For the people raised in a religious household, dogmas and beliefs are as natural and familiar as a relative, and most never dare to question the rules or the practices, but most important, its usefulness. But are religious beliefs truly relevant in this day and age?
On October 7thIn 2023, Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel, causing the death of more than a thousand people. One of the bloodiest strikes in the conflict, and an act that started the War in Gaza, which is still fought to this day. But besides the thick images of the attack, what called my attention the most, were the reports of celebrations across Muslim countries and the reactions across the western hemisphere condemning the celebrations, classifying them as “barbaric” or “inhumane”, but also using this as justification for the escalation of violence from Israel to Palestinians.
And when you stop to think about it, it “makes sense” for most, that celebrating the misfortune of someone it's not well received, because it's frowned upon in our culture.
But what if you are within a culture with a moral code dictated entirely by its religion. A religion which the scriptures quotes:
Qur'an (3:151) – “We will strike terror into the disbeliever's hearts, because they attribute partners to God although He has sent no authority for this: their shelter will be the Fire. How miserable is the home of the evildoers.”
Or:
Qur'an (9:5) – "When the forbidden months are over, whenever you encounter the idolaters, kill them, seize them, kiss them, wait for them at every lookout post."
Then rejoicing might feel like the right path of action after following the word of God. Right?
You might be quick to point that the problem lies in the fact that the teachings in the Qur'an incite acts of violence, and that Islam is a violent religion. But also, in the Old Testament we can find passages like:
(Proverbs 11:10) “When it goes well with the righteous, the city rejoices, and when the wicked perish there are shouts of gladness.”
And it's true that the Bible includes other passages about the topic like:
(Proverbs 24:17) “Do not rejoice when your enemy falls and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles.”
But also, the Qur'an has similar passages condemning rejoicing the misfortune of others. Making the difference between the two more a case of how orthodox one religion is in comparison of the other. Or in other words, how strict they are in the textual adherence of the interpretation.
Contradictions in these holy books are nothing new, and I'm not bringing these to disqualify the teachings or the religions, but rather to ponder on the fact that both books were written in an entirely different time, with a different social, cultural and political landscape, and consider if we should still use them as a moral compass to guide ourselves in present time? Or if with the advancements of knowledge and technology, have you rendered religion obsolete?
The Role of Religion in the inception of civilization.
It's undeniable that religions had a crucial role in the formation of the ancient civilizations, for good or bad, or even maybe both. The relationship between the religious beliefs and the civilizations in which they proliferated, is so intrinsic, that it's difficult to tell them apart. And determine if the formation of a civilization was the consequence of the gathering of primitive humans united by the same religious beliefs, probably a deity embodying a natural phenomenon. And by doing this, providing the craved answers to the enigmas their primitive minds could not decipher.
Recently with the advent of Neurotheology, neurotheologians argue that the structure and function of the human brain predisposes us to believe in God, suggesting that “the limbic system is endowed with 'God neurons' and 'God neurotransmitters'.”
Neurotheologians point that MRI scans show changes in the limbic structures like hypothalamus, amygdala, and hippocampus as research subjects engage in religious meditation. The rationale being that if thinking about God changes the way the brain works, there must be some inherent neural imperative to believe in God in the first place.
But this contrast with the evolutionary perspective, in which shared beliefs increased the cohesion within groups, becoming and advantage and increasing the likelihood of survival. In this case, considering that religion emerged as a survival mechanism, in similar way that the emotion of “loneliness” is produced by our brains as a protection mechanism, to encourage the individual to live in group to ensure survival in a hostile environment.
But regardless of how it came to be, shared primitive religious beliefs offered a moral construct for the proto civilizations. Establishing a frame of reference for accepted behaviors and generating tabus that would permeate the cultures.
Religious beliefs in the Palaeolithic, even archaic and rudimentary, provided basis for alignment to the social relationships, and a semblance of order. And as it's described in the Old Testament, the first set of laws or commandments, were not civic but of religious nature, with government and power conferred by religious beliefs. And from that point, until the flourishing of human thought in Greece, with the emergence of philosophy, politics and science, and through the Roman empire, a subtle distinction between the laws of men and the laws of God became more evident. With the civil laws focusing on governing human relationships in society, government became less and less dependent on “divine intervention” despite still being subjected to the whims of an emperor.
Christianity, the fall of Rome during barbaric invasions, and the Dark Ages that followed, delayed any prospect to separate religion from state for centuries, until modern times.
However, even today, in the most developed and advanced countries, religion still plays a major role in collective decision making, having religious beliefs still embedded in constitutions, country leaders still oathing with holy books, or using religious beliefs to justify public policies in social debates like abortion.
So, the question persists. Do we, in this day and age, still need religious beliefs to govern the complex human interactions?
It's religion the unique moral compass?
As I mentioned, our ancestors attributed to a divinity a natural phenomenon they could not explain and by doing so, they made sense of the world they lived in. With their more primitive psyches, it was comforting and less stressful, to satiate the lack of knowledge even with fallacies. So, these beliefs became “crutches” in the development of humanity.
However, as humanity accrued knowledge in the cradle of civilization in Greece, Philosophy and science changed the way we see the world. Through philosophy, humans had the ability to ponder about morality, not from a religious perspective, but rather more from a humanistic perspective, despite still considering divine intervention on top as an ultimate source of causality. But this didn't prevent philosophy to provide a more comprehensive moral compass than religions, even prior to the advent of Christianity.
From its classical inception, Philosophy would be transformed by multiple currents through the centuries, passing from rationalism and empiricism, to idealism, and finally into existentialism, before Friedrich Nietzsche could claim that “God is Dead”, in reference to the decline of religion, in this case Christianity, as the accepted moral framework. Considering that such beliefs could not provide the moral guidance needed for modern times.
However, given its multifaceted nature of views and perspectives, Philosophy rarely provides simple answers or consensus, and demands higher requirements of knowledge than religion, preventing it from a widespread adoption by the masses. Considering that it's mentally easier to abdicate the control of our life and destiny to a deity than taking the responsibility of finding our purpose in our quest for meaning in this life.
On the other hand, collectively, we have built our codes of conduct, norms and statutes, improving from Roman Law, to adapt to modern times, mostly on “trial and error” basis, as societies became more culturally conscious about the role of humans living in society. With the laws becoming more humanistic after the separation of Church and State, even when not entirely devoid of its religious heritage, laws have become the objective way to govern the most common human interactions.
But having law governing human interactions, and philosophy on the other end, trying to provide a solution to ethical dilemmas, the question is, if there is a middle ground where everything can converge?
Is science the middle ground?
As part of the business acumen, for conflict resolution, one of the strategies is to find a common ground for both parties, and from there, to reach agreements that can be acceptable by both.
In the same way that mathematics is universal, science can be seen like the common ground in which all parties, regardless of country, culture, ethnicity or religious beliefs, can find agreement, when done right.
It's true that science doesn't have all the answers, and not all sciences are precise or perfect, but humanity has reached a knowledge maturity to ensure that safest bet, in most areas, can be achieved following the scientific method.
It's kind of surprising than in this day and age of AI, decision making in governments still considers religious and cultural beliefs. And I'm not saying this to ban religious perspectives, but to ensure that the creation and implementation of public policies remains secular as means to represent everyone, not only left or right, but the whole spectrum.
However, this might not be an easy task, considering that in the past, scientists and many specialists have been coaxed to deviate from the search of truth—which is science's prime directive—, to push political, economic or social agendas to favor the interests of a few. And this might be a good topic of discussion for another video but for now, let's agree that despite the challenges to implement science-based decision making in more aspects of our society, I believe it's still our safest bet as civilization. Because history has taught us, that knowledge is the tool that can truly empower us as species.
Conclusion.
Religious doctrines are a product of its time. Although some teachings can be timeless truths, paraphrasing millennium-old books to pass judgment to the entirely different reality we live today, can be more harming than good.
Religion had a role in our early civilizations, but as humanity, we have learned all its teachings across history. Humanity is now mature enough to use its intellect developed and knowledge accrued during thousands or years, to tell good from wrong without the need of a deity.
Religion was the crutches we used as humanity to help us walk, but now, we don't need them anymore. The crutches have become a burden we have to carry, and what is worse, one that we refuse to let go.
We cling to religion. Even though it is diving us. It makes us different. Religion segments us as species as if the borders and languages were not divisions enough.
Coming back to the topic about the war in Gaza I mentioned at the start of this video.
It's all about empathy. Or the lack of empathy in this case.
Empathy not only towards the suffering of others, but also for the ignorance of others.
Because if you had been born within one of those highly orthodox religions, would you know better?
It's easy to speak from our place of freedom and religious relaxation, demanding a group of people to renounce their religious beliefs to solve an armed conflict, when we refuse to renounce ours.
And that's the reason why I renounced Catholicism and have dedicated my time to study multiple religions and cultures since then. To eliminate the religious barrier. To be able to find my fellow humans in the middle ground. And to be able to say to them: if I was capable of putting aside the beliefs I was indoctrinated since birth in pursuit of truth, you can too.
M. Ch. Landa
