Rethinking Religion: Finding a Place for Religion in a Modern, Tolerant, Progressive, Peaceful and Science-affirming World

by Barbara O'Brien

Does religion have something positive to offer the 21st century (and beyond)? Or is it a vestige of the Iron Age that ought to be contained in museums?

More critically, is it even possible to be religious and also be a rational and entirely modern participant in 21st-century civilization? Is it possible to live a devotional, religious life today without denying science or otherwise being assimilated by some religious-authoritarian Borg?

As many of us conceptualize and define religion, the answer may be no. It may be tempting to think that the world would be a better place without religion. And maybe it would.

But there are many ways to conceptualize and define religion. Religion could be a genuine benefit to humankind if we can change our minds about what it is.

Rethinking Religion will not attempt to persuade you to either become religious or stop being religious, but it will challenge your assumptions, and not just about religion. The world around you is a mental fabrication. You may or may not exist. Your holy scriptures are bad translations of scraps of old texts mostly written by people you never heard of. Your rational mind isn’t all that rational. Even atheists and scientists can succumb to groupthink and dogma. There may be a God, but if so, God isn’t God — or, at least, not whatever God you imagine.

This book also explores the roots of religious violence, and why so much mass bloodshed in the world today is connected to religion. It argues that morality doesn’t have to be based on religion. It explains why it’s a really bad idea to read scriptures literally, or sometimes even take them seriously. And it reveals why wisdom is not found in belief, but in doubt.

The author was raised Christian in the Bible Belt but has been formally practicing Zen Buddhism for more than 20 years. She is currently the Buddhism expert for About.com.

185 pages, Kindle Edition

First published May 13, 2014

About the author

Barbara Hoetsu O'Brien grew up in the Ozark Mountain section of the Bible Belt, also called the Land of Perpetual Holy Spirit Gospel Tabernacle Revivals. Doubts pulled her away from Christianity, however, and after much stumbling around in many traditions she became a formal student of Zen Buddhism in the late 1980s. As a journalist she has written extensively about religion in America and how it impacts politics and culture. From 2008 to 2016 she was the resident expert on Buddhism for About.com, and she blogs about whatever is on her mind at her personal blog, The Mahablog (mahablog.com).

Reviews

[Jim Whitefield · Rating 4 out of 5]

I knew Ms O’Brien was Buddhist and assumed the book would explain how, despite the problems with other religions in general, Buddhism is at least one path that is “tolerant, [mostly] peaceful, and science affirming” which may offer a worthwhile alternative for those interested. It didn’t completely turn out like that but I did learn some interesting aspects about Buddhism along the way.

To start this review, I should state that after forty-three years of being devoutly religious, a decade ago I quite reluctantly realised that I was in fact an atheist and that took some acceptance and dealing with. Like Richard Dawkins, I am close to the top of his religious-atheist scale, without actually closing the door on a creator or creative power – which no one can reasonably do; there is still no evidence either way – and final conclusions must be based on empirical evidence.

O’Brien explains she is “speaking primarily to other progressives — atheists, agnostics, religious and “spiritual but not religious” — because I think we have common cause if not common understanding.” I knew she had a grip on reality concerning religion when I read the following on the first page. “Much, if not most, of the ongoing mass bloodshed in the world today has a connection to religion, in one way or another, and followers of most of the world’s major religions are represented as both victims and perpetrators.” I feel very strongly about all the death and destruction that religions (or rather, religious leaders and factions), have caused over thousands of years. There is no excuse and no real god would be involved.

When I then read: “Compromise, necessary to a functioning representative government, is apostasy; they see their political opponents as agents of dark and unholy forces who must be crushed by any means.” [Presumably speaking of America, as it is not like that in the UK] “More than 150 years after the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species, science teachers are still fighting to teach evolution properly in public schools.” – I felt grateful that I live in England, where religion is not really seen in politics and where we just passed new laws, prohibiting the teaching of pseudoscience (creationism, the flood etc.,) as evidence based theory in any academy or free school. Evolution is now taught here from primary age. I think O’Brien would be proud of Britain for understanding, accepting and promoting evidence based science whilst ensuring children understand what pseudoscience actually means and incorporates. There is hope for our future generations.

Moving on, O’Brien lays out the basis of her thinking regarding religion in general, past and present. Explanations are simple, to the point, articulate and entertaining, although I can’t say I found myself agreeing with some of them (only to be expected). She asks us to set aside our current opinions and be willing to ‘rethink’ religion, admitting that “Lots of people today genuinely hate religion, and I can’t say I blame them. Most of religion represented in popular culture and in news media is backward and stupid.” It is indeed, and it is high time we rejected the remaining mythology of the past. Hanging on to one final god, way beyond the age of reason, has done us no favours. On that basis it would be very hard to set aside how I think and feel about religion. Getting me to rethink religion will not be easy.

So, how did she do? The next few pages, which cover religion and spirituality, lead up to this: “I say that religion and spirituality need each other. It’s a big mistake to separate them.” Whilst that may be true for most religious people, many others do not equate their concept of spirituality with religion at all; they have no wish to – and they are not all atheists, though I do know some of my atheist friends would take issue with it. Many atheists who do claim to be spiritual do not equate their concept of spirituality with anything other than their personal relationship with the cosmos (we are all star stuff), excluding anything remotely ‘spiritual’ in any religious context. The meaning of the word is entirely different for them and the concept suggested would offend them. There is clearly more than one definition for ‘spiritual’ but I don’t know quite how that sits with O’Brien’s thinking of combining it with religion.

It is so far removed from what many atheists mean by spiritual, it is akin to asking them to expand their deep appreciation of astronomy to embrace astrology. It is anathema to them. In that context, the next question, “So let’s talk about reconciling spirituality and religion. How might that be done?” is a very simple one to answer; it can’t, and it shouldn’t, for atheists who profess to be spiritual, as they could never relate to or be reconciled with any religious notions whatsoever. I have to assume O’Brien knows and understands this and means to address those who still embrace ethereal concepts.

I don’t personally claim to be spiritual in any sense. O’Brien says she wants to save religion, but bearing in mind her opening statement – the question is: from, or for, what? I can’t agree with that idea; religion is responsible for so much evil in the world that we would be far better off without it. Personally, I can’t wait to see a rational world devoid of all religion. However, the arguments are well written and expressed for all that. It is just that for me they make no real sense.

Chapter 4, God and existence… “Humans have a persistent tendency to imagine things we can’t comprehend. Our brains are wired to do that, I suspect.” They are hard wired to do that; that’s why it’s called imagination and it is the way science progresses. That is how new hypotheses are formulated, which after rigorous testing, if proven, become new scientific theory. But O’Brien’s point is that people ‘imagine’ god in many ways but we can’t ‘prove’ he (does or) doesn’t exist. I think most intelligent people understand and accept this already.

“Something that we can conjure only in our imaginations, such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, does not exist. I think most people would agree with that, with apologies to FSM devotees.” The problem is, the actual invention of the FSM was to illustrate that very point about all god(s) – they are all “conjured only in our imaginations” without tangible testable evidence at all – and it is a shame that unfortunately O’Brien fell for it. To state, for that reason, the FSM “does not exist” is falling into the trap set by its very creation, as the same thing applies to all other creations, from the flying teapot to any and all concepts of gods ever imagined – each one of which then also “does not exist” as they can only be conjured in the imagination. Does the flying teapot exist? Poseidon? Apollo? Zeus? Re? Quetzalcoatl? Yahweh? Neither the FSM nor any other imagined deity (and that includes all of them) can be proved or disproved. You cannot prove the non-existence of the FSM any more than you can disprove any other god. The point was missed, which is that, as bizarre as it may seem, there is actually no more evidence for or against a FSM than any other god. It may be prudent to rethink the FSM statement.

O’Brien does talk about imagination. Anything can exist in our imagination; that’s what thought is, our ability to think and imagine – and reason (is ‘reason’ real?), is what sets us apart from other animals. I do understand the argument that “By most definitions of “existence,” life does not exist.” But that is an entirely different scientific issue. Indeed, existence can be difficult to define, but there is no problem in identifying (assuming for the moment that we do exist) what is in evidence as ‘real’ and what is not evidenced and therefore imaginary or theoretical. Everything considered ethereal remains imaginary and nothing ethereal has ever been ratified by the scientific method.

The fact is that “we have no way of knowing whether our physics models provide us with a reliable picture of ultimate reality. They just fit the data.” (Victor J. Stenger). Truth is relative to our understanding rather than ultimate and may change as our understanding improves. As Hawking and Mlodinow say “It is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether it agrees with observations.” (The Grand Design p.46).

Likewise, as O’Brien says, of course much of what we experience isn’t actually as we ‘imagine’ it to be; colours, sound waves etc., are perceptions created in our minds by the equipment we have to interpret them. (We know grass is not really green, the sky is not blue, and experience of the concepts varies from species to species, depending on the wave lengths being interpreted). This is basic science and not a reason to accept that something exists without experimentation. O’Brien continues to list aspects people accept that in reality are not actually what they seem to us. But O’Brien is wrong in then stating “And the moral is, we all believe all kinds of unmitigated nonsense that isn’t “real.” This is true of atheists as much as “believers.” Deal with it.”

That’s a bit harsh – and ill-informed to state at this point in this context. The fact is, anyone who has even the most basic understanding of science (atheist or religious) does not “believe all kinds of unmitigated nonsense” in this sense, because as she points out, we understand exactly why things appear as they do and we do not ‘believe’ grass is green – we understand exactly why it ‘appears’ that way to us and the fact we can do so, again sets us apart – we have done well as humans and we have science and scientists who used their ‘imagination’ to thank for it. It is not a valid argument to claim that as we ‘believe nonsense’ we could (or should) believe other things that really are nonsense.

Later, in chapter 7, O’Brien uses a similar statement in a more appropriate context. “People believe all kinds of unmitigated nonsense that doesn’t have anything to do with religion. We humans, religious and not, will believe things without evidence, or with much-debunked evidence — that vaccines cause autism, for example — probably because we really want to believe them.” It may have been better to just use it then rather than earlier.

That is because we don’t ‘believe’ that first kind of ‘nonsense’ she mentioned at all, we ‘understand’ why some things appear to be one way and yet are actually another, and that is entirely different and unrelated to ‘belief’ – it is to do with education and scientific understanding. Someone uneducated who says they ‘believe’ grass is green is actually saying it is their present (uneducated) ‘concept’ or ‘perception’, mistaken or not, and not their ‘belief’ in the sense used in religion, even though they may use the wrong word. The word ‘belief’ in religion is entirely different to the word as used in a secular context. It is being misused, and at that, in entirely the wrong context under the chapter heading ‘God and existence’. You don’t ‘believe’ grass is green even though it is not, you ‘observe’ grass appearing green even though it is not. (O’Brien doesn’t mention grass – that is just my example). As with other evidenced science, you don’t have to believe in it, you just have to understand it. This is the difference between science and religion. Science does not ‘believe’ anything; it consistently questions and updates our best current understanding. O’Brien does understand this as she says so elsewhere.

O’Brien says: “So the activist atheists, who are so certain God does not exist, and believe their perspective is scientific and rational, need to work on their act. What do you mean by “exist”? Define “exist,” please.” I also have no time for anyone making such an extreme claim (either way). But, I have yet to meet an atheist who claims ‘certainty’ God does not exist in absolute terms. Not an educated one anyway. That would make them as deluded as the religious who claim they know their god exists ‘without a shadow of a doubt’ – which is equally impossible.

Atheism actually describes an ‘absence of belief’ in gods rather than a denial of their possibility; no more, no less. Someone said that describing atheism as a belief is like calling the off switch a TV channel. Whilst scientifically, the probability of god is remote, the possibility of a god exists, until evidence proves otherwise. The likelihood of any interaction with humans, resulting in religion and requiring worship is however beyond improbable.

The question of ‘existence’ as such though is again a different matter and one can only speculate that if we do exist then… such and such follows; and if we actually do not exist then something else may logically follow. It is thus unconnected to the initial question.

To say “…many theologians have proposed that God does not exist because God is not a being. A being has fixed diameters and position within a space of time, and God isn’t like that. Therefore, God does not exist, but that doesn’t mean God isn’t, necessarily.” is just playing with semantics in relation to the perception people express when they say they do (or do not) believe in god. Whether he is perceived as a being or an ethereal entity which cannot be explained or adequately expressed, the concept has to exist for them to make a judgment.

Chapter 5. Iron Age Morality in a Postmodern World… O’Brien correctly states that morality preceded religion and it is indeed annoying when people insist that without religion there would be no morality. That is as delusional and historically inaccurate as it can get and I have been a victim of that accusation myself. Yet a recent study observed that well under one percent of inmates in US prisons are atheists. That should say something about morality. O’Brien discusses morality in some detail and makes some interesting and intelligent observations in a vast improvement on the previous chapter.

Chapter 6. The Crazy Scripture in the Attic… discusses some of the absurdities and contradictions in the Bible and how scriptures have been ‘interpreted’ to suit the thinking of various sects (and individuals) at different times. O’Brien includes evaluation of some Buddhist text which makes for interesting reading and emphasises the problem with accepting anything at face value because it is supposedly God’s or Buddha’s (or anyone’s) word. The objective is clearly to get people to think as rationally as possible.

Chapter 7. True Believers and Mass Movements…

O’Brien’s notes on tribal affiliation are particularly interesting and she makes some very valid observations concerning some of the results. She says “My point here is that it is absurd to point to religion as the sole source of the irrationality of public life. I sincerely believe that if religion disappeared tomorrow, all the tribalism, bigotry, and fear fueling the chaos would just find another container. A lot of it already has.” She is, of course, not wrong about that.
Turning to science, O’Brien makes some very useful statements and compelling arguments in a very readable and worthwhile chapter.

I had never heard of ‘scientism’ (you can’t know everything), and the very idea made no sense to me at all. I couldn’t get my head around this statement. “I say scientism is unscientific, because it proposes something — that there is no sort of truth that can’t be revealed through the scientific method — that cannot be verified through the scientific method. It’s something that has to be accepted on faith.” I understood what O’Brien was saying of course – but not why anyone would actually think that way. Nothing in science is ever accepted on faith at all and the premise that truth must be verified by the scientific method is valid. But, if scientism refers to someone claiming “there is no sort of truth that can’t be revealed through the scientific method”, that in itself is clearly an unscientific statement. Who knows what the future may reveal or from where? Whatever occurs in the future I am sure it will be scientifically tested but O’Brien quite rightly dismisses the idea proposed as scientism.

“The proposition that we’re all living in our own myth explains a lot.” – says it all really. All we can do is live and learn, try not to be taken in by obvious nonsense, and constantly question everything, including all that we currently ‘believe’, as reality is subject to change without notice – especially our own. Personally, I claim not to ‘believe’ anything – I understand our current scientific position on some things, I accept other things as the presently appear (for the moment) and I don’t know a lot of things. I continue to question everything – even things I think I already know for a fact.

Chapter 8. Religion and Violence… considers religious violence, using examples of Buddhist violence rather than other religions to make the points. The statement “…deep down, what they’re doing is not really about religion. By that I mean religion is not the prime motivator; fear, hate, greed, and ignorance are the prime motivators.” is spot on.

Chapter 9. The Wisdom of Doubt… Mythos and logos are given a useful airing in this chapter and I also liked O’Brien’s take that “Doubt is a path; belief is a prop.”

For me, the book has one or two flaws, as noted, but others may disagree. That does not mean it is not worth a read. There is plenty to think about and I would recommend it as a mind opening work for everyone.

Jim Whitefield ~ Author of The Mormon Delusion series.

[Chet · Rating 5 out of 5]

I stumbled upon the author's Mahablog and bookmarked it for reading her occasional commentary. Having concern for the apparent connection between religion and violence, I was interested in this book, which was advertised on her blog. I had been wondering for a long time: are people violent because of their religion, or would they be even more violent without religion? I was thinking in terms of Jews, Muslims, and Christians in the Middle East; the Catholic inquisition; the Crusades; and the current hijacking of Christianity in the US for political bigotry against gays, women, blacks. Historically, more people have probably been killed "for religion" than for any other reason.

The author gives the answer, but frames my question differently. She builds a case for her framing of the question and the answer and it would be inadequate for me to summarize it here. If the question interests you, read the book.

The author was raised in Christianity and then studied Buddhism. She discusses how people in such a non-violent religion as Buddhism can exercise such violence in isolated places like Sri Lanka and generalizes her answer to other religions, such as Christianity. She notes that dogmatic atheists follow a same pattern as do violent believers. Although she mentions jihad, she does not emphasize Muslims because of her stated relative inexperience in Islam. Once you see the general symptoms of distortion of religious beliefs for violent ends, then the lack of emphasis on Muslims is not a shortfall in the book.

How can people who profess to believe in the author of the Sermon on the Mount also think that the Bible has anything to do with abortion, justifying slavery, and the Constitution of the United States? If you are intrigued by this question, then you might benefit from this book.

[Delany · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent. Should be required reading for atheists (some of whom will be surprised that not all who are religious believe bizarre dogma and doctrines) and fundamentalists (and, unfortunately, it seems unlikely that many of them will read it). Highly recommended to those who wonder how we got to the point at which nearly all religious conversation in our time and culture is rancorous.