"Of course I know that the sort of intellectual arguments that I have been talking to you about are not what really moves people. What really moves people to believe in God is not any intellectual argument at all. Most people believe in God because they have been taught from early infancy to do it, and that is the main reason.
"Then I think that the next most powerful reason is the wish for safety, a sort of feeling that there is a big brother who will look after you. That plays a very profound part in influencing people's desire for a belief in God."
This is a remarkably succinct summation of my own views on the matter and it was some 82 years ago this point was made, making it around two and a half times older than me.
All religion is based on fear.
The fear of the unknown and the fear of death. In some ways religion is therefore in a similar vein to one of Bertrand's own areas of expertise - Philosophy. In the same way that Rene Descartes stripped things back to "Cognito, ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am), religion attempts the same thing.
I think therefore I am works like this. Do I exist? Well, if I did not exist I wouldn't be able to wonder if I exist or not. Therefore, I must exist.
It's possible to pick this statement apart to some degree, but let's take it as read for now. What religion does is use a very similar line of thinking - and this applies to all religions, but the monotheistic are the easiest to work through as an example, and also probably the most prevalent fantasies at this time.
It says that this book (the bible, Qur'an, Torah, whatever) exists. It says that this book contains the word of God, as transcribed by a profit (or a mystic or a witness to the events - the exact person varies). Therefore God must exist.
Without God, these words could not have been transcribed or these events could not have happened, therefore God must exist.
When you come down to it, this is the basic argument for the existence of God, as defined by monotheistic religions.
The problem is that this argument does not hold water for one simple reason: we all know that people are perfectly capable of making stuff up.
In fact, there are multi-billion pound industries based solely on the fact that people are extremely good at making stuff up. Indeed, the level of imagination shown in most religious texts almost proves the very point.
We also know that people are entirely capable of making stuff up and, crucially, actually believing that it really happened. We also know that drugs can induce hallucinations and altered states of perception. We also know that some people hunger after power and influence.
You would think that, given even low intelligence, these clear flaws in the process would have put religion to rest some time ago.
The problem is explained by what Russell talked about:
1) People are taught to believe in God from childhood.
It is difficult to break this ingrained learning. Take the simple case of abused children - they sometimes grow up and abuse their own children in a horrifying vicious circle.
In addition, and somewhat ironically, religion is able to pervert the very liberalism that tolerates its existence. Society (schools and teachers) do not want to cause offence. We are all told that religious freedom is our choice.
This means any attempt to break the cycle of illogic results in cries of oppression from the religious. The irony comes in that all of these monotheistic religions preach conversion - it is the job of believers to force/compel/persuade others to convert to their religion: for them, religious intolerance is part of the very religion itself.
This prevents critical examination of the facts. It even seems to have gotten to the stage that science is being taught in an "optional" way, as if it is just one possible explanation of events and religions represent another. This is such a preposterous notion it beggars belief.
2) God as Big Brother
Religion acts on fear.
Fear is a very powerful emotion - possibly the most powerful.
Everyone is afraid of death. It seems cruel and arbitrary that, at some point in the future, I will die. It seems cruel and arbitrary that the people I love will also die.
Is it not, therefore, a comforting thought that I have an everlasting soul? And that my soul will live on in some form? Possibly it will even get to go to a super-nice heaven.
This is why it's very difficult to argue against God and religion and heaven.
Whatever arguments you make against Religion & God - how illogical it is, how ridiculous, how contradictory, how flawed, how dangerous and damaging - this is what it comes back to: people are afraid of death.
They don't want to die and they don't want their friends & family to die. But they know they will, so they take comfort in something that makes them the promise that, if they believe, if they have faith, then death won't really be the end that it seems.
It's a difficult thing to argue against that and therefore to successfully convince people when this fear is the core problem. In a sense, what have they to gain but uncertainty if they act rationally and logically and stop believing?
No comments:
Post a Comment