My Objection to Religion

First of all, I would like to clarify exactly what I object to. I object to the adamant belief in supernatural gods and the rejection of evidence which inevitably ensues. I object to the strife caused by contradicting beliefs, and the wars that follow. I do not, object to the use of the term “god” as a metaphor to nature. This metaphor does not attempt to explain natural phenomena through supernatural explanations, nor does it attempt to justify or condemn people’s actions through ecclesiastical authorities.

Furthermore, I would like to clarify that though much of the following will use Christianity as an example, the following is not solely directed at Christians. It is directed at all religions which match the criteria given above. I use Christianity as an example because as an American I have been exposed to Christianity more than any other religion, and therefore I am more knowledgeable on Christianity than any other religion. I would also like to state that I do not claim to be an expert on any religion or the doctrine they follow; my assertions below are based principally on the observations I have made.

Religion should not survive an elementary education, yet it does. Why? Because society grants religion an undeserved immunity to criticism. Certain ideas are labeled “holy,” and once they receive that label you are not to question them. If someone’s political views do not coincide with your own, you are allowed to argue with them, but when someone says “I’m not allowed to make my bed on Sunday,” you must respect that.

The burden of proof lies with the theist, not the skeptic. It is not sufficient to say, “You can not disprove this, therefore this is how it is.” This idea is demonstrated by Bertrand Russell’s teapot analogy. Russell states:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

An impartial look at religion will reveal its absurdity. Unfortunately, most people are incapable of impartiality towards religion because the process of their proselytization began at their birth. Does the idea of a man being swallowed whole by a whale and being regurgitated alive three days later not strike people as ridiculous? What about the geocentric view of the universe that the bible preaches? Not only should we repudiate evolution, should we also revamp the entire theory of gravity to conform to the bible? I pray we never take such inane actions. Fundamentalists frighten me.

Most contemporary theists classify themselves as a bit more moderate than fundamentalists. Religious moderation is a consequence of a few factors: a significant increase in the education level of the common man, and partial ignorance to one’s own scriptures. Moderates interpret parts of their religion literally, and parts of their religion figuratively so it does not openly contradict what is generally considered scientific fact. This is not inherently a bad idea. Such an interpretation does not reject facts, and continues to offer people spirituality which science can not. Religious moderation puts up a façade of being the perfect compromise, however, when put in practice, an allegorical interpretation of holy texts is not only regressive, it is also conceited.

Fundamentalists will often view moderates as impious. Instead of excoriating such unjustifiable, obstinate opinions, religious moderation often inadvertently advocates the contrary and strengthens such view points. It appears that many fundamentalists erroneously argue that because so many people have been exposed to god that he must exist. The moderate’s belief in god affirms the fundamentalist’s feeling of superiority and righteousness. Without the plethora of moderates the fundamentalist’s belief system would slowly degenerate and be replaced with an overwhelming majority of people who decided to follow reason and logic when juxtaposed with faith alone.

Religious moderates also follow a much more personal interpretation of holy text. You will rarely find two moderates who share all the same tenets, even if they attend the same church. Many of these moderates will insist on their beliefs as vehemently as some fundamentalists. Since almost all moderates interpret the bible differently from each other, in essence what they are saying is that they themselves have the ultimate authority in declaring how the universe works and what moral standards people should follow. This is the pinnacle of arrogance. If there are a million different metaphorical interpretations of the bible, most likely this means there are a million different flawed interpretations of the bible. Expecting others to conform to your interpretations is obtuse.

While a figurative interpretation of religious text is more rational than a literal one, it is still dubious. This view is still partially based on faith where it is not merited. Though this faith may not dispute empirical data directly, no evidence exists to legitimize this faith; therefore one should still consider it a puerile theory at best.

Faith, though in most cases fallacious, is perpetuated by many factors. Children are inoculated with their parents and societies’ dogmatic beliefs before maturing enough to question those conjectures. When a child has a set of beliefs ingrained in his mind, the process of separating the child with those beliefs is difficult, and in certain cases impossible. As the child gets older, he will have an emotional connection to his childhood beliefs, which will render him incapable of objectively questioning his beliefs. If he is able to look at his beliefs objectively, he may continue to live under the pretense of faith for fear of being alienated from his community. He will also see many people that he is exposed to sharing his beliefs, which will reaffirm his faith. This process is then systematically repeated over the next generation.

My disillusionment regarding religion does not stem entirely from my incredulity towards people having faith in asinine conjectures, it also stems from the violence done in the name of religion, and from observing the extent that people are willing to go to impose their beliefs upon others.

Numerous crimes against humanity have been committed in the name of religion, and range in magnitude from harassment and persecution of dissenters to genocide. At one time, intellectuals such as Galileo were imprisoned for advocating theories which contravened religious dogma. Slowly, the public began to embrace the era of enlightenment. As intellectuals gained favor with the public, classical methods of persecution were abandoned, only to be replaced by more acceptable methods. This cycle continues to manipulate society in modern times. While legal oppression of the intellectual is nearly obsolete, he is often heavily belittled by society for heresy. Einstein was a victim of this sort of persecution. When Einstein stated that he does not believe in the conventional God, he received many outrageous replies, such as one from the founder of the Cavalry Tabernacle Association of Oklahoma:

Professor Einstein, I believe that every Christian in America will answer you, "We will not give up our belief in our God and his son Jesus Christ, but we invite you, if you do not believe in the God of the people of this nation, to go back where you came from." I have done everything in my power to be a blessing to Israel, and then you come along and with one statement from your blasphemous tongue, do more to hurt the cause of your people than all the efforts of the Christians who love Israel can do to stamp out anti-Semitism in our land. Professor Einstein, every Christian in America will immediately reply to you, "Take your crazy, fallacious theory of evolution and go back to Germany where you came from, or stop trying to break down the faith of a people who gave you a welcome when you were forced to flee your native land."

Of course there are far more heinous crimes than religious persecution that are carried out in the name of religion. The most obvious example, the malicious attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, opened up Pandora’s Box. America was left in shock, and The Middle East is arguably more devastated than ever before. Sadly, the extremist terrorists who attacked the United States believed that their actions were justified by their religion. The Ku Klux Klan justified lynching through the bible. Many more examples of crimes in the name of religion exist. The evidence required to claim that religion engenders barbarism and tyranny is pervasive.

In America, religion plays an indisputable role in both domestic and foreign politics. Though America is a leading nation in a civilized era, I find America’s aversion to putting a non-Christian in the oval office unfathomable. There are certain laws passed whose only basis lie in Christianity. Other laws, again only justified by Christian tenets, prevent the progressiveness that America strives for. Opposition to abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research almost lies solely with the religious right.

Christian influence is also evident in the rhetoric George W. Bush uses in his attempts to justify the war in Iraq, such as when he calls any Iraqis opposed to the American forces “evil-doers.” He even goes as far as saying that god told him “go and end the tyranny in Iraq.” Many people interpret his reference to “evil-doers” as referring to all Muslims, and end up mocking Islam as a whole, furthering the already increasing estrangement between Muslims and Christians. This only leads to more violence. The reason behind going into this war remains in question, but it is steadily spiraling into a war based on ideological differences.

History teaches us that the most virulent situations rise from ideological differences, not from a struggle over land, resources, or other tangibles. What possesses a man to arm himself with the branch of a tree and a few stones, and charge at a tank? Only quintessential hatred will drive a man to such an extreme, and this type of hatred comes from religious discord. People will do anything to assert the validity of their religion. Too many men have died in the name of religion, and these unnecessary deaths will continue until people realize that religion is fictitious. The extent of influence faith has exerted throughout history is appalling, especially considering that many times facts are ignored for faith.

In order to ensure the continued existence of humanity in a nuclear era religion must be subdued. History evinces religion as the catalyst to the bitterest wars. Though this has always been an inane peculiarity of human culture, in the past it was tolerable as the destruction was limited to a locality. However, if a religious war were waged between two nuclear powers the result would be Armageddon. The destruction would be pandemic, quite possibly resulting in the annihilation of the human race. Ending religion will not nullify the inexorable threat of nuclear war; however, it will discernibly reduce the possibility of such a war because nothing in human history has been as divisive as religion. On nearly every other issue the possibility of compromise exists; religion is absolute.

However, it is religion’s attempt to cross into the realm of science which I find most aggravating. It does this mainly two ways: through the legal system, and through the classroom. Recently, in America, there has been a movement to teach “creation science” in science classes in the public school system. Creationism seeks to teach alternative explanations to currently accepted scientific theories by introducing the idea of a deity. It is highly grotesque to try to pass creationism off as a science. First of all, creationism attempts to explain natural phenomena through supernatural causes, therefore it can not, by definition, be a science. Science is based on palpable evidence rather than blind faith. No evidence exists to substantiate the ludicrous arguments purported by creationists, while a myriad of evidence directly refutes them. It is fatuous to controvert observable fact on the basis of blind faith. Furthermore, though many proponents of creationism emphatically claim otherwise, creationism is strongly influenced by the Bible. America generally considers the intervention of the state in matters of faith illegal. Teaching creationism in school would transgress this principle. Most importantly, teaching creationism at school would misinform the minds of impressionable children, and would be horrifically regressive. Over the next few paragraphs, I would like to briefly address the major ideas behind creationism.

The main claim of creationism asserts that life did not evolve on Earth by natural selection, but that a divine entity designed and created life in its present state. Creationists generally mean common descent when they use the term ‘evolution.’ Creationists insist that their claim is as valid as evolution because evolution “is just a theory,” and since it is just a theory it should be removed from class, or all opposing theories should be given equal time in the classroom. The problem here arises from their interpretation of the word ‘theory.’ In American vernacular the term insinuates uncertainty; in the context of science the term is used to describe a group of propositions that explain a natural phenomenon. Gravity, for instance, is a natural phenomenon. There have been many proposed theories to explain the phenomenon, such as Newton’s classical theory, or Einstein’s general theory of relativity, however the fact that two massive bodies will attract each other has remained constant. Similarly, common descent is a natural phenomenon. The theory of evolution explains this phenomenon. It is possible that one day our current theory may be replaced by something else; however that will not change the fact that species are related by common descent.

As an aside, I would like to point out that the current theory that explains gravity has far more opposition in the scientific community than the theory of evolution. Why, then, are creationists not discontent with it being taught in the classroom?

Many people who argue against evolution cite a “missing link,” fossilized evidence which should be a requirement of proof according to some creationists, in the lineage of the human race. I have heard this argument many times. I find it somewhat ironic that though many people will use this as a key point to their argument, this missing link remains esoteric in the sense that no one seems to know exactly what, when, or where this missing link is. This is a moot argument, however. If a missing link exists, it does not refute the theory of evolution. Evolution does not entail a direct fossilized record from ancestor to descendant. Fossilized evidence is contingent on the geological forces of the earth, and is coincidental when found. It supports the theory of evolution. Fossilized evidence is not a requirement for ascertaining the theory’s validity.

Another central argument of many creationists is that the Earth and universe are between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. These creationists generally have a literal view on the bible’s historical accuracy. There is, of course, no real basis for these claims. They are off by a factor of approximately a million. It would be equivalent of saying that San Francisco is 30 feet from New York.

There are a multitude of methods for measuring the age of the Earth, the most common being radiometric dating. This method approximates the age of the earth at 4.5 billion years, along with other independent methods of dating. Creationists often question the legitimacy of radioactive dating. They base their doubt on relatively few examples. Any tool when misused will give inaccurate results, which is generally the case for the basis of creationist’s claims. The fact that independent radiometric techniques, along with other techniques such as Milankovitch cycles, luminescence dating method, and relative dating methods are consistent should be apodictic evidence that should lay to rest any doubt on the validity of radiometric dating.

Since the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old, it logically follows that the age of the universe is also greater than 4.5 billion years old. This has also been proved by various methods.

Religion is a valid expression of human emotion. Unfortunately, the majority of the people want to aggrandize it into literal truth, which it is not. Such aggrandizement is a threat to the progressiveness of society, a threat to the human species itself, and blinds people from seeing the naturally beautiful truth. At one point in time, religion was not nearly as harmful as it is today, but in the age of reason, religion is antiquated, and does not deserve a place in modern society.

True, religion instigates war, disputes, ect. but people need something to keep them human. If they believe they will be rewarded in the 'afterlife' they'll be good little civilians. If everyone was intolerant to God, we'd all be dead. If everyone is fanatical about God, we'd all be dead. We need a balance to keep us in line.

I myself have drifted from the Catholic perspective I've been (and being) raised with. I have no fucking clue what's right. And I hope I nnever do learn. I'd be dissapointed if there is a God and I'd be dissapointed if there isn't. Burning in 'hell' or ceasing to exist? Tough choice, and we don't get to decide.

True, religion instigates war, disputes, ect. but people need something to keep them human. If they believe they will be rewarded in the 'afterlife' they'll be good little civilians. If everyone was intolerant to God, we'd all be dead.

Humankind seemed to do just fine before the concept of religion...

but people need something to keep them human.

People are human. We aren't given a choice in that matter, nor can we change it.

If they believe they will be rewarded in the 'afterlife' they'll be good little civilians.

I strongly disagree with this statement. Religious people are as likely to commit a crime as secular people. In fact, religion often drives people to commit crimes. Furthermore, a lack of belief in god does not imply a lack of morality. I consider myself be as moral of a person as religious people, however I get to pick and choose my morals based on observation rather than having them told to me from a book.

If everyone was intolerant to God, we'd all be dead.

Again, there is no reason a moral society can't exist without god.

Even the neanderthals had some concept of spirits and a sort of religion.

If ever they were ill they went to the Medicine Man, who thought that they had a bad spirit in them, and so cut a hole in their head to let the spirit out (trephining or trepanning. Either or depending on personal preference). He was also thought of as the way to contact the spirit world.

Proof of all this comes from not only the study of cave paintings and early human skeletons, but also the study of the Aborighines in Australia - they're thought to be extremely similar to the early "cavemen" in their practices.

-----

I completely agree with all you say about religion, mj. The majority of the worlds problems have been, and still are, caused by it.

There's also a great quote, can't remember who said it, though, about Man and God:

"And the sixth day God created Man. On the seventh day Man returned the favour."

Very well written, by the way. Very good 'article', I suppose you'd call it.

-----

EDIT: I was thinking this as I was reading your post.

I don't know about America, but it's definitely true for [at least] my year at school, maybe even my age group across the country - very few people are religious. Many think the idea of a God is absurd, and quite a few will argue to the death about it.

It may just be that England and Britain as a whole is less religious and more of a multi-culture society, or it may be that as you get older you start to question everything more. It's true to say that a lot of schools, unless they're religious schools, won't 'force' pupils to be religious. They still teach RE and so on, but it's not drummed into us as it may be over the pond.

Very well written, by the way. Very good 'article', I suppose you'd call it.

Thank you.

I don't know about America, but it's definitely true for [at least] my year at school, maybe even my age group across the country - very few people are religious. Many think the idea of a God is absurd, and quite a few will argue to the death about it.

It is quite different in America, especially at my university.

It may just be that England and Britain as a whole is less religious and more of a multi-culture society, or it may be that as you get older you start to question everything more.

From my experiences, I have come to a conclusion which seems to contradict common sense. It would seem natural that as one gets older he questions things more, but from what I've seen it is the other way around. Younger children tend to have a lot of questions on the world, but as people grow older they grow more accepting of answers provided to them by authority.

It's true to say that a lot of schools, unless they're religious schools, won't 'force' pupils to be religious. They still teach RE and so on, but it's not drummed into us as it may be over the pond.

Public schools here don't really teach religion, except from an academic perspective.

I consider myself be as moral of a person as religious people

Lies, thats like saying im not addicted to WoW.

Lies, thats like saying im not addicted to WoW.

No, it's true. As much as I joke otherwise, I do consider myself to be a moral person. That doesn't mean my morals are immutable or conventional, but there is a standard that I live by.

[/QUOTE]Religion is a valid expression of human emotion. Unfortunately, the majority of the people want to aggrandize it into literal truth, which it is not. Such aggrandizement is a threat to the progressiveness of society, a threat to the human species itself, and blinds people from seeing the naturally beautiful truth. At one point in time, religion was not nearly as harmful as it is today, but in the age of reason, religion is antiquated, and does not deserve a place in modern society.[/QUOTE]

there is a reason for religion and there is a place for it in this world

but with so many fake religions its hard to determine the real one the one that actually tells the truth

for example:if you go and talk to the pope and tell him "whats the name of god?" he'll gladly tell you Jehova or Yave
but during the reunions these popes do not say the name at any moment
and if they do the rarely use the bible to show it to you

theres a perfect example of a fake religion, basically a religion is to teach someone about god and his purposes for life, therefore in search of power
such as the catolics did during ancient times, fake religions are born
atracting people into fake teachings which will in time control their lifes

of course not all people let religion control them and are free to do as they please, but another trick religions use is the fact that they ARE free and completely of your choosing, which gives people freedom and makes them come(wow my first coherent paragraph i'm so happy)

but with so many fake religions its hard to determine the real one the one that actually tells the truth

Under the assumption that one religion does tell the absolute truth, there is no way of determining which one it is. Religion is based entirely on faith. 'Determining' which religion is the correct one would require certainty based on proof, the antithesis of faith.

for example:if you go and talk to the pope and tell him "whats the name of god?" he'll gladly tell you Jehova or Yave but during the reunions these popes do not say the name at any moment and if they do the rarely use the bible to show it to you theres a perfect example of a fake religion

What makes anything about that "fake," from your perspective?

basically a religion is to teach someone about god and his purposes for life, therefore in search of power such as the catolics did during ancient times, fake religions are born atracting people into fake teachings which will in time control their lifes

Do those two seemingly unrelated trains of thought have some obscure relationship, or is that just a horrid run-on?

but another trick religions use is the fact that they ARE free and completely of your choosing

Again, I disagree. Refer to paragraph 10. (Faith, though in most cases fallacious . . .) Most people do not choose their own religion, they are born into it. Yes, people may change, but to even start thinking apostatically is heavily condemned, and most people never reach this point since they have lived by one religion all their life. I hardly call that a choice.

No, it's true. As much as I joke otherwise, I do consider myself to be a moral person. That doesn't mean my morals are immutable or conventional, but there is a standard that I live by.

True even though we lack religious beliefs I still consider us to be less of an asshole in comparison with most other people in the US.

it can be a choice, it just that its hard to determine without actual proof(i agree with you)
but mostly what the bible says is happening right now which is a strong influence with religions.

but mostly what the bible says is happening right now which is a strong influence with religions.

Such as?

As someone who enjoys studying mythology and religion, I see so much truth in your posts. Religion does seem to incite suffering, hate, war, etc., but you have to remember it's not the religion itself, it's the people who interpret the faith they are with. Islam by itself is not a dangerous religion nor is it a very violent one (I'm still studying Islam through the help of a friend who is Shi'a Muslim), but the extremists who follow Islam use the faith as an excuse to carry out the evils that we see going on in the world. Christianity had been the same way and still is to a much lesser degree now.

I still see a lot of fanatical Christians who would murder and mutilate you because you aren't Christian. They really don't get the core message of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" as well as Christ's message "Judge not lest ye be judged." They seem to think some of that doesn't apply when they deal with nonbelievers.

But great post, mj. Very well-thought out and quite accurate.

lets take aborting as an example(correct me if i'm wrong i'm translating from french)is a way some women get rid of their child so they wont have to take care of them.
the bible says in psalm 139:13-16:" you Jehova kept me covered in protected form in the woov of my mother. your eyes saw even my enbrion an din your book all her parts were writen."

according to the bible god considers even an infant life who has not yet been born sacred and doing an abort is a serious sin, yet women still go through it. as you can see the bible basically says hundreds of years ago that aborting is a sin and yet its 1 of the methods of avoiding pregnancy that is used most oftened.

1. Where is your/ his evidence that there is not a supernatural God?
2. How has the legitimate practice of Christianity caused wars?

dude i agree with the fact that god exists
and christianity doesn't cause war
the bible said (not directly) that war would occur in this time and theire happening

i highly doubt its a coincidence

Wait wait wait. Kyerru... Why because the pope doesn't say Yaweh make Catholicism fake? And the bible I believe to be a bunch of bullshit. Even though I may be inherently Christian the bible is 'God working through the writer' which to me is leaving too much room to someone thinking they are being told by God. Don't quote the motherfucking bible. It's not a valid source. This coming from a practicing Roman Catholic, the bible isn't to be taken as fact and quoted.

My questions were not directed at you, so please don't try to answer them. They were for mjordan2nd to answer. Thanks.

Also, the Bible is full of shit.

I still see a lot of fanatical Christians who would murder and mutilate you because you aren't Christian. They really don't get the core message of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" as well as Christ's message "Judge not lest ye be judged." They seem to think some of that doesn't apply when they deal with nonbelievers.

A lot of the more fanatical Christians may choose to ignore Christ and live by what the Old Testament says. In comparison with the NT, the OT really is calling for the blood of everyone who isn't a hardcore believer.

-----

but mostly what the bible says is happening right now which is a strong influence with religions.

Thanks to Religion, Science has had to take a course that not only fits in with the Christian beliefs, but a course that is dictated by the Christian Church.

Now I'm going purely off European and English History here (America was naught but a myth in these times) - first take the Greeks. They were advanced, they even allowed dissection. No qualms there. Then the Romans; pretty much the same... until Christianity popped up.

I don't expect people to know who he is, but Claudius Galen was to medicine as Aristotle and Hippocrates are. He wrote so much on the subject, contributed by the donkey-drawn wagon load. But, ultimately, he ideas were wrong.

The Roman Empire collapses, Europe (and the known world at the time) sink into the Dark Ages, Religion takes hold. Yet in Asia, Islam is prevailing, and with it come some of the most advanced scientific minds the world had seen. Sure, they took Galen's ideas and believed them (same with the ideas of the old Greek philosophers), but they didn't take them on as the standard. Rather they took them and improved them.

Yada yada, Crusades. Christians come along, kill the "devils". Sack cities, burn great libraries to the ground, butcher the genii. And salvage the oild works of Galen. Whoop-di-doo. The Christian Church decides that these ideas are correct, that they fit in with their beliefs. Thanks to this religion, which took these books and writings, and preserved them (nice thing to do, though) the teachings were taught in medical schools, out of the books, until Andreas Vesalius, William Harvery and Ambroise Pare come along and cause an uproar by not only speaking out against Galen, but by proving him wrong (yes, Paracelsus was doing this a hundred years earlier, but he was a crackpot German who got pissed in pubs with the peasants for the crack of it). Well over a thousand years after Galen died, his teachings were finally making way for something else... but not until the Church had had its way.

Sorry for the brief course in the History of Medicine, but throughout the annals of time Religion (namely the Catholic Church) has supressed science to suit it's own needs. Even now it opposes ground-breaking research on stem cells and cloning, simply on age-old principles.

In this day and age there should be no need for Religion to be as deep-rooted in society as it is. Its influence is still far too much - War on Terrorism, Iraq, Afghanistan, Cloning=no-no, Stem Cell Research is bad.

And I've forgotten what the original point was... nevermind.