faith and bias

A thing I don't think that got focused on enough in class today was the relationship between scientific research and religious faith, and it's a relationship I find important.

In the first place, the Neanderthal article establishes the idea of a nonhuman, nonreligious culture. In the second place, the "Why We Believe" article explains the potential evolutionary roots of religious belief. We're left with the idea that religion is uniquely human, and biologically innate. There are two potential problems we didn't really touch on in class, that I want to point out as priorities:

1. Scientific research / critical discussion does not diminish the value of faith

2. Religious faith does not bias critical discussion.

The first is brought up by the article, "Why We Believe" -- surprisingly the researchers (unlike polemicists like Dawkins) completely leave religious dogma, and questions of right ness and wrong ness alone. The scientists seemed sure that their research left religion completely alone, the way gross anatomy can't shake a stick at dancing, or an understanding of biochemistry can't touch the experience of panic.

More than pure research though, what are the advantages and disadvantages of the critical viewpoint? By treating sacred texts as historical documents, what do you gain? What do you loose? By treating the saints of this that or the other religion as unreliable narrators of the true facts, are those religions diminished? I would like to think they are not, but the danger of being unable to take the reality of belief seriously is just as dangerous as any type of dogmatic fundamentalism, I feel.

The second point is more personal: I've made it a goal for myself to try to be more "objective", to be able to define my assumptions and biases and by doing so see around them -- for example, to be able to look at Genesis 1-4 through a Catholic point of view, seeing how it explains how Adam's fall made it possible for mankind to be redeemed through Christ, and then taking off those glasses and seeing Genesis from a Jewish point of view, or a critical/historical point of view, or a literary point of view, or the viewpoint of any other set of religious assumptions.

(A good example is modern Paganism -- Pagans can claim that they don't worship the Devil as defined by Christians, and that they don't even believe that the Devil exists. But if they looked at themselves through the "glasses" of Christians, they could see that putting individual will in a place of central importance and worshipping nature forces (anthropomorphized or no) is functionally equivalent. Looking at the dispute that way, the reasons Pagans' arguments fail to curb Christian hostility are more apparent.) In the same way, to modern Atheists, plenty of groups with strong religious beliefs seem less intelligent, self-deluding, maybe even immoral for ignoring the 'real facts' of the Universe. (Atheist moral dogma is much less standard than Christian... )

Because beliefs regarding the supernatural are unprovable, the important difference between individuals with different faiths are the assumptions each holds about the 'behind the scenes' makeup of the world. If we plan on comparing religions without saying one is right and another is wrong, we must be able to put ourselves "in the other guy's shoes".

What does religion do?

So I missed out on the "what is religion" debate, but I've gathered together bits and pieces from other people's blagoblogs... Here's my take:

Religion provides some functions:

1. Wish fulfillment: religion provides an answer to empirically unanswerable questions, which points to a supernatural power/realm. (i. e. an afterlife where everyone gets their just desserts, a loving all-powerful god that forgives you for your bad deeds, a "higher plan" to events that appear to be random)

2. Ethics: regardless of who "really" wrote the Scriptures of whatever cultures, they provide a commonly agreed-upon set of rules to live by, and enforce social order.

3. Culture: In a group of people who share a common religion, the same symbols and stories will be recognizable, and provide a 'bedrock' starting point for the visual arts, music, theater, and idioms in the spoken language.

Regarding the "Why We Believe" and Neanderthal articles, the idea that religion is sort of innate to human existance sounds reasonable -- I can't come up with a counter-example of a human culture that gets by without some sort of religious belief. (The idea of the symbol-free, languge-free and religion-free Neanderthal culture is interesting to imagine. I think the author speculates too much about its specifics, but it makes a good counter-example to solidify the claim that religion is part of human experience.)

Bomb the Blogosphere

Hello all and sundry! If you are a silly type person, (perhaps wandering in from my personal journal) who doesn't know these things, this blagoblog's point is to express my opinions on a tri-weekly basis, regarding reading assignments (and other oddments) in an intro course on Religious Studies, one of my majors at everyone's favorite liberal arts college in Outagamie County: Lawrence U.

Now that I've got the valedictory out of the way... I'm gonna read the rest of y'all's blagoblogs.