Sunday, February 28, 2010

Relgion's Confusion of Fantasy and Reality

When I introduce students to lyrical poetry, I urge them to "open" themselves to the works. I want them to allow themselves the intellectual and emotional freedom to set aside their own personalities temporarily and don the emotional guise of the poetic speaker. In other words, I ask them to be actors, to think about the character whose part they play, and to inhabit as best they can the point of view represented by the character.

Indeed, what I request of my students very much resembles what many religions ask of individual congregation members. In regular worship and study, the believer or practitioner must imagine a scenario where God exists to receive human praise and petitions. The worshiper participates in a communally-charged dramatization of the world as it could be, the world governed by their god and punctuated by his interventions into history. The scene of religion is a literary scene.

However, we can easily point out the differences between the approaches of religion and literature. I do not, for instance, tell my students that the literary scenes they create in reading our selected poems are the true state of affairs in the historical/physical universe. Yet, religion asserts that its literary scene is real. The religious story is that "this is what actually happened."

The problem with religion is that "this is not what actually happened." God did not speak to the nation of the Hebrew slaves from atop Mt. Sinai. Jesus did not die a physical death and then return to physical life. Mohammed did not fly on a literal winged-horse of fire. And so on....

The problem goes even further. In my classes, I do not tell my students they must accept my version of the literary scene for the poems we read. Neither do I tell them that they will suffer consequences for non-acceptance. Religion, however, demands individual adherence to an orthodox version of its literary scene. Religion articulates consequences, such as social rejection and eternal damnation, and supports implementing them in the real world. The odious Pat Robertson's comments on Haiti are an example of this practice.

I do not tell my students that their experience in literature can guide them to be better human beings or help them decide how to vote on important issues in an election. Religion, however, advertises itself as an authoritative arbiter of morality. Religion often pre-packages political and social opinions for people.

There is no contradiction between an appreciation of religion as literary phenomenon or set of literary phenomena and a criticism of religion as a force in real social, political, cultural, an intellectual life. As literature, all religions open up whole worlds of knowledge and experience. As literature, all religions deserve to be acknowledged. That is, we should recognize that religions are an important part of human history. They tell us about humanity and about the human experience. This is a good thing.

However, as an authority in matters of public policy and everyday life, religion today assumes a position that is both counter-productive and dangerous. I say counter-productive because religious ideologies obstruct substantial dialogue and progress in the U.S. in such important issues as health care, climate change, abortion, stem cell research, and so on. I say dangerous because this obstructionism affects people's lives and liberties.

Religions today--and especially fighting between religions--increasingly put the entire planet in jeopardy. Perhaps somewhere ages and ages hence, people will marvel at how the literatures of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam underwrote the main conflicts of our present time.

4 comments:

  1. Religions are poison. At least that's the subject of the book I am reading.
    I really like this site. you have put a lot of thought into these matters. Now if we could just convince more people to look at matters our way. For you and I both know we are one the ONE TRUE PATH!

    I follow and agree with the majority of what you say here except this:

    "There is no contradiction between an appreciation of religion as literary phenomenon or set of literary phenomena and a criticism of religion as a force in real social, political, cultural, an intellectual life. As literature, all religions open up whole worlds of knowledge and experience. As literature, all religions deserve to be acknowledged by people."

    This puzzles me. I'm not sure what you mean here.

    Let me try to paraphrase. Religions deserve our respect as long as they are taken as literature. That is not taken literally. As we we would respect the works of Homer or Virgil. The human experiences within these two are worthy of respect as long as we see them as literature not reality. The entire modern world does this.

    I think I did a poor job with my paraphrase but here is the rub. If everyone were to view the religions of the world in the same manner then they would cease to be religions anymore. They would be studies of the ancient world. As an atheist, I assure you I have no problem with this at all. But this would negate the religion entirely. And it's this element that people hold onto most dearly. People would rather believe they have the magic formula or recipe or treasure map to the Great Rewards than to believe reality. Believing you have power is nearly as good as actually having it. At least, in their minds.

    How about this. One can appreciate the beauty in the writings of the bible or other sacred writings but still offer criticisms of the modern parasites latched on to those texts sucking them dry of any beauty or wonder in the interests of proving them to be literal truth.

    I couldn't agree more with your last two paragraphs. They will be our doom.

    Sorry for rambling. I'm tired and have more of Genesis to write about tonight.

    Blessed Atheist Bible Study @ http://blessedatheist.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. KKBundy,

    That statement that confused you: What I mean is that it's OK to like the stories in the bible and to admire this or that character.

    By the same token, it's fair to criticize the idea that the bible ought to be a primary and authoritative guide for making real-world decisions.

    WWJD carries no more weight than "what would Huck Finn do?" Whatever Jesus supposedly said is irrelevant. Whatever Moses said is irrelevant. Whatever Paul said has no bearing on us. Whatever the Koran teaches can only ever be mildly interesting and never personally binding.

    I'm perfectly happy to let religions be religions. They can do what they please.

    But in matters of public policy, our first sources of counsel should not include the bible. Our leading voices should not come out of religious or religious-based groups.

    In public policy, we need law, reason, dialogue, science, and history - among other things. This is where I think it's important not to exclude religion but rather to realize that religious-based opinions hold no special weight.

    For the record, I don't consider atheism - mine or anyone else's - to be the ONE TRUE PATH. In fact, I don't think there is such a thing as the ONE TRUE PATH. The whole idea that there is seems ultimately destructive to me.

    I'm too busy establishing my own path to worry about the paths that others follow. But all of our paths converge in the sphere of public policy. That why I think there's little room in that sphere for religion or atheism.

    I like your site very much. It's a great idea.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Shalmo5:33 PM

    Have any of you played World of Warcraft?

    Their lore section keeps expanding. They keep adding story after story and all the stories are interalted. Its practically a virtual fantasy universe.

    And I love it. I love the stories. When I read the characters trials and tribulations I marvel at their heroism, their powers and so on.

    I love the stories, but I know there are not real.

    Because the stories are awesome. Because they are filled with intrigue. Because they are just interesting. Because I want to continue to being updated on the character developments as new stories are added to the warcraft universe.

    Or for example. Take the gospel of John. I love the christology in it. John is not saying Jesus is God, he is saying Jesus is the Son of Man. An essene title for the greatest angel. Hence why John says Jesus was the unique son of Yahweh (v.3:16). all the angels are sons of YHWH. Jesus is the greatest of these sons and it makes sense YHWH would send his greatest son to bring on the messianic age.

    Its all intriguing and filled with wonder. I like these stories, they entertain me enormously.

    Do you believe the bible stories are the same? That a bunch of judeans sat together and made up national narratives? And everyone just accepted it for the same reason I have accepted the world of warcraft. Because they are nice, fun and entertaining

    If yes, then when did literalism with these tales emerge?

    And why did it emerge?

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Shalmo -

    "Do you believe the bible stories are the same? That a bunch of judeans sat together and made up national narratives? And everyone just accepted it for the same reason I have accepted the world of warcraft. Because they are nice, fun and entertaining

    If yes, then when did literalism with these tales emerge?

    And why did it emerge?"

    I recommend your read James Kugel, How to Read the Bible. It may not give all the answers to your questions, yet it gives a very good indication of a hypothesis that would make an answer.

    ReplyDelete

Feel free to comment if you have something substantial and substantiated to say.