Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Wednesday, May 16, 2007 | Reason : Commentary | print version Print | Comments

Document Thought vs. feeling in religion

by James Carroll (The Boston Globe), International Herald Tribune

Thanks to Florian Widder for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/15/opinion/edcarroll.php

Religion serves two functions. It explains the mysteries of life. It helps overcome life's difficulties. Preachers who have influence are like good teachers, in the first case, or like motivational speakers, in the second. The powers of intellect are in tension here with emotional fervor. As happiness itself depends on vital interaction between thought and feeling, good religion achieves a balance between these polarities. The conflict between them was on display when Pope Benedict XVI arrived last week in Brazil.

Such are the stresses of life in the present generation that more and more people are looking to religion for the emotional boost they need to get through the day. The root meaning of "enthusiasm" is to be inspired by God, as the root of "ecstasy" is to be lifted out of oneself. Rapture, bliss, exaltation, the surprise of joy - these are descriptions of the high excitement that can come with certain kinds of religious experience, and they are much sought after. Enthusiasm is an escape, and there is much to escape from.

The decline of mainstream churches, with their often dry and emotionally sterile approaches to worship, is one measure of this, but so is astounding growth of megachurches, engaging millions of Christians around the globe. Megachurch liturgies, speaking generally, are more like rock concerts than traditional worship services, and the sermons are more like pep talks than discourses. The intense delight of group experience, whether through singing or moving to a raucous beat or trading the call-and-shout with the preacher, is valued over solitary contemplation. Labeled as evangelical, pentecostal or charismatic, these transporting movements are mostly associated with fundamentalist Protestant denominations, but other churches, including Anglican and Roman Catholic, have their enthusiastic versions, too. These forms thrive especially in Africa, Latin America and parts of Asia.

When it comes to emotional religion, the cerebral Benedict is the skeptic-in-chief, with a long history of warnings against the flight from rationality. Brazil is a world center of fervent pentecostal devotion, but in his visit the pope stayed away from it. From his circle came cautions against thinking of religion as entertainment. But the temperamental reserve of Northern Europe, like the predisposition of an academic theologian, is an inadequate basis on which to criticize the charismatic piety that has taken hold throughout the Southern Hemisphere. The issue is not whether praying people sway or lift their hands or close their eyes or give themselves over to group elation. The issue is what they pray for, what values they attach to their fervor, how their religion makes them behave.

In the United States, the megachurch movement is solidly aligned on one side of the culture wars. Suspicion of enlightenment assumptions, like the need for critical reading of texts or the notion of an evolving universe, is a mark of most new-breed evangelical religion. Megachurch preaching targets homosexuality and feminism. The flip side of rapture is an aggressive anti-intellectualism. The reason to oppose this American manifestation of religious enthusiasm is not just because it's bad religion: it's bad culture and politics, too.

In Latin America, impoverished people depend on religion for meaning and hope, but it is important that their beliefs not reinforce what keeps them impoverished. A piety that emphasizes rewards in heaven, downplaying the significance of the here and now, can do this. Fundamentalist religion has such tendencies, and should be criticized for them. But Latin American religion, even while increasingly fervent, can be expressly political. The Gospel is centrally a call to justice, and poor people throughout the continent are hearing it that way. The "base community" movement, spawned by Liberation Theology, is emotionally expressive and intellectually vital. Base communities - grass-roots worship groups within a top-down church - are explanatory and motivational centers both. When the critical mind and unleashed emotions come together in enthusiastic religion centered on social change (we saw this in the U.S. civil rights movement), the results can be as politically transforming as they are spiritually transporting.

Therefore, regarding what he saw in Brazil, Pope Benedict's skepticism toward religious enthusiasm is not nearly as significant as his long-established opposition to Liberation Theology. By silencing and banishing its intellectual leaders, the pope has been undermining the crucial connection between thought and feeling that keeps religion humane. He has been shoring up the power and wealth of that tiny oligarchy that cannot stand a growing mass of believers who see God as aligned with the poor, their religion as a mode less of rapture than of justice.

James Carroll's column appears regularly in The Boston Globe.

Comments 1 - 35 of 35 | | View Alternate Comment Thread

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #41439 by CJ22 on May 16, 2007 at 5:59 am

 avatarHe lost at me after the second sentence. No it doesn't. The third sentence is arguable, and could also be said of astrology.

Just for laughs, I sent the following to the editor:

"Dear Sir/Madam,

James Carroll's article "Thought vs. feeling in religion" lost me at the second sentence: "It explains the mysteries of life." No it doesn't! Even if God exists, religion simply defers the mysteries of life to another level of complexity ("Goddidit"). And if God does not exist, then it explains nothing, and actively inhibits us from finding a more reasonable explanation (should one exist). His third sentence polishes the idiocy to a shine: "It helps overcome life's difficulties." This is a highly debatable contention, and I would be interested in seeing any data he has supporting the theory, but in any case the same could be said of astrology and the healing power of crystals. There's irrationalism through faith, and there's irrationalism through lazy thinking. I'm not sure which is worse, but Mr. Carroll displays an excess of both in his article."



Other Comments by CJ22

2. Comment #41451 by NMcC on May 16, 2007 at 6:18 am

"James Carroll's column appears regularly in The Boston Globe."

Why?

Other Comments by NMcC

3. Comment #41458 by Pi Guy on May 16, 2007 at 6:37 am

I had to stop after he wrote "It explains the mysteries of life." Huh?

How could even add anything meaningful to what CJ22 wrote.

Other Comments by Pi Guy

4. Comment #41469 by edge100 on May 16, 2007 at 6:50 am

Religion serves two functions. It explains the mysteries of life.


I stopped reading after the first line...same as the others.

Other Comments by edge100

5. Comment #41473 by alfonso on May 16, 2007 at 7:00 am

Must agree with previous comments. First line and it lost me. Religion does not explain anything, in fact, tries as hard as possible to avoid what any reasonable person would call explaining anything.

Past that, all the rest is the usual and common attempt to unlink religion from its consequences (bad, bigoted politics) by blaming a few bad apples.

Other Comments by alfonso

6. Comment #41494 by PeterK on May 16, 2007 at 7:31 am

CJ22

Bravo--Excellent response!

Other Comments by PeterK

7. Comment #41503 by Bremas on May 16, 2007 at 7:53 am

For some reason I plowed thru it... it gets better.

"When it comes to emotional religion, the cerebral Benedict is the skeptic-in-chief, with a long history of warnings against the flight from rationality."

See what I mean.

Other Comments by Bremas

8. Comment #41522 by TranshumanAtheist on May 16, 2007 at 8:29 am

In Latin America, impoverished people depend on religion for meaning and hope, but it is important that their beliefs not reinforce what keeps them impoverished.


Latin Americans tend to reduce their dependency on these beliefs when they migrate to the U.S.:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,884,For-Some-Hispanics-Coming-to-America-Also-Means-Abandoning-Religion,Laurie-Goodstein

Does this indicate they renounce "meaning and hope" as soon as they cross the border? Or does it suggest they find meaning and hope from realty-based sources because of the better living conditions here?

Other Comments by TranshumanAtheist

9. Comment #41524 by JemyM on May 16, 2007 at 8:29 am

 avatarLost me at second sentence as well.

Other Comments by JemyM

10. Comment #41541 by steve99 on May 16, 2007 at 9:23 am

 avatarI feel many people here are too quick to dismiss the first few sentences. Religion is so successful because for so many people it does at least seem to explain the mysteries of life, and does help overcome life's difficulties. To claim it does not do this for people is to miss the whole problem, which is that the majority of humankind have never really understood what 'explanation' really means.

Sure, James Carroll could have worded things better, but the fact is that in terms of what the majority of people think he is right, and this is on the whole a pretty reasonable objective article about the state of religion.

There are many things to criticise about this article. For example, I am not sure there is any evidence to suggest that "more and more" people are looking to religion; in fact, I think that is nonsense. But there are also things to admire in what he says, such as this

In Latin America, impoverished people depend on religion for meaning and hope, but it is important that their beliefs not reinforce what keeps them impoverished. A piety that emphasizes rewards in heaven, downplaying the significance of the here and now, can do this. Fundamentalist religion has such tendencies, and should be criticized for them.


Sure, we here all know that religious explanations aren't really explanations at all.... but this article contains some useful points. When poor people in the 3rd world look for meaning, we aren't going to get very far if we try and tell them to 'think about the works of Einstein' or 'look at what Hubble has revealed'. We need to think of arguments and philosophical approaches suited to such situations. What is an atheist equivalent to 'Liberation Theology'?

Simply stopping at the second sentence with an exclamation of 'nonsense' is not going help with progress in spreading rationality.

Other Comments by steve99

11. Comment #41543 by Mash on May 16, 2007 at 9:26 am

After the second sentence I scrolled down to see if I could have the first go at it, I was too late:/
Can anyone tell my if it's worth my time?

CJ22
You have got to post the answer you get (if you get any)

Other Comments by Mash

12. Comment #41551 by poppythinks on May 16, 2007 at 9:40 am

 avatarsteve99 -What is an atheist equivalent to 'Liberation Theology'?
how about liberation from 'theology'?
and someone please tell me how religion 'explains the mysteries of life'?????? or 'explains' anything at all.....

Other Comments by poppythinks

13. Comment #41568 by steve99 on May 16, 2007 at 10:07 am

 avatarpoppythinks:

What is an atheist equivalent to 'Liberation Theology'?
how about liberation from 'theology'?


And how is that going to be achieved? Just walking up to people and saying "you are wrong?"

and someone please tell me how religion 'explains the mysteries of life'?????? or 'explains' anything at all.....


But that isn't the point, is it? The fact is that for billions, it *seems to* explain things. That is the problem! Yes, that is a delusion. The question is what do we do about it?

Going to up a poor illiterate farmer in South America and saying 'religion is nonsense - just read the Origin of Species' is not going to achieve anything. Religion is a motivation and a consolation. It is a false one, sure, but if we want to make progress in replacing it in such situations, we have to think of alternative philosophies if we are going to 'spread the word' of rationality in such situations.

Other Comments by steve99

14. Comment #41579 by cheguevara1970 on May 16, 2007 at 10:55 am

I disagree w/ the 1st group of bloggers. The author is merely stating that religion TRIES to explain the myteries of life. I do not feel that Mr. Carroll is claiming that religion has a legit explanation for the "mysteries of life." No one does. Either way, I thought it was a great article. I am from Latin America & I have seen the diconnect that the author is referring to in terms of Liberation Theology & the Vatican. In simple terms, the Liberation movement's notion is that Jesus was for the poor, & therefore the churches should, naturally, align themselves w/ the plight of those less fortunate. The author is also right on stating that Latin American religion is political in nature. To cite a great example of my previous statement, I urge you to do a search on Monsignor Arnulfo Romero from El Salvador, & his involvement w/ the Lefties udring the Civil War, which in turn, & ultimately, led to his assasination. I am a Deist, & by definition, I do not believe that the Creator interferes in our daily lives. However, I believe that religion could be used as a political tool for the better of the poor. Also, I agree w/ the author that the Civil Rights Movement in America was deeply influenced by religious notions of justice for defense-less people.

Other Comments by cheguevara1970

15. Comment #41584 by arthursanford on May 16, 2007 at 11:06 am

We should give credit to James Carroll for writing a decent book about the long history of persecution and pogroms inflicted on Jews by Christians. He traces the urge back to the foundation of Christianity and the early church fathers.

This is not to say I agree with him, but I do like that he offers another perspective. He is still far from from any nonsense spouting preacher.

Other Comments by arthursanford

16. Comment #41585 by cheguevara1970 on May 16, 2007 at 11:08 am

Steve99, I agree w/ your post. If we, as non-traditional believers, or defectors of main stream religions, are quick to dismiss articles like this one, then what does say about our level of tolerance?? To me, it basically states that we are as intolerant as the people we are criticizing. Again, I thought this was a great article that exposes the Vatican for trying to extinguish the flames of Liberation Theology.

Other Comments by cheguevara1970

17. Comment #41587 by steve99 on May 16, 2007 at 11:10 am

 avatarche:

You are right. I am somewhat disappointed by some of what I have read here. Just one slightly misplaced emphasis by Carroll (a better second sentence would have started with 'Many people think that [It explains the mysteries...]'), and we see reactions like 'I read no further', and a questioning ('why?') his articles are even published.

People here should follow the example of Richard Dawkins who argues with passion and eloquence against faith, but shows respect to many who hold it (as in his recent interview with the Bishop of Oxford).

I agree with most of what you say. However, I have a problem with using religion as a political tool. Actively encouraging adults to believe what you know to be falsehoods for such purposes seems horribly cynical to me (even though it does form the basis of much politics!). There has to be a better approach, surely.

Other Comments by steve99

18. Comment #41591 by Logicel on May 16, 2007 at 11:20 am

 avatarWhen it comes to emotional religion, the cerebral Benedict is the skeptic-in-chief, with a long history of warnings against the flight from rationality.
_____

Interesting article in the sense that it does pinpoint the kind of religious appeal which could affect political change for the positive.

However, The Pope and Liberation Theology are both based in irrationality, regardless of the degree of emotion which is encouraged. The Pope is a cold, irrational believer of superstitions, while the Liberation Theology followers are emotional believers in irrationality.

What is seldom stressed is that one can be emotional and rational at the same time, one does not preclude the other. Studies have pointed to the fact that without emotions, rational people could not function.

Other Comments by Logicel

19. Comment #41592 by cheguevara1970 on May 16, 2007 at 11:21 am

Steve99,

perhaps you are correct & there is a better approach. I just think that if Christians were truly to abide by the word of Jesus, & not that of Paul or John Calvin, then they, themselves, would be a part of the solution. After all, Jesus did have a mandate for his followers in regards to the poor:

"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." by JESUS OF NAZARETH (according to Matthew 6:2-4).

And that, in a nutshell, is what Liberation Theology is about. I think it could be useful if Christians followed the word of the man they call the Son of God. I mean, their reward is a great afterlife according to their prophet. Thanks for the vibe Steve.

Other Comments by cheguevara1970

20. Comment #41594 by cheguevara1970 on May 16, 2007 at 11:25 am

Logicel, all dogma is irrational. I think one of the author's point is that there is use for religion in terms of solving social injustices. He cites the Civil Rights Movement as a prime example. I think we should not dismiss that point.

Other Comments by cheguevara1970

21. Comment #41596 by Lauregon on May 16, 2007 at 11:30 am

Seems to me Carrol did indeed claim that religion explains the mysteries of life. Reading his second and third sentences, my reaction to them was "Oh, PLEASE!" On the other hand, I was glad to see a Catholic speak against the Pope's antagonism toward liberation theology. The Pope's recent address in Brazil left me sputtering and shouting futilely at my New York Times. Bendict saying that material conditions of the here and now aren't "reality" while a supernatural "God" is, infuriated me and sent me into a tirade (with my husband as a captive audience) against the hypocrisy of a Pope living in material splendor making making such absurd pronouncements to impoverished people---or to anyone, for that matter.

Other Comments by Lauregon

22. Comment #41600 by BaronOchs on May 16, 2007 at 11:34 am

 avatarThe Vatican has recently condemned a man called Jon Sobrino for writing books of liberation theology. As a result of his "errors" they have attempted to drive him out of the University of Central America and prevent him from getting other teaching posts.

The Vatican will still treat anyone it dislikes in a disgraceful way. Liberation theology was an honest response to the problems in South America, and I have some respect for the many catholics who think for themselves rather than swallowing everything from the smug vermin in Rome.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

23. Comment #41601 by Bonzai on May 16, 2007 at 11:34 am

Religion for most people appeals to the emotion. It is powerful precisely because it is delusional, this is a paradox for those who want to replace it with something. You can only generate the fervent state of devotion through something equally toxic and irrational such as nationalism.

No, I don't agree that it is entirely a question of poverty and ignorance.

Religion fills a void in some people's lives. It supplies false answers but many people would rather live with the certainty of falsehood than to embrace the truth of uncertainty. It goes deeper than material deprivation.

So it is not very helpful to denounce all religious people with the same brush, moderate versions of religion perhaps can act like some kind of vaccination that protects society from harmful strains of fundamentalism. Dawkins actually agrees with this to some degree in his TVO interview with Steve Paikin.

Other Comments by Bonzai

24. Comment #41609 by Lauregon on May 16, 2007 at 11:47 am

Re: CheGuevera1970 Post #41592

It seems that for most if not all believers it's not enough to accept and believe in the better teachings of Jesus as reported in the Bible. I've debated at length with supposedly "liberal" Christians who argue that the real message of the Gospel is "love," who insist and agree that living according to the Sermon On the Mount is what REALLY matters, but somehow can't begin to imagine letting go of supernatural doctrines without falling into an abyss of immorality and evil, and thus, will fiercely and endlessly defend supernatural beliefs.

Other Comments by Lauregon

25. Comment #41618 by CJ22 on May 16, 2007 at 12:00 pm

 avatarMash, I got a rather cold automated replay, so I;'m not holding my breath.

Steve99, I do take your point. But how often do we hear utterances by those of faith, often absurd utterances, that go completely unchallenged? While RD might have been more polite about it (and possibly not), he would certainly be in favour of challenging the special privelege of those espousing certitudes on behalf of religion.

That having been said, when I said 'he lost me' I didn't mean I stopped reading, I meant I became unsympathetic to what he had to say.

Other Comments by CJ22

26. Comment #41674 by poppythinks on May 16, 2007 at 2:44 pm

 avatarsteve99
atheism for me is a liberation from the constraints of 'religious thinking'.
i am not on a personal mission to change the world, or convert anyone with 'religious delusions'.
i admire dawkins, but i do not need him to set an example on how to engage with
bishops and other theologians. that is his style. i question everything, i don't do 'polite', but i am
very mindful of other people's feelings.
most atheists know there is no quick fix. in order to drop the delusions and the warm fuzzy comforting feelings, people need to find comfort in each other. there is nothing else. is that so bad?
to liberate from delusions an individual needs to go through a process of self-awareness until the thought patterns change. it is a slow evolving process which involves weaning from indoctrination and discovering what you really think. it would be wrong for atheism to force the religious/deluded to 'deconvert', all we can do is to show how humane we are, and how happy we are, without religion.

Other Comments by poppythinks

27. Comment #41692 by steve99 on May 16, 2007 at 3:31 pm

 avatarLauregon:

Seems to me Carrol did indeed claim that religion explains the mysteries of life.


Well, for a lot of people it does. That is indeed one of the functions of religion. We know it is false explanation, but we should not deny that it has that function.

poppythinks:


atheism for me is a liberation from the constraints of 'religious thinking'.
i am not on a personal mission to change the world, or convert anyone with 'religious delusions'.


But you were responding to my comment about what could replace Liberation Theology, which was about changing the world, at least for those who currently adopt that theology. That was my understanding anyway.

in order to drop the delusions and the warm fuzzy comforting feelings, people need to find comfort in each other. there is nothing else. is that so bad?


I would say there is much more that one can find comfort in than just other people - there are certain philosophies, there are wonders of Nature, there is art, music ....

Other Comments by steve99

28. Comment #41700 by FXR on May 16, 2007 at 3:52 pm

 avatar
When it comes to emotional religion, the cerebral Benedict is the skeptic-in-chief, with a long history of warnings against the flight from rationality.


That line is just priceless coming from a deluded little man who a few weeks ago claimed the fires of hell are real and then said "hey presto! Limbo just bit the dust".
Catholicism is a few galaxys away from rationality.

Other Comments by FXR

29. Comment #41701 by blods on May 16, 2007 at 3:54 pm

 avatarGiven that so many people said they couldn't read it beyond the first two or three sentences - I decided to opt for reading it backwards from the end. It helped a bit but I still gave up after the second paragraph :)

Other Comments by blods

30. Comment #41706 by Riley on May 16, 2007 at 4:05 pm

 avatarNice comments and observations steve99.

Other Comments by Riley

31. Comment #41719 by MAS2007 on May 16, 2007 at 5:05 pm

 avatarKinda makes you ashamed to be an ape desendant.

Side note: The main reasons there are poor farmers in south America, was the invasion of illegal immigrants from Europe and destruction of native cultures.

Other Comments by MAS2007

32. Comment #41760 by mbcraig11 on May 16, 2007 at 9:52 pm

lol I think everyone stopped after the second sentance lol.

Other Comments by mbcraig11

33. Comment #41804 by rokort on May 17, 2007 at 5:00 am

 avatarCheguevarra1970: I disagree w/ the 1st group of bloggers. The author is merely stating that religion TRIES to explain the myteries of life., and

Steve99: I feel many people here are too quick to dismiss the first few sentences. Religion is so successful because for so many people it does at least seem to explain the mysteries of life, and does help overcome life's difficulties.,

Pardon me for quoting only parts of your posts, but if he means it like you both think he does, why doesn't he write it up like that then?

My explanation: Religious believers will pose their fiction as universal truth whenever they can. If not by force then through lies.

Other Comments by rokort

34. Comment #41985 by Corylus on May 17, 2007 at 12:06 pm

 avatarComment by Blods
I decided to opt for reading it backwards from the end. It helped a bit...

Backwards! See, see, now that proves all atheists are really Satanists in disguise! I bet you play all your records backwards too, don't you? ;)

Other Comments by Corylus

35. Comment #42676 by Russell Blackford on May 19, 2007 at 3:23 am

Religions are explanatory systems. They purport to explain aspects of life that seem (to many people) to be important and mysterious. That's always been the case. It's also true that they provide (many) people with emotional comfort and support.

Admittedly, the way I just put it is speaking about religion from the outside. The person who wrote the article is (perhaps?) speaking more from inside it, but it's still worthwhile seeing whether any of it "translates" and offers any insight.

As to that, I find it odd thinking of Pope Benedict as on the side of reason, when the dogmas that he advocates are so patently crazy. I think of him as the world's leading irrationalist. But I guess I sort of get the point being made about his personality: he does use reason to deduce the implications of certain dogmas, irrespective of the fact that these have no rational support. It's a kind of garbage-in-garbage-out application of the ratiocinative intellect, void of much emotional warmth or human concern. If that's what Carroll is really telling us about the current pope, maybe there's some truth in it.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: