Is Religion important?

The article, “Why We Believe” examines religion anthropologically and discusses believe in religion in the context of evolutionary theory. Gould, Dawkins and Atran have different opinions on the role of religion in society but all seem to allow the logical possibility of a God and therefore do not see benefit in elimination of religion. Sam Harris’ CNN interview, although much more brief and less informative, suggests that religion does not serve an important purpose and negatively impacts society. To take a middle route, I agree that there is a place for moderate practice of religion as well as scientific thought.

Harris’ argues that religious issues consume governments’ time and money better spent solving energy, education and security issues.  He ineffectually demonizes religion as the sole institution that promotes genocide other major forms of human suffering. Harris neglects to mention that scientific thought, as his organization seeks to endorse, is an institution which has motivated several instances of human rights violation, such as the anthropological justification of the Holocaust. It seems morally deviant behavior finds modes of expression in the institutions of both religion and science.

 Gould and Dawkins argue about whether religion and science can mutually exist and be allowed to guide human behavior. It seems to me, however, that both lack the explanatory power to independently lead us to less suffering. In other words, neither holds the singular duty of guiding our every action. Therefore, we have a practical use for both in an even balance and a responsibility to use them correctly. Moderate trust in science and religion can lead to the human fulfillment all of the above parities desire.