Here.
I just finished Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion. Coupled with this is a fascinating article I've been editing for Wilder Voice, on the search for cultural identity without religion. As a side note, I should say that this issue of Wilder Voice, at least thus far, promises to be the best yet, and I am quite excited. Moving on.
This isn't a review of The God Delusion. No no, these are questions. And not necessarily critical of Dawkins, though they could be that too:
(1)(a) Dawkins gets his wish; "superstition" disappears. What happens to the quest for cultural identity? A quest that is awesome (in the sense of dawning awe) and necessary. Religion, for all its faults, is also an impressive way to enter into a cultural context. It is, I think, less necessary for someone like me (or, I'd venture to say, Dawkins). That is, I--a white male, well-off, privileged and all that GAWS jazz--am surrounded constantly by "my" culture. It is so ubiquitous, I don't even know it's mine. But what about the Somali community in Riverside, Minneapolis? The black community in Jordan, Minneapolis? What about those relegated to the fringes of culture even here at Oberlin? For the same reason that a combination of base tribalism and religion can be so dangerous (think the Taliban or even the American Taliban), it can be a powerful way to (1) maintain cultural diversity (a good, I'd argue, in and of itself), (2) keep ones sense of connectivity, and (3) open up new ways of thinking and seeing to others. And the diversity-aware side of me thinks that the prayers said in African Heritage House, while baffling to me, are much more than superstition; they are a way for a marginalized group to come together and be as one.
(1)(b) What happens to the problems of tribalism? Dawkins argues, quite convincingly, that the divisions and bloodshed in Northern Ireland were almost completely caused by religion. Sure. But if, now, superstition was taken out of the equation, would tribalism be enough to keep the fighting going? My intuition is that, while religion may be an "amplifier" of tribal conflict, it is not a cause.
(2) Our generation--Gen Pomo--is in a right state, caught between the postmodern pincers of irony and relativism. Irony (and its brothers, irreverence and cynicism) make it difficult to (a) believe in religious supernaturalism and (b) engage in an earnest way with the not-so-dangerous cultural aspects of religion. On the other hand, our relativism makes it impossible to be, as Dawkins is, simply disdainful [too strong, perhaps] of tribalism. So here we are, too ironic to engage and too cautious to dismiss.
(3) There is beauty in culture and religion. Beauty in blind faith. Beauty in that quixotic religious struggle. Can I--the author--give that up?
Using words like quixotic generally means I'm too tired to really think straight. Off to bed with me.
|