freeinfidel

When atheists criticise the more risible aspects of religion or the actions of believers, the faithful often respond with something along the lines of “your point is worthless because that’s not real religion”. Do they have a point? Or are they indulging in a peculiar form of bigotry?

When I wrote When faith kills, one person on Digg denounced it as bigoted. The argument ran like this (I’m summarising): The people you criticised were not proper believers. What they were doing was not real Christianity. Therefore your arguments are invalid and unfair to Christians.

This raises an important question. Who gets to decide what is real religion? More importantly, perhaps, how do we discern which is the real Christianity, which the real Islam?

Islam, of course, has only a handful of variants. The miscellaneous flavours of Christianity, on the other hand, are many and various. Each one of them believes it has exclusive access to the truth.

At this point, one is reminded of the response to Christians usually attributed to Richard Dawkins but espoused by many atheists: that we are all atheists. Christians do not believe in many thousands of gods. Atheists just go one god further. This is rather well presented in this table of Christian and atheist beliefs.

It’s all about definitions. Every faith sets its own terms. Religions are self-defining. They are not constrained by evidence, by the historical record, not even by the physical laws of the universe or common sense. Every sect gets to define what it regards as ‘Christian’ behaviour.

The Digger mentioned above - who evidently defines himself as a Christian - had a very simple rule for determining what constitutes acceptable Christian behaviour. Give people a Bible and let them point to the section that validates their actions.

Alas, this is simple to the point of being simple-minded. First, which Bible? Various translations have been used at different times to support widely varying behaviour. Second, the Bible, as we all know, is infuriatingly vague and frequently self-contradicting. It is not an homogeneous work but a rather slipshod cobbling together of texts with inconsistent and incompatible philosophies, ethics and narratives. Even the three synoptic gospels can’t get their story straight. So each Christian sect tends to pick carefully those sections most amenable to it.

Third, many Christian faiths insist that the Bible is not to be read literally. Only those fundamentalist sects whose appeal is mainly to the more knuckle-dragging sections of society ask us to take every word as literal truth. The majority of Christians accept some, if not all, sections of the Bible as allegorical or metaphorical. Everything, then, depends on interpretation. And if you want to behave in a certain way, if you want to invoke divine approval for your actions, you are likely to be able to find something in the Bible that you can interpret as supporting your actions. This is why the frequently made assertion that the Bible (and only the Bible) is the bedrock of ethics and morality is so laughable. The Bible can be made to endorse anything (including slavery and genocide).

So let’s look again at where we came in. Some self-defined Christians commit a particular act, in conformance - as they see it - with their beliefs. But it’s an act that those of us in the real world consider heinous or ludicrous, and we say so. Then some other Christian comes along and says, “hey, those guys aren’t real Christians. You’re just using their behaviour as a way of having a cheap shot at all Christians.”

What this person is doing is using their own, necessarily narrow definition of Christianity to condemn the others as “not really Christians”. They are saying, “only my definition is valid” and “these people are not entitled to call themselves Christian”. That’s bigotry.

It is also a cheap trick. Christians can simply keep moving the goalposts, claiming that any action or belief criticised as secularists isn’t ‘Christian’ anyway, so the criticism is obviously an egregious attack on ‘true’ Christians.

I’m not tarring every Christian with this particular brush. There are many who state their beliefs plainly and have the courage to stick to them and take responsibility for them. When someone’s faith leads them into actions that cause harm to others, we have a perfect right to criticise not just the people themselves but the faith that coerced them into irresponsible behaviour. For other Christians simply to wash their hands of this issue by brushing off the miscreants as ‘not really Christian’ is cowardly and dishonest.

The next time someone tells you that religion is a “force for good”, remind them of the Oregon fundamentalist Christian couple currently under indictment for the death of their 15-month old daughter. And, sadly, this looks like it’s not an isolated case. It’s time people were held fully responsible for their strange, and sometimes dangerous, beliefs.

According to press reports, Carl and Raylene Worthington have been indicted by a grand jury in Oregon’s Clackamas county following the death of their daughter Ava. She succumbed to bronchial pneumonia and a blood infection - conditions that could have been treated easily and effectively with antibiotics. The parents chose faith healing.

At the very least, entrusting the wellbeing of your child to supernatural forces is criminal neglect - child abuse of an extreme form. In this case it led to death, so the charge - quite rightly - is manslaughter.

If this were an isolated case, it would be easy to dismiss it as another instance of poor parenting. It is a sad fact that too many children suffer from the stupidity, ignorance, mental illness or inadequacy of their parents. Religion does not have a monopoly when it comes to dumb ideas that lead to bad parenting. Certainly, it doesn’t make the parents any the less culpable, but we would have no need to worry about a larger issue.

But that’s not quite the case here.

The Followers of Christ fundamentalist church, which boasts 1,500 members, has a worrying record. Back in the 1990s, the deaths of several children prompted the Oregon authorities to enact a 1999 law that removes a ‘religious defence’ in cases of murder, manslaughter and child abuse.

Some of us might see it as bizarre that it took that long. Why should we have ever considered strange and insupportable beliefs in supernatural forces to be a reasonable excuse for child neglect or worse? Would courts have ever considered belief in UFOs, CIA mind control or vampires as valid defences (other than proof of possible insanity)?

While this fundamentalist community has had an apparently clean record since the law was passed (an investigation into the 2001 death of the same couple’s son was dropped), there are now some concerns about an allegedly high infant mortality rate among families belonging to the church.

If you choose to turn your back on the immeasurable benefits given to mankind by science and rational progress and put your life in the hands of some imagined superbeing - well, that’s your funeral. When you make that decision on behalf of those in your care, innocent children dependent on your ability to make decisions critical to their wellbeing, then you carry a great responsibility. Rejecting life-saving treatment in favour of medieval superstition is a gross dereliction of that duty. At the very least, it makes you an incompetent parent. At worst, it makes you a child killer.

The announcement by a Vatican official of ‘new’ mortal sins is further proof of religion’s man-made origins. It also shows that, whenever the Roman Catholic church tries to be hip, it reveals itself as painfully out-of-date.

Speaking in an interview with the Vatican daily newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti listed among the new breed of deadly sin a number of modern ills including illicit drugs, pollution, genetic manipulation and social injustices that make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

And he should know. Girotti heads the Apostolic Penitentiary, the Vatican department that concerns itself with sin, conscience and redemption.

Mortal sins are the type that send you straight to hell unless you obtain the most stringent form of absolution, which requires profound levels of penitence. Traditionally, there were seven, familiar to any fan of the Brad Pitt movie of the same name. But self-indulgences like gluttony, lust, sloth, greed, wrath, envy and pride were all personal matters. This original litany of bad behaviour was clearly an attempt to control personal attitudes and activities - partly so that the church could exert its control. Forcing people to conform to unnaturally strict rules is a fundamental mechanism of totalitarianism. It makes people fearful of transgressing: at the same time, it virtually ensures that they do transgress at some time, in some way, thus cranking up the fear and providing the regime with a means to punish, demonstrating its power and superiority.

In addition, these rules had a beneficial effect, that of controlling behaviour perceived as anti-social that might otherwise threaten social cohesion and stability - arguably a key role for religion before secular laws took over that function. Of course, given that most religions are still mired in the concepts and outlook of the Middle Ages (at best) it is a sheer anachronism for the church to attempt to fulfill this function today.

Clearly, the Roman Catholic church is feeling somewhat sidelined in the world. The number of its adherents is falling. It no longer has the political clout it once enjoyed. The majority of the world’s population regards it as either irrelevant or comically archaic. Something needs to be done.

Concerns about social inequality, pollution, the environment, genetic modification are part of today’s zeitgeist. The Roman Catholic church has thus far shown itself inadequate in dealing with these issues. So this is the response - a new breed of social or corporate sins, shared by many.

It is a sad sight. There were times, in past centuries, when the church led in matters of moral issues. Now we see it pedalling furiously to catch up with the rest of the world.

Quite what burden each of us carries for, say, air pollution, isn’t clear. Given that these are mortal sins, presumably we should all be desperately worried. Personally, I think I can cope. I am already concerned with many of these issues and try to do what I can - not because of the threat of eternal torment in some supernatural world, but because it is self-evidently the right thing to do. I don’t need some self-appointed moralist in a frock to wave a big stick at me.

And there’s another problem here. How come the Vatican has only just noticed?

Pollution isn’t new. Some of the worst pollution the planet has ever seen occurred back in the Industrial Revolution.

Social injustice and the gap between rich and poor is hardly an innovation either. And there were times when the Vatican was firmly on the side of kings. In fact, it has never appeared particularly averse to building up considerable wealth itself. So there’s a deep hypocrisy at work here.

Even genetic manipulation is as old as farming itself. For centuries, farmers and horticulturalists have used selective breeding to create new or more robust species of plants and animals. And much important early work in genetics was carried out by the Moravian monk Gregor Mendel, who published his results in 1865.

One has to assume that god, being omniscient, knew that these things were sins all along, even if the Vatican has come to the realisation somewhat late (indeed, after pretty much the entire rest of the world). Presumably, the industrialists, farmers, rose breeders, kings, popes and at least one Moravian monk are now burning in hell while bemoaning, “We didn’t know it was a sin!”

This attempt to update its image and get on board with issues that have been concerning the rest of us for some time simply highlights two rather pathetic characteristics of the Roman Catholic church (though ones it shares with many other religions).

First, it is desperately and unfailingly behind the times. It is a dinosaur, but one deserving of extinction. Its effort to grasp the nettle of contemporary issues is hilariously anachronistic because it can do so only by framing them in concepts that belong to the fourth century.

Second, by delineating ‘new’ sins, the Roman Catholic church demonstrates that religion is a man-made construct. We’ve seen this before with limbo and other bizarre fantasies of the faith. And the more nonsense they make up, the more the rest of us will feel justified in ignoring the church and getting on with our real lives.

Scientific materialism is often condemned by religious believers as being reductionist, as though perceiving the essential truth of something were a bad thing. But does it justify this pejorative abuse of the term?

What do people of a scientific inclination see when they look at the world? They see the complex bonding of elements. They see the intricate play of physical forces. They see the comprehensible strangeness of the quantum realm, the staggering immensity of the universe, the eternal truth of natural laws, the sublime irrationality of pi.

Our accumulated scientific wisdom is vast - so huge, in fact, that no-one today can simply be a ’scientist’, not even just a physicist, chemist, biologist. To have any chance of fully comprehending and utilising any branch of science means specialising.

But this enormous treasury of knowledge is not enough for scientists. They want more. Every true scientist is driven by what he or she does not know. The existence of science as a discipline is an acknowledgment of our ignorance, but also our desire to leave that condition. It is an assertion that ignorance is undesirable, a form of failure, a primitive state that we, as evolved life forms, should leave behind. All true knowledge is valuable, even if we can’t put it to use immediately. Talking about the curiosity that motivates mathematicians, E C Titchmarsh said:

It can be of no practical use to know that pi is irrational, but if we can know, it surely would be intolerable not to know.

Scientists are explorers, constantly expanding our horizons. So how can a discipline that is almost incomprehensibly vast and complex, and to which we are adding every day, be reductionist? Such an accusation is oxymoronic at best. In fact, you can probably drop the ‘oxy’.

What does the believer comprehend while gazing on the magnificence of nature, with all its complexity?

God did it.

This, surely, is the ultimate in reductionist thinking. As an explanation for the world and all it contains, it is disappointingly banal, feeble, simple-minded, crude, unimaginative. Frankly, it’s a bit silly.

The faithful complain when rationalists ‘explain away’ the mysteries of the spiritual realm - when they provide logical, supportable, real-world mechanisms by which apparent visions or miracles come about. But these explanations are made possible by that accumulated wisdom, acquired painstakingly by innumerable explorers after truth, collected and refined over centuries. Even the simplest assertion in science is built on a sophisticated foundation of knowledge that was hard won and required vast effort.

In this sense, no rational explanation of a supernatural phenomenon is ever ’simple’, however easy our fund of knowledge has made it. Flying from Paris to New York is simple. All you do is sit on a plane for several hours. What could be easier? But start thinking about the effort and knowledge required to build a flying machine, jet engines, the seat-back video, and you will understand that there is nothing simple about it.

On the other hand, the believer would ‘explain away’ the miraculous (and even those things that scientists already understand) with nothing more than “it’s god’s will” or worse, “we can never understand this. It’s not for us to know”.

The so-called ‘mystery’ of religion is nothing more than glorified ignorance. Can anyone explain the benefit of not knowing something?

If you enjoy the experience of standing in awe and wonder at the magnificence of the universe, try learning some science. There is nothing so splendid as the complex truth of nature.

Religions demand a special status for themselves - the right to practise a profound hypocrisy. They squeal ‘persecution’ whenever they feel they are not being shown due respect, yet at the same time show themselves ready to employ the methods of persecution in prosecuting their own aims.

The ugly side of religion has revealed itself again in the renewed controversy over the Mohammed cartoons. A Danish newspaper has reprinted the cartoon of the prophet wearing a bomb-like turban. This time, the inevitable outrage has been somewhat more muted, but one can expect the usual death threats from extremist Muslims.

Moderate Muslims and many non-Muslims have also condemned the publication of these cartoons as being disrespectful. The irony of that position is that it is itself highly disrespectful - of people’s right to free speech. In most advanced societies, such free speech is regarded as a cornerstone of civilisation.

Indeed, while we might all agree that mutual respect is desirable as a general rule, it is also essential that when some of us find the beliefs and actions of others to be risible and worthy of contempt, we must have the right to voice our opinions. And the law agrees. The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, which makes it an offence to stir up hate and incite others to violence, also takes pain to spell out:

“Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.”

Not that laws are always perfect. In Brazil, the evangelical Universal Church of the Kingdom of God is abusing the legal process by overwhelming journalists with legal actions, in an attempt to stifle criticism. Again, freedom of speech and journalistic freedom are regarded as dispensable in the face of religious beliefs.

And let’s take another example in the UK. Hindus who felt they should be able to keep a bull infected with TB and to prolong the suffering of an injured cow (which they were treating with acupuncture and massage) have protested about vets stepping in - as they are required to both by law and natural compassion - to put the animals down.

In all cases, and many others, the faithful believe their feel bizarre and insupportable supernatural beliefs not only deserve an exaggerated ‘respect’ but also somehow trump rationality and key rights that affect everyone (rather than a pious minority). They consider themselves entitled - even required - to cast aside the rule of law if their religious doctrines (as they interpret them) say so. In other words, their faith makes them special, above the rules that govern the rest of us.

One incarnation of this belief even has its own name - ’sectarianism’. In the UK, we most commonly associate this with the tiresome and brutal conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. A recent UN Report on freedom of religion or belief in the UK (Word document), by rapporteur Asma Jahangir, also points out that the same conflict is present in Scotland (try attending a Celtic/Rangers match). But I would add that it has a much wider presence: witness the frequent demonising of Jews by Muslims. And as religious extremism increases, one can expect more of this mutual hostility between incompatible faiths.

An article in The Atlantic - ‘And the winner is…‘ - about the worldwide competition between religions, correctly reports that there is a general decline in religious belief. It also suggests that when religions gain a new foothold in a particular society - for example, the burgeoning of Pentecostalism in South America - they tend to do so in a slightly watered-down fashion that more easily slides into the legal, social and political framework of the host nation. However, this ignores the power that extremist elements within a faith can exert, both in terms of influence and direct action. The UK is a case in point: religious belief is waning rapidly, but those who do still believe seem to be moving towards the more extreme margins of strict Catholicism, fundamentalism or radical Islam.

The UN report suggests that members of all major religions in the UK feel they are being persecuted. But with one exception, this translates into them saying they are not being given enough special privileges, or they covet the perceived privileges of the other faiths. That exception is the belief by Muslims that they are being unfairly targeted both by anti-terrorism laws and the authorities’ application of those laws. They probably have a point, although whether the solution is actually in their own hands is a debate for another time.

Hypocrisy is defined as ‘the pretence of virtue or piety’ (Collins English Dictionary). Virtue and piety are qualities that the religious like to reserve to themselves. For example, a belief still persists among the religious that you cannot be ethical or moral without religion - specifically, without their brand of religion. They like to reserve a few other things to themselves, too. Anglicans still get to have 26 seats in the House of Lords, for instance: tough luck for the other faiths, but then that’s the nature of privilege, isn’t it? It’s about excluding the others, about having more power and fewer responsibilities to society as a whole than your rival belief systems.

The sheer arrogance and hubris of religious people believing they should be special cases, that they are exempt from the laws and requirements that govern the rest of us, has no place in modern society. That’s why our laws should not be founded on, nor adjusted to, the doctrines or requirements of faith. Our society is for all of us. Your religion is your business.

A group of Christians is working hard to bring about the deaths of members of an organisation dedicated to protecting the US Constitution. Wiley Drake, a Southern Baptist pastor, is leading his flock in so-called imprecatory prayers - or curses, if you prefer - as part of an attack against Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

(more…)

Mike Huckabee’s failed bid for the Republican nomination might seem to consign him to the list of also-rans. Yet the fact that he was ever in the running has profound and dark implications for America’s future.

At the time of writing, Mike Huckabee’s bid for the Republican presidential nomination looks all but over. Many will breathe a sigh of relief, but that may be premature. The significance of Huckabee’s run for the most powerful job in the world is not that he lost, but that he was taken seriously. That should be a matter of deep concern to anyone who truly values freedom.

(more…)

The resurrected controversy about the alleged Lost Tomb of Jesus raises an interesting paradox: are Christians better served by a mythological Jesus? Might discoveries about the real existence of Jesus undermine their faith?

(more…)

After the death of Jesus, any number of sects emerged with him as their figurehead. So why did all but one fail and only Paul’s church succeed? The answer is, good marketing.

(more…)

Once programmed by the self-loathing rituals of religion, can you ever be truly happy? Guilt, low self-esteem and a permanent sense of inadequacy are integral components of many religions. And maybe when they’ve got you, they’ve got you for ever.

(more…)