Q:In modern times, especially in Europe, the phce of religion in life has not only been very much minimised and restricted but often religion has been violently attacked as a force making for retardation, oppresslion, superstition and ignorance. This revolt against religion has sought to keep science, philosophy and art, politics and practical life and euen ethics entirely immune to the influence of religion and its extreme form has tried to destroy religion altogether. To what extent is this indictment against religion justified ?
This aggressive indictment against religion in modern times has much to justify it, not in its conclusion but in its premiss-not that religion in itself must always be, but that historically and as a matter of fact the accredited religions and their hierarchs and exponents have too often been a force for retardation, have too often thrown their weight on the side of darkness, oppression and ignorance, and that it has needed a denial, a revolt of the oppressed human mind and heart to correct these errors and set religion right. Though we need not lay a too excessive stress on the superstitions, aberrations, violences, crimes even, which Churches and cults and creeds have favoured, admitted, sanctioned, supported or exploited for their own benefit, we have to note the fact that such a thing was possible.
Q: What is the explanation of so much evil perpetrated in the name of religion ?
The root of this evil is not in true religion itself, but in our ignorant human confusion of religion with a particular creed, sect, cult, religious society or Church. The human tendency to this error is extremely strong and the whole root of the historic insufficiency of religion as a guide and control of human society lies in this tendency. Churches and creeds have, for example, stood violently in the way of philosophy and science, burned a Giordano Bruno, imprisoned a Galileo, and so generally misconducted themselves in this matter that philosophy and science had in self-defence to turn upon religion and rend her to pieces in order to get a free field for their legitimate development; and this because men in the passion and darkness of their vital nature had chosen to think that religion was bound up with certain fixed intellectual conceptions about God and the world which could not stand scrutiny, and therefore scrutiny had to be put.down by fire and sword; scientific and philosophical truth had to be denied in order that religious error might survive. We see too that a narrow religious sprit often oppresses and impoverishes the joy and beauty of life, either from an intolerant asceticism or, as the Puritans attempted it, because they could not see that religious austerity is not the whole of religion, though it may be an important side of it, is not the sole ethico-religious approach to God, since love, charity, gentleness, tolerance, kindliness are also and even more divine, and they forgot or never knew that Goo is love and beauty as well as purity. In politics religion has often thrown itself on the side of power and resisted the coming of larger political ideals, because it was itself, in the form of a Church, supported by power and because it confused religion with the Church, or because it stood for a false theocracy, forgetting that true theocracy is the kingdom of God in man and not the kingdom of a Pope, a priesthood or a sacerdotal class. So too it has often supported a rigid and outworn social system, because it thought its own life bound up with social forms with which it happened to have been associated during a long portion of its own history and erroneously concluded that even a necessary change there would be a violation of religion and a danger to its existence. As if so mighty and inward a power as the religious sprit in man could be destroyed by anything so small as the change of a socialr.