Three questions for religion

After yet another Islamic State terrorist attack an atheistic philosopher, Maarten Boudry, tweeted: "My dear liberal Muslims (I know you're out there), why would you still want to associate with this hateful religion? Why not just leave?"

The very same day a psychologist told me how some serious cases of domestic violence had spontaneously resolved during Ramadan. Husband and wife had started praying together and taking their meals together, the husband had abstained from alcohol …

Now what is it? Is Islam, or religion in general, hateful or a source of peace and harmony?

Religion

The problem is that Islam only exists as an abstraction. Sure, without abstractions rational thought is impossible, but that makes us all the more responsible to avoid unwarranted generalizations.

The Roman Catholic Church exists as an organization, but "Christianity" refers to a very heterogeneous phenomenon. The same goes for "Islam" or "Buddhism" and all the more for "religion", and even for "atheism". Still many people think of religion and religions as entities to which general characteristics, such as cruel or peaceful, can be attributed.

In many discussions no effort is made to define “religion”, as if everyone knows what we are talking about. Attempts at a definition usually single out one or a few features. Philosophers tend to define religion by convictions, psychologist by experiences, sociologists by group phenomena, poets by … Nothing wrong with defining the subject of your study, as long as you do not assume that your definition is globally valid.

Religion often is considered to be of all cultures and all ages. However when the term "religion" was first translated in Chinese a neologism had to be invented. Brent Nongbri, a scholar of Ancient history and religious sciences was very surprised when he discovered that the language of his father, who was born in India, had no word for "religion". The closest was a word meaning "customs". When he started studying Ancient religion he discovered that also the Ancient world had no religion, at least not in the meaning we use "religion" now.

Then what do we mean by "religion"? Religion is an heterogeneous amalgam of different human activities, experiences, worldviews, ethics, rituals, social life, art, music, architecture, experiences, caring, healing, warfare … None of these is specific to religion. There is ethics in religion and outside of religion. There is art in and out of religion. People have all kinds of worldviews and experiences with or without religion.

Most if not all of these activities and experiences are transcultural, but the set we think of as "religion" is not. So, does China have religion? No, it hasn't, but the Chinese do have temples and worldviews and ethics and rituals. They just never lumped it together in our concept of "religion". They organized their society among other lines and concepts, that are equally difficult for us to translate into western languages.

The former paragraph should have been set in the past tense. In the globalization of the world we exported our concept of "religion", including our western religious strifes and problems. Now we have "world religions". In this way an ethnic conflict in Myanmar becomes a conflict between "Buddhists" and "Muslims", and a motive to set fire to a Buddhist temple in another part of the world. Local conflicts become globalized.

Three domains , three questions

I betray my own background as a psychiatrist when I try to organize these different aspects of religion into three domains: thinking, feeling, acting. In religions we find thoughts about how the world is and how it should be. But many people would find their religion cold and empty if it was only about beliefs and ethics. In his “The Varieties of Religious Experience” William James wrote extensively about what people feel. Religious people also do things: they gather, perform rituals, they have their customs. These three domains, of course, are related but one cannot be reduced to the other. Obviously you can fast without believing in a god. But how to motivate yourself to do Ramadan when you do not believe in God?

Considering the field of religion I propose three questions, one for each of these domains. These questions are not neutral but reflect my personal values, which obviously will not be shared by everyone.

Thinking

Regarding thinking my question is not so much about the content of our thoughts but about the way we use our thinking: do we solidify our thinking into truths, or is it an instrument of open inquiry?

You might think of "truth" as the hallmark of religion but that does always not need to be the case. Some Buddhist texts explicitly warn against clinging to beliefs and invite an open inquiry. But within Buddhism, as in any religion, you will also find people with strong beliefs, sometimes based on the same texts. These three questions are personal. They are not intended as a typology of religions. They are about what people do with it.

They also are not restricted to people who define themselves as religious. These questions apply to anybody who thinks about how the world is and how it should be. You might think of science as the pinnacle of open inquiry. If you are a scientist you know how hard to reach an ideal open inquiry is. Even worse are some non-scientists who believe that science will offer them the truths they never found in religion.

The consequences are clear: If what I think is solid truth and you say something different, then you are wrong. If I keep an open mind, then the difference between us will invite me to inquire even deeper.

Feeling

Regarding feeling my question is: Are you driven by anxiety or by faith? We have a vocabulary problem here. The English language makes a difference between fear and anxiety. Fear has an object. It is fear of something. Anxiety is a state or trait without object. Anxiety can spawn fears, as well as many other emotions, but in itself it is anonymous without fixed object.

Faith also has an object. What we miss here is a term that relates to faith as anxiety to fear: an objectless faith that, as anxiety, can be a state or trait.

When Geert Grote visited Jan van Ruusbroec, the 14th century mystic, he was shocked to learn that Ruusbroec did not fear hell. If God would send him to hell, Ruusbroec trusted, it would be fine there. Grote operated out of anxiety, Ruusbroec from faith. Interestingly their discussion takes place within the same conceptual framework, within the same belief system. Faith and anxiety do not automatically characterize thought systems.

Some religions put great emphasis on faith, but that can be misleading. Demanding faith is not a sign of faith but shows the lack of it. The more a priest or teacher insists on faith, the more he exposes his own anxiety.

It might be argued that a solid belief in truth expels anxiety and is necessary for faith. This is not my experience. I have seen people with strong religious beliefs die in great anxiety and people who believed in nothing at all die a peaceful death.

It is usually out of anxiety that people grasp for solid truths. Unfortunately thoughts are no match for emotion. If you have ever been in love you probable noticed you can not just reason it away. In the same way beliefs do not dispel anxiety.

Doing

Before believing or not believing became an option in the modern world, there always was the option to do or not do what was commonly believed and felt to be good. I would never argue that our thoughts and feelings are not important, but in the end it al comes down to what we do. There is no problem with being pedophile, as long as you do not bother children, just as much as there is no problem with being an heterosexual male as long as you do not harass women.

The biologist Humberto Maturana, one of the pioneers in the biology of cognition, differentiates between a machine and a social system. In short: a machine is defined by its product. Any part of the machine is interchangeable as long as the product is realized. A social system is defined by its members and has the flourishing of its members as its outcome. Hence, in a social system you cannot simply replace a member. Social systems are held together by love which he defines as: “the acceptance of the legitimacy of the other in coexistence with you”.

Maturana is talking biology here, not poetry, but his practical definition brings us to our third question regarding doing: do you accept the other’s coexistence? In other words: are you prepared to share this world with others, or will you exclude them?

Do you throw homosexuals from the roof or do you accept them as members of your society? Do you give equal rights to man and women? How do you treat people from a different race, with different customs, with another religion?

Many rituals in different religions involve the sharing of food. They enact coexistence and sharing. But when remarried people are refused the communion, a sacrament of communion is turned into a ritual of exclusion.

It is a universal biological phenomenon to interact differently with members of one's own social system than with outsiders. In this global world we cannot no longer treat others as outsiders. We have a common project, which is sharing this planet.

Choices to be made

Let’s return to our question: is religion a source of violence or a source of peace and harmony? There are choices to be made. In the real world, religions no longer are not what the once meant nor what the old texts say. They are what people do with it now.

Truth and anxiety can turn into an explosive mix. The greater the anxiety the stronger the need for solid truths, which are unable to exorcise the anxiety, thus creating more and more anxiety. In that case the slightest call for open inquiry can become your death sentence. And there are open-minded people, ready to inquire and listen, without anxiety, also when they meet someone with other convictions and customs.

So, whether we call it religion or not, how do we choose to live? The first to ask these questions to is inevitably ourselves, at least as long as we have still some room for open inquiry.

Three questions for religion

After yet another Islamic State terrorist attack an atheistic philosopher, Maarten Boudry, tweeted: "My dear liberal Muslims (I know you're out there), why would you still want to associate with this hateful religion? Why not just leave?"

The very same day a psychologist told me how some serious cases of domestic violence had spontaneously resolved during Ramadan. Husband and wife had started praying together and taking their meals together, the husband had abstained from alcohol …

Now what is it? Is Islam, or religion in general, hateful or a source of peace and harmony?

Religion

The problem is that Islam only exists as an abstraction. Sure, without abstractions rational thought is impossible, but that makes us all the more responsible to avoid unwarranted generalizations.

The Roman Catholic Church exists as an organization, but "Christianity" refers to a very heterogeneous phenomenon. The same goes for "Islam" or "Buddhism" and all the more for "religion", and even for "atheism". Still many people think of religion and religions as entities to which general characteristics, such as cruel or peaceful, can be attributed.

In many discussions no effort is made to define “religion”, as if everyone knows what we are talking about. Attempts at a definition usually single out one or a few features. Philosophers tend to define religion by convictions, psychologist by experiences, sociologists by group phenomena, poets by … Nothing wrong with defining the subject of your study, as long as you do not assume that your definition is globally valid.

Religion often is considered to be of all cultures and all ages. However when the term "religion" was first translated in Chinese a neologism had to be invented. Brent Nongbri, a scholar of Ancient history and religious sciences was very surprised when he discovered that the language of his father, who was born in India, had no word for "religion". The closest was a word meaning "customs". When he started studying Ancient religion he discovered that also the Ancient world had no religion, at least not in the meaning we use "religion" now.

Then what do we mean by "religion"? Religion is an heterogeneous amalgam of different human activities, experiences, worldviews, ethics, rituals, social life, art, music, architecture, experiences, caring, healing, warfare … None of these is specific to religion. There is ethics in religion and outside of religion. There is art in and out of religion. People have all kinds of worldviews and experiences with or without religion.

Most if not all of these activities and experiences are transcultural, but the set we think of as "religion" is not. So, does China have religion? No, it hasn't, but the Chinese do have temples and worldviews and ethics and rituals. They just never lumped it together in our concept of "religion". They organized their society among other lines and concepts, that are equally difficult for us to translate into western languages.

The former paragraph should have been set in the past tense. In the globalization of the world we exported our concept of "religion", including our western religious strifes and problems. Now we have "world religions". In this way an ethnic conflict in Myanmar becomes a conflict between "Buddhists" and "Muslims", and a motive to set fire to a Buddhist temple in another part of the world. Local conflicts become globalized.

Three domains , three questions

I betray my own background as a psychiatrist when I try to organize these different aspects of religion into three domains: thinking, feeling, acting. In religions we find thoughts about how the world is and how it should be. But many people would find their religion cold and empty if it was only about beliefs and ethics. In his “The Varieties of Religious Experience” William James wrote extensively about what people feel. Religious people also do things: they gather, perform rituals, they have their customs. These three domains, of course, are related but one cannot be reduced to the other. Obviously you can fast without believing in a god. But how to motivate yourself to do Ramadan when you do not believe in God?

Considering the field of religion I propose three questions, one for each of these domains. These questions are not neutral but reflect my personal values, which obviously will not be shared by everyone.

Thinking

Regarding thinking my question is not so much about the content of our thoughts but about the way we use our thinking: do we solidify our thinking into truths, or is it an instrument of open inquiry?

You might think of "truth" as the hallmark of religion but that does always not need to be the case. Some Buddhist texts explicitly warn against clinging to beliefs and invite an open inquiry. But within Buddhism, as in any religion, you will also find people with strong beliefs, sometimes based on the same texts. These three questions are personal. They are not intended as a typology of religions. They are about what people do with it.

They also are not restricted to people who define themselves as religious. These questions apply to anybody who thinks about how the world is and how it should be. You might think of science as the pinnacle of open inquiry. If you are a scientist you know how hard to reach an ideal open inquiry is. Even worse are some non-scientists who believe that science will offer them the truths they never found in religion.

The consequences are clear: If what I think is solid truth and you say something different, then you are wrong. If I keep an open mind, then the difference between us will invite me to inquire even deeper.

Feeling

Regarding feeling my question is: Are you driven by anxiety or by faith? We have a vocabulary problem here. The English language makes a difference between fear and anxiety. Fear has an object. It is fear of something. Anxiety is a state or trait without object. Anxiety can spawn fears, as well as many other emotions, but in itself it is anonymous without fixed object.

Faith also has an object. What we miss here is a term that relates to faith as anxiety to fear: an objectless faith that, as anxiety, can be a state or trait.

When Geert Grote visited Jan van Ruusbroec, the 14th century mystic, he was shocked to learn that Ruusbroec did not fear hell. If God would send him to hell, Ruusbroec trusted, it would be fine there. Grote operated out of anxiety, Ruusbroec from faith. Interestingly their discussion takes place within the same conceptual framework, within the same belief system. Faith and anxiety do not automatically characterize thought systems.

Some religions put great emphasis on faith, but that can be misleading. Demanding faith is not a sign of faith but shows the lack of it. The more a priest or teacher insists on faith, the more he exposes his own anxiety.

It might be argued that a solid belief in truth expels anxiety and is necessary for faith. This is not my experience. I have seen people with strong religious beliefs die in great anxiety and people who believed in nothing at all die a peaceful death.

It is usually out of anxiety that people grasp for solid truths. Unfortunately thoughts are no match for emotion. If you have ever been in love you probable noticed you can not just reason it away. In the same way beliefs do not dispel anxiety.

Doing

Before believing or not believing became an option in the modern world, there always was the option to do or not do what was commonly believed and felt to be good. I would never argue that our thoughts and feelings are not important, but in the end it al comes down to what we do. There is no problem with being pedophile, as long as you do not bother children, just as much as there is no problem with being an heterosexual male as long as you do not harass women.

The biologist Humberto Maturana, one of the pioneers in the biology of cognition, differentiates between a machine and a social system. In short: a machine is defined by its product. Any part of the machine is interchangeable as long as the product is realized. A social system is defined by its members and has the flourishing of its members as its outcome. Hence, in a social system you cannot simply replace a member. Social systems are held together by love which he defines as: “the acceptance of the legitimacy of the other in coexistence with you”.

Maturana is talking biology here, not poetry, but his practical definition brings us to our third question regarding doing: do you accept the other’s coexistence? In other words: are you prepared to share this world with others, or will you exclude them?

Do you throw homosexuals from the roof or do you accept them as members of your society? Do you give equal rights to man and women? How do you treat people from a different race, with different customs, with another religion?

Many rituals in different religions involve the sharing of food. They enact coexistence and sharing. But when remarried people are refused the communion, a sacrament of communion is turned into a ritual of exclusion.

It is a universal biological phenomenon to interact differently with members of one's own social system than with outsiders. In this global world we cannot no longer treat others as outsiders. We have a common project, which is sharing this planet.

Choices to be made

Let’s return to our question: is religion a source of violence or a source of peace and harmony? There are choices to be made. In the real world, religions no longer are not what the once meant nor what the old texts say. They are what people do with it now.

Truth and anxiety can turn into an explosive mix. The greater the anxiety the stronger the need for solid truths, which are unable to exorcise the anxiety, thus creating more and more anxiety. In that case the slightest call for open inquiry can become your death sentence. And there are open-minded people, ready to inquire and listen, without anxiety, also when they meet someone with other convictions and customs.

So, whether we call it religion or not, how do we choose to live? The first to ask these questions to is inevitably ourselves, at least as long as we have still some room for open inquiry.