Extract from my OUP book Humanism: A Very Short Introduction, which references the Alpha Course (it's from chpt 7)
Religion vs. shallow,
selfish individualism
Let’s now turn to religious practice. Setting aside the
issue of whether God exists, perhaps it might still be argued that religious
reflection or observance is required if our lives are not to be shallow and
meaningless. Here is one such argument.
It is sometimes claimed, with some justification, that
religion encourages people to take a step back and reflect on the bigger
questions. Even many non-religious people suppose that a life lived out in the
absence of any such reflection is likely to be rather shallow. Contemporary
Western society is obsessed with things that are, in truth, comparatively
worthless: money, celebrity, material possessions, etc. Our day-to-day lives
are out often lived out within a narrow envelope of essentially selfish concerns,
with little or no time given to contemplating bigger questions. It was
religious tradition and practice that provided the framework within which such
questions were once addressed. With the loss of religion, we have inevitably
slid into selfish individualism. If we want people to enjoy a more
meaningful existence, we need to reinvigorate religious tradition and practice
(some would add that we need, in particular, to ensure young people are
properly immersed in such practices in school).
There is some truth in the above argument.
Religion can encourage people to take
a step back and contemplate the bigger issues. It can help break the hypnotic
spell that a shallow, individualistic culture can cast over young
minds.
However,
religion can itself also promote forms of selfishness – such as a
self-interested obsession with achieving ones own salvation or personal
enlightenment. And of course religion has itself been used to glorify material
wealth, by suggesting that great wealth is actually a sign of God’s favour.
Is it true
that only religion encourages us to
think about the big questions? No. In chapter 1 we saw that there is another
long tradition of thought running all the way back to the Ancient world that
also addresses the big questions – a secular, philosophical tradition. If we want people, and especially
children, to think about such questions, we are not obliged to take the
religious route. We can encourage them to think philosophically.
Indeed, as
I point out in chapter 6, there is evidence that introducing philosophy
programmes into the curriculum can have a dramatic impact on both the behaviour
of pupils and the ethos and academic standing of their schools.
Most contemporary humanists are just as concerned about
shallow, selfish individualism as are religious people. They too believe it is
important we should sometimes take a step back and consider the big questions.
They just deny that the only way to encourage a more responsible and reflective
attitude to life is to encourage children to be more religious.
If we want to encourage young people to really think about the big questions, philosophy is, arguably, a much more
promising approach. The Church of England poses the question “Is this it?” on
billboards and buses, promising those who sign up to their Alpha Course “An
opportunity to explore the meaning of life”. However, when the religious raise such
questions, they are often posed for rhetorical effect only. They are asked, not
in the spirit of open, rational enquiry, but merely as the opening gambit in an
attempt to sign up new recruits. Unlike religion, philosophy does not
approach such questions having already committed itself to certain answers
(though it does not rule out
religious answers, of course). Philosophy
really does encourage you to think, question and make your own judgement – an
approach to answering the Big Questions that, in reality, many religions have
traditionally been keen to suppress.
Recommendation: If you are interested in exploring the meaning of life, an alternative to the Alpha Course is to get into Philosophy instead. Why not try this?!
Comments
But I naively swallowed the subtle claims that religion was needed for one to be good and to do good. What a wicked, pernicious and nasty doctrine religion is.
Religion may get some people to reflect on life, its meanings and how we might best navigate it. But it has the effect of setting up barriers for those who would do the same without reference to religion.
We really don't need religion to help us think about life, universe and everything. On the contrary, we need to destroy religion so that we can prevent it from alienating rational people from doing just that.
On a side note, there is an exceptional account of the attendance of an alpha course by a sceptic. The website can be found at http://alphacoursereview.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/week-1a-introduction/
It's a cracking read and if you are considering attending a course, you know what you are in for.
Though it is not because there have been certain religions or denominations in particular religions that have misused people and have indoctrinated people, that we need "to destroy religion so that we can prevent it from alienating rational people from doing just that."
We have to let people see the dangers of certain religious groups and show them that it is always very important to think for them selves, and not letting others think for them.