“THE END OF FAITH?”
A Sermon by the Rev. Bruce Clear
Sunday,
All
I enjoyed a conversation last year
which included me, a Unitarian, another person who was Jewish, and another
person who was Christian. We were
getting fairly serious about religious belief, and at one point a question was
posed by the Jewish person toward the Christian. “Do you believe,” she said, “that everyone
needs to accept Jesus as their Savior?”
There was a pause before the Christian answered. Then he said quietly: “All I can say is that I need to.”
His answer hit me profoundly. Never have I heard such a simple statement
that was both a declaration of personal conviction as well as a generous
statement of respect for others.
Such expression of respect seems all
too rare these days. Too much of
religious history is filled with conflict and coercion and persecution. It is true in the 21st century
just as it was true in the 14th century. It has been so true that some wonder whether
religion has done more harm than good, and maybe we’d be better off without
it.
Is it time for humanity to let go of
religion? Have we come to the place where
religious faith is not just superfluous or unnecessary, but in fact an obstacle
to human progress and happiness?
My remarks today are largely in
response to a current best-selling book by Sam Harris entitled The End of Faith. He clearly feels that the progress of human
society, even the existence of human society, is threatened by the continuing
influence and power of religious faith.
It is time, he claims, that we put an end to religious faith and put our
trust in reason alone.
He defines religious faith as “the
belief in historical and metaphysical propositions without sufficient
evidence,” and offers plenty of examples:
belief that scriptures, whether the Bible or the Koran, were written by
God, or belief in an afterlife of reward and punishment, or particularly the
belief that someone is privy to the will of God and others aren’t.
His position is worth consideration,
I think. His indictment against
religions of all eras is forceful and persuasive. Just as the American Declaration of
Independence from
The “bill of particulars” he cites
against religion is a long list and is undeniable. History, in fact, seems to be largely a
record of violence inflicted by one religion against another, or by a religious
establishment against innocent victims.
There was the era of the Crusades, in which Christian soldiers
slaughtered innocent non-Christians in the name of God. Then the Inquisition, where the church
imposed its holy will by executing all who disagreed – including sometimes
entire populations of townsfolk: men, women, and children. He devotes special attention to the record of
witch-hunts throughout Europe, as well as in colonial
Slavery, oppression of women, racism
– most of the evils of human history are products manufactured by religious
faith, he says. All are justified by a
literal reading of the Bible which is attributed to God. He includes in that history the Nazi
Holocaust against the Jews. Some might
wonder, since Hitler and his Nazi followers were not avowedly religious,
whether this episode should be included within the list of wicked works done by
religious faith. Harris makes a
convincing case that shows the origins of anti-Semitism rooted in religious
bigotry, beginning in New Testament times and following, like links in a bloody
chain, to the policies of the Third Reich in the twentieth century. Without that legacy of religious
anti-Semitism, the Nazis would not have found such a willing acceptance of
genocide by the German people. Even without
that connection, there is no denying that most of the churches in
The story of Western religion, which
is primarily Christian, of course, is for Harris not much more than the story
of violence inspired by religious belief in unsupported claims of faith.
Writing in the aftermath of
September 11, Harris devotes special attention to what he understands to be the
violent nature of Islam. The story is
too current for need of much elaboration.
Suicide bombers, whether at the
Religion, in his view, is a
world-wide disease that destroys the well-being of human civilization. The list of current animosities and fighting
caused by religion is a long one. In
addition to the on-going Jewish-Muslim conflict in
The Balkans (Orthodox Serbians v.
Catholic Croatians)
The
This represents about half of the
current conflicts he is able to list. Aside
from the violence wrought by religion through history, even within our own
country religion still serves, he points out, to divide us and impose its
superstitions. Religious belief is the
reason for such widespread discrimination against homosexuals. Religious belief is the only thing that stands
in the way of medical progress through stem cell research. Religious belief restrains sex education,
leading to an epidemic of unintended pregnancies, unwanted children or
abortions, and sexually transmitted diseases.
Religious belief hinders scientific progress by trying to censor the
teaching of evolution. There seems to be
no end of this list of damage done by religion.
Observing the overwhelming evidence
of damage done by religion, he is led to a rather dramatic conclusion, which he
states in various ways throughout the book.
Here is his conclusion:
“It is time we recognized that all reasonable men and women have a
common enemy. It is an enemy so near to
us, and so deceptive, that we keep its counsel even as it threatens to destroy
the very possibility of human happiness.
Our enemy is nothing other than faith itself.” (p. 131)
Your reaction may, in fact, be like
mine was. He’s talking, of course, about
the fundamentalists and extremists of each faith. He is overlooking the fact that most
believers are sensible and moderate, not fundamentalist. Harris is ready for that response. In a section which he entitles “The Myth of
‘Moderation’ in Religion,” he points out that even moderates believe their
religion to be the True Religion, over and against others. The texts of the Bible and the Koran are
pretty clear about things, and the moderates can’t hide the fact that through
these holy books God tell us women are inferior and unbelievers are heathen. Moderates are just a little squeamish about
these texts. “A religious moderate,” he
writes, “is nothing more than a failed fundamentalist.” He continues:
“Rather than bring the full force of our . . . rationality to bear on
the problems of ethics, social cohesion, and even spiritual experience,
moderates merely ask that we relax our standards of adherence to ancient
superstitions and taboos. . . .” (p.21)
I’ll stop here in summarizing
Harris’ arguments. Hearing his position
almost inspires me to resign my profession, lead you all en-mass out of this
church never to associate again with anything having to do with the words
“church” or “religion.”
I say “almost.” I’m not quite ready to do that. It seems to me there is another side to this
coin – actually several sides, if the metaphor allows – that ought to be
considered. I cannot, and would not,
deny the history that he relates, and yet something in me was uneasy as I was
hearing his strong arguments. Something
seemed amiss.
The sorry history he details is,
true enough, the story of religion. But
there is another story that should be told as well. For all the damage it has done, religion has
also made some very positive contributions to human civilization. Over the centuries, most institutions of
charitable help to the needy have come from religious motivation. Orphanages, hospitals and clinics, and
schools were established more by religious institutions than any other. Great colleges and universities were
originally sponsored by religious societies.
Religious teachings have motivated
some of the noblest causes in recent history.
In
The civil rights movement in
Most churches, especially urban churches,
have programs to help the poor or underprivileged. Even without such a program, most churches do
teach responsibility to help “the least of these” in society.
There is no denying that religion
has been the source of much violence and inhumanity over the ages, and it will
probably continue to do so. But fairness
demands that the good done in the name of religion also be recognized.
Still, there was something else
about reading this book that made me a little uneasy. I can’t agree with such an easy dismissal of
religious moderation. In each of the
faiths, it is the extremists who, though most vocal, are in the minority.
Let me say a word about
fundamentalism, which is to me the obvious problem in both Christianity and
Islam. One definition of a
fundamentalist, it seems to me, is a person who takes their scriptures
literally. When the Bible says women
should obey their husbands it means God wants women to obey their
husbands. When the Koran says that women
should keep their hair covered it means that women should keep their hair
covered.
The strict literalism of the
fundamentalist, though, is not the only way to approach scripture.
There is an interesting observation
that can be made about some critics of religions – an observation, I’m afraid,
that applies to some of us as Unitarian Universalists. It has to do with the nature of
fundamentalism.
If being a fundamentalist means you
believe the scriptures must be interpreted literally, then some critics of religion fit that definition
as fundamentalists. A religious fundamentalist is one who
believes that scripture should be taken literally, and believes that they are
true. An anti-religious fundamentalist is one who believes the scripture
should be taken literally, but believes they are false. In either case, both believe the only honest
and genuine religion is the one that treats scripture literally. In dismissing even the possibility of
religious moderates, Harris sides with the fundamentalists in their definition
of religious faith.
He tells us, in effect, that religious
moderates are phony because they don’t take the scripture literally. To be truly religious, in his view, one has to be literalist about
scripture. In other words, he approaches
all religion as a fundamentalist does, only he’s against it. I believe there is room, plenty of room, for
moderates in all religions who are not literalist about their scripture.
But there is an even deeper problem
I had reading about The End of Faith. Throughout the book I couldn’t help but feel
that in attacking religious faith as the culprit, he was aiming at the wrong
target. It isn’t religious faith that has caused the sorry history
of hate and bigotry and violence over the centuries. It is dogmatism. It is placing beliefs in a special place
above rational discussion.
Dogmatism. It is holding that
your beliefs are so superior that those with different beliefs must convert to
yours. Dogmatism. It is living with the conviction that you are
in possession of the Truth, and therefore you are justified in making others
conform to your beliefs. Dogmatism. It is feeling threatened by the very
existence of people who do not accept your beliefs.
How is dogmatism different from
faith? For one thing, there are plenty
of people who are able to honor their
own faith and not be threatened that others believe differently. They are not dogmatic in their views. There are probably more believers who are not
dogmatic than those who are.
But there is another reason I think
dogmatism, rather than faith, is at the core of the violent history he
reviews. Specifically, that history
includes, in addition to religious dogmatism, political and ideological
dogmatism, which have produced many of the same persecutions as religious dogmatism.
The twentieth century will likely
become known as the “Age of Ideology,” much like there was an “Age of
Enlightenment” and an “Age of Empires.”
The dominant political movements of the twentieth century were
ideologies such as fascism, Nazism, communism, and capitalism. To the extent each of these was held as dogma
to be imposed on others, the result was the same as religious persecution. Millions in
And capitalism can’t be left out of
the mix in reviewing twentieth century ideology. Defending the dogma of capitalism, for
example, the
It is not “faith” that is the source
of so much human misery over the years.
It is dogmatism, whether religious or secular.
Many people who make broadside
attacks against religion, such as Harris does in his book, make a miscalculation. They are right in their critique but miss the
proper target. Instead of aiming their
guns at religion in general, they should be aiming at dogmatism of any kind,
whether it be religious or secular. For
centuries religion was the carrier of dogmatic persecution, but in the
twentieth century that role was taken on as much by secular ideologies as it
was by religion. Religion that is not
dogmatic is no threat at all to civilized society.
For example, I can’t see that a
belief in reincarnation ever harmed anyone.
This belief falls within Harris’ definition of religious faith: a “belief in historical and metaphysical
propositions without sufficient evidence.”
Yet I know of no instance in which this belief was held so dogmatically
that it was imposed violently on others or that its believers felt threatened
if someone didn’t believe it. The same
could be said of many similar religious beliefs. Surely anyone can believe in the Trinity or in an afterlife without being so
dogmatic that they demand others agree with them. It happens all the time. It is more common than not. The enemy is not faith, it is dogmatism.
In his book, Harris joins dozens of
other commentators in saying that the religion of Islam is by nature violent
and a threat to non-Muslims. Islam, he
says, requires its followers to attack non-believers. The argument is empirically false.
There are about a million and a half
Muslims in the
Sam Harris’ book about the danger of
religion, and his call for the “end of faith” is thought-provoking and
challenging and worthy of consideration.
But as I thought about the slaughter of innocents in the Catholic
Inquisition, and the burning of witches and heretics, and the various Christian
defenses of slavery and the more recent suicide bombings by Muslim extremists,
my mind kept returning to my conversation when a Christian was asked by a Jew
whether he felt everyone needs to believe in Jesus as their Savior, and the
calm, respectful answer was, in so many words, “No, but I do.”
Those are not the words of a mere
moderate who is a “failed fundamentalist.”
Those are the words of a person of conviction who is not threatened by a
world with diverse religious beliefs. Those
words establish that civilization need not be threatened by religious faith,
but rather the threat comes from dogmatic belief, whether religious or
secular.
It is a lesson, I think, that is
appropriate for us as Unitarian Universalists.
We are generally quite keen on identifying flaws and hypocrisies in
religions. Our faith resides, among
other sources, in the use of reason in religion. But it would be a mistake to render faith
itself as a danger. It is not.
In our attempt to blend reason with
religion, we need always to be careful not to view religion through the lens of
fundamentalism. Faith is not a
threat. The threat is, and has always
been, and dogmatic beliefs of all kinds – religious and secular. This is not the
time for the End of Faith, but rather the End of Dogmatism in all beliefs.
© Bruce Clear 2006