On Religion- Part 1

Our good friend, XY, seems to have a newfound spirituality, for he has been talking a lot about religion, miracles, and faith on his homepage. From time to time, my comments may be construed as unduly strident in tone and disparaging in my words as I respond to his posts. Unfortunately, the discussion of religion, by its very nature is controversial (it may be worth thinking why that’s the case), so I will categorically deny that by airing my views on religion; I neither believe that my views are superior or more correct than others, nor intend to show disrespect to any individual’s religious view, for an individual has full liberty to choose his own beliefs. The only purpose of this post is to clarify my view on religion.

Humanist and Teapot-Agnostic: I can best be described as a humanist and a teapot-agnostic. For the uninitiated, this means that I do not believe that supernatural beliefs can reveal what is right and wrong, show me the path to truth, or a future of eternal bliss in the afterlife. A humanist believes that human affairs can be solved by humans alone in this universe. In addition, the dignity and worth of an individual is affirmed by how he responds in adversity (think Oedipus Rex) under universal human conditions-happiness, suffering, birth, death etc. Humans have the capacity for both “good” and “evil” depending on his actions, nothing is foreordained. As such, I reject predestination- the Calvinist doctrine that some people are damned right from the start; original sin- all humans are born as sinners and are only redeemed by the blood of Christ; belief in Christ- humanity is redeemed by Christ. There are a lot of other Christian beliefs that I find very problematic, but it suffices to say I will not make a good Christian.

But there is no need to be a good Christian to be a good human. Neither is that a need to be a religious person to be a good human. In fact, I will go further to argue that a religious person is considered good, because he meets the standards of universal morality. To have a sense of what universal morality is about; it may be instructive to briefly mention Confucius. I suspect one of the endearing appeals of Confucius to generations of literati is the fact that he is a humanist. One universal moral precept would be “恻隐之心”- the ability to empathize with others’ sufferings and pain, and consequently carry out actions to prevent and ameliorate the plight of others.

I am not sure whether Confucius talks about rationality and self-determination, but these two concepts heavily influenced the notion of universal morality in the natural law tradition in Western philosophy. Another example of universal morality is the percept that it is wrong to kill someone. It is against the law of nature, against reason, against the universal morality of the right of life that we self-evidently have, because we are humans.

I have always found it very peculiar when XY tells me that religion is much needed in society because it promotes human goodness, given his knowledge of Confucius’s teachings. Religion promotes goodness in society only when reason fails. I will expand on that later. The bible contains a lot of universal moral precepts like Matthew 7:12 - "Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets." This moral precept obviously can be found in Confucius. The only problem is that to Christians, this moral precept derived its moral authority and goodness from God. To carry out this precept, is first to glorify God and then subsequently to celebrate the goodness of man- and even then, his own goodness is limited by the extent of his ability to exemplify the goodness of God. The consequences of a good act may be the same, but the motivations are very different. At the core of the humanist’s moral beliefs, God is supplanted by Man.

In my biased opinion, I think an act of goodness is best expressed under conditions of free will and self-determination. A Christian can carry out goodness, because he is instructed by God’s will, divinely inspired, predestined, or a permutation of all three. Well, there may be an element of free will. But there is no clear consensus among Christians to how much free will governs an individual’s actions. And I don’t think there ever will be a consensus.

Having said all these, I think it is fair to say that not everyone has the capacity to reason or practise the use of reason. Not everyone, including myself fully understands what universal morality entails. Given these limitations, it is unsurprising to me that telling people that morality can be derived by reason and universal human conditions is like driving a spear through the poor man’s head. Religion offers what I call, the Second-Best Moral Solution. To many people, having the faith that God epitomizes goodness is enough. To carry out his instructions and religiously follow his teachings is to live a good life. The analogy of the shepherd and sheep is apt here. The sheep will follow the moral teachings of the bible, as said by God, interpreted through the prophets, saints and disseminated by the pastors. Life is certainly easier that way, for the search for right and wrong is frankly speaking, a tedious process. A Christian may be question the teachings of the bible and challenge the pastors on his interpretations. However, fundamentally, that reason is buttressed by faith. Faith is one of the three cardinal virtues of the Christian faith alongside Hope and Charity. I don’t remember Reason as a cardinal virtue. In any case, this is what I mean when I say that religion promotes goodness in a society only when Reason fails (it may interest some to know that the early Christian Fathers plagiarized a lot of virtues from the early Western philosophers).

Anyway, I need to go and do some other work. Shucks, I haven’t covered tea pot agnosticism and a lot of other stuff. Still any view is welcomed as of now.