On Religion

A force for good or something else?

Laurance begins this episode by asking what the term “religion” means and why religions retain such a strong appeal in the world today. Citing the work of psychologist Jonathan Haidt and sociologist Emile Durkheim, he notes the “two B’s” associated with religion: Belief and Belonging, and the suggestion that it is the latter which has been more important historically. This leads to the familiar idea of community which is a valuable counter to crude individualism, but can also support the kinds of tribalism or collectivism which lead to divisions between “us” and “them”. Here Laurance quotes one of Haidt’s signature slogans: that morality “binds and blinds”.

Laurance turns to the age-old question about the connection between religion and morality, and makes several comments about: the Socratic question about whether the pious (or good) is loved by the Gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the Gods; the existence of several non-religious theories of “normative ethics” in philosophy (based on virtue, reason and consequences, respectively); and the idea that notwithstanding their many differences, most established religions include versions of the “Golden Rule”. Still, we need to be cautious, because different religions are also associated with different moral pathways leading to eternal salvation (e.g. Heaven or Paradise).

Laurance turns to a brief comparison among the three Monotheistic religions: Judaism (which many Jews classify as a “way of life” rather than a religion), Christianity, and Islam. The latter two are, at least theoretically, missionary in nature, although Christianity underwent significant change as a result of the Reformation and Enlightenment. Turning to Islam, Laurance notes that claims regarding its current mission and status in the world range from declaring that Islam has always sought to dominate whatever communities it connects with, to insisting that inciting hatred toward non-Muslims has no place in Islam, and do not represent the views of most Muslims. In response to such extremes, Laurance reiterates the general principle that “When a group of individuals commits an atrocity in the name of a larger group, which it claims to represent, it is morally incumbent on that larger group to call this out and proclaim, “No, this is not who we are!”.

Laurance attempts to defuse the contentious notion of Zionism and its role in Judaism and the modern State of Israel. While questioning the claim that Zionism is colonialist in origin, he does point to one aspect of the Jewish state which remains problematic: its aspiration to be a democracy. Somewhat ironically, this aspiration has made the issues of citizenship and migration problematic, which would not be the case if Israel functioned, as do other religious states, non-democratically.

Finally, Laurance asserts that he sees no harm in embracing the rich narratives that are associated with different religions, but cautions against two stronger claims which are sometimes made: that one’s own religious beliefs are the true ones, and that religion is the only genuine source of morality.

Once again, Laurance leaves listeners with some questions to ponder, given that the next episode will include a dialogue with a colleague about the nature of religion.

Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn