Four years ago, I had the unique experience of visiting the Alfred Nobel museum in Sweden. Alfred Nobel was a scientist and engineer who invented dynamite. While he died in 1895, the story goes that in 1888, a mistake was made in a French newspaper, which erroneously published Nobel’s premature obituary. It was very critical of Nobel, calling him the “merchant of death,” and saying he “became rich by finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before…”
This premature obituary apparently was very trying on Nobel’s conscience, and he vowed to leave a more constructive legacy after his death. He is now famous for having donated the bulk of his sizeable estate to the Nobel Prize program.
Learning about Alfred Nobel made me consider the concept of ethics. In every discipline, there is an ethical code. While there may be some grey area in the debate over the location of the ethical fulcrum, there are some practices which are always seen as unethical. Things like life, property, etc., are generally universally respected.
Business has a code of ethics. Giving bribes, stealing patents, and false advertising are examples of ethical breaches. Science has a code of ethics. Doing research on subjects without consent, destroying the environment, or other life-destroying research practices are looked down upon. Religion definitely has a code of ethics, though it is often not spoken of as such.
I have met many people who have said that they are not religious because “religion is the cause of so much bad in the world.” In the same way that one might cut corners or cook the books in the name of business, or one might test a nuclear weapon in the name of science, a person might declare war, discriminate, or otherwise harm people in the name of religion.
In Nobel’s case, he invented something which was ultimately used by many for ill. Nevertheless, dynamite has been used for many useful purposes. Nobel himself didn’t use his creation to take the lives of others, yet in the wrong hands, it has been very dangerous. In the case of religion, its purpose isn’t to destroy, yet misused and in the wrong hands, it has caused a lot of sorrow throughout history. Unethical indeed.
The fact that unethical behavior is found in every discipline leads me to conclude that religion itself is not the actual cause of all the wrong which is done in the name of religion. Rather, it is just another example of a breach in the ethical code that is such a part of our human nature.
Like science, business, and other disciplines, religion can rightfully be used for good when properly and ethically applied. Alfred Nobel’s purpose as an inventor was to create something that would benefit the advancement of humankind, and not to contribute to the loss of many human lives. Most would argue that the true purpose of religion is to promote good in the world. If somebody takes religion and unethically applies it, does it make the entire discipline worthless?
Focusing on all the bad that has been done in religion’s name, it is easy to see how so many have become disenchanted with the idea of religion in general. However, is the legacy of religion one of destruction? As was the case with the French newspaper and Nobel, has a premature obituary been written for religion, labeling it as a force of evil, because it has been misused by many? Or, will the legacy of religion be one that honors acts of creation, advancement, and peace, like the Nobel Prize?
7 comments:
How could somebody so smart misspell the word religion in your title post? Just kidding. Isaac and I love your blog and look forward to the weekly posts. Thank you for being a Mormon thinker.
Oops, my mistake. Thanks for saving me from years of potential embarrassment. I don't know why I seem to have trouble with that first "i" in religion. Maybe because there shouldn't be an "i" in religion, you know, like there is no "i" in team. Okay stupid joke. Thanks for reading though!
I think what you're trying to say, Nils, is this:
When starting or leading your religion, adhere to the following professional best practices going forward:
1) When getting instructions directly from God be sure these are 'clarified' for the people. For example, If God commands the following, "Repent, and prepare for the coming of the Lord!" rephrase it: "You, as a person, are okay, don't get me wrong, but what you're doing right now may need to be reevaluated, are we comfortable with that?"
2) Keep all doctrines as politically correct as possible.
3) All decisions should be made in committee; if God didn't appear to every committee member last night, it was clearly the devil, or indigestion.
4) If you live in a volatile country, consider putting your religion on hiatus until the economy has achieved stability; it has been the experience of many religions that instability breeds conditions for the violent transfer of power, money, and sexy women.
Tobyo-
Thanks for your list of ethical best practices that should be considered when starting or leading your religion.
To continue the list:
5) If your religion is cooler than your neighbor's, don't rub it in their face. Simply think of nice things to say about theirs, even if you have to stretch it.
6) If you want to attract celebrities or sci-fi fans with your religion, add the word "Science" somewhere to your religion's title. However, in order to ensure that your religion isn't confused with the true discipline of science, add a few off-the-wall beliefs or hire a slightly crazy public figure to be the face of your religion.
7) If your religion develops an overly earnest culture, or if members of your religion are so numerous that the begin to affect local politics, either move to a more diverse place, or find a token friend who is a member of your religion but still has "alternative viewpoints."
The main idea of bringing up the concept of ethics as related from religion came from a question that I have had to consider many times over the past several years in multiple conversations with others. "Is religion a source of good or bad in the world?" Most people are biased towards one end or the other, as I clearly am as well.
My post seeks to demonstrate that religion is like any other academic or social discipline. It can be used ethically (for good) or un-ethically (for bad). Therefore, the question more appropriately should be "is religion USED more for good or bad in the world?" If the answer is the latter, or even if it is not 100% for good, how can we deal with it?
Some might argue that religion is a discipline which has no value, and therefore should be purged from our social consciousness. I personally do not accept this viewpoint. First of all, I think it is impossible to remove something that is part of what we are. Just because nuclear physics has been used to create atom bombs, doesn't mean that saying it doesn't exist take away the true principles of the discipline. Second of all, doing so is mistaken, because religion clearly does motivate many to do good in the world. Perhaps some wouldn't be as good if they didn't use the discipline of religion as a vehicle to learn the value of good as opposed to bad.
The other viewpoint, which I am more likely to support, is a call to those who are "religionists" (like physicists, biologists, psychologists, sociologists, engineers, etc.) to concentrate as much as possible on being ethical in their practice of religion, and not use it for bad. This will maximize the contribution of religion to society, and thus move closer to the "for good" end of the spectrum.
While I can see your point about political correctness, and I do believe that being PC does play a role in being an ethical religionist, they are not always one in the same.
You do bring up a very important question though that will be addressed in not just one, but likely multiple future posts. That relates to the emotional or mental fruits of the discipline of religion. While most people in the world today are on the same page as to what the physical fruits of religion shouldn't be (i.e. it is wrong to kill, punch your neighbor in the face, burn their business, or even kick their dog in the name of God) the more subtle, yet often just as important emotional reactions to others' choices in relation to religion are often harder to pin down.
Any thoughts?
I think it is impossible to measure, whether religion is doing more bad than good or vice versa: It is not possible to measure the "goods" because this often happens unconsciously, and as for the bad- I believe that most "religious" conflicts would also happen without religion being involved, at least it is hard to distinguish which part is religiously motivated and which is motivated otherwise.
Michaela
Nils,
To be accurate, one has to admit that religion is used for bad.
I would suggest that those who study religion as an academic discipline have a certain agnostic detachment. They describe what happened or what is, rather than what will be or what should be.
A chemist, on the other hand, can predict that grains of NaCl will dissolve in water at room temperature. A philosopher can say, THIS is right and THIS is wrong. A physicist can say, burning rocket fuel in a tank with a small nozzle end will result in thrust in the opposite direction. And so on.
As a Mormon, religion is just part of life, like cooking, cleaning, changing the oil, going to school, going shopping, and so on. It is including God in your life, just as you would include your family, friends, or anyone else.
I think what some people fail to grasp is that God is real. If someone somehow went and destroyed every church on the face of the earth, God would start over, speaking his children again, helping them live to their fullest potential.
Michaela -
I think you are right on when you say that most "religious" conflicts that have occurred would have happened with or without using religion as the reasoning. Probably the two individuals responsible for causing more death in the history of the world - Mao and Stalin, were not using religion as their reasoning by any means.
Tobyo-
I think you are right that religion is more than just an academic discipline, it also a way of life (see my next post to talk about Mormons and their "way-of-life-based church).
On that same thought, most other academic disciplines also affect our lives whether we know it or not. We don't have to study and understand chemistry to have chemical reactions occur all around us. They do whether we know it or not. We don't have to study physics to be subject to their laws, it naturally occurs.
I think of religion along those same lines. It can be studied, and like you said, one can do so with a agnostic detachment, studying what is or what has been, rather than making predictions. However, for Mormons, we are counseled to study religion for the sake of understanding. It is a life discipline, meaning the things we learn and discover should then be internalized into our way of life.
Post a Comment