Before I begin this essay, it might be useful to clear up a few things. Firstly, when I quote or paraphrase Williams James, it will almost always be from his work entitled “Pragmatism” (1842-1910); when it is not from this essay, I will indicate its source. Secondly, when I discuss religion I define it as Merriam Webster does, which is (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural, and a commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance or (2) a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices. Thirdly, much of the personal perspective that I will bring to this essay is the result of my own experiences. As I was born in America, in the bible belt, much of my experience has been that of the Judeo Christian religion. I say this only as a disclaimer against a possible misrepresentation of other religious beliefs and customs. Furthermore, this essay is not meant to be a purely objective review of the whole of both arguments. Much of what I say will be my own opinion, therefore, the conclusions that I draw will often be the result of my own perception. As a member of the human race which interprets events and concepts according to our experience, those perceptions do not always reflect reality. And lastly, I define pragmatism as (I hope) William James does. He describes the pragmatic rule as the “meaning of a concept may always be found, if not in some sensible particular which it directly designates, then in some particular difference in the course of human experience which its being true will make”. Religion undoubtedly makes a difference in the human experience. But this essay will focus on the question of is it a good idea? I will examine, or rather briefly glance at this question from three different viewpoints. The scientific viewpoint will examine the evidence both for and against the idea that religion is a good thing for humanity, the historical viewpoint will take a look at a few major events in history that have shown the effects of religion in society, and finally the philosophical viewpoint.
“These are not, however, the days of miracles, and I suppose
It will be granted that I am not to expect a direct revelation. I must study
The plain physical facts of the case, ascertain what is possible, and learn what
appears to be right. The subject is difficult, and good men do not agree.”
-Abraham Lincoln
According to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life (2008), 92% of Americans believe in God. Because of this surprisingly large percentage, much of scientific research has been directed at the effects of religion, or the pursuit of God. Religious activities have been found to benefit blood pressure, immune function, depression, and mortality rates (Townsend, Kladder, Ayele, & Mulligan, 2002). Prayer to God on behalf of a spouse or partner is also predictive of high levels of forgiveness and lasting relationship stability. (Lambert, Fincham, Stillman, Graham & Beach, 2010). But the question arises, is the practice of religion the cause of these benefits, or does it just occur along with them as the result of some other factor? Might a person say that individuals can achieve these same benefits from meditation or other more scientific means? James said that “If two concepts lead you to infer the same particular consequence, then you may assume that they embody the same meaning under different names”. Given this quote, I would think that from a purely scientific viewpoint, James would endorse religion as a healthy practice for individuals. There is, of course, scientific evidence that both supports and calls into question the accuracy of the bible, but I find it too tedious an undertaking for the purpose of this assay which is only concerned with the use of religion to mankind. The same goes with the subject of evolution. I want to conclude the scientific portion of this essay by saying that scientific evidence is often the weapon of choice of individuals in disagreement with religion. But this disagreement is often only concerning the evidence concerning the bibles accuracy, the origin of man, or as an alternative to how to explain the world. An argument more often used to show that religion is of no use to mankind is the historical argument.
“Such evil deeds could religion prompt”
-Lucretius
1618 marked the beginning of one of the (19th actually) bloodiest wars in history: the Thirty Years’ War. It took place in the Holy Roman Empire and was between the Protestants and Catholics. Around seven and a half million people died as a result (Jonathan, 2009). It’s interesting to hear that today, because Catholics and Protestants not only live in peace now, but even generally consider each other to be Christian. It makes a person wonder what they were killing each other over. While there are many examples of injustice that results from religion, two more obvious examples include The Crusades (~2,000,000) and much of Israeli Palestinian conflict. It is also worth noting that conflict does not seem limited to a particular religion. Even Buddhism has had its moments in the Buddhist uprising of 1966 (McAllister 2008). Religion is a powerful motivator for a person to both give his life, or take the life of another. James might ask whether something this powerful and open to interpretation is a good idea to practice. I suspect that he might definitely advise against mixing the power of government with the volatility of religion. The two might be good on their own, but not combined. There are of course some alternative arguments such as the humanitarian work that is done in the name of faith. Curiously enough, the examples that spring to mind first (Mother Teresa and Gandhi in my case) are not done in the name of religion per se, but rather out of a personal faith. I think that James would answer that religion is useful on a personal level, but becomes problematic when applied to lawmaking or as an excuse for warfare. This leads me to my last and final consideration: religion is mans attempt to follow God by an organized structure of belief and practices.
Real Live Preacher (2002)
Christians will often say that they need religion, or rather Christianity because they have a sinful nature, and left to their own devises, will fall short of the model of God. Religion is mans attempt at forming an institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices. That being said, Christians should be the first to say that Religion reflects not God, but man, man who is fallible and capable of nearly anything. It can be used by man to exert power, to take their money, or to coerce a nation into war. But as long as religion is useful on a practical level to better the lives of individuals and the people around them, I think that James would approve of it. But if it is used to make war or to extort power over other humans, he would likely say that we should search for other alternatives.
“I shall return again to the relations of pragmatism with religion. But you see already how democratic she is. Her manners are as various and flexible, her resources as rich and endless, and her conclusions as friendly as those of mother nature”
William James (lecture 2)
References
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
Kirsch, Jonathan (2009). The Grand Inquisitor's Manual: A History of Terror in the Name of God. HarperOne.ISBN 9780061732768.
Lambert, N.M., Fincham, F.D., Stillman, T.F., Graham, S.M., & Beach, S.H. (2010). Motivating change in relationships: Can prayer increase forgiveness?. Psychological Science, 21(1), 126-132. Doi: 10.1177/0956797609355643
McAllister, James (2008). "'Only Religions Count in Vietnam': Thich Tri Quang and the Vietnam War". Modern Asian Studies (New York City, New York: Cambridge University Press) 42 (4): 751–782.
Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. (2008). U.S. Religious Landscape Survey: Summary of key findings. Retrieved July 30, 2008, from http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscapestudy-key-findings.pdf
Good essay
ReplyDelete