![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The End of Pretend
Oct. 11th, 2011 11:34 amWhen I was very young, I was puzzled by the existence of "religious studies" programs. If I had known them for what they were--objective surveys of the history and tenets of religions--I might have understood, but the word "studies" conjured a notion of advancing research in my young mind. I imagined groups of people getting together, trying their best to learn more about their gods or theology, gathering information not from historical documents but from the world around them in hopes of gleaning new information. But what form would their new data take? Photographs of God? Recordings of his voice? Surely not, though I couldn't have articulated why.
I had played pretend before. I knew that I could fool myself, if I tried not to try not to. I remember sitting in the passenger seat of my father's car, pretending that I could steer the car by pulling on the hand rest. It genuinely seemed I could control our direction, so long as I only bothered to attempt to steer in the direction my father indicated with the blinkers. I knew at any time I could break the illusion by attempting to turn another way, but that, while more honest, would be less fun. So I went on pretending, claiming a power and effect that existed only in my mind.
Thus, the idea that a religion would do research seemed unwise to me; surely they would spoil their own game. If they predicted anything testable--a major goal of research!--they would have to deal with failed predictions, and that would surely get them into trouble. If they claimed to know something new about God, they'd have to make it agreeable to everyone else's vision of God, which of course would mean it couldn't be very new at all. Examples of folks who failed to play by the rules of pretend abound; Harold Camping's rapture prediction debunked itself with testable claims, and every new sect of any religion has arisen because someone couldn't agree on what version of pretend to play.
No, the best pretenders stick to easy claims with low burdens of consistency. Christians claim the apocalypse will come someday. Prayers make changes in the world that can't be measured. God's fingerprints are everywhere, and they look just like natural processes. All of the oldest and most popular religions stick to claims like these, not even necessarily by design, but because those that don't are too easily overturned by reality.
Indeed, this is the true separation between fact and fantasy, science and religion: where religion is cautious not to out itself, science gets results. Consider the vast body of knowledge and technology science has given us. To count the number of inventions and facts science has gathers in even a single year would be a monumental, perhaps impossible task. Some of our most commonplace tools would be unrecognizable to those living only a century before us.
And religion? What new knowledge and technology has religion gleaned in the last few millenia? Even if prayer could be said to be effective (it can't), it's certainly no more effective today than it was two thousand years ago. No new medicines, modes of transportation, or means of communication have sprung forth from divine revelation or the study of holy texts. When claims of new divine knowledge have arisen, they've only splintered into new religions of ever-diverging games of pretend.
In fact, the above still paints too generous a picture of religion; religion is worse than merely an impotent means of advancement. Religion not only fails to bear fruit but rots the fruit that science offers. Religion suppressed Copernicus's insight of the heliocentric solar system and Darwin's insight of evolution. Creationists attempt to push biology out of science classes. Catholics fight birth control in overpopulated areas and condoms in an HIV-plagued Africa. Religious homophobia drove Alan Turing to a tortured death.
And the kicker? Science is far more humble than religion. Science is slow to claim certainty on any topic, and quick to admit error. Science, by its nature, constantly probes itself for inconsistencies and faults. Religion, despite its many claims to the opposite, is arrogant in its certitude. Faith, the suppression of (self) doubt, is central to every religion. Where science expands our minds and universe to dwarf us entirely, religion consistently places humans smack-dab on center stage. As Christopher Hitchens put it:
We've all enjoyed games of pretend, whether they were childhood fantasies or a good novel. Few of us would claim to cling to such games in defiance of science and the welfare of others, yet religion asks us to do exactly that. Religion is the game of pretend you're not allowed to stop playing.
I had played pretend before. I knew that I could fool myself, if I tried not to try not to. I remember sitting in the passenger seat of my father's car, pretending that I could steer the car by pulling on the hand rest. It genuinely seemed I could control our direction, so long as I only bothered to attempt to steer in the direction my father indicated with the blinkers. I knew at any time I could break the illusion by attempting to turn another way, but that, while more honest, would be less fun. So I went on pretending, claiming a power and effect that existed only in my mind.
Thus, the idea that a religion would do research seemed unwise to me; surely they would spoil their own game. If they predicted anything testable--a major goal of research!--they would have to deal with failed predictions, and that would surely get them into trouble. If they claimed to know something new about God, they'd have to make it agreeable to everyone else's vision of God, which of course would mean it couldn't be very new at all. Examples of folks who failed to play by the rules of pretend abound; Harold Camping's rapture prediction debunked itself with testable claims, and every new sect of any religion has arisen because someone couldn't agree on what version of pretend to play.
No, the best pretenders stick to easy claims with low burdens of consistency. Christians claim the apocalypse will come someday. Prayers make changes in the world that can't be measured. God's fingerprints are everywhere, and they look just like natural processes. All of the oldest and most popular religions stick to claims like these, not even necessarily by design, but because those that don't are too easily overturned by reality.
Indeed, this is the true separation between fact and fantasy, science and religion: where religion is cautious not to out itself, science gets results. Consider the vast body of knowledge and technology science has given us. To count the number of inventions and facts science has gathers in even a single year would be a monumental, perhaps impossible task. Some of our most commonplace tools would be unrecognizable to those living only a century before us.
And religion? What new knowledge and technology has religion gleaned in the last few millenia? Even if prayer could be said to be effective (it can't), it's certainly no more effective today than it was two thousand years ago. No new medicines, modes of transportation, or means of communication have sprung forth from divine revelation or the study of holy texts. When claims of new divine knowledge have arisen, they've only splintered into new religions of ever-diverging games of pretend.
In fact, the above still paints too generous a picture of religion; religion is worse than merely an impotent means of advancement. Religion not only fails to bear fruit but rots the fruit that science offers. Religion suppressed Copernicus's insight of the heliocentric solar system and Darwin's insight of evolution. Creationists attempt to push biology out of science classes. Catholics fight birth control in overpopulated areas and condoms in an HIV-plagued Africa. Religious homophobia drove Alan Turing to a tortured death.
And the kicker? Science is far more humble than religion. Science is slow to claim certainty on any topic, and quick to admit error. Science, by its nature, constantly probes itself for inconsistencies and faults. Religion, despite its many claims to the opposite, is arrogant in its certitude. Faith, the suppression of (self) doubt, is central to every religion. Where science expands our minds and universe to dwarf us entirely, religion consistently places humans smack-dab on center stage. As Christopher Hitchens put it:
"I suppose that one reason I have always detested religion is its sly tendency to insinuate the idea that the universe is designed with 'you' in mind or, even worse, that there is a divine plan into which one fits whether one knows it or not. This kind of modesty is too arrogant for me." |
We've all enjoyed games of pretend, whether they were childhood fantasies or a good novel. Few of us would claim to cling to such games in defiance of science and the welfare of others, yet religion asks us to do exactly that. Religion is the game of pretend you're not allowed to stop playing.
