Does Modern Humanity Still Need Religion?

Throughout the tumultuous history of human evolution on Earth, humanity has managed to unravel many mysteries of existence and the universe with the help of science and philosophy. Humans are no longer the beings who feared nature. Religions, with a history of approximately four thousand years, have accompanied humanity throughout this time, providing refuge for the fearful and establishing dos and don'ts for living in this world. But does the institution of religion still have relevance for modern humans? In an age of science and technology, where natural phenomena can be explained with verifiable scientific reasons, what need does humanity have for religion? In a world burning with the fires of fanaticism, what role does religion play, which has been intertwined with wars and prejudices throughout its history? In short, is religion still useful for our lives? This week on Taboo, we host two researchers in philosophy and religion, Soroush Dabbagh and Zaher Bagheri Noeparast, to discuss this very topic. If we look at the evolution of religion throughout history, we see that religion has been associated with unraveling mysteries and answering humanity's questions about itself and the universe. The question now is, in a world where science has largely unraveled these mysteries, what need does humanity have for religion? What purpose does religion serve in this world? Soroush Dabbagh: Your question about whether religion is useful in the modern world can be framed in several ways. As you mentioned, and as some sociologists like Weber have pointed out, we live in a world that has been demystified, and unlike the past, the world does not overflow with God and spirituality; we face a world that science and technology have presented to us in a different light. This is true. If we consider the period from the Renaissance onwards, with the emergence of new science and philosophy, a different image of the world has been presented to us. At the same time, there are at least two ways to respond to your question. One way is to examine the issue from a psychological perspective: despite the demystification of the world, does religion still respond to some of humanity's needs in the current age? Can it possibly reduce human pain and suffering? Another question is whether, in light of the challenges and inquiries posed by figures like Freud, Darwin, Marx, or Feuerbach in the modern world, religion still holds epistemological value and captures hearts. I believe the answer to the first question is affirmative. Despite the advances in science, technology, and philosophy, we can still find individuals in this demystified world who find their world mysterious and see religion as a source of meaning. A functionalist perspective tells us that religion still has a function in the modern world. There are evidently many individuals from various cultures and societies who, in the heart of this demystified 21st century, use religion as a reservoir for meaning in their lives. In the Middle East, in Europe, and in America, this is the case. Of course, the number of atheists is not insignificant either. However, it is not the case that religion has become incapable of providing meaning to life and alleviating human psychological suffering. Regarding the second question, it depends on whom you ask. Even in the current era, I still believe that among philosophers and sociologists, there are those working in the empirical sciences who argue that the sacred realm can be defended and a reasonable narrative can be provided. Therefore, I think the comprehensive image suggests that despite the decrease in the number of religious individuals in the modern world and the ideas proposed by figures like Darwin, Freud, and Marx, it does not mean that the philosophical, sociological, and scholarly discussions about religion have completely emptied out, and we can no longer find religious individuals, whether they adhere to Abrahamic religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) or Eastern religions. Mr. Dabbagh believes that religion still has utility in today's world. Mr. Bagheri Noeparast, do you have a response to this question? Zaher Bagheri Noeparast: When we talk about scientific progress, we mainly refer to the natural sciences, which have helped us understand the natural world. In fact, compared to religious individuals who lived centuries ago, we have a much more precise and better understanding of our natural world. Some aspects of religions have made claims about the natural world, such as the claim that the sun revolves around the Earth or that the diversity of species is a direct and separate creation by God. These claims have been questioned. Some religious individuals have reconciled their beliefs with these scientific advancements, while others still resist. However, what is particularly important for religious individuals is not primarily the natural world, the stars, planets, or biological mechanisms. Religion provides very simple and understandable answers to fundamental and complex existential questions that may be anxiety-inducing for us, such as where we come from, where we are going, why we exist in this world, and what we should do in this world. Reason and science indeed reveal these questions with greater depth and subtlety, but this depth and subtlety may not calm many, and religion can play that role for them. There was a time when people believed that the world was very small, that the Earth was the center of existence, and that the universe was created for humans to be tested. This image is highly controversial. We now know that the universe is much larger and older than previously thought, and it seems unreasonable that such a vast universe was created for a single human being on a small planet in a solar system that is itself small, to be tested. This image is very simplistic and creates a kind of existential significance for humans. I believe that in our time, this religiously meaningful image has been seriously challenged by science. In philosophy, this certainty [that exists in religion] does not exist. The same goes for science. In science, rival theories always exist, and it is not the case that we can think of a personality that exists and tells us what we should do, serving as an unquestionable source of faith. Beyond all this, I would like to say that religion, contrary to what may be assumed, is a phenomenon that still has many unknown dimensions. The reasons for its formation and, more importantly, its resilience—how it endures so long in human lives—are questions for which we still do not have satisfactory answers. The general question of whether we inherently possess a religious nature is a very complex question, and I do not think there is an answer to it. However, just because something exists in our nature does not mean it is correct. Just as, for example, patriarchy has been a characteristic of all human societies so far, no one can conclude that patriarchy is a necessity for humanity. Mr. Dabbagh! Mr. Bagheri Noeparast mentioned the resilience of religion and how, despite all the attacks from science and philosophy and all the historical transformations, it still exists. Some argue that in philosophy and science, we are always faced with doubt and falsifiability, while religion decisively and even imperatively determines matters, and because it is a matter of certainty, it alleviates human anxiety about not knowing what to do in this world. Could this be one of the reasons for the resilience of religion? Dabbagh: I do not think that the explanation you provided is a comprehensive or all-encompassing one, in the sense that for some, the world is indeed very clear and it is evident where we come from and where we can go and should go. These can be referred to as conventional religious individuals. However, if you move beyond this spectrum and step into a different style of religiosity, among mystics and spiritual individuals, theologians, and philosophers, you can encounter concerns and existential turbulence that we might even see among non-religious individuals. In other words, the world of some religious individuals is very vast, and the safe shore you mentioned is not the case for some of them. Their understanding of the origin of the universe differs significantly from that of many conventional religious individuals. Regarding the story of what you call the 'resilience' of religion—which I do not use this term—similar to what Will Durant said, that religion has a hundred lives—one of the important things religion does is to provide a kind of cosmic reconciliation. In other words, you give meaning to your life through religiosity. It creates a kind of harmony and cosmic reconciliation, preventing you from feeling helpless in this world. One of the important concepts in Aristotle's philosophy is telos, which we refer to as purpose or goal. It is a teleological view that conceives of existence as having a purpose or does not see existence as standing on its own, blind, deaf, and random, nor does it throw humans into a state of helplessness and abandonment. Another point I wanted to make is that, well, now moving beyond science and philosophy, the sense of national solidarity is also a meaning-giving aspect of life and is not of the same nature as philosophy and science, but it seems that this amount is not sufficient. In its own place, it is a very good thing, but if human beings were to carry their burdens with just that, people would no longer turn to religion. Mr. Bagheri Noeparast, we are discussing whether religion is still useful for humanity, and in such a discussion, one cannot avoid the famous Marxist phrase that 'religion is the opium of the masses.' What point can you add to our discussion regarding this? Bagheri Noeparast: First, I would like to make a few points. First, the program's other guest mentioned that not all religious individuals are the same, and there is a plurality among them, which is correct. However, if religion is to lack one of its defining features, that is, the faith and certainty we find in religions, then if religion were to lead to skepticism like philosophy and to uncertainty like science, it becomes somewhat difficult to understand the distinction between religion and other phenomena. Another point is that we are not faced with a dilemma where we either think that nature has a purpose or that it is blind and deaf. We can be astonished by nature and the vast amount of wonder it contains, which can stimulate our aesthetic sense, etc. In other words, this depressed view that the world is blind and deaf and that we must reach a state of meaninglessness is not inherent in accepting that the world lacks purpose. Regarding nationality, you mentioned that yes, it is true that nationality also provides a sense of belonging, but my Iranian identity is not connected to a specific worldview that scientific progress would challenge, and thus my nationality would be challenged, leading me to a crisis of meaning. Regarding whether religion is the opium of the masses or not; if we say that religion is specific to the oppressed class and that there is an oppressive class in society that uses religious beliefs, we are only facing one type of religious relationship. This exists, but it is not the only type. Because we have instances where religion has led to political liberation, a famous example being Martin Luther King. Thus, general expressions like 'religion is the opium of the masses' or 'religion is the salvation of humanity' are, in my opinion, not accurate expressions. There was also a point in Mr. Dabbagh's comments about cosmic reconciliation. Here, it might not be a bad idea for you to provide an explanation. This cosmic reconciliation, which is a very grand expression based on religious beliefs about the universe and creation, which science has refuted, how can it be a reconciliation? Reconciliation based on what? Bagheri Noeparast: One issue is what facts we have about the universe. Well, with what modern science tells us, the universe is very complex, much more complex than the understanding that existed at the time the dominant religions were proposed. The challenge that religious individuals face here is that if the image religion provides of existence and humanity's place in it is based on facts, then we can take its cosmic reconciliation seriously. If it is not, it must come forward and explain on what basis and mechanism this reconciliation is established. Mr. Dabbagh, in the continuation of the discussion, if you have a response, please share, and it would be good to also look at the relationship between ethics and religion. Many believe that a moral life means a religious life, and the logical continuation of this is that a life without religion becomes an immoral life. This perspective has many opponents as well. What is your view? Dabbagh: When we talk about our relationship and the feeling of reconciliation in the universe, of course, this image can be far from the conventional image of God or the understanding and perception of the generality of religious individuals regarding the transcendent. However, all of these can be within the domain of religious individuals, meaning that the understanding of a mystic or philosopher like Suhrawardi or Rumi or Attar of Nishapur regarding the transcendent is light-years away from conventional religious individuals. Yet they still believe in cosmic reconciliation. Their understanding of God is not a king sitting above the clouds and a defined and limited being, but they feel longing for His infinitude, colorlessness, and indefiniteness.