On religion and on being open-minded

A tourist attraction - or a place of worship.

One of the criticisms you’ll often here about “religious people” or of “religion” is that these are people that are not very open minded. It’s funny, in a way, to see how religion has become the new Satan, this thing to be despised, to be frowned upon, to be avoided. The other reasons you’ll here as to why religion is the devil is it brainwashes people, its leaders often abuse their power for financial and/or sexual gains, that members are forced into a particular lifestyle, and that religion is the cause of war. The same could be said of almost any social group in this world: a race, a linguistic group, a nation of people, a socioeconomic group, etc. What is the difference? That religious groups are often seen as the perpetrator of all sorts of evils; a social group with almost no positive value to the greater humanity.

But let me come back to the point of how people of religious groups are perceived as not being open-minded, often by people who claim to be open-minded themselves. Firstly, allow me to define a little further what a religious group is. Religion can be thought of a system of belief as to certain ‘spirituality-related topics’ such as the afterlife, the purpose of life, etc. As an extension of this belief system is a system of governance and justice. Often a particular religious denomination has particular rules of what is deemed right and just behaviour and also criteria for things that are considered wrong. Of course, the particulars of each denomination’s spiritual belief and justice systems are different. For example one group of people may believe God has one or another name, another may belief that there are certain foods which must not be eaten, etc. Now, why do people even join religions? Because they either identify with a particular religion’s beliefs (and don’t we all like to gather with like-minded people), or they find a particular religion’s creeds appealing (and usually strive to approximate their behaviour to that which is the groups norm).

The question asked by so many “open-minded” people is not why do people join religions, however, but rather, why are people in religions when: 1) differences in religion beliefs have led to many wars, 2) when science has “disproven” creationism, 3) when religious peoples are hypocrites who don’t practice what they teach (because we all know one or another dissident from his belief), etc. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with any of these questions, except that they are large generalizations of a group of people that are extended to the individuals who belong to this group as if they are and must be true of each and every member. This is called a stereotype. This leads to prejudice and discrimination. This leads to the concept of ‘I am right, and you are wrong’, which is the first step towards the ‘I am right and you are wrong, therefore I have a right to punish you’. This is also what gets wars started. I regret to say that this is not a statement an open-minded person would say.

But a lot, many, perhaps the majority, of wars have been fought between groups of different religions. This is a historic fact, no doubt. But is it really “religion” that is the evil factor here? You could say that, but would you also dare to say that all members of any social group are responsible for the actions of some of its members? Recently you would have heard of extremists in certain religious groups being responsible for armed attacks on members of other groups. There are extremists in every social group. There are people in any group that will convince themselves that their duty is not only to be in the right but to punish others who they believe are in the wrong. Most commonly the fundamental spiritual beliefs of the group to which these extremists belong have mandates against harm to others, etc. What am I trying to get at? Yes, many wars have been fought by people over differences in religious ideologies; but no, that doesn’t make “religion” the culprit. It reminds me of an argument that was common in the early 1980s when AIDS was first documented. Yes, homosexual men were most often affected, but it didn’t mean that “homosexuality” per se was responsible for the disease. Certain beliefs and actions put us at greater risk of being involved in a negative thing (e.g. war or disease), but each individual is only “good” or “bad” based on their individual actions not those of a correlation with the group to which one belongs.

Another reason religion is often frowned upon by the non-religious is because it is perceived to be a belief system formulated by desperate, “empty” people who want to find reason to justify their existence. Or they believe it is outdated as science or some other philosophy has already answered the questions religion was previously thought to answer. There is no scientific evidence to particular religious beliefs or creationism, they’ll tell you. Now, religious people may believe that their purpose on Earth is to please some invisible god and do things so as to please him because gaining his favour will lead to further good things in this lifetime and in the afterlife. What do the rest of us believe is the purpose of human existence? Aren’t they also arbitrary things like creating a better environment for our descendants, to protect or promote one some randomly chosen cause that appeals to us, to enjoy pleasurable things and activities, etc. etc. You could just as easily say we are all empty people killing time until the day of our deaths and a return to the carbon cycle as a corpse. That is true also, and what we choose to do or believe to kill this time should not be up for judgement by anyone else as no-one is born knowing the “true” purpose of life, as if it was one definite thing. Could time be better spent saving endangered animal species than prayer? Maybe, depending on the belief system you elect. You could just as readily believe that movements to protect animal species during this lifetime are redundant, but that certain religious practices will lead you to an eternal wordly kingdom where there will be an abundance of animals that will exist in harmony with all other creatures. They are both equally valid, and albeit arbitrary, ideologies about human life.

I, despite my hatred of labels, will readily identify (and label myself) as Christian. This disclosure has led me to meet a lot of people who express to me their belief that religion is wrong and religious people are not open-minded enough…  Now isn’t this a massive generalization? Sounds not very open-minded to me, but I could be wrong.  I think a key to remaining open-minded is to admit that there is even a minuscule possibility that we are wrong, that the “others” may be right, or maybe even that there is no right or wrong answer.