7 minute read
Leo Li, Religion: A Modern Interpretation
Religion: A modern Interpretation
by Leo Li
‘Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind’ - Albert Einstein
In an age of ever-increasing multiculturalism and consequential spiritual diversity, there is no denying that secularisation provides necessary social stability. With growing global religious tensions and catastrophic atrocities sending shockwaves at an alarming frequency, some critics go so far as to condemn religion’s existence in its entirety. However, rather than foolhardily rush into a faithless future, a wiser option would be to stop and reflect on whether this separation of Church and State requires the death of the Church, attempt to recognise its historical role from an unbiased viewpoint, and forge a new 21st Century interpretation of faith distanced from the collectivist ideology it can be (and too often has been) deformed into.
I acknowledge that I undoubtedly write from a biased position, having beliefs resultant from a Christian family, school and Australian society with an inherently Judeo-Christian history. But just as this acknowledgement of context must be made, we require reciprocation from those raised in different backgrounds bearing different views, allowing bipartisan discussion to occur. One common misconception is that the fundamental belief in a deity reduces religion to nothing more than blind extolment and worship. Whilst this was historically true, from a modern-day perspective, such an interpretation is inherently divisive and shuts down dialogue, since different religions must then be fundamentally at odds with each other, whilst atheists feel forced to be devoid of the spiritual altogether. As 17th century philosopher Blaise Pascal put it in his Wager, the least important point is whether or not there is an omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent God. Rather, we should discuss whether acting as if God exists is beneficial to societal function and human flourishing, and use this to determine the validity and role of religion.
94
Elaborating on this idea, we should first note that the Judeo-Christian value set has forged Western society as we know it, whilst analogues such as Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism promoted the formation, unity, function and stability of others. Values and teachings such as altruism, community, co-operation and family-centric lifestyles promote cohesive societies at a social, individual and biologically symbiotic level. Whilst these faiths have also led to tensions, wars and countless deaths, to say that peaceful homogeneity could have been achieved without these predetermined doctrines is undoubtedly ignorant. Nevertheless, contemporary philosopher Sam Harris promotes this idea in his controversial book The Moral Landscape, arguing that science alone can dictate and forge values that promote societal flourishing, and hence religion is not only redundant, but nothing more than a malignant source of the aforementioned chaos. Harris fervently quotes Hume’s Law: we cannot derive necessity of religion for societal function from its undeniably known prior role (an ought from an is). Whilst this statement has logical merit, it does not detract from a historical essentiality in building civilisations, regardless of whether religious beliefs have any objective necessity or truth, hence such use of Hume’s Law is irrelevant to the consideration of contemporary religious interpretation. Critics of Harris often point out the naïve hubris in his conclusion, since it supposes that evolutionary analysis by individuals (very much a modern, post-Darwinian idea) can overrule civilisation-sustaining value sets that likely themselves underwent an evolutionary process lasting millennia to become what they are today. Moreover, Harris and his ardently atheistic followers do not provide a sound direction forward given the status quo. To abandon religion, when 83% of the world (and even more in the developing world) identify as following one, would be a callous mistake. For many, not only would resources and social structure be lost, but also a source of hope in dire circumstances and, ultimately, an entire way of life. Moreover, in newly vulnerable societies, a social and ideological void could potentially allow new ‘religions’ in the form of communism and fascism to fester, bringing deities in the form of tyrannical dictators. It is for this reason that in numerous historical cases, religious artefacts, texts and monuments are destroyed prior to collectivist horror taking over in nations plagued by ideological famine. As Carl Jung put it, “people don’t have ideas, ideas have people”, and thus we need to carefully and regularly examine our beliefs.
However, religion, when interpreted differently, can itself become a dangerous collectivist ideology, by nature of it being something that we believe in. There is without a doubt a disastrous correlation between religious groups and violence. From the slaughter of Christians in Ancient Rome to the horrors of the recent Christchurch mosque shootings or Sri Lanka bombings, religion used as a divisive ideology – rather than a set of values promoting cohesion – has reared its ugly head many times. This is one of the main sources for its criticism and is what inspires the need for revised interpretation. Extremism of any kind arises for numerous reasons, with a recurring tenet being a lack of bilateral acknowledgement and acceptance of difference. Without acknowledgement, echo chambers allow extreme thought to breed amongst isolated collectives, whilst without acceptance, the junctions from thought to plan to action can be traversed. A solution often proposed to religious instability was summarised succinctly by Mahatma Ghandi when he stated that “the various religions are like different roads converging on the same point”. Whilst this is a sentiment that promotes peace, it leaves the discussion of religion’s role in rather ambiguous territory, as it doesn’t acknowledge the fundamental differences in religious teachings, but rather simply reduces them to a least common denominator. Musician John Coltrane took a different approach, declaring that his ‘alltheism’, a general spiritual belief in an amalgamation of all religions, saved him from alcohol and heroin addiction. Whilst this approach may seem unfathomably liberal (especially to the
95
devoutly religious) and perhaps opens doors to contradictions if scripture is taken at face value, it demonstrates the existence and power of individual choice. Acknowledging this is central to the way forward, out of the storm clouds of religious tension currently looming worldwide and into a new age of tolerance.
Above all, we must understand that despite our exponential growth in knowledge as a species, what there is to know may be infinitesimally infinite, and thus it is wise to suppress our dreams of intellectual apotheosis. As a mathematician, I find this is eerily analogous to Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems, which in short state that not all true statements are provable. In any
mathematical education, the fundamental art of deductive reasoning leading to conclusions is vehemently taught from youth, with theorems rarely being presented without some cunningly elegant proof. Therefore, to both his contemporaries in 1931 and modern-day academics, Gödel’s controversial yet logically sound result is not only seemingly absurd, but somewhat harrowing in stating that no number of theorems would allow mankind to solve everything. Whilst we need not foolhardily assert that a mathematical curiosity can be extrapolated to a proof of God, this teaches us not to confuse the ideas of existence and observability, since a seemingly human system may have intrinsically inhuman properties. Whilst pieces of evidence alone (no matter how numerous) cannot prove a statement’s truth, a lack thereof equally cannot be used as a disproof, and thus the prerogative of belief is thrust upon the individual. As such, whether devoutly religious or firmly atheistic, it is wise to approach the matter of religion with objectivity and suspended judgement, recognising that the burden of faith is, as mentioned earlier, an inherently personal choice outside the realm of being correct or incorrect. One’s status of being religious or degree of devotion need not be measured by the insistence of a Creator, but rather adherence to a prescribed set of teachings aligned with personal values. Perhaps then we can return to an era where the spiritual and scientific not only co-exist, but promote mutual proliferation and human advancement.
Religion is currently a polarising topic that has too often been unnecessarily deemed taboo due to wildly radicalised interpretations resulting
in division, tension and violence. Whilst we should condemn all such extreme views and actions, we should not forget the pivotal role of religion in forging and maintaining civilisations since the human mind first conceived faith. As a society, we need to re-evaluate what it means to be religious from a modern, multicultural perspective, and recognise that a defining part of our sub-divine humanity is the choice of belief where answers cannot be found. Let us replace our abrasive stubbornness with open minds and our condemnatory hands with reasonable ears. Let us be proud of our choice, yet allow it to be a flexible set of values moulded by religious teachings, life experiences or simply what we deem to be morally and ethically right. Above all, let our collective secularisation not rid us of the personally spiritual, as we then walk the untrodden path, for in the words of Buddha: ‘Just as a candle cannot burn without fire, men cannot live without a spiritual life.’
