Over the past month, I hope to have demonstrated to my theistic audience that faith and reason go hand in hand. Many of the most brilliant minds on the planet believe in God. I turn to Emmanuel Kant as a perfect example. Kant believed in a system of morality that could exist without a divine. He formulated a categorical imperative: one should act only if he can posit his actions as a maxim that could constitute a universal law. That is to say, one should act only in ways that he would want everyone else to act. In fact, much of secular thinking is rooted in Kant's philosophy.
However, Kant believed in God. In questioning the meaning behind morality, Kant believed God gave meaning to our moral actions. Like Kant, I need a deity because nothing else would necessarily compel me to act morally. Atheists and agnostics may not need such assistance. Because we cannot prove nor disprove God's existence, we live in a place where one is able to find meaning for morality however he or she wishes. At least, that is what I have been told.
While rereading my last article, I knew exactly what to write for my final Orient column. I realized that two very important points regarding religion were left unmentioned.
Freedom of Religion
The first point that I neglected to raise is that we are blessed with freedom of religion. Christopher Hitchens's talk and the subsequent debate should raise some concern for theists at Bowdoin. I know that evangelical atheists are in a minority. It has been my experience that many people here embrace faith, support others' faiths, or are more or less apathetic about it, and the vast majority of people here do not want to eliminate religion. I would also like to include that I have had many positive experiences at Bowdoin with atheists; some have even helped me grow as a person and in my faith.
However, when people start to make claims that religion defiles everything and is a "political poison," I tremble at the possible end result: the removal of religious freedom. I would normally let something like this go, because removing religious freedom in America is most likely laughable. However, I feel compelled to bring this idea to the surface because there seem to be a few atheists here who are so persistent with the idea of squelching religion. When we look at the Constitution, we see that our freedom of religion is explicitly guaranteed in the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."
The foundation of our country guaranteed freedom of religion. Now, evangelical atheists (not all atheists, just the ones who are so confident that religion poisons everything) are trying to use their secular reasoning to take this freedom away. Throw out the Torah, the Vedas, the Bible, the Theravada, and Koran, they say. We have seen the light. Thou shalt not have religion, only secular reasoning which will lead to "tolerance," which, for the record, is a rather intolerant claim.
There is no use arguing whether having religion or its total absence in politics is "better" in such a polemical discourse. In politics, if everyone were atheists, yes, there would be less political tension on certain issues because there would not be as many conflicting beliefs. However, if everyone believed the same basic teachings as Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists, we could probably reach the same peaceful political solutions. C.S. Lewis referred to such a common underlying moral code in his "Abolition of Man."
Why did our founding fathers allow freedom of religion? Many were theists, and acknowledged the importance of religion. Maybe those who did not believe in a deity recognized limits to human knowledge, such as the fact that God cannot be proved nor disproved, that evangelical atheists do not wish to recognize. Should the founding fathers have disallowed freedom of religion so it would not be a political poison? Such a model has since been attempted. Stalin's regime prevented freedom of religion.
The results were disastrous in the Soviet Union: 42 million people were killed, many of whom were religious. Hitler was described by Wernher von Braun as "wholly without scruples, a godless man who thought himself the only god, the only authority he needed." It must be a good thing Hitler was not religious or believe he was accountable to a deity, or it might have poisoned his politics. Oh, wait, Hitler attempted to exterminate the Jewish race. Much of religious freedom was taken away in Maoist China. The death toll was comparable to that under the Stalin regime, and many of those killed shared my Christian faith.
Does ridding society of religion still sound like a good idea? I know that these are extremes. I know that the evangelical atheists at Bowdoin do not have this in mind, and probably have very noble goals. I know that atheists do not necessarily come to similar conclusions about how to behave. I also know that taking away religious freedom need not result in mass murder. Furthermore, I am not trying to say that nations should all become theocracies because we have seen ugly outcomes when the right of individuals to disbelieve is taken away. Any system, secular or theistic, has the potential for corruption.
Thus, theists should get very defensive when evangelical atheists start telling us that theism is immoral and needs to be eradicated (as any group should when they are targeted in this manner). When religious freedom has been taken away in other parts of the world, we see more blood than any other time in history. E. E. Ehrhardt can claim that "secularism does not cause violence" ("Religion's violent role in history downplayed," April 18, 2008). However, history demonstrates the contrary, showing that a potential result of atheism (not necessary, but potential) is nearly immeasurable violence.
Secular states are far from perfect. Most of the 20th century violence was directed toward theists, many of whom shared my faith. Persecution persists today in areas of Africa and Asia. In America, I am extremely thankful for my religious freedom. Based on the history of persecution, I grow very defensive when people start telling me what I have to think and believe. Because God is beyond reason, no amount of reasoning will make me give up my faith. Close-minded? Maybe. Here's the irony: at least I support letting others find meaning wherever they wish, while evangelical atheists are telling me that theists have to get rid of our faiths to make the world a better place.
There is a dearth of historical evidence that demonstrates eradicating religion brings utopia. I find nothing more hypocritical than an evangelical atheist saying God certainly does not exist and we have to banish religion to better the world, and then blaming theists for having "certainty without evidence" and being "intolerant." God cannot be disproved and I'm not about to give up my freedom of religion because of a few difficult political issues that ensue. I am not in favor of religious groups uniting under political motivations. Yet, if faced with the choice of political clashes over HPV vaccines or the freedom to worship God, I will not hesitate to choose the latter. Religion is part of who theists are. Thus, when evangelical atheists say, "Religion is the problem," they are saying, "Religious people are the problem."
I believe there is validity to the cliché, "history repeats itself." We observe that a possible end result of condemning religion or saying, "You people are the problem," is incalculable evil. Given the world's history, evangelical atheists need to be very careful when they do not recognize the limits of secular knowledge and reasoning, and start telling people what they have to think.
The Real Reason
I also mentally kicked myself for not including the real reason behind religion: man's search for meaning in the transcendent. I fell into the trap of reducing life to an intellectual exercise. At Bowdoin, religion can be reduced to rationalizing God's existence for ethical purposes or debating the issue of theodicy. However, such questions are not the essence of religion. We at Bowdoin are obscenely privileged. We wake up in our heated dorms and eat some of the best college food in the country. We have the rest of our lives before us with far greater opportunities than almost any youth on the planet.
Consider pulling yourself away from your Chamberlain single, your wireless computer in the middle of the picturesque quad, and bring yourself to a place like Nazi Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union. Imagine asking a Jew or Christian there, "Could you describe to me your typical day and what helps you get through it?" "Well," they might reply, "I wake up hungry and don't know if I will be fed. I constantly fear for the safety of my self and my family; we could be killed for our beliefs at any moment. However, I wake up knowing that because of my faith, I will one day be united with God and that gives me the hope." The patron of all suffering people, Job, in one of the oldest known literary works, searched for answers to such questions, and found them in a God who creates and redeems.
Now, imagine Hitchens telling the Christian or Jew in Stalin's Soviet Union or Hitler's Germany that they have it all wrong. Everything would be fine if they revoked God and gave up religion, just as Job's wife implored him. Or, "Just convert to atheism and society will not longer be intolerant! Your theism is the root of societal evils."
Religion goes way beyond, and I repeat, way beyond an intellectual justification of moral reasoning. The ability of humankind to look beyond its own existence and find meaning in the divine is so much greater than students sitting around Hubbard Hall and the Peucinian room discussing questions of theodicy and morality. Why does the saying exist, "There are no atheists in foxholes?"
I asked the chaplain at the Brunswick Naval Base about the validity of this saying. He explained that before 9/11, he would have maybe 20 people at a church service. After the attacks on the twin towers, there was standing room only. When bullets start flying, people start to recognize that perhaps there is something more to our existence. Evangelical atheists like Hitchens come and go, but one of many reasons religions persist is because 99.9 percent of the world does not wake up to the privilege we experience, perhaps better allowing them to look beyond themselves to a greater purpose in life. We are privileged, young, and think we are immortal.
Outside of the Bowdoin bubble, life will pose much greater challenges than Blackboard malfunctions. When people struggle, they often look beyond their moral autonomy for meaning in life. Here is another point that cannot be proved nor disproved: Countless others throughout history, including myself, believe that our existence is more than an intellectual exercise. St. Augustine articulated a confession to God that provides the answer for many: "Thou hast made us for Thyself. Our hearts are at unrest and cannot rest until they find their rest in Thee."
My final words to Orient readers: thank you for reading, never stop considering the flip side of an issue, best wishes, and God bless.