Te Waha Nui’s religious debate
by Justin Henehan
The perennial debate about religion has spilled onto the pages of Te Waha Nui…well, sort of.
Two opinion pieces from Dan Satherley and Dylan Quinnell seemed to line each other up and charge, only to pass like trains in the night. I was disappointed, as disappointed as I am in my lazy use of a mixed metaphor.
So what did they write?
Dan Satherley
In issue 19, Satherley rapped about the recent decline in the amount of New Zealanders who identify themselves t
he nation’s dominant religion, Christianity.
This, in tandem with a sharp increase in the amount people identifying themselves as agnostic, atheistic or some variation on ‘other’, is an indication of the increasing irrelevance of religion in New Zealand, argued Satherly.
Tag-teaming with Karl Marx, Satherley went on to write: “religion is indeed an opiate of the people, an escape from reality with no place in the structure of modern society”.
Faith, he defined, is “by and large the belief in something without reason”.
Atheism was not spared: “faith in nothingness and Richard Dawkins is akin to driving without insurance: You’ll probably get away with it, but God help you if you don’t.”
Dylan Quinnell
The Te Waha Nui team was promised a response by Quinnell. What we got was a piece of writing that appealed for
understanding and turned the other cheek.
In his article aptly headlined “In Defence of Christianity”, Quinnell commented on what he sees as an increase in flippant and off-hand criticism of Christianity.
“Having a go at Christianity has become a relatively common practice. It is protected by ideals of free speech.”
This, he argues, “ignores the ideals of a multicultural society, such as protection of diversity”.
Why are people picking on Christianity?
It’s too big, too familiar and people don’t get what it’s about, says Quinnell.
He argues Christians shouldn’t be lumped into one group because Christianity contains within it a diverse range of beliefs and moral codes.
The sins identified with Christianity are the sins of individuals not the religion itself, he says.
Oh, and don’t forget Christian charity, Quinnell intones: “Many of the people who care for the homeless, the prostitutes, the poor and disabled – all those society forgets – are Christian.”
Me
I agree with Quinnell and Satherley on some things, but I disagree with both on many other points.
I should probably own up that I’m at the atheist end of the spectrum, but I believe that by our own standard of knowledge we don’t know, but rather believe we do.
I’m talking basic stuff, like, will the sun come up tomorrow. It’s a sort of radical empiricism I guess.
And I like Sociologoist Emile Durkheim’s take on religion: Primitive religion is a sort of proto-science and Modern religion is a form of hegemonic control.
The point is I don’t believe in God or nothing, but I do believe in something without reason – if I didn’t, I couldn’t function.
I also think escaping from reality is an essential part of modern society, whether your poison is religion, or pop culture, or getting on the sauce, or golf (if you’re a masochist). It’s how we balance up the order and chaos of life.
Generally the chaos is the fun part. Religions I find a bit weird in this respect: they seem to introduce more order to reality. Maybe reality is chaotic for religious folk.
I agree people seem to be taking more casual pot-shots at Christians, sometimes without reason. But I also I think New Zealand is a generation away from a major culture shift to secularism.
There are a few things that bother me about Christianity or any religion (and some thinking about science):
- I don’t like any monopoly claims to morality or truth.
- I don’t like the idea of taking money away from the poor through societal structures that leave the poor to rely on when the “cup over-floweth” – charity can demean and stigmatise the poor and adequate government social welfare could eliminate poverty in New Zealand, if the will existed.
- I don’t like the idea of a feudal patriarchal heaven.
I add the caveat that these grumbles could be pointed in many other directions, not just at Christian belief systems, but Christianity should be robust enough to withstand some criticism.
What do you think?