When will religion go away?
The Colbert Report's guest last night is the writer of an intriguing book, one I am certain to speed through when I can get my hands on it.
The End of Faith by Sam Harris discusses how our acceptance of people's religious beliefs, especially when those beliefs fly in the face of reason, breaks down society and destroys our country.
I was impressed watching Harris discuss this taboo topic with the always satirical Stephen Colbert. It's hard to imagine someone that would dare step on the toes of the faithful, since religious intolerance is so out of style in our country right now. Religion gets lumped into categories of discrimination like race, age, or gender, though it is hardly deserving of the same sensitivity.
Logically speaking, the existence of God (in the Christian sense) is an idea that is incredibly easy to defeat:
God is all powerful
God is all loving
There is extreme suffering in the world
In other words, a god who loves everyone equally and has the power to do anything his will desires, would not allow a person to starve, suffer through the extreme pain of chemotherapy, live in a ditch by the side of the road, get raped, or any other type of real suffering.
Apparently this God people put so much faith in prefers to sit on the sidelines and watch his "loved ones" go through exquisite amounts of pain, I guess as part of "the plan." I like to think my mom loves me unconditionally, I certainly hope she wouldn't let me suffer if she was an all powerful being with the ability to stop my pain at the flick of a wand, or however God carries out his bidding.
The casual religious person, when backed into a corner, may concede the absolute truth of God and say something like "well, it helps me be a better person," or "it helps society function."
There is a definite truth, though by no means absolute truth, to those statements. A lot of great people do amazing things in the name of religion, donate time or clothing to help a cause like fighting homelessness. Mother Theresa did great things for the world and countless individuals and she felt she was carrying out the will of her god. Would she have been a prostitute or a thief if she was an atheist? I don't think so.
The laws of religion do help members of society "stay in line," so to speak. People may be less inclined to murder someone if they believe their is an eternal price to be paid in the fiery pits of hell, others may feel inclined to just generally treat other people well when reading their badge of honor, their "What would Jesus do" bracelets.
But this device of religion, capable of accomplishing great things, is also capable of killing countless innocent people, destroying our environment, and the oppression or abuse of millions.
I recognized the controlling power of religion when I first read about Hinduism. The ideas of Dharma and Karma are some of the greatest controlling devices ever created by organized religion, perhaphs Bush will find a way to insert them into Christianity. Essentially these religious laws say this: Do your job and know your role, whether that be peasant, slave, or king, and you will be reborn into a life that is better than this one. This way the migrant worker who works a twelve hour day under the beating heat of the sun, can't afford to feed his or her daughter, and lives in a shack, will not dare speak out against the oil tycoon's son who's born with a silver spoon in his mouth and potty trained on a golden toilet seat. With such a powerful religious law, if they can get people to believe it, the powers that be have stifled dissent and kept the lower classes in order-- who would revolt if they honestly believed in their heart they would be reborn as a rat or cockroach?
Religion is no longer serving the masses of society, but only the higher ups who speak of faith whenever they want to make people dance like puppets confined by tight strings. We now see it every election cycle with "values issues" and anti-gay religious babble. We have an administration that doesn't mind ignoring the environment because their faith, based on no facts of course, says that Jesus will come back before the planet is destroyed.
When religion contradicts the facts generated by science and logic, puts our future in jeopardy, encourages discrimination, and risks the lives of future generations (yes, your children and grandchildren), should we continue to show tolerance for these dangerous and intolerant beliefs? Do you show religious tolerance for the Muslims who flew their planes into the trade towers (that's right, I can use 9/11 too)?
Richard Dawkins from the Guardian says this about Harris' book, which I think sums up these thoughts nicely:
"[some] blame extremists who “distort the “true message of religion. Harris goes to the root of the problem: religion itself. Even moderate religion is a menace, because it leads us to respect and Âcherish the idea that certain fantastic propositions can be believed without evidence”. Why do men like Bin Laden commit their hideous cruelties? The answer is that they actually believe what they say they believe”. Read Sam Harris and wake up."
Independent U.K. points out there is a wall around religious faith that insulates it from criticism. As religion continues to divide and hurt our country, we need to pull these walls down and call a spade a spade.
The End of Faith by Sam Harris discusses how our acceptance of people's religious beliefs, especially when those beliefs fly in the face of reason, breaks down society and destroys our country.
I was impressed watching Harris discuss this taboo topic with the always satirical Stephen Colbert. It's hard to imagine someone that would dare step on the toes of the faithful, since religious intolerance is so out of style in our country right now. Religion gets lumped into categories of discrimination like race, age, or gender, though it is hardly deserving of the same sensitivity.
Logically speaking, the existence of God (in the Christian sense) is an idea that is incredibly easy to defeat:
God is all loving
There is extreme suffering in the world
In other words, a god who loves everyone equally and has the power to do anything his will desires, would not allow a person to starve, suffer through the extreme pain of chemotherapy, live in a ditch by the side of the road, get raped, or any other type of real suffering.
Apparently this God people put so much faith in prefers to sit on the sidelines and watch his "loved ones" go through exquisite amounts of pain, I guess as part of "the plan." I like to think my mom loves me unconditionally, I certainly hope she wouldn't let me suffer if she was an all powerful being with the ability to stop my pain at the flick of a wand, or however God carries out his bidding.
The casual religious person, when backed into a corner, may concede the absolute truth of God and say something like "well, it helps me be a better person," or "it helps society function."
There is a definite truth, though by no means absolute truth, to those statements. A lot of great people do amazing things in the name of religion, donate time or clothing to help a cause like fighting homelessness. Mother Theresa did great things for the world and countless individuals and she felt she was carrying out the will of her god. Would she have been a prostitute or a thief if she was an atheist? I don't think so.
The laws of religion do help members of society "stay in line," so to speak. People may be less inclined to murder someone if they believe their is an eternal price to be paid in the fiery pits of hell, others may feel inclined to just generally treat other people well when reading their badge of honor, their "What would Jesus do" bracelets.
But this device of religion, capable of accomplishing great things, is also capable of killing countless innocent people, destroying our environment, and the oppression or abuse of millions.
I recognized the controlling power of religion when I first read about Hinduism. The ideas of Dharma and Karma are some of the greatest controlling devices ever created by organized religion, perhaphs Bush will find a way to insert them into Christianity. Essentially these religious laws say this: Do your job and know your role, whether that be peasant, slave, or king, and you will be reborn into a life that is better than this one. This way the migrant worker who works a twelve hour day under the beating heat of the sun, can't afford to feed his or her daughter, and lives in a shack, will not dare speak out against the oil tycoon's son who's born with a silver spoon in his mouth and potty trained on a golden toilet seat. With such a powerful religious law, if they can get people to believe it, the powers that be have stifled dissent and kept the lower classes in order-- who would revolt if they honestly believed in their heart they would be reborn as a rat or cockroach?
Religion is no longer serving the masses of society, but only the higher ups who speak of faith whenever they want to make people dance like puppets confined by tight strings. We now see it every election cycle with "values issues" and anti-gay religious babble. We have an administration that doesn't mind ignoring the environment because their faith, based on no facts of course, says that Jesus will come back before the planet is destroyed.
When religion contradicts the facts generated by science and logic, puts our future in jeopardy, encourages discrimination, and risks the lives of future generations (yes, your children and grandchildren), should we continue to show tolerance for these dangerous and intolerant beliefs? Do you show religious tolerance for the Muslims who flew their planes into the trade towers (that's right, I can use 9/11 too)?
Richard Dawkins from the Guardian says this about Harris' book, which I think sums up these thoughts nicely:
Independent U.K. points out there is a wall around religious faith that insulates it from criticism. As religion continues to divide and hurt our country, we need to pull these walls down and call a spade a spade.
In regards to the suffering thing.
Here is some updated, liberation theology for you to consider.
Premise: The message of Christ challenges us to see God in human form.
Consider the suffering of Christ: What did people do to save God? How could people let such brutality happen to their own God?
Is there a lesson in that for modern Christians, looking at suffering in the world?
Sure. When presented with suffering, see the presence of God in those that suffer, and ask -- what have you done today to serve your God, to serve those who suffer?
Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati | 11:15 AM
Atheistic humanism is the way to go. Why do the right thing? Because it's the right thing to do. You don't need any other reason.
But, "Not one man in a thousand has either strength of mind or goodness of heart to be an Atheist."
Posted by Joe | 11:17 AM
On control:
One does not need religion to control people. Religion can be used to liberate those who have been oppressed by governments. Like the ancient Israelites enslaved by Babylon, or African slaves in America who found faith in the example of Moses. When faced with an oppresive government, some may decide to serve their God over their earthly masters -- and that inspires revolutions of a worthy sort.
In fact, Andrew, you would not be living in America right now if not for these seeking religious freedom from a government that did not allow such things.
Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati | 11:18 AM
Joe, your rhetoric on humanism seems to take the same kind of oppressive stance towards the religious that you seem to be criticizing in the first place.
That's ironic!
Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati | 11:19 AM
Can you explain that a little bit further, Jason?
Posted by Joe | 11:23 AM
Dean,
True, one does not need religion to control people, but it sure does do the trick. Why maintain a system that serves that cause, any tool of oppressors should be dispensed of.
More on control: As the author pointed out on the Colbert Report, Catholics won't allow Africans to wear condoms thus they die at "genocidal rates." People were sent to crusades to reclaim the holy land for the "proper religion." Planes were flown into trade towers because individuals were told it would guarentee them spiritual prosperity.
As funny as it sounds, the world would be better if people were self-serving (not individuals) instead of serving a higher power. Then people would revolt against unjust rules because they are unjust, not because God told them too.
Our country was founded by crazy people seeking religious freedom by people who didn't want to deal with their craziness. Puritans (who we are discussing) people put a bed sheet with a hole in it between married couples while they had sex, burned little girls at the stake, and lashed themselves on the back. Europe was smart enough to not tolerate such crazy behavior.
Posted by Andrew Warner | 11:32 AM
This is one area I do not think need to be touched on. People are given the ability to think on their own for reasons. I do not advocate terrorist attacks such as 9/11 or the so-called “Genocide” that Harris tried to explain was completely the fault of faith and religion. I think religion provides numerous positive outlets for children stepping into a world of drugs and peer pressure and families on the verge of divorces. Faith gives people guidance and I reason to keep going when things are at a low. Harris made comments about God stopping all the hate and suffering in the world, but that isn’t what is he is supposed to do. There is not religion that preaches death. If you were to read into the Muslim religion in depth I can guarantee that you wouldn’t find a damn thing about flying planes into buildings or killing innocent individuals. If you want to go and blame something like religion for this, then you might as well get rid of all books. Everything can contain messages that can be interpreted differently, but don’t go and blame something as beautiful as religion. Those starving kids in Africa might survive a day longer because they have faith and a great after life to look forward to. Just to make things clear, I am agnostic so I do not have a personal belief in any particular faith, but I want to reiterate that telling people not to believe in something because a handful of idiots want to kill people and feel good about it is not right. Let the people believe what they want to believe, that is why we have democracy.
Posted by Nate Eaton | 11:56 AM
Near one of the last lines should say... a hanful of idoits want to kill people and need an excuse to feel good about it isnt right...
Sorry for the mix up
Posted by Nate Eaton | 11:59 AM
I am all for the rights of the individual, until it begins to hurt other people or take rights away from other people.
Certain religions teach things that are meant to hurt people. Certain branches of Christianity obviously target gays, Mormonism openly discriminated against blacks until the 70's. Catholocism teaches that birth control is a sin, leading to what we have been referring to as genocidal amounts of AIDS death in Africa.
Don't be so sure about what the book of Islam says Nate. I'm sure bin Laden or someone else who is well versed in that particular holy book could point to a thing or two about a Jihad against infidels.
Most importantly to this discussion is that we need to have the freedom to criticize religion, not letting it hide behind the forcefield of discrimination. When Bush comes out and says creationism is valid competitor to the theory of evolution; we need the ability to tell Bush (or whoever says it) that they are being idiotic.
Posted by Andrew Warner | 12:52 PM
"People are given the ability to think on their own for reasons."
So let them. In my opinion, the main objective of religion is to take away thinking and request that you follow blindly. Why, having never seen a human being reanimate from the dead, do people just believe that this event happened? "Because the Bible said so". People pick and choose what they want to believe as it suits their lives. In the past, natural phenomena were explained by mysticism because they were not understood. As we learn more about the world we live in, these explanations no longer hold up. Somehow, people are able to turn off the logic switch in favor of the faith one and it helps them get through the day. I understand that there are things in this world that are yet unexplained and that is unsettling. However, instead of just believing a story that was written so long ago when so little was understood, I would rather just wait until an understanding is found. I have a copy of Sam Harris's book and I can't wait for a moment when I have time to devote to reading it. I am with Joe on this one!
-Maureen
Posted by Anonymous | 1:08 PM
There might be something about Jihad against infidels but no where does it say fly a plane into a building and kill innocent civilians. Religion is a choice, nobody forces it onto anyone.
Posted by Nate Eaton | 4:22 PM
Nate,
That is them interpreting their religion-- those people in the towers were money grubbing infidels (said them).
Religion is a choice for them, but it was certainly forced upon those in the towers.
Posted by Andrew Warner | 5:46 PM
Religion is a choice. However, parents who indoctrinate their children at a young age with thoughts and fears of religious dogma are forcing it. When you are a child, you do not know how to differentiate the credibility of one authority figure from another. When parents equate preachers to kindergarten teachers, choice is factored out of the equation pretty quickly.
Maureen
Posted by Anonymous | 5:55 PM
i think that religion does need to be criticized, but i also think that there is a way to go about it that opens up dialogue with people of faith rather than alienating them. one problem is that many people who are "religious" don't have a reflective way of looking at their own faith; rather, they simply cling to moralistic ideas that promote narrow-mindedness yet give them a feeling of safety.
the problem is that religion isn't spirituality, it is organized dogma usually, and that doesn't lend itself to being open to dialogue. i think that if we can, on an interpersonal and local level, engage one another in dialogue about faith, that there will be a starting point for learning to happen on both ends of the conversation.
there is an NPR program online called Speaking of Faith, anybody who is interested might want to check it out.
"Glances, everyday gestures, one's breath, a profound impulse--all these things express the truth of a person, with or without ideas. What keeps you alive?--that's the question. Keep yourself in a state of active anticipation."
-jean sulivan, ex-catholic priest
Posted by kelly | 5:56 PM
Andrew, I just don't get it.
You seem to believe that governments are not as culpable as religions.
Take away religion, you still have mind-controlling and destructive systems in place.
People have died for religion. Same for government. People are controlled by religion. Same for government. Worship your God, or your State. What's the difference, in this context?
Joe: I just mean to indicate that, when people start speaking against religion, they should be very careful to avoid any semblance of dogmatism.
Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati | 5:19 AM
Dean,
Where are you getting this from? I don't want people to worship their state either?
I encourage people to be healthily skeptical of their governments. Don't support wars that seem unjust. Such skepticism, in theory, can not exist in religion. For example, if the Pope is infallible in matters of faith, and he says a war must be fought for God, you must fight in the war or you are no longer a true believer in your faith.
Get it?
Posted by Andrew Warner | 6:50 AM
"Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious." - Sam Harris
Posted by Eric | 6:16 PM