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.
Firstly, I find your usage of the word - social norms - problematic. Because, you seem to be using it for all the ills in religion. However, that is not the case. In fact, social norms could be argued as one of the plus points of religion. Because, it leads to a cohesive society. The problem with the religions we see today is that they have also reinforced illogical and superstitious social norms in the society.
ReplyDeleteYou have argued that a society without religion will also have social norms. It is true. There will be social norms because we wouldn't be living individually but within a society. And these social norms will have to conform our ethical and social needs. They won't need confirmation from some mythological text or dogmatic religious practices. For example, if my mother says that don't go for a haircut on Thursday, I will ask her why. Rational mind will not get compromised in such a society.
Secondly, you have argued about individualistic freedom to be spiritual. Who said that being spiritual is synonymous with being religious. Meditation, yoga and conscious thinking can lead to spirituality. And if you argue that believing in God will help your spirituality, then believe in God. What is the need to follow Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and so on? As following these religions will certainly have costs (until we reform them to a level that benefits outweigh costs).
Finally, you said that reforms are needed in our Constitution and laws in order to restrict ills of religion. Indian Constitution declared untouchability illegal in 1950. But it is still practiced. Why? Because our religion encourages it. Also, Constitution gave us right to equality. But peole still treat women as lesser human beings. Because our religions reinforce patriarchy. And the list is endless.
So, what I propose is to ask for reforms within religion. This was done during Renaissance. And the sole reason that these religions have survived till date is that we asked for reforms during Renaissance (and similar events in history that I don't know of). Post Renaissance, the role of religion in secular aspect of our lives has reduced significantly.
So, it is actually true - "we are slowly transforming into a less-religion society eventually converging into a religion-less atheistic utopia.'
I am not saying that a religion-less society will certainly get rid of social ills like patriarchy, but at least we will have one less source of legitimising patriarchy. Another example would be gay rights. Only the religious bodies are opposing it. If there are no religion, we will have a sound debate on such issues.
I know that faith in God will not vanish until we get answers related to creation of universe. Thus, religions cannot be withered away in near future. The whole idea of debating about usefulness of religions is to create a consensus about need to reform our religions to an extent that their ills (religious extremism, dogmatic practices, conservative views against progressive demands within society and so on) could be reduced. When we say there is no use of religion, we mean that the ills are so many that we don't see any use!
There is nothing intrinsically good or bad about social norms. There utility change with changing times. For example: polyandry might be promoted in a society with high female mortality rate whereas in general it is considered bad.
DeleteThere is no dichotomy between religion & rationality. A child may simply follow what her mother tells out of respect, fear or anything else. Just because she is atheist will not make her rational. At the same time, ethics & morality are not only governed by rationality. It may be rational to be corrupt in a law less society but not ethical. Moreover rationality depends on what we perceive through our five senses and make out of it through application of our knowledge. No person can claim to have perceived the exact reality or have attained all knowledge that is there in this world. There will always be gaps which will need to be filled by some kind of faith.
Calling spirituality in form of meditation, yoga etc to be emanating from a religion or not is just a matter of nomenclature. Anyway it is a matter of individual faith.
I have not called for reform in constitution but implementing constitution in its current form in a true sense. The fact that gender & caste inequality persists in a society even after legal sanctions, especially among the educated masses shows that the mere rational approach is not enough. To induce behavioral changes you have to appeal to the faith of people & nudge them towards ethical behavior. Calling for a blanket ban empowers only the reactionary elements.
The fact is that each society has a belief system. It has a individual & social component. Religion today has come to denote the belief system of medieval era especially in less developed societies. The so called atheistic societies have their belief systems too which are heavily influenced by humanism & a modern rational mindset.
So the whole point was to look at the term religion in its wide dimensions and not in narrow terms of Hinduism, Islam, Christianity etc.