Religion and Its Critics

Lately, the issue of criticizing religion has been a hot topic. On one extreme are those who want absolutely no critique of religious belief and or holy books whatsoever. On the other extreme are those who are tying criticism of faiths to their own brand of bigotry and vitriolic language. Of course, there are many folks in the middle.  In particular, the criticism of Islam has landed itself into the midst of this.

 All belief systems need criticism, including those that I hold dear. For instance, I tend to champion secularism, the scientific method and democracy, to name a few. I not only accept that these things will be criticized, but I understand that such scrutiny helps improve these thought systems. Ideas and ideologies can thrive as a result of being exposed to criticism, scrutiny and even parody. This allows invalid ideas to be discarded, paves the way for ideas that need improvement to be modified, and illuminates the strength of really good ideas. Religious belief is no exception. It is vital that in a free society, folks discuss and debate ideas. Religion touches upon our world in so many ways and must be included in the debate and discussion.

When a belief system is not open to criticism, it creates all sorts of problems. First, if I were to accept that religion should not be criticized, than I would logically insist that a whole range of other beliefs that I cherish, should also not be criticized. In addition, when folks commit irrational or immoral acts in the name of the religion, a prohibition on criticism removes the ability to examine the motivations as well as to fully expose these actions.

Ironically, though I am a nonbeliever and I often argue that we need to be free to criticize religion, I often find myself praising it as often as I disapprove of certain aspects of it. I also prefer, but do not insist, that criticism be polite and sensitive to the feelings of reasonable believers. This is not just because I like to be nice. When people’s thought systems come under scathing attack, they become understandably defensive. In addition, a one-sided view of religion, its history and how it motivates people to act does not seem reflective of reality. There is a lot of good motivated by and done in the name of religion. There are worthwhile ideas and concepts that come out of it both historically and in our present day. I wrote about the need to have a balanced view on these topics in more detail here.

  

I would be remiss if I did not mention a group that is called the “New Atheists.” Richard Dawkins is the most prominent of this group that includes Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and others. This group uses strong rhetoric and has little respect for any religious ideas. Though they seem careful not to attack individuals, their commentary on religion is often scathing.

Though I agree with much of what they say, I find that not only is their tone too harsh for my taste, but that their view of religion is too lopsided, never emphasizing the good that comes out of it. There are also those who go well beyond this group. Social media is full of people who express biting hatred of religion. Sometimes this hatred is paired with racism. Nevertheless, in a free society, such voices will inevitably speak, and unless they are calling for violence, they should not be censored.

Just because speech is permissible does not make it right. I support reasoned criticism of all belief systems. I also like to be respectful unless a belief is hateful or promoting discrimination or violence. With that, I also think that parody as well as harsh criticism is often in order. This is especially true when the subject is murder, violence, brutality, discrimination, etc. that are driven by the things written in holy books. Simply put, there are abominable things in both the Old Testament and the Koran. The fact that these holy books also include a lot of good things does not alleviate the need for scrutiny.

As of late, Islam seems to be at the center of this debate. There has been very harsh criticism of that belief system lately. There has also been outright hate, bigotry and violence directed at Muslims. There has also been lots of fair and reasoned criticism that has unfairly been labeled “Islamophobia.” Maryam Namazie, a critic of extremist violence and mistreatment of women in Islam, has been exposed to caustic verbal attacks and harassment by extremists. Even worse, violence has been aimed at religious critics. The very worst of this involved the murders of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists. The Charlie Hebdo attacks served as a stark reminder to those of us who believe in freedom of speech just how far people will go to suppress that liberty in the name of religion.

There have been cases where non – Muslim commentators, such as Emmanuel Todd, have joined in and partially blamed the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists for the violence and excoriated those who are criticizing Islam. In turn, some secularists have coined the term “Regressive Left” for liberals who they deem to be apologizing for violence and discrimination in the name of Islam. 

Folks will point out with much truth that these violent fanatics do not represent the Islamic faith. It is absolutely true that most Muslims do not support such things. However, the Koran (Since the question comes up when I discuss this topic, I have read the Koran twice), which despite containing a lot of good things is full of racism, misogyny and calls for violence, points to the fact there is some connection. The fact that many of those who perpetuate oppression and violence directly cite the text of this holy book further supports this contention. 

A popular response to criticism of Islam is that parts of Old Testament advocates terrible barbarities. This is true. Though it seems apparent that it is not driving as much violence and oppression in out current age, belief in certain aspects Old Testament ideology drives some discrimination and violence. Since it is connected to all three Abrahamic Religions, this is particularly significant.  This is another good argument as to why it is imperative that people be free to criticize religious belief systems.

Though in my opinion the New Testament does not advocate violence and discrimination like other holy books do, it is full of ideas about how people should live. It touches upon morality, human nature, the nature of existence, and even economics. Such a comprehensive set of beliefs also lends itself and must be open to scrutiny. 

I would also be remiss if I did not mention the positive actions that the various religions as well the texts of the holy books seem to motivate. All the major religions drive an enormous amount of charitable and humanitarian action. With that, such positive aspects of these faith - based systems do not exempt these systems from scrutiny and criticism. However, such activities must be considered when formulating any comprehensive view of these belief systems.

Though I have read multiple texts connected with the Eastern religions I am less knowledgeable concerning these belief systems and their impact on humanity. With that, I believe most of the issues and arguments that I raise here also apply to Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, etc.

Folks may disagree with some of my opinions on various belief systems. Such disagreement is actually part of the very important discussion that humanity needs to be having about the enormously influential  group of ideas known as religion.

No doubt religion will always be criticized, in ways that I agree with and in ways that I disagree with. There will also be folks who defend these belief systems. There will be others who insist that religious beliefs are above criticism. I have argued before that a society where folks are free and open to various ideas as well as to criticize these ideas is ideal. I have also mentioned that I am a believer in The Marketplace of Ideas. In such a marketplace, all ideas, including religious ones, must be open to discussion and  debate.

We by Yevgeny Zamyatin

My commentary contains major spoilers. I have revealed significant aspects of the book’s conclusion in order to make some of my points.

We, by Yevgeny Zamyatin, is one of the earliest dystopian novels. I recently read the Clarence Brown translation. Written in the Soviet Union in 1921, it precedes such important works such as George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty - Four and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.  Both of those and many other “Oppressive Future” novels draw heavily in terms of plot, characters and theme from this work.

Set in the 26^th century, Zamyatin has created a world where the oppressive One – State, ruled by a paternalistic figure known as “The Benefactor,” controls a society whose goal is to stamp out individuality, freedom and genuine emotion. A major tenet of the dictatorship is that it is supposedly based on science and pure rationality. A two hundred year war has ended within the last century. Clues in the narrative indicate that a mechanistic, over controlling, city - based faction defeated a rural-based, naturalistic faction. One - State, a highly technological urban society, is now separated from the undeveloped, natural world by a seemingly impenetrable wall. Descendants of the survivors of the losing side live in relatively primitive conditions outside of the wall. This dark future was clearly influenced by Zamyatin’s reaction to living under Communist oppression. 

Our narrator is known as D – 503. He is an engineer who is chief designer of One - State’s first starship, known as the Integral. The narrative is presented in the form of D – 503’s journal. Relationships form a key part of the novel. Sexual and romantic relations in One – State are basically on demand, with anyone having the right, upon request, to sexual relations with anyone else. Initially D – 503, his poet friend R – 13 and a woman, O – 90, are involved in a romantic triangle. The three are emotionally close and there seems to be minimal jealousy involved.

Enter I -330, a woman who aggressively pursues D – 503. I – 330 is charismatic, bold and independent, but also controlling and manipulative. She turns out to be the leader of a rebel movement whose goal is the overthrow of One - State. She plans to steal the Integral and use it against the powers that be. Throughout the story, D – 503 is constantly wavering between his loyalty to One – State and the belief system that goes with it, and his increasing obsessive feelings for I – 330.

The story is engaging. D – 503 is something of a philosopher whose thoughts champion One - State as well as its mechanistic and uniform lifestyle and soulless existence. As he begins to fall for I – 330, breaks rules and has thoughts unbecoming of the conformist lifestyle, he begins to become disconcerted and at times disorientated. He starts to see the world around him as being off - kilter and distorted, as if reality itself was mirroring his thoughts and outlook. He imagines and describes himself and the world around him, in terms of numbers, equations and machines, but of numbers, equations and machines that have something going very wrong with them. At one point he observes,

“I'm like a machine being run over its RPM limit: The bearings are overheating - a minute longer, and the metal is going to melt and start dripping and that'll be the end of everything. I need a quick splash of cold water, logic. I pour it on in buckets, but the logic hisses on the hot bearings and dissipates in the air as a fleeting white mist.”

Philosophically, Zamyatin goes into some interesting directions here. The oppressiveness inherent in the society that he has fashioned is largely driven by a wildly overzealous belief in science and rationalism, at the expense of nature, natural behavior, authentic feelings and individuality.

Personally, I believe that twenty-first century popular and political culture tends to unfairly demonize rationality and logical thinking at the expense of unthinking feelings and intuition.  I believe that our current world would only benefit from more rationality and logical thought. Of course, this book was not written by a person living in a twenty - first century westernized nation as I do. The Russia that Zamyatin was living in was horrendously oppressive and operated under the pretension of super rationality that was supposedly leading down a path ending in ultimate human happiness. Like many generally positive things, supposedly logical ideologies, when taken too far, and when forced upon people, can lead to not just bad, but monstrous results. Communist Russia was but one example. Thus, Zamyatin’s book serves as a warning that needs to be heeded, even by those of us who champion rationality.

In the end, the author seems to be illustrating what he believes to be a timeless and universal struggle between the forces of naturalism verses the forces of logic. Both sides win victories, and there are great triumphs as well as disheartening defeats. The book ends with D – 503 giving in to his conformist instincts and voluntarily betraying the rebellion as well as I – 330. For her part, I – 330 valiantly resists torture and gains a great moral victory, but she will presumably be executed. The rebels have seized control of large parts, but not all, of One – State. The civil war rages on with no clear victor apparent. 

A Few Words on Zamyatin's View of Christianity

Zamyatin makes another interesting ideological connection between the operation, ideology and oppressiveness of One - State, and the history and ideology surrounding Christianity. On several occasions both D – 503 and I – 330 identify Christianity as a precursor to One - State. Parallels are drawn between the two belief systems in the shared messianic messages, the end result of a final, perfect happiness for mankind, as well as progress and eventual happiness through suffering.

At one point, D – 503 is actually called before the Benefactor himself, and the conversation centers around One State’s execution of dissidents. The Benefactor also draws parallels to One State and Christianity,

“this same Christian, all merciful God, the one who slowly roasts in the fire of hell all who rebel against him – is he not to be called executioner? And those who the Christians burned at the stake, are they fewer in number then the Christians who were burnt?”

Others have connected Christian thought and Communist ideology. Recently, is his The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, Steven Pinker spells out many similarities, including those highlighted by Zamyatin. I believe that Communist thought systems have borrowed from Christian thought systems in ways that both authors have illustrated. However, in all fairness, Christian belief can in no way, except perhaps by its worst excesses, be blamed for the fact that Communist ideology was influenced by it.

In Conclusion

This novel is an extremely important and influential work. It has affected so much of what has come since. It is also an extremely enjoyable read, filled with interesting characters that engage in interesting relationships and thoughts. As usual, there is a lot more here than I have touched upon. I have only focused upon a few points that I found thought provoking. There are many more. This is a must read for anyone interested in the included themes, science fiction in general or in dystopian literature.


05/24/14 - I made some minor edits to the above in order to correct a certain error I originally made in regards to Russian history.

The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky: Some Underlying Nuts and Bolts

The following is based on the Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky translation of this novel.

The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky is, in part, an analysis and exploration of the author’s belief in the necessity of human suffering and doubt. Dostoevsky is practicing theology here. He is postulating what is required of a good Christian and a good person. In his worldview, one cannot just be born into happy circumstances, live a virtuous life and find God along the way. Instead, one must experience significant suffering and uncertainty on the path to salvation. Many permutations on this belief are expounded in the lives of various characters as well as through conversations and stories intertwined with the narrative.

Though it is a devil who says,

“suffering is life. Without suffering, what pleasure would there be in it— everything would turn into an endless prayer service: holy, but a bit dull.”,

the theme of pain and doubt being a necessary part of the universe permeates throughout the book.

Included in the narrative is a nuts and bolts philosophical explanation as to why these ills exist and why they are mandatory prerequisites to a truly pious life. There is a segment of the novel that is sometimes known as the Story of The Grand Inquisitor. This is an extraordinary piece of theological musing. Presented as an outline for a prospective poem by skeptic Ivan Karamazov, one of the brothers, it is “written” by Ivan as a critique of Christianity. However, it clearly encapsulates many of Dostoyevsky’s own views, as the attack upon Christianity is unmistakably hollow and ultimately fails. 

I must note that the piece does serve as scathing criticism of what Dostoyevsky sees as a terrible perversion of the Christian thought system, which in the author’s eyes is perpetuated by the Catholic Church and other human institutions.

An official of the Spanish Inquisition, the Grand Inquisitor makes his living by having the innocent burned alive. One day Christ returns to Earth. Though he does recognize Christ for who he is, the Grand Inquisitor has him arrested anyway. What follows is the Grand Inquisitor’s explanation to Christ of both his actions and the actions of the Catholic Church actions, which Dostoevsky identifies with the abdication of free will and of Satan himself.

The Grand Inquisitor focuses on the three temptations that the Devil offered Jesus. He sees these temptations as not only personal; they are actually Satan’s attempt at wrecking God’s plan for the universe. If Jesus had succumbed, free will would have perished. The Grand Inquisitor ironically believes that the rejection of these temptations was a mistake as he views free will undesirable. He advocates an all- powerful earthly church, which provides evidence of abundant miracles, provides material aplenty and is the source earthly power and authority. 

First, Christ refused the temptation of making bread from stones. The Grand Inquisitor, and clearly Dostoyevsky, sees this as God’s unwillingness to provide infinite material necessities to humankind.  If God provided so easily for these needs, then inevitably everyone would become a Christian and follow God in exchange for such security. Thus free will would not really exist.

Paradoxically, the Grand Inquisitor argues that God should provide material security and comfort to all in order to cement worship and religious piety. He says to Jesus, 

“and you rejected it in the name of freedom and heavenly bread. Now see what you did next. And all again in the name of freedom! I tell you that man has no more tormenting care than to find someone to whom he can hand over as quickly as possible that gift of freedom with which the miserable creature is born. But he alone can take over the freedom of men who appeases their conscience. With bread you were given an indisputable banner: give man bread and he will bow down to you”

At the Pinnacle of the temple, Christ refuses to hurl himself down and prove that the Angels will rescue him. The Grand inquisitor explains that a God that provides continual miracles is a God that everyone would follow as a matter of course. Though, once again, the Grand Inquisitor argues in favor of a world where miracles abound in order to convince the masses of God’s existence. Clearly, it is Dostoyevsky’s view that in such a universe, faith and, consequentially, free will would once again be subverted.

Jesus’s final temptation involves him refusing control over the kingdoms of the world. Here, the Grand Inquisitor explains that this is God’s rejection of temporal authority and, not surprisingly, sees this rejection as a blunder. Of course, in the philosophy espoused by the author, a government tied too closely to religion would force its subjects to be Christians, once again negating the concept of free will.

But the Grand Inquisitor argues to Jesus,

“Had you accepted that third counsel of the mighty spirit, you would have furnished all that man seeks on earth, that is: someone to bow down to, someone to take over his conscience, and a means for uniting everyone at last into a common, concordant, and incontestable anthill”

The Grand Inquisitor sees these rejections as flaws in God’s plan. If the Grand Inquisitor had his way, suffering would not exist, miracles would abound, obliterating skepticism, and the governments would enforce religious devotion. Free will and salvation would be unnecessary. 

Obviously, Dostoyevsky views the world’s ills (of which he includes religious skepticism) as necessary components in the concept of free will and the salvation of humanity. It ties in to the author’s message that suffering is also very crucial component in the individual’s successful search for God.

Though not a believer, I have two observations concerning Dostoyevsky’s theology. First it seems logically elegant. It presents a coherent explanation for human suffering and the lack of strong everyday evidence of an omnipotent God. Furthermore, this explanation is supported by at least some parts of the Gospels.

Second, though I would guess that Dostoyevsky would disagree with this conclusion, it seems more agenda centered as opposed to compassion centered. Though Dostoyevsky champions compassion and mentions God’s love at various points in the text of The Brothers Karamazov, this prerequisite of suffering built into the Universe defiantly puts God’s plan ahead of God’s desire to obviate human pain. In a world of torture, slavery, children murdered before their parents, etc., it becomes, at least for me, a much harder sell to say that God is all loving when the “plan” is more important than preventing these horrors.

I am very aware that Dostoevsky’s interpretation of Christian theology is not universally shared by Christians and is not even embraced by the majority. It is not remotely compatible with my own view of the universe. With that said, not only is it an ingeniously laid out theology, but it is a belief system that Dostoevsky has presented in a way that conveys sublime aesthetic value.

More to come on this work.

Some general commentary on this novel is here.