Jeremy Bruno is a tech writer who blogs about ecology, evolution, conservation and culture at The Voltage Gate. Visit the 
I've been waiting to hear PZ acknowledge - at length - the fundamental humanity and mythological/historical importance of religion for the past year. He finally did, very clearly and calmly.
It is one of the main slip ups of atheists who haven't taken the time to educate themselves about world religions. Too often I hear religion, as some generalized monster, utterly dismissed as trivial or laughable or delusional, unjustifiable accusations that don't quite seem to fit. Dawkins, in The God Delusion, criticized theology, musing about whether it should be considered a field of knowledge at all. I recall interviewers calling Dawkins to task about Eastern religion on several occasions, upon which he admitted knowing little about Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, etc.
Here's a guy that filmed an entire documentary about the ills of religion - the supposed mind-virus that it is - and left out a huge portion of the world. Talk about cherrypicking.
When atheists criticize religion, they are usually talking about the Big Three Monotheisms, but speak in general terms, assuming that all religion is identical, or considering it beneath them to pick up a book and study what they criticize. Most of their problems, especially with the Papa God issue, do not apply when discussing eastern traditions. The east has no hangups about duality, teaching that good and evil are two sides of one coin, and whatever gods may seem apparent are all manifestations of a singular, fundamental undercurrent of life.
Don't be a hypocrite. Dismissing "their" holy books as trivial nonsense is unproductive and immature. Pick them up and read, look upon humanity's past - your past - and understand the attraction, the connection, the stories that we tell over and over within scripture and pop culture.
Whenever I read or write criticisms of culture, whether it be music, television, philosophy or religion, I always think of what Mos Def says at the beginning of "Fear No Man", from Black on Both Sides:
Listen.. people be askin' me all the time, "Yo Mos, what's gettin' ready to happen with Hip-Hop?" I tell em, "You know what's gonna happen with Hip-Hop? Whatever's happening with us." If we smoked out, Hip-Hop is gonna be smoked out. If we doin alright, Hip-Hop is gonna be doin' alright. People talk about Hip-Hop like it's some giant livin' in the hillside comin' down to visit the townspeople. We are Hip-Hop. Me, you, everybody, we are Hip-Hop. So Hip-Hop is goin' where we goin'.
Replace "Hip-Hop" with any little piece of culture, including religion, take some time to sit down and think about time and place, and you'll have some conception of what's really going on.
Comments
Too often I hear religion, as some generalized monster*, utterly dismissed as trivial or laughable or delusional, unjustifiable accusations that don't quite seem to fit.
Thank you, Jeremy -- very well said! I don't particularly care whether people embrace religious thought as a legitimate source of wisdom; I would just prefer that they be informed in their debunking of it, and not just hold up the most ridiculous idolatries as representative of all religion. Those of us who wish the world were a more rational place would do well not to fall into the same kind of lazy generalizing that our opponents get away with.
Posted by: Occam's Trowel | June 16, 2007 10:47 AM
Errm, but my point is that the "religion" part is bunkum, a facade for frauds over what really counts: humanity. Your Mos Def quote is saying the same thing, that what matters are the people, and when you place such value on the superficial epiphenomena that you ignore the underlying reality, you're in the wrong.
Those Big Three Monotheisms are the monsters on the hill, and I think Dawkins was right to target them. They are not benign irrelevancies. They have become the dominant paradigm for how many people view the world. It's silly to complain that he didn't pick on religions that don't distort reality as badly as the ones that afflict Western nations, since the idea that there are simply "religions" that exist wasn't the problem he was addressing.
Posted by: PZ Myers | June 16, 2007 11:24 AM
Heh, I agree with both Jeremy and PZ. As one who gave up on Christianity at thirteen -- causing my parents to stop as well -- and then tried it again at forty just to make sure I wasn't missing babies while flushing bathwater, I have to say that current evangelistic Christianity ranks with Jihadist Muslim in its pathological effect on the world today. I also agree that study of all of the Books is worth its while if just to understand this wacky race in all its poignancies.
While it's currently in vogue to use pity as a vehicle when creating a relationship with the 'saved', I would suggest that stronger concern is warranted, especially in light of the damage 'our' current US executive leadership has done to our Constitution and our future with his war in Iraq.
Posted by: Don | June 16, 2007 11:44 AM
When atheists criticize religion, they are usually talking about the Big Three Monotheisms, but speak in general terms, assuming that all religion is identical, or considering it beneath them to pick up a book and study what they criticize. Most of their problems, especially with the Papa God issue, do not apply when discussing eastern traditions. The east has no hangups about duality, teaching that good and evil are two sides of one coin, and whatever gods may seem apparent are all manifestations of a singular, fundamental undercurrent of life.
Didn't Dawkins devote a massive chunk at the start of The God Delusion to discussing this sort of pantheistic approach? It appears he expended considerable effort "to distinguish what can be called Einsteinisn religion from supernatural religion"*.
Insofar as these beliefs do not claim to be supernatural, I'm not aware of any atheist, however "militant", that lumps them in with religion. Insofar as they do claim to be supernatural, I'd say that such a grouping is justified.
And, if you hadn't come across this subtlety, you might want to pick up Dawkins' book and study what you criticise.
* This sentence fragment is on page 13 of my copy of The God Delusion, and was the first thing I saw when I opened the book up. It is not hard to find.
Posted by: Corkscrew | June 16, 2007 11:48 AM
Sorry, Jeremy, but I gotta side with PZ on this one. The myths of religion may be deeply connected to universal human culture (and I'm not just talking about the Big Three, here) but they still are just that: myths. As in: not true. Fictional, made-up, a product of someone's imagination. No more real than stories and characters of a popular novel.
I suspect we atheists wouldn't mind so much, except these myths are used to justify political positions in our society which I consider deeply unethical: religion is at the heart of opposition to physician assisted suicide, opposition to abortion rights, opposition to stem cell research, opposition to gay marriage...the list goes on and on.
And I have thought a lot about religion, and believe me, I understand the attraction, having once been a very convinced Christian believer. This issue here is the ability to separate truth from fiction, no matter how attractive the fiction might be.
Posted by: p99 | June 16, 2007 1:01 PM
I think your critique of Dawkins is off base. As Corkscrew says above, Dawkins was quite explicit about the God he was referring to. He used the language of monotheism for simplicity, and because it would be most familiar to his readers. He explicitly explains (paraphrasing from memory) that by "God" he is referring to any supernatural or non-material entity that affects the natural world due to the actions of humans. If the practitioners of a religion perform some rituals or prayers in attempt to encourage a non-material entity to make some change to the universe or themselves then The God Delusion is referring to them.If that idea of God does not apply to certain Eastern religions that Dawkins is not talking about them.
Posted by: Jim RL | June 16, 2007 3:14 PM
Faith is key to all religions, and it's the validity of faith that Dawkins attacked. The "Big Three" are the religions most of his audience will be familiar with, so they're the examples he used.
Posted by: Caledonian | June 16, 2007 3:15 PM
No argument there.
But I don't know how "silly" it is to call someone out for generalizing unnecessarily. There are important distinctions between different faiths across the world that Dawkins did not specify in The Root of All Evil. He said that religion is a virus, not only Christianity, Islam and Judaism. It's not something to be waved aside nonchalantly, as an annoyance. It was indicative of Dawkins' admitted ignorance of eastern religion.
Jim: You're putting words in his mouth. Again, he didn't specify, and he did so out of ignorance.
p99: Again, I agree. But the solution is not wave aside myths as irrelevant fiction.
"We atheists" are not the only ones that are concerned about people basing political decisions on twisted morality or outright bullshit.
Corkscrew: Pantheism is not as strict of a category as Dawkins would have people believe. There are elements of pantheism in just about all religions (including the Big Three), though they are emphasized or played down depending on the sect.
And you would exemplify the type atheist of which I'm speaking. The west and east are very different animals and should be addressed differently; your godlessness does not justify that level of ignorance about their intricacies. Dawkins tries to escape making distinctions by being dismissive of theology in general.
I read the book.
Posted by: Jeremy Bruno | June 16, 2007 4:26 PM
Dawkins is right in what he says in the book and right about theology in general. If people make claims about some superbeing for which they can offer no realistic evidence, then there is no reason to treat those claims as special
Posted by: G. Shelley | June 16, 2007 4:36 PM
The problem isn't religion, but faith. Faith allows the masses to be unthinking. That is a bad thing no matter which religion is built upon it - unless you want mindless followers.
Posted by: Henry VII | June 16, 2007 7:41 PM
Another comment pointing out that the "faith" bit is a problem at its core. Sure, the specifics of what religions actually do can be, and often are, devastating. But the essential problem is that when you have people saying that faith is good, you are saying that it is good to believe things without real evidence. The even bigger problem that then develops is that most people of faith then also think that it's not just good to believe without proof, but it's better, and more moral, to do so than to do as people who don't believe without proof.
Also, your notion that "eastern" religions are so different ignores what you actually see in those religions. For instance, buddhism is often thought to have core teachings that are almost delightfully pro-science and whatever other good thing one wants them to be, and there may be people with that belief who fit that (if you -- dishonestly -- don't count the "believing without proof" problem). But in fact buddhism has priests and temples and a power structure that just doesn't play as well with others as you seem to wish to believe it does. (That's one reason Thailand has been resisting pressure from its buddhist priests to make buddhism a state religion, even though it's the religion of the majority of the country people.) Do you really want to claim that these religions, all of which have been tied up in war and terrorism -- are incredibly peaceful? Why then their connections with war and terrorism?
PZ's point was that here's these beautiful bits of art aren't being destroyed by atheists, but by other religions. This is most often the case -- some exceptions, like the survival of Borobudur in Java, but these are exceptions. Take a look, for instance, at the Czech Republic, a hotbed of non-faith people, as well as a country which was officially communist and atheist. Take a trip there like I did a couple years back and note all the beautifully kept old churches. Atheists kept those churches in shape. Look at what happens when one religion takes over from another, as they blow up others' religious monuments, install their own on top of the wreckage of others' temples, mosques, and churches.
The bottom line is that the people who truly hate any given religion are those of other religions. They are numerous, they are ruthless abotu it, and they care little for history or art if it means tolerating other religions.
Posted by: QrazyQat | June 16, 2007 8:31 PM
Well, we know you havent read 'The God Delusion'-- do you read PZs blog? I know he posts a lot, but surely you cant have missed the fact that he has stressed over and over and over and OVER that he recognizes religions place in history... and wants to put it in a museum where it belongs.
AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA! **looks at her bookshelf** AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Because atheists are atheists because they have Daddy issues!!! ROFL!! Not cause of, oh, say their disrespectful views of women, for instance. AAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHA Cause the Greeks and Egyptians and other major civilizations didnt tell the exact same stories better, hundred to thousands of years before current popular religious characters were thought up! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!Theyre called archetypes, and they were around long before your personal choice of religion. Your religion didnt think of The Heroes Quest any more than George Lucas did. The 'connection' between your religion and pop culture is a reflection of your, or the producers, lack of exposure to non-popular mythology.
Very silly post, sir.
Posted by: ERV | June 16, 2007 9:04 PM
It's always nice to have words put in my mouth.
I never said faith and belief are good things. I said the that the importance of myth (all myth throughout human history) lies in its illustrative revelations of the human experience, like any good story, fiction or not. It can be reflective of the time and place and psychology of a culture and lend an insight that might not be apparent in the written history. Like ERV said, the existence of archetypes in myth illustrate just how pervasive certain narratives and imagery are in our cultural history.
Qat makes an excellent point. There are sects of Hinduism and Buddhism that are extremely mystical and politically motivated. But the distinction I was making was not good and bad, east and west respectively. The truth is that there are destructive religious influences around the world, twisting people's reality and distorting their rights. But not all. East vs. west was merely an example of Dawkins' admitted error from Root of All Evil. He lumps all religions into one basket and slaps on a mind virus label.
ERV, in a word: Duh. For the record, I have no religion, no faith and no belief, as you claim in your glaringly immature and assumptive diatribe. (I recommend ERV's blog btw; I get my virology fix there weekly.)
It never ceases to amaze me how much time and effort is wasted by gifted, intelligent people in the sophomoric pursuit of denouncing an individual's metaphysical proclivities. When those proclivities are used to influence political and educational policy (and they are quite often, especially in recent years) we stand together in fighting the insertion of lies into our public systems and dialogues. I am not, however, interested in evangelizing.
Posted by: Jeremy Bruno | June 17, 2007 12:06 AM
Atheism is perhaps an inevitable outcome of the scientific endeavor to understand the universe. The pursuit of scientific truth will not, in my opinion, uncover evidence of God or life after death or the existence of immaterial souls.
However, we should keep in mind that the majority of humans are not engaged in any kind of scientific endeavor. They are not scientists. They are not primarily preoccupied with the pursuit of scientific truth. They instead are concerned with living their lives as best they can, hoping to find some measure of meaning and fulfillment before they die.
It is clear what religion has to offer to such people: meaning, hope, a sense of purpose, a sense of community, comfort in trying times. What does scientific atheism offer to people who don't have the training or ability to evaluate the claims of science?
Posted by: Daryl McCullough | June 17, 2007 1:17 PM
And you would exemplify the type atheist of which I'm speaking. The west and east are very different animals and should be addressed differently; your godlessness does not justify that level of ignorance about their intricacies.
I'm curious: which of their differences is it that turns natural/supernatural or accurate/inaccurate into a false dichotomy? Or is it just that they de-emphasise these attributes in favour of other properties of belief systems?
I'm uncertain as to whether East/West is itself a valid division - for example, Quaker contemplative worship appears to have a lot in common with Buddhist practices.
Posted by: Corkscrew | June 17, 2007 1:24 PM
Hey,
I'm a Christian who is working on a series on Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" at my blog at:
http://michaelkrahn.com/blog/richard-dawkins/
There's already a good discussion underway. Join in!
Posted by: Michael Krahn | June 17, 2007 1:36 PM
I found PZ's article to be frankly the best he'd written. No snark, no condescentions (the folibes that he sadly has) but serious heartfelt humanity and humanism.
I myself can't dismiss religion since it really is a catch-all and catch-alls aren't always good for understanding the subtleties of human behavior. It's hard for me to lump together fundamentalist literalist Christians, early Buddism (and some later Tibetan variants), or the Jungian-pagans I meet (who are technically atheists).
However, the flaw is taking religion as a more than human endeavor. When seen as a human endeavor, we can evaluate it and understand it, see it in context, learn from mistakes, build on advantages. When it stops moving, like anything else it stagnates and strangles.
Right now our biggest threat to sanity IS religious fanatcism in this world - based around blind faith, and often used as a justification for greed and hatred.
There's often danger discussed about the fence-sitters or people who are atheists or something like an atheist (like myself) who get along with some religious ideas, that ill-defined group of "Nevillie Chamberlain" atheists. Though there's often decrying of how fence sitters and religious moderates enable the religious nuts, there's far little discussion on the other issue - that people who aggressively and broadly denigrate religion (as opposed to rationally denigrating the crazy and dangerous behavior) may push the "fence-sitters" and moderates away from THEM.
Posted by: DragonScholar | June 18, 2007 1:05 PM