I am a theoretical physicist and currently Director of 
July 07, 2006
The role of emotion in maintaining religion
As I have said before, I grew up being very religious and actively involved in church and Christian youth activities. I enjoy meeting old and close friends and relatives, many of whom I have known since my early childhood. Growing up, they all had known me as a practicing Christian, even more so than your regular Sunday churchgoer since I was an ordained lay preacher and regularly conducted services that many of them had listened to as members of the congregation.
Most of my relatives and childhood friends are still religious. When I encounter them now, many have heard on the grapevine of my apostasy and start up a conversation about faith, sometimes out of curiosity as to why I renounced my own belief, at other times to try and bring me back into the fold.
This happened again recently and during the discussion, the question was posed to me as to what, as an atheist, I could offer someone whose lot in life was wretched and hopeless. She said that at least religion could promise that person a better life in heaven, something that they could look forward to, and thus make life on Earth, however harsh, at least bearable.
It made me recall an Andy Capp cartoon where he and his wife Flo are stopped by a perspiring man carrying a heavy suitcase who asks them how far it is to the railway station. Flo replies that it is just a short distance away. The man perks up considerably and goes off. Andy then asks her why she said that since the station is a good way away. Flo replies, "The poor man looked so tired that I thought it would cheer him up."
This is probably the main appeal of religion, that it provides hope (even if false) that enables people to face life. Religion provides a strong emotional appeal, providing people with something to look forward to so that they can face the present, however harsh, with a greater degree of equanimity.
It is this feature of religion that Karl Marx described as the "opium of the people." What Marx was objecting to was that such an attitude had the effect of preventing people from protesting the injustice of their situation and seeking to change it. As he said in his Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right (February 1844):
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.
Marx was accurate with his metaphor of opium for religion. It not only takes away pain, it also dulls the will to action. Perhaps religion persists because it is a form of addiction, removing us from the realm of reality just as effectively as heroin or cocaine, and is just as hard to relinquish. What the promise of heaven does is to ease the pressure on us to improve life on Earth. It is the ultimate cop-out.
But if we do not have religion, we are forced to take action. In the Andy Capp cartoon context, that translates into not lying to the person as Flo did in order to help that person feel good in the short run, but to either help him carry his suitcase so that his journey would be easier or to add wheels to the suitcase so that his journey is made easier.
The emotional appeal of religion is strong. It is appealing to think that there is some sense of cosmic justice where good is rewarded and evil punished. It is nice to think that in the afterlife, those who suffered unjustly will be rewarded and that there is a heavenly war trial where all those who have been responsible for willful and major human suffering would face their ultimate comeuppance. I think that it is this emotional appeal that keeps people faithful to religion.
Just yesterday, the news media reported that Ken Lay, the disgraced Enron head, had died of a heart attack just prior to his sentencing. Many people, appalled at the high life he led while swindling thousands of people of their life savings, were hoping to see him brought down from his life of luxury and spend his last days in jail. Some people expressed disappointment at the news of his death, that he had escaped the hardship of jail but expressed hope that he would pay in the afterlife. This is a common enough reaction and presumably gives those feeling aggrieved some consolation.
But atheists know that no such cosmic justice exists. The fate that evil people ultimately face is the same as the fate that anyone else faces, and that is death. Paradoxically, this need not be depressing but actually can serve as a call to action. If this is the one life that we have, it becomes clearer that our obligation to ourselves and to others is to make sure that it is the best it can be, so that everyone had a chance at a decent life.
If we seek justice, then it has to be done by us right here on Earth. That buck cannot be passed. That is the message that atheists have to offer to people. It may not have a soothing effect but is more likely to lead to concrete action.
POST SCRIPT: Minor Milestone
In checking the statistics for this blog, it appears that on June 30, 2006, the one million hit mark since its inception on January 26, 2005 was reached. Thank you very much to all those who visit, read, and comment. It has been a pleasure to write and, I hope, to provoke thought and discussions.
Comments
I agree with you Mano. I'd like to expand on one of your ideas, which is where we may veer apart.
I would suggest we look upon "suffering" not judging in terms of it being negative or positive, but as necessary (at times). Unfortunately, we humans follow the same (inertia) laws of motion, that a body at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. Like it or not, suffering is the most effective catalyst for movement/action. If the suffering is caused by an outside force in the form of injustice, I agree that it motivates one to move/act to rectify it. However, some forms of suffering cannot be battled from the outside, they are of a different nature, and need to be transcended from within. I think that's where the non-theist philosophies are very useful. Zen in it's purest form (not the better known buddhism that has been dogmatized) can be very useful for those who need to partake in this effort.
I'm certainly not advocating or making light of the world's suffering. But one can't help but notice that the country whose people have suffered the least, also proportionally engender the greatest inertia and non-action, even in the face of gross injustice.
The following excerpt from Kabir speaks on personal responsibility very well:
"If you don't break your ropes while you're alive, do you think ghosts will do it after? The idea that the soul will join with the ecstatic just because the body is rotten - that is all fantasy. What is found now is found then."
Mano, this is spot on. If I have a life motto or creed you have just stated it and stated it well. I too visit family and am confronted with the same questions. It feels refreshing knowing that at least a few other people feel the same way about life.
By the way, there is a country song by Tim McGraw called "Drugs or Jesus". I cannnot keep it from my mind every time I hear talk about the similarities between a drug and a religion. It always makes me smile.
You can read the lyrics here.
Mano very interesting discussion. I do believe much of religion's strength comes from being able to provide "alternatives". The same positive alternatives though can come from many other venues and people. It might just be harder to rely on the emotional attachment one would experience in pursuing an alternative route in one's path of life.I think a prime example is I am sure everyone know very religious people that never experience "life" in today because they are focused on a positive experience upon their death. In that case did religion really provide an alternative or just disguise the current?
Being a non-beliver in the existance of sole, omni-potent and omni-present God, I too could be classified an "atheist".
However I am intrigued by the sentence " But atheists know that no such cosmic justice exists" . How do they "know". I think "believe" might be a better word.
Rest is brilliant.
You are right, the word "believe" would have been more appropriate.
Hi Mano,
I've been reading your blog for a long time -- very interesting and
thoughtful stuff. I have on several occasions successfully resisted
the urge to comment. However, for this particular thread, I feel
compelled to respond.
Can you cite actual evidence to suggest that "all other things being
equal" religious persons who observe or experience injustice,
oppression, and/or misery are really more likely to be "dulled into
inaction" and not respond in comparison to an atheistic person? Is
there really evidence to support Marx's claim that religious persons
and societies are more docile and more likely to simply endure social
injustice?
While I agree this sounds plausible, it seems to me that there is not
much direct evidence that indicates this is really true. In fact, I
can thinks of several counter-examples, ranging from the religious
roots of the the of the racial justice movement of the 60's in the US
to the role of liberation theology in the Polish Solidarity movement.
And although I am not a historian, I think that one can find many
examples in history of individuals who played major leadership roles
in social justice movements feeling motivated, supported, and/or
enabled to action in large part due to their faith experience and
perspective.
For example as an (highly unscientific) experiment, I found a list of
about 25 names of persons famous for leadership in social justice on a
web site http://collegeten.ucsc.edu/activists.shtml. I see alot of
names of people who are not only religious but for whom their faith
played an central role in their actions.
Yes, the list also includes a handful of prominent atheists too -- and
also of course a list of "exceptional" people may or may not be a good
indicator of how a "normal" person would respond. And of course it
needs to be acknowledged that while many movements for social justice
have a religious foundation, it is also true that a great deal of
injustice has been inflicted throughout history in the name of
religion.
So what might one conclude? Perhaps not much, except I think one
could argue that the range of human response to personal faith
experiences is extremely varied and broad. And while it make indeed
be true that some people may feel that a faith in God may lead to a
life of placidly accepting what happens and trusting that God will
eventually balance the scales of justice, it seems for others that
their faith calls them to action, to act as agents for change and to
correct injustices in this world.
Vasantha & Mano, regarding your suggestion and agreement of the world "believe" instead of "know".
This is a classic point of atheism, argued ad infinitem even among people who otherwise agree wholeheartedly. I was convinced that "know" is the correct word by an argument similar to the following.
Consider 'believe' vs 'know' in the following sentence: "A 'Santathiest' believes that Santa Claus does not give presents to good little children, fly around in a sleigh pulled by reindeer, and somehow fit through the skinniest chimneys." We don't 'believe' that Santa is imaginary, we know it. Replacing Santa with God and presents with Heaven does not change the sentence.
Additionally, consider the parallel with scientific knowledge. Newtonian mechanics is an incomplete picture of how the world works. Yet even then, we don't 'believe' in Newton's Laws, we know that they work.
Similarly, an atheist knows there is no god or gods.
Graeme,
I think that you are saying that when I say that I "know" that there is no god, I am essentially saying that I am as certain as I can be about anything that god does not exist. But since it is asserting a negative, it is still a judgment on my part, however strong and however well supported.
I also agree with you that the word "belief" seems to imply simply an act of faith, unsupported.
We need a snappy word that that means that I am pretty certain about something, although I may no be able to conclusively prove it.
"believe" Yeah! it's only beliving on almighty "Allah".
First, thank you for writing this blog! I really find it helpful and share your ideology. I realize that it has been years since this post was created but I just wanted to share one of my favorite quotes with you, written by Friedrich Nietzsche:
"In Christianity, neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point."
I think it speaks to what you Marx has said about religion and the illusory happiness of the people... Going through life realizing that this may be and probably is it, that there is nothing afterwards, no punishment or reward, is very liberating to both people who come to terms with that idea as well as others who remain unaffected by what could have been the continuation of a pattern of oppressive (or at least apathetic) behavior toward our fellow man. What I mean is, if we metaphorically "pass the buck" by remaining in a state of denial about the realities of the world and people of the world, and leave it to God to dish out justice (or not), then we are "living" life from a stature of inaction and misaction. The multitude of ways we seperate ourselves from our neighbors (religiously, nationalistically, and otherwise) is astounding! We have to drop all of these borders, see the man from the other religion and country as no different than ourselves if we are to ever respect eachother (i.e. - not killing eachother for starters) and live together in a mutually/holistically beneficial society.