Practically Compassionate The Core of All Religion, Including Our Own By Rev. Dr. Todd F. Eklof August 1, 2015

Transcription

1 The Core of All Religion, Including Our Own By Rev. Dr. Todd F. Eklof August 1, 2015 In a letter to his friend Thomas Jefferson, John Adams once confessed that he often found himself upon the point of breaking out, This would be the best of all possible Worlds, if there were no Religion in it!!! 1 Adams believed the Principles of Christianity, as he called them, were as eternal and immutable, as the Principles of Liberty, and the laws of Nature, 2 but he didn t care much for organized religion. The question before the human race, he said, is, Whether the God of nature shall govern the World by his own laws, or Whether Priests and Kings shall rule it by fictitious Miracles? 3 He also called those laws existing, even in our Massachusetts, at the time, making it illegal to effectively question the Bible, punishable by fines and imprisonment, a great embarrassment and great obstructions to the improvement of the human mind. 4 Yet he always brought himself back from the brink of completely rejecting religion by convincing himself that without it, as he said to Jefferson, this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company. I mean Hell. 5 Adams didn t believe in original sin, or what he called, the total and universal depravity of human nature. 6 He believed, rather, that human Conscience is imbued with those immutable laws of God and Nature as expressed in Christianity, and that without religion there is no such Conscience. Jefferson himself replied, If, by religion, we are to understand the Sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your exclamation on that hypothesis is just, that this would the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it. But if the moral precepts, innate in [humankind], and made a part of [its] physical constitution, as necessary for a social being, if the sublime doctrines of philanthropism, and deism taught us by Jesus of Nazareth in which all agree, constitute true religion, then, without it, this would be, as you again say, something not fit to be named, even indeed a Hell. 7 To boil it down, neither Adams or Jefferson cared much for institutionalized religion, but they did believe the original teachings of Jesus are as immutable as the laws of Nature, and are, thus, a part of human nature, and without them all of us really would become so depraved that all hell would break loose. So they both accepted that, on some level, religion is necessary for maintaining social order and decency, even though neither cared for how religion has been interpreted and passed down 1 Adams to Jefferson, April 19, Adams to Jefferson, June 28, Adams to Jefferson, June 20, Adams to Jefferson, January 23, Adams to Jefferson, April 19, Ibid. 7 Jefferson to Adams, May 5, 1817.

2 through the Church authorities and dogma. But were they correct? Is religion necessary, at least to some degree, to prevent society from falling into chaos and debauchery? Is it necessary to keep us civil, to not only prevent us from harming others in our own self interests, but to actually motivate us to do good for others? Is religion really necessary for a social being, as Jefferson suggested, for us to grasp, the sublime doctrines of philanthropism, and deism taught us by Jesus of Nazareth? It does appear, at least on the surface, that compassion concern for the welfare of others is the core of all the world s major religions. Christianity teaches us the Golden Rule, to love our neighbors as ourselves, and to be good Samaritans when encountering those who suffer. The Zakat, sharing a portion of what one has with those in need, is one of the Five Pillars of Islam. And in Buddhism, Compassion and the Buddha Nature are considered one and the same. In Buddhism, the Bodhi path is synonymous with compassion. 8 And Hinduism asks people of all religions to consider, What sort of religion can it be without compassion? [For] Compassion is the root of all religious faiths. 9 Yet, even with all this emphasis on compassion, we must ask if religion has truly made the world better by, at the very least, staving off Hell on Earth, or if, despite its lofty rhetoric, it has actually made things worse. In their book, The Religious Experience, social psychologists Daniel Batson and Larry Ventis say the basic question is, Does religion diminish antisocial and increase prosocial attitudes and behavior? That is, does it encourage greater acceptance of and compassion for others? 10 The question must be asked, they continue, because, at the same time we can think of cases in which religion has served as a driving force for universal love, acceptance, and tolerance, we can think of cases in which it has produced selfrighteousness, pious elitism, and cruel, inhuman behavior. 11 To tackle the problem, Batson and Ventis examined the results of over sixty different studies with eighty different findings, to determine if religion makes us more or less tolerant toward others. Based on the research to date, they say, an answer is all too clear: contrary to what the religions preach about universal brotherhood, the more religious an individual is, the more prejudiced he or she is likely to be. 12 They cite one study, for instance, indicating white Protestant and Catholic students were more likely to be prejudiced against Blacks than those with no religious affiliation, and that a strong religious influence at home also corresponds to racial prejudice. Another study found that churchgoers are more likely to be ethnocentric and authoritarian than non-churchgoers. Other studies found that religious people are more punitive toward criminals, prostitutes, drug 8 Mahaparinirvana Sutra Basavanna, Vacana Batson, C. Daniel & Ventis, W. Larry, The Religious Experience, Oxford University Press, Oxford, MA,1982, p Ibid., p Ibid., p

3 addicts, juvenile offenders, the mentally ill, as well as those with differing political opinions, than those who aren t very religious. We seem to be presented with a clear, if unsettling, conclusion, they say, at least for white, middle-class Christians in the United States, religion is not associated with increased love and acceptance but with increased intolerance, prejudice, and bigotry. 13 Other studies additionally found that being religious has little to do with how compassionate or altruistic we are toward others. Although these studies indicate those who identify as religious do consider themselves compassionate and helpful, there s nothing they actually do that suggests this is so. Earlier we found that increased religious involvement was associated with more rather than less prejudice and discrimination, Batson and Ventis say, now we find that it is associated with no real increase in helpfulness. 14 In fairness, despite the large number of studies they considered, they were almost exclusively geared toward white, American Christians, just as Adams and Jefferson were speaking exclusively of Christianity in their conversations about religion 200 years ago. The studies considered also failed to distinguish between different religious orientations and don t hold up as well when moving beyond, what I will take the liberty of calling a fundamentalist mindset, defined largely by authoritarianism and enthnocentrism. When taking some of these distinctions into account, many religious folk are no more prejudice or less compassionate than others. It should not be missed, however, that even these are no more tolerant or helpful than those who aren t very religious. So, despite the great homage to compassion at the core of every religion, and the feeling among those who are religious that they are exceptionally compassionate, the evidence, though somewhat limited in its scope, suggests being religious doesn t make us any more tolerant or helpful than anyone else, and, in many cases, makes us less tolerant and less compassionate. In short, being compassionate, although a universal religious aspiration, is much easier said than done. Part of the problem may be confusion about what compassion is to begin with. If we mistake compassion as a mere feeling, then it is enough to simply feel sorry for others or to think we understand what they are going through. This is so because we often use the terms, compassion, sympathy, and empathy interchangeably, even though they are all quite different, and, according to MRI scans, involve different areas of the brain. 15 The latter of these, empathy, is an emotional state that allows us to feel or imagine we are feeling what another person is feeling. Empathy is what happens when our 13 Ibid., p Ibid., p Bloom, Paul, Against Empathy, Boston Review, September 10, 2014, p. 6. 3

4 mirror neurons engage and we can emotionally relate to the feelings we intuit in others. Sympathy is a particular feeling of pity or sorrow. We may not feel exactly what others are feeling, but their plight makes us feel sad about what they are going through. Unlike empathy and sympathy, compassion, even if it is felt, is meaningless unless it is acted upon. We have empathy, we have sympathy, but we show compassion. It s an important distinction because, again, if our religions require us to be compassionate, and most of them do, we can too easily think feeling sorry for someone or sharing their same emotions is enough to get the job done. This may be why so many who claim to be religious believe they are exceptionally compassionate even though there s little evidence of it. They mistake having empathy or sympathy for showing compassion. Having sympathy for others, furthermore, may or may not be appropriate. We may feel sorry for someone who is suffering, for example, or we may dismiss them as too pitiful to be worthy of our help. To be pitied can be as insulting and demeaning as it can be welcome. Empathy is especially problematic for lots of reasons. It can lead to a lack of objectivity, to confusing one s own feelings with those of another, to favoritism towards those we feel are like us, to one-sided relationships, and, sometimes, to higher states of anxiety, depression, and to something called empathic distress, which I ll say more about momentarily. Although he acknowledges the importance of empathy in our lives, as an emotion that serves to dissolve the boundaries between one person and another, and as, a force against selfishness and indifference, 16 Yale professor of psychology, Paul Bloom, says he s against empathy. I am not against morality, compassion, kindness, love, being a good neighbor, doing the right thing, and making the world a better place, he insists, My claim is actually the opposite: if you want to be good and do good, empathy is a poor guide. 17 Bloom is reacting against the common suggestion that in order to solve the world s major problems we need more empathy, we need to relate better, that is, to how others are feeling. Although, again, he doesn t reject the importance of mirroring what others are feeling, he just doesn t think it should be the basis of social policy. When we empathize with others, for example, we re automatically on their side, which makes it difficult to be objective, making us, as Bloom says, more prone to feel empathy for attractive people and for those who look like us or share our ethnic or national background. 18 An example of how these biased feelings make for bad social policy, are the laws that once existed in California excluding non-whites from testifying or offering evidence against Whites. In 1854 the California Supreme Court used the law to reverse the conviction and death sentence of a white man who had murdered a Chinese miner, because the only witnesses were themselves Chinese. It was a policy that essentially made White on Chinese crime perfectly legal. Today s 16 Ibid., p Ibid., p Ibid., p. 3. 4

5 criminal justice system is still based largely on an emotional desire to punish and is particularly biased against the poor and people of color. It also shows how we are less willing to hold those we relate to accountable for their misdeeds, sometimes allowing them to get away with murder. In addition to misplaced emotions, empathy can be personally damaging. Empathic distress, which I mentioned a moment ago, can occur when we too often mirror the emotions of others. We find ourselves feeling their pain and anguish as if it were our own, making us feel depressed, anxious, and miserable. Bloom mentions a study in which a Buddhist monk was asked to engage in various types of compassion meditation directed toward people who are suffering, 19 while his brain was being scanned by an MRI. They found that the usual brain areas associated with thinking about the pain of others weren t activated, and that the monk experienced a warm positive state associated with a strong prosocial motivation. 20 When asked to empathize with others, however, the usual circuits associated with empathic distress were activated, and, The empathic sharing, the monk said, very quickly became intolerable to me and I felt emotionally exhausted, very similar to being burned out. 21 Compassion, unlike empathy or sympathy, moves us to care for others, working to alleviate the suffering and injustices they are experiencing, while remaining unbiased and emotionally healthy as we go about such difficult work. In their new book, An Open-Hearted Life, Dr. Russell Kolts and Venerable Thubten Chodron say, Compassion is based in the desire for others to be free from suffering and the aspiration to help alleviate that suffering. 22 Yet, the also recognize how difficult this can be, adding that Compassion requires us to stay when things get tough, to tolerate the difficult emotions that arise when we come into contact with suffering and those who experience it. 23 Charles Goodman, professor of philosophy and Asian studies at the University of Michigan, says the secret to such balance, to helping others without being harmed by our own emotional distress, is to distinguish between sentimental compassion and great compassion. 24 In his book, Consequences of Compassion, Goodman acknowledges that Buddhist ethics is based on compassion, as most of us already know, but goes on to point out that Buddhist compassion remains emotionally detached. In Buddhism, you may also know, the greatest act of compassion is the Buddha s willingness to remain in the cycle of birth and death to help free others from it. Sentimental compassion, however, involving particular feelings attached to 19 Ibid., p Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Kolts, Russell, & Chodron, Thubten, An Open-Hearted Life, Shambhala Publications, United States, 2015, p. i. 23 Ibid., p Goodman, Charles, Consequences of Compassion, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2009, p. 5. 5

6 particular beings, according to the sutras, exhausts the bodhisattva. 25 Empathy wears the Buddha out! Great compassion, by contrast, is not exhausting because it s not biased toward particular beings. The latter sounds like a strange sort of compassion, Goodman admits, but it s not hard to see why it is needed. Professional therapists, doctors, social workers, and other caregivers in the contemporary West often undergo a kind of burnout, leading to cynicism and emotional numbness, after a few years of facing the pervasive suffering of those they try to help. 26 Great compassion remains impersonal, detached from those overwhelming emotions, while working for the welfare of all beings, which actually stimulates a sense of happiness and fulfillment. So, perhaps the question isn t whether religion makes us more or less compassionate, but does my religion make me more compassionate. It s an easy question to answer once we disentangle compassion from empathy, feeling from action, Sympathetic Compassion from Great Compassion. For the proof is always in the pudding. Thus, the question can as easily be stated, What am I doing to help alleviate suffering in the world? Does my religion make me more compassionate and What am I doing to help alleviate suffering in the world are the same question. As Unitarian Universalists, unhindered by authority and dogma, we know our faith is meaningless without action, that faith without works is dead. This is why justice making isn t just a quality of our religion, it is the epitome of our religion. And unlike empathy and sympathy, justice and compassion are synonymous, just as they are both synonymous with love. Love, justice, and compassion mean the same thing because they are all meaningless without action that alleviates the suffering of others. As Meister Eckhart once said, There can be no love where people do not find equality or are not busy making equality 27 compassion means justice. 28 Compassion isn t merely something we feel, it s something that moves us, it s something we do. 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid. 27 Fox, Matthew, Wrestling with the Prophets, Jeremy P.Tarcher/Putnam, New York, NY, 1995, p Ibid. 6