Post on 13-May-2023
Jim Meyer 1
Jim MeyerPersonal Research 4.12.2014
Religion has Proven Itself Poisonous and a Danger to Mankind
Bertrand Russell said; “My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I
regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the
human race.” Everybody knows what religion is before you ask them. But when
you ask them what religion is, they will find it very hard to define! By
definition we might also say religion is for people who feel they lack a core
guidance system and need to have higher rules and guidelines to live their
life to the fullest. Appropriately, this is identical to the definition of
authoritarian control. That is because religion is a complex subject and
“religion” is only a word. Like all words, it can mean anything we want it to
mean, but in a discussion, it is important that we understand how the word is
used. I believe it is impossible to give a satisfactory universal definition
of religion, in part, it crosses so many different boundaries in human
experience. There are principally two reasons why religion is notoriously
difficult to define: definitions are too narrow and omit numerous belief
systems which many agree are religious, or they are too broad, suggesting that
everything is or can be a religion. Ideologies can exist in the form of
religion or secularism. What they have in common are followers who do not
contest or even question the ideology based on their belief (or fear) that
Jim Meyer 2
their leader is infallible (whether God or human) and abandon their ability to
reason...therein lies the danger.1
I guess that in its broadest sense, the term “religion” means adherence to
a set of beliefs or teachings about the deepest and most elusive of life’s
mysteries. So, from this point of view, I will leave my paper to research
those that have a belief in a ‘theistic god’ rather than the all-inclusive
god. I will show that religion with this God is not only a danger to mankind
but is poisonous to those that adhere to it and those who in the past actively
tried to resist it. Deprived of this personal god who answers prayers and
communicates with man, it's really not a viable theistic religion. George H.
Smith in his book, “Atheism: The Case Against God,”1974, commented, “…the belief in
god is irrational to the point of absurdity; and that this irrationality, when
manifested in specific religions such as Christianity, is extremely harmful…If
a person wishes to continue believing in a god, that is his prerogative, but
he can no longer excuse his belief in the name of reason and moral necessity.”
Concepts of the “sacred” and “faith” are quite basic to Western religion;
they are not so evident in the Orient, so definitions that involve those ideas
will not do. (When I speak of ‘faith,’ from this point forward, I will be
speaking of a faith that has no evidential backing in the supernatural.) Some
sociologists prefer to avoid definitions and think of religion in terms of an
ideal type. They will say that most religions have most of the
characteristics of the ideal type, but they need not have all of them.The
1 Harris, Sam, The End of Faith, published 09- 17- 05 by W. W. Norton
Jim Meyer 3
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 8 lists traits of religions rather than making a
declaration, arguing that the more markers evident in a belief system, the
more “religious like” it is:
Belief in supernatural beings (gods).
A distinction between sacred and profane objects.
Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.
A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods.2
Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872–1970) was a British philosopher who
had a propensity against religion. He contended that religious beliefs have
precipitously led to war, tyranny and are repressive and tyrannical. He
particularly had an aversion to Christianity and the notion of Christian
dogma. Concerning faith Bertrand Russell said:
“I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am
that they are untrue …We may define faith, as a firm belief
in something for which there is no evidence. When there is
evidence, no one speaks of faith…We speak only of faith when
we wish to substitute emotion for evidence.”3 “…the
Christian religion, as organized in its Churches, has been
and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the
world.”4
2 Intro to Religion: What is Religion? by Luke Muehlhauser on December 1, 2009 in Intro to Religion - See more at: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=5006#sthash.F2PhSD4o.dpuf3 Russell, Bertrand in "Human Society in Ethics and Politics" (1954)
4 Russell, Bertrand,God and Religion,Prometheus Books, 1986, paper
Jim Meyer 4
We must employ our own reason [not the heavens] to instruct us; we no longer
need to seek out imagined super beings or create buddies in the heavens.
Rather, we should ponder our own labors to create a better world to live in.
All we need to do is look around the world and notice advancement in human
affairs, the reduction of warfare, attitudes toward different races, women’s
rights (personally and politically), slavery and child marriage in the world
has been consistently opposed by organized religion. As Russell said, “…
religion…still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.”
David Hume (1711 – 1776) believed that religion did enormous harm and in
so doing he advances a critique of religion that is constructed on its
damaging consequences. Hume also repudiated revelation theology. He regarded
religion as having little practical influence in upholding moral conduct. The
most effective reservoir for upholding moral conduct rest with the sundry of
fundamentals those that makes up human nature and work independently from the
sacred beliefs. He believed religious institutions disrupt and distort that
natural and reasonable moral standards that human nature has given. The most
ethical stance we can take in response to is to expose religions and it
duplicitous clergy/lay members, corruptions and to resist its influence over
mankind. Hume believed it undermines rather than subscribes to morality and
that its values are largely adverse and damaging, leaving us with our human
nature to comfort our values and beliefs. Hume also repudiated theological
revelation.
Jim Meyer 5
With that in mind Hume went on to say; “It is certain, that, in every
religion, however sublime the verbal definition which it gives of its
divinity…will still seek the divine favour [sic], not by virtue and good
morals…but either by frivolous observances, by intemperate zeal, by
rapturous extasies [sic], or by the belief of mysterious and absurd
opinions.”5 He regarded as “unsafe to draw any certain inference in favour
[sic] of a man's morals, from the fervor or strictness of his religious
exercises, even though he himself believes them sincere.”6 Hume advocated
that many of our philosophies and conclusions are grounded in nature. Nature
(natural religion) impregnates us with the intuitive capacity to this
conclusion.
The most accurate means for defining Hume's views would be
‘irreligious’. Commenting on Hume's assessments on the matter of the
‘irreligious’ avoids any implications of a dogmatic atheism. Conversely,
Hume's central defiance towards religion is one of ‘systematic hostility’; he
believes we are for the better by lacking religion and its corresponding
theories and conjectures.
Thomas Paine (1737 – 1809) was an English-American political activist,
dismissed Christianity as false, dismissed the Bible as false, and condemned
many traditional Christian doctrines as fundamentally immoral. Paine felt that
the intuitional church nothing more than manmade saying: “All national
institutions of churches…appear to me no other than human inventions set up to5 Hume, David, The Natural History of Religion, Bad Influence of Popular Religions on Morality.6 IBID
Jim Meyer 6
terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”7 “Of all the
tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst…” adding,
"every other species of tyranny is limited to the world we live in; but this
attempts to stride beyond the grave, and seeks to pursue us into eternity."
Paine also argues that the Old Testament must be false because it depicts a
tyrannical, capricious and bully God. The “history of wickedness” pervading
the Old Testament convinced Paine that it was simply another set of human-
authored myths. He deplores people's credulity: “People in general know not
what wickedness there is in this pretended word of God…and they carry the
ideas they form of the benevolence of the Almighty to the book which they have
been taught to believe was written by his authority. Good heavens! It is quite
another thing; it is a book of lies, wickedness, and blasphemy.”8
More recently, Lawrence Krauss (1954- ) an American theoretical
physicist considered religious beliefs dangerous. “…Keeping religion immune
from criticism is both unwarranted and dangerous. Unless we are willing to
expose religious irrationality whenever it arises, we will encourage
irrational public policy and promote ignorance over education for our
children.” Eric Brahm, author of Religion and Conflict (2005), commented, “Religion…is
a central part of many individuals' identity; any threat to one's beliefs is a
threat to one's very being.” Religion especially the theistic, “has conceived
itself as an enemy of reason and worldly wisdom; it has exerted itself to
impede the development of reason, belittled the achievements of reason, and
7 Thomas Paine The Age of Reason 8 IBID
Jim Meyer 7
gloated over the setbacks of reason.” Bertrand Russell also asserted: “I am as
firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue.” Steven
Weinberg (Nobel Laureate and physicist) commented; “Religion is an insult to
human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things
and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that
takes religion.”
History makes it abundantly clear that religion has been a most
disrupting force in politics and world affairs, as well as, a source of clash,
strife, and ceaseless wars. But many ultra-conservatives unyieldingly accept
the proposition of religion as a solution for everything that afflicts the
world. In the book the Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order author
Samuel Huntington predicted “… the world would be marked by violent conflicts
between civilizations, which at their roots are defined by their religions.”9
Religion is ultimately reliant on belief in unseen beings and trials and
sentences that occur after we die. It is well protected against criticism,
questioning and self-amendment. It is protected from anything that might stop
it from spiraling into dangerous incongruity and surreal immorality. Here is
the problem that Sam Harris has with religion; “I think that religion is the
most dangerous and divisive ideology that we have ever produced. It is also
the only ideology that is systematically protected from criticism…”10 There
should be nothing in this world that cannot be questioned, prodded or
challenged and that includes religion.
9 Huntington, Samuel, Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order 10 Sankey, Sam Harris - Religion is Dangerous, 10-25-13
Jim Meyer 8
For many, religion is not an unobtrusive affair. It is loud and
boisterous which is, I guess acceptable. It is not necessarily peaceful
meditation, preparing for the eternal nothingness of everlasting peace. For
many, religion is a tempestuous business. People see devils and demons and the
only thing they have to fight these with are cryptograms such as crosses, Holy
text, maybe pieces of garlic, their hands and of course ‘lots and lots of
money.’ Some try till exhaustion to read the Bible and pray, others whip the
devil out of them (flogging) or out of others through exorcism as a demon
eviction notice; other exorcists’ utter chants or incantations, some lay their
hands on others and fling them to the ground like a ragtag old doll with great
fanfare to their chosen. It can be a ruthless affair; a sight to behold. Save
the ritualistic practice ends in someone’s death, the law frequently looks the
other way leaving these fearless combatants and their delusional enemies
alone. It's their right to pray till exhaustion or a lack of results or beat
themselves to near death in the name of their god. They may even beat each
other up, as long as intentions are godly. Some religious practices may shock
others, such as male and female genital mutilation. Others may wonder if
sexual intimacy with the minister or clergy to get near to God is truly
getting near to God and then you have the horrendous child sex abuser
affectionately called a ‘pedophile.’ These are monsters, decadent and depraved
‘non-humans’ of a surreal type. I can appreciate allowing the church to beat
up its adult member or its clergy. After all, eternal life is worth fighting
for. If they wish they can go back to the middle ages and tar and feather
themselves before the bonfire begins. It was quite a spectacle to have as many
Jim Meyer 9
as possible in attendance to the burning. This is what you call religious
psychology meant to control with certain reverence. There certainly appears to
be a matter of psychology here. I am not suggesting that all individuals who
hold these beliefs or principles are psychologically damaged, even though most
of the evidence points to that conclusion, I am just making a personal
empirical value judgment. Regardless, children must to be safe and secure from
the barbaric delusions of their parents. If they choose to broker their
megalomania autocracy on children then this becomes child abuse and criminal.
It must be categorically put down.
What about “religious morality,” is it something that religion can used
as its moral poster child? It is an axiom that is used throughout religion
designating the highest of codes. Russell said, “… the Christian religion, as
organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral
progress in the world.”11 More often than not its values are essentially
derived from rumored commandments of a transcendent being. Religious morality
preserves a universal moral order recognized as from god and standing
independently of man. Man is thus placed or created into this moral construct,
where he finds that his primary calling is to submit to the dictates of this
mystical and paternal legislator and moralizer. Morality, in accord with this
view, essentially serves the purpose of god, not man; and it is compulsory for
man to bow to the dictates of this celestial moral code. Perhaps the most
apparent feature of religious morality is its authoritarian nature. As soon as
11 Russell, Bertrand, Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays ... (1957).
Jim Meyer 10
the “good” or the “moral” are defined with reference to divine sanction, we
are deliberating accepting a theory marinated in authoritarianism. Any
saturation of morality by religion is a real danger for the ‘them’ not the
‘us.’
Hell fire stands as a relentless and inexorable example and reminder (to
the dear brethren) of the divine essence of a peaceful, loving religion: God
must be obeyed at all cost: because he is indisputably more vicious if
disobeyed. With the threat, “Obey God or burn in hell,” we have a candid and
forthright illustration of a physical and psychotic sanction as well as a
revealing glimpse into the core of religion. However, today many moderate and
liberal denominations try to minimize the notion of hell fire or even deny it
altogether; nonetheless their moral codes remained codified and drenched in
rules. If hell is down played, why is it used as a sanction for compliance?
The answer lies within the jurisdiction of psychosomatic (emotional) sanctions
that are visited upon the adherents. Remember, a sanction may be physical or
psychological. Physical sanctions are generally pretty straight forward,
austere and straight- forward, (apostates will burn forever) while
psychological sanctions are often sophisticated, honed over the decades and
refined, which explains why they are seldom acknowledged but often used. The
psychological sanction is a moral concept that is used with tenacity to
construct inner intimidation, which is intended to lovingly motivate
acquiescence to Christian or religious dogma. In Christianity, hellfire is the
most conspicuous physical deterrent; while sin, the psychological equivalent
Jim Meyer 11
of the ‘road’ to hell fire, is the most common psychological conviction. I
would ask is “the road to (eternal) hellfire” a profoundly humane concept? Can
belief in everlasting torture be moral and ethical for a benevolent entity?
Bertrand Russell said no; “I find difficulty in the conception of a God who
gets pleasure from contemplating such tortures; and if there were a God
capable of such wanton cruelty, I should certainly not think Him worthy of
worship.”12
Religion has by centuries of tradition appealed to the will of a god as
rationalization for its moral philosophies. To the interrogation, “Why should
I do…?” religion has responded, “Because it is the will of god.” To advance
the question, “Why should I obey the will of god?” religion has replied,
“Because he will reward or punish you, either in this life or in an eternal
afterlife.” The power of a transcendent being has thus served as a moral
sanction. Religion and morality praises the splendor of the ‘hereafter’ if
heavenward and remain somewhat apathetic to the atrocities of the earth.
Really, the ideas of self-denial, pain, sorrow and in particular indulgences
are a test of faith and its ‘pre-paid visa’ to heaven. One conforms because of
fear: the wrath of god. The oldest and perhaps most abrasive form of
compliance to this godly rule or sanction is the use of physical intimidation.
This is manifested in Christianity as well as other religions by the
pandemonium and ascending voices of hellfire. This belief in eternal terrorism
still used to by fundamentalist or right-wing radicals or crackpots,
indubitably ranks as the most rancorous, malicious and reprehensible doctrine 12 Russell, Bertrand,God and Religion,Prometheus Books, 1986
Jim Meyer 12
of orthodox religion. It has caused an incalculable amount of psychological
anguish and torture, especially among the very young where it is employed as a
form of violence to prompt godly compliance. This is without a doubt child
abuse! Those employing it should be criminalized and incarcerated and anything
else you can think of. Russell voiced his displeasure with child deception;
“There is no excuse for deceiving children. And when, as must happen in
conventional families, they find that their parents have lied, they lose
confidence in them and feel justified in lying to them.”13
Guilt and shame, what a motivator! “Guilt is the feeling that follows a
perceived wrongdoing. “I did wrong.” It relates to the energy of every
emotion from apathy through pride. Shame on the other hand is the feeling that
we, ourselves, are “bad” for what we perceive we did. It is a grief related
feeling.”14 Yes, we must accept responsibility for actions. When we act
against society we must pay a price, but to take it to bed with nightmares of
a future afterlife in a blazing inferno is inhumane. When we break the
religious lock of religious shame and are able to free ourselves of the
psychological and primitive designs of suffering in shame in which we have
been enslaved by religion we then can come back to a well-adjusted
psychological state.
13 Bertrand Russell, Our Sexual Ethics (1936)
14'The Sedona Method' Hale Dwoskin, 3 Lies That Bind Us to Guilt and Shame
Jim Meyer 13
The concept of sin and shame is conceivably the most operative and
effective sanction ever conceived. For a Christian, to be told he is a sinner
and shamed is really bad causing intense pain, anguish and guilt. If you are
from a religious backdrop you will no doubt appreciate the incredible
psychological force of this type of shame. Now when you add excommunication or
shunning you have destroyed the psyche. Shame epitomizes something horrific
and monstrous, something that directly weakens a mankind’s sense of self-worth
and this adds to its efficacy as an unscrupulous, controlling device.
Friedrich Nietzsche in his vitriol writes; “The concept of guilt and
punishment, the whole “moral order of the world,” was set up against science--
against the deliverance of man from priests…he must suffer so much that he is
always in need of the priest…the greatest of crimes against humanity has [sic]
been perpetrated…I repeat that sin, man’s self-desecration par excellence, was
invented in order to make science, culture, and every elevation and ennobling
of man impossible; the priest rules through the invention of sin…Christianity
also stands in opposition to all intellectual well-being, sick reasoning is
the only sort that it can use as Christian reasoning; it takes the side of
everything that is idiotic; it pronounces a curse upon “intellect,” upon the
superbia of the healthy intellect”15
Religions have long recognized the importance of indoctrinating a sense
of guilt by sin and shame to inspire and arouse people to obey god’s rules.
But guilt does not automatically follow from the thought of contravening an
15 Nietzche, The Anti-Christ, p. 166.
Jim Meyer 14
affectionate, supernatural being, even for those who believe in one. Emotions
or feelings are the consequence of implicit or explicit value judgments.
Christianity needed to provide the misplaced evaluative link between the
thought of disobedience and the experience of guilt. This breach was filled
nicely by the conception and birth of sin and shame.
The efficacy of shame as a psychological sanction rests precisely on the
fact that defying god’s functions is a benchmark of depravity. Acting contrary
to god’s will is christened within the definition of “depravity” or
“immorality.” So we can conclude that disobeying god is immoral and depraved
and that adhering to god’s rubric or text is considered an essential
precondition for being a “good” or “moral” person. Disobedience is already
implicitly contained within the meanings of “wrong” and “evil.” This leaves
the believer in sin with the following example of circular reasoning:
One should not flout god,
To do so is a sin.
But what is sin?
Disobeying or flouting god.
Although seldom made unambiguous, this is the concept of emotional sanctions.
Morality is defined in terms of obedience to a playbook; for Christianity, the
conception of sin functions as a guilt-complex to inspire obedience.
So what has religion done for mankind? For a start, religion has divided
people in opposing clusters and shamefully one cluster wants to let the other
Jim Meyer 15
clusters know how mistaken, godless and worldly they are. Blaise Pascal said.
“Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious
convictions.” Let’s take a look. I wish I could take credit for making these
up, but I can’t. They were listed on the internet. I just could not overlook
them though. I think one would have to live in a different world to say this
is simply mankind gone array. These actions are done not in the name of
religion, as if an abuse, but are direct religious tenets:
“The demonization of other religions, vilification of
homosexuality, resulting in discrimination, parents disowning
their children, people sacrificed as an offering to gods, women
treated like second class citizens, or even slaves, thousands
tortured and killed as witches, people dying or letting their
children die - because their religion forbids accepting medical
help, female genital mutilation endorsed by religious texts,
mutilation that results in infection, sterility and death, people
disowning family members for leaving their religion, campaigns
against safe sex, with similar results - responsible for much of
the AIDS epidemic in Africa, religiously-prompted fear of polio
vaccine, which halted the global eradication effort and brought
polio back to many countries, women being forced to have unwanted
children by rape or incest they resent, censorship of speech, art,
books, films and, thought the discouragement of rational, critical
thought, believers whipping, impaling, people who believe the
Jim Meyer 16
world is about to end neglect their education, take part in mass
suicides, environmental issues ignored because of beliefs that God
will magically fix everything, wives told they will be tortured
forever if they leave their abusive husbands, Holy wars -
followers of different faiths (or even the same faith) killing
each other in the name of their gods, persecution/punishment of
blasphemers (Salman Rushdie still has a death sentence on him),
and blasphemy laws in general, slavery condoned by religious
texts, children traumatized by vivid stories of eternal burning
and torture to ensure that they'll be too frightened to even
question religion, abuse of power, authority and trust by
religious leaders for financial gain or sexual abuse of children,
suicide bombers, who are certain they will be rewarded in heaven,
missionaries destroying/converting smaller, "heathen" religions
and cultures, hardship compounded by the guilt required to
reconcile the idea of a fair god with reality "why is God
punishing me? What have I done wrong? Don't I have enough faith?",
human achievements attributed to gods instead of to the people
actually responsible, Mother Teresa, prolonging the agony of
terminal patients and denying them pain relief, so she can offer
their suffering as a gift to her god, suppression of logical and
critical thought, grief and horror caused by the belief that dead
friends and family members are tortured as punishment for
disbelief, natural disasters and other tragedies used to claim God
Jim Meyer 17
is displeased, the attempted genocide of followers of a particular
faith (e.g. the Jewish Holocaust, "ethnic cleansing" in former
Yugoslavia...”
I think I must give equal time for what religion has done in a positive
vein. Many will say religion has done many marvelous things for humanity.
Again, I wish I could take credit for making these up, but I can’t. They were
listed on the internet. Let’s take a look:
“Religion makes dying easier for a lot of people, promote
good values, are the cause of much charity, act as a source of
hope, gives you salvation, is a touchstone for the bereaved,
fosters gratitude for life, provides techniques for setting aside
mundane thoughts to engage more directly with experience, has
awesome architecture, promotes love above all else (most of the
time), creates a caring community for those who join a church, has
inspired beautiful works of art, usually the first source of
literacy and education in places lacking both (especially for the
poor),provides healthcare, libraries, counseling, provides
vocations for those inclined toward spiritual pursuits, helps
document and record spiritual teachings so that the next
generation can advance on the spiritual teachings, rather than
always having to start at the bottom again, if taken
metaphorically, can help you see things in a wider perspective,
provides, great leaders, thinkers, humanitarians, inspires a sense
Jim Meyer 18
of wonder at the universe, nature, and certainly it makes people
feel good and happy.”
George Bernard Shaw commented; “The fact that a believer is happier than a
skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier
than a sober one.” I think that’s enough.
Some will now point to communism as to what a godless state can do. They
may point to the thousands upon thousands that were killed under the rule of
these communist countries. This is exponentially more violence than what
religion did in the dark ages. However, we must consider the times. If the
Middle Ages had access to the means of destruction that was available in the
20th and 21st century I am quite sure the numbers would be reversed. However, the
point to remember is that communism plays the same role of religion. It plays
with the same deck of cards. It is totalitarian and authoritative as religion.
It has its leader, manifesto or text. Communism is a political state that is
religiously worshipped. It is similar the religious state. They demand your
full allegiance. They run their state with the passion that a fundamental
religious state might. They persecute dissidents as religion does with its
ecclesiastical talons. Atheism is not synonymous with communism. Atheism tells
you nothing about a person’s political, social or communal beliefs. Atheism
has no dictator; atheists are free to hold any political or non-political
view. It is simply a philosophical position. Atheism is not a creed, dogma or
belief; atheism is quite simply the opposite, ‘a lack of belief’ in a god or
gods. Atheism does not promote a point of view, rather simply ‘rejects’ the
Jim Meyer 19
point of view of those that believe in a god. They simply don't match. The
intention of oppressive regimes repressing religion is because religion
meddles in and becomes a competitor to the state. Totalitarian governments
want the people to worship the government, as devoted, perhaps, as that of a
religion. I have never heard of the expression “a state of atheism.” “Atheism
is more than just the knowledge that gods do not exist, and that religion is
either a mistake or a fraud. Atheism is an attitude, a frame of mind that
looks at the world empirically, fearlessly, always trying to understand all
things as a part of nature.” 16
Communist (like religious) countries required unqualified faith in the
communist structure (or religious creeds and doctrines) as well as its leaders
(Popes and clergy). Independent thought or questioning the system is strictly
forbidden i.e. North Korea; as in religion, one would be viewed as an apostate
or heretic, expressions used frequently in religious organizations. Communism
also has its saints as religion does. Mao, Stalin, the late North Korean
dictator Kim Il Sung (his son and grandson) Ho Chi Minh and Pol Pot to name a
few. The Russian Orthodox Church, in accord with the Communist state also
created icons, pictures of Communist leaders whom people were to worship.
Today there is a picture of Stalin in the Church. It seems religion and
communism dance to the same melody.
16 Carl Sagan (c. 1985)
Jim Meyer 20
So what should we conclude about religion? How do the scales weigh?
Religions are humanly fabricated traditions and at their epicenter are tainted
and corrupted texts that were mended together by rural, uninformed men who
knew less about the world and universe than youth do today. When such texts
are read, one can see the obvious futility, inaccuracy and malevolent behavior
of mankind. As humans, we are capable of astounding good and kindness while at
the same time the vilest evil. The difference is that the religious will often
employ god for either. If religion were from some benevolent being in the
heavens one would expect some continuity of worship or harmonious belief. Far
from that though, even the ‘sacred texts’ are filled with violence. It should
be obvious that its purpose is control. When modernity and secularism show
that something in the text is immoral or decadent the Christian hastily
asserts that that specific verse in the Bible was simply an allegory or
metaphor. Should we take these events as metaphors for life of something, what
do these characters stand for? Plus, if these holy books are metaphoric, then
would God be a metaphor too? The fact that there are thousands of religions
gives evidence that men are responsible for creation of religion and its
actions. God did not write one or a few texts, rather, man wrote all of them
and that why the confusion. The whole notion of religion is not to question,
but to uncritically trust texts written by other men in a different age with
very limited knowledge of what they were writing about.
Violence and religion have been meticulously linked in a variety of
sophisticated and often inconsistent ways since the earliest stages of human
Jim Meyer 21
evolution. Institutionalized religions have practiced viciousness and violence
against either their devotees or real or fictional adversaries. In addition,
religion has also been known to encourage social activities and to afford
spiritual and physical well-being to its sufferers. Religious faith has a
unique power to seed inconsistent attitudes, both rousing aggression and
limiting it. Individual offenders and victims of violence can find in
religious organizations and private faith both rationale for brutality, a
rationalization to repel violence or a means to come to terms with a legacy of
mayhem by assimilating it into a larger historical or theological setting.
So then why are so many people have faith in or follow a religion? One
prevailing reason is the desire for security or the wish to have someone
bigger than yourself care for you. That plays in a profound way to manipulate
one’s desire for a ‘belief’ in God. Maybe it has to do with the acceptance of
a supernatural statement that endorses cooperative societal interactions with
others that are likeminded. This dialogue reveals a readiness to accept,
without cynicism, the influence of the leader in a way similar to a young
child's with their parent. By reassuring this type of comportment where the
most passionate societal interactions occur it enables a check of disbelief
and dissuades more open minded thinking. There is often the state of mind
where one wants support, protection and the religion of their choosing may
seem to fulfill that desire. This may be where faith becomes its strongest.
Another reason why people are religious is that they were raised that
way. It is the default position. Children are born with a blank slate. There
Jim Meyer 22
is no awareness of a god. Here is where the indoctrination comes forth. Many
children are unaware that there is even a choice. Children are malleable
individuals and they soon have confidence in the authority of a parent. These
parental ideas are extremely hard to change, so it is important for ideas to
take hold in the early, formative years. It is for this reason that religion
makes such an effort to reach out early to children. Religion is also a very
social event. Humans have a deep desire to be part of a community; we are all
social creatures. However, for millennias of religion’s history, it was
through fear that the clergy kept their disciples. Many are made to feel
guilt-ridden if they relax their religious fervor. But there is another kind
of fear, a fear mixed with anxiety and worry. To these religion is reassuring.
Religion has always been strongest among the underprivileged and most
disregarded sections of society. Certainly, literacy has been a factor.
Finally, many people accept religion because they want or wish it to be true.
The promise of eternal life in happiness where every wish is satisfied is so
enticing that many people are simply willing to disregard the consistent
failings in religion. People want there to be someone who watches over all
their virtuous deeds and is willing to reward them. They seek to have lives
that are significance and with a purpose even if deluded. They want to be
loved and not left alone. Ultimately, religion is a machine used effectively
by religious and secular authorities to manipulate and control society to
their advantage or fleecing.
Jim Meyer 23
In view of what religion has done, religion continues to be an important
part of peoples’s lives. The question is why do they feel this way? Why do
they have the need to have faith in, believe and live a life so passionately
associated with a “religion”? Really, no one knows with certainty, but there
are some aspects of our behavior that provide some clues. Certainly fear of
the unknown after death strikes terror. At a lecture on March 6, 1927
addressed to the National Secular Society Branch Russell said, “Religion is
based...primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the
unknown, and partly…Fear is the basis of the whole thing-fear of the
mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and
therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand-in-hand.”17
Religion claims to answer the age old question “what happens to me after
death?” Ironically, it is religion that strikes the ‘fear of god’ in believers
of eternal fires or punishment. Could religion be the cause of such
conflicting and confusing psychological emotions? Perhaps, individuals or even
societies and cultures would rather believe and hope in something that
surpasses the anguish, agony and heartbreak than be conformed or bound to this
world and have hope in nothing at all. On the other hand, could religious
faith offer psychological and emotional comfort? Steven Reiss said that there
are actually 16 basic human psychological needs (or desires) that motivate
people to seek meaning through religion. These basic needs influence the
psychological appeal of religious behavior. The desires include: power,
17 Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays ... (1957)
Jim Meyer 24
independence, curiosity, acceptance, order, saving, honor, idealism, social
contact, family, status, vengeance, romance, eating, physical exercise, and
tranquility. “They embrace those aspects of religious imagery that express
their strongest psychological needs and deepest personal values.”18
Commenting on curiosity Reiss said, “Religious intellectuals, who are
high in curiosity, value a God who is knowable through reason, while doers,
who have weak curiosity, may value a God that is knowable only through
revelation…People who have a strong need for order should enjoy ritualized
religious experiences, whereas those with a weak need for order may prefer
more spontaneous expression of faith.” He also included the need for status
and idealism by concluding, “The prophecy that the weak will inherit the earth
should appeal especially to people with a weak need for status, whereas the
teaching that everybody is equal before God should appeal especially to people
with a strong need for idealism.” Psychologically, "wishful thinking"
believes something because of a longing “wish” it is true. Though these needs
may be psychologically important to believers for accepting religion he by no
means concluded that his theory in no way addresses the validity or invalidity
of religious beliefs. Finally, could it be that we need religion as it gives
us something to believe in. People need to have confidence that there is an
intention or purpose for what they are doing and that their life has more or
greater worth. Does religion provide this for them? They live because they
18 Reiss, Steven , author "New Theory Of Motivation Lists 16 Basic Desires That Guide Us," Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at Ohio State University. 6/28/00
Jim Meyer 25
believe and believe that there is some significance behind it all and that
religion fulfills the need. 19
These are certainly valid areas we all face and want validation. No one
wants to feel alone, their lives run amok, different or separated from
society. We all want the best and seek such for our families; but does this
mean we need to employ ‘wishful thinking’? Does this mean we rely on an
ideology that has no evidence to support it? Is this a type of faith that
surrenders evidence? Children often believe in ‘make believe things’ that
bring them comfort, but as they grow they tend to discard them because they
realize they offer no real comfort as an adult. They tend to use reason and
seek out things that are real rather than continuing to have faith in make
believe things. This is simply growing of age or maturing. I am not condemning
faith as a positive or constructive attitude in the face of uncertainty, the
kind indicated by idioms like, “Have faith in yourself” (Translation: Believe
in yourself.) “You can do it; I have faith in you.” (Translation: I believe in
you.) There is nothing misguided with this kind of “faith.” However, faith in
wishful things seems to lack the ability to reason, think critically.
Let’s look briefly at some example of wishful thinking.
I wish I could live forever. So, I’ll write a book that says I
will. “…but the righteous into eternal life.” Matthew 25:46
19 IBID
Jim Meyer 26
I wish evil people would, when death over takes them, never live
again or suffer forever. I’ll add that to my book. “And these will
go away into eternal punishment…but the righteous into eternal
life.” Matthew 25:46
Now, I wish that my book is true and accurate. Well, I’ll add that
to my book. “I am the way and the truth and the life.” John 14:6
People may not believe what I wish will ever happen; they may say
it will take more than you to make it happen. So I will add
strength of power. “I am YHWH…God Almighty” Exodus 6:3
You may need a greater power. Well then, I’ll add that to my book.
“For nothing will be impossible with God.” Luke 1:37
Now they say, you cannot just arbitrarily believe or expect others
to believe this. Ok, I add faith to my book. “Without faith it is
impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe
that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.”
Hebrews 11:6
It looks pretty good so far.
Finally, what if people lose faith in the above words and give up.
Well, it won’t be my fault; “they need more faith.” This is not to
jest; it is just a scriptural fact. The apostles said to the Lord,
"Show us how to increase our faith." Luke 17:5
Jim Meyer 27
Now I have them right where I want them. However, if they don’t follow it is
not my fault; it’s theirs. Let’s blame the victims. They didn’t have enough faith. I
told them that. How can God [or even religion] lose?
I commented that faith is not reason. Well then, what is reason? Reason
involves thinking in a way that uses mental processes, the currency and
purchase of knowledge. Reason is not simply thought; it is the capability and
process for theoretical thought, critical thinking and reasoning. It is man’s
ability to intellectualize and philosophize that nominates him as a rational
being. It is also a process of critical thought, which is coherent, logical.
Although faith does include thinking, is it the equivalent to reasoning? No.
Even though faith encompasses some thinking, it fails miserably in reasoning,
logic or critical analysis. William Barrett commented that the Christian
faith, “…is not only faith beyond reason, but if need be, against reason…The
decline of religion in modem times means simply that religion is no longer the
uncontested center and ruler of man’s life and that the Church is no longer
the final and unquestioned home and asylum of his being.”20
There is a hopeless debility that religion has acquired and it lies in
its resolve that the solution to any inquiry can be decided upward with
certainty on the foundation of revelation or faith. Considering the biblical
assaults on “rational wisdom” and “understanding,” Tertullian and Luther
displayed a clear understanding of Christian fundamentals when they pounced on
and attacked reason and philosophy. Tertullian noted: “Divine revelation, not
20 Barrett, William, Irrational Man (Garden City: Anchor Books, 1962), Chapter 5,-Faith and Reason
Jim Meyer 28
reason, is the source of all truth.”21 Luther followed with, "Reason is the
Devil's greatest whore…she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore…Throw
dung in her face to make her ugly...”22 John Locke commented on Christianity’s
aversion for reason: “I find every sect, as far as reason will help them, make
use of it gladly: and where it fails them, they cry out, it is matter of
faith, and above reason.” 23 Now, today is no different. The Beryl Baptist
Church, with “Pastor” John Lendsey II, advertised that “Reason is the Greatest
Enemy Faith Has.”24 This utter misology of reason is its most offensive
characteristic; there is a persistent refrain that one is under necessity to
believe without evidence or even in spite of it. To accept faith in the
theological sense means to believe in defiance of rationality; it is
transparently anti-reason and there is no feeling of shame for this position.
There is a reason then why reason and faith are irreconcilable. Faith’s
survival is on the unknowable, the unfathomable, that which reason cannot
understand. As Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) observed, “If we submit everything to
reason, our religion will have no mysterious and supernatural element… If we
offend the principles of reason, our religion will be absurd and
ridiculous.”25 Finally, Thomas Paine rejected the idea of theistic revelation
writing: “it is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every
other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.”26 According to
21 Tertullian of Carthage (150-225 AD)22Luther, Martin, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-14823 John Locke, Concerning Human Understanding, (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952), Vol. 35, p. 381.24 Beryl Baptist Church. Vilonia, Arkansas (I could not confirm this sign.)25 Blaise Pascal Thoughts TRANSLATED BY W. F. TROTTER, NEW YORK: P.F. COLLIER & SON COMPANY, 1909–14, NEW YORK: BARTLEBY.COM, 200126 Paine,Thomas, The Age of Reason (1974), 52
Jim Meyer 29
Luther, “Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding,
and whatever it sees it must put out of sight, and wish to know nothing but
the word of God.”27 One Christian apologist summed it up perfectly; “Should a
conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth
of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is
the former which must take precedence over the latter.”28 There you have it.
Voltaire said, “Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than
reason and common sense.”29
The war between reason and faith taken to its extreme in the above
examples is the central point of atheism. For the atheist, to embrace faith in
the supernatural is to dispose of or discard reason. An atheist might define
faith as “the commitment of one’s consciousness to beliefs for which one has
no sensory evidence or rational proof.”30 Another atheist writes that
“Christian faith is not merely believing that there is a god. It is believing
that there is a god no matter what the evidence on the question may be.” Some
will attempt to point out that atheists or humanists have total faith in logic
and reason. However, from the perspective of reason, faith in reason or logic
is inconsistent; faith and reason are necessarily different functions of the
mind. They belong in two separate realms that do not overlap. We need no faith
for what can be understood, as it is evident or seen. Faith is needed for
27 Quoted in Walter Kaufmann, Critique of Religion and Philosophy, pp. 305-307.
28 Craig, William L. Reasonable Faith, page 3629 Philosophical Dictionary, 176430 Nathaniel Branden, “Mental Health versus Mysticism,” The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand (New York:The New American Library, 1964), p. 37.
Jim Meyer 30
matters that are not understood, evident or seen. Perhaps I could say, ‘I need
no faith to help me to up in the morning as is evident by the alarm clock I
use, but I will need faith to steer me through my unseen day.’ Clearly, this
type of faith involves no supernatural deity to believe in. It is a faith
common to all with no reference to the spiritual.
This is not the theological faith to which religion is tied to.
Religious faith is a tradition of ignoring or snubbing reason and logic in
attempting to develop and preserve one’s response to whether there is a god. I
believe that attempts to square reason and faith are futile. The only
offspring in such a marriage is a miscarriage. I am saying that all such pains
must miscarry, that it is logically impossible to wed logical reason to
religious faith. They are as if ‘two different species.’ The idea of faith
carries an integrated contempt for reason; and without this, faith is
condensed to pointlessness or even meaningless. Religion may argue that the
limit of reason is an indispensable component for the concept of faith to
flourish; it is what makes the concept of faith conceivable and bear supposed
fruits. The theist may also assert that reason cannot satisfy the
psychological and emotional hunger that man needs, or that reason is
incomplete and innutritious and that reason must be pushed aside to
accommodate faith. How can one believe in something where there is no evidence
for its existence? For some, they would hold that there is a practical reason
to believe in a god such as: emotional or psychological relief. Would not a
friend, drug or stuffed animal provide the same relief? Why would we believe
in something that is not true? Does not reason cry out? John Locke noted
Jim Meyer 31
Christianity’s revulsion for reason: “I find every sect, as far as reason will
help them, make use of it gladly: and where it fails them, they cry out, it is
matter of faith and above reason.”31
Sometimes Christians resort to circular reasoning without knowing it.
“I believe the Bible is true and complete because the Bible says so.” In a
logical argument it would be circular reasoning. The claim uses its conclusion
to prove its claim. This is also an appeal to authority. “God says it is…
therefore, it is because God says so.” What else could it be? Again, the claim
uses its conclusion to prove its claim. Another, the theist will assert that
the existence of God cannot be demonstrated at all as he is far surpassing
human understanding; because, if God whose existence could be demonstrated he
really wouldn’t be God as he would not surpass our understanding. Therefore,
since we cannot demonstrate him or his existence he must by definition be God
the undemonstrated. However how can we even talk about this God if he
surpasses human understanding? A God that does intervene in human affairs or
is absent to humanity is no different than Zeus or any other non-existent God.
Both Nietzsche and Stirner saw in Christianity the leveler of the human
race, the breaker of man's will to dare and to do. They saw in every movement
built on Christian morality and ethics attempts not at the emancipation from
slavery, but for the perpetuation thereof. Hence, they opposed these movements
with might. Christianity is most admirably adapted to the training of slaves,
to the perpetuation of a slave society. Never could society have degenerated 31 John Locke, Concerning Human Understanding, Great Books of the Western World (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952), Vol. 35
Jim Meyer 32
to its present appalling stage, if not for the assistance of Christianity. The
rulers of the earth have realized long ago what potent poison inheres in the
Christian religion. That is the reason they foster it; that is why they leave
nothing undone to instill it into the blood of the people. They know only too
well that the subtleness of the Christian teachings is a more powerful
protection against rebellion and discontent than the club or the gun. Indeed,
never could society have degenerated to its present appalling stage, if not
for the assistance of Christianity. The rulers of the earth have realized long
ago what potent poison inheres in the Christian religion. That is the reason
they foster it.
Religion is uniquely armored against anything that might stop it from
spinning into extreme absurdity, extreme denial of reality and extreme,
grotesque immorality. Religion is for those who would have others tell them
how they should act, think, feel and believe. Religion is ultimately dependent
on belief in invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities,
undetectable forces, and events and judgments that happen after we die. 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. Without that belief, it's not religion. And with that
belief, the capacity for religion to do harm gets cranked up to an alarmingly
high level, because there's no check. It therefore has no real reality check.
Such an argument that is unfalsifiable is by definition a poor argument.
Jim Meyer 33
With religion, moderate or fanatical, the proof is emphatically there.
With religion, the proof comes from invisible beings, inaudible voices. The
proof comes from prophets and religious leaders, who supposedly hear these
voices and are happy to tell the rest of us what they say. It comes from
ancient religious texts, written ages ago by itinerant and illiterate men who
thought the sun revolved around the earth, that God punished people with
suffering and death rather than knowledge of germs, who believed thunder and
lightning was God’s wrath and that you could appease your God by sacrificing a
child every day to prevent experiencing his wrath. Religion is a cult of human
sacrifice that is celebrated. It comes from feelings in people's hearts that,
conveniently, tell them what they already believe or want to believe. The
proof comes in the afterlife, after people die and can't come back to tell us
about it. Every single claim made by religion comes from people: not from
sources out in the world that other people can verify, but from the inside of
people's minds. The belief in invisible beings, undetectable forces and events
that happen after we die, offers an exceptionally effective armor against the
valid criticism, questioning and deflation of ideas and institutions that do
serious harm.
In another way, it makes religious leaders and organizations uniquely
influential in the political ring, because their followers are typically
taught from a young age to implicitly believe whatever their religious leaders
say. They are taught that their clergy have superior virtue, with a hotline to
God and his all-perfect morality. Indeed, they've been taught that trusting
Jim Meyer 34
their religious leaders is a great virtue, and that asking these elite men to
support their claims with evidence is a grave affront or insult: not only to
the leaders, but to the entire faith and even to God.
We would never think to terrorize children by telling them they'll be
tortured in fire forever if they don't obey our rules. We would never tell
children if they don’t do what God says we will expel and shun them. We would
never tell them to put their hands in a fire, to see the crackling and burning
and hear their screaming pain...and then to do that for a minute, an hour, a
day, a lifetime or an eternity. Only with religion will we feel obedient to
do so and feel no sorrow, shame or remorse. But when people think the next
life is more important than this one, when people think the infinite burning
and torture is really going to happen if their children don't obey God's word,
they’ll thankfully give their children nightmarish visions of pain and
torture, dispensed by the Fatherly God who supposedly created them and loves
them. They'll do it without a second thought. Teaching children about hellfire
is child abuse. Nothing but the unverifiable promise of permanent bliss or
torture in the afterlife would make loving, decent, non-abusive parents
inflict it on their children.
Many of the world religions has committed genocide in the name of their
God. The Jews, according to their own history, wiped out the Canaanites.
Christians slaughtered Muslims during the crusades. Muslims have suicide-
bombed randomly killing their fellow Muslims. Catholics and Protestants in
Jim Meyer 35
Northern Ireland have brutalized one another, while Sunni and Shi'a are at
each other’s throats in Iraq, just to name a few.
“The decline of religion in modem times means simply that religion is no
longer the uncontested center and ruler of man’s life, and that the Church is
no longer the final and unquestioned home and asylum of his being.”32 Without
religion, we would still have community, charity, social responsibility,
philosophy, ethics, comfort, transcendence, awe, mystery etc. In countries
where less than half the population believes in God, these qualities and
activities are all flourishing. Eventually, the religions of today will become
just like those of the past. The will be antiquated or out-of-date like
relics. They will cease to have the same significance they do today and will
be read as legend and myth like religions of antiquity are today. They will
occupy the fate as the gods Baal, Zeus, Aphrodite, Heros etc. What will happen
then? I have no idea. I don’t believe it will be a utopia. We will still be
confronted with the same secular issues of today. How to live together, build
the ‘just city’, relate to fellow primates, strive to settle discord, live a
purposeful life etc. Bertrand Russell concluded; “We want to stand upon our
own feet and look fair and square at the world-its good facts, its bad facts,
its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is, and be not afraid of
it. Conquer the world by intelligence… [God] is a conception quite unworthy of
free men. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We
ought to make the best we can of the world…A good world needs knowledge,
32 Barrett, William, Irrational Man (Garden City: Anchor Books, 1962), Chapter 5,-Faith and Reason
Jim Meyer 36
kindliness and courage…It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It
needs hope for [a] future…that our intelligence can create.”33
The one enduring factor, though, will be that religion will not be an
encumbrance or impediment. As Bertrand Russell said; “Religion is something
left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt
reason and science as our guidelines.”
References:
Brahm, Eric. "Religion and Conflict." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess andHeidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado,Boulder. Posted: 11-05
Christina, Greta, “The Armor of God, or, The Top One Reason Religion IsHarmful” 11-25-09
Hume, David. Natural History of Religion. Reprinted in A Dissertation on thePassions, The Natural History of Religion, The Clarendon Edition of theWorks of David Hume, Oxford University Press, 2007.
Internet Encyclopedia of philosophy, ‘David Hume – Religion’
Krauss, Lawrence M. “Faith and Foolishness: When Religious Beliefs BecomeDangerous,”7-1-10
Moggach, Douglas, "Bruno Bauer", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2014Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/bauer.
Paine, Thomas, “The Age of Reason” Published in 1794, 1795, and 1807.
Reiss, Steven, “Who Am I? The 16 Basic Desires that Motivate Our Action and Define OurPersonalities” published 2000 (Tarcher Putnam).
33 Russell, Bertrand,God and Religion,Prometheus Books, 1986
Jim Meyer 37
Russell delivered this lecture on March 6, 1927 to the National Secular Society, South London Branch, at Battersea Town Hall. Published in pamphlet form in that same year, the essay subsequently achieved new fame with Paul Edwards' edition of Russell's book, Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays ... (1957).
Russell, Bertrand “God and Religion” published by Prometheus Books, 1986,1952, p. 283
Russell, Paul, "Hume on Religion", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/hume-religion/>.
Smith, George, “Atheism: The Case Against God,” published 1974