On the Purpose and Necessity of Religion It is a commonly held belief that religion and science are antagonistic.

While this antagonism may partly be a false dichotomy, in so far as other non-conflict based views exist, it is still true that debates on religion and science regularly provoke strong reactions in both theist and atheist circles. It is my aim to briefly examine the purpose and necessity of religion. I will not deal with the wealth of scientific evidence that contradicts religious teachings, but rather with some of the philosophical arguments that have been used to argue the purpose and necessity of religion in modern society. Incidentally, the discussion is focused largely on ideas and views put forth by members of the various Abrahamic religions, but is not confined to any specific religion or faith. Why can we not simply leave religion and science as they are? There are many reasons why humanity should not settle for the status quo, several of which will be discussed in this essay. Logically, one cannot simultaneously accept faith-based explanations and fully live by empirical reasoning. Cognitively, people inevitably doublethink and experience cognitive dissonance, however, and all people hold views that are not empirically reasonable, and nor must we. But even if we accept that it is not necessary, nor even psychologically possible, to live completely by empiricist principles, we still ought to be aware of which mode of thinking we use when defining our most important beliefs. It is trivial if we decide, for whatever nonempirical reason, to wear our favourite pair of underwear for luck, or if we believe that our dog is the reincarnation of Elvis, but it is not trivial if we systematically teach and spread beliefs that have no foundation in empirical evidence. For example, if it is right to teach Creationism, for which there is no evidence, then is it equally right to teach, inter alia, Norse-, Aboriginal-, or Baal cult creation myths. Ultimately, all of us are atheist about most deities. A religious foundation is a necessary condition for the existence and propagation of morality. Simply stated the answer is: No, it is not. Religion is not the source of morality, though religious doctrine has been used to publicize it. Historically, the dominance of religion has clearly perpetuated certain morals, but there are strong reasons why religion should not be the champion of morality. When the interpreters of the divine can use their hierarchical power to dictate morality and legislation, the rights of humanity is often the first sacrifice. History is riddled with examples of arbitrarily interpreted religious scripture used either openly or clandestinely to support political agendas. The practice of allying religion with politics serves

those in power by allowing them to continuously define or redefine concepts of morality to suit their needs. Religion has a poetic and narrative quality that educates society in philosophy, morality and purpose. Clearly, many scriptures display tremendous poetry, which in its own right deserves attention, though by those inclined to literature and not to doctrine. What religion teaches are often values that are hundreds of years old, that must be selectively picked from scripture to fit any modern sense of reasonability. Taken literally, all scriptures hold views that are based on values that the world has since frequently shed blood to remove. That we should not murder, steal or rape are not values religion can teach us, it is what reason can teach us. It is decidedly a non-sequitur to claim that atheism is devoid of morality. It is perfectly reasonable, without the existence of a judgmental deity, for humans to be good, simply for the fact that we are a species reliant upon cooperation to reach our potential. In fact, our understanding of the cosmos provides the greatest motivation to do so, as we depend upon scientific and technological progress to colonise other solar systems before our current one becomes uninhabitable. For most people, that might be a distant and unimportant objective, but it is the most obvious and imperative goal and it is based not on divine revelation, but on reality. If we wish to create a higher purpose that includes every man, woman and child, this is the one nearest to us. Religion provides a necessary comfort when faced with worries of mortality, hopelessness, or sorrow. Religion, or any individual faith, may indeed provide comfort and universal order in an existence that will always have moments of anxiety, confusion and helplessness. Then again, so could rational views and explanations. If comfort is all that is required of religion, one could settle for comfort that does not implicitly invoke an afterlife of which we know nothing. Would we perhaps cherish life more if we accepted that there was no more after this one life? Would there be any more or less to fear of death? Is there any less comfort in the fact that those we have loved who have passed live on in our memories, rather than in a Heaven, or worse, in limbo or even Hell? Our responsibility for those we mourn would be to identify why we loved them and use that to motivate us to improve ourselves and pass on their legacy to future generations. Eternal life is found not only through passing on genes, but also by carrying forward good values and actions - just as a scientists biggest responsibility is not to discover, but to teach and perpetuate the principles of empiricist discovery. 2

Religion provides explanations for the scientifically inexplicable. Attempts to create separate realms for religion and science often end up in this argument. As professor Neil Degrasse Tyson has remarked, if religion is merely what science cannot explain, () then God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance. The same argument is often invoked to support the existence of supernatural phenomena such as ghosts or aliens. Summarized, albeit in straw-man fashion, the argument claims: We do not know or understand, therefore the answers must be x, y, and z. The human brain excels at incorporating information into a - to ourselves - coherent system, and is thus prone to accepting any explanation that supports and fits the current view. It requires conscious thought to suspend judgement, and ultimately the brain cannot be stopped from making sense of the world, just as we cannot shelter our perception of an optical illusion. Still, the inexplicable is, to complete the circular logic, inexplicable, and so far as it is possible, we ought not to base any doctrine on phenomena or events we cannot prove. Science is emotionless and void, whereas religion provides meaning and purpose. It is not the purpose of science to provide anything but improved understanding of the universe in which we live. Science can not and does not make value judgments, nor does it suggest a meaning or purpose of life. It is up to all humans, based on what is fair and reasonable for our entire species, to create a world in which we have the best chance of long term survival and further understanding of the universe. That is not to say that an atheistic society could not include meaning and purpose or even poetic spirituality. The need for the transcendent does not necessarily imply the need for the supernatural. Spirituality could merely be an expression of deeply ingrained emotions like wonder or curiosity. Science continues to provide truly awe-inspiring comprehension of our universe, facts that are arguably unparalleled by our imaginations. After all, even our imagination is restricted by our experiences. That the building blocks that make up our very bodies were once the material of stars, and that in time, these building blocks will all again reconvene in future stars, is simply cosmic poetry. If religion is not necessary for morality, comfort, or education, why has it held such a dominant position in human societies throughout history? One could turn the question around and simply ask: What purpose has it served?. Even a fervent atheist evolutionary biologist would have to concede that religion, in the broadest sense of the word, is likely to have had one or more beneficial qualities for religion to have arisen and developed separately in so many different places. Something inherent in religion is likely to have given those 3

predisposed to belief a distinct survival and reproduction advantage. It is psychologically clear that humans are all susceptible to belief, for which there are many reasons, but whatever evolutionary advantage belief may have provided, it is not clear whether it is still beneficial in modern society. Natural selection is clearly not the only reason why religion has continued to hold an important place in human society. What is common to most, if not all, religion is its historic monopoly of the most primal and defining moments of human existence: Birth, marriage, and death. Until very recently, every birth, marriage and death has been filtered through religious ceremony and ideals. Religious ideas still form a great part of our views on birth, life, love, and death. Our perspectives are unavoidably moulded by religion. This fact alone contributes to the perpetuation of religious influence in modern society. We deeply fear being alone, and we seek and cherish moments in which we feel connected to others. Human company may distract us from sensations of loneliness, but a strong sense of togetherness is rarer still, when someone genuinely understands what you understand. They are powerful moments, those infrequent times when a smile, a nudge or a look reveals to us that we truly share a moment with someone, when our observation, significant or not, correlates with anothers. We are more likely to experience those moments at a religious ceremony, such as a baptism or funeral, which is probably one of the reasons why religious ideas resonate so deeply within us. There is no denying that the essence of this essay is strongly utilitarian, and as such, it inherently poses the question: What is to replace the togetherness of religious societies and ceremonies? While there is no empirical reason to believe in a deity that created and oversees the universe, and basing dogma upon revelation is an abhorrent practice, there are strong reasons to keep some of the social aspects of religion. It is worthwhile and necessary to perpetuate the togetherness believers experience through participation in their religious communities, and to provide for the need to symbolically welcome or bid farewell to our fellow human beings. Nonetheless, this can and should be done without inferring the hierarchical, dogmatic, and arbitrary principles of most current religions.