Reasoning about Religion

... astrology promotes the worst thing in the world: uncritical thinking. The more we teach people to simply accept anecdotal stories, hearsay, cherry-picked data (picking out what supports your claims but ignoring what doesn't), and, frankly, out-and-out lies, the harder it gets for people to think clearly. If you cannot think clearly, you cannot function as a human being. I cannot stress this enough. Uncritical thinking is tearing this world to pieces, and while astrology may not be at the heart of that, it has its role.

> what has the church brought
> to America that is so awful ?

It makes people believe in things that aren't true. It also makes people stick the government's nose in people's private affairs. I'm referring to laws against miscegenation, gay marriage, blue laws, drug prohibition, teaching evolution, denying global warming, abortion, and supporting slavery, among others.

And to quote Bill Maher, "maybe a President who didn't believe our soldiers were going to heaven might be a little less willing to get them killed".

Religion is ultimately dependent on belief in invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces, and events and judgments that happen after we die.

It therefore has no reality check.

And it is therefore uniquely armored against criticism, questioning, and self-correction. It is uniquely armored against anything that might stop it from spinning into extreme absurdity, extreme denial of reality ... and extreme, grotesque immorality.

The irony of religion is that because of its power to divert man to destructive courses, the world could actually come to an end. The plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live. The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge having in key decisions made by religious people, by irrationalists, by those who would steer the ship of state not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken. George Bush prayed a lot about Iraq, but he didn't learn a lot about it. Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking. It's nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith, and enable and elevate it are intellectual slaveholders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction. Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers to think that they do. Most people would think it's wonderful when someone says, "I'm willing, Lord! I'll do whatever you want me to do!" Except that since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions and limitations and agendas. And anyone who tells you they know, they just know what happens when you die, I promise you, you don't. How can I be so sure? Because I don't know, and you do not possess mental powers that I do not. The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble, and that's what man needs to be, considering that human history is just a litany of getting s**t dead wrong. This is why rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. And those who consider themselves only moderately religious really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you comes at a terrible price. If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence, and sheer ignorance as religion is, you'd resign in protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife, for the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travelers. If the world does come to an end here, or wherever, or if it limps into the future, decimated by the effects of religion-inspired nuclear terrorism, let's remember what the real problem was. We learned how to precipitate mass death before we got past the neurological disorder of wishing for it. That's it. Grow up or die.

Religious reductionism generally attempts to explain religion by boiling it down to certain nonreligious causes. A few examples of reductionistic explanations for the presence of religion are: that religion can be reduced to humanity's conceptions of right and wrong, that religion is fundamentally a primitive attempt at controlling our environments, that religion is a way to explain the existence of a physical world, and that religion confers an enhanced survivability for members of a group and so is reinforced by natural selection.

For biological / survival reasons, a human baby is born with a hard-wired instinct to cling to its mother, an all-powerful nourishing protecting loving being. That instinct forms the basis of a desire to believe in God later.

[It's a misconception that Christianity is based on the Bible.]

Earliest Christianity as we understand it consisted of local churches that followed the teachings of various apostles and, later, bishops and theologians. The religion was incredibly diverse, and local church leaders began compiling their teachings and traditions into epistles, Gospels, Apocalypses, and hagiographies ("The Acts of So-and-So") for use in teaching, although the majority of the population was illiterate and books were too expensive for all but the richest to own. There were literally hundreds of these works, many of which still survive today.

Eventually, various church councils established acceptable doctrinal positions of orthodox Christianity, and lists of popular documents that were acceptable for use in church were promulgated by leaders like St. Athanasius. However, the importance of the texts was seen primarily in the fact that they preserved some of the teachings of the early apostles, and they were seen as a supplement to existing traditions and the apostolic authority of bishops.

At no point was Christianity ever "based on the Bible". On the contrary, the canon was written and compiled on the basis of church teachings and tradition. How the canon is regarded by regional branches of the church has also varied, from antiquity to the present. In the Eastern church, many canon lists were proposed, but none universally accepted, so that today's Orthodox churches have the largest canon lists, with many differences between them. In the Western church, the Vulgate established a de facto canon due to its status as the official Latin translation, but this list was not formalized until the Council of Trent in 1546.

The Protestant Reformation introduced the sola scriptura principle due to its break with the Catholic church and apostolic succession, but Luther also used his influence to throw out or demote much of the canon, again showing how the Bible's usefulness to the church depended on how much it could be used to teach currently acceptable doctrines.

Thus, it is a common misconception that some Christians (particularly those from recent denominations founded in the 19th and 20th centuries) as well as some nonbelievers think Christianity is founded on the Bible. Basing a religion on a book is a fairly recent and unusual phenomenon, with Islam and Mormonism being the most prominent examples.

> Heard: Best way to increase your belief against
> God is to read the Bible ? Please explain.

The bible is so full of contradictions, morally reprehensible stuff touted as being morally good, historical inaccuracy, and supernatural claims that if taken literally go against everything we know about science.

And through all this, it never once puts forth a good reason to believe a word it says. It's completely circular. "This book is true because it's written by God, and we know it's written by God because it says so in this book, which if you remember from before, is infallible, because it's written by God."

I mean, you have to be a believer, in order to read that thing and not have a distinct feeling that this is a really antiquated piece of fan-fiction.

The thing that uniquely defines religion, the thing that sets it apart from every other ideology or hypothesis or social network, is the belief in unverifiable supernatural entities. Of course it has other elements -- community, charity, philosophy, inspiration for art, etc. But those things exist in the secular world, too. They're not specific to religion. The thing that uniquely defines religion is belief in supernatural entities. Without that belief, it's not religion.

Those who emphasize the good effects of religion never seem to realize that such effects fail to demonstrate the truth of any religious doctrine. This is why we have terms such as "wishful thinking" and "self-deception". There is a profound distinction between a consoling delusion and the truth.

In any case, the good effects of religion can surely be disputed. In most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?

I think that for many who come from a religious background, religion is synonymous with morality. Some people think that if you're an atheist, you simply have no morals. That is just wrong. There are an awful lot of people who are atheists who do very, very wonderful things. As an objective question, do people who have religious backgrounds show different patterns of moral judgements than people who are atheists ? So far, the answer is a resounding no.

Countries with high rates of religious non-belief tend to be countries with very high rates of social functioning, low crime rates, strong senses of mutualism and social responsibility, etc. Countries with high rates of religious belief tend to be countries with high rates of crime, inequality, corruption, etc. Now, it's unlikely that atheism causes this social health -- it's more likely the other way around. But the idea that religion promotes ethical behavior is simply not born out by the evidence. (Source: "Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us about Contentment")

From an angry outsider's perspective, we [atheists] are just a bunch of know-it-all jerks who want to stick our noses in other peoples' business and piss on their beliefs. We're the ultimate trolls, raining on everyone else's parade for no reason other than we're huge meanies.

But what these folks are missing is that we're not merely pointing out their convictions out of spite. And we're certainly not upset just because we disagree with their point of view. The problem is that religion - and in the Western world (the U.S. especially), that would be squarely on the shoulders of Christianity - has been so much more than simply another way of looking at the world. It has been a tool of ignorance, hate, rape, slavery, murder and genocide. And in current times, it bombards us (again, especially in the U.S.) with an unceasing shower of judgement, scorn and bullying. Religion creeps into our schools, our science classes even. It makes itself home in our politics, our social views, our very laws. Those who adhere to religion FORCE their beliefs on the rest of us, from the Pledge of Allegiance, to testifying in court, to our currency, to the Cub Scouts. Religion has wormed its tentacles into every facet of our daily lives, often to cruel degrees.

Thanks to religion, our social norms dictate what entertainment we can and can't consume. Thanks to religion, our political leaders feel obligated to thank GOD as our savior. Thanks to religion, my son can't openly admit at Cub Scouts that he thinks the idea of worshipping a god ("Poseidon", to use his example) is just silly. Thanks to religion, countless people die every day in third world conflicts, and in developed countries, folks still have to worry about coming out, or dating outside their race, or questioning moral authorities. Most U.S. states still ban gay marriage, and most fail to specifically make gay adoption legal. Hell, we only let gays serve in the military openly this year. Thanks to religion.

So when someone rolls their eyes and tells you to get over it, remind them how full of nonsense they are. Our waking lives are policed, lawyered, governed and judged nonstop by the effects of two thousand heavyhanded years of Christianity, and those who don't think that still holds true in our modern day haven't got a clue. You can't even buy a beer on certain days in certain places thanks to religion. It infests us and our society like a cancer. But because most people like this particular cancer, they don't see the problem. And when we get pissy about it all, they call us jerks and whine about their beliefs.

I hate living in a zealous world, and I hate having to constantly play by their nonsensical, fairytale rules. If I need to vent once in a while about yet another right-wing religious leader banging some guy in a motel room, or yet another church cover-up of child rape, or yet another religious special interest interfering with my political system while simultaneously receiving tax-exempt status, it's not because I'm being mean where their "beliefs" are concerned. It's because I choose to use my brain, and when I open my eyes, the world I see pisses me off. If they could form a critical, independent thought, they'd feel the same way.

From Skololo:
From DrewNumberTwo:
From heidavey:
From stringerbell:

• "Objective" vs "subjective" morality: Independent of opinion, or "just a matter of personal opinion".
  
  
• "Absolute" vs "relative" morality: Are moral duties relative to circumstances ? For example, is killing always immoral ? No.
  
  
• "Universality" of morality: Does everyone agree on one moral code ? But people could be agreed on a bad moral code.

"The point is that if God exists, there are objective moral values and we have objective moral duties to fulfill in whatever circumstances we find ourselves. But the objectivity of those values and duties doesn't imply that they do not vary with the circumstances. They are objective, whether or not they are also absolute and universal."

... The religious person often assumes that their morals are superior just because they have objective morals from a God being, whereas the atheist would say they have superior morality because it can evolve to become better.

I fall with the atheist camp on this discussion. The biggest problem I have with religion is their very idea of objective morals. In other words, they presume their morals are perfect and will never need to be changed. At the same time, religions and religious people seem to constantly change their morals to fit the modern times. For example, slavery is clearly allowed in the Bible throughout the old and the new testament. Jews and Christians both should be saying then that slavery is totally fine. But as culture has changed, they now admit that slavery is evil and wrong and try to justify their holy books by saying things akin to it being told out of context, or that the circumstances have changed since then and that God would say slavery is bad in the modern age.

We see these kinds of arguments for other issues as well. Genocide, the murder of children, the disregard for women's rights, etc. These are some things that are allowed in quite a few ways according to the Bible, Torah, and some even in the Quran. Don't misunderstand, I know there is some context behind these beliefs, but not enough I would say to justify it or plainly say they are wrong.

The supposed objective morality of the religious don't seem to be truly objective as they are constantly changing with the times. ...

...

... Of course modern Christians don't agree with the interpretation that slavery as in "whips and rags" was allowed in the OT, yet Deuteronomy specifically states that you may purchase people as property from your neighbors.

For nearly 3000 years, Abrahamists didn't even have a problem with that, as slavery was the norm in the ancient world, an Israelite would not have seen anything wrong with the institution of chattel (aka whips and rags) slavery.

But beginning about 200-300 years ago, the West started to have serious problems with chattel slavery, and have since banned it entirely. Now, a modern Christian reads Deuteronomy and of course they must have meant some other type of slavery, because no way would God allow people to own each other as property (even though this is explicitly stated in the text). ...

...

Are things moral because god says they are OR can god ONLY say moral things.

Then please explain why god condones slavery.

Also, I have always known that owning other people as property is wrong.

I am and have always been more moral than your god.

I'm better than him and so are almost all christians. You know that slavery is wrong and will jump through so many hoops in order to defend your god's approval of slavery.

Why do you lower your morality into the gutter by following an immoral god?

...

[A bunch of religious people saying: the morality of the Bible is objective and true, we just don't understand it correctly, or follow it, or something. It doesn't change, our understanding of it changes.]

I suspect that they're actually trying to attain objective backing for what is merely their own subjective opinion of what is moral. This is the trick the religious have long played, inventing a god in their own image who can back them up by turning "I want ..." into "God wants ...".

...

So why are we all so afraid of admitting that, yes, morality is subjective? I suggest that this owes to several misconceptions.

• Subjective does not mean unimportant. A subjective morality is one rooted in human feelings and desires. These are the things that are most important to us, indeed the only things important to us!
  
  
• Subjective does not mean arbitrary. Human feelings are not arbitrary. It is not arbitrary that we love our children while most of us dislike and fear spiders and snakes, nor that most of us like the taste of chocolate while shunning excrement. Our feelings and attitudes are rooted in human nature, being a product of our evolutionary heritage, programmed by genes. None of that is arbitrary.
  
  
• Subjective does not mean that anyone's opinion is "just as good". ... if we decide morality by a broad consensus - and that, after all, is how we do decide morality - then we arrive at strong communal moral codes.
  
  

What it boils down to is this:

People are terrified of believing that cultural norms are the only things standing between us and utter moral depravity. It somehow feels much better and reassuring to say that, on some level, Hitler didn't just violate the cultural norms of those of us who see a value in human life, but somehow also violated some kind of objective moral law of the universe. Why does that reassure us? Because saying that he merely violated a set of relative moral norms somehow doesn't do justice in condemning his actions. We need to feel that the universe itself stands against him.

It doesn't, of course. Universal morality didn't defeat Hitler. The rocket artillery of the godless Soviets did, ironically enough.

Objective morality is a fantasy borne of emotional need rather than rational analysis. The reality is that the universe doesn't care. There is no moral code "built-in". If anything, the greatest lesson we can learn is that valuing (rather than de-valuing) the power of our cultural norms -- and being able to affirmatively defend them -- is the only way to prevent the kind of moral horrors we seek to avoid.

And simply saying that they are "universal" or "objective" is not a defense. Appealing to an objective morality to make our case for us is about as logical as praying to God.

[Religious people believe in] a narrative taught to them from early childhood that they have come to rely upon and accept as their world view.

Belief in fictional deities is one of the root axioms that they have built their awareness around and for which a lot of their personal world view relies upon. If they were, for example, to realize that God is fiction then it would change their entire world. Many of their friends will reject them. They might not have a place in their church community anymore. They would have to endure the stigma that other religions have put on Atheism as something that is evil, or a disease, a form of mental illness, something that must be cured. This is a very big step for most people who rely upon the comfort of their place in society and are not willing to put their social position at risk.

...

What we are up against in fiction-based religions is that using the name of God they can promise you anything. They have everlasting bliss in Heaven, 70 virgins, omnipotent intervention, an inflated sense of self worth, a loving community, ego treats, a sense of some grand purpose, and of course, burning in Hell forever for those who fail to believe. One thing that religions understand is that they start brainwashing their children early because they understand that the earlier they establish mental patterns the harder it is to change them.

... All you have to do is believe and an omnipotent protector is going to intervene on your behalf and take care of you forever. What a deal! People want the quick fix. Reality often isn't a pretty picture. ...

> The thing is, [religion] does probably provide meaning to
> their lives. I was lost for years after I left the church.

This is true.

But that emptiness you felt was there because you were missing an actual foundation. If personal meaning was food, religion would be McDonalds. It's comfortable, familiar, easy to access, but it lacks nutrition and actual substance. It is everywhere. It is heavily marketed. Everyone you know enjoys it. It kills you if that is all you eat.

If you decide to stop buying McDonalds, it is tough to decide what to eat when someone else was cooking for you your whole life.

Eventually you learn to cook (think) for yourself. At first you can only make boring one-ingredient meals (simple opinions). But eventually you're a master chef and your food is secure in its superiority. People can critique it and you can refine it (you learn to use objective reasoning and adjust as needed). You know what you like and you know what is healthy for you and those around you.

Once you learn to think for yourself, feel for yourself, and move forward in life for whatever reason you choose ... no one can take that away. There is no emptiness anymore. The worst that can happen is that your goal changes, you evolve, you renew, you grow. You become more than whatever someone said you should be. You becomes you.

David Frost: Say, is this still a Christian Country ?

Billy Graham: No! We're not a Christian Country. We've never been a Christian Country. We're a secular Country, by our constitution. In which Christians live and which many Christians have a voice. But we're not a Christian Country.

... it's easy to like Jesus without liking the things he actually said. Whether openly advocating violence against enemies instead of Christ's command to love them, or indifference toward the suffering of our neighbors when Christ commanded we love and welcome them in, it seems clear that while Franklin loves Jesus, he's not in love with his ideas.

...

... In the US, much of Christianity is actually a nationalistic religion and not the original thing at all. If you look carefully at Franklin's Facebook posts, you'll see the religion being articulated by him is not a Jesus-centered Christianity that is set apart or different, but a religion that is nation-centered and hopelessly entangled with nationalism.

...

Jesus taught his disciples that it is impossible to serve two masters - it just can't be done. ... when trying to be loyal to Jesus and loyal to America, America will usually win. When America wins ..., it will invite us abandon the teaching and example of Jesus in order to protect and preserve the nation, instead of to build and expand the Kingdom.

...

If there's one important thing we can learn from the spiral of Franklin Graham it's that more than ever, we need to be evangelizing American Christians. Out of all the people groups in the world this is the group that perhaps most desperately needs to hear the message of Jesus and to be invited to repent and join the Kingdom. ... there is no shortage of those who have been lured into the false religion of Americanized Christianity. ...