Anyone studying religion is immediately and unavoidably faced with a difficult dilemma: believers report that their religion is a source for morality and values in their lives â€" and there are many examples of religion inspiring good behavior â€" but at the same time religion is also demonstrably a source for violence, terrorism, war, and evil. What is it about faith that it can inspire so much negative behavior even while being promoted as a force for good? What is the connection?
Summary
Title: Bad Faith: The Danger of Religious Extremism
Author: Neil J. Kressel
Publisher: Prometheus Books
ISBN: 1591025036
Pro:
• Explores psychological and sociological factors behind religious extremism
Con:
• Argues too strongly for tolerating destructive religious beliefs
Description:
• Explores connection between religious faith and extremist violence
• Discusses why Islam is more violent than Christianity and Judaism
• Describes why extremist beliefs can be attractive
Book Review
Neil J. Kressel, a professor of psychology at William Paterson University, explores this connection in his book Bad Faith: The Danger of Religious Extremism. Some books on this subject are mostly about condemning the aspects of religion which lead to violence while others try to excuse religion by arguing that the doctrines which lead to violence aren't part of "true" religion in the first place. Kressel adopts a different course which is critical of those doctrines which can lead to violence, but he also cautions that violence isn't the only consequence of such beliefs.
On the contrary, some forms of "militant" faith may have positive benefits for some believers by helping them construct meaning in their lives and encouraging self-esteem. Is it possible to reasonably condemn the destructive influence of some religious beliefs even while encouraging tolerance for those beliefs themselves? I don't think so, and that's a major flaw in Kressel's project.
White Supremacism, for example, could arguably encourage self-esteem in the lives of young, improvised white men while helping them make sense of the problems which afflict them. Can we "tolerate" White Supremacism for such "positive" benefits while condemning the violence consequences which are spawned by it? No â€" it can be "tolerated" in the sense that it isn't outlawed, but nothing further is appropriate. I'm not saying that religion is as bad as White Supremacism, but if the argument doesn't work for White Supremacism then it doesn't work for religion either.
It's true that the source of problems isn't religion alone. Economics, politics, and family also play a significant role, sometimes making a difference in the choices believers make with their religion. It is a mistake, however, to completely excuse religion and focus entirely on aberrant psychology or sociology â€" though one positive aspect of Kressel's book is how he explores the psychological and sociological factors which influence extremism, encourage extremism, and make extremism more violent.
The fact that more ethical, level-headed, and reasonable believers don't fall to extremism isn't just an example of the relevance of psychology and sociology. It's also a demonstration of how much less power religion has over people â€" and how much people derive from non-religious influences. Indeed, much of Kressel's book helps prove this point. He focuses extensively on how much more violent Islam is than Christianity and Judaism is today â€" and raises the interesting point that, given the absolutist nature of so many religions, the real question may be why Christianity and Judaism are less violent, not why Islam is so violent.
Bad Faith: The Danger of Religious Extremism
Image Courtesy PriceGrabber.com He can't argue, though, that Muslims tend to be less ethical, level-headed, or reasonable than Christians or Jews. One of the most significant differences isn't that Muslims are less ethical, but that they have fewer non-religious influences to draw from. When seeking to explain what's happening around them or solutions that lead to future action, their range is ultimately more limited â€" and limited to a belief system which Kressel admits includes a great deal that lends itself to violence and extremism
Even if religion only functions as a convenient excuse for violence, it's far too effective at not merely excusing violence but in fact organizing violence, rationalizing violence, and making violence more likely. This is by far sufficient grounds for not tolerating those religious doctrines which give rise to violence â€" no matter what other benefits believers might derive from them. Nevertheless, understanding those benefits is key to understanding religious extremism.
No one wakes up one morning and decides "I think I'll be a violent extremist today." They adopt extremist doctrines and carry them out because they seem reasonable. Understanding why they seem reasonable and why they are psychologically or socially attractive is thus critical. In this, Kressel's book is quite valuable. I disagree with the argument behind the book, but the information presented through the course of the book is both interesting and useful. It's definitely worth reading if you are interested in religious terrorism and extremist religious beliefs.
No comments:
Post a Comment