The role of religion in modern society
Published:
Religion cradled many of the great civilisations and determined their way of life. But has its traditional role been eclipsed - and is its new role merely advisory?
Past human history has been characterised by the evolution of religion as a means to explain the world, the universe and to enforce a necessary code of conduct on various societies. Religion inspired some of our greatest cultural achievements, such as Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel. Religion drove art and architecture to create wonders such as the great churches and mosques of Istanbul, Florence, Canterbury and other cities. Religion often provided a cradle for early science, for example the Islamic scholars who advanced mathematics and astronomy centuries before the European renaissance. Religion also encouraged and spread literacy among those who wished to learn of religious rites and theology; history records for example that the Jewish people enjoyed high levels of literacy in ancient times. In some societies such as Europe, America and the Middle East the development of the system of law has also been influenced by religion - Christianity and Islam respectively.
We are now in the twenty first century and many of the roles of religion discussed above such as law and education are the responsibility of the state. So we have to ask what is the proper role of religion in the twenty first century. Science can increasingly explain the questions of cosmology, biology, chemistry, physics and mathematics while secular philosophy can, at least as well as religion, enlighten us on the questions of life and spirituality. So do we need to be clear about what religion should and should not do?
We are faced now across the world with states, politicians and armed factions who use religion as an excuse for policies which are counter to rationality and human rights, and often have detrimental affects on the lives of those governed. What are the historical factors that brought this situation about?
Twentieth century political fanaticism
In the twentieth century a major historical theme was political extremism. An exasperated President Truman summed up many people's thoughts when he declared, in Chicago in 1949, after the carnage of World War II, that 'the world is tired of political fanaticism'.
Fascism resulted in brutality and violence - the rule of the brutes - and when mixed with racism lowered humanity to new levels. Communism was unable to progress socially, technologically and economically due to stifling officialdom and inflexible ideology. Anarchism was unable to organise anything - by its very nature!
In the end it seemed that tempered capitalism had won the battle of ideas, which provoked Fukuyama's famous book about the 'end of history', as by the twenty first century nearly all nations adopted free markets and liberal politics clustered around the ideological centre. The extremes of politics has been discarded, with only Cuba and North Korea governed by ideological totalitarianism.
Twenty first century religious fanaticism
In the twenty first century it seems that political fanaticism in government may have been, in some nations, replaced by religious fanaticism as the scourge of progress. Why might we say this? A few reasons are:
- 9/11 and other terror attacks reveal the existence of organised groups of religious fanatics who are prepared to inflict violence on others
- In some countries including the USA, religious teachings on evolution are, in some schools, being put before scientific teachings, with many children forced to learn 'creationism'
- Religiously inspired political groups such as the Republican right in the USA are warping mainstream politics to a religious agenda
- In Afghanistan the fundamentalist Taliban government has rescinded the human rights of women to education and employment, and the right of all citizens to choose their form of government
Alas it seems that religious governance is on the rise, whether it hides beneath orthodox conservative politics, or shows itself through outright authoritarianism.
Time to rethink the whole idea of religion
Many thinkers such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have called for an examination of religion as an idea in itself, and indeed there have been such intellectual undercurrents for centuries. But now they seem more prescient.
Let's start by saying that this is not about the existence of God. Science teaches us that with the big bang the universe appeared out of nothing or that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time. Both seem impossible to human minds. No one can say for sure if the universe was created by some supreme entity or not, and it may never be possible to answer this question. To me it is irrelevant. What we are talking about here is groups or individuals who claim to speak for this supreme being, if indeed he or she does exist. They seem to call him God. And it seems they are saying a lot on his behalf!
Much of what God's followers say is derived from ancient texts: the Christian Bible, the Islamic Koran, the Jewish Torah, the Hindu Vedas and the Buddhist Tripitaka to name the more prominent ones. These very old books were written in different ages when humanity was at different stages of intellectual and technological development. There are troubling questions about their continued use as a major source of inspiration:
- Can they still teach us anything now?
- Is it possible to live by them now?
- Might we do ourselves immense harm by interpreting them literally?
- Do their teachings impede us as we progress to a new and hopefully better age?
- Are the representatives of these religions, in some cases, prepared to force their beliefs on others?
For many people alas the answer to the questions above is no, no, yes, yes and yes in that order.
The problems with religion are many, but some very good examples are given below:
- In the USA Christian fundamentalists are forcing many children to learn creationism, which teaches that God created the entire world and everything in it in 6 days. This could be harmful as it inculcates in children the idea that if they don't like the rational facts before them, they can simply ignore them for something they want to believe. If you don't like that 2+2=4, then just believe that 2+2=5 instead.
- Fundamentalists in many countries openly talk about supplanting the indigenous belief system with a religious one, by any means including force. Islam requires women to dress and behave in a way which often inhibits their opportunities and development. It is evident that uncompromising versions of some religions are now very influential across North Africa, the Persian Gulf and Southern and Mid-West USA.
- Fundamental Hinduism is on the rise in India. It divides people into castes, and has done so for approximately 3,000 years. These are broadly Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Shudras and the hapless Dalits who are very disadvantaged. This system hardly allows for social mobility, even if the Indian government has tried to soften it.
- The Roman Catholic Church has for generations refused to sanction birth control; over-population could become a major issue on the increasingly over-exploited Earth.
- In the West Bank Israeli settlers have confiscated land from Palestinians, in some cases refusing to recognise Palestinian settlements which pre-date the state of Israel.
Avoiding hatred and racism
It is important to avoid concentrated criticism of one religion. That could be racist and a form of extremism in itself. Such as when the Nazis criticised then tried to exterminate the Jewish people. We need to downgrade all religion as an inspiration for our thinking, while crediting and recognising that many ideas which are in religion are also essential to a healthy society. For example the Ten Commandments include 'thou shall not kill' which is a universally good foundation for civility and peaceful progress. What we need to say is that religion was helpful for a long time as human civilisation developed, but it is now time to recognise its limitations. We have, through philosophy and science, evolved a framework by which we can live and progress.
Alternative non-religious ethics and morality
Broadly there are three main types of non-religious morality:
- Humanism. It is amazing how many great people have been humanists: Einstein, Asimov, Mark Twain, Bertrand Russel to name a few. Humanism is not an aggressive creed - it merely believes that human beings are capable of being good or bad without religion, and that the community and social bonds give us an innate sense of what is right or wrong. Humanism places great faith in science and philosophy to provide us with answers and verifiable truth. Humanism is against the religious idea that one simply accepts orthodox teaching as true, without examining it.
- Free thinking. This mode of thought seeks to liberate people from all forms of social, political and religious dogmas. It advocates taking a logical and rational view of all problems and challenges.
- Utilitarianism. An old form of philosophy, this advocates that all actions should be evaluated in terms of their consequences, and whether or not those consequences bring about a greater good. For example Hitler's actions brought about no greater good. Abraham Lincoln's certainly did. Leon Trotsky's - you be the judge!
What is the correct role of religion in the twenty first century?
Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, tried to relegate religion to an advisory role in his new Turkish state in 1923. This may be a good model to follow.
In Britain we seem to see more assertive religion, and some are worried that this assertive religion might displace traditional British values of tolerance amd moderation.
Religion needs to be put in its place - it should provide spiritual advice but no more than that. Religious leaders should advise upon, but not direct the government of any country. Nor should they have undue influence on government strategy. Of course they can express their views where they see fit, but their opinions should carry no more weight than any other civic group.
Religion should have no role in the development of science unless it is to fund and encourage independent scientific enquiry, where the conclusions are determined by the science itself and not religious dogma.
Modern states should not make any religion mandatory, and to imprison or execute atheists or humanists is a major breach of human rights.
As we move forward into the twenty first century our science and technology and the choices forced on us by climate change may mean that we have to make some drastic decisions. We cannot, in our thinking, be hampered by ancient ideas from the first millennium of the common era.
In short the proper role of religion in modern society is merely advisory.