Religion has come into question more and more in recent years. As we learn more about the world and about the corruption within various religious organizations, the question on many people’s minds prevails: Do we need god? This is a very complex question, but the quick answer is not really.
As a society, it’s safe to say we certainly used to need some kind of idea of “God” to understand how things work. We simply didn’t know why the world around us functioned in the way it did, and having God to look to give us a reason why. But as we learn more about the world around us, we’ve grown our understanding and, as a people, I believe we are no longer at a point where we NEED God. Now this isn’t to say everyone should go out and become an atheist, even if you don’t need God, that doesn’t mean you can’t benefit from religion in any kind of way.
I read an article from the New York Times called “What Religion Gives us (That Science Can’t)” by a journalist called William Widmer, he examines the philosophy of evolutionary biologist E. O. Wilson, who claims that “for the sake of human progress, the best thing we could possibly do would be to diminish, to the point of eliminating, religious faiths.” William does not agree with this idea, and in fact argues that we still need religion. William goes on to tell the story of a mother whose son was murdered at a young age, the mother would have been driven to insanity were it not for her ability to turn to her religion for comfort and her faith that she would be reunited with her son in the afterlife. Now, whether you see this as someone in desperate need finding comfort in the support network her religion provides or a massive organization taking advantage of those at their lowest is up to interpretation, but William believes that this story is a sign of why we still need religion in our lives.
The biggest argument against the need of religion in our modern day is that the only reason we needed religion in the first place was to explain away the things we didn’t understand, and as we grow our understanding of the world our “need” for religion deminishes. I personally subscribe to this view as evident by the intro to this very blogpost, but William of New York Times begs to disagree. He goes on to claim that while scientific discoveries continue to help us understand the world, no amount of science will make us understand the grief we feel and give us the comfort we need. “My claim is that religion can provide direct access to this emotional life in ways that science does not. Yes, science can give us emotional feelings of wonder at the majesty of nature, but there are many forms of human suffering that are beyond the reach of any scientific alleviation.” Now, I see his point, science has a way of taking the feeling out of emotions. If you’re a scientific mind and you’re having a bad day you may think “oh this emotional response in my brain is an imbalence of chemicals and I will feel ok in due time.” and your emotional brain is sitting there like “umm that actually doesn’t help I still feel like shit.” But for me persoanlly, I feel like there has to be a middle ground between “none of my emotions matter because its all science” and “oh mighty god please comfort me in my time of sorrow” Perhaps feeling your emotions as they appear, sitting with them in that time and understanding the feelings you’re feeling is the best way to find solace. Perhaps when you feel down you don’t need a scientific explanation away or an all-mighty deity to comfort you, you just need to recognise what you’re feeling and maybe like, talk to a good friend or something.
Karl Marx said that religion is an opioid and “the sigh of an oppressed culture” claiming that religion does not fix anything in our lives and in fact only serves to numb our pain. He claims religion is “the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” The comparison stems from both opioids and religion being a tool used commonly by those in unfortunate situations to displace their issues and rely on an external source of comfort.
I think the biggest difference and issue with Marx’s claim is that religion usually doesn’t kill people and, at least in the best-case scenario, get’s people to in fact be better to one another. Opioids usually don’t have this effect. This brings up a good point about religion. Everyone I’ve covered here is talking about it in terms of absolute extremes. William Widmer is claiming that religion saved this mother who lost her son, that she would’ve been locked up in a mental institution if it weren’t for her faith in god. Then Karl Marx comes around and says religion is an opioid that is suppressing the oppressed and keeping us from developing as a people entirely. I feel like maybe you can have religion in your life to help you without it being the sole reason you’re still alive but also without it taking over your life and destroying you.
My takeaway is that the question “Do we need god” is misleading, “need” is too strong of a word. I do not believe anyone needs god, but I do think that many people benefit from a connection to their form of god. Science won’t help a grieving mother, and religion won’t fix the problem, but it might help the mother make it through her struggle, and sometimes that’s all we can ask for. So if people get comfort and feel more fulfilled and seen in their lives because of god, I am not one to take that away from someone, and I don’t think Karl Marx should be either.
My discussion questions are: Do you think we still need religion today and why?
Religion can be a finnicky thing overall, some people rely on it to help guide them in life, or as a net to fall back on. While it has become a big deal for people all over the world, some more so than others, personally I feel that religion is not NEEDED in modern society. I feel that it can help society in certain ways, but also needs to be stepped away from in major areas of society as well. The world is made up of many religions, so while this is one of many things that could make one who they are, I feel that it is no longer as important. For example, there are those that do not feel a connection to religion, and live happily without it. Religion also can hinder certain things, like progressive movements depending on where they occur in the world. So while religion is prominent, helpful and good it is not a NEED.
ReplyDeleteAdd in a few links and pictures to your post, that way it helps break things up a bit. For example, a picture of Karl Marx or a link to the article you read.
"the question 'Do we need god' is misleading" -- yes, but not because some people don't "need" to believe in a transcendent supernatural creator being. Some apparently do, or think they do. It's the 'we' I have an issue with. We aren't all the same. We have different needs, and perceived needs. Perhaps a world entirely without gods would be better, but none of us is (or should be) in an authoritative position to say so. Better still a pluralistic world of mutual tolerance and respect.
ReplyDeleteMaybe take a look at some of James's writings on religion (in Varieties of Religious Experience*, for instance) and link to a relevant quote or two. Perhaps note what he says about the connection of religion (for some) to happiness: “How to gain, how to keep, how to recover happiness, is in fact for most men at all times the secret motive of all they do, and of all they are willing to endure.”
Maybe also note that the question "do we need god" is not the same as "do we need to believe in an afterlife"... and again, note that WE do not all answer those questions the same way.
*https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/621/pg621-images.html