What's next?

I honestly wish I knew. When I started this, it was from a point of view that suggested that, in a larger sense around the world, whether we like it or not, religion is a source of conflict.

I am aware that many will argue that "it's not religion per se, it's just people being people, and if they didn't fight about religion, they'd fight about something else." But I don't know that that's always true, and I have very strong feelings that there are many ways in which religion is the only thing in play. For example, the rampant destruction in Iraq between Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims is based only on religion, since there are no ethnic differences between the sects. Granted one is in the majority and so wields greater power, but if they did not see themselves as different, there could not be a majority. (You can't have "more us than us.")

Similarly, in the U.S., whether we like to admit it or not, there are "warriors for Christ" attempting to change the country in quite fundamental ways, based on religion. They're making inroads, too.

But the more I watch how things proceed (even in this thread) the more I realize that people think religious problems will go away just as soon as everybody else figures out that "I'm right" or "my religion is the correct one."

And religious faith, of course, has two characteristics that I think are a problem: faith is belief without (or even in spite of) evidence, and faith is taken to be of fundamental importance. That something should be unable to be demonstrated to be true in any way, and at the same time be so supremely important, is a very grave danger, and looking through history one can easily see how much harm it has done. (See note below).


Most people think all those problems with religion are "distant past -- we don't have religious wars and inquisitions anymore." I mentioned fighting over religion that's still going on today, but think about these points, as well, also quite contemporary:

• The financial and work burden of building thousands of church buildings, and the lost potential to society as a whole by not taxing their earnings.
• Belief in miracle healing has led many ill people to think they were "healed" by a priest or shaman, ceasing to take the medicines prescribed to them by doctors, and dying as a result. Some have died because they have refused blood transfusions on religious grounds.
• The Catholic Church's opposition to birth control (particularly condoms) is increasing the problems due to overpopulation in many third-world countries, and even worse is causing many, many deaths and orphaned and infected children due to AIDS.
• Religious believers have been known to murder their children rather than allow their children to become atheists or marry someone of a different religion. Religious leaders have been known to justify murder on the grounds of blasphemy.
• Rites of exorcism have killed people, often children.
• Supposed blasphemers are still persecuted (see Salman Rushdie)
• Destruction of great works of art (the Bamiyan Buddhas), and the censorship of literature deemed by religion to be "unsuitable."
• Mass suicides of stupid believers (Heaven's Gate or Solar Temple)
• Discouragement of rational thought (teaching kids "young earth creationism" for example) will weaken the general level of knowledge needed in future.
• Women treated as second-class citizens.
• People whipping, impaling and poisoning themselves for belief (the Philippines, snake handlers, Shia Muslims, etc.)

That list could go on forever...

I guess I'll just have to do more thinking.

(Note: Before somebody brings up the fact that many other ideologies -- not just religion -- have done great harm, too, I agree. But they suffer from the same disease as religion: their fundamental beliefs can't be shown to be true, and yet they are still considered to be extremely important. Communism, as just one example, is an economic system that completely neglected to consider human nature. And the fact is that without possibility of gain, most people will not risk and strive, and without risk and extraordinary effort by at least some, the entire economic community suffers.)

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

Just one question, EH - how do you explain the people who are loving and peaceful as well as religious? And since the majority of humanity believes in God, as has throughout history, can we really say that religion has had only a negative influence? I thought we were trying to look objectively at both the positive and negative sides of religion as well as atheism.....

This is not an uncommon question. You often hear a very analagous question in courtrooms, when the defence attorney, just before sentencing, says "Your Honor, my client may have murdered his wife and children, but he has been a strong donor to his church and community for many years. Should we punish him like a common thug, I ask you?"

His Honor is not frequently moved to say, "I agree with counsel. In light of the many good works in the past, this prisoner is free to go!"

Cancerous parts of the body are often removed, even though they have very useful purposes.

Okay, I was being wicked.

Being more serious, though, I have never said "let's get rid of religion." I have not said we have to do anything. I have been trying to get people to voice their views, and if my view has a focus in one direction, then I presume dissenting views will give their opinions here as well.

Where I suggested I was heading, right from the outset, was not to make an assessment of the good sides and bad sides of both theism and atheism, but how, in the grand scheme of things, humanity might find a way to avoid the worst and get the best of both.

That means that the best and worst must be held up for public view, and honest consideration given to how to enhance the good and disarm the bad. If religion causes people to be charitable to one group, and to demonize another, how can we hold on to the charitable impulse and simultaneously stop the demonization? If religion means funding hospitals at home and terrorists abroad, how do we keep the hospitals and lose the terrorists? If belief means comforting the afflicted, and refusing life-saving medical procedures, how can we have both?

And simply mounting a defence for one side or the other can never, ever be the answer. That implies taking a position, and once positions are struck, can battle be far behind?

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

I agree with that last statement wholeheartedly. If we take "fixed" postions, there can be no peace, no meeting of the minds. So, if I may ask, how has this thread encouraged you to become less fixed in your own position? Or has it? Do you have more compassion now for those who are bound in religious points of view?