1) No flaming or trolling. I don't want anyone (including myself) muted or banned for this thread. If it happens, I'm locking it.
2) Debating is the point here. Socratic Method. No stonewalling. Final Destination.
3) Don't be a dick. Seriously. See rule 1.
What I'm hoping will happen: People read my paper, dissect it and interject their own beliefs in, make proper counterpoints, and discuss. People are free to counterpoint other peoples' counterpoints, so long as no one raises their voice. Caps lock and insults are not cool, and they make you look like a moron. So, here goes.
Stephen Roberts once said, “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” It is my belief that not only are religions little more than outdated fairy tales, but also that continued reliance on religion is actively harming human growth as a civilization. Morality without religious guidelines on a large scale is ultimately necessary for humans to band together and fully explore the total depths of both the limits of human knowledge and the universe. Religion must be abandoned if we as a people are to ever understand, to the fullest degree, the universe, humanity, and how the two pieces thereof can interact. To this end, this short thesis will cover one claim: that Religion must be abandoned by humanity to achieve any level of real progress.
Religion as a whole makes, and continues to make, statements and assumptions about the nature of the universe and all things contained therein. A created universe, a universal creator, a soul or spirit, and an afterlife are all claims about the universe with no direct, testable, repeatable, scientific evidence supporting them. Despite this utter lack of scientific evidence, people continue to cling to these notions because of appeals to emotion, such as fear of death or a general lack of understanding of science and the universe. This deficit of thinking, in that things can be accepted as proof with no scientific evidence, is deeply hindering scientific advancement.
Seriously compounding the entire issue is politics. Most political leaders have little to no scientific knowledge or interest invested into the world around them. In fact, the vast majority of political leaders in charge of scientific endeavors that are elected are elected on personal preferences and charisma instead of any credentials. For a prime example of this behavior, one must only look to Ted Stevens and his speech on how the internet is “a series of tubes,” which it certainly is not. A very important part of politics is pandering to peoples’ religions and other irrelevant personal preferences, when instead our leaders should be busy showing competence in the areas they wish to lead in. Removing religion from politics would allow for a much more qualified leadership, resulting in much quicker advancement of humanity.
Another issue with mixing politics and religion is the schisms it creates amongst people, even those of the same faith and political creed. People as a whole are ill informed on even the simplest of matters, as politics is rife with doublespeak and secrets and true intentions of politicians are only shown to the public by accident. Religion has numbed its followers will to question, by both appeal to emotion and coercion. It continues to do so daily, by the indoctrination of children and threats of suffering. In fact, because of the populace’s utter apathy toward questioning one’s own surroundings and status, the United States of America has a panel of people who do the voting in the Presidential Elections for them, and most citizens are blissfully unaware of any such arrangements. By showing the populace at large how to use deductive reasoning and skepticism, the world will be able to assign a much more capable and less corrupt political force, and create much more transparent governing bodies. A more intellectual society is necessary to make things like the Electoral College a thing of the past.
Many people argue that without religion, there is no morality, but that could not be farther from the truth. In fact, there are dozens of specifically secular and atheist charities working around the world to help those in need. Doctors Without Borders is an organization dedicated to helping people in 70 countries who are being affected by violence, disaster, and governmental neglect. Oxfam is a collection of 12 organizations operating in over 100 countries around the world to help find lasting solutions to poverty and suffering. Without religion, these organizations and those like them do not waste money and resources spreading religion, building churches and temples, and training missionaries. Don’t get me wrong, the Salvation Army does a lot of good, but without wasting time and resources on religious services and buildings, the $142 Million they had donated to them through their red kettle campaign in 2010 alone would be able to feed, house, and ensure health care for a lot more needy people than they currently do.
According to the Hartford Institute for Religion Research, there are an estimated 335,000 religious congregations active in any given year. Many of these churches provide services to the poor, such as food, clean clothes and shelter at the cost of time, either by sermons or “volunteer” work. This is not to say that all such places provide said services, during my period of homelessness, I was personally turned away from three soup kitchens in one city (Syracuse, NY) for politely turning down the offer to join the congregation. As stated above, secular charities have no such qualms about helping downtrodden folks, no matter who they are. As I personally see it, there are over 300,000 buildings in the United States of America that could quickly, affordably, and easily be converted into dedicated soup kitchens, homeless shelters, clinics, schools, museums and libraries. All of these would be able to provide much more efficient service than attempting to provide a few or all of these services at once, and they would be open to the entire populace, as opposed to just a select sect of people.
Another problem underlying religion is all the conflict that it creates. Over the ages, an unbelievable loss of life has occurred due to religious war and armed conflict. Over a ten year period (1998-2008) in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, approximately 5.4 million lives were lost, with millions more people displaced. As of 2011, there are 25 countries in which there is an active armed conflict or genocide occurring, all of which are mostly or partly motivated by opposing religions. According to the Twentieth Century Atlas, the total death toll from the period of time between 1900-2000 due only to religious conflict is hard to pin down (because of varying claims made by various groups involved in the conflicts), but all estimates are near or above five hundred million lives lost. This is, of course, not including the Taiping Rebellion (an estimated 20 million casualties), the Thirty Years’ War (between 3-11 million casualties), the Crusades (between 1-9 million casualties), the French Wars of Religion (between 2-4 million casualties), and other religious wars pre-1900. This also does not include the practice of religious human sacrifice, such as at the hands of the Aztec people, the Shang Dynasty in China, and various suicide cults. While people will always find something to disagree about, ridding humanity of a major catalyst for unnecessary death and suffering would certainly be a noble cause.
The final problem with religion is actually two problems wrapped into one mindset: religion’s refusal of free inquiry via the scientific method and refusal of the burden of proof. Dogmas of all religions are concrete, unchanging, and not to be questioned. In some places of the world, to question the local religion’s dogma and authority means expulsion from a religious group, persistent shunning, threats of violence, persecution and harassment, and even death. Unfortunately, this problem is not confined to third world backwaters, but is prevalent in many first world societies as well. Some extremists go so far as to kill people acting within the bounds of normal society that oppose their views, such as the beheading of “infidels” and the murder of abortion clinic doctors. Others go so far as to rely on only their faith in the face of disastrous consequences, such as the so-called “Christian Scientists”, who refuse medical treatment in lieu of faith healing. This practice has resulted in numerous deaths, mostly of children who could not make their own medical choices.
The second part of the problem lies with religion’s refusal to admit that they carry the burden of proof. Religious viewpoints are often untenable and unsupported, yet defended by the “do not question” mentality of dogma. This, compounded with very impressionable young children being indoctrinated by an overly zealous religious atmosphere, the harsh repercussions of questioning dogma within said environment, and circular reasoning and consistent emotional appeals cause an odd suspension of disbelief with regards to the indoctrinated’s particular religion and any facets thereof. It is a common tactic of religious debaters to argue that because they are claiming to be correct, they must be proven false without backing their own position with evidence. This, however, is the exact opposite of what burden of proof implies. Any position in a given argument must be backed up with logic, evidence or reasoning to be an argument in the first place. This logical fallacy has been present in religions around the world from the time of religious inception, and written down by many early Greek philosophers, most notably Diagoras of Melos and Euripides. An intellectual world view would allow all people to question everything, discard untenable positions, and continually find new evidence instead of mindlessly repeating stagnant, several thousand year old ideas from when humanity knew almost nothing about the world that they lived in.
In conclusion, it is my stated position and firm belief that religion is stifling the growth of humanity as a whole. This is because religion promotes accepting statements as true without question. It is because our leaders and their subordinates are unqualified to lead, relying on appeal to emotion and personal preference to gain power. It is because religion has dulled the will and ability of its followers to question things logically, instead opting to simply follow whatever orders they are given. It is because religion wastes a good portion of the resources of its followers on spreading itself, when those resources could be used in much more beneficial ways. It is because of constant strife, violence, suffering, and death that religion brings about. It is because people refuse to use reason and logic, instead opting for dogma out of fear or ignorance. To make progress as a whole toward ending injustice, ignorance, disease, war, persecution, genocide and suffering of all humanity, religion must be abandoned.
Author
Topic: Paper on Philosophy (Read 6308 times)