MB Civic

This entry was posted on Saturday, November 14th, 2009 at 1:32 PM and filed under Religion. Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed. Skip to the end and leave a response. Trackbacks are closed.

3 Responses to “AlterNet: The Top One Reason Religion Is Harmful”

1. Ian Alterman said:

   This woman has issues. And she could not be more wrong if she tried. It would take me equal space to rebut her point for point, so I will instead simply offer some brief responses.

   First, when she says “religion,” what is she actually talking about? Clearly she means only Christianity and Islam. After all, have you ever heard of a Jewish suicide bomber? Or a Buddhist one? Her dishonesty here does not do her any favors.

   Second, have you ever heard of a Christian suicide bomber? Or, indeed, Christian violence beyond an occasional localized skirmish somewhere? Of course not. Thus, what she also fails to realize is that, while Christianity certainly has its sordid past of Crusades, Inquisitions, etc., it has been a “peaceful” religion for over 500 years. So NOW what is she talking about? Must be Islam, no?

   Third, she claims that, “I’m not arguing that a world without religion would be a blissful Utopia…I don’t know of any atheist who’d argue that.” Really? She’s never heard of Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins? Indeed, many of her arguments are exactly those made by Harris in his books. Again, her dishonesty does not exactly add merit to her arguments.

   Let me very quickly address the specific issues she brings up.

   “Inspiring political oppression,” “Perpetuating political oppression” and “Succumbing to political oppression.” She is correct that this occurs vis-a-vis religion. And it is to be abhorred. But I daresay (once again…) that Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot – atheists (or pagans) all – and other secular leaders have “inspired” and “perpetuated” FAR more political oppression than believers, oppression that was tolerated more readily than that of many theocracies.

   “Justification for violence and war.” Here again she can only mean Islam, since, other than extremists and fringe elements, no other religion (Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism et al) has ANY justification for violence or war (despite the so-called “just war” position of some Christians).

   “Vulnerability to fraud.” Excuse me?! Those billions who lived under the five atheists noted above were FAR more vulnerable to the fraud perpetrated by them (and other secular leaders) than those who live in even the most dictatorial theocracies.

   “Quashing science and education.” Again, except for fringe elements in SOME religions, this is incorrect. Almost every major scientist prior to the modern era was a believer (Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Pasteur et al). Indeed, historically, serious scientific invstigation was first developed by Islam, with further development coming out of the (religion-based) Renaissance. Yes, there are still “flat-earthers” and those who do not believe in the Big Bang and evolution. But for the most part, believers (particularly Jewish and Christian, as well as many Muslims) are able to balance their belief in science with the faith.

   “Terrorizing children.” Here, it is not Islam that she is attacking, but Christianity, since no other religion believes in “hell and damnation” in that sense. Yet even the Catholic Church no longer engages in this kind of thing (though some of the most fundamental Protestant churches still do so to some degree).

   “Even Moderate Religion Still Does Harm.” Here, she all but plagiarizes Harris (and, to a slightly lesser degree, Dawkins). And again she could not be more wrong. In fact, her statement that “Moderate religion is in the minority” is factually incorrect, and shows just how little research she has actually done.

   The overwhelming majority of believers – particularly of the three monotheistic faiths, Jewish, Christian, Muslim – practice their religion privately and quietly, and do not engage in proselytizing, much less violence. Even the CIA’s estimate of how many Muslims are “radicalized” (i.e., prone to violence, or support such violence, whether openly or otherwise) is in the single digits. Given that there are over 1 billion Muslims, this means that some 950 million of them live quiet faith-based lives. And of the others, the overwhelming majority, while they may support some of the violence, do not engage in it: the CIA estimate is that less than 1% of all Muslims are “actively engaged in violence, or prepared to do so.”

   As for Christianity (particularly in the U.S.), the moderates are ascendant, and are actively engaged in such issues as climate change and peace (i.e., withdrawal from Afghanistan).

   She says, “Without religion, we would still have community. Charity. Social responsibility. Philosophy. Ethics. Comfort. Solace. Art.”

   Well, yes. But you wouldn’t have as much of any of those. For example, the greatest art we have came out of a religious period, and much of it was directly steeped in religion.

   Finally, she says, “In countries where less than half the population believes in God, these qualities and activities are all flourishing. In fact, they’re flourishing a lot more than they are in countries with high rates of religious belief.”

   What a crock! The U.S. is the most religious country in the world. Is she suggesting that we are not also the country in which all of those “qualities and activities” are flourishing” even more than anywhere else on earth? And what, exactly, have low-religion countries like England and France contributed to those “qualities and activities” of late?

   Please. There is not one aspect of her position that is not demonstrably false, or at least over-stated. All she has done is willingly join the ranks of the “New Atheists” who would like to convince everyone that religion is responsible for anything and everything “bad,” while atheism is responsible for anything and everything “good.” This is not only dishonest, it is historically incorrect.

   Peace.

   Posted on 15-Nov-09 at 11:10 am | Permalink
2. Michael Butler said:

   Great response, thanks

   Posted on 15-Nov-09 at 12:56 pm | Permalink
3. James Lamberti said:

   Mr. Alterman,
   It seems you have become my most favorite person to disagree with. Your response was excellent, well crafted, and convincing. You both present very valid points and there are portions of each of your thoughts that make perfect sense, but I think you are both a bit extreme in some of your examples (and extreme is never good). This is definitely a debate that I would love to jump into, but unfortunately this response is being written covertly at my cubicle while I try to appear to be “working”. If I had to pick a side, it would be that of your “opponent”, not because I think she is 100% accurate, but rather due to the fact I am what others would refer to as an “atheist”. I don’t self identify as an atheist, partly because I do not like being lumped in with extremists like Greta Christina (am I the only one who finds her surname ironic?).

   So instead of joining in on the debate point for point, let me share this:

   I’ll never believe in god, but I hate being labeled as an atheist. I am, I suppose by definition, an atheist, but my being an atheist does not define who I am in the way that being Christian may define someone who self identifies as Christian. No one is defined by what they don’t believe in. For example, I also will never believe in an afterlife, or in ghosts or spirits, or fairies, or the supernatural, or that prayer can heal the sick, I don’t believe water can be located underground using dowsing rods, or that people can predict the future, people who don’t believe these things aren’t labeled as anything. I don’t believe folklore is fact. Are there words for people who don’t believe in folklore? Should those people who don’t view folklore as fact be referred to as a-folklorists? No, people who don’t believe in folklore are logical, but no one ever labels them due to their lack of factual belief in ancient absurd stories.

   Atheism is not a religion, but it is also not the opposite of religion. It is the absence of a belief in god, but it doesn’t mean I don’t believe in anything. I have a lot of Christian friends who try to be “good Christians”, but my atheist friends are satisfied with just being plain atheists. If I were to self identify as an atheist, I would have to say that I am a “good atheist” because I know I am a good person. However, in both instances, I think the “good” part is the part that matters, and the “good part” is the part about the person, not the religion or lack thereof.

   You say “But for the most part, believers (particularly Jewish and Christian, as well as many Muslims) are able to balance their belief in science with the faith.” And here you have summed up the entire debate on religion by your acknowledgment of the need for balance. This is truly the function of religion: to provide a sense of balance humans desire. Throughout all history, in all civilizations, there have been knowns and unknowns and a mechanism to balance the two. On one side of the balance we have what we know to be true, and on the other side we have what we do not fully understand. Science is, for the most part, what we know to be true, and what we do not fully understand has historically been “understood” by “religion” (i.e. God, gods, or other supernatural forces). Many of our ancestors’ unknowns are now known. Knowns to us are things like earthquakes. These happen due to the shifting of tectonic plates, this is a scientifically known fact. Hurricanes, thunderstorms, floods, droughts, avalanches, and all “natural disasters” can, for the most part, be explained by science. The science side of the balance has been getting heavier and heavier in recent years, and there has been less need for religion to help us understand our natural world.

   I too have a need for balance in my life. There are things that I understand and know to be true (i.e. math) but there are things I do not know and may not understand (i.e. what happens when I die?). Religion provides answers to unanswerable questions, and this is comforting, and it provides balance. My personal views once embraced this idea. I was raised Roman Catholic, and as a young boy I thought heaven was a place where you could find the answers to any question, and I also believed in Santa Claus. Both are great ideas, and both are nice for young children to believe. As an adult, I find balance in acceptance of my unkowns as unkowns. There are some things I will never know, and that’s OK.

   I do believe in people, and family and friends, and laughing and smiling, and peace and love. These are all great things, and they all exist even if you don’t believe in god.

   People of faith always ask me how I live my life not believing in anything and I try to explain that I do believe in things, tangible things, like math for example. I believe that 2+2=4. And I believe in gravity. I believe that there is a force called gravity pulling me towards the center of the earth. I don’t think I need to pray to ensure it keeps working. People are sometimes insulted by statements like this and they say things like, “well that’s not what I meant, I mean how can you not “believe” in anything”. No, what you meant was how can I not “believe” in anything irrational or illogical, isn’t that what you really meant? Some say you can’t compare things like math with faith. I think that is one of the reason faith lives on in this world, because so many people are afraid to look at it rationally.

   I try to explain my views on religion to people of faith like this: what if you suddenly learned that all your peers believed that tiny gnomes lived under everyone’s couches, and if you talked to the gnomes three times a week after 8pm, and refrained from eating chickens raised in Arizona, your life would be better? Most people would think all of that sounds a little crazy and sometimes arbitrary, especially with the chickens in Arizona, that’s weird. Exactly! Religion sounds pretty crazy and arbitrary to me, and sometimes the rules about food are really weird, but my life is not empty without god, just like your life is not empty without tiny couch gnomes.

   I’d love to go on about this, but there aren’t enough hours in the day.

   Sincerely,

   James Lamberti

   Posted on 16-Nov-09 at 11:40 am | Permalink