Читаем Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon полностью

Today, billions of people pray for peace, and I wouldn’t be surprised if most of them believe with all their hearts that the best path to follow to peace throughout the world is a path that runs through their particular religious institution, whether it is Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or any of hundreds of other systems of religion. Indeed, many people think that the best hope for humankind is that we can bring together all of the religions of the world in a mutually respectful conversation and ultimate agreement on how to treat one another. They may be right, but they don’t know. The fervor of their belief is no substitute for good hard evidence, and the evidence in favor of this beautiful hope is hardly overwhelming. In fact, it is not persuasive at all, since just as many people, apparently, sincerely believe that world peace is less important, in both the short run and the long, than the global triumph of their particular religion over its competition. Some see religion as the best hope for peace, a lifeboat we dare not rock lest we overturn it and all of us perish, and others see religious self-identification as the main source of conflict and violence in the world, and believe just as fervently that religious conviction is a terrible substitute for calm, informed reasoning. Good intentions pave both roads.

Who is right? I don’t know. Neither do the billions of people with their passionate religious convictions. Neither do those atheists who are sure the world would be a much better place if all religion went extinct. There is an asymmetry: atheists in general welcome the most intensive and objective examination of their views, practices, and reasons. (In fact, their incessant demand for self-examination can become quite tedious.) The religious, in contrast, often bristle at the impertinence, the lack of respect, the sacrilege, implied by anybody who wants to investigate their views. I respectfully demur: there is indeed an ancient tradition to which they are appealing here, but it is mistaken and should not be permitted to continue. This spell must be broken, and broken now. Those who are religious and believe religion to be the best hope of humankind cannot reasonably expect those of us who are skeptical to refrain from expressing our doubts if they themselves are unwilling to put their convictions under the microscope. If they are right—especially if they are obviously right, on further reflection—we skeptics will not only concede this but enthusiastically join the cause. We want what they (mostly) say they want: a world at peace, with as little suffering as we can manage, with freedom and justice and well-being and meaning for all. If the case for their path cannot be made, this is something that they themselves should want to know. It is as simple as that. They claim the moral high ground; maybe they deserve it and maybe they don’t. Let’s find out.

4 Peering into the abyss

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.

—Anonymous

Â

The spell that I say must be broken is the taboo against a forthright, scientific, no-holds-barred investigation of religion as one natural phenomenon among many. But certainly one of the most pressing and plausible reasons for resisting this claim is the fear that if that spell is broken—if religion is put under the bright lights and the microscope—there is a serious risk of breaking a different and much more important spell: the life-enriching enchantment of religion itself. If interference caused by scientific investigation somehow disabled people, rendering them incapable of states of mind that are the springboards for religious experience or religious conviction, this could be a terrible calamity. You can only lose your virginity once, and some are afraid that imposing too much knowledge on some topics could rob people of their innocence, crippling their hearts in the guise of expanding their minds. To see the problem, one has only to reflect on the recent global onslaught of secular Western technology and culture, sweeping hundreds of languages and cultures to extinction in a few generations. Couldn’t the same thing happen to your religion? Shouldn’t we leave well enough alone, just in case? What arrogant nonsense, others will scoff. The Word of God is invulnerable to the puny forays of meddling scientists. The presumption that curious infidels need tiptoe around to avoid disturbing the faithful is laughable, they say. But in that case, there would be no harm in looking, would there? And we might learn something important.

Перейти на страницу:

Похожие книги

Сочинения
Сочинения

Иммануил Кант – самый влиятельный философ Европы, создатель грандиозной метафизической системы, основоположник немецкой классической философии.Книга содержит три фундаментальные работы Канта, затрагивающие философскую, эстетическую и нравственную проблематику.В «Критике способности суждения» Кант разрабатывает вопросы, посвященные сущности искусства, исследует темы прекрасного и возвышенного, изучает феномен творческой деятельности.«Критика чистого разума» является основополагающей работой Канта, ставшей поворотным событием в истории философской мысли.Труд «Основы метафизики нравственности» включает исследование, посвященное основным вопросам этики.Знакомство с наследием Канта является общеобязательным для людей, осваивающих гуманитарные, обществоведческие и технические специальности.

Иммануил Кант

Философия / Проза / Классическая проза ХIX века / Русская классическая проза / Прочая справочная литература / Образование и наука / Словари и Энциклопедии
1. Объективная диалектика.
1. Объективная диалектика.

МатериалистическаяДИАЛЕКТИКАв пяти томахПод общей редакцией Ф. В. Константинова, В. Г. МараховаЧлены редколлегии:Ф. Ф. Вяккерев, В. Г. Иванов, М. Я. Корнеев, В. П. Петленко, Н. В. Пилипенко, Д. И. Попов, В. П. Рожин, А. А. Федосеев, Б. А. Чагин, В. В. ШелягОбъективная диалектикатом 1Ответственный редактор тома Ф. Ф. ВяккеревРедакторы введения и первой части В. П. Бранский, В. В. ИльинРедакторы второй части Ф. Ф. Вяккерев, Б. В. АхлибининскийМОСКВА «МЫСЛЬ» 1981РЕДАКЦИИ ФИЛОСОФСКОЙ ЛИТЕРАТУРЫКнига написана авторским коллективом:предисловие — Ф. В. Константиновым, В. Г. Мараховым; введение: § 1, 3, 5 — В. П. Бранским; § 2 — В. П. Бранским, В. В. Ильиным, А. С. Карминым; § 4 — В. П. Бранским, В. В. Ильиным, А. С. Карминым; § 6 — В. П. Бранским, Г. М. Елфимовым; глава I: § 1 — В. В. Ильиным; § 2 — А. С. Карминым, В. И. Свидерским; глава II — В. П. Бранским; г л а в а III: § 1 — В. В. Ильиным; § 2 — С. Ш. Авалиани, Б. Т. Алексеевым, А. М. Мостепаненко, В. И. Свидерским; глава IV: § 1 — В. В. Ильиным, И. 3. Налетовым; § 2 — В. В. Ильиным; § 3 — В. П. Бранским, В. В. Ильиным; § 4 — В. П. Бранским, В. В. Ильиным, Л. П. Шарыпиным; глава V: § 1 — Б. В. Ахлибининским, Ф. Ф. Вяккеревым; § 2 — А. С. Мамзиным, В. П. Рожиным; § 3 — Э. И. Колчинским; глава VI: § 1, 2, 4 — Б. В. Ахлибининским; § 3 — А. А. Корольковым; глава VII: § 1 — Ф. Ф. Вяккеревым; § 2 — Ф. Ф. Вяккеревым; В. Г. Мараховым; § 3 — Ф. Ф. Вяккеревым, Л. Н. Ляховой, В. А. Кайдаловым; глава VIII: § 1 — Ю. А. Хариным; § 2, 3, 4 — Р. В. Жердевым, А. М. Миклиным.

Александр Аркадьевич Корольков , Арнольд Михайлович Миклин , Виктор Васильевич Ильин , Фёдор Фёдорович Вяккерев , Юрий Андреевич Харин

Философия