With or without it [religion] you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes a religion.
Is there any significant benefit of religion to human race? If we go by above statement it seems there is none. In a climate where religion has led to growth of communalism & terrorism it is very easy to consider religion as the evil legacy of ancient and medieval ages to the modern society. In fact all the major religions that we have today predate the industrial revolution, the renaissance and many even predate the period with any historical record. So, if the cost benefit analysis of religion is highly skewed toward cost, what if we somehow manage to create a world without religion? There will be at least one lesser source of conflicts if nothing else. In fact, many of us feel that we are slowly transforming into a less-religion society eventually converging into a religion-less atheistic utopia. And the fuel to fan the fire of this not so sacred altar of religion is the spread of modern education.
However I have my reservations against this stream of thought. First, the definition of religion does not have any relation to its causal effects we see in society. Modern science defines religion in specific as belief in and worship of superhuman power and in general term it is a pursuit or interest followed by great devotion. Hence, religion is totally individualistic in this sense. However, the religion as we know now is comprised of two distinct parts: individual faith & social norms. Many religions like Islam & Christianity have combined these two as the social norms shaping the practice of communities and individual devotion derives itself from a single source of Quran & Bible respectively. Hinduism on the other hand derived its community norms mainly from Vedas, Dharmashastras while individual devotion emanated from the Bhakti movements of medieval period. While, the social norms of religion cause a social harm & must be repressed, the individual devotion as a human right of every individual must be respected and guarded against any restriction. Our constitution balances this very well by prohibiting social norms like untouchability on one hand, and allowing freedom to practice, preach & propagate your religion on the other.
Second, we perceive religion very narrowly as compared to its definition. If it is a firm faith in a particular system. What will you call a blind faith in communism with the communist manifesto as its holy grail? After all, no matter how tangential, Marx's mode of production as motor of historical change has a parallel in Buddha's social contract theory. Belief in communism has taken more lives in the modern world compared to any form of religious fundamentalism. Same can be said about chest-thumping nationalism which caused two world wars, and the nuclear threat still looms over world due to competition between nation states. Hence, pointing out the harm caused only by faith in one form of system while leaving others is unjustified. To counter a faith you will always need a faith, faith cannot be countered by vacuum on other side. We can only change the religion from Hinduism to Science by impressing upon the people its benefit over other forms. And what are the benefits of changing a faith that is totally individualistic and spiritual? When spirituality and science can go hand in hand, whats the point of favoring one for the other. Considering diversity in any form as good is a thumb rule of Social Darwinism and so should be the case with faiths. You can always have an option to switch off from work and meditate in Himalayas when all those therapy sessions with you doctor are not leading you anywhere. Taking faith away from human is like taking away the essence of humanity and turning it into a machine that run through laws of motion.
Third, there a no evidence to suggest that a religion less society will be free of social norms attached to a religious society. Social norms are attached to religion to provide them legitimacy, likened to some form of divine truth that cannot be challenged. Eating beef does not make any one a lesser Hindu if it doesn't do so in his eyes. Similarly, the norms like caste remained even after religious conversion from Hinduism to Islam. An individual is the final adjudicator to decide his personal faith. In a same way a religion less tribal society can have its own social norms and customs. Hence, eliminating religion doesn't guarantee a more liberal society. For the same region replacing religion with moral & ethical training is not a good idea because it address the social norm side. An individual cannot run to his moral science teaching while facing a catastrophic situation, while praying to unknown may certainly help in easing out the strain.
Hence, calling for a blanket ban on religion or envisaging a religion-less society solves no purpose. On one hand there is no guarantees freedom from social norms, on the other hands it creates a spiritual vaccum in individualistic space. What we need is to bring to life, rights and restrictions provided in our constituion.
