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