Religion & Hate (2)

Regarding the group discussion of Feb. 22 mentioned in the previous post: To the extent that there were different schools of thought or aspects of the question represented in this discussion, here is how the various opinions expressed cluster:

(1) Whatever there is to be said about ‘human nature’ or tendencies with or without religion towards hostility and dominance, religion specifically exacerbates this tendency or adds ingredients all its own.

• All religions make competing truth-claims.
  
• Religious truth claims are exclusive.
  
• Other belief systems are not only wrong, but constitute a threat.
  
• All orthodox (specifically Abrahamic) religions foster hatred of outgroups: there is a demonstrable correlation.
  
• In the distant past, there were local deities. Modern theism makes matters worse.
  
• Religion does not permit for testability of truth claims.
  
• Religion lends an absolute authority to prejudices.
  
• Religion is a map that bends reality to fit the map.

(2) Defense of religion or specific religions, and disputes over same occurred.

• Hate is only felt by individuals, not religions.
  
• Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. are counter-examples of religion’s hatefulness.
  
• Buddhism is nonviolent. Various claims & counter-claims:
• Buddhism is philosophy not religion.
  
• Japanese Buddhism fed into Japanese nationalism.
  
• There is definitive documentation of Buddhist atrocities.
  
• Tibetan Buddhism is not what the fans of the Dalai Lama make it out to be.
  
• The American version of Buddhism is not the same as Buddhism in Asia.
• The Axial Age saw the birth of more humane belief systems.
  
• St. Paul instituted a major shift to cosmopolitanism.
  
• Stalinism was a secular religion.
  
• There is a universal attraction to religion: religion tells people how to live.

(3) Claims about human nature were rampant, and questions over the uniqueness of religion as a causal factor.

• The fundamental question is one of in-groups vs. out-groups.
  
• Religion is not more hate-inducing than other things.
  
• There are various pretexts & rationalizations. (In the case of religion, there’s an appeal to an absolute authority—an argument used by some against religion.)
  
• Religion is mixed in with cultural & other rivalries.
• Group conflict may be a perennial phenomenon, preceding religion.
  
• Experiments show that any differentiating factor can serve as a catalyst for the delineation of in and out groups.
  
• There are other ideologies of contention, especially nationalism.
  
• Someone asserted that gender is primary.
  
• Someone introduced the observation that “America” is a god.
  
• Do all groups inspire hate? Are aggression and violence universals?
  
• Several factors were put forward as stimulating aggressive tendencies:
• Population density.
  
• Pecking order: leaders start wars.
  
• Testosterone: young males are the main culprits.
  
• Males & females engage in difference types of conflict.
  
• Unattached males are most likely to be prone to warfare.

(4) What is the basis of morality? Is or can there be a science of morality?

• Religion is not necessary to morality.
  
• Relativism should be opposed.
  
• There is a difference between subjective & objective reasoning.
  
• There is the issue of the testability of claims.
  
• There is a scientific basis to morality.
  
• Morality is not a science yet, but there is progress. More study is needed to render morality scientific.

(5) Miscellaneous points:

• The inconsistencies in religion are exploited to different ends.
  
• An example of twisted reasoning is gratitude toward God for ‘sparing’ selected individuals from disasters in which many others perish.
  
• Missionaries have by and large been awful people.
  
• How does one weigh the good and bad aspects associated with religion?
  
• Something was said about Freud or psychoanalysis, but I couldn’t make out what it was.

(6) Definitional & methodological questions:

• What is meant by hatred? Does hatred = violence = war?
  
• Is preference hatred?
  
• Who gets to define what a religion is?
  
• Can one factor out religion from everything else?
  
• Someone oriented toward social science is not satisfied with exclusively biological explanations for socially/historically determinant phenomena.

Religion & Hate (1)

In preparation for a discussion this evening (22 Feb) on religion and hate, I sketched the following bulletin points. In a subsequent post I will list the bullet points of what was actually discussed.


(1) I always have a problem with the question of religion & causality, since religion itself is an expression of social (& psychological) forces.

(2) I think we have to go behind religion & begin with its origins in magical thinking, and thus the connection with dependency, fear & violence, beginning with the experience of violence in nature.

(3) As much as I dislike René Girard as a Christian apologist, his views adumbrated in  Violence and the Sacred should be examined, particularly the notion of ritual sacrifice as a substitute for unregulated violence.

(4) I think religion has to be historically divided at least into 3 stages: (1) primitive magic & tribal religion; (5) religion in pre-modern class societies, wherein all the "great" religions took shape; (6) religion in the modern world, & the inability to digest modernity, in which magical thinking proliferates in both religious & secular ideologies.

(5) Without understanding the cultural reinforcements of hate, violence, oppression & paranoia, I don't see how we could understand religion's connection to hate, or in some cases, religion's rebellion against hate. There is even one religion or two which is mostly benign, the Bahai's, for example.

(6) And then there's the question of self-hate. Why do the victimized think they have done something wrong?  Richard Wright addressed this question symbolically in his brilliant 1942 story, "The Man Who Lived Underground."

(7) References given here address different historical stages of superstitious / magical / paranoiac thinking. Girard addresses primitive religion. Edmund D. Cohen's The Mind of the Bible-Believer addresses the genesis and psychological mechanisms of thought control behind Christianity.  Consult the LABELS on this blog for more on both of these authors. For an example of modern paranoiac thinking, consult reviews of Stephen Eric Bronner's A Rumor about the Jews: Antisemitism, Conspiracy, and the Protocols of Zion.

Jean Anouilh’s Becket

I've always preferred literary art with a philosophical dimension. Case in point: the play Becket by Jean Anouilh. I was introduced to the play via the film starring Peter O'Toole and Richard Burton, which I saw with a friend 35 years ago or more.

We were so impressed with this drama that some years later, my friend initiated a local theater production of it. It never panned out, but I can still remember the rehearsals. Though not an actor, I participated in reading rehearsals, playing an archbishop locked in a power struggle with the King. Tossing out veiled threats was, I admit, intoxicating, even in fantasy. Nothing says sadistic lust for power like the Catholic Church.

But I recall as well something far more important—my reason for the fascination with the play—the curious self-awareness of the Becket character and the ambiguity of his role-playing, culminating in a martyrdom predicated on assuming "the honor of God". Having worked behind the scenes in the theater (long ago and far away) and kibitzing incessantly for years, I got to observe actors, directors, and playwrights. It's instructive to see who really has awareness of the meaning of plays and who doesn't. I've found actors in plays are just as clueless as actors in real life. But some roles can't be adequately played without profound inquiry into meaning. This play presents such a challenge.

I've distilled out of the play some key quotes revealing this most intriguing character:

Jean Anouilh's Becket: Choice Quotes

There's not a line wasted in this play, so it's hard to extract the essentials. I vividly recall almost all these extracts from decades past. I'll just add a comment about the King, since I've not focused primarily on him in these extracts. The King constantly marvels at the intelligence and elusiveness of his close friend Becket, who understands the social order the King commands better than the King does himself. This king—as is characteristic of all rulers—is obtuse to certain underlying properties of the social system he commands. Becket, however, as a member of a conquered people who collaborates with his conquerors, exhibits an excruciating self-awareness and a deeper awareness of how all components of the social order fit together, thus enabling him to help the king rule with greater efficiency. The King is merely pragmatic, though thoroughly so, and like all pragmatists he can see through pretense but not through pragmatism. Hence it is child's play for the King to deflate the hypocritical pretenses of the Catholic Church, while Becket remains an enigma to him. The interplay between these two characters is key to the brilliance of the play.

If you want some entertainment that makes you think instead of settling for the usual pabulum, you'd do well to rent this film.