This isn’t a blog about religion, but among its many threads, we do discuss what it means to be human. And part of that is the yearning for transcendence.
In the past, we have discussed what I call the coup d’ culture that seeks to replace Judeo/Christian moral philosophy and its focus on the unique importance of the individual, with a new value system to govern society, consisting of utilitarianism, hedonism, and scientism/environmental quasi-religiosity. Usually, with our intense focus on bioethics and all, we focus on utilitarian (implicit and explicit) tendencies. With Octomom (as one example) we come to hedonism. Global warming hysteria (not the same as climate science) is an example of the scientism/earth religion counter (or supplement) to theistic faith (as in Al Gore).
Brave New World was one of the most important novels ever written because Huxley so accurately predicted the flow of culture we are seeing today. But his BNW minions didn’t believe in anything. They had become, in a sense, automotons–with promiscuity and soma replacing richly lived lives. I think he got that wrong. Humans are incapable of not believing.
It is in this context that I bring to your attention an interesting column on Psychology Today’s Ethics for Everyone blog by Michael Austin. The post is in response to an assertion by Nigel Barber that atheism will replace religion. Austin says it will never happen because human beings need transcendence. From his post “Why Atheism Can’t Replace Religion:”
However, for many people, religion is not merely a way to deal with fear, uncertainty, and emotional difficulties. In my experience, many people follow a particular religious way of life because they believe that it is true. The problem with a market-based analysis of the future of religion, as well as the market-based practices present in many contemporary religious communities, is that religion at its best is not a consumer product. Rather, at its best religious faith calls for sacrifice, unselfishness, love, and a willingness to remove oneself from the center of the universe, so to speak.
Yup. Religion is one of the things that distinguishes human beings from every other life form in the universe (along with philosophy, ethics, etc.) Once we fulfill basic biological needs, we search for meaning.
Beyond that, religion offers transcendence: It is also unclear how atheism is positioned to replace religion, in the following way. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist. But this, in and of itself, cannot form the foundation for a way of life. Only by forming and practicing positive beliefs and values can one build a coherent and meaningful life. So if something is to replace religion, it will not be atheism. Perhaps some form of secular humanism will accomplish this task. But here we run into another problem, namely, that human beings long for transcendence of some sort, as shown by the presence and prevalence of religious belief throughout cultures across time.
But surely, in our materialistic age, we can find a replacement. Not really:
Barber claims that sports can replace religion. In one sense, I think he is right. The loyalty, community-identification, and limited transcendence of the experiences related to sports do fuflill many of the functions of religion for many people. However–and I am a passionate sports fan and participant–at the end of the day sports are incapable of doing the work needed to provide sufficient meaning, transcendence, and fulfillment in life.
Or to put it another way: The Giants won the world series this year! Gee, that and $2.00 will buy you a cup of Starbuck’s coffee.
Austin is quite right. A big part of our exceptional natures is the need to believe. We yearn for faith, we yearn for a proper philosophy, we desire to be part of something more important and bigger than ourselves that can’t be measured, folded, spindled, or mutilated.
St. Paul wrote, “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” People hunger for it. The faith they adopt might not be in a theistic God, Jesus, Allah, or Krishna. But the desire for faith will not be replaced with pure non belief (hello, John Lennon). It might be the techno-religions of transhumanism, a scientism of radical environmentalism, embracing the living Gaia, an inchoate New Age spiritualism that offers the hope for an immaterial hereafter without moralism about individual behavior, or perhaps, a Utopian materialism that faithfully believes that if it can just drive “God” out of the human heart we can create a perfect world. (Just to name a few.)
We are exceptional, and one of the unique moral differences between us and animals is our search for Truth and Ultimate Meaning (in whatever form). Richard Dawkins to the contrary notwithstanding, for most people, atheism simply can’t carry that load.
December 18th, 2010 | 1:54 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys. Vince Humphreys said: SHS: Human Exceptionalism: We Need Transcendence, Not Atheism http://bit.ly/hQVSA6 #tcot [...]
December 18th, 2010 | 2:36 pm
“We” don’t require or need transcendence. Some do. Some people claim to be “not atheist” and “not theist” but “spiritual”. So apparently some people have a need to fulfill but make themselves feel better by not sticking to conventional labels. They need to have a rationale for their existence. While others realize that their existence is what they make of it.
I see life as a happy accident. The chance meeting of two gametes resulting in me. I also know that if that didn’t happen, I wouldn’t be existing to think otherwise. It also doesn’t make me a hedonist or a selfish narcissist. I give to charities, I participate in politics and social discourse and from all outward appearances no one would question my morality until I open my mouth and say, “I am an atheist”. Then it’s oooh…
Yes no one needs religion. Religion can be replaced by any societal herd mentality. There will always be a pecking order and greed and power hunger. That isn’t just exclusive to religion. Every social group has that. Maybe someday we will evolve away from that.
We don’t “yearn for faith”. From my experience and observations a yearning for faith is the by-product of simply wanting life to be simpler without threat and with easy answers. Why is the sky blue? God did it. See? Nice and easy. But anyone with a basic knowledge of science or access to google can find the answers. Faith not required.
December 18th, 2010 | 3:46 pm
Nigel Barber meant that atheism will “replace” religion only in a demographic sense i.e a decline in religious belief is accompanied by a corresponding rise in atheism. No one – not even Richard Dawkins – has ever claimed that “atheism” will take over the psychological and social roles of religion. (However, Dawkins and the other so-called New Atheists have claimed that the transcendental yearnings currently satisfied by religion might be better assuaged by contemplation of the “wonders of science”. I do not agree – but they are entitled to their opinions).
Barber’s analysis of religion is poorly thought out and cursory (I suspect that his research interests lie elsewhere) and Austin’s response is not much better. These are obviously rapidly composed blog posts (rather than carefully reasoned scholarly articles) and contribute little to the issues being discussed.
Maybe there is a sense in which many of us need to place our lives against the backdrop of something Significant – but do we need religion? I doubt it. I have been non-religious since my early teens and have had no difficulty finding fulfilment. I am not a transhumanist, an environmentalist (rabid or otherwise) or a Utopian materialist (I actually believe that most people are better off believing in God – much like some parents believe that their young children are better off believing in Santa Claus).
Reports of the death of religion have certainly been greatly exaggerated – but there is no sense at all in which it is essential to human life or human wellbeing. A great many people will grow out of religion. A great many people will grow into it. My primary concern is that people become, not necessarily less religious, but more rational. I do not believe that the two (i.e faith and reason) are naturally opposed, because I believe that, properly conceived and applied in the right context, faith is a higher order rational strategy.
December 18th, 2010 | 6:53 pm
“From my experience and observations a yearning for faith is the by-product of simply wanting life to be simpler without threat and with easy answers.”
Belief in a Christian God is a bit paradoxical: it gives you at the same time a life without threat (salvation trough Jesus Christ) and with great peril (original sin which drags you to hell every day). It gives you easy answers (your life has a meaning & it’s immensely worthy) and opens hard/deep questions (the problem of evil, God’s infinite attributes, the Doctrine of Trinity to name a few).
Christian world-view is simple enough for a child to understand. As an adult, it takes every bit of brains you’ve got.
December 18th, 2010 | 7:02 pm
As someone who believes in God, I think atheism, is to be respected. The atheists who I know, are highly intelligent people, who follow the evidence, and conclude that the trail ends, without a God.
Perhaps, humans, generally, have a propensity toward some form of Theism, but, humans can live perfectly productive lives, without religion, as atheists have shown.
What humans need, is meaning, not necessarily religion. This can take a variety of forms.
December 18th, 2010 | 8:25 pm
Bret,
“What humans need is meaning, not necessarily religion.”
Well said.
December 18th, 2010 | 11:04 pm
In so far as rationality and good reason MUST be preferred to irrationality and poor reason, yes, atheism must replace theism. But atheism is a mere effect, not the cause.
Although most do, one ought not equate spirituality with theism or even with religion. In the rational and reasonable mind, “spirit” is simply the fact of life and the living of it. Nothing more. No mysticism is assumed or implied when such a person uses the term “spirit”. In that sense, someone who is technically an atheism can certainly be a very spiritual person. In fact, I would argue anything living is necessarily spiritual. Yes, I understand the objections many will have to that statement but, no, I’m uninterested in debating it with you. Suffice to say, if one wishes to simply call it “life” instead of “spirit”, I’m inclined to agree. As a writer, I find it essential to use various words to mean essentially the same thing. Variety, as they say, is the spice of life. If you maintain some mystical quality to “spirit”, we are at odds. The irrational and poorly-reasoned is a handicap and I rarely indulge it when I have a choice.
As for “religion”, I define it as merely one’s beliefs and values put into regular and passionate practice. In that sense, I maintain every individual has a religion. This means the “atheist” is as religious as the theist even if less vocal or expressive of that religion. Still, I must agree there is nothing in an atheistic point of view upon which to base a philosophy OR a religion. “Atheism”, as I said, is an effect – not a cause. One’s personal philosophy and religion may, by happenstance, be atheistic, but it isn’t “atheism”. It is something else with a more deserving label which happens to dismiss ideas of the supernatural or a “one supreme god” as incompatible with its principles and practices.
Yes, human beings need meaning, but mysticism is a poor approach to it and, in any event, isn’t necessary to establishing whatever meaning one happens to need.
December 19th, 2010 | 1:25 am
I agree with Wesley. It’s not that meaning can’t be made, though I think you all are misguided about it: I see plenty of atheist meaning watching people trust their time and money to chance in the casino where I work. But people need to believe, and they will embrace harmful things much worse than religion. Anarchism and Communism proved that.
December 19th, 2010 | 1:55 am
The hunger for meaning no more defines humanity than our hunger for food or acceptance. Like all mythology believers, you argue things that are completely incongruent as if you are making sense. Your words, however, to those of us using reason as a filter, betray you.
December 19th, 2010 | 2:41 am
Some of these discussions seem to be preoccupied with labels. Certainly the article throws “atheism” out there as a declaration of some homogeneous group of people huddled together flying a banner.
Religion has taken many forms for millennium. Some of the antagonism presented by adherents to a particular religion appear to me to be motivated by a fear of losing influence.
Religions are plentiful upon the earth, yet the very basis of every religion is that you’ve got it wrong, only my religion has meaning.
I am not an “atheist”, I believe in God. Now let’s discuss how I define God…certainly not in the way written in a few handbooks, particular to one society or ethnic group, construed by the influence of primitive thinking. Don’t forget that we are developing. Moving and changing.
Most of the discussions above, with which I agree very strongly on several points, still make the assumption that as things are now, so will they be later. Our knowledge still has a long long way to go. Until we reach some point farther down the line, both our spiritual psychology and reaction to a changing technological environment will continue evolve.
The concept(s) of God will continue to necessarily evolve. While mysticism or instances of the supernatural may be anathema to many, natural occurrences that are as yet beyond our understanding still need to be investigated and not dismissed outright by one side nor embraced outright by any other.
December 19th, 2010 | 2:59 am
Bret Lythgoe says,
“What humans need, is meaning, not necessarily religion.”
I think Bret is very open and honest.
December 19th, 2010 | 3:29 am
“Perhaps, humans, generally, have a propensity toward some form of Theism, but, humans can live perfectly productive lives, without religion, as atheists have shown.”
I agree. I have met many atheists who life decent and productive lives, are kind and intelligent.
“What humans need, is meaning, not necessarily religion.”
“He who has a Why to live for can bear almost any How”. — Nietzsche
In my view atheism doesn’t give you any objective meaning for life. There are many good arguments for this, agreed by both theistic and atheistic philosophers. If an atheist wants to create meaning for himself, I’m fine with that. Just remember that it’s an illusion, so don’t build your life on it.
“Atheism is a cruel, long-term business: I believe that I have gone through it to the end.” –Sartre
December 19th, 2010 | 8:23 am
Naumadd as a writer you can call black, white and up, down but it still does not make atheism a religion. There is nothing to practice. It is simply a viewpoint, a conclusion a rejection of an untestable hypothesis.
I have been presented with an apologia for the existence of god and finding no credilbe evidence to back up the claim I reject it. That is all.
Atheism is not a belief system. It has no rites, no ethical code of its own, no belief in a higher power or an imaginary friend. Actually it barely qualifies as an -ism.
I have not found two non-theists who agree on everything. I know liberals, conservatives, socialists, libertarians, hard core skeptics, believers in pseudo-medical woo-wooery all who claim to fall under the banner of “atheist”. Which simply means “without god”.
Now you may be confusing atheism with humanism, which is an ethical belief system than can be shared by non-theists as well as deists and theists. Or maybe Unitarian Universalism would better fit the bill.
But no Virginia atheism is not a religion.
December 19th, 2010 | 1:07 pm
I think our hunger for food or acceptance defines us pretty well: take both of those away and you soon don’t have a human left.
As for atheists being kind, decent, intelligent and productive, well farm animals can be kind, decent, intelligent, and productive. I don’t think meaning should be tied ultimately to social utility, which is what those arguments boil down to.
The point about atheists not having a unified belief system is true, but what matters is the type of beliefs they choose to follow, and they aren’t sticky: Secular Humanism, Objectivism, Transhumanism, and others all tend to be followed by the well-to-do and reflect their concerns.
I think this is why in Europe Islam keeps gaining ground. Atheism and related ideologies just moved into the social “High Church” style of religion that people followed to be respectable, not so much because they believed it. Meanwhile Islam is providing answers for the people neglected and forgotten, and is acting as a lightning rod to draw people that dislike the bourgeois nature of most atheists today.
It’s ironic that the roles have reversed so much.
December 19th, 2010 | 5:22 pm
NoSacredCow: I wouldn’t even include Unitarian Universalism in the equation, since the religion does not take a specific point of view either for or against theism.
Markus observes, that “atheism doesn’t give you any objective meaning for life,” but I have yet to see it established that an objective meaning for one’s life can’t be obtained from other sources than theism.
I’m probably not the only one here troubled by Wesley’s assertion that a yearning for theistically-based transcendence is a defining characteristic of humanity — as if to imply that those who consciously deny the need for religion or are outright atheists, are somehow less than human.
December 19th, 2010 | 8:45 pm
Religion is like music or the arts. Some people can’t live without it. Others get on fine without it.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
December 19th, 2010 at 11:15 pm
Abelarad: Thanks for stopping by. The point isn’t that we need religion, it is that we need faith, something to believe in, something that transcends. We can’t believe in nothing. We will believe in something.
December 20th, 2010 | 1:48 pm
Wesley says: “We need faith.” But, faith in what? If he isn’t talking about religious faith, then exactly what IS he talking about? Perhaps he will be kind enough to explain what he means by “faith” and “transcendence” and how, apart from their commonly understood religious meanings, they are relevant to the human condition.
December 20th, 2010 | 11:50 pm
[...] Click Here [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact