A Matter of Faith

Religion has dominated the headlines recently, and I’m going to try to avoid the story, which I’m sure we are all tired of hearing about (I thought we left book burning in the 1930’s). I’m going to try to discuss religion as objectively as possible.


The belief in a god requires faith. To be a person of faith, by definition, requires a suspension of critical thinking. People don’t question the details of their chosen god. Faith requires acceptance of the basic premise. Religious faith brings several perceived benefits. As far as I can tell, the greatest benefit is a source of comfort. The higher power is deemed to love believers and offer some level of protection, and of course belief in an afterlife is a great source of comfort when dealing with loss or facing one’s mortality. On the flipside, the existence of a demonic force is used to explain the ‘evil’ actions of people. In essence, religion provides explanations for the unanswered questions of life, and alternatives to the harsh realities.

I am more familiar with Christianity than other religions, and so I have a basic understanding of the Bible. I can’t help but notice that many people have differing interpretations of the messages conveyed in the Bible. I’m sure that some of the more dedicated scholars could quote a passage to lend weight to almost any opinion. Some branches of Christianity seem to be divided into Old Testament and New Testament schools of thought. The former is often described as “fire and brimstone”, and is regarded as the harsher of the two. However, even with my minimal schooling on the subject, I do recall that one clearly demands that one should not kill, steal or worship false idols, while the other describes how the main character “turns the other cheek” in the face of hostility and has a particular dislike for money lenders. It seems to me that followers can be quite selective in their reading and indeed their definition of what it means to be a Christian.

To paraphrase a favorite character of mine, we want to believe. We want to have a convenient explanation for life’s hardest questions. Is it possible that the thirst for comfort and simplistic answers is open to abuse? If we want to believe, for example that our leaders do no wrong, and someone in authority makes a fitting statement, are we more likely to accept that without questioning? If a person has believed in a particular religion for his whole life, and someone questions the existence of a god by statements based on critical thinking, that person faces an attack on his or her whole belief system. It doesn’t matter if it makes sense, because everything he or she has believed in and used to makes sense of the world (and don’t forget that convenient comfort) would mean nothing if it was accepted as truth. Denial is a powerful force, and we see it all the time in politics. If the truth is too awful, we can simply tell ourselves that it isn’t true.

Where would we be without religion? What would a world of godless heathens do with themselves? I’m not sure of the answer to that. Clearly religion has been the basis for a great deal of slaughter over the centuries, but humans always seem to find a difference to divide them and give rise to hatred. I believe that a truly civilized society would evolve past such irrational hatred. Currently, we are predisposed to it, and politicians love how easily we are manipulated. The Stanford Prison Experiment and Stanley Milgram’s work demonstrates our capacity to carry out orders and cause suffering. We like to be controlled, especially when the controller allows us to indulge our dark side.

What if we could accept our presence here is fleeting. How many suicides would be prevented if we all knew that (to quote another character) “there ain’t no coming back”. There would be good and bad people, regardless of religion. I think that we don’t give ourselves much credit if we need a religion to form a moral code and know right from wrong. Without easy answers we would be forced to ponder those large, difficult questions, and maybe we wouldn’t be so (okay, I’ll say it) gullible when our leaders talk to us. Maybe we’d have one less excuse to fight, too.

Social Psychology and You

Here is a very interesting film on the basics of social psychology - how groups and leaders can affect, control and manipulate followers (you). It includes the famous Stanford Prison Experiment:



That video ties in quite well with The Shock Doctrine, a short film which explores very similar themese with an emphasis on control.



Finally, I'd like to add a longer documentary which I think will have more of an impact after watching the first two videos in today's blog. Entitled "New American Century" (yes, referring to the PNAC), it attempts to cover the events of the last few years and various points in US history, and is at times reminiscent of other great documentaries such as Iraq for Sale and Why We Fight, and even some of Adam Curtis' work.