Earlier this week, Cee Lo Green ruffled some feathers with his rendition of John Lennon’s “Imagine” on NBC’s New Year’s Eve with Carson Daly. He offended Beatles fans and atheists alike by changing the last line of the following verse:
Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
His replacement? “And all religion’s true.”
Personally, I don’t much care for the Beatles, so while I think the change was a bit dumb I’m not too bothered by it. On a deeper level, though, it got me thinking about what a world without religion would really be like.
Greta Christina blogged a few weeks ago about the goals of the atheist movement. She points out that a lot of the infighting seems to stem from a conflict of goals, and I think on this point she’s mostly right. She says:
Many of us don’t just want a world where believers and atheists get along and let each other practice their religion or lack thereof in peace. Many of us want a world where there’s no religion.
I wouldn’t say I’d be happy with a world where everyone did as they pleased in peace, because I’m not happy to simply say “you do you” to the fundamentalists who compare homosexuality to child molestation or bestiality. But a world where atheists and the religious can get along, because they have no legitimate complaints to raise towards the other, would I think be a better goal to strive toward. The more liberal brands of Abrahamic faiths, as well as some Eastern religions seem like they can fit in this picture just fine, and I think the interfaith work done by the Interfaith Youth Core and my buddy Chris Stedman is making good strides in that direction (though Greta may disagree).
It’s the second goal, though, that bothers me. Chris, responding to Greta in the Huffington Post, writes:
I do not think the termination of religion is an achievable goal, and I have no reason to believe it would eliminate dogmatism and totalitarianism, which I believe are the central causes of religious (and nonreligious) conflict.
And I think this is more or less spot on. Greta was off in her post a bit, I think, because I’m not so sure the fundamental disagreement is over our goals. It seems to me like the issue here is how we view religion: is it the problem, or just another institution that can, but doesn’t necessarily, reflect dogmatism and totalitarianism—the real problem? I think if you mapped those who answered the former against the latter, you’d see exactly the two conflicting sides in the atheist community (though there do seem to be some anomalies, like my co-blogger, Chelsea Link, who wrote a great and nuanced post just recently about evangelical atheists being involved in interfaith work).
So I’m imagining no religion. I’m imagining snapping my fingers and having religion disappear, and I’m not sure what I’m seeing is a better place. Maybe this is the conversation we should be having: is a world without religion, all else equal, a better world to live in? And if not, is eliminating it really a proper focus for us to have?
I’m not so sure it is.
I’ve expanded on this post on NonProphet Status. Check it out!
I feel like there are a lack of data for meaningful conclusion, honestly. You say that you’re imagining a world without religion, but how can you know (or anyone else who prognosticates such things, for that matter) that your imagination is, in fact, correct?
Even if my imagination wasn’t correct, I was primarily inviting readers to imagine the same themselves and see what they thought. If you don’t think the world would be better off without religion, why make it a priority or goal? It seems that if we’re in a position without data either way, we shouldn’t be making goals to eliminate something.
But I’m not convinced that there isn’t enough data to support that eliminating religion is either inadvisable or not enough on its own, and I hope to write a bit about some of it in the coming weeks. I don’t think it was my aim to necessarily make that factual claim, now though.
I’m always happy to get your input, though. Thanks!
“It seems that if we’re in a position without data either way, we shouldn’t be making goals to eliminate something.”
That depends. It’s conceivable that someone could believe that, while eliminating religion _might_ not actually make the world any better, it couldn’t _possibly_ make the world any worse, and might actually make the world a better place. Given that set of beliefs, it’s entirely understandable why one might start striving to eliminate religion. (Note: I am not claiming that there is necessarily enough evidence to warrant this set of beliefs. I look forward to seeing your future posts on this question.