The End of Faith?

In his book The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason, Sam Harris calls in the epilogue for the abolition of religion. This is not a hopeless dream, he believes, and says that an “utter revolution in our thinking” could be achieved in a generation if parents and teachers simply gave honest answers to the questions of children. Really?!
I think Harris may be conveniently forgetting that the rules and customs of ancestral religions still give meaning, purpose and spiritual nourishment to most of the seven billion people on the Earth today. 84% of the world’s population have a faith or religion, often with deeply held convictions, and of the remaining 16% one half claim to be theistic even if not religious. And only a tiny minority are involved in illegal acts in the name of religion. Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks has reminded us that in spite of what Harris and other angry atheists say, humankind does not need religion to perpetrate ghastly crimes against its own kith and kin. And it is also widely accepted that spiritual nourishment is necessary for human flourishing, within or without a religious faith.
So with these facts and statistics how could religion possibly be abolished?
Today Christian men, women and children throughout the world will be going to church. The UK media love to say that churchgoers are declining in numbers but overall this is simply not true. Since the turn of the millennium across 42 Church of England cathedrals in the UK, numbers attending services have steadily grown by a total of 37%, around 4% on average each year, and 7% just in the last year. Perhaps it is just unfortunate that the secular materialism of the West has the cultural initiative.

Nevertheless it is true that total congregations today, even though on the increase, are still a shadow of the numbers flocking to church even 100 years ago. And this causes a problem with moral values. Religion and ethics were once closely intertwined, but since the influence of religion has declined in so many lives, there is, warns the Dalai Lama, ‘mounting confusion with respect to the problem of how best we are to conduct ourselves in life…morality becomes a matter of individual preference.’(1) Nietzsche called this an impending ‘total eclipse of all values.’

(2) Atheist as he himself was, his observation, he claimed, was entirely objective: we need a God and the moral codes inherent in that belief to curb our otherwise unpleasant behavioral traits.
Is that right?

And there is another issue – that of so-called “progress.” ‘As at the beginning of the Christian era, so again today,’ wrote Carl Jung (3) in 1957, ‘we are faced with the problem of the general moral backwardness which has failed to keep pace with our scientific, technical and social progress.’ Martin Luther King called this our moral and spiritual ‘lag’. He observed that ‘the richer we have become materially the poorer we have become morally and spiritually.’ We live, he said, in two realms:

“The internal is that realm of spiritual ends expressed in art, literature, morals, and religion. The external is that complex of devices, techniques, mechanisms, and instrumentalities by means of which we live. Our problem today is that we have allowed the internal to become lost in the external. We have allowed the means by which we live to outdistance the ends for which we live.”

He warned that we would put ourselves in peril if the former, the internal, does not grow apace of the external material realm. ‘When the ‘without’ of man’s nature subjugates the ‘within’, dark storm clouds begin to form in the world.’ The result, he cautioned, is racial injustice, poverty and war, that will only be alleviated if we balance our moral progress with our scientific progress and learn the practical art of living in harmony in a ‘worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one’s tribe, race, class, and nation.’ (4)
And how do we achieve that?
A question I will continue to explore in the weeks and months ahead. All (constructive and polite) comments welcome.



1. His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, 2000, Ancient Wisdom Modern World: Ethics for the New Millennium (London: Abacus, Time Warner Books UK, 2000), p. 11.
2. Friedrich Nietzsche, used a few times through his literature, for example spoken by the madman in The Gay Science (Philosophical Classics) Friedrich Nietzsche with Thomas Common (Translator)(New York: Dover Publications, 2006).
3. From The Collected Works of C G Jung, 1970 pp304-305 as quoted in Claire Dunn: Carl Jung: Wounded Healer of the Soul An Illustrated Biography, London: Continuum, 2000, pp. 149, 199.
4. Martin Luther King, Nobel Peace Prize Lecture December 11 1964

Building, not Burning, Bridges between Faiths

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference.

 

This “Serenity Prayer” as it is popularly called, is generally attributed to Reinhold Niebuhr, one of America’s most distinguished theologians. There is some doubt over the exact history of the prayer, when and where and why it first appeared. Reinhold himself wrote, in the January, 1950 copy of Grapevine, that the prayer "may have been spooking around for years, even centuries, but I don't think so. I honestly do believe that I wrote it myself."

In its Christian prayer form, quoted in The New York Times Book Review, for August 13, 1950, p. 19, it reads as follows:

“O God and Heavenly Father, Grant to us the serenity of mind to accept that which cannot be changed; courage to change that which can be changed, and wisdom to know the one from the other, through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.”

Now Niebuhr’s great nephew, Gustav Niebuhr, Associate Professor of Religion and the Media, has written an excellent book, Beyond Tolerance: How People across America are Building Bridges Between Faiths.

To quote from the back cover “blurb”: At a time when religious conflict seems to dominate the media, Gustav Niebuhr travelled across America to find people- Buddhists, Catholics, Jews, Baptists, Muslims, Episcopalians – who are all reaching out to find common ground between their faiths.”

And what he found gives us all hope, “a boost of much needed optimism.”

And this is not just about America. The issue is global and the message throughout the book, and the methods used through the different inter-religious organizations, (1000 across America in 2004 and rising), many of which he describes, are of interest and relevance to us all.

“This is such an interesting, well- researched and important book on such a vital topic; it always saddens me that gems such as this seem to command so little interest as compared with the mass of best selling trivia so widely available. We should all care more about the serious issues that are going to affect the future of our families and our world… This should be compulsory reading and on the book- shelf of all those who have an interest in furthering peaceful relationship between faiths, for the building of a healed and better world for us all.” 

This last paragraph is from my full review that can be read at Amazon.com as well as at Amazon.co.uk. Do read the book, whatever your faith or indeed if you have no faith. Despite the dreams of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and others, denouncing religion is as futile as King Canute trying to stop the encroaching waves. Far better to forge understanding and respect, beyond mere tolerance.

The End of Faith; Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason.

I wrote on 31 July about Sam Harris' book, The End of Faith; Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. I have now finished it and find its conclusions unsatisfactory. Another time I will write a more detailed review but for today it is late and I am tired so I will just make one or two points!

I mentioned before how I disliked and questioned his assumption about the link between wars and religion. I also have to take issue with his basic assumption, made very early in the book, and perpetuated throughout, that the sacred texts are nothing but myth and should be dismissed as such in the same way as the Greek myths. "...most of the people in this world," he writes, believe that the Creator of the universe has written a book." ... "Whatever their imagined source," he goes on to say, "the doctrines of modern religions are no more tenable than ...those cast upon the scrap heap of mythology millennia ago; for there is no more evidence to justify a belief in the literal existence of Yahweh and Satan than there was to keep Zeus perched upon his mountain throne or Poseidon churning the seas."
Continually trashing the Holy Bible as fairy tale does little to enhance his credibility, as he thereby ignores the vast theological and archeological knowledge underpinning its writings and its historical truths. I would recommend that he reads some of the many good books available on the subject. He could start with John Bartlett's The Bible; Faith and Evidence, A Critical Enquiry into the Nature of Biblical History.

Interestingly, Harris does understand the need for and existence of, a human spirituality, but he is adamant that this can and indeed must be developed without faith. He senses, he says, that the problem is hopeless, but that if parents and teachers in a single generation simply answered their children's questions honestly, there could be an utter revolution in our thinking, faith and religion would disappear in that generation and the world would be saved.

If that is the only way to save our world, as Harris seems to think, then I really believe the situation is hopeless. I really cannot believe that our faiths and our religions can be abolished so easily. They have a great deal more substance than Harris would like to think. And one cannot abolish deeply held beliefs so easily.

Instead I think we need to do all we can to foster true religious pluralism. The Dalai Lama in his book, Ancient Wisdom, Modern World (Ethics for the New Millennium), finds the idea of a world parliament of religions very appealing.

Harris suggests a world government - how else, he asks, "will a war between the USA and China become as unlikely as a war between Texas and Vermont?" But his vision is devoid of religion and it just will never work.

Many-Sided Wisdom - A New Politics of the Spirit

I wrote yesterday of Anekant or Many-Sided Wisdom, and the book by Aidan Rankin with that title, alongside my early thoughts on Sam Harris' book, The End of Faith.

At the end of the day surely we are all in search of the Truth, and there may be many different paths that will lead us there.

I have mentioned the Scientific and Medical network before (see my 16 July 2010 blog). This network for science and medical professionals was founded in 1973 to explore the frontiers of science, medicine, spirituality and human experience. It counts many eminent scientists amongst its members and its aims are not only "to provide a safe forum for the critical and open minded discussion of ideas that go beyond conventional paradigms in science, medicine and philosophy," but also to "integrate insights with rational analysis in ... investigations, to encourage a respect for Earth and community which emphasizes a spiritual and holistic approach and to challenge the adequacy of "scientific materialism" as an exclusive basis for knowledge and values," whilst maintaining the highest standards of scientific scrutiny and objective principles.

The point to note about the SMN is the principle of offering a "safe forum." Truly, some ideas put forward may seem far fetched to some, but the point is that we are all open minded and offer a climate for discussion and debate where real understanding can be gained within the rigors of scientific objectivity. I really believe that this is the way forward for our planet, rather than atheists trashing religion in its many guises.

The End of Faith?

I am reading a book at the moment that has me deeply worried. Not because it is in itself correct in its assertions, I personally do not believe that it is; but because it is unable to see the other point of view, and in so not doing, is perpetuating the same dangerous attitudes that it is so intolerant of in others.

The book is by Sam Harris, its title "The end of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason," and it rather unhelpfully and definitely sensationally quotes Richard Dawkins on the front cover, from the Guardian; "Read Sam Harris and wake up."

Now I have only reached page 36 and I accept I need to see how the argument unfolds, but I think I get the gist.

I think that the book gets off to a dodgy start by basing itself on some inaccurate assumptions. For a start Sam brings out the old hoary chestnut about most wars being the result of religious belief. I am not a historian, (in fact history O Level was the only exam I ever failed at school!), but I am told by historians whom I respect that this assumption is simply not true. I will be looking into this in some more depth.

Then he tells us that their is a fundamental intolerance between faiths - that only one faith is right, and of course we all believe that ours is that right one; that religious pluralism can only be a hoax. Isn't this what fervent atheists preach of their own beliefs?

He does accept that mostly we are spiritual beings and we find our spiritual sustenance in the dogma of different religions, but this, he tells us, is at a terrible price.

I will carry on reading Sam Harris. But I am also reading another book, (I usually have several on the go at any one time!) which I think Sam would do well to read himself. It is by Aidan Rankin, entitled "Many-Sided Wisdom; A New Politics of the Spirit." The essence of Rankin's book is drawn from ancient Jain wisdom, and reminds us that many different paths can all lead to the same spiritual truth, and there is a need for humility and respect between the followers of all such paths. This is a new political philosophy with ancient spiritual roots, and is called Anekant, literally meaning "many-sided." It logically leads to a position that the Jains call Jiva Daya: identification or sympathy with all creatures, not just our fellow humans. We are learning this lesson the hard way, as we see the terrible toll we are inflicting on the natural world through our hubris and our misguided supremacy.

As I write this there has been a terrible tragedy in Germany where many youngsters have been crushed to death at a festival. Today there was a church service in their memory, a service arranged out of a basic human need to find spiritual sustenance and support and hopefully some answers from religion, which many of us seek at such moments in our lives.

I will finish both books in due course. One thing is certain and that is the need by many of us for religion. No amount of angry discourse from atheists is going to alter that. We have to learn to live with our differences in whatever way we can, and that calls for Anekant, not angry atheistic protestations.

We have to stop arguing about right and wrong, black versus white, pluralism versus intolerance and fundamentalism. We should all have a common purpose, to save our planet for our children and grandchildren. The fundamentalist atheist does not help this cause. Or am I being naive?