Rigid Thinking

Anthony Miguel Averrous de Spinoza

       We often see battles between theists and non-theists over which is better—religion and belief in God or nonbelief. It is my supposition that theism and non-theism are neutral categories; what matters is how these belief systems are enacted in the world. When thought patterns become rigid and we say that our beliefs are the only morally correct ones, and that those who do not share them are wrong, that is when harm happens. 

      One side will point out the harm the other has done while ignoring the harm their own rigid beliefs, and those of their fellow philosophical or religious adherents, have done in the past. For instance, some non-theists will point to the thousands killed in the name of religion through inquisitions, intra-religious persecution, and religiously justified colonialism and genocide. It is true that Christians killed thousands through religiously fueled Manifest Destiny, inquisitions, and witch hunts, but that is only one side of the story. Thousands have also been killed under regimes that promoted state atheism. Stalin killed an estimated 150,000 clergy in the name of state atheism, and this does not even include lay believers. Chairman Mao Zedong of China killed hundreds of Buddhist monks as well as Christians during the Cultural Revolution. Although these events arose in different historical contexts, both the Christian Inquisition and Stalinist anti-religious purges relied on coercion and violence against those who did not conform to rigid patterns of belief. 

      One must ask where these rigid patterns come from and how they emerge. Oftentimes the rigid thought patterns we form around religion are shaped by parataxic distortions—early childhood experiences that we project onto others. An example of this would be if we grew up with a religiously homophobic parent who was unaccepting of our sexuality, causing us to develop a schema where all religious people are homophobic. In turn, we may develop the same rigid thinking pattern where everything becomes all or nothing. In a sense, we become a fundamentalist atheist, changing the content of the belief but not the manner in which we believe. Stalin grew up at a religious school that was reportedly deeply abusive; one must wonder whether this affected his later hostility toward religion. 

       Both groups frequently fail to see the exceptions to their schema that would challenge their deeply held beliefs about religion or humanism. If all religion is oppressive and harmful, then how do you explain Martin Luther King Jr., who, inspired by his faith, fought not only for his own community but for the poor of every race? Or the Lutheran pastors in Minnesota who stood up to ICE and even went to jail as a result? Or Lutheran laywoman Renee Good, who gave her life defending the vulnerable? On the other side of the equation, if some religious believers argue that humanists are amoral, how do you explain people like Nelson Mandela, who, inspired by humanistic values, helped create a new South Africa based not on revenge but on truth, reconciliation, and human rights? How do you explain the many doctors, nurses, social workers, and other humanitarian workers who have been inspired by humanistic values to care for the sick, oppressed, and downtrodden? 

      When we learn to think in shades of gray, we can see the common humanity that we all share, whether theist or non-theist. When we fail to see exceptions and hold on to all-or-nothing thinking, that is when we cause harm to others. This week I would challenge you to further explore your beliefs and to really interrogate them if they fall into all-or-nothing thinking. Ultimately, I would challenge you to see the humanity in the other.