| A short letter replying to a newspaper article which attacked the value of religion |
Here is the gist of a letter sent to the Independent Newspaper in the UK.
The article in the Independent on Saturday 7th January will I suspect make a notable
contribution to the cause of religious belief amongst the readers by evoking a substantial
and possibly, in some, an outraged response – an outrage I do not share. Its articulation
of common assumptions and prejudices and its highlighting of ill-thought out responses
cloaked in rationalist pseudo-scientific garb can actually serve as a useful tool for
clarifying the subject.
The existence or non-existence of God in the way described need hardly detain us since
the terms existence and non-existence, are neither defined nor understood by the article.
Any meaningful application of the capitalised word ‘God’ must assume a unity that
comprehends and cannot be limited by such terms (just as ascribing gender to God, who
by definition originated gender, is meaningless). Anything less implies we are talking
about a concept of God – in fact an ‘idol’ and in that case of course the writer is correct in
disbelieving in the absolute validity of such a concept.
If, instead of evoking the term ‘God’, we talked about the possibility of an 'alternate
dimension' and thus shifted the discussion to something more easily recognisable to the
rationalist/pseudo scientific mind one wonders whether the discussion would take quite
the same form.
The chief point that needs to be made however is in regard to the attack on organised
religion (something quite different, though you would not think so from the article). In
particular the false association of religion with the various political ills of the world does
need to be addressed. It is as absurd a proposition as blaming ‘science’, which of course
is really the pursuit of truth and knowledge, with the deaths at Hiroshima et al. Religion is
constantly distorted by all sorts of seekers of political and personal power precisely
because of its inherent importance and its power over the human mind and psyche. I can
think of nothing less rational or scientific than flying in the face of this fact by denial. The
author’s understandable historical inaccuracy in ascribing problems in Ireland to religious
causes is a case in point – the ownership of land and power by immigrants from Scotland
and the North of England who happened to be Protestants, being a more obvious active
determinant.
Similarly and even more significantly one must ask the question as to exactly how one can
ascribe the first and second world wars, to take two major examples, as being due to
religion? It is obvious beyond argument that racism, culture, greed for power, nationalism,
and many other threads were intertwined to produce such an effect. Even if supposed
'religious authorities' were dragged in to provide a veneer of 'respectability' at times it
would be stretching reason beyond credulity to call such wars religious. Men and women
defining themselves as Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Taoists, Muslims, Christians and
atheists fought alongside each other and against others of their own religion or conviction.
This indeed raises another point - as to what exactly religion is. Might one not describe
materialistic atheism - with its claim to have a monopoly on truth - to have some
characteristics of a religion. The article thus could be read to be, not to be what it
pretends to be - a critique of religion from a standpoint elevated above religion - but an
argument in favour of a specific belief system against other belief systems.
There is an important point that needs to be raised here, which is the underlying
assumption that war is an absolute evil. That war is hugely destructive and contains the
potential for much evil is undoubted, but when it is fought only and purely as a defence
against naked oppression of the otherwise helpless (e.g. to free slaves) can it be
condemned as absolute evil? Pacifism itself has been used as a tool of war as in the
case of Indian Independence. The evil of war surely lies in the means and mechanics of
war - which is the point at which defence becomes aggression. A line crossed by the
disciple of Jesus when he cut off the ear of one of the soldiers arresting Jesus in the
biblical account and by many a 'freedom fighter' or 'terrorist' nowadays.
There is a story told by Mevlana Rumi of Hazrat Ali who was engaged in struggle with one
of the enemy. Hazrat Ali was on the point of defeating his opponent when he was spat
upon by that man. At that point Hazrat Ali threw down his sword. On inquiry from the
defeated man he said that anger had come over him at that act and that therefore he
could no longer slay his opponent as that would be an act deriving from his own anger not
from divine inspiration.
From the viewpoint of the atheist/materialist war may be seen as an absolute evil, since it
results in destruction of the material world (which is effectively what is worshipped), and
death (which is seen as final). But don't misunderstand me; physical death and material
destruction are serious and can only justified in extremis, and certainly not on the basis of
anger, hatred, self delusion, prejudice, sectarianism, or an arrogant assumption of one's
own monopoly of truth.
To return to the main point concerning the attack on religion. Distortions of religion are
indeed worthy of severe criticism and should be defended against, but the inclination of
man to indulge in inhumanity cannot be laid at the feet of the underlying Truth that the
religious impulse arises from. Whilst the methods of science and religion may differ and
their sphere of activity vary, their goal, and origin, is really one and the desire to picture
them as in opposition to each other is entirely misguided.
The discouragement to believe in anything more than the visible or measurable physical
universe, as promoted by the article, could indeed be argued to be a better candidate for
blame with regard to ills of the world. Life after death is the key issue here, or shall we
rephrase it to ‘the shift of consciousness to an alternate dimension'?
Persuade a man there are no serious consequences for his actions other than a blink into
‘nothingness’(leaving aside the lack of comprehension of such a term) and you remove
any convincing rational reason for goodness, as distinct from the pursuit of pleasure and
the avoidance of temporal consequences. Remove the myriad unsung unselfish acts from
the world and we are back in the jungle.
I am indifferent to the idea of criticising the author personally for his own views on the
subject - he is taking a gamble as is the religious person. The difference is that if he is
right about non-continuation of being after death he will never know it for sure, and if he is
wrong……’what dreams may come’.
J. Morris
Southampton
A post script not contained in the letter (which was of course for a wide
readership)
As you may see from the above letter I am a firm believer in defending religion per se as
a great gift from God to mankind. The importance of religion in ordering this life and
making preparation for the next seems to me indisputable. For most people sincere
religious practice is the best and safest way to achieve this end.
To the above it is worth adding that the science of human spiritual development as
evidenced in the best of Sufism, is not in my view, an adjunct to religion. Even to Islam,
which I personally believe to be the most evolved and complete form of religion. The
aspiring Sufi under proper guidance seeks only the Divine, the Reality, God, Universal
Truth and Love, mediated, if at all, only by the guide. In other words he seeks to move
from the form to the essence and thence to the reality. If either religion or spirituality can
be described as an adjunct, it is participation in conventional religious practice (as
distinct from following the moral and spiritual essence of the religion) that deserves the
term.
I am not one of those that hold that the great Sufis, secretly or overtly, sought religious
conversion, and that Sufi practices such as Sama, were merely a tool to that end. It
seems to me that they were concerned with the spiritual state of their followers in
particular, and the moral and spiritual advancement of mankind in general, and that it is
demeaning to imply that they had any other agenda. However it is a significant fact that
the great Sufis, returning from their elevated spiritual heights, generally continued to
overtly practice Islam, albeit in a way and with a depth that the religionist could not, and
will not, really understand. In this is serious food for thought for those who think that they
can happily 'miss out the religious bit' altogether.
JMZ
The article in the Independent on Saturday 7th January will I suspect make a notable
contribution to the cause of religious belief amongst the readers by evoking a substantial
and possibly, in some, an outraged response – an outrage I do not share. Its articulation
of common assumptions and prejudices and its highlighting of ill-thought out responses
cloaked in rationalist pseudo-scientific garb can actually serve as a useful tool for
clarifying the subject.
The existence or non-existence of God in the way described need hardly detain us since
the terms existence and non-existence, are neither defined nor understood by the article.
Any meaningful application of the capitalised word ‘God’ must assume a unity that
comprehends and cannot be limited by such terms (just as ascribing gender to God, who
by definition originated gender, is meaningless). Anything less implies we are talking
about a concept of God – in fact an ‘idol’ and in that case of course the writer is correct in
disbelieving in the absolute validity of such a concept.
If, instead of evoking the term ‘God’, we talked about the possibility of an 'alternate
dimension' and thus shifted the discussion to something more easily recognisable to the
rationalist/pseudo scientific mind one wonders whether the discussion would take quite
the same form.
The chief point that needs to be made however is in regard to the attack on organised
religion (something quite different, though you would not think so from the article). In
particular the false association of religion with the various political ills of the world does
need to be addressed. It is as absurd a proposition as blaming ‘science’, which of course
is really the pursuit of truth and knowledge, with the deaths at Hiroshima et al. Religion is
constantly distorted by all sorts of seekers of political and personal power precisely
because of its inherent importance and its power over the human mind and psyche. I can
think of nothing less rational or scientific than flying in the face of this fact by denial. The
author’s understandable historical inaccuracy in ascribing problems in Ireland to religious
causes is a case in point – the ownership of land and power by immigrants from Scotland
and the North of England who happened to be Protestants, being a more obvious active
determinant.
Similarly and even more significantly one must ask the question as to exactly how one can
ascribe the first and second world wars, to take two major examples, as being due to
religion? It is obvious beyond argument that racism, culture, greed for power, nationalism,
and many other threads were intertwined to produce such an effect. Even if supposed
'religious authorities' were dragged in to provide a veneer of 'respectability' at times it
would be stretching reason beyond credulity to call such wars religious. Men and women
defining themselves as Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Taoists, Muslims, Christians and
atheists fought alongside each other and against others of their own religion or conviction.
This indeed raises another point - as to what exactly religion is. Might one not describe
materialistic atheism - with its claim to have a monopoly on truth - to have some
characteristics of a religion. The article thus could be read to be, not to be what it
pretends to be - a critique of religion from a standpoint elevated above religion - but an
argument in favour of a specific belief system against other belief systems.
There is an important point that needs to be raised here, which is the underlying
assumption that war is an absolute evil. That war is hugely destructive and contains the
potential for much evil is undoubted, but when it is fought only and purely as a defence
against naked oppression of the otherwise helpless (e.g. to free slaves) can it be
condemned as absolute evil? Pacifism itself has been used as a tool of war as in the
case of Indian Independence. The evil of war surely lies in the means and mechanics of
war - which is the point at which defence becomes aggression. A line crossed by the
disciple of Jesus when he cut off the ear of one of the soldiers arresting Jesus in the
biblical account and by many a 'freedom fighter' or 'terrorist' nowadays.
There is a story told by Mevlana Rumi of Hazrat Ali who was engaged in struggle with one
of the enemy. Hazrat Ali was on the point of defeating his opponent when he was spat
upon by that man. At that point Hazrat Ali threw down his sword. On inquiry from the
defeated man he said that anger had come over him at that act and that therefore he
could no longer slay his opponent as that would be an act deriving from his own anger not
from divine inspiration.
From the viewpoint of the atheist/materialist war may be seen as an absolute evil, since it
results in destruction of the material world (which is effectively what is worshipped), and
death (which is seen as final). But don't misunderstand me; physical death and material
destruction are serious and can only justified in extremis, and certainly not on the basis of
anger, hatred, self delusion, prejudice, sectarianism, or an arrogant assumption of one's
own monopoly of truth.
To return to the main point concerning the attack on religion. Distortions of religion are
indeed worthy of severe criticism and should be defended against, but the inclination of
man to indulge in inhumanity cannot be laid at the feet of the underlying Truth that the
religious impulse arises from. Whilst the methods of science and religion may differ and
their sphere of activity vary, their goal, and origin, is really one and the desire to picture
them as in opposition to each other is entirely misguided.
The discouragement to believe in anything more than the visible or measurable physical
universe, as promoted by the article, could indeed be argued to be a better candidate for
blame with regard to ills of the world. Life after death is the key issue here, or shall we
rephrase it to ‘the shift of consciousness to an alternate dimension'?
Persuade a man there are no serious consequences for his actions other than a blink into
‘nothingness’(leaving aside the lack of comprehension of such a term) and you remove
any convincing rational reason for goodness, as distinct from the pursuit of pleasure and
the avoidance of temporal consequences. Remove the myriad unsung unselfish acts from
the world and we are back in the jungle.
I am indifferent to the idea of criticising the author personally for his own views on the
subject - he is taking a gamble as is the religious person. The difference is that if he is
right about non-continuation of being after death he will never know it for sure, and if he is
wrong……’what dreams may come’.
J. Morris
Southampton
A post script not contained in the letter (which was of course for a wide
readership)
As you may see from the above letter I am a firm believer in defending religion per se as
a great gift from God to mankind. The importance of religion in ordering this life and
making preparation for the next seems to me indisputable. For most people sincere
religious practice is the best and safest way to achieve this end.
To the above it is worth adding that the science of human spiritual development as
evidenced in the best of Sufism, is not in my view, an adjunct to religion. Even to Islam,
which I personally believe to be the most evolved and complete form of religion. The
aspiring Sufi under proper guidance seeks only the Divine, the Reality, God, Universal
Truth and Love, mediated, if at all, only by the guide. In other words he seeks to move
from the form to the essence and thence to the reality. If either religion or spirituality can
be described as an adjunct, it is participation in conventional religious practice (as
distinct from following the moral and spiritual essence of the religion) that deserves the
term.
I am not one of those that hold that the great Sufis, secretly or overtly, sought religious
conversion, and that Sufi practices such as Sama, were merely a tool to that end. It
seems to me that they were concerned with the spiritual state of their followers in
particular, and the moral and spiritual advancement of mankind in general, and that it is
demeaning to imply that they had any other agenda. However it is a significant fact that
the great Sufis, returning from their elevated spiritual heights, generally continued to
overtly practice Islam, albeit in a way and with a depth that the religionist could not, and
will not, really understand. In this is serious food for thought for those who think that they
can happily 'miss out the religious bit' altogether.
JMZ
