Sir, – In "Organised religion provides balance to uncritical acceptance of facile 'groupthink'" (Opinion & Analysis, April 4th) Archbishop Eamon Martin claims, rather contradictorily, that organised religion's "authority serves as a bulwark against privatised interpretations".
He contends that “organised religion . . . brings a coherent corpus of teaching which is the fruit of centuries of reflection on revelation, and of dialogue between faith and reason”, but ignores the fact that religions are contradictory in the claims they make. Whose “revelations” are we to believe, and on what basis?
A person’s religion is to a large extent a result of what country and what family he or she was born into. How many people would believe in the likes of transubstantiation, the resurrection, the immaculate conception, the assumption, hell, and papal infallibility had they not been indoctrinated into believing these teachings when they were impressionable young children? If they had not been exposed to these teachings until they had reached adulthood, would they still believe them to be true?
Religious beliefs are inculcated in children from an early age, when their minds are like sponges and before they have a chance to develop a sense of critical thinking. This primacy can make such beliefs resistant to change, even unshakeable, without consideration regarding evidence, even into adulthood. Is this not a recipe for groupthink? Religious indoctrination and groupthink can have dangerous consequences. Human history is replete with examples of people committing all kinds of immoral acts, using religious beliefs as justification for their actions.
I agree with Archbishop Martin that organised religion plays “a major role in local and global discourse on the common good” and has done great work for the poor and destitute, but its role throughout history is decidedly chequered.
Taking the Catholic Church alone, one need only think of the Crusades, the Inquisition, conspiracy with various fascist regimes and the cover-up of child sexual and physical abuse, to provide but a few examples.
The immoral actions and positions taken by Christian institutions are not confined to history. Some elements of the Catholic Church in Poland have sided with hard-right xenophobic nationalists. Patriarch Kirill of the Russian Orthodox Church has given theological cover for Vladimir Putin’s monstrous attack on Ukraine.
History clearly shows that organised religion is not always a bulwark against “fanatical distortions, extremism and violent fundamentalism”. In fact, it has often sponsored and driven them. – Yours, etc,
ROB SADLIER,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 16.
Sir, – I would argue that Garry O'Sullivan's take on religion in our postmodern world (Letters, April 8th) is the definition of vague. For one to trust their faith in diversity and wisdom "from the ground up" seems lacking in direction and without a core value system. Also, I would suggest that if people are trying to find meaning in a mysterious universe from the leader of a distant country, as stated, they are not looking in the right place. – Yours, etc,
FINN O’DRISCOLL,
Oxford,
United Kingdom.