The Singapore Humanist Society recently hosted a debate on the question ‘Is Singapore Better off With Religion?’ Me having been a vocal opponent of the atheists in that group wanted to put my money where my mouth is and agreed to join the pro-religion team for the purpose of the debate. Here now my notes for the debate and some after thoughts.
Some general ground rules: comments are of course welcome, but since the matter of religion has traditionally been a very touchy one in Singapore you will need to keep it civil and I will be the one to determine what exactly that means 
Personally I am convinced that Dawkins, Dennet and Harris are tragically mistaken in their analysis and have jointly set back a naturalistic understanding of religion and spirituality by at least a decade. The main reason for that being a) their groundless rejection of multilevel selection on the cultural level, on which religion doubtlessly applies and b) their implicit assertion that the religious fundamentalist interpretation of scripture is essentially correct, a position that boggles the mind with its ignorance and short sightedness – but I digress…
Since I was the last of three speakers on the pro side, it was my tasks to anticipate and effectively refute the arguments of the contra side; all debaters did a tremendous job by the way. But now without further ado:
Debate notes for ‘Is Singapore Better off With Religion?’
The main three arguments brought forward against religion are:
- Religion is false => through reason and science we now know better
- Religion is harmful => fundamentalist on all sides abuse the idea of god to spread ignorance, abuse power and incite terror
- Religion has outlived its purpose => superseded by reason and scientific insight religion has become useless and should be abandoned
Let me briefly address each point and demonstrate how these arguments are overly simplistic, tragically beside the point as well as dangerously short sighted.
Is religion false?
The earth created in 7×24 hour days? Who did Kain and Able have kids with? Virgin birth? Surely nobody in our modern, post enlightened times can take such ferry tales seriously – when interpreted literally.
Let me give you an example:
“But soft! What light through yonder window breaks? It is the East, and Juliet is the sun!”
This passage from the Balcony Scene from Shakespeare’s famous Romeo and Juliet does not mean to describe Juliet as a giant flaming ball of scorching fire. No. To Romeo Juliet is as warm as the sun, as nourishing as the sun. In short, the sun is used metaphorically to describe Juliet.
Analogously, religious teachings distinguish between dogma and kerygma. Kerygma is the public teaching based on scripture. Dogma, however, represents the deeper meaning of religious truth which can only be apprehended through religious experience and expressed in symbolic form.
The key point to understand here is, that dogma is considered secret. Not because one is forbidden from sharing it with others, quite the contrary, but because it is so difficult to clearly express and define religious truth logically. This, by the way is not the position of a post modern religious apologist, but the insight of Basil, Bishop of Caesarea (4th century CE).
The eastern spiritual traditions by the way, have historically put a much greater emphasis on the highly elusive nature of spiritual truth than their western counterparts. The fact however remains, that when one approaches highly metaphorical scripture as ‘a spoilsport of Aristotelian logic’ for whom A can never not be A, the inherit wisdom is lost and the deeper truth goes out the other door, paving the way for religious as well as scientistic fundamentalism.
Singaporeans are often perceived as lacking creativity, being overly materialistic and nerdy. Opening them up to the possibility of finding deep wisdom in religion would help enhancing their creativity by enabling them to read between the lines and seeing beyond the bleedingly obvious. The resulting greater spiritualism would divert attention away from materialistic pursuits towards embracing higher, more rewarding goals. And last but not least it would provide an opportunity for engaging systematically in non-academic, highly social, experiential activities.
Is religion harmful?
Taking scripture literally is far from being a purely secular phenomenon since religious fundamentalists make exactly the same mistake. Without wanting to address any particular denomination I will stick to my example of Romeo and Juliet in which Shakespearean fundamentalists would not recognize Juliet as anything but an actual giant flaming fireball, thereby of course missing the point entirely and ending up tragically distorting the intended meaning of the metaphor.
As a result they distort and pervert scripture – often nefariously for their own political gain, the advancement of special interest or in acts of terror. This, however – so rightfully rejected by atheists – is not the religion that people of true faith affirm and thus ends up becoming a straw man: a weak argument set up to be easily refuted, while the actual issues are failed to be addressed.
But what is ‘true faith’? A good example is given by the work of William Wilberforce, who with his book ‘Real Christianity: Discerning True Faith from False Beliefs‘ which he published in 1797 and which is widely credited to have resulted in the abolishing of the slave trade in the British empire ten years later. More recent examples are the initiatives of Hans Kueng, Karen Armstrong who both have identified the doctrine of compassion to be central to all major spiritual traditions. Armstrong for example is of the opinion that all scripture needs to be reinterpreted in the light of this central doctrine in order to reveal the true nature of religion:
- Christianity: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
- Buddhism: ”Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.”
- Confucianism: ”Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.”
- Hinduism: ”One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self.”
- Islam: ”Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you.”
- Judaism: ”The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself.”
- Taoism: ”Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.”
Anything but the compassionate interpretation is an aberration.
Religious tolerance is essential in Singapore. From colonial times up to the independence of the island state, racial and religious harmony have been the top priority of the governing institutions. Realizing and promoting the underlying unity of religion will be an important factor in maintaining a harmonious multicultural environment.
Has religion outlived its purpose?
Now that we understand that religious truth is more than what meets the eye and agree that religious fundamentalism is to be rightfully rejected what else is left to say in favor for religion?
Is religion then not just an elaborate live action ‘poem’ to be interpreted and experienced like any other form of culture? What is it, that sets religion into a class of its own and makes it essentially different from Beethoven’s 9th, Romeo and Juliet or the latest Hollywood blockbuster?
Dawkins, Dennet, Harris and others have argued at length that religion is merely a cognitive virus – like a pescy tune we can not get out of our heads. Reinforced again and again by figures of authority inside impressive structures of worship. But ultimately they say, it serves no purpose and should be abandoned.
On the contrary. The major world religions serve an important evolutionary purpose by helping us achieve simultaneously the evolutionarily beneficial traits of personal wholeness and social coherence. That is to develop healthy and robust personalities while at the same time constructing harmonious and cooperative social groups by fostering the realization of overlaps in self-interest.
The implications are clear: those individuals that lived in the past and did not follow one of the major world religions *generally* failed to be our direct ancestors.
In conclusion: until we precisely understand what these evolutionary advantageous components of religion are, develop an improved alternative that is at least as effective in increasing the evolutionary fitness of the group of its subscribers and find a smooth way of implementing it; until then – not only Singapore but the world – will be better of with religion and worse without it.
Entries (RSS)
November 24th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
[...] good reasons why it would be silly to simply discard a falsified scientific or spiritual theory (context) since they can still prove useful, but only in the absence of one that is at least relatively less [...]