Saturday, April 2, 2011

Race = Religion

So it occurred to me during the class on Sartre that race is a lot like religion. They share many things in common and both cause a lot of harm in the modern and ancient world.

How is race like religion? Well, this thought occurred to me when we were constantly saying that race has no basis in nature. Since race as we know it has no basis in nature, then we know it is not anything on which we can base our assumptions. Race is simply a social construct. Of course, this social construct has an impact on our lives and society because people ignorantly think that there is such a thing as race in nature. They base their assumptions on what they think is a fact in nature. The many racial stereotypes are based on genetics, for they claim that all persons of a race have inherited some trait such as laziness, stupidity, or ignorance. These claims have no basis in genetics or nature, of course, so we disclaim them on those grounds alone. We can find nothing in the genetic make-up of races that accounts for our differences.

So why do we insist on this point so fervently, while holding on to religion? There is absolutely no base for religion in science, yet people still cling to religion. Just as is the case with race, we can find zero evidence for religion in nature. Therefore, we should not believe in it. It is a silly leftover from past ages that were less informed about the nature of the world. It functioned primarily as a tool of power by those who were evil enough to exert it over others. Does this sound familiar? Just as people used race as some unfounded "scientific" fact to treat others like dirt, they also used religion to deny basic human rights to others who they deemed inferior simply on the basis that they were different.

I hope that in this post I have made one point clear: religion and race have the same unfounded basis, and that if you are to make the claim that there is no anthropological basis for race, then you are required to make the same claim for religion.

6 comments:

  1. Ferrell,

    This is a very interesting post. While I agree with you that religion has resulted in countless tragedies throughout human history, and while I am not religious myself, I'm still not sure if your analogy is bulletproof. I agree that your argument leads to your last point: namely, "that if you are to make the claim that there is no anthropological basis for race, then you are required to make the same claim for religion." I think any informed person would have to admit that there is no scientific evidence for belief in God, the immortality of the soul, etc.

    The difference, however, between race and religion comes in how science is used in regards to them. Since the writings of Kant, so called "science" has been used to support the idea of race and the assumptions that come with it. Thus, by showing that there is no scientific evidence for race we eliminate one of race's most fundamental foundations, i.e. the notion that race is genetic. Religion, on the other hand, has never counted science (in the modern sense) as part of its foundation. In fact, most religions today are based on the antithesis of science: faith, or belief in something without proof and even in the face of counterexamples. Thus, by demonstrating that there is no scientific evidence for belief in God or immortality one is, in many ways, only speaking a tautology. One is not undermining religion in the same way that one undermines race.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think that this a good point, but there isn't much scientific evidence in regards to religion. Because people of other races inter mixed when choosing what people believed it, there wasn't much thought on the scientific evidential difference of the different faiths. I think this is a valid argument, and I agree with your statement, "that if you are to make the claim that there is no anthropological basis for race, then you are required to make the same claim for religion."

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm really glad that you got something out of our presentation.

    I think that there are some similarities, and you bring up some good points. Both, in my opinion, could be considered passions or even faiths. There is no proof behind either, but those who believe in these ideologies essentially put their lives into them. With religion, you affirm your faith through prayers. With racism, you affirm your belief through hate. Both believers presume that their set of beliefs are infallible and superior. And both have some sort of doctrine behind them (I'm kind of stretching that for race...). While I agree with the other posters that religion is not grounded in science, I believe that religion attempts to "overwrite" science with their faith...and I think you could draw some comparisons to race with that notion.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hello Phurrrl,
    So while there are some important comparisons to be made between race and religion, there are a couple of really big glaring flaws in your thinking. Colin already hit on one of them.
    I think my biggest issues is with the following: “It is a silly leftover from past ages that were less informed about the nature of the world. It functioned primarily as a tool of power by those who were evil enough to exert it over others. Does this sound familiar? Just as people used race as some unfounded "scientific" fact to treat others like dirt, they also used religion to deny basic human rights to others who they deemed inferior simply on the basis that they were different.” Frankly, this is a really one-sided distortion of religion. First of all, what religion are you referring to exactly? All religions ever existing throughout the course of humankind? It’s gets a little more difficult to condemn religion as a monolithic and “silly” entity, when we reflect a little bit on how our separation of religious/secular is a modern construct. Religion has often been so integrally wound up in societies that there is no way t condemn religion without also asserting the inferiority of all of societies which pre-dated our own. And sure, there are some strong and undeniable ways in which religion has been used in an oppressive sense, but I think the same argument could be made about “objective” scientific thinking. While there is a relation between the use of religious as a means to marginalize or make inferior other human beings, there is also a long and distinguished legacy of religious people protecting and struggling to maintain the dignity and humanity of others.

    ReplyDelete
  5. First off I want to say thanks to everybody who commented on this. This was meant to be a pretty inflammatory post, and when I wrote this I wasn't in the best of moods.

    I'd like to clear up a few things about which I don't think I was very clear.
    Kimi:
    I don't want to claim that all religions treated people like dirt every time they had the chance. There is certainly good evidence to show that the great majority of charity in the United States is driven by religious groups.
    Also, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "It’s gets a little more difficult to condemn religion as a monolithic and “silly” entity, when we reflect a little bit on how our separation of religious/secular is a modern construct. Religion has often been so integrally wound up in societies that there is no way t condemn religion without also asserting the inferiority of all of societies which pre-dated our own." I certainly don't mean to make the claim that people in the past were silly for believing in and living by their religion, for there was no good reason not to. It was the best way to explain the world in which they lived because there was no evidence to the contrary. I simply mean to say that many people take scientific evidence as a reason to believe a wide array of facts concerning human rights (sexuality, race, etc.) but ignore science when it comes to religion. Why are people still allowed to do this?

    Colin:
    I agree that most religions today don't embrace science and instead claim faith as their central tenant. We could spend a whole semester discussing faith, but I am still worried by the fact that religion gets to pick and choose when they use science. In my experience, many religious people attempt to use science and logic in making their claims. It is not genuine to use science or logic when it supports your claim, but then turn around and deny it when it doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ferrell,

    That's a side of the question I had not considered. I think that the nuance that we must remember is that religion is, in many ways, completely outside the realm of science. If you have heard people use science as proof for the existence of God or the reality of immortality, I think that they must be very unusual people. I'm not aware of any peer reviewed science that could in any way be construed as PROOF for the tenets of religion. The only example that I can think of that is similar to this is the argument often made that the phenomena which science cannot yet account for suggest the existence of God. But even so, this is not using science to make a claim about religion - it is using a gap in scientific knowledge.

    In the same way, science also cannot be used to DISPROVE the tenets of religion. This is because the fundamentals of religious belief (God, immortality of the soul, etc.) are nonmaterial and science deals with the material. We can, of course, make the very legitimate statement that science does not provide any positive evidence for belief in religion, but this is far from disproving the reality of religion.

    I'd really like to hear what you have to say further on this topic.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.