|
|
Home >>
The case against religion
Atheists, agnostics, free thought and humanist groups (if not the general population) are agreed that something has to be done about the negative influence of religion. The question is, what?
The approach of most of these organisations is to present logically based counter arguments. Which is fine, as far as it goes. The problem is that religious feelings have nothing to do with logical thought processes- they are emotional responses based upon instincts.
Only by realising the cause of an infection can you hope to counter it. The claim that religion is based upon instinctive spirituality is more than just an abstract argument, because it affects the very way you approach the problem.
Consider: If you hold that religion is simply a relatively modern belief set used to explain the mysteries of creation, then the obvious counter is to present rational arguments against it, hoping that people will be swayed towards a more logical approach to life.
On the other hand, if you believe that religion is grounded in instinctive behaviour, then you will realise that presenting logical arguments against it is not enough. Confronting an instinct head-on is likely to be a losing battle: success is much more attainable if you attempt to deflect or re-channel it in a more positive direction.
Consider the instinct of aggression, which is a legacy of that part of the primitive brain which researcher Dr. Paul Maclean calls the R-complex. For millenia this instinct served as a survival tool. In today's modern world it is often a dangerous liability, yet it is still there. Aggressive instincts cannot be removed, short of brain surgery, a non-recommended option.
But instincts can be deflected by conscious thought (always a battle) and they can often be re-channeled. One of the most successful ways to deflect aggression is through sport. Young men in particular have an ample supply of aggression, and it is much better to let it find a socially acceptable outlet than it is to try and bottle it up. The sporting field is a better place to unleash aggression than a battle field.
So, if religion is admitted to be instinctive behaviour in need of control, the best way to do so is not through head-on confrontation, but to re-channel the spirituality instinct in a more positive direction. There are many ways to mollify the spirituality instinct without getting caught up in the really damaging idea of a paternal type diety.
Another issue that mainstream atheist books tend to ignore is that religion either fills (or more correctly is perceived to fill) certain human needs. Any attempt to scrap religion should consider these issues, and offer more positive alternatives. For example, the obedience to God credos of organised religions should be replaced with an ethic designed, not to foster the power of the church, but to consider the human condition. Like all great truths, this sounds simple, but the devil is in the detail.
That's why you need to read God Replacement Therapy!
|