'Small numbers of people who distort religious texts'
I was reading a transcript from a debate in the house of lords. Something that Baroness Andrews said prompted me to reply. I'm posting my reply here too.
My noble friend Lady Massey and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, alleged that religion is sometimes seen to cause and be at the root of conflict. I say right away that it is not belief that impacts so negatively on us or society more broadly, it is the actions and manifestations by small numbers of people who distort religious texts or hold fanatical views. It is essential that we make, understand and express those differences.
I strongly disagree. There are a number of serious problems with the idea that it is people's distortion of religious texts that leads them to act in anti social ways.
Firstly how can you determine that any of a set of rival interpretations of religious texts is a 'distortion'?
Secondly, taken at face value, the bible contains plenty of justification for 'fanatical' behaviour. To claim the bible as a guide for your life and yet to hold moderate views compatible with modern society is actually more of a distortion than to be interpret the book literally like the fundamentalists do.
Baroness Andrews' charge that certain groups distort religious texts is a non starter. We are outraged by fanatics not because they distort religious texts–religious texts are for the most part appalling guides for how to lead a moral life in the first place–but because their behaviour strongly disagrees with the moral zeitgeist.
Why the reluctance to acknowledge the (to me) plain fact that faith–certainty without evidence–is to blame for religious fanaticism?
Faith can be benign, usually to the extent that it is tempered with skepticism. Faith can also do terrible damage. The more certainty with which an article of faith is held, and the more explicit that article is, the more dangerous that faith makes a person.
Add your thoughts here.
Trackbacks
Use this link to trackback from your own site.
There are a number of serious problems with the idea that it is people’s distortion of religious texts that leads them to act in anti social ways. Go for the jugular on this. It's because people _believe_ in this stuff that causes conflict to begin with.
I disagree. We take things on faith everyday, like "This plane will not crash" or "My husband will come home from work today."
Obviously, these beliefs have more plausibility than "There is an invisible man in the sky who created everything," but we can also find a gray area, e.g. "I will get this job" or "I will sell this car today."
Plenty of people base their moral systems on particularly salient books or films, and it doesn't seem like such a leap of faith to talk about "something Professor X said" or "the story of Neo" when referring to the way fiction can affect our lives.
After all, I don't see as much hope for progress in history as I see in the unwritten future. And I don't think that the majority of Christians focus harder on Genesis than they do on the message of Christ.
I think that fanaticism comes from a poor understanding of these works as fiction, rather than the simple act of taking something on faith.
Hi Rit. These things have nothing to do with faith. We make these probability judgments based on prior evidence and reasoning–a person has strong evidence from trustworthy sources to suggest that planes don't usually crash.
The same can't be said for religious faith–indeed a belief is based on 'faith' precisely when it's not supported by evidence. When evidence is available faith isn't necessary.
Even when your decision making is influenced by "something Professor X said" it is because you have evidence that suggests that they are a smart person who has probably given the issue a lot of thought. Again your course of action is determined by evidence and reason, not faith.
@kelly: absolutely. I enjoyed looking round your blog.
Any idea which seems great in theory but fails in practice is worthless. There is in fact a parable in the New Testament expressing exactly this principle.
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. (Matt 7:15-20)
If the message of Jesus of Nazareth bears corruption, the message is corrupt itself.