I think the title is rather self-explanatory, so if you aren't interested, can't be bothered or might be offended, feel free to skip this post and move on to the previous one which talks about Christmas, Santa and dogs.
Seeing as it's the holiday season, and the time for introspection amongst other things, I've been thinking a bit about religion and suchlike. The majority of people in the world profess some sort of religious belief or faith, in fact us atheists are a statistically insignificant minority. So why do I persist in thinking as I do? Well there are several reasons which I shall try and put forward as best I can (by the way, if you have any comments or disagreements please feel free to voice your opinions, as there's little I love more than a good discussion). Now although most of my remarks are based on my knowledge of Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), I'm sure that with a little bit of tweaking they could be applied to other religions as well.
1) The Diversity Of Religions
There are so many mutually exclusive religious belief systems in the world. It's impossible that every single one of them is right, yet it is possible that they are all wrong. Even within one religion there can be many different viewpoints and interpretations. As somebody clever once said: "you tell me why you don't believe in every other god, and I'll tell you why I don't believe in yours."
2) The Self-Perpetuating Dogma
Many people profess to belong to a certain religion, and yet when asked why, the best reason they can come up with is "I was brought up in it (the religion)" or "my parents are...". There their religion is due to their cultural surroundings. And when you consider that most religions were spread down the barrel of a gun (or the blade of a sword) it makes you wonder if anybody anywhere ever browsed through all the possible religions and chose the one they liked best. But surely that's what belief ought to be: a conscious choice. You can't choose where and when you're born or your family, but you sure as hell should be able to choose what you think.
3) Inability To Stand Up To The Light Of Science
Religions are old, and therefore the knowledge of the world upon which they are based is old as well. When Copernicus first proposed his heliocentric model for the universe, the church fought tooth and nail to discredit the idea. When it became obvious that it was true the church just changed its doctrines as if nothing happened. Similar examples can be found throughout history. If a religion has to change its tune with every new scientific discovery how can one trust anything they say? Just as our knowledge of geology and astronomy has shattered every creation myth, our understanding of evolution, genetics and DNA have blown away the special pedestal religions hoist our species onto (and the creationist argument that evolution evolution is "just a theory" holds even less water than Higgs' elusive boson). The problem with religions is that they are dogmas that cannot bear being questioned because they don't have adequate answers for the discoveries made by science. And it's not just questions posed by science that make religions uncomfortable, very often questioning from within is also heavily suppressed.
4) The Moral Fallacy
Many religious apologists will perhaps agree with what I've said above (or at least parts of it), but still argue in favour of religion saying that religions always preach moral and social rules and codes of conduct, and therefore are important in maintaining the social fabric. Although I agree that religions contain moral rules I disagree with the argument. Consider the following hypothetical situation. You bring up a group of people, but without teaching them either morals or religion. Now if you give them enough time these people will almost certainly develop moral rules and probably religion as well. The moral rules will probably be familiar to us: treat others as you would like to be treated (the Golden Rule), don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, etc. The religion will almost certainly be something new that we will not have seen before. Therefore the universal human constant isn't religion, but morals. In fact organised religions often obscure moral principles when it suits them (see next argument). Furthermore the hypothetical example above shows that religions that profess to be The Truth (i.e. immutable, constant and universal) are false because universal truths should be able to be independently arrived at, whereas religions only exist by continually promoting themselves. By this measure the only Truth is morality and not religion.
5) The Hypocrisy Of Religion
The majority of people who claim to follow a religion do really adhere to the precepts in either spirit or deed. Similarly, an uncountable number of reprehensible, evil and self-serving acts have been carried out in the name of religion that I would much rather not be associated with them. Although this is more of an argument against the people that follow a religion and the leadership of religions rather than the founders and the philosophy of a religion, but for me mud sticks, especially when caked on over centuries and millennia.
6) The Underlying Motivation Behind Religion
Religions generally exhort their followers to behave in a certain way: do good deeds, don't steal, don't kill, etc. This is thoroughly laudable, however when one looks at the reasons given by religions to persuade people to carry out this sort of behaviour they invariably appeal to peoples' sense of greed and self-preservation. In the Abrahamic religions if you do something good you are rewarded with Heaven, if you do something bad you are punished with Hell. And in religions that believe in reincarnation a good deed improves karma leading to a better life next time around, whereas a bad deed does the opposite. Therefore a thoroughly religious person, when helping someone (cross the street lets say) wouldn't be helping them because it's the Right Thing To Do, but rather to further their own spiritual points tally. The atheist, on the other hand, who believes that death is the end, is the only one who carries out truly altruistic acts because they do not believe they will reap some future metaphysical reward.
That's about it really. I know it's very easy to criticise without offering a solution, so I only think it's fair that I give some alternative to religion seeing as I've tried my best to knock it down. Personally I would consider myself a secular humanist. I'm not going to bother explaining it when the link above does it far better than I ever could (by the way, that site is a mine of objective information about all sorts of things concerning religion and philosophy and I highly recommend it if you are at all interested in that sort of stuff). Another article you might find interesting is the following speech by Richard Dawkins (the biologist who coined the term Selfish Gene) just after the World Trade Centre attacks; for me it is incredibly impelling and impassioned.
Seeing as it's the holiday season, and the time for introspection amongst other things, I've been thinking a bit about religion and suchlike. The majority of people in the world profess some sort of religious belief or faith, in fact us atheists are a statistically insignificant minority. So why do I persist in thinking as I do? Well there are several reasons which I shall try and put forward as best I can (by the way, if you have any comments or disagreements please feel free to voice your opinions, as there's little I love more than a good discussion). Now although most of my remarks are based on my knowledge of Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), I'm sure that with a little bit of tweaking they could be applied to other religions as well.
1) The Diversity Of Religions
There are so many mutually exclusive religious belief systems in the world. It's impossible that every single one of them is right, yet it is possible that they are all wrong. Even within one religion there can be many different viewpoints and interpretations. As somebody clever once said: "you tell me why you don't believe in every other god, and I'll tell you why I don't believe in yours."
2) The Self-Perpetuating Dogma
Many people profess to belong to a certain religion, and yet when asked why, the best reason they can come up with is "I was brought up in it (the religion)" or "my parents are...". There their religion is due to their cultural surroundings. And when you consider that most religions were spread down the barrel of a gun (or the blade of a sword) it makes you wonder if anybody anywhere ever browsed through all the possible religions and chose the one they liked best. But surely that's what belief ought to be: a conscious choice. You can't choose where and when you're born or your family, but you sure as hell should be able to choose what you think.
3) Inability To Stand Up To The Light Of Science
Religions are old, and therefore the knowledge of the world upon which they are based is old as well. When Copernicus first proposed his heliocentric model for the universe, the church fought tooth and nail to discredit the idea. When it became obvious that it was true the church just changed its doctrines as if nothing happened. Similar examples can be found throughout history. If a religion has to change its tune with every new scientific discovery how can one trust anything they say? Just as our knowledge of geology and astronomy has shattered every creation myth, our understanding of evolution, genetics and DNA have blown away the special pedestal religions hoist our species onto (and the creationist argument that evolution evolution is "just a theory" holds even less water than Higgs' elusive boson). The problem with religions is that they are dogmas that cannot bear being questioned because they don't have adequate answers for the discoveries made by science. And it's not just questions posed by science that make religions uncomfortable, very often questioning from within is also heavily suppressed.
4) The Moral Fallacy
Many religious apologists will perhaps agree with what I've said above (or at least parts of it), but still argue in favour of religion saying that religions always preach moral and social rules and codes of conduct, and therefore are important in maintaining the social fabric. Although I agree that religions contain moral rules I disagree with the argument. Consider the following hypothetical situation. You bring up a group of people, but without teaching them either morals or religion. Now if you give them enough time these people will almost certainly develop moral rules and probably religion as well. The moral rules will probably be familiar to us: treat others as you would like to be treated (the Golden Rule), don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, etc. The religion will almost certainly be something new that we will not have seen before. Therefore the universal human constant isn't religion, but morals. In fact organised religions often obscure moral principles when it suits them (see next argument). Furthermore the hypothetical example above shows that religions that profess to be The Truth (i.e. immutable, constant and universal) are false because universal truths should be able to be independently arrived at, whereas religions only exist by continually promoting themselves. By this measure the only Truth is morality and not religion.
5) The Hypocrisy Of Religion
The majority of people who claim to follow a religion do really adhere to the precepts in either spirit or deed. Similarly, an uncountable number of reprehensible, evil and self-serving acts have been carried out in the name of religion that I would much rather not be associated with them. Although this is more of an argument against the people that follow a religion and the leadership of religions rather than the founders and the philosophy of a religion, but for me mud sticks, especially when caked on over centuries and millennia.
6) The Underlying Motivation Behind Religion
Religions generally exhort their followers to behave in a certain way: do good deeds, don't steal, don't kill, etc. This is thoroughly laudable, however when one looks at the reasons given by religions to persuade people to carry out this sort of behaviour they invariably appeal to peoples' sense of greed and self-preservation. In the Abrahamic religions if you do something good you are rewarded with Heaven, if you do something bad you are punished with Hell. And in religions that believe in reincarnation a good deed improves karma leading to a better life next time around, whereas a bad deed does the opposite. Therefore a thoroughly religious person, when helping someone (cross the street lets say) wouldn't be helping them because it's the Right Thing To Do, but rather to further their own spiritual points tally. The atheist, on the other hand, who believes that death is the end, is the only one who carries out truly altruistic acts because they do not believe they will reap some future metaphysical reward.
That's about it really. I know it's very easy to criticise without offering a solution, so I only think it's fair that I give some alternative to religion seeing as I've tried my best to knock it down. Personally I would consider myself a secular humanist. I'm not going to bother explaining it when the link above does it far better than I ever could (by the way, that site is a mine of objective information about all sorts of things concerning religion and philosophy and I highly recommend it if you are at all interested in that sort of stuff). Another article you might find interesting is the following speech by Richard Dawkins (the biologist who coined the term Selfish Gene) just after the World Trade Centre attacks; for me it is incredibly impelling and impassioned.
No comments:
Post a Comment