Raven A. Geary
The fact is that religion is meant to be a completely personal matter. Whether one believes in God, Buddha, Vishnu, Allah or no God at all, the relationship between divinity and believer is supposed to be entirely private. Religions that emphasize this intimate relationship have long been regarded as harmless to others and beneficial to the believer - these include Buddhism, some divisions of Christianity, and some sects of Hinduism, to name a few. In these religions, one is committed entirely to the enlightenment of oneself and allows others to follow their own paths to truth. This philosophy of "live and let live" regarding religion is the most efficient system.
Spotting a harmful religion is simple - religions that devalue the personal relationship between divinity and believer and instead focus on the relationships of those around the believer with divinity have been the cause of most religious conflict. Religions that require one to focus on the personal beliefs of others are dangerous. A constant obsession with the conversion and salvation of others will eventually lead to dissatisfaction and anger when others refuse to accept a specific doctrine (which will obviously always occur). Dangerous, dogmatic religions evolve from a serious mutation of the concept of a personal relationship with divinity. As soon as a religion begins to focus on the salvation of all, not just the individual, beliefs clash and warfare erupts. Thus, the following train of thought is produced: "My way is the only way to salvation. I care about those around me, so I must help them also achieve salvation. If they do not accept my doctrine, they will not be saved." In order to avoid such ideas, one must in essence be as selfish as possible - it is unnecessary to be concerned with the salvation of others. If there is in fact only one true way to salvation, they will find it on their own.
The true purpose of religion is to provide a path to enlightenment for the individual. If an agreement can be reached that personal "salvation" (I use the term loosely; it does not only apply to the Christian concept), and not the conversion of the community, should be the only goal of religion, it is then that Objectivist doctrine and any religious doctrine emphasizing a personal and private relationship with divinity can actually be combined. Such a combination would bring immense numbers to the Objectivist philosophy.
One of the chief beliefs of Objectivism is that the pursuit of personal happiness should be one�s ultimate goal in life. If this is so, then there are many (if not infinite) paths to happiness. I will share with you the story of an anonymous acquaintance of mine - we shall call her Jane. During winter holiday, her sister became ill. The hospital in Florida told her family that she had the flu. When they returned to Chicago, they discovered that she in fact had developed appendicitis in Florida and that her appendix had burst 3 days prior. She had a severe abdominal infection and needed emergency surgery immediately. She was on the brink of death for 3 months. Jane found that the only way she could survive the crisis was through faith in a higher power. While for some of us this may seem ridiculous, it prevented her from breaking down. We are quick to judge her as weak and dependent upon archaic ideas. However, in the end, she came out of the situation happy and satisfied with her life. Her religion was used as a personal crutch of sorts and when she could walk again, she no longer depended on it. In times of crisis, some individuals simply cannot rely on logic for emotional support. Are we to deny them this support? Are we to let them fall because their beliefs are not t logical by our standards?
Jane�s religion was not used to judge, scorn, harass, or convert others. It was used for a purely private situation. This is a perfect demonstration of the ideal religion: one used for personal support and not concerned with the well-being of others. We should be concerned with the well-being of others regardless of religion. Her means of achieving happiness may be very different from another�s, but they are still just as valid. It is thusly against the philosophy of Objectivism to claim that all religions other than atheism are foolish. Jane�s religion in no way impaired her reason or her life. It uplifted her and allowed her to escape depression in a time of great crisis. If any religion allows an individual to pursue ultimate happiness without harming others or the self, then it is both rude and illogical to condemn it. We cannot decide what should make someone happy. While atheism may sustain some of us, some need to believe in a higher power watching over them. Without this sustenance, many would feel lost, depressed, angry and empty. These conditions ruin the chance of happiness.
It is now that we come to a fork in the philosophical road. If Objectivism is to rely on logic as the chief guide in life, then Objectivists are forced to condemn those who rely on the religion for happiness and exclude them from some of the enlightening principles of Objectivism. Therefore, Objectivists must, in essence, take a side. Is personal fulfillment or reason more important? I leave everyone to answer this question on their own.
If Objectivists are to rely on the belief that personal fulfillment is the ultimate goal, then they need to recognize that for some, personal fulfillment can come from many things. Of course, we must also take into consideration that damaging another life is immoral regardless of personal fulfillment, and this is why a great amount of religion we encounter in the world today is incredibly different than the religion demonstrated in the situation I have just described. However, religion that harms/harasses others aside, it must be acknowledged that many personal beliefs - whether they be Christian, Jewish, New Age, etc. - can still be upheld within an Objectivist mind so long as they lead to happiness, do not damage others, and are maintained as private. Those who feel compelled to "spread the word" are not keeping their relationship with divinity personal.
Consider the following situation. You have discovered that for your birthday, you are going to receive a wonderful gift. You have absolutely no idea what the gift will be and you have no evidence to support any theories on what it is. However, you do not want to continue to speculate on the identity of the gift. You decide to believe that it is a new car.
Let us say that the gift is in fact a car. You are ecstatic that you received the car and you drive off happily into the sunset. End scenario. Now let us say that you were misguided and that you are really not receiving a gift. You are disappointed, but you will survive. End scenario.
In reality, the "gift" is the question of the existence of a higher power. We are all implanted with this question, whether it is by society or our own accord. Not having any evidence to support whether there is or is not a higher power, some decide to believe that in fact there is, whereas some decide to believe that there is not. Either way, both decisions can remain harmless so long as every human deciding on an answer to the question regards the answer as a personal matter and does not try to enforce his decision on others. We all have had to face the question, and we all have had to develop an answer. Once the ultimate answer is discovered, neither side will be harmed by it. The only harm comes in the process, which can in fact be devoid of peril if we keep our mouths shut and let everyone decide on their own answer.
I hope that followers of Objectivism realize that not all religion is harmful to the principles of logic and the pursuit of happiness. Too often, we only encounter those religions which are the polar opposite of the ideal. These religions have spread rapidly because of the weakness of humankind and its submission to force. Thomas More wrote in Utopia (1516) of a commendable state of mind regarding this matter, in which one ". . . seemed to doubt whether those different forms of religion might not all come from God, who might inspire men in a different manner, and be pleased with this variety; he therefore thought it indecent and foolish for any man to threaten and terrify another to make him believe what did not appear to him to be true. And supposing that only one religion was really true, and the rest false, he imagined that the native force of truth would at last break forth and shine bright, if supported only by the strength of argument, and attended to with a gentle and unprejudiced mind; while, on the other hand, if such debates were carried on with violence and tumults, as the most wicked are always the most obstinate, so the best and most holy religion might be choked with superstition, as corn is with briars and thorns." Revolution, however, is not impossible. Once we can all come to recognize the benefits of religion, only then can we identify the pitfalls.
Postscript:
I would encourage any individual who disagrees with any of the statements made in this article to contact me. Civil, spirited debate is always welcome. I myself am not an Objectivist. I don't believe in complete subscription to any individual philosophy, religion or value system. However, as an outside party, I think I am a more objective (no pun intended) analyst of the matter than any Objectivist I've met.
Raven A. Geary is a writer, poet, amateur astronomer, scientist, vocalist, web site/grafic designer, and linguist. She is a contributor to The Rational Argumentator.
Give feedback on this work at TRA's forum, which you can access at http://rationalarg.proboards24.com.
Advertise your business or product permanently on TRA for a mere $1 donation to a worthy endeavor to combat human aging. Click here to learn more.
Help bring about the cure for human aging within our lifetimes. Learn how you can help through the Chicago Methuselah Foundation Fund.
Visit The Rational Argumentator's new Online Store.
Visit TRA's Yahoo! Group, a means of notification and communication for our subscribers. You can find it at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rationalargumentator. You can sign up by sending an e-mail to [email protected].
Click here to return to the Issue XXVII index.
Visit TRA's Master Index, a convenient way of navigating throughout the issues of the magazine. Click here.
