The RSA’s strapline is 21st century enlightenment. Brenda Watson FRSA argues for more discussion of religion, which she believes has a legitimate place in public discourse.
Whilst I welcome the fact that the RSA has had some interesting events on the subject of faith, including a recent speech by former Prime Minister Tony Blair, more could be done to ensure that religion is not marginalized.
We need to be open-minded; to close our minds to ‘religion’ per se is a contradiction, and even hypocritical. Organisations like the RSA, embrace a forward-thinking, questing, and pragmatic outlook on the world. The Enlightenment sought to make reason a corner-stone of life. So how can it be rational to regard the whole of religion as inappropriate for the public domain? This fails to acknowledge the huge range of opinions within religions.
Reason derives from whole-of-life life experience and so cannot be faith-free; the ‘reason/faith’ divide is based on a false dichotomy. While individual religious or irreligious believers alike may be irrational people, the majority, and especially the saints and scholars of all the great world religions, have always appealed to reason in interpretation of their faiths. To imply that Aquinas was bereft of reason seems illogical, just as to say the same of, for example, a Rowan Williams or a Jonathan Sacks.
In a liberal democracy religious and irreligious people have equal rights. The state exists for all its citizens, not just for some. If an atheist is offended at the wearing of a burka, turban or cross, a religious person may be equally upset by their banning. Reciprocity should mean balance and common sense, with state intervention only as needed to keep the peace. Such matters warrant proper public expression.
Public debate would also benefit from religious contributions. Survival of democracy in a world of chicanery requires maximum public involvement by all its well-wishers. The help of democratic religious people should therefore be welcomed, not spurned or regarded with suspicion. As with secular views, the properly liberal and democratic way for such positive input to be promulgated is through public debate. Marginalisation and occasional public scorn of religion does not encourage open debate. It drives religion underground and into ghettoes. This removes one of our best ways of controlling religious extremism inimical to a democratic society. Intelligent debate is a major safeguard against the rise and promotion of perverted beliefs. For the safety of society, should not religion be properly and respectfully acknowledged?
Liberal religions helped to establish and support the democratic state. Indeed the fundamental creed behind democracy - that all people are equal as persons - derives historically from fundamental Christian doctrine. The notion of the equality of all was not sourced from ancient civilisations. For example, the democracy of Athens was reserved for only a quarter of the population; slaves and women were excluded. Care for the vulnerable and deprived has been absent from almost all civilisations except our own.
In her recent article in the RSA Journal Cecile Laborde argues that public discourse should take place in a secular language, which is available to all, secular and religious alike. This proposal imposes a burden on religious people that atheist and agnostics do not share because the secular is their language; they do not have to acquire another. Furthermore, it prioritises atheism by making the non-God perspective the default position. An anti-religious mindset was understandable hundreds of years ago when religious institutions used their power to be obscurantist and prevent proper academic freedom. But in the West that situation no longer applies. Are we perhaps behaving like teenagers who may rebel against the parental control that harnesses them, a rebellion which becomes absurd in the middle-aged?
The RSA is well placed to play fairer with religion by acknowledging publicly that religious perspectives are as permissible in public as non-religious ones. Should not its charters and mission statements acknowledge that some people see these virtues as grounded in God, whilst others affirm them as humanist? Affirming but critical treatment should be meted out by government, the media, in philosophy, in political debate, in education, to religious people, atheists and agnostics alike.
Dr. Brenda Watson is an educationalist - teacher, lecturer and author of several books - her main subjects being History, Music, Philosophy and Religion.
Join the discussion
Comments
Please login to post a comment or reply
Don't have an account? Click here to register.
I
agree entirely that religious communities are entitled to a fair input into any
debate. However, my difficulties start when such an input is based upon their
faith. I do not see the rational/belief divide as narrow as Watson does. I do
not advocate that anything must be rational to have meaning; there are far too
many aspects of life which have great importance but which cannot be accounted
for rationally – aesthetics, emotions to name but two. But, whereas a rational
argument can be analysed and criticised, the same does not hold for
non-rational domains. (I much prefer the term non-rational to irrational as one
of the unfortunate side-effects of the Enlightenment has been to perceive that
which is not rational as less worthy than that which is rational). Hence, if
someone advocates a particular course of action on the basis of their faith, I
can respect their view but I find it impossible to argue with them, even though
I may disagree with them diametrically.
What
I believe (sic!) is of greater value than belief is the outcome of beliefs.
Whilst I claim membership of no religious faith, the precepts by which I live
my life appear to me to be not substantially different from the precepts advocated
by any (major) faith. Certainly, apart from partaking in organised worship, I
doubt if you would be able to say that way in which I try to live my life is
any different to that in which a Christian, Muslim or Jew lives theirs (nor a
Hindu or Buddhist although I know less about those faiths). I would argue that
this focus on the outcome of beliefs is more relevant to the twenty-first
century, multi-national and multi-cultural world than the focus on belief per
se was in the past.
I
perceive further difficulties in the (changing) impact of religion in our
society. As the Church of England is established, a case can be made for giving
a higher level of prominence to its views than to those of other churches (or
non-religious groups). However, I (along with some members of the CofE) would
argue that this position is now anomalous. The days of high attendance at
worship are no longer with us (if they ever were) except in some minority
Christian sects and among non-Christian faiths. Hence, it is difficult to gain
a measure of how important religion is to present day British society.
I
would argue with Watson’s statement that liberal religion helped to bring about
the democratic state to the extent appearing in the article. To my mind, this
is only true of certain (minority) sects within the religious community: I’m
thinking especially of the Diggers and the Quakers. Large sections of the
religious community supported slavery and opposed a widening of franchise. It
is easy to see retrospectively an alignment of a modern interpretation of
Christianity with the development of liberal democracy. Do not forget that much
of the barbarity of imperialism was undertaken in the name of improving people
through Christianity.
The
difficulty I have with Cecile Laborde’s position is in knowing what a secular
(or for that matter a religious) language actually is. If it means avoiding
stating that we should do or not do something ‘because God tells us to do that’
then, as stated above, my lack of a shared belief makes dialogue impossible and
I would agree with Laborde. However, if it refers to a particular code of
language, then I am afraid I do not know what she means. But, we need to remind
ourselves that any dialogue which has the potential to be beneficial has to be
in a language shared by both parties: if I visit a non-English speaking
country, to converse with locals I need to find a common tongue; I need to
avoid professional jargon when speaking with amateurs in a field. This does
impose a burden on me (or them) but the potential benefits outweigh that burden
(otherwise I would not bother).
I
agree that the RSA’s charter and mission statement should welcome contributions
from all, in fact I affirm that the effect of the Society is all the richer
because of that, but I feel it dangerous to specifically mention any groups
(not just religious, the same would be true of class, age, gender, race etc.).
Having read comments on the website on your
article, I fear that some contributors see Watson proposing a special place in
debate for the religious community/communities. The Society is fully able to
receive, with welcome, contribution from the religious, the agnostic and the
atheist. Indeed, it is the contributions all groups within society which makes
the Society the force it is.
I do not know if I am one of those "religionists" but I get the impression that if I were to disagree with any of your rhetorical questions, you probably would think I was. I am not browsing these forum to enter such a debate. Either with you or with a "religionist".
All I am suggesting is that readers not automatically marginalize an idea or an argument based upon a stereotype of a contributor's self-proclaimed religious affiliation--or a self-proclaimed lack of a religious affiliation. A stated persuasion can be helpful in determining whether a response to a contributor is warranted . . . or not.
As an ignostic humanist, I simply see no point in wasting a single moment of my time in trying to find evidence for things - like "gods", "souls" and "after-life" - that do not exist. If others want to spin themselves into an absolute cocoon of fantasy around these subjects then that is their affair.
As a rationalist, I object to religionists inventing faux subjects for so-called debate and so-called controversy. Not only is there no real controversy on any of these pseudo-religious topics but there is no real debate either. They are possessed of the absolute truth; they have a book which is literally true in every respect; they know - absolutely - everything that can possibly be known about the formation of the Universe, the original origins of all human and other kind on our planet, and they know exactly what the eventual end of our world will be and what will occur when the end comes. How is it possible to argue or debate with a group who are so certain they already know all the answers? From their perspective, why bother to argue or debate with anyone else, when they already know it all? Of course, the tragedy of such a ridiculous attitude is that they effectively self-stupefy themselves and others. The further tragedy is that if humankind were only to stop wasting so much in the way of time and other valuable human resources on an utterly worthless pursuit of religious and other extremist ideologies, just think what we might already have achived in a real sense by now: the cures for colds, flus and viruses like HIV/Aids? Might we all by now not be living much longer and higher quality lives? Religion is clearly a curse and a tragedy for all humankind. The best thing that can happen to it is that such beliefs, based on outdated ignorance and stupidity, should eventually fade away, to join all the former beliefs based on other "gods" like Thor, Wotan, Zeus, Mars - and all the other roughly 3,000 "gods" recorded in human history. Let us not waste our time on such silly nonsense in future, please.
A very important distinction to make is between the religion and those people who are "religious". The teachings cannot be equated as being the same as the doer. For example: doctors and medical knowledge. Doctors are the most dangerous killers because they know how the body works, what medicine can heal or kill you. A drug used at different dosages can have very different consequences: just a bit overboard and maybe you'll be saying goodbye to this world. If a patient was killed by an elaborate overdose of a drug that's supposed to heal him, who is to blame? The doctor or the medical knowledge of that doctor? A better thing is not to be lazy and just pass judgment on what you see on the surface, but go deeper into the the teachings. Put all what is religion to task, evaluate what was preached in the truest sense and make the decision whether the religion is to blame or is it the people who interpret their religions to suit their aims the culprit. This can be applied to what you seem to be set against, what you perceive as wrong. Why do they treat their women that way? why do they get away with what they did? Determine the reasons behind all of this with objectivity and without prejudice.
I suspect that you will say that this is a very slow process: to understand things before taking action. But why go blindly into things that you do not know? I would strongly advise you against going about to repair something without first learning its inner workings. Furthermore, you want to intervene, to save them all from what is wrong with what they are doing. So you must know more. I agree with you that people would believe whole-heartedly that their views is the absolute right. This is the reason why some people become fanatical and always ready to condemn others as being wrong. So what is the remedy? I am a big fan of knowledge as I believe that knowledge is power (as cliche as it sounds). Most of the time the fanatics are people who take one interpretation to a problem and then hold on to that until they die because their leaders tell them to. But with dissemination of knowledge then hopefully a "religious enlightenment" would happen, erasing the extremists just as the Enlightenment erased the pagans before.
My interpretation of fairness is based on the concept of adl (justice). The opposite of zulm: cruelty or unjust acts of exploitation, oppression, and wrong doing, whereby a person either deprives others of their rights or does not fulfill his obligations towards them. Placing things where they do not belong. It is not circular reasoning, but maybe you misunderstood me.
All in all, I think that people should: increase knowledge to avoid stereotyping, to hold judgment and be tolerant of differences. I am not advocating blind faith as I also believe that what is wrong should be made right. However, I do realize that what I consider as right, may not be so with other people (meaning that not everyone would agree). So I settle with getting to know each side, understand their perspectives. What is important is making sure all are on the same page: to strive for the greater good.
Brenda, thank you for your points: "The RSA is well placed to play fairer with religion by acknowledging
publicly that religious perspectives are as permissible in public as
non-religious ones. Should not its charters and mission statements
acknowledge that some people see these virtues as grounded in God,
whilst others affirm them as humanist"
I understand the diversity of opinions within certain groups such as "Christian" or "Islamic" or "Jewish" make it difficult and challenging--and even frustrating--for many participants to sort out individual commentators' biases and logic. I do think it is incumbent upon anyone who speaks to clarify her assumptions when advocating a position on an issue. I firmly believe that many commentators fail to clarify adequately their core values--though some try by labeling themselves in this way. Effective argumentation requires identifying our common ground and specific points of contention. Restricting our language to ignore our non-secular biases would prove a huge mistake.
I believe certain issues, certain questions, can be sufficiently answered in a secular language. I also believe that others cannot. (As examples, "Why are we?" and "What is good?") Posing a non-secular question is sometimes a valid response to a secular question.
The biggest threat to a set of religious beliefs is not a different set of beliefs. It is the restriction upon teaching and discussing those beliefs, preventing the transmission of those core values. Thank you for recognizing that we need a level playing field.
I want to see ethical considerations and challenges to be welcome in all fields of human endeavor.