Here's a little something to chew on.

Religion

Religion is factually incorrect, psychologically pathogenic, sociologically divisive, politically totalitarian, economically avaricious, educationally stultifying, and morally evil.

That religion is riddled with factual errors is evident from even the most casual reading of any religious text. The cosmology is disputed by every geological and anthropological discovery since science began. The phenomena attributed to the deity violate every natural law ever discovered.

Now, believers will say that god transcends physical law. But, since these same believers will cite the awe and wonder of the physical universe and the majesty of how it obeys these self-same physical laws as evidence of the existence of god, it seems they are arguing both sides of the same point. If god has no need of physical laws, why inculcate them into his (its) creation.

In addition to scientific implausibility, the foundation documents of every religion are so filled with internal contradiction, that a passage can be found to support any behavior. Surely, divinely inspired text should be more clear and unambiguous. Further, each holy book is filled with commandments that the vast majority of the modern world’s population finds not only impossible, but absurd. In order to maintain belief in these writings, it is necessary to interpret them, which inevitably leads to both further ambiguity and to the torture of common sense beyond all recognition.

In this, as in all other debate, believers will say that god’s intent or meaning is beyond human understanding. At the same time they will say that god has a plan and an intention and that people have the responsibility to discern, comprehend and obey.

They will also say that reason and evidence are meaningless in a religious context, and that faith is the relevant criterion. By definition, faith cannot have proof; if proof exists, a belief is no longer a matter of faith.

Which brings me to psychology. By requiring that one believe that which not only cannot, but must not be proven, and to accept as real, that which contradicts every other aspect of daily reality, and to comprehend and obey a plan which is, by definition, beyond human comprehension, religion becomes psychoto-mimetic; that is, it imitates a psycho-social situation which induces psychosis.

The believer is forced to accept, and function in accord with, two mutually exclusive realities. Forced to conduct daily life based on the existence of apparently immutable physical laws while simultaneously accepting that these laws ultimately do not exist and that behavior should be guided by principles derived from a system which totally abandons them.

Further, the believer is forced to abandon the use of reason. This places the believer in the position of having no way to judge experience or behavior. Given the contradictions and ambiguities of religious instructions, it is impossible to accurately guide behavior in accordance with them. Given the dependence upon faith, it is impossible to subject experience to the test of evidence and logic.


The believer is at the mercy of ancient writings of questionable authorship, factual inaccuracy, logical inconsistency, and unquestionable sanctity.

Every religion believes that it is the one, true faith, and that all others are in error. Thus, it is intrinsically divisive and exclusionary. Whichever denomination achieves numerical dominance, uses that power to attempt social domination. From a historical perspective, whatever the origin of a particular religion, it is a matter of moments before it begins to splinter into sub-sects, each claiming the mantle of truth. While this is probably an inevitable consequence of both the flaws in religious texts, as well as the incompatibility of their teachings with the rest of human nature,
the result is a socio-political nightmare of warring beliefs, none of which may be excluded, because none of them can be disproved.

Each religion is dominated both by its dogma and its priestly class. These professionals, who claim the ultimate temporal and spiritual authority over their flock, can tolerate no dissent. Since the source of their authority is sacrosanct and its basis unquestionable, the result is a spiritual totalitarianism. Further, since all religion seeks not only to define spiritual belief, but also to control temporal behavior, a religion is, in fact, a political entity, again, a totalitarian one.

This priestly class is supported entirely by the work of its flock. Under the guise of an offering to the glory of god, they amass vast fortunes, hordes of art treasures, temples and other real estate of enormous luxury and value, and incredible political power. Within this priestly class, an inevitable hierarchy develops, with political power and luxury, as always, firmly yoked together.
All of this happens despite the injunction, within virtually all religions, against it.

Religions also seek to co-opt not only the spiritual, but also the lay education of their members. This is a logical outgrowth of the need to control their behavior and their finances, and to keep them strong in the faith. Since such education cannot be allowed to contravene the dogma, it is, inevitably, circumscribed.

There may be many words to describe an entity who’s intent is to use an unprovable dogma to control the behavior of its adherents; who’s methods require the abandonment of the only faculty of mind which is capable of critically evaluating it; who’s psychological effect is to deform the minds of its adherents; who’s historical effects, past and present, are to evoke and justify the most horrible excesses of human nature; and who’s manipulator’s lives are provided for entirely by the labor of those they manipulate. There may be many words, but the simplest and most expressive is, evil.

Believers tend to think that they represent an overwhelming majority in the world, while available data suggests a nearly equal division between those who do and do not recognize the existence of god. However, despite the prevalence of religion, a strong case could be made for the idea that those who profess belief do not actually have it.
Consider the following: most practicioners of a faith are unable to accurately state the tenets of that faith; most practicioners of a faith have merely accepted the sect of their parents and know little, if anything, of any other; most practicioners of a faith, if called upon to defend its tenets, will resort to arguments which radically diverge from those tenets.

Most religions prescribe that divergence from the religiously defined way of life results in horrific penalties, vastly exceeding any earthly punishments. Despite this, most practicioners routinely engage in behaviors which are certain to incur those penalties.

So, we have a situation in which most believers devote less effort to the selection of a religion than they would to the choice of a cough medicine, and routinely behave so as to damn their eternal souls to unspeakable torture, all the while professing their firm belief in the dogma.

One field of psychology has studied the development of morality in children. Several distinct stages appear to be almost universal. Moral values are first engendered by fear of punishment. Second, they become identified with other people who are objects of respect and admiration. Third, they become internalized as philosophical principles with rational support.

Virtually all religious morality is fixated at the most infantile level of moral development, fear. This is not surprising given the overwhelming likelihood that religion has its origins in fear. Most often, fear is thought of as being associated with a defined stimulus. However, given the early developmental origins of consciousness and the lack of available cognitive function, coupled with the presence of powerful stimuli from within and without the uterine environment, it is very likely that cognitive awareness is inevitably associated with some degree of unfocused, nameless fear. Not fear “of,” merely fear itself.

There are centuries of evidence to indicate that the human species does not tolerate anxiety well, and will go to great extremes of behavior and cognition to avoid it. That early humans, lacking even the most primitive knowledge of the nature of reality, should attempt any form of self-delusion to quell the terror that unexplained natural phenomena can inspire is in no way surprising.

The result, religion, both arises from and elicits the worst aspects of human consciousness: fear, ignorance, and denial.

While monotheistic religions differ in the details of their dogma, they hold common beliefs about the central attributes of god: omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. These terms are not used ambiguously, but refer to their common, literal meaning. However, these terms give rise to unavoidable paradoxes which no religion has been able to resolve. The paradoxes associated with each of these terms blend into one another and are virtually impossible to separate.

If god is omnipresent, then, by definition, there is nothing else in the universe except god, for omnipresent means everywhere, with no exceptions. From the smallest quantum phenomenon to the entirety of existence, there is nothing but god. If, to take only a small example, we are god, how do we not know it and behave accordingly? If we have somehow lost that awareness, how does god lose awareness of itself? If we are not god, then god is not omnipresent.

If god is omniscient, then god knows everything that ever has or will happen, which makes free will an impossibility. If god knows everything, then everything is just as god wants it. Which makes god responsible for disaster, pain and evil. If we can behave in such a way that god did not know would occur, than god is not omniscient.

If god is omnipotent, and has a plan, then the entire universe is behaving exactly according to that plan. If all behavior is in accord with god’s plan, then notions like crime, punishment, responsibility, good, evil, etc., become meaningless. If we are to have personal responsibility, then we must be able to act contrary to god’s plan and wish, which means god is not omnipotent.

If god is not omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent, what relevance does it have, even if it exists? If god possesses these qualitites, and is thus responsible for the behavior of the entire universe, then the values espoused in religious texts are meaningless, god acts like a psychopathic murderer, and is certainly not worth either reverence or obedience. If god has these properties, but has chosen for some unknowable reason, to behave as if it does not, and if it is beyond human ability to comprehend the nature of god or its plan, then the admonition to behave according to a set of rules which purport to derive from knowledge of god and its plan, is simply absurd.

All monotheistic, as well as most polytheistic religions posit an ongoing war between good and evil. From the above it is clear that this is impossible. If god is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent, then all good and all evil are god, the outcome is already known and the winner pre-ordained, unless you find some satisfaction in the notion of a schizoid deity which, if it existed might surely warrant fear, but not worship.

Of course, these are all arguments based on rationality which, according to religion, must be abandoned when dealing with such questions. However, the requirement to behave according to a set of standards while simultaneously abandoning any means for validating those standards, and to accept that the attributes of the god upon who’s existence all such standards depend engenders unresolvable paradoxes, makes a believer totally vulnerable to control and manipulation, not to mention, insane.
- posted by Martin Eagle @ 1:56 PM