Criticism of religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The criticism of religion includes criticism of the concept of religion, the validity of religion itself, the practice of religion, and the consequences of religion on humanity. The singular word religion is not meant to represent a particular religion or any group of religions.

Most western criticism of religion focuses on the Abrahamic religions, particularly Christianity, with titles such as "The God Delusion" and "The End of Faith". Not all the criticisms would apply to all religions: criticism regarding the existence of God, for example, has very little relevance to Buddhism.

Contents 1 Criticism of the concept 1.1 Irrational foundation 1.2 Implausibility of specific beliefs 1.3 Social construct 1.3.1 Opium of the people 1.3.2 Computer viruses/memes 1.4 Superseded by science, philosophy, and the arts 2 Harmful to the practitioner 2.1 Irrational and unfalsifiable belief 2.2 Dogmatism 2.3 Arbitrary restrictions 2.4 Ideological indoctrination of children 3 Harmful to society 3.1 Religious wars 3.2 Impedes human progress 3.2.1 Eschatologically irresponsible 3.3 Metaphysical absolutism 3.4 Moral deficiency 3.4.1 Racism 3.4.2 Homophobia 3.4.3 Monopoly on virtue 3.5 Political opposition 3.5.1 Authoritarian 4 References 5 See also 5.1 Criticism of specific religions 5.2 Criticism of non-religious positions 6 External links

[edit] Criticism of the concept

	Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.
—H. L. Mencken

At the core of almost all religions, are articles of faith that are irrational, improbable, requires a leap of faith and steadfast convictions. Critics do not accept these articles of faith as truth (citing lack of supporting evidence) and instead see them as social constructs. Critics maintain that these social constructs once serves useful functions in human society but are now outdated having been superseded by natural sciences, laws and humanist ethics.

[edit] Irrational foundation

See also: faith

Many skeptics consider that all religious faith is essentially irrational^[1], and incompatible with reason. Friedrich Nietzsche defined faith as "not wanting to know what is true."^[2]

It will not do to investigate the subject of religion too closely, as it is apt to lead to infidelity. (Abraham Lincoln)^[3]

The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of reason. (Benjamin Franklin) ^[4]

When you know a man's religious complexion, you know what sort of books he reads when he wants some more light, and what sort of books he avoids, lest by accident he get more light than he wants. (Mark Twain)^[5]

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect. (James Madison) ^[6]

The trouble with Faith is that it cannot coexist with Reason. When the religious beliefs run into a conflict with the senses, or with the world of science, we must either somehow accept incompatible ideas or we must choose. The number of intelligent people who attend church services regularly suggests that many people can live in a sort of schizophrenic reality, where the laws of nature operate at all times except when thinking religious thoughts. Or, they pretend to believe both but really only believe one. But some of us can't do that, and we are asked to abdicate our intellects as to preserve the purity of the dogma. Arthur Schopenhauer, Religion: A Dialogue ^[7]

Schopenhauer also criticizes believers for mistakenly trusting those who claim religious authority, rather than thinking for themselves.

Alvin Plantinga defines a theist as "one who believes in God as basic albeit not on logical grounds". In Is belief in God Rational, he argues that religious believers do not believe doctrines in the way that scientists (at least in principle) believe theories—they do not have a readiness to reconsider their belief:

The mature believer, the mature theist, does not typically accept belief in God tentatively, or hypothetically, or until something better comes along. Nor, I think, does he accept it as a conclusion from other things he believes; he accepts it as basic, as a part of the foundations of his noetic structure. The mature theist commits himself to belief in God: this means that he accepts belief in God as basic. ^[8]

Committed belief is sometimes called "faith based on zeal". Most philosophers consider that the subordination of reason to emotional commitment is detrimental, as in Plato's Crito, where Socrates states to the naive Crito, "Your zeal is invaluable, if a right one; but if wrong, the greater the zeal the greater the evil." A similar sentiment is expressed by Bertrand Russell, who regards belief in the absence of evidence as harmful.

Christians hold that their faith does good, but other faiths do harm. At any rate, they hold this about the Communist faith. What I wish to maintain is that all faiths do harm. We may define ‘faith’ as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. When there is evidence, no one speaks of ‘faith’. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence. ^[9]

[edit] Implausibility of specific beliefs

While much criticism of religion is directed towards a specific creed, there are many fundamental similarities between the different religions. Most religions teach that there exists a God, who has either incarnated, manifested or inspired a prophet to teach mankind about spiritual truths. These are are usually recorded in the religion's Holy Scripture. A serious argument against religion is that these common and central features face severe criticism in almost all religions.

• Arguments against the existence of God.
• Doubting the historical accuracy or even existence of religious figures, see the Historicity of Jesus, Quest for the Historical Jesus, and Non-Islamic view of Muhammad's historicity.
• Questioning the accuracy of religious texts: see Criticism of the Bible, Criticism of the Qur'an.

Finally, there is a serious problem with the plurality of religion and seemingly mutually exclusive claims to being the Chosen people.

[edit] Social construct

See also: Development of religion

One criticism of religion is the proposition that religion is a social construct and thus is just another human ideology. Under this view, the origins of religion lies in human beings and human societies, not in the intervention of some divine being or cosmic truth. Accordingly, religions include information about their origins that is not true.^{[neutrality disputed]}

In particular, religion is syncretic,^{[citation needed]} and is in denial of its syncretism.^{[neutrality disputed]}

[edit] Opium of the people

	Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
—Karl Marx

The philosopher Karl Marx believed religion to be a social construct, and furthermore, that religion is harmful to humanity because it dissuades the oppressed masses from actively pursuing a solution to their earthly problems as religion promises that the faithful shall receive a heavenly reward in their afterlife. Marx also believed that the desire for religious belief is in response to alienation or inadequacy in material life, and cannot be eliminated until human material life is emancipated, at which point desire for religion will naturally wither away. He hoped to achieve this through Communism.

Religion (according to Marx) is a tool utilized by the ruling classes whereby the masses can momentarily relieve their suffering via the act of experiencing religious emotions. It is in the interest of the ruling classes to instill in the masses the religious conviction that their current suffering will lead to eventual happiness. Therefore as long as the public believes in religion, they will not attempt to make any genuine effort to understand and overcome the real source of their suffering, which in Marx's opinion was their non-Communist economic system.

Religion is the opium of the people because:

• it provides momentary relief from pain but it could not eliminate the source of the pain.
• it induces fantasies of a better life in heaven.

In this perspective, Marx saw religion as escapism.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Marxists also view the Christian doctrine of original sin as being deeply anti-social in character. Original sin, they argue, convinces people that the source of their misery lies in the inherent and unchangeable "sinfulness" of humanity rather than in the forms of social organization and institutions which, Marxists argue, can be changed through the application of collective social planning.

[edit] Computer viruses/memes

Religion can be (by analogy) considered as species of ideological viruses for the human mind (much like computer viruses for computers). Richard Dawkins coined the term memes in his essay "Viruses of the Mind" to describe informational units that can be transmitted culturally, analogous to genes. Cognitive science is the study of the mind, and sometimes makes use of an analogy between the brain and the digital computer. In this view, memes or ideas can be considered computer programs. A program that is pathological to the system is generally referred to as a computer virus. Thus, all religious ideologies can be considered as communicable mental diseases spread by their followers. Instead of being an adaptive medium for the transmission of moral and ethical values vital to the survival of the species, religion instead persists as a maladaptive disease in much the same way as other human parasites and pathogens. Religions persist because they are perpetually adapting to maintain their own survival, regardless of the human consequences.

[edit] Superseded by science, philosophy, and the arts

The function of religion can be successfully replaced by other branches of human activity. Our explanatory need is satisfied by science, philosophy and ethics are concerned with questions of meaning and the quest for the good life, while inspiration and beauty can be found in the arts.

As scientific knowledge increases over time, religious explanations for most natural events are no longer required by the masses hence the domain of religious explanation now consists mainly of events that can be only be justified by supernatural phenomena, see God of the Gaps. Older, dead religions are now referred to as (ancient) myths/mythologies (and are no longer seen as the truth), see Religion and mythology. Ancient Mythology primarily focuses on stories that a particular culture has believed to be true and which may use supernatural events or characters to explain the nature of the universe and humanity.

[edit] Harmful to the practitioner

[edit] Irrational and unfalsifiable belief

Religion often promotes beliefs that are considered by its critics to be irrational superstitions, and religion frequently defends itself by opposing or suppressing rational and inquiring thought.^[10] Often this is done by passing laws against blasphemy and by demanding that religious beliefs are shown greater respect than other beliefs.^[11]

Also, many religions actively discourage lateral thinking or 'doubting'. Many religious individuals believe that 'life is a test', where they are constantly under siege from an evil supernatural entity ( the devil ) who is constantly trying to lure them away from their god into eternal torment. This view of the world makes people very wary of ideas and experiences outside of their religion and actively or passively can cause them to lead a very narrow existence.

Some notable recent philosophers of religion, such as Alvin Plantinga, have argued that religious belief founded on irrational reasons such as religious experiences are justified, even if the believer can't prove his conviction by rational arguments. The idea that rational reasoning is not relevant to religious beliefs is known as Fideism.

[edit] Dogmatism

Religion typically involves the exercise of religious authority over the beliefs and actions of the individual. Religious authorities tend to be dogmatic, for a number of reasons:

• because they must maintain the plausibility of the claim that their knowledge is timeless
• because they generally believe that the most reliable source of knowledge was given in the past
• because systems of preferment tend to reward dogmatism
• because free thinking is feared as something that will undermine belief

[edit] Arbitrary restrictions

From an outsider's point of view, many religions impose seemingly arbitrary restrictions on followers, regarding what they must or must not say, eat, drink (e.g. Kosher); whom they may marry, what they must (or must not) wear in public, with whom they may associate (particularly gender separation ^[12]) and so forth. Involvement in rituals, fasting, and pilgrimages is often required or encouraged (e.g. the Hajj). Such unnecessary restrictions do not seem to advance any ethical ends, and undermine the dignity and freedom of a free human being.

[edit] Ideological indoctrination of children

Richard Dawkins equates the religious indoctrination of children by parents and teachers in faith schools to a form of mental abuse on children.^[13] Dawkins gets angry with the term “Muslim child” or a “Catholic child”. He asks how a young child can possibly be considered intellectually mature enough to have such independent views on the cosmos and humanity’s place within it. By contrast, Dawkins points out, no reasonable person would speak of a "Marxist child" or a "Tory child".

[edit] Harmful to society

[edit] Religious wars

One of the worst results of religious beliefs in the world seems to be the phenomenon of religious wars. Some argue that these are mostly caused by misinterpretations of the relevant religions' ethical rules. However, the tendency for religious war can also be attributed to the frequency and extent to which heretics and infidels are considered to be evil, and to the power of religion to reinforce tribal identity and encourage ignorance of outsiders. These conflicts are among the most difficult to resolve, particularly where both sides believe that God is on their side and has endorsed the moral righteousness of their claims. Furthermore, where God is credited with creating morality, he can be considered to have the power to allow or demand exceptions. This may result in holy warriors committing atrocities in the name of their deity. Finally, a focus on their "next life" may encourage soldiers to take a willing part in war, and to risk their present lives with greater abandon.

Terrorist atrocities such as 9/11 and the 2005 London bombings are sometimes carried out by those with very strong religious convictions. These acts of religious terrorism are seen by the terrorists as small skirmishes in the context of a much larger global religious war. For example, Mohamed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 attack, was an Islamic fundamentalist. Although the causes of terrorism are extremely complex and difficult to understand, it may be that terrorists are partially reassured by their religious views that God is on their side and will reward them in heaven for punishing unbelievers.

This point of view was summed up by Voltaire's famous quotation, "Those who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities".

[edit] Impedes human progress

Another criticism is that religion restricts thought. When religion purports to offer a complete answer to problems of purpose, morality, origins or science, it inevitably discourages exploration of those areas (by suppressing curiosity), and thereby denies its followers a broader perspective, and prevents progress. Examples include the Church's attack on Galileo for suggesting that the Earth revolves around the Sun, the opposition from the Church to Darwin's theory of evolution, and present-day opposition to potentially life-saving research into stem cells.

[edit] Eschatologically irresponsible

Another criticism of religion is that it has a tendency to focus on the end of the world, the spirit, or the next life, and consequently causes this world to be neglected. Critics claim this creates an indifference to injustice, treatment (and prevention) of diseases, environmental destruction, and other remediable ills. The religiously based opposition to the recently developed HPV vaccine is an example of such irresponsibility toward the treatment of human diseases.

[edit] Metaphysical absolutism

Every religion considers its teachings or revelations to be those which are the closest to the universal truths and those of other religions to be further away (than itself) from the truths, and often in direct contradiction to them.

Liberal traditions tend to regard all faiths as valuable, and even valid in some undefined sense, but maintaining the superiority of their own. Fundamentalist traditions tend to identify other faiths with whatever manifestation of evil is recognized in their own, e.g. fundamentalist Christians sometimes see other religions as the products of Satan.

Critics of this worldview claim that this monopoly of universal truths leads, inevitably, to a very ingrained 'us vs them' group solidarity and mentality which, to a wide range of extents, dehumanize or demonize individuals outside the particular faith as 'not fully human', or in some way less worthy and less deserving of rights and regard. Results can, based on the fanaticism of this belief, vary from mild discrimination to outright genocide.

[edit] Moral deficiency

Critics claim dogmatic religions are typically morally deficient, elevating to moral status lots of ancient and ill-informed rules that may have been designed for reasons of hygiene, politics, or other reasons in a bygone era.^[14] People who break these rules are often condemned and victimised even though they have done no harm to anyone.

Religious institutions typically claim special knowledge of absolute morality, and invoke this to hinder debates on many issues such as stem cell research and voluntary euthanasia. By taking a deontological view of morality, they refuse to consider the consequences of their hard line positions and thereby cause more suffering than necessary.

Many recognised evils, such as domestic violence, sexism, disease (unhygienic behaviour), and slavery have enjoyed much support from religious leaders in the past, on the grounds that they were supported by doctrine. Thus some say that, by induction, this phenomenon must still be occurring today. Some critics draw parallels between how the "wrong" stances on both the socials issues of today and these old issues are/were supported by religion, yet today the old stances are abhorred by most while immoral religious positions on current issues are accepted. An example of this is how some homosexuals claim discrimination against them is similar to that blacks experienced before the civil rights movement.

All theistic religion devalues human compassion and morality. For a principled atheist/humanist these are the foremost concern. For a religious person, obedience to a deity/scripture is morality and conscience has to take second place. The most widely known example of this is the order to murder Isaac. The Bible contains many injunctions against following one's conscience over scripture. Also, positive actions are supposed to originate not from compassion, but from the fear of punishment. Divine command theory is the metaethical theory that moral behaviours are only those which conform to the instructions given or commanded by the god or gods.

[edit] Racism

See also: Religious attitudes to racism

Despite many religions forbidding racial and other forms of discrimination, religion has been used by some as justification for advocating racism. The Ku Klux Klan, Christian Identity movement and many Post-Medieval Theologians made claims that white people are closer to God than other races. Islam and Judaism have been criticised for being inherently racist due to their views that Arabs and Jews respectively are seen as the chosen people by God according to their sacred texts. Religious terrorist organisations such as the aforenamed Ku Klux Klan, Hezbollah, Kach and others also hold racist views.

[edit] Homophobia

See also: Homosexuality and religion

Most major religions consider homosexuality to be immoral. Such influence has lead to a rise in homophobia, particularly in the United States. Singer Elton John claims that religion promotes hatred of homosexuals (among other things). He said "I think religion has always tried to turn hatred towards gay people... Organized religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into really hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate."^[15]

[edit] Monopoly on virtue

Another criticism of religion is that it (unwittingly) promotes the idea that virtuous behaviour only comes from obeying religious regulations. This gave many religious believers the idea that their religion (religious system) has a monopoly on virtue. This has the unfortunate effect of implying that people who do not follow the proper religious regulations are therefore (by logical deduction) behaving immorally.

An example of this would be the idea that women who "do not cover themselves up modestly" have tendencies for immorality and therefore do not have a good character.

[edit] Political opposition

Some people, such as proponents of Anarchism and those with libertarian beliefs,^{[neutrality disputed]} object to religion on principle because they view the authoritarian nature of most religions to be an affront to the ideals of democracy and equality. They are offended by the dogma of the rules and doctrine of an entirely man-made (as they see it) and non-democratic institution such as the Christian church.

[edit] Authoritarian

The term "authoritarian" is used to describe an organization, an institution or a state that enforces strong and sometimes oppressive measures against those within its sphere of influence, generally without any attempts at gaining their consent and often not allowing negative feedback on its policies.

The degree in which a religion is authoritarian can be estimated by

• How much influence the religion's laws have on the laws of the land.
• How heretics are treated.
• How apostates are treated.
• How unbelievers are treated.

Religions tend to increase their influence over the community by first seeking the patronage of the ruling elite. Once such patronage has been secured, a religion may seek to influence the politics of the land, with the ultimate goal of having the religious laws passed as the law of the land.

In this sense, religion can be seen as authoritarian, insofar as its goal is to define itself as "the ultimate authority by which the law of the land is granted." As this divine source of authority is not to be criticised by non-religious arguments, it is the antithesis to secularism. A country where the above has been achieved is called a theocracy.

[edit] References

1. ^ Bryan Caplan. Why Religious Beliefs Are Irrational, and Why Economists Should Care. The article about religion and irrationality.
2. ^ The Anti-Christ, Friedrich Nietzsche.
3. ^ What Great Men Think Of Religion, Ira Cundriff.
4. ^ Poor Richard 1758, Benjamin Franklin.
5. ^ What Great Men Think Of Religion, Ira Cundriff.
6. ^ A letter to William Bradford: 1774, James Madison.
7. '^ Religion: A Dialogue, Arthur Schopenhauer
8. ^ Is Belief in God Rational in Rationality and Religious Belief, ed. C.F. Delaney, Notre Dame University Press, 1979, p.27)
9. ^ Bertrand Russell, Human Society in Ethics and Politics
10. ^ C. Dennis McKinsey. Solidification and Isolation: How Biblical Faith Protects Itself From Critics. The second article on that page.
11. ^ See the Douglas Adams quote in beginning of the God Delusion (and the wikipedia article about it).
12. ^ Raid Qusti. Women Asked to Leave Seminar.
13. ^ Richard Dawkins. “Childhood, abuse and the escape from religion”, The God Delusion.
14. ^ Nobel Peace Laureate, muslim and human rights activist Dr Shirin Ebadi has spoken out against undemocratic Islamic countries justifying "oppressive acts" in the name of Islam. Speaking at the Earth Dialogues 2006 conference in Brisbane, Dr Ebadi said her native Iran as well as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Yemen "among others" were guilty of human rights violations. "In these countries, Islamic rulers want to solve 21st century issues with laws belonging to 14 centuries ago," she said. "Their views of human rights are exactly the same as it was 1400 years ago."
15. ^ "When Elton met Jake", The Observer.

[edit] See also

Anthropology of religion Antireligion Antitheism Atheism Civil religion Cognitive dissonance Deism Development of religion Faith-sufferer Folk religion The God Delusion Lie-to-children

Metaethics Philosophy of religion Psychology of religion Rationalism Religion Religious belief Religious satire The Root of All Evil? Sociology of religion Supernatural Superstition Theology True-believer syndrome

[edit] Criticism of specific religions

• Criticism of Christianity
• Criticism of the Catholic Church
• Criticism of Hinduism
• Criticism of Islam
• Criticism of Judaism
• Criticism of Mormonism
• Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Criticism of Prem Rawat (Maharaj Ji/Divine Light Mission)
• Scientology controversy
• Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses

[edit] Criticism of non-religious positions

• Critique of Atheism
• Criticism of Secularism

[edit] External links

• A Historical Outline of Modern Religious Criticism in Western Civilization