The “link” I speak of is the idea that having faith is
itself a virtue, regardless of whether there is any morality coming from that
faith. Many other outspoken atheists
have criticized this trend, and they seem to like calling it “belief in belief.” So I guess I’ll stick with the standard
terminology here. This post, I’ll be
criticizing belief in belief; the idea that it is good to have faith.
Now there is one question I need to ask first. And if you consider yourself religions, then
this is probably the question you ought to ask yourself about every single one
of your beliefs. I’ve asked it before,
but I’ll reiterate it here. What would
it take to convince you that you are wrong?
As I mentioned earlier, this question if of crucial importance when
analyzing one’s religious views. It is
only by answering this question that you can keep your mind open to the
possibility of alternatives.
Now as important as this question is in general, I bring it
up here because I have noticed that belief in belief never seems to get pinned
down anywhere. When we talk about
morality, we need to make sure we can establish some common ground for terms
like “good” and “evil.” If you come tell
me that “Good is that which accords to God’s will,” then I’m going to say “That
doesn’t change the fact that faith is an unreliable way to determine which
actions cause suffering and which cause happiness.” When we ask whether or not faith is morally
good in its own right, it doesn’t help to get into arguments over the One True
Meaning of the word “good.” So I’m going
to be clear about where I’m pinning my concepts. Here it goes:
Having faith does not make one more likely to take actions
that cause happiness, nor less likely to take actions that cause suffering.
As you can see, I have clearly grounded my claim in terms of
observables. This makes the question of
open-mindedness quite easy for me to answer.
Compare a society with lots of faith to a society with little
faith. Do surveys to gauge how happy
those societies’ constituents are, and how much they suffer. Repeat with as many societies as you can, to
control for non-faith-related differences.
If societies with faith keep coming out ahead, then maybe belief in
belief is on to something.
So don’t just tell me “having faith is good.” Tell me what having faith is supposed to do that makes it a desirable state. And then, go
out and see if this is actually true.
And not just here in America, take a look at other countries in other
continents. You’ll find that the Middle
East is one of the most religious regions in the world, and yet their
governments are oppressive and violent.
Is it really virtuous to blindly cling to beliefs that lead to
terrorism? To make gay people feel like
they’ve committed a terrible evil simply by existing? To convince the people of Africa not to use
condoms to fight the AIDS epidemic?
And I know now that many of you are probably thinking “But
that’s not my faith.” But that’s completely beside the point. The question you have to ask yourself here is
why.
Why are your beliefs good while theirs aren’t? Presumably, this is because of the effects
the beliefs have. If you have faith in
tolerating diversity and treating people kindly while others have faith in
homophobia and violence, then look at the
world. You can see clearly how much
more suffering the latter generate, and how much more happiness the former
generate. That is why the former beliefs are virtuous while the latter are
not. Faith need not even enter our minds
for us to discover this simple fact. And
since faith is what people are claiming to support the destructive beliefs, why
would you try and use the same support for your own beliefs? Why would you put yourself in the awkward
position of trying to deny their conclusions while supporting their method?
Once you can pin your concepts of virtue and morality to the
world around you, you’ll find observations
that can inform your moral code. You can
determine which policies hurt people and which help people by looking at which policies hurt people and
which help people. I know, it’s a
novel concept that religion never seems to stumble upon, but it works
remarkably well. And once you starting
looking at things this way, you’ll find that you don’t need to use faith to
defend your actions. You can say that
you accept gays because it hurts them to tell them they’re sinners. You can say that you don’t like Shiite Law
because it oppresses women and encourages rape.
You can say that we damn well should promote condom use in Africa
because people are dying left and right.
And none of this requires any
reference to faith.
And as you do this more and more, you’ll slowly find that
all those virtuous ideas you used to pin on faith are actually well supported by the evidence. And it’s at this point that the faith reveals
its problematic nature. Yes, many of those things you believe on
faith give you good results. But if you
just try to defend them with “I have faith,” then you’re using the same defense
as the radicals whose beliefs don’t give good results. And that means any successful defense of your beliefs will end up strengthening theirs.
It was never the faith
that got you good results. If the beliefs
you happen to have faith in are good, then they will produce good results
regardless of why you believe them. Because
the virtue isn’t faith, it’s kindness and acceptance and all that jazz. All the faith does is get in the way of your
ability to see why those beliefs are
better than all the intolerant ramblings of the more radical apologetics, which
in turn hinders your ability to defend your more functional moral code against the
fundamentalists. And that means your faith is
functioning less like a virtue and
more like a handicap.
No comments:
Post a Comment