Dances With Monks

Yesterday, on the campus of the prestigious university I attend, I was approached by two monks who wanted to discuss the possibility of achieving a deeper state of consciousness. I proceeded to talk with these guys about Krishna and past lives and how, through yoga and meditation, I could travel to other planets. at what point do religious beliefs cross the line from respectability to wacko, hide-your-kids, batshit crazy?

Neuroscientist Sam Harris has pointed out the discrepancies between the ways in which people view religious observances. If a guy ritualistically says a few words in latin over his Wheaties in the morning, and believes that this practice magically enables him to ceremonially eat the body of Elvis Pressley, I think we could all agree that this guy is certifiably nuts. However, if someone does the same thing, in a church, with a cracker, and believes that he's now eating the body of Jesus Christ, he's just a Catholic. Why is one considered more socially acceptable than another?

What is it that allows otherwise reasonable and intelligent human beings to engage in institutionalized cognitive dissonance, and for society to act like this is okay? Is it reasonable to say that it is somehow okay for people to believe that God felt like the best way to redeem humanity was to engineer a scenario involving a human sacrifice in bronze-age Palestine? Is it intelligent (or, in other words, does it reflect the best aspects of humanity) to believe that God would choose to reveal his message to an illiterate shepherd in Saudi Arabia? There is no major religion that holds up to even modest levels of scrutiny, or even plain ol' common sense.

At what point to thinking people say enough is enough? Everyone knows about the ongoing conflict in Israel. Two religious groups of roughly equal size want to occupy the same place. The painfully obvious solution is to set up two independent states, but this won't happen anytime soon, because both groups believe (without a shred of evidence to support this theory) that almighty God has a participatory interest in real estate disputes. As the incomparable Christopher Hitchens said: religion poisons everything.

Again, to paraphrase Hitchens (if I may stand on the shoulders of giants in an attempt to make my point), if mankind is ever to reach anything resembling the full realization of its potential, we must break away from these archaic institutions and means of thinking about the world.

Don't get me wrong - religion has served a valuable purpose. When humanity was ignorant to science and had limited faculties for reason, religion served a purpose. When we didn't know any better, religion provided the answers to hard questions. However, nowadays we are aware that sin and wickedness aren't the cause of disease. Microbes are. We know that the stars aren't just pinholes in the vast curtain of night. We know that (as Galileo asserted in his famous collision with the religious establishment) the earth is not the center of the universe. Somehow, in the face of overwhelming knowledge and evidence to the contrary, people resort to narcissism and wishful thinking to justify their faith in the existence of a higher power. We assume that, because we don't understand the mechanisms which led us here, there must be a power that exists beyond our capacity for understanding. It isn't enough for many people to simply say, "I don't know" ... (fill in the blank).

We are living in a dark age. Religious tolerance is at an all-time high in most of the developed world, and that's nice, but it isn't enough. Tolerance is, by definition, condescending, and it doesn't address the deeper issue at hand. The pursuit of truth is all that matters. We need to try to conclusively know things.

For example, Mormons have no evidence with which to support their religious beliefs. None. Now, is Mormonism harmless? Maybe. Many people look at it as an essentially silly group of simpletons, but it if helps people to live morally or to have some kind of hope for a higher power, it's somehow dismissed as a "good" institution. Does no one else see the terrible ethical implications that are present here? Is it okay for people to live in fantasy worlds if their fantasies give them a vague sense of hope? Or does the truth have intrinsic value? Even if the truth seems cold, or makes people uncomfortable, is it worth knowing? Is it worth embracing?

I would argue that it is.