Quantcast

«

»

Jan 01 2010

A wish for the New Year: A world without religion

(My latest book God vs. Darwin: The War Between Evolution and Creationism in the Classroom has just been released and is now available through the usual outlets. You can order it from Amazon, Barnes and Noble, the publishers Rowman & Littlefield, and also through your local bookstores. For more on the book, see here. You can also listen to the podcast of the interview on WCPN 90.3 about the book.

Because of the holidays and travel overseas where internet access will be sporadic, I am taking some time off from writing new posts and instead reposting some of my favorites (often edited and updated) for the benefit of those who missed them the first time around or have forgotten them. New posts will start again on Monday, January 18, 2009.)

The recent appearance of best-selling books by atheists strongly criticizing religion has given rise to this secondary debate (reflected in this blog and the comments) as to what attitude atheists should take towards religion. Some critics of these authors (including fellow atheists) have taken them to task for being too harsh on religion and thus possibly alienating those religious “moderates” who might be potential allies in the cause of countering religious “extremism”. They argue that such an approach is unlikely to win over people to their cause. Why not, such critics ask, distinguish between “good” and “bad” religion, supporting those who advocate good religion (i.e., those parts of religion that encourage good works and peace and justice) and joining with them to marginalize those who advocate “bad” religion (i.e., who use religion divisively, to murderous ends, to fight against social justice, or to create and impose a religion-based political agenda on everyone.)

It is a good question deserving of a thoughtful answer, which you are unlikely to find here. But I’ll give it my best shot anyway.

Should religion be discouraged along the lines advocated by these books, by pointing out that evidence for god’s existence does not rise above the level of evidence for fairies and unicorns, highlighting the many evils done in religion’s name, and urging people to abandon religious beliefs because they violate science and basic common sense? Or should we continue to act as if it were a reasonable thing to believe in the existence of god, thereby tacitly encouraging its continuance? Or should religion be simply ignored? The answer depends on whether one views religion as an overall negative, positive, or neutral influence in society.

If you believe, as atheists do, that the whole edifice of religion is based on the false premise that god exists, then it seems logical to seek to eliminate religion. As believers in the benefits of rationality, we believe true knowledge is to be preferred to false knowledge. In fact, there is much to be gained by eliminating belief in the supernatural since that is the gateway to, and the breeding ground for, all manner of superstition, quackery, and downright fraud perpetrated on the gullible by those who claim to have supernatural powers or direct contact with god. I offer TV evangelists as evidence, but the list can be extended to astrologers, psychics, faith healers, spoon benders, mind readers, etc. All of them claim to provide a benefit (perhaps just emotional and psychological) to their followers, just like religion does, but few observers would argue that that reason alone is sufficient to shield them from criticism.

Those atheists who argue against seeking to undermine belief in religion and favor the other two options (i.e., tacit support or ignoring) usually posit two arguments. The first point is really one of political strategy: that by criticizing religion in general we are alienating a large segment of people and that what we should preferably do is to ally ourselves with “good” religion (inclusive, tolerant, socially conscious) so that we can more effectively counter those who profess “bad” religion (exclusive, intolerant, murderous). The second is that religion, even if false, can also be a force for good as evidenced by the various religious social justice movements that have periodically emerged.

I have touched on the counterarguments to the first point earlier and will revisit it later. As to the second point, that religion can be justified on the basis that even if not true it provides other benefits that make it worthwhile, discussions around this issue usually tend to go in two directions: comparisons of the actions of “good” religious people versus that of “bad” religious people, or comparisons of the actions of religious people with that of nonreligious people. But such discussions are not fruitful because they cannot be quantified or otherwise made more concrete and conclusive.

I prefer to argue against the second point differently by pointing out that every benefit claimed for religion can just as well be provided by other institutions: Provides a sense of community? So do many other social groups. Do charitable works? So do secular charities. Work for social justice? So do political groups. Provide comfort and reassurance? So do family, friends, and even therapy. Provide a sense of personal meaning? So does science and philosophy. Provide a basis of morality and values? It has long been established that morals and values are antecedent to and independent of religion. (Does anyone seriously think that it was considered acceptable to murder before the Ten Commandments appeared?)

There is not a single good moral principle that modern civilized societies can be proud of that an atheist cannot subscribe to. But there are many despicable practices that religions espouse and practice as part of their doctrines (such as discrimination against women, homosexuals, and people of other religions) and that being a believer in good standing requires one to subscribe to.

Now it is true (as was pointed out by commenter Cindy to a previous post) that religious institutions do provide a kind of ready-made, one-stop shop for many of these things and new institutions may have to come into being to replace them. Traditional groups like Rotary clubs and Mason, Elk, and Moose lodges, that mix community building with social service, may be the closest existing things that serve the same purpose. The demise of religion may see the revival of those faltering groups as substitutes. Some countries have social clubs that people belong to that, unlike in the US, are not the preserve of only the very wealthy. England has the local pub that provides a sense of community to a neighborhood and where people drop in on evenings not just to drink but to meet and chat with friends, play games, and eat meals. The US has, unfortunately, no equivalent of the local pub. Bars do not have the family atmosphere that most pubs do, though coffee shops may evolve to serve this purpose. It may be that it is the easy convenience of religious institutions that inhibit people from putting in the effort to find alternative institutions that can give them the cultural and social benefits of religion without the negative of having to subscribe to an irrational belief.

I cannot think of a single benefit that is claimed for religion that could not be provided by other institutions. Meanwhile, religions carry with them all kinds of negatives. We see this in the murderous rampages that have been carried out over thousands of years by religious fanatics in dutiful obedience to what they thought was the will of god. I am not saying that getting rid of religion will get rid of all evil. But it will definitely remove one important source of it. The French philosopher and author Voltaire (1694-1778) had little doubt that religion was a negative influence and that we would be better off without it. He said: “Which is more dangerous: fanaticism or atheism? Fanaticism is certainly a thousand times more deadly; for atheism inspires no bloody passion whereas fanaticism does; atheism is opposed to crime and fanaticism causes crimes to be committed.”

While the evils done in the name of religion are often dismissed as aberrations by religious apologists, they actually arise quite naturally from the very basis of religion. When you believe that god exists and has a plan for you, the natural next step is to wonder what that plan is, what god wants you to do. To answer this, most people look to religious leaders and texts for guidance. As political and religious leaders discovered long ago, it is very easy to persuade people to believe that god expects them to do things that, without the sanction of religion, would be considered outrageously evil or simply crazy. (As an example of the latter, recall the thirty nine members of the Heaven’s Gate sect who were persuaded to commit suicide so that their souls could get a ride on the spaceship carrying Jesus that was hidden behind the Hale-Bopp comet that passed by the Earth in 1997.)

The belief that god is solidly behind you and will reward you for obeying him has been shown to overcome almost any moral scruples or inhibitions concerning committing acts that would otherwise be considered unspeakable. The historical examples of such behavior are so numerous and well known that I will not bother even listing them here but just look at some of the major flashpoints in the world today, where the conflicts (even if other factors are at play) are undoubtedly inflamed by perceptions that people are acting on behalf of their god: the vicious cycle of killings in Iraq between the Shia and Sunni, between Israelis and Palestinians, between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland (now thankfully abating), and between Hindus and Muslim in India.

Just recently, certain Islamic groups have called for the death of a Swedish cartoonist who is supposed to have drawn a cartoon disrespectful to Islam. This is yet another example of how religion seems to destroy people’s basic reasoning skills because for some religious people, it seems perfectly reasonable that they have to fight and kill to defend their god’s honor.

The obvious response to this call to avenge god by killing the cartoonist is to point out how absurd it is that humans think they have to protect their god’s interests by fighting and killing people. Do such believers think that god is some kind of mobster boss who has to have goons to carry out his wishes? Pointing this out would reveal the impotence of god and ultimately the absurdity of the idea of god. After all, any rational person should be able to see that if their god has the abilities they ascribe to him, he should be quite capable of taking care of himself. He can not only kill the offending cartoonist but even wipe the entire country of Sweden off the map to drive the lesson home that he will not be trifled with.

But our ‘respect for religion’ attitude prevents us from pointing out such an obvious truth, because it gets too uncomfortably close to revealing the absurdity of the underlying premise of religion. So instead what happens is some theologian is trotted out who argues that what their religious book is ‘really’ saying is that it is wrong to kill, despite the existence of other passages in the same religious books that have been used to argue to the contrary. And so we end up with yet another dreary debate between the so-called ‘moderates’ and ‘extremists’ about what god is ‘really’ like and what he ‘really’ wants from us.

This is why religion is bad. Not only is it false, it is dangerously false. Believing in such a false idea requires people to abandon rational thinking and makes even murderous intentions seem noble to them. If, as I argue, all the claimed benefits of religion can be provided by other institutions, and it has negatives that are solely its own creation, then it is hard to see what utility religion has that makes it worth preserving. I think that the conclusion is quite clear. The best selling atheist authors are, in the long run, doing us all a favor by directly confronting religion and showing that we would all be better off without it.

18 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Loretta Wollering

    Very interesting. I am curious – do you equate “being spiritual” or “seeking enlightenment” with all things “religious?” What about the humanist movement – which does not espouse religion per se, but shares many of the same sentiments – such as the virtues of compassion, universal love, loyalty, etc. I’d love to view your comments. Thanks!
    -Loretta Wollering
    CEO, Tai Chi Gala
    http://www.TaiChiGala.com
    http://www.InternalGardens.com

  2. 2
    Blackpool Cheap Hotel

    Given the problems religious tension causes around the world one should certainly ponder the question you pose!!

  3. 3
    Blackpool Cheap Hotel

    Given the problems religious tension causes around the world one should certainly ponder the question you pose!!

  4. 4
    Blackpool Cheap Hotel

    Given the problems religious tension causes around the world one should certainly ponder the question you pose!!

  5. 5
    Blackpool Cheap Hotel

    Given the problems religious tension causes around the world one should certainly ponder the question you pose!!

  6. 6
    Blackpool Cheap Hotel

    Given the problems religious tension causes around the world one should certainly ponder the question you pose!!

  7. 7
    Blackpool Cheap Hotel

    Given the problems religious tension causes around the world one should certainly ponder the question you pose!!

  8. 8
    Blackpool Cheap Hotel

    Given the problems religious tension causes around the world one should certainly ponder the question you pose!!

  9. 9
    Blackpool Cheap Hotel

    Given the problems religious tension causes around the world one should certainly ponder the question you pose!!

  10. 10
    Adrian

    When it comes to religion, the topic won’t end. religion should not be eliminated just as Napoleon stated it, “a state without religion is like a vessel without a compus”. Religion guides one in many areas which even helps the state in putting up harmony among the citizens. However, since i love debating, i will love your comments.

  11. 11
    family b&b blackpool

    One could be forgiven for thinking that the current unrest in North Africa and spreading across the Middle East is based upon a religious struggle.

    For once they are not. These people can barley afford to feed themselves given the level of inflation in basic foodstuffs over the last year or so. On that basis who can they blame? God or their government, the answer is obvious. What is not is will they be better off for it?

  12. 12
    family b&b blackpool

    One could be forgiven for thinking that the current unrest in North Africa and spreading across the Middle East is based upon a religious struggle.

    For once they are not. These people can barley afford to feed themselves given the level of inflation in basic foodstuffs over the last year or so. On that basis who can they blame? God or their government, the answer is obvious. What is not is will they be better off for it?

  13. 13
    family b&b blackpool

    One could be forgiven for thinking that the current unrest in North Africa and spreading across the Middle East is based upon a religious struggle.

    For once they are not. These people can barley afford to feed themselves given the level of inflation in basic foodstuffs over the last year or so. On that basis who can they blame? God or their government, the answer is obvious. What is not is will they be better off for it?

  14. 14
    family b&b blackpool

    One could be forgiven for thinking that the current unrest in North Africa and spreading across the Middle East is based upon a religious struggle.

    For once they are not. These people can barley afford to feed themselves given the level of inflation in basic foodstuffs over the last year or so. On that basis who can they blame? God or their government, the answer is obvious. What is not is will they be better off for it?

  15. 15
    family b&b blackpool

    One could be forgiven for thinking that the current unrest in North Africa and spreading across the Middle East is based upon a religious struggle.

    For once they are not. These people can barley afford to feed themselves given the level of inflation in basic foodstuffs over the last year or so. On that basis who can they blame? God or their government, the answer is obvious. What is not is will they be better off for it?

  16. 16
    family b&b blackpool

    One could be forgiven for thinking that the current unrest in North Africa and spreading across the Middle East is based upon a religious struggle.

    For once they are not. These people can barley afford to feed themselves given the level of inflation in basic foodstuffs over the last year or so. On that basis who can they blame? God or their government, the answer is obvious. What is not is will they be better off for it?

  17. 17
    family b&b blackpool

    One could be forgiven for thinking that the current unrest in North Africa and spreading across the Middle East is based upon a religious struggle.

    For once they are not. These people can barley afford to feed themselves given the level of inflation in basic foodstuffs over the last year or so. On that basis who can they blame? God or their government, the answer is obvious. What is not is will they be better off for it?

  18. 18
    family b&b blackpool

    One could be forgiven for thinking that the current unrest in North Africa and spreading across the Middle East is based upon a religious struggle.

    For once they are not. These people can barley afford to feed themselves given the level of inflation in basic foodstuffs over the last year or so. On that basis who can they blame? God or their government, the answer is obvious. What is not is will they be better off for it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>