A recurring theme in the interviews was religion’s role in the public sphere. Although many respon- dents considered the Finnish religiosity as relatively harmless, they nevertheless mostly favoured a more pronounced separation of church and state in Finland. The topic was discussed in the inter-
JK1018
417
Laestadionism: JK1005, JK1015, JK1043 and JK1074; Jehova’s witnesses: JK1028 and JK1065. JK1065 was tal
418 -
king about how religions in general are prone to violence, and to exemplify this, mentioned Jehova’s witnesses. Accor- ding to the respondent, in spite of not going to the army, Jehova’s witnesses are preparing for the final battle of Arma- geddon. This was considered odd, and stood as an example of how even seemingly nonviolent religions are not like that underneath the surface.
JK1006; JK1008; JK1015; JK1016; JK1017; JK1018; JK1035; JK1040; JK1047; JK1050; JK1059; JK1065;
419
JK1072; FP1004
JK1002 (self-identification), JK1023 (somewhat sensible), JK1032 (more nonviolent; no active proselytisation),
420
JK1039 (offers tools for relieving suffering), JK1051 (self-identification, spirit of questioning and contesting), JK1053 (self-identification; analysis of the nature of existence)
views more than 90 times. Another recurring issue was the topic of equality: religion was seen as promoting inequality of genders and sexual orientations, and the special status of Lutheran Chris- tianity in Finnish society, including economic benefits received in the form of the right to receive tax benefits from both members and registered companies, were looked upon critically. Inequality was brought up in the interviews altogether 30 times. Both of these issues are in line with the organ- isations’ official programs, which often emphasise the rights of the non-religious individuals, and promote the equality of stances.
The question-set for the semi-structured interviews did not include questions about these topics. The respondents were encouraged to elaborate on their worldview freely, and according to personal preferences. Since these topics came repeatedly up without being instigated by pre-designed ques- tions, it seems likely that if a topic would have relevance for the non-religious movement as a whole, it would make appearance in the interviews.
The three most popular reasons for rejecting religion were all addressed in the FQS statements. Re- ligious views were seen in contradiction to science, and hence to be rejected. This category included many kinds of arguments that are well-known from the popular atheist literature: comparing gods to imaginary entities, rejecting miracles, and contrasting creationism with evolution. Religious views were also rejected due to their inherent irrationality, being the second most popular argument for non-religiousness: God’s attributes, religious texts, or even the behaviour of the faithful were seen as irrational. The latter is related to the third major topic: the relationship between religion and morality. For many respondents it was not simply a matter of denying religion as a necessity for be- ing moral. Many saw religion leading to an inferior morality.
Besides these three, other minor arguments were given. I will summarise the minor themes after elaborating on the three major ones first a little more.
Science: A topic that was directly addressed in the basic set of FQS statements was the relationship
between science and religion. The FQS statement #70. (Rejects religious ideas that conflict with scientific and rational principles) seemed to reflect well the opinions of the Finnish secularists. 50 respondents addressed the issue roughly like the FQS statement was formulated: religious views are rejected if they come directly in conflict with science, or indirectly, by rejecting faith in supernatur- al entities. Fifteen respondents contrasted religious claims with scientific evidence. The most ex- treme formulations rejected categorically all religious ideas as incompatible with science and 421
contrasted blind religious faith with scientific quest for truth. Religious ideas that were in contra422 -
JK1067
421
JK1070
diction with science were viewed by one respondent as funny rather than dangerous. Sixteen re423 -
spondents compared belief in god(s) to beliefs in other imaginary entities. 424
Other issues where religion was seen to clash with science were evolution vs creationism (10 re- spondents), miracles vs natural laws (7), the “God of gaps”-argument (3), and the gifts of technolo- gy-argument (3). Six respondents regarded religious explanations as something belonging to the 425
earlier phase of mankind - understandable, perhaps, when scientific explanations were not available, but no longer necessary. Five respondents mentioned explicitly that matter or natural processes are the basis of everything, offering a sufficient explanation for everything, whereas only one respon- dent said that there are views that fall outside the scope of science. 426
Irrationality: Another popular issue was the irrationality of the religious claims: many religious
claims seem to be in contradiction with each other, and thus subject to rejection, even without con- sidering scientific evidence. Two FQS statements address this issue: #70. (Rejects religious ideas that conflict with scientific and rational principles.) and #85. (Finds belief in a benevolent god diffi- cult in the face of evil.). The topic of irrationality did come up in 42 interviews, of which the special case of theodicy was mentioned by thirteen respondents. Out of the 42, two held stances that differ- entiated them from the rest: According to one respondent, even if one disagrees with the religious point of view, it has to be respected if it is well argued. Another respondent questioned the topic 427 of theodicy. As an atheist, were he to give the God-hypothesis a consideration, he would find it odd to blame God for the problems of the world: evil is caused by men, world being the cause of its own problems. 428
One additional respondent alluded directly to his own worldview as the default position, using the “burden of proof” argument. Even though this argument was not used explicitly, it was the default position in nearly all discussions about science versus religiosity. Only one of the respondents men- tioned the deeper epistemological and ontological issues related to the comparative advantages or
JK1014
423
Unsurprisingly, Santa Claus was the most popular example (6 respondents), other examples being hobgoblins,
424
ghosts, elves and the Loch Ness monster.
The idea is from Richard Dawkins (1995: 35) who wrote: “Show me a cultural relativist at thirty thousand feet and
425
I'll show you a hypocrite ... If you are flying to an international congress of anthropologists or literary critics, the reason you will probably get there - the reason you do not plummet into a ploughed field - is that a lot of Western scientifically trained engineers have got their sums right.” The criticism is directed towards cultural relativism, not religion, but in the interviews it was reformulated into targeting religion.
JK1053 426 JK1063 427 JK1022 428
disadvantages of the scientific or religious stances, and found there are limits to the scientific ex- planations. 429
All in all, 40 respondents rejected a religious stance on the basis of its irrationality. Nine were hap- py to just note the irrationality of religion, without giving examples. Whereas one respondent con- sidered religious dogma to be even more irrational than communist dogma, another one regarded 430 religious belief to be just as irrational as investing money on a pyramid scheme. Some, however, 431 elaborated more on their stance: five respondents found particular problems with the idea of God, God’s behaviour or God’s attributes. Four respondents saw religious texts as possessing internal contradictions. Particularly puzzling seemed to be the fact that sometimes educated and intelligent people engage in religion. Five respondents were wondering how educated scientists sometimes fall victim to religious beliefs. One respondent called it the “Kierkegaardian leap”, where the person has faith even though it makes no sense. Even science itself was seen as tinged with irrationality, if it 432 was religiously motivated. 433
Intellectual and doctrinal issues aside, the behaviour of religious people was often seen as problem- atic. Seven respondents found the behaviour of religious people to be irrational. Examples of this would be faith-healing, accumulation of wealth despite the Christian message of caring for one’s neighbours, not acting in accordance with one’s professed religious ideals, and of course the irra- tionality of the belief of being able to sin as much as one wants, since the salvation is guaranteed by faith. These instances bring us to the last major issue about morality.
Morality: Many respondents were keenly aware of the fact that non-religious people are sometimes
accused of lacking in morality. 55 respondents rejected the idea that religion would be necessary for morality, or considered religious people as more hypocritical than others. Proposed alternative moral systems were secular humanism, UN declaration of human rights, and the prevailing legal system. Many respondents considered morality to be a natural product of evolution, the innate feel- ings of compassion and empathy requiring no religious superstructure.
However, for the purposes of this study a more interesting stance was to reject religion on the basis of its deteriorating effect on morality: 23 respondents saw religion as correlating with or causing lower morality or hypocrisy. As one respondent put it, “Everything is allowed and then God for-
JK1053 429 JK1043 430 JK1068 431 JK1023 432 JK1037; JK1050 433
gives once a week.” Non-religiousness, on the contrary, leads to a higher morality, as one has to 434 act morally without the possibility of being forgiven by divine powers.
Religion was also seen as justifying immoral acts. Four respondents argued that religious injunc- tions are outdated, thus leading people to behave against current moral norms. Likewise, four re- spondents found religious injunctions either directly encouraging violent and self-centred be- haviour, or allowing people to justify their self-centred behaviour - even wars.
In a normal situation, good people do good and bad people do bad, but religion makes it possible that even good people can act in an evil way and feel good about it. 435
In quite a few occasions - 18 - religion was correlated with violence, or it was held to be directly dangerous.
Whereas seven respondents did not find religious people more hypocritical than others, eleven re- spondents connected religion to hypocrisy. Examples ranged from personal experiences to public scandals, the latter probably related to media attention towards sexual abuses in a minor Christian denomination in Finland.
Not all respondents, however, held critical views: Five respondents would grant that even religious people are capable of moral action. One of them, despite identifying as an atheist, went as far as to conclude that the more visible role of religion in the past actually helped people develop their moral reflection. 436
Science, irrationality and inferior morality were the most prominent reasons for rejecting religion. This should not, however, blind us to the fact that there were many more reasons that came up in the interviews. Thus, I will summarise some of these reasons.
Other Arguments: Religion was seen by many respondents as a sign of psychological laziness or
seeking an easy solution. This is related to its appeal to authority, which seems to directly contradict the priority placed on independence that has been observed amongst non-religious individuals. 437 Other, more polemic formulations were to equate being religious with spiritual infancy, being in- sane, or being under the influence of intoxication. These arguments could be combined under a common umbrella, where the common theme is to describe the religious person in derogatory terms, such as comparing religiosity to infancy or to weakness of character. Related to this is the idea that religion would correlate with judgmental attitudes and intolerance.
JK1015 434 JK1042 435 JK1063 436
Pasquale 2007b: 50; Farias 2013: 475; O’Connell Killen 2007: 74
The adverse social dynamics and effects of religion were also often recognised. Religion was seen as a tool for ruling and expressing power over the faithful. Religionists were also considered eager to influence the lives of those not amongst their ranks. Proselytisation was also considered a prob- lem.