Nigerians are among the most religious people in the world. But most of them hardly spend time to reflect on the origin and nature of religious worship. Moreover, they accept the doctrines of Christianity and Islam uncritically, and hardly deviate from the religions of their parents or of the society to which they belong. Given the recurrent problem of religious intolerance and recrudescence of fundamentalist violence in Nigeria and in different parts of the world presently, it is important that believers should periodically reflect on the essence of their faiths. This is because such reflection can lead to better understanding of the purpose of religion as a means of attaining spiritual enlightenment leading to a better practice of life. To trigger the much-needed reflection is the major objective of this paper.
Now, the ubiquity of religion globally probably indicates a deep-seated need for self-transcendence, for reaching “towards the beyond,” in human beings. Similarly, archaeological discoveries in different parts of the world establish that pre-historic humans engaged in religion. It follows that religion is an important aspect of human existence on earth, because it ministers to some basic human psychological and spiritual needs. At any rate, despite the antiquity of religion, scholars are still debating fundamental issues connected to human proclivity to worship a transcendental creator of the universe believed to exist. For example, questions about the meaning, origin and nature of religion are yet to be settled, just as the ontological status of the beings postulated by different religions and epistemological queries with respect to religious claims continue to generate controversies in academic circles.
Like most words that denote a complex phenomenon or complicated human practice, theologians, philosophers and other scholars interested in the subject have defined ‘religion’ in various ways. Sometimes, religion is defined as whatever anybody believes in strongly, with the implication that everybody has a religion, because each person has entrenched beliefs. Such a reductionist definition of religion is unacceptable. As J.I. Omoregbe correctly points out, it would mean that atheists and agnostics have their own religion, since they strongly believe that God does not exist or that evidence either for the existence or nonexistence God is inconclusive, a conclusion that is at odds with the dogmatic nature of religion.
Another erroneous conception of religion equates it with morality. According to proponents of this view, morality is inseparable from religion; morality cannot exist without religion. However, the fact that religions embody some moral teachings does not entail the inseparability of religion and morality. This follows from the fact that there are atheists and agnostics of high moral quality who profess no religion, and countless believers of low moral worth. Indeed, religion needs morality, and not the other way round. Of course, adherence to a particular religion can induce one to live a morally upright life. Yet, a non-believer can be highly moral based on philosophical, secular and humanistic considerations.
A useful approach to the problem of defining religion is by analysing the etymological roots of the word itself. ‘Religion,’ according to Omoregbe, evolved from three Latin words, namely, ligare (to bind), relegere (to unite or link), and religio, (rendered in English as ‘relationship’). Omoregbe argues, from the foregoing, that religion indicates a relationship between at least two persons, which are the human person and the divine person or God who is believed to exist. Thus, religion links human beings to a divine transcendent spiritual being. In the relationship, God or the Supreme Being is the originator and sustainer of the universe and all its contents, including humans, whereas it is the duty of believers to worship the Supreme Being.
Monotheism, belief in one God, evolved at different times in different communities. There is good evidence that polytheism, the belief in more than one God, antedated monotheism. Now, polytheism is declining steadily globally: more than half of the world’s population are Christians and Muslims, which are monotheistic in nature, although the concept of trinity complicates the picture of God in Christianity. Traditional African religions embody what might be called diffuse or soft monotheism, in the sense that the Supreme Being is considered so remote from human beings that it has to be propitiated through intermediaries or lesser Gods and Goddesses.
It must be remarked that, although majority of the religions practiced by human beings since the dawn of civilisation contain belief in God or lesser deities as an article of faith, the original version of Buddhism founded by Siddhartha Gautama was fundamentally atheistic. This contradicts the theory that belief in God is a basic requirement in religion; it also indicates that such a belief is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for categorising systems of beliefs and practices as a religion.
At the barest minimum, any system of beliefs can be called a religion if it postulates a non-empirical transcendental world or state of being generally considered superior in some sense to what obtains in this life. It must also involve belief in afterlife and special modes of behaviour and practices, including prayers and worship, that help believers tap into the supernatural realm and gain access to the transcendental state we alluded to earlier especially after death. Hence, virtually every religion contains an eschatology or doctrine of the final or last events, particularly in the purported afterlife.
Differences in religious beliefs and observances stem from the incredible mix of contingent socio-cultural, historical, geographical, economic, political and biographical factors that determine their form and content. Yet, despite these differences, there are similarities that unite them and justify classifying them as ‘religion.’ That is why scholars have sought to penetrate the surface and probe deep to uncover what might be called the essence of religion.
Of the numerous theories on the origin and purpose of religion, six of them are predominant. The first one we shall consider is the anthropological theory posited by Ludwig Feuerbach in his book, The Essence of Christianity. According to the theory, religion is nothing other than the worship of human nature. God is the projection of everything of value in human nature. Feuerbach argues that In the process of inventing the idea of God, human beings alienate themselves from their very nature. All the divine qualities attributed to the divine being are human qualities projected into an imaginary being called God. Hence, “the yearning of man after something above himself is nothing else than the longing after the perfect type of his nature, the yearning to be free … from the limits and defects of his individuality.” The Christian doctrine of Incarnation, in which God became man (Jesus) so that man might become God, agrees with Feuerbach’s anthropological theory.
To a large extent, Feuerbach is correct in that all the qualities ascribed to God are usually the superlative of positive attributes of humans – wisdom, intelligence, justice, mercy, justice, power, creativity etc. The main problem with Feuerbach’s theory is that it concentrates too much on the idea of God and paid little attention to other important features of religion that cannot be easily explained as projections of human nature.
For example, the notion of projection cannot account for the psychology of fear and devotion associated with religion. Besides, human nature is multi-dimensional and difficult to define. Therefore, if the idea of God is just the projection and worship of human nature, what determines aspects of human nature that are projected unto God and the ones that are not? It is difficult to answer these pertinent questions based on Feuerbach’s theory.
Karl Marx, the patron saint of Marxism, affirms that religion is a by-product of economic exploitation of the masses in the capitalist system. In his view, religion is the opium of the people, the cry of the oppressed under merciless conditions. In response to the anguish and poverty caused by excruciating economic exploitation, Marx expatiates, the masses look up towards the sky to an imaginary being, God, for deliverance. That is why the poor cling to religion devotedly; it also explains why people tend to be more religious in times of suffering and hardship. He avers that the religious misery is simultaneously the expression of real misery, and protest against the real misery. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the feeling of a heartless world just as it is the spirit of a spiritless condition. Members of the ruling class, including the rich, encourage religion because it works like a sedative and an effective disincentive that discourages the masses from revolting against their oppressors. Thus, religion, by emphasising the doctrine that devout believers who suffer in this life will be rewarded by God with eternal bliss in an incomparably better place called heaven, serves as a powerful weapon against the urge to change existing oppressive socio-economic system. The question that naturally arises is: what is the best approach for tackling the oppressive conditions which drive people to religion? Marx answers by recommending complete overhaul of the exploitative capitalist system responsible for the poverty and misery in human society. Once capitalism is eliminated, and therewith the economic exploitation associated with it, religion will die out.
Any objective examination of the provenance of religion must acknowledge the nexus between the economic conditions prevalent in society and religion. It is undeniable that religion is more prevalent in poor, economically backward, countries than in developed rich countries. Again, people tend to cling closer to religion in times of hardship and suffering. That said, Marx’s analysis does not tell the whole story about religion. The phenomenon of religion has always been part of human existence irrespective of economic system and social conditions. Therefore, even if capitalism and economic exploitation were eliminated worldwide, religion will remain because there are certain existential conditions peculiar to humans that impel people to religion. Consequently, any theory that explains religion solely based on economic exploitation pays lip service to the deep-rooted psychological dimension of religious consciousness.
The most famous French sociologist, Émile Durkheim, posits a sociological explanation of religion in his work, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. Durkheim argues that religion is a social product, which functions as an instrument for controlling members of the society. The society has such a tremendous impact on its members that the latter personifies its influence into a divine being that symbolises the might of society. Hence, “collective” individuals worship society in the form of God. Durkheim re-echoes Feuerbach’s view that all divine attributes of God are nothing other than the qualities of the society. What religious adherents refer to as commandments of God are the moral demands of the society. Moral demands are the demands that society makes on its members for its own self-preservation.
A little reflection shows that Durkheim is right in drawing attention to the social dimension of religion, since religion is an important component of a people’s culture. In addition, he correctly notes the pervasive influence of society on its members and the way it generates religious consciousness. However, his reification and apotheosis of society as if it is something apart from the individuals and institutions that constitute it goes too far. Granted that society, through the mechanism and operation of traditions and institutions, exerts a tremendous influence on its members, it does not follow that individuals cannot overcome societal influences to create a fresh vision of the world based on new foundational moral and spiritual principles that oftentimes contradict existing norms. Largely, paradigmatic individuals and creators of new worldviews and religions like Krishna, Zoroaster, Socrates, Muhammad and others changed profoundly the moral cum spiritual temperature of their societies by stepping beyond existing moral and spiritual consciousness through an appeal to a force or dimension beyond the society. In that regard, although the origins of most world religions cannot be dated with exactitude, a single person usually apprehends the vision that eventuates into a new religion first before other members of the society where it originated and beyond convert to the new faith.
Sigmund, the founder of psychoanalysis, was extremely interested in religion. This is not surprising, considering that there is a fundamental psychological dimension in religion. In his works, especially Totem and Taboo, The Future of an Illusion, and Moses and Monotheism, he expresses his views on the subject. Freud describes what he calls the “oceanic feeling” or mystical experience associated with religion as a feeling of an indissoluble bond or oneness with the whole of the universe, a feeling of something infinite, and a sensation of eternity. For Freud, who unequivocally accepts the existence of oceanic feeling, that very feeling reflects the infant’s undifferentiating consciousness in which the ego and the world are intimately connected experientially.
Naturally, the ego eventually develops capacity to separate itself from the world as the infant grows, but a residue of the child’s inclusive ego persists into adulthood. He believes that the origin of religion is rooted in the child’s relationship with the father. Typically, a child is weak and incapable of dealing with the challenges of life without help. Realising his weakness, the child naturally seeks the protection of his father in times of difficulty. Religion, Freud maintains, is fundamentally this childhood mentality extended into adulthood.
More generally, faced with the existential vicissitudes of life, particularly the uncaring powerful forces of nature, disease, frustrations, and, ultimately, the certainty of death, humans realise the utter helplessness and vanity at the core of their being. Like a child, they spontaneously seek the protection of a father. Finding none, they imagine one for themselves and invest the object of their imaginative creation with superlative human attributes. Therefore, God, according to Freud, is an imaginary being, an imaginary father who is nothing other than a child’s image of his father.
Religion is an illusion, a psychotic delusion and a neurotic compulsion. An illusion is not necessarily contrary to fact, whereas a delusion contradicts reality. Furthermore, illusions may or may not be realisable; what characterises them is that they typically originate from wishes.
To be concluded.
No comments:
Post a Comment