Wente’s argument (When in doubt…), in the Dec. 19/09 Globe & Mail, for religion as an instinct, is a common device of the god-believers who grab at even the most flaccid straws when all real possibilities of survival are extinct. First of all, a contemporary child, not offered irrational explanations for the universe, and all that is in it, would not come to unscientific conclusions; irrational ideas are taught. Since the enlightenment, humans have the encouragement and opportunity to seek material explanations for phenomena. Since the more they understand, the more they realize how much more there is to be known, their real instinct is that of intellectual curiosity – not fairy tale answers.
Religionists have struggled since then to maintain the manipulative possibilities of belief without evidence. Whether true believers or charlatans, it is in their interest to defend the foolishness of irrational thought. Wente’s objectives, while having no apparent material basis, are still suspect because of her use of sophistry to support the baseless claim that we are “hard-wired for faith”.
Wente’s sophistry is in the form of the claims she makes to prove a kind of innate witlessness in all human beings. Only the most soft-headed of us will fail to notice the exchange of form for content as she gives example after example of the contrived comforts of everyday religious practices. Let’s look at them in order.
First there is that tried and true instrument of the agenda-laden writer, a realistic personal anecdote that we can all relate to in a minute. She lost her faith, yep! Then she reads Bertrand Russell (and Ayn Rand!), and gosh, if she didn’t realize that religion was senseless and the cause of endless misery in the world. Well, now we know we’re in the company of a fellow rationalist, our guard is down, and we’re going to be told it as it is. And how is it? Well, we all like to get together with people we like, and hang around the fire getting drunk and not have anything to do tomorrow. Church music can be divorced from its mindless motivations and enjoyed abstractly, and we can even see how, while it doesn’t turn our crank, Wente is thrilled by the rituals of religion – even the Muslim call to prayer, Jewish seders and that old chestnut; the Christmas Eve church – going.
One rationale for her argument is that she loves Renaissance art, and of course Renaissance art is loaded with religious imagery. Disregarding the historical reason for this, Wente tells us that we cannot dismiss the roots of this art as primitive superstition. Why not? That’s obviously what it is! But assuming our tacit acceptance, she barges on to declare that she was deeply moved by churches, synagogues and Mosques – as though that were relevant.
The urging of religious practice for non-believers continues with another heartwarming anecdote involving a “little picture-postcard church” in the country, where, after a Saturday Evening Post cover experience, she impulsively kneeled for communion, taking the wine and wafer. To keep the reader on side, we are assured that she “didn’t believe a word of it.” But that doesn’t matter, because she was so affected that she “could hardly speak.” This is where we find that it’s okay to feel uneasy about calling ourselves atheists – after all, we’ve agreed so far, so let’s opt for the fence-sitting “reluctant non-believer”. The only meaningful feature of this bit of ambiguity is that it is not atheism. And, of course, that is the point – anything but atheism.
Now that we’re not atheists any more, but still not adhering to the inanity of blind faith, we can go ahead and enjoy the abstracted pleasures of religious ritual and practice. The balance of Wente’s article consists of trying to associate responsible social behavior with religious dictates. Even civilization is made accountable to religious belief. Humanity would be an untamed social-Darwinesque jungle were it not for religion dictating our behaviour. Quoting Nicholas Wade’s The Faith Instinct, Wente tells us that religion’s role is to bind us together, making us “extraordinarily co-operative.” She doesn’t seem to notice the internecine slaughter of Muslim groups divided over whom is the real descendant of Mohammed, or Sikhs fighting one another over furniture in their places of worship. These conflicts are caused by religion, and much more killing has gone on in the name of religion against other faiths as well as non-believers.
Wente also argues that ignorance is bliss, when she makes the dubious claim that the religious are “happier, healthier and more emotionally secure than the rest of us” – underlining Marx’ famous quote about religion as an opiate. If fact, Wente’s claims can be summed up as “religion makes us feel good”. The singular quality that distinguishes us from other life forms is rational intelligence, and our happiness originates in the fulfillment of our humanity, not in the abstracted creature comforts that satisfy a cat. Wente’s argument is cited in Dawkins as “believing in belief” – the view that justifies manipulation against intelligence, and shows a disbelief in the capacity of humanity to function rationally on its own volition. It is not only a denial of the human condition but, more importantly, a hypocritical and sophistic attempt to reinforce religion through non-religious practice of religious ritual.
