I read a fascinating debate on http://www.psychologytoday.com/.
Nibel Barbar argued that atheism will replace religion because, in developed countries, the psychological functions of religion can be provided in alternative venues. Sports are his primary example, and he argues that religion and sport ceremonies are similar in that sports provide a humanistic/polytheist religion where 'spectators worship other human beings, their achievements, and the groups to which they belong.' Socializing with people with a built-in source of agreement, chanting and singing, ritualistic colors and a transformative experience where people escape their daily lives with something greater than themselves. Sports, like religion, is a distraction from everything else that is happening, a simple satisfying socialization shortcut.
Barbar thinks there is no longer a need for religion because "with better science, and with government safety nets, and smaller families, there is less fear and uncertainty in people's daily lives and hence less of a market for religion." Thus, there is less demand for religion and combined with an explosion of competition from psychotherapuetic drugs, electronic entertainment, and sports which have combined to result in an explosion of atheism in developed countries.
Michael Austin counters that religion isn't practiced just because of fear arising from short life spans and tremendous ignorance about the workings of the universe. Religion is practiced because people believe it is true. This sets it apart from a marketplace analysis of cause and demand, giving people a reason to exist, principles to guide their life. Austin further claims that Atheism can never be a belief system, because it is merely a rejection of something and not a positive value system like religion.
Austin is correct that in and of itself, atheism is not a belief system. His conclusion: because Atheism isn't a source of morality, religion will always be needed. This is pure fallacy. Morality can be found in serving your own real, long-term interests. Honesty, hard work, and dedication to family...the true foundations of morality, can all be arrived at through reason. Honesty earns a reputation for honesty, which opens up opportunities in the business and personal spheres. Businesses want to partner with you, customers return for your services, and friends trust you with secrets and truth. Hard work is rewarded both financially and psychologically with promotion, wealth, and contentment. Dedication to family and friends is reciprocated, developing a reliable network of individuals who can be counted on in times of need. These foundations of a good life admit that death means the end of us, that life is worth living as long and as well as possible, and that morality leads to happiness and mental peace. Morality is it's own goal.
What about Austin's contention that genuine belief is a strong reason to expect the persistence of religion? Market forces don't have as strong of an impact on something that a person believes to be nonfungible. This is certainly important and true. Perhaps this is why religion persists despite the growing lack of need for the psychological effects of religion.
In my opinion even if religion is genuinely believed, this characteristic is not a strong indication that future generations, or even future iterations of the same individuals will hold the same genuine beliefs. The moral foundation formed by religion can be logically and reliably created without myth and archaic power structures. Eventually the cost efficiency, reasonability, and personalization available to people who simply find their own moral compass will attract a critical mass of people away from the seductive social pressures and networking that religion relies upon to persist. This is what I call the critical mass theory.
The Critical Theory suggests that after a majority of people no longer are beholden to the prevailing myth, the social pressures to accept the prevailing religion will disappear. It suggests that one of the reasons that religion persists is that most people are socially honor-bound to believe or profess to believe in religion. In other words, because the vast majority of people in America profess to find their moral compass in Christianity, all people feel a strong social pressure to acknowledge the moral compass and the psychological value of believing in the prevailing myth. This is a subject I will discuss in more detail in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment