The Purpose of this Blog
This blog is about specific instances of harm and suffering caused by religion and religious faith around the world. It is a response to the argument I am so often confronted with when I tell religious people that the world would be better without religion:
“But, what harm is religion doing anyone? Why does it bother you so much that I believe certain things? Religions do so much good in the world, why would you want to stop that?”
This blog is a direct answer to those questions. I hope that every post I make to this blog will help someone - religious or not - to see that religions are not benign organizations that only do good. Rather, that they cause and allow real harm and suffering, grotesque crimes against humanity, and wholly unnecessary conflict. There is something amiss with what these religions are teaching if people who most firmly believe in them are capable of such atrocities.
I do believe in “live and let live” but religions don’t. People attack each other on the basis of their religious beliefs. I would not be safe in many parts of the world because I am an atheist (and I’m not talking about far away lands here). That is not “live and let live.” For as long as religion is a source of negativity and violence in this world, I will not “live and let live” and neither should anyone else. I will speak my mind, your overly sensitive, close-to-the-heart beliefs be damned. It is absolutely absurd that religious institutions and religious followers are afforded so much tolerance from our society but they don’t give any in return.
And now, I can hear in my head the reply of the typical “moderate” religious person:
“But you are lumping us all together! I am not an extremist, I am not hurting anyone. I am a good person and religion helps me be better. Why should I stop believing in something just because of a few nutcases who are ruining it for everyone?”
To them I say this, the nutcases are not ruining anything for you, they are helping you (in an unfortunate way). They are exposing religion for what it is at its core and helping you to see that what you believe is not true. You can still be a good person - perhaps a better person - when you realize that religions are not divine sources of truth in this world or dispensers of the ultimate morality. I don’t hate religion or religious people but I do feel that it is time to leave religion and faith in God in the past and move forward into more secular thought.
Recently there has been a call to arms (figuratively speaking) among atheists spear headed by, among many others, Dawkins, Harris, Dennet, and Hitchens. I have heard that call and am here to answer it. Religion *is* a problem and the sooner we realize it and spread the word, the sooner we can leave these archaic beliefs in the past, replace the benefits religion provided with secular institutions that fulfill the same role, and begin to progress as a species. Let’s finally leave the dark ages and see what we are really capable of when we stop believing in ancient myths and mystical worldviews.
When you are asked, “What harm is religion doing anyone?,” I hope that you will point them here so that they can read for themselves a chronicle of the undeniable role religion is playing in violence and human suffering, everyday, all around the world.
Also, if you become aware of a relevant news story that I have missed, please email it to me.
Category: Commentary
May 8th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Great idea for a blog. Finally, now we have a one stop shop for all the horrific atrocities committed in the name of some god or another. I hope you’ve got some disposable time ’cause you’re going to need it.
It’s sad and yet interesting that as of today…right now…the “Death” category has the most posts in it. Go figure.
May 9th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Three individuals that had similar thoughts as you: Stalin, Hitler, and Hussein. The most brutal and tyrannical leaders in history were also against religion. The reason? Religion is the foundation for every moral and ethical belief in this world. Without religion, there is no right, no wrong, no good, no evil. Everything becomes relative, there are no absolutes. And your strong, secular, atheist beliefs are also a religion whether you want to admit it or not.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:56 am
Religion is the foundation for every moral and ethical belief in this world. Without religion, there is no right, no wrong, no good, no evil. Everything becomes relative, there are no absolutes. And your strong, secular, atheist beliefs are also a religion whether you want to admit it or not.
Um…no. You’re wrong.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
@IsThatLatin
Good argument and evidence.
Provide me one moral or ethic that is not grounded in religious belief.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion
Religion:
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Prove to me that any particular moral or ethic originated inherently with religion, and cannot exists separate from it. I see many morals and ethics of both religious people and atheists overlapping, but no proof that these came from religion. And I see a lot of proof that many of these shared morals and ethics exist in atheists, free of religion. It’s rather clear to me that morals/ethics is not synonymous with religion. Morals and ethics are learned behaviors and can be learned by people with religion and by people without it.
May 10th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
The Golden Rule.
Nearly all original forms of The Golden Rule come from a religious text. In fact, it appears that most religions have a form of The Golden Rule in their primary texts. Unfortunately, your request for proof that The Golden Rule wouldn’t have been “developed” without religion is impossible. I can only point to history and say that it does not appear in texts prior to religious texts (based on my research), and all non-religious references are clearly of a form taken from a religious text. The burden is really on you to prove that The Golden Rule would have come to be without religious influence, which of course is impossible.
May 10th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Speaking personally, I can say my own morality has not come from religious influence. I am not a reformed Christian. I’ve never believed in God, nor have participated in any kind of religious teaching/indoctrination. I’ve come to my own morality based on what I’ve experienced personally, how I react to situations, how I feel others would want to be treated, and simple empathy/sympathy. I have not needed a Bible, nor have I needed any kind of religious association to these morals. So for me, this statement:
Religion is the foundation for every moral and ethical belief in this world. Without religion, there is no right, no wrong, no good, no evil. Everything becomes relative, there are no absolutes. And your strong, secular, atheist beliefs are also a religion whether you want to admit it or not.
…just isn’t true.
You’re still not addressing how an atheist can develop his/her own moral code without being religious.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Wow, I leave for a few days and miss my first real discussion! This is what I like to see… dialogue between believers and atheists.
To Sean, thank you for posting. I think it is Dawkins who has a good answer to this question. I’ll try to parrot it but… well, we’ll see how it goes…
There are certain parts of the Bible that no one follows. For instance, atheists, “whores,” etc. are supposed to be stoned on the spot as soon as their sin is discovered. The modern day religious don’t do that. Why? It’s in your most sacred texts. It’s clear. It’s simple.
Religious people don’t stone people because they “know” that, no matter what their Bible says, that stoning people is wrong. Where does this moral intuition come from? Clearly not religion.
The most likely explanation at this point is that morality of some kind was selected for and evolved over millenia because it helped groups, individuals, or genes to survive.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
I should add, Sean, that at one time I thought the same thing that you did. After leaving my religion I noticed an interesting change in my morality.
I kept my compassion, concern, and empathy for individuals, animals, and the environment. I still strive to be an honest person. I still strive to maintain my integrity. I still value freedom, family, love, beauty, etc.
But, certain things have gone away. I’ve become a lot more liberal and openminded. For example, I no longer think that homosexuality is a sin. And certain things have gotten more important. For example, I value the environment more now that I don’t believe in the second coming.
I think it’s fascinating that the things that seem really important - like being good to other people - have stayed with me but the archaic teachings and biases of religions melted away.
I can say with certainty that my morality does not come from religion now. It did at one time but it no longer does and I consider it a vast improvement.
May 11th, 2007 at 12:04 am
I just found this by chance:
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2007/05.03/15-hauser.html
May 11th, 2007 at 12:17 am
I kept my compassion, concern, and empathy for individuals, animals, and the environment. I still strive to be an honest person. I still strive to maintain my integrity. I still value freedom, family, love, beauty, etc.
But, certain things have gone away. I’ve become a lot more liberal and openminded. For example, I no longer think that homosexuality is a sin. And certain things have gotten more important. For example, I value the environment more now that I don’t believe in the second coming.
See, this is really interesting to me. I think I find most atheists I come across are reformed religious folks, and few have always been so. I’ve wondered if there’s a difference in approaching and building one’s morality in those who’ve always been atheistic and those who’ve been saved from faith. This description right here (which sounds like me) leads be to believe that you and I are one hte same track, the right track, and one really can just remove religion from the equation and nothing in the goodness of the person has fundamentally changed. Religion (any religion) clearly does not have a monopoly on morality and ethics. One might be able to argue that those who’ve turned from faith are only re-manipulating morals they gleaned from their religious upbringing, but as for atheists that have always been atheists, I would think the argument is much harder.
I hate to break it to religious people, but this whole “doing what’s right” thing isn’t rocket science, no matter what their bible and their leaders tell them.
May 11th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Brian
That’s an interesting article you linked to. But I’m not completely understanding what it is trying to say. Is it implying that morals develop based on what is best for species’ survival? If it is, there are some things atheists/secularlists believe to be moral that would clearly be immoral. Homosexuality would be one.
Also, it would have been interesting to have an explanation to this: “Religion gives you rules that don’t apply when they are removed from the specific situation,†Hauser said. Unfortunately, this statement is never supported and no example is given. Or if an example was given, it’s a poor one.
I’m interested in your views on the above.
Thanks, this is beginning to be an interesting dialog.
May 12th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
I’m still waiting for an explanation as to why atheists who have never been exposed to religious doctrine are able to develop perfectly good morals.
May 12th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Here is another one I found on Digg this morning:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117884235401499300.html?mod=hpp_free_today
To Sean, yes, I think that’s basically what the article is saying:
“Hauser said that a key ability in making moral judgments is being able to read beneath the surface when observing another creature’s actions. Experiments show that monkeys, apes, and other animals share this ability with humans.
Evolution selected for this trait, Hauser said, because being able to perceive another creature’s intentions conferred a survival benefit over animals that could only respond to consequences.”
As far as your assertion that there are things that atheists/secularists believe to be moral that “would clearly be immoral” It is interesting to me that you choose homosexuality as your example. First, let me point out that there isn’t anything “clearly immoral” about homosexuality. “Clearly immoral” is torturing someone, stealing, or witholding assistance in a time of need. But homosexuality? Who does it hurt? Why shouldn’t two people who love each other and are attracted to each other be with each other? I can’t think of a more grey area.
May 14th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
The assertion that morals develop from evolution (adaptation) would clearly make homosexuality immoral as it clearly does not promote the continuing of a species. Homosexuality in gendered animals leads directly to extinction. From an evolutionary standpoint homosexuality shouldn’t exist.
@IsThatLatin
I’m still waiting for you to give me an example of an atheist who has never been exposed to religious doctrine or anything influenced by religious doctrine.
May 17th, 2007 at 1:01 am
Sean,
“The assertion that morals develop from evolution (adaptation) would clearly make homosexuality immoral as it clearly does not promote the continuing of a species. Homosexuality in gendered animals leads directly to extinction. From an evolutionary standpoint homosexuality shouldn’t exist.”
Actually, homosexuality is found within other animals in the animal kingdom and it isn’t leading to massive extinctions. Additionally, homosexuality has existed throughout human history and it has done very little to stem the tidal wave of human population growth. Moreover, for a species that has no real predator, we need ways to control our population. Today we may fight over oil, but if the human population and life expectancy continues to grow at its current rate we’ll be fighting over clean water and food in the next 50 years. A certain portion of a population that do not reproduce is not the end of the species. It’s actually necessary to help keep the population within limits that are sustainable.
May 17th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Hi Sean,
Our morals developing from evolution is different than deriving our morals from evolution. As conscious beings, we can still choose what is moral or immoral. But our sense of morality is probably the product of our evolutionary history. Just because something leads to the propagation of genes or the “survival of the fittest” does not make it moral at all. If that is what you thought I was expressing I apologize for not making myself more clear. My morals are certainly not those of “evolution” so to speak.
I’m not sure, but I think that Sam Harris was raised Atheist. I could be wrong about that. A quick and dirty Google search didn’t turn anything up but I didn’t spend long looking.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Don’t throw God out with the people who give him a bad name. You can be smarter than that.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:12 am
Don’t throw God out with the people who give him a bad name. You can be smarter than that.
We are smarter than that. We don’t consider God at all–God does not exist.
May 26th, 2007 at 1:24 am
John,
You make a good point. If that is what I were trying to do with this blog I might as well want no government because of a few corrupt politicians. But, I do want a government and consider it a necessary institution. The problem I see with religion isn’t that people are doing things wrong in it’s name - people do that in all types of organizations (like stealing from non-profits). The problem I see is that it is *unnecessary.* Most religious beliefs are based on ancient myths. So, the harm done by religion and in the name of religion by individuals is particularly repugnant and sad because it is unnecessary harm motivated by delusion.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:41 pm
While I have not read all of the articles (and I plan to!!), it is the same story. People want to throw the “baby out with the bath water” instead of checking out the truth. Religion is indeed the problem, not Christianity. Jesus, Himself, taught that empty religion is like bones in a tomb. All you have is a “whited sepluchre”. It is not until people actually realize the life changing process that Christ wants to do in our lives that the true freedom of “religion” will be found and the world will see the difference. People who think they can kill adults to stop killing babies, blow up a building to prove that killing is wrong, or feel freedom to do whatever they want in the name of Jesus have already been talked about in the bible. Jesus said there would be those who would use His name but not be allowed into Heaven. We forget that those attending (and leading) churches are human and unless they daily live in the Word that brought the first changes, they WILL GO RIGHT BACK TO WHERE THEY WERE, and in Hebrews it says it would be worse than a dog eating its own vomit. To blaim “religion” without adressing the real problem is like blaming all blogs for a few irressponsible blogs that allow child predators to find their prey on the blog!!!!!