Thinking about religion, a la Robert Wright

At http://www.salon.com/env/atoms_eden/2009/06/24/evolution_of_god/print.html, you can read an interview with the author, Robert Wright. Wright, a self-confessed materialist, has written a new book entitled The Evolution of God. As the interviewer writes, there is something to offend everyone in the book. Here is a snippet from the interview to give you something to think about.

Do you think religions share certain core principles?
Not many. People in the modern world, certainly in America, think of religion as being largely about prescribing moral behavior. But religion wasn't originally about that at all. To judge by hunter-gatherer religions, religion was not fundamentally about morality before the invention of agriculture. It was trying to figure out why bad things happen and increasing the frequency with which good things happen. Why do you sometimes get earthquakes, storms, disease and get slaughtered? But then sometimes you get nice weather, abundant game and you get to do the slaughtering. Those were the religious questions in the beginning.
And bad things happened because the gods were against you or certain spirits had it out for you?
Yes, you had done something to offend a god or spirit. However, it was not originally a moral lapse. That's an idea you see as societies get more complex. When you have a small group of hunter-gatherers, a robust moral system is not a big challenge. Everyone knows everybody, so it's hard to conceal anything you steal. If you mess with somebody too much, there will be payback. Moral regulation is not a big problem in a simple society. But as society got more complex with the invention of agriculture and writing, morality did become a challenge. Religion filled that gap.
But it's easier to explain why bad things happen in these older religions. You can attribute it to an angry spirit. It's harder to explain evil if there's an all-powerful, all-loving God.
The problem of evil is a product of modern religion. If you believe in an omnipotent and infinitely good God, then evil is a problem. If God is really good -- and can do anything He or She wants -- why do innocent people suffer? If you've got a religion in which the gods are not especially good in the first place, or they're not omnipotent, then evil is not a problem.

What do you think?

Is this the way to go?

In the May/June issue of Moment magazine, (the piece to be found at: http://www.momentmag.com/Exclusive/2009/2009-06/200906-Ask_Rabbis.html) various Jewish leaders respond to the question of “How should Jews treat their Arab neighbors?”

A wide spectrum of such leaders responded. The most provocative answer is this one from a leader in the Chabad movement.

Chabad
I don’t believe in western morality, i.e. don’t kill civilians or children, don’t destroy holy sites, don’t fight during holiday seasons, don’t bomb cemeteries, don’t shoot until they shoot first because it is immoral.

The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle).

The first Israeli prime minister who declares that he will follow the Old Testament will finally bring peace to the Middle East. First, the Arabs will stop using children as shields. Second, they will stop taking hostages knowing that we will not be intimidated. Third, with their holy sites destroyed, they will stop believing that G-d is on their side. Result: no civilian casualties, no children in the line of fire, no false sense of righteousness, in fact, no war.

Zero tolerance for stone throwing, for rockets, for kidnapping will mean that the state has achieved sovereignty. Living by Torah values will make us a light unto the nations who suffer defeat because of a disastrous morality of human invention.
Rabbi Manis Friedman
Bais Chana Institute of Jewish Studies
St. Paul, MN

Do you agree that this is the way to peace in the Middle East? Is this the way “righteous” people should think, regardless of which side of the Middle East conflict that person is on? How is this any different from the position taken by extremists of any religion against their “enemies?”

Another One Bites The Dust

The Southern Baptist Convention is holding meetings in Louisville, Kentucky this week. Their theme is "Love Loud: Actions Speak Louder Than Words."

One of the first actions taken was to "boot out" the Broadway Baptist Church of Ft. Worth Texas, who were suspected of not following the will of the Convention in regard to homosexuality. From the Associated Baptist Press story:
The SBC changed its constitution in 1993 to exclude churches that are welcoming and affirming of gays. Previously the amendment was interpreted to apply only to churches that take some formal action, like ordaining or licensing a gay minister or conducting a ceremony to bless a same-sex union, but in 2006 an SBC-affiliated state convention with a similar policy said a church could be expelled for simply being perceived as affirming homosexual behavior.

So, regardless of what a church actually does or actually says about homosexuality, if it is perceived by someone else as affirming homosexual behavior, it can be considered ecclesiam non grata and excluded. Just in case you are wondering, the Texas church got in trouble for deciding to publish a church directory filled with candid shots or group shots of all of its church members, including some who are homosexual, instead of using the traditional pictures of family groups.

Reports indicate that Broadway will not be the only church booted out. The First Baptist Church of Decatur Georgia is in trouble for calling a female minister.

Actions do speak rather loudly, don't they?

Are You In A Natural Family Or Not?

Living at ground zero of the conservative cultural and political life in our country, Utah, is interesting. In a story last week on the Conservative movement in our local alternative press, the City Weekly, was a reference to the Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society – a conservative think tank and its definition of a “natural family.” The Howard Center’s statement on a natural family is this:
The natural family is a man and woman bound in a lifelong covenant of marriage for the purposes of: the continuation of the human species, the rearing of children, the regulation of sexuality, the provision of mutual support and protection, the creation of an altruistic domestic economy, and the maintenance of bonds between the generations.
Our use of the term "natural family" is significant in many respects.
First, the term signifies a natural order to family structures that is common across cultures, historical, and overwhelmingly self-evident.
Second, the term signifies a wholly defensible expression. "Natural" is not "nuclear," which would limit its scope, nor is it "traditional," which would burden its utility in public discourse. It is what it is, a totally self-evident expression.
Third, the term "natural" precludes incompatible constructs of the family as well as incompatible behaviors among its members.
Fourth, the "natural family" is a positive expression. It does not require a discussion of negative incompatibilities to define itself.
This proclamation raises some questions for me:
1) It suggests that this understanding of the structure of the family has some ancient tradition, dating back to the origins of the human race. Is this true? Is this proposition defensible?
2) It states that a natural family is a lifelong commitment. What does this mean for those who have been divorced and then remarried?
3) It suggests that a natural family is defined by the procreation of the human race. What does this mean for couples who cannot have children?
4) If a family does not meet all of these characteristics, does that mean it is an “unnatural family?” If so, what are the ramifications of this?

What do you think?

Where Do You Draw The Line?

One of the on-going struggles in American society is between the views and practices of a religion and the laws and requirements of the civil society. In the June 14 NY Times was a story about the conflict between the Swartzentruber Amish sect in Nicktown, PA and the local sewage authority and the state Environmental Protection Department. The Swartzentruber Amish split from the Old Order Amish in 1913 out of fear that the Old Order were becoming too modern.

The current controversy is over the disposition of human waste. The state mandates that the members of the Swartzentruber sect install a 5000 gallon precast holding tank and allow the periodic testing of the waste’s content by an electronic meter. The group believes that both requirements are against their religious teaching because they are too modern. The state is concerned about health issues. The Swartzentrubers are concerned about holiness.

Who should win the dispute?

If you think the state, does that mean that the civil government should have broad control over a religious group’s practices? Or, control only in the case of practices that may affect health or other people? Where do you draw the line?

If you think the sect, does that mean that any religious group should be allowed to do anything, as long it is defensible by their belief structure? Where do you draw the line?