Is faith suitable as a subject for scientific research? No, research into why people believe is often seen as inappropriate criticism. Some writers such as the biologist Richard Dawkins promote atheism in this way. But this does not mean that all literature that approaches religion in this way is anti-religious. That is why it is also very interesting for believers to take note of these insights.
Remember blasphemy and fairy tales
There are blurred boundaries between religious research by outsiders, criticism of religion and offensive blasphemy. The difference is not even noticed by large groups of believers. Any form of criticism is blasphemous and therefore prohibited, as in most Islamic countries (but also in China). Indeed, books about faith by such outsiders are solid reading for people who cherish their faith. However, a decidedly anti-religious, atheist agenda is missing in the books of the American philosopher Daniel Dennett, the Swiss scholar of classical languages Walter Burkert and the French-born anthropologist Pascal Boyer. Burkert is especially fascinating because he draws on numerous stories and customs that arise from research into Mediterranean cultures from long before the time that Christianity and Islam existed. He shows how, according to him, ideas about sacrifice to God go back very far, and makes it plausible that this has to do with our distant past as animals. For example, he compares the sacrifice with a human being who falls prey to a predator and thus saves the rest of the group. He further points out that our brains are excellent for remembering a story that often has a fixed structure: the main character is chosen or assigned for a difficult assignment, he or she is persuaded not to do it, he or she does anyway, it sets off and has a hard time. He or she threatens to succumb but overcomes and at the end a reward awaits, often a long and happy life. We can remember this type of story more easily than a ten-digit telephone number. Our brains are definitely not computers because the opposite applies to them.
Religion keeps man on the right path
The anthropologist Boyer elaborates on this in particular. Our brains are not well suited for probability theory, biology and geography. This is learned with difficulty and most young people see this educational expense as unjustified attempts to ruin their youth. The (young) person cherishes images about what other people do and whether they can identify with it. They are concerned with their place in the group and are more likely to love idols of fame, power and happiness. Although in our technological society bad luck and luck have a lot to do with probability theory or the correct application of physical laws, average people see bad luck and good luck as actions of supernatural powers. Stories about these gods and spirits often have a structure that easily grabs the brain. Much easier than formulas describing gravity or a school story about the origins of species over the course of four billion years and that boring Englishman Charles Darwin. That’s not what we’re thinking about .
According to Boyer, as social animals we are inveterate conspiracy theorists and we would much rather know what other people think of us. Gossip magazines sell better than popular science magazines . What someone else thinks about us rarely comes as a direct and clear answer. That is why we are extremely sensitive to the idea that there are beings who do have this information: gods and spirits. These are fully informed authorities who can also tell us what is right and wrong. This is an important element in religion, it gives people morals. It provides an anchor point and a way to distinguish between good and evil. Boyer thinks this is a misconception. As humans, we do have morality in our genes, we have a need for morality and, according to him, religious ideas about good and evil parasitize on this much earlier predisposition.
Authority and belonging to a group
Religion plays an important role in initiation rituals for young adults, celebrating the entering into relationships such as marriage and dealing with death. Boyer is very extensive about this and can draw on a wealth of data that he has as an anthropologist who has studied peoples in Africa. It is very striking how important initiation rituals are. The entrance fee to belong to a certain group is often very high, for example by undergoing humiliation and sometimes forms of torture. Conversely, for many religions the exit price is also remarkably high. Within traditional Islam this is even the death penalty. According to Boyer, the violence of radical Muslims is not a political struggle for power. It is largely aimed at one’s own group, for which the exit price is made high through violence. Muslims themselves are many times more likely to be victims of this type of violence. Even the 2,974 deaths, however terrible, from September 11, 2001 in the US, represent a fraction of the more than 12,000 terrorist fatalities in 2011 alone, 71% of which were caused by Islamic terrorist movements in Africa, the Near East and South Asia , regions with predominantly Muslim countries, against 168 deaths from terror in countries in Europe (excluding Russia and Turkey). Fatalities from military actions are expressly excluded (NCTC report).
Philosopher Daniel Dennett also doubts whether morality and religion have much to do with each other. He advocates unbiased, scientific research. He discusses in detail a number of assumptions about the usefulness of religion as something that benefits everyone, believers and non-believers. It would make society as a whole more harmonious and provide greater social security. In this situation, no wise person would venture into atheist propaganda. Burkert in particular also points out the importance of stable authority relations thanks to religion. In all great civilizations there is a tradition that autocrats do not derive their power from themselves, but present themselves to their subjects as the executor of a higher power. A heavenly power that allows them as ruler to ensure peace and justice: by the grace of God, the heavenly mandate.
A religion with a future: somethingism
That’s why very few people emphatically call themselves atheists, like Richard Dawkins. However, if you ask a Christian whether he believes in Ganesa, a much-worshipped god of the Hindus, depicted with an elephant’s head, he will emphatically deny this. So for Hindus he is an atheist, an atheist. The Leiden philosopher Hermans Philipse often brings this up in discussions about religion. Many Christians and Muslims find the idea of an elephant-headed god ridiculous, but it is inappropriate to express this. In a multicultural society, people show respect for other religions. However, it is rather hypocritical to pretend that one has respect for every belief. That is why the expression ‘to respect someone’ is better here. There is respect for fellow human beings and the fact that faith is a very important value for human beings. So there is such a thing as faith in believing, the idea that it is important to believe, regardless of the content and the doctrine of the faith. Daniel Dennett devotes a long reflection to this belief in faith and points out its importance in preserving human dignity in decisions about life and death (organ donation, giving of last honors). Regardless, many people feel that there is something bigger and more powerful than us. The previous minister of education, the biologist Ronald Plasterk, called this belief somethingism. Walter Burkert is convinced that religion, and certainly this somethingism, is here to stay in the world. Man cannot be fooled into believing that only the echo of the Big Bang resounds from the universe. People keep looking for something that they think natural science will never find. However, Dennett believes that natural science is underestimated in this regard.