Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Yehuda Mishenichnas's avatar

>>>Sruli reviews a book he read over Pesach and argues for the way that religion’s appeal lies in personal experience and emotional connection, rather than logical arguments.

Isn't this an argument for the enjoyment and entertainment and fulfillment value of religion?

If someone asks you why you waste money going to the movie theater for $25pp instead of sitting on your couch with your loved one(s) and renting it on streaming for $2.99, you can respond, "because money isn't everything. Experience has value and everyone should be free to pay for the things they find valuable." And I would agree. Which is why discussing the personal experience and emotional connection derived from expending tremendous time, effort and money is a discussion about desire and taste. If you want to go out to dinner and spend $328 on something you could have stayed home and made yourself for $24, that would not be a valid attack unless the framework is efficacy or economy.

But religion is not about experience and emotions. That's how people feel, but it's how they feel about things that they claim are true. I have no problem with you eating your matzah-horseradish sandwich while leaning or lighting the menorah because it's your cherished culture. But to say that because it's your cherished culture, therefore it's true, that's faulty reasoning.

Of course the basis for religion is personal experience and emotional connection; we don't need a book to argue that, unless the book starts off by saying: "there's no good reason to think any of this is true, but let's discuss how much fulfillment you can derive." And if the argument makes sense to you, then expenditures (in time, effort and money in the form of buying tzitzis and paying private school tuition and giving the mikva lady $40 and paying $9/lb for Empire chicken instead of $3 for Tyson chicken) cannot be argued against, other than from an economical perspective. I could try to convince you that you don't need those expensive dinners out and those expensive clothes and you can either be convinced and save money and stay home and make your own food for much cheaper, or you can disagree.

>>>Some, like Angela—an Asian-American as devoted to atheism as she was to ethical living—found themselves drawn to religion almost against their will. “I think at some point,” Angela says, “it just felt like I couldn’t imagine not making this part of my life.” Others, like the “spiritually precocious” Orianne, grew up with an innate sense of the Divine, which led her to become a sister of the Daughters of St. Paul. What binds these women together is their happenstance encounter, engagement, and marriage to faith. Love stories, after all, are always nourishing.

>>>In a word, Godstruck is making the best case for religion in our times.

It seems clear to me that this post is making my point. The best case...the only case...for religion are stories like this. That people want fulfillment and they want to feel connected. They feel something is missing in their lives. And all of that is fine. But how could you possibly suggest that stories about 7 different conflicting and largely mutually exclusive views (Quakerism, Evangelicalism, Mormonism, Islam, the Amish church, Catholicism, and Judaism) could promote a unified idea?

Hitchens and Harris highlight this failure when they speak of how religion is a suitcase term. To say that Mormonism and Catholicism and Islam and Judaism are all religions is to say that chess and badminton and tai boxing are all sports. What is the value of referring to them all in the same category, Harris asks, when there is hardly anything linking these various sports other than breathing? It's a false alignment being proposed here, and it's so obvious to anyone who considers it for more than a moment. It's only beautiful to talk about 7 women's paths to personal connection and emotional fulfillment if you don't ask them about what each on thinks about the other 6 women and their necessarily false journeys. According to Wikipedia, Islam would maintain this about Mormonism:

"LDS Christianity asserts that the Godhead is made up of three distinct "beings", Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost so united with one purpose as to be indistinguishable. Furthermore, its doctrine of Eternal Progression asserts that God was once a man, and that humans may become gods themselves. All of this is emphatically rejected by Islam, which views these doctrines as polytheistic, sinful, and idolatrous, totally the opposite to the revelation of the Quran and the teachings of Muhammad, the final prophet of Islam."

I won't bother going through all the other conflicts between the 7 religions referenced, but suffice it to say that Hitchens and Harris make a lot of sense here and Osgood seems to be very confused. It's not that emotions do not matter, but it's that they do not matter for the assessment of truth when you're assessing the truth.

If doesn't matter how much you want a sandwich...if you don't have bread, you can't make a sandwich.

>>>I can’t follow him into his Middle Earth kingdom of angels, demons, and elves just because a book he’s read shows that a universe in which life is possible has a one in 10-to-the-120th-power chance of being random

George Packer clearly doesn't understand evolution. It's not random, just unguided, and the difference is not trivial.

>>>I am not religious because it makes sense. I am religious because I love God and I believe in religion’s worth and validity

Can you elaborate on this, please? You say you love someone, but how do you know he exists? You say you believe in religion's worth (which is immaterial) but also that it is valid. Can you please explain what you mean by this and why?

>>>Kelsey Osgood’s latest book, Godstruck, shows why people fall in love with religion

Just because people do something doesn't mean they have good reason to do so.

Expand full comment

No posts