This question is primarily to the agnostics, skeptics, secular humanists and atheists out there:
Are there good things that we can learn from religion?  Are there practices, principles, or even ways of knowing that religion can teach us?  If there are, can we absorb these without buying into superstition or validating those elements we find problematic?
10 responses so far ↓
1 John White // Feb 6, 2007 at 5:16 am
You’ve already mentioned once that our belief and experience can be two completely different things. Quakerism is great for me, since I can cherry-pick my beliefs and practices.
But more specifically, I think the idea of structured, scheduled introspection is a good idea.
2 Miko // Feb 6, 2007 at 8:27 am
I think the 10 commandments, as much as I don’t want them in my courthouse, are not a bad set of moral guidelines. I think we should be taught to understand that sometimes breaking them is moral (see: Bearing False Witness and Christian who hid Jews). The Way to Happiness, a creepy offshoot of the creepy Scientologists has a “non religious” set of 21 commandments that I really like:
Which may be proof that skeptics do learn from religion.
I also think that the aspects of community, ritual, and discipline are important. The simple act of gathering together in a place to be joyful can be very healing. The mass is, of course, supposed to be joyful… The “ritual” of getting your ass out of bed and down to the church in a slightly presentable manner can help bring a sense of purpose, something to look forward to, and (finally) discipline to your life. When I lived in Germany, if I wanted to do something Sunday morning, my parents made sure I went to church Saturday night. I really enjoyed this because it was in German (which I could tune out) and in an old church (like, older than this state, prolly older than this country). It was so beautiful to me in that old sacred space. Sometimes I wish I could still go.
Setting aside a time to honor things, whether it is family (Mom’s/Dad’s Day), god (Church/Easter), or nature (a hike every day) is a very valuable habit to have.
3 John White // Feb 6, 2007 at 10:53 am
Very interesting comment on community. I wholeheartedly agree. I’m generally a bit distrustful of ritual.
4 Andy J. // Feb 6, 2007 at 3:28 pm
As an agnostic and secular humanist of sorts, ritual isn’t important to me, and I typically don‚Äôt find joy in going to church. However, I certainly do think there are good things to be learned from religion, which can be absorbed without buying into superstition or validating those elements a non-believer might find problematic. So I believe a skeptic can flirt with religion, benefit from the flirting by learning something fresh and new, without becoming seduced by its superstitions and particular dogmas. The way I see it, my treatment of religion is sometimes very similar to how I view philosophy; I either agree or disagree with certain philosophical ideas, and the same way with religious ones. I cannot discredit the fact that the meaning behind some religious ideas sometimes speaks to me the same way some philosophical ideas do. I also haven‚Äôt experienced any reason why involvement with religious thinking would obscure a secular humanist‚Äôs sense of beliefs‚Äîor lack thereof‚Äîas a secular humanist. If anything, I think it would be an effective way for a secular humanist to constantly reinforce what he or she does and does not believe.
5 Miko // Feb 6, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Hear! Hear! I think all parties would benefit from treating religions as philosophies.
6 Matt B // Feb 6, 2007 at 8:59 pm
The numinous - which, I think, is an important aspect of the human experience, and one that unfortunately modern rationality tends to not take as seriously as it should - and the humility it teaches.
7 Anima Umbrae // Feb 7, 2007 at 6:13 am
Hmmm. What skeptics can learn from religion.
I think Miko and John are right to touch upon the idea of community. I perceive one of the core elements of religion to be the placement of a the individual in a larger context, by positing that a person is involved in a cosmic drama between opposing forces or else by positing that there is something out there, something that supersedes any temporal authority, that is interested and invested in human action. And while I’m fairly uncertain as to how much I actually believe any of this to be true, I do think that the humility and feelings of integration into a whole that *can but do not always come* by means of religious observance can be useful, even admirable, even for those who do not themselves believe.
That’s a very naive thing to say, I know–all too often, religiosity causes people to become self-assured and close-minded, even to the point where one is willing to kill those who have different beliefs. And it’s not like a person can’t arrive at a sense of himself as a participant in something that transcends the individual through purely secular means (every time I hear somebody question whether it’s possible for a non-Christian to have any sense of morality, I cringe and shudder that that should even be up for questioning).
Just the same…just the same, I think there’s a lot to be said for living one’s life in accordance with a plan or a mission or a scheme or a form that is bigger than the individual. Even if I feel, more and more, that the big picture is composed of a lot of little pixels or brush-strokes, and that it’s impossible to conceive of the grand design as exclusive of the individual participants, that history and Heaven and Hell are made up of singular people acting on their desires and consciences rather than any sweeping agenda…I have to try to consider the grand design, too.
I think there’s something to be said for not trusting absolutely in human knowledge or experience. It’s possible to become as dogmatic in one’s skepticism or in one’s categorical support for science as it is in one’s religious beliefs, and I think religion provides a balancing force in that. We skeptics should always remember that the most critical and rational and scientific of minds can be dead-wrong about things, like racial eugenics or the existence of canals on Mars. We should be wary that, in combating close-minded zealotry, that we do not become close-minded zealots ourselves, and seal ourselves off from new possibilities and new ways of thinking.
Religion also provides for ways of holding conflicting information and gaps of information in suspension, of dealing with mystery and paradox and the horror of not being able to know. Again, I can’t always accept the solutions that I see provided for me by the Christian faith, but I sense that somehow that faith can provide ways of thinking that allow for a person to simultaneously believe conflicting things, or else to find truth, even emotional certainty, in the absence of empirical evidence. Again, these things have their problems, but there is a benefit to such things, too, the least of which would be freedom from a constant and useless state of anxiety and angst and dread over what I can’t know and can’t understand and can’t control.
Uhhhh. I’ve gone on too long. That’s enough of that.
8 John Remy // Feb 7, 2007 at 1:57 pm
one of the core elements of religion to be the placement of a the individual in a larger context, by positing that a person is involved in a cosmic drama
Well said, Anima Umbrae. Religion generally responds to the existential crisis caused by humanity’s encounter with the nature by reinforcing our importance in relationship to the universe.
We skeptics should always remember that the most critical and rational and scientific of minds can be dead-wrong about things
While scientists and skeptics can get dogmatic, it is against the fundamental tenets of the skeptical approach and the scientific method. But I trust these sources a bit more than religious dogma and revelation because they welcome continual critique, and eugenics and canals on Mars have been discredited (for the most part). Most organized religions generally do not allow for sustained critique of their basic doctrines.
9 Anima Umbrae // Feb 7, 2007 at 11:45 pm
I agree that dogmatism is contrary to skepticism, but it has been my experience that there’s a lot of it out there when it comes to the expression of atheism or scientific principles, nevertheless. I know I’ve gotten pretty dogmatic about insisting on points that I believe to be absolutely true before.
You’re right, of course, when you observe that most organized religions generally do not allow for sustained critique of their basic doctrines, which makes things difficult because those doctrines are largely based on faith and tradition rather than anything empirical. But I think that’s still a useful counterbalance, a helpful reminder that there are limitations on human understanding, even when we try to ground our understanding in reality and only in observable phenomena. It’s necessary for me to remember that, as much as I want to trust and believe in a logical and empirical approach, that these ways of knowing don’t and can’t work for everybody.
Am I in error on this? It’s quite possible. I’ll update my theoretical approach when I receive new and better information.
10 John // Feb 8, 2007 at 9:35 am
I’ve been thinking about both MattB and Anima Umbrae’s response, and it hit on me that humility and awareness of what we don’t know are actually important aspects of the scientific pursuit. When science and religion face-off, we see too much of the more arrogant, authoritative side of both. But start talking to scientists as a scientist about things like dark matter, string theory, the expression of human genes, and you will hear candid expressions of how much science doesn’t know. This doesn’t mean that the gap by default should be filled with unprovable religious answers, but that scientific inquiry is a humbling endeavor–finding answers generally leads to more questions.
Leave a Comment