Thursday, April 22, 2010

Religion is the best Deception

If you're a thinking person, then you've got to be skeptical of something which demands belief based only on faith. You just have to be. Why? Well, look around. How many religions are there in the world which require blind faith from their followers? How can one choose the "correct" religion from among these many options? One cannot. There is absolutely no way. So, people end up adopting the religious faiths of their family, neighbours, or countrymen. (Thankfully, a growing number of us don't bother choosing at all.)

An alien landing on the earth confronted by its various faiths would have no clue as to which, if any, of the religions were true. The claims are all the same: "I've got an old book! It's got some good stories in it! You need it to live a good life! You need to believe in this one particular god and this one particular prophet! You want proof? No, no, there's none! You must accept everything on faith! And if you don't, you will suffer eternally in a horrible place!" There is absolutely no reason for the alien to choose one over another, and in fact, there is no real reason to make a choice in the first place. (In this scenario, one hopes that the alien has all the answers, and proceeds to enlighten our little planet rather than destroy it.)

Those who have made this choice (or have had the choice made for them) are imprisoned but are unaware of it. It is extremely difficult to break out of this prison because first and foremost, the inmates are content (indeed begging) to stay! Secondly, once their leap of faith is made, the believer is strapped into an almost unescapable philosophical straightjacket. This is why I call the deception in the title the "best" deception. It is so strong, and so unwielding to any argument. The deception can come from anywhere (one's self, one's priest, one's parents) and it's almost never recognized as deception. The only time someone recognizes this kind of deception is regarding the "other": in another culture, country, or religion. If a Christian contemplates someone of a different faith, the Christian is quite ready to say "that poor guy is deceiving himself" or "is being deceived". But it's just inconceivable to the Christian that he himself is in exactly the same situation.

If I were a believer, but could still construct logical arguments, I would have to conclude that religion was created not by a caring god, but by a devil. Faith in something without evidence is not noble or honourable, it's sinister. Why are we so gullible and so willing to be deceived?

9 comments:

Julie said...

You'd probaly enjoy "irreligion" by John Allen Paulos...

Sean O'Hagan said...

Probaly... :)

Is that the mathematician?

Julie said...

yes, it is BUT I have given up on the book...not that it is hard, I don't care for how he contradicts religious beliefs tho' I agree with him but I just cant get interested or stay interested in his writing.Perhaps you could stay with his way of thinking and explaining.

Sean O'Hagan said...

He's probably extremely logical, like most mathematicians. Sometimes logic, regardless of how clear, is difficult to follow.

Julie said...

You're "probaly" right!

Christopher said...

You write, ‘If a Christian contemplates someone of a different faith, the Christian is quite ready to say "that poor guy is deceiving himself" or "is being deceived". But it's just inconceivable to the Christian that he himself is in exactly the same situation.’
I say then, the same is true of the Atheist, as atheism itself is a religion requiring faith by your own definition of religion. For just as any religion cannot prove or defend itself empirically, neither can atheism – the same Kirkegardian leap of faith is a necessity for either faith in a God or not in a god. The real issue is the Enlightenment paradigm and the stifling desire to objectively attempt to prove everything when objectivity can, in reality, only be known subjectively. This is the view of a Critical Realist who stands between and off-set from either the Enlightenment or the Phemenological paradigmatic constructs which are the true “philosophical straightjackets” to any comprehensive epistemology. In terms of what all this means ontologically either for an atheist or an agnostic or for a christian there really is no difference, we are what we are – humans on a journey to know or make sense out of the reality we are in and that reality can only be know subjectively and relationally for that is our state of being.
Also, you comment, “If I were a believer, but could still construct logical arguments, I would have to conclude that religion was created not by a caring god, but by a devil. Faith in something without evidence is not noble or honourable, it's sinister. Why are we so gullible and so willing to be deceived?”
First, you make an assumption that believers do not or cannot “construct logical arguments” which is without any merit as the argument is circular and in itself defies logic. Why assume an inability to “construct logical argument” simply on the basis of one’s epistemological preference? For that demands the elevation of one epistemology over another without any sound argument for such a position.
The second assumption you make is that, “Faith in something without evidence is not noble or honourable, it's sinister.” This pre-supposes that evidence is the determinate factor in faith, which may or may not be true as what constitutes evidence is presupposed by the paradigm you are constructing your reality out of. So, the Atheist is in the exact same place as the believer and the same question can be asked of the Atheist that you ask of the believer, “Why are we so gullible and so willing to be deceived?” Deception is an incongruity between what is real and what is not and to assume on the basis of what one’s object of faith is – whether science or faith is to miss not the “best deception” but the greatest deception that of self-delusion and subsequent epistemological quagmire.
No one can live in a pre-supposed reality and not be deceived. The real question is how do we know what we know and consequently what is our state of being in relation to our knowing? This frees one from trying to prove or defend any particular system but rather to live as fully human being whether or not one chooses to believe in the God of the monotheistic religions or the god of atheism. Both are dependent on the same faith, for the Atheist cannot by negation ignore the faith to believe in what it is the Atheist believes in.

Christopher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sean O'Hagan said...

Hi Chris,

Religious people and atheists call religion "religion". But only religious people call atheism "religion". Most religious people believe in one or more gods and follow the teachings of one or more sacred texts. Atheists lack belief and follow their own moral path. I can't quite believe that my atheism is in any way similar to religion.

The Atheist's lack of belief puts him or her aside from all members of other religions. The total lack of evidence for any supernatural being dovetails quite nicely with the atheist viewpoint. There is absolutely no faith involved. Why? Because in the event that I, or any other atheist, sees a shred of evidence that there is a god, I would gape in awe and wonder, and give myself a kick in the pants. I would not cling to my "atheist faith". What would be the point?

When I became an atheist (at around 11 yrs old) it was as far from a leap of faith as you could imagine. It was more like a gentle falling away of things that I realized were , in my opinion, preposterous. I don't think you made a leap of faith either (correct me if I'm wrong). You were brought up in a very religious family and thus your beliefs came naturally to you.

I don't think I meant that all religious people were unable to operate logically. I wanted to narrow down the kind of religious person I was in that imaginary situation. I think you would agree that there exist some religious people who cannot discuss religion logically. In my supposition, I was not one of those.

Evidence is absolutely and positively the determinate factor in faith. Jesus performed miracles, God presented himself to Moses, etc., etc. The origin of your religion is full of "evidence" for the existence of God and of his son on earth. This is why people believe. Do you think anyone would believe in a religion without this kind of "historical evidence"?

Julie said...

I find Sean's argument to be more persuasive in good part due to its clarity of thought and its honesty. This is who I am; this is why.
For an atheist, like myself, to encounter the phrase " the god of Atheism" reads like an oxymoron to me, as in "Atheist's god".