the objecive world is the scientific method. Because I do not believe there are any supernatural entities, I do not believe that supposed revelation from such entities can be relied upon as a guide to understanding the real world as is held in several world religions. With regard to 'mythology', I have no problem with co-opting some of the mythologies of the ancients, such as for example the Odyssey. But I think that we should also make our own mythologies, such as the Enlightenment mythology of reason as a beacon drawing humankind to a progressively better future. And all of these mythologies should be open to cultural criticism. With regard to 'ritual', I am not opposed to the practice of rituals in principle. I have no problem rituals for which there is no metaphysical baggage that has to be taken on by the participant. As an atheistic Wiccan once said, comparing Wicca to Catholicism, "All of the flavor, none of the fat!" I think that perhaps the most attractive part of religion is the ritual aspect, as humans find comfort in the familiar. With regard to 'morality', I do not believe that the ancients have a monopoly in this sphere. My own ethics are based primarily in maximizing freedom for the individual without compromosing the rights of other human beings, while at the same time 'approving' and 'disapproving' of things in a combination of cultural norms and personal opinion, holding myself to the same standards for 'approval' (I hope that all makes sense).

Aside: some might claim that I have my own versions of 'theory', 'mythology', 'ritual', and 'morality' and say that I have made up a religion! I really shouldn't care about such a label, but it does carry a certain stigma for me, given that I have criticized the prevailing religion in my society on a number of points. So I might respond that these are necessary but not sufficient components of religion. Religion may additionally require the belief in the supernatural, or the recognized tradition of a community of faith, or just to be called a 'religion' in normal discourse (if we despair of descriptively defining 'religion', which is a reasonable despair).

To return to the point under discussion, this theory on the components of religion will influence the way in which I engage in discussion about society in a largely religious one. When the topic is a matter of ethics, I will point out those places where there is disagreement with my own. If a matter of ethics depends on a metaphysical theory, such as the ensoulment of a zygote, I will dispute that metaphysical theory in such a discussion of ethics. But in a discussion of ethics and societal policy, I see no need to go popping every metaphysical bubble that might be had. And I will certainly allow others to maintain their own mythology and their own ritual, which I do not hold to be (always) unhealthy for a human being. If asked for my opinion or in a place such as Internet Infidels, I may ridicule some mythologies, but I will not go out of my way to do so when discussing matters of societal policy. Such respect in certain contexts is a policy of tact.

Now to return to [the original poster's] questions. Some of them are fantasy-type questions. It is impossible for me to take donations intended for the support of worship and funnel them into a charity of which I approve. Of course, the support of worship is not the only "pork" in the budget of society, not by a long shot. I agree that the money could be better spent, and I will not hesitate to point that out, especially in the case of decadent and dishonest televangelists.

For the first two questions, I wholeheartedly support the promotion of the wider exercise of reason in all spheres of human life, including the questions of religion. In this respect, I do not think that the important thing to promote is 'atheism' per se, although atheism could certainly be a happy side-effect of the consistent application of critical thought. But then there are people who hold irrational religious theories while being reasonable in most other judgments. It is the habit of reason to be encouraged, though, and not necessarily atheism. It is certainly possible to be an atheist for non-rational reasons, as faulty logic can lead to true conclusions.

What if people took action instead of praying to a non-existent being? That would be great, and in fact very often people both pray and take action. That is not a defense of prayer, which doesn't do anything beyond a placebo effect in my judgment. That is just a truth that, in many societies, the cliche holds that "God helps those who help themselves." So if a person for example needed a job, that person might pray and then go look in the 'help wanted' section of the paper. It is normally in cases where a person believes something to be beyond his control that the person relies on 'prayer alone'. That doesn't hurt other people very much, if the person is right that it is beyond his control, and it may be emotionally helpful to the individual. For those cases in which the belief in prayer led to inaction (which I acknowledge exists), such as the avoidance of modern medicine, that's where I would start to disapprove heartily (as would of course some religionists). There are shades of gray here; prayer is not pure evil.

Would a world without religion be a far better world than one with religion as we have it today? The quick and easy answer is "not necessarily," especially since we forgot to add the phrase "all else being equal." With that phrase, though, the hypothesis that a world without religion will be better becomes difficult ever to prove empirically, being that any real future world without religion will have quite a lot of stuff that is not equal -- say, the advance of technology, possibly the exercise of reason in various spheres of life, possibly different political systems, possibly different cultural values. There are lots of ways to imagine a world that is without religion but is nevertheless worse off than our own.

All posturing aside, I think that a secular society is a noble ideal towards which to work. I think that the best way to work towards such an ideal is to promote the exercise of critical thought, disseminate knowledge about the way the world works, and contribute positively to society in other ways. The ideal need not be achieved in order to be a positvely motivating force, and so I do approve and indeed share the mythology of a better, more reasonable, secular world.

best,
Peter Kirby
 

Back to archive index
Back to UNFACTS