Criticism of religion

A sign that criticizes religion and draws attention to the September 11 attacks, by the Connecticut Valley Atheists in Rockville's Central Park, Vernon in December 2007. The group issued an explanatory press release that stated "[c]learly, 9/11 is the work of fanatics. However, we feel that religion even in moderation provides a foundation for fanatical groups to thrive."^[1]

Criticism of religion involves criticism of the concept of religion, the validity of religion, the practice of religion, and the consequences of religion. Religious criticism has a long history, going back as far as the first century B.C.E. in Rome and continuing to the present day with the advent of the so-called New atheism. Religion has been alleged by critics to be harmful to the individual and to society and to promote irrationality.

History

The first century BC Roman poet, Titus Lucretius Carus, in his magnum opus De Rerum Natura, wrote: "But 'tis that same religion oftener far \ Hath bred the foul impieties of men:"^[2]

A philosopher of the Epicurean school, Lucretius believed the world was composed solely of matter and void, and that all phenomena could be understood as resulting from purely natural causes. Lucretius, like Epicurus, felt that religion was born of fear and ignorance, and that understanding the natural world would free people of its shackles.^[3]

Writing in 1776 of the ancient Romans, Edward Gibbon said: "The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher as equally false; and by the magistrate as equally useful."^[4]

Niccolò Machiavelli, at the beginning of the sixteenth century said: "We Italians are irreligious and corrupt above others... because the church and her representatives have set us the worst example."^[5] To Machiavelli, religion was merely a tool, useful for a ruler wishing to manipulate public opinion.^[6]

Interest in and controversy over criticism of religion has increased in recent years due to the spread of so-called New atheism.

Criticism of the concept

A dinosaur leading sheep. Cologne, August 2005

With certain exceptions, such as Raëlism, and the Bahá'í Faith, most religions were formulated at a time when the origin of life, the workings of the body, and the nature of the stars and planets, were poorly understood.^[7] Religious systems attempted to address significant personal emotional issues, and tried to explain a frightening existence, usually through a dramatic narrative outlining how the world and their community came to be.

These narratives were intended to give solace and a sense of relationship with larger forces. As such, they may have served several important functions in ancient societies. Examples include the views many religions traditionally had towards solar and lunar eclipses, and the appearance of comets.^[8][9] Given current understanding in such fields as biology, psychology, chemistry and physics, where our knowledge has increased dramatically, many critics — including Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Michel Onfray — contend that continuing to hold on to these idea systems is absurd and irrational.^[10][11][12]

Stanford philosopher John McCarthy states, "We also have no need for [the hypothesis of God], because science has been successful, and science is the best approach to solving the mysteries that remain."^[13] Apologists for religion such as William Lane Craig, however, say that there are reasonable arguments supporting the existence of God.^[14]

Many critics see significant difficulties in portions of the general population continuing to subscribe to these ancient traditions, many of which are outlined below. Their concern is that this remnant from relatively primitive conceptions of life and ourselves not only flies in the face of modern scientific and cultural values, but is having a negative impact on current social and ethical issues.

Irrational foundation

See also: Faith and rationality

Some critics see the requirement of a leap of faith beyond understanding as irrational. The adherence to strict beliefs and convictions, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, stands in direct contrast to the scientific method, based as it is, on empirical observation and repeatable experiment by neutral third parties.^[15][16][17]

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."^[18]

Committed belief is sometimes called "faith based on zeal". Many philosophers consider the subordination of reason to emotional commitment 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."^[19] A similar sentiment is expressed by Bertrand Russell, who regards belief, despite the absence of evidence, harmful. "Christians hold that their faith does well, 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."^[20]

C.S. Lewis saw no essential conflict between faith and reason. He described his experience of faith in his book Mere Christianity by distinguishing between two usages of the word. He describes the first as follows:

"Faith seems to be used by Christians in two senses or on two levels ... In the first sense it means simply Belief."^[21]

Several paragraphs later he continues with:

"Faith, in the sense in which I am here using the word, is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods."^[21]

Implausible beliefs

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a common symbol of the criticism of creationism.

Certain beliefs shared by many religions are considered by some observers to be implausible and therefore counter to common sense or science.

For example the concept of sin and original sin was criticized by Friedrich Nietzsche in his Biblical parody Thus Spoke Zarathustra with the aphorism "For the act of being born, we must seek forgiveness." In addition some religions teach that there was, or is, a human with divinity or touched by divine guidance and is therefore infallible: for example Jesus, Muhammad and, in certain circumstances, the Pope. This conflicts with real-world experience which suggests that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a human to follow the narrow definition of good dictated by most religions.

Many religions feature creation myths that, when taken literally or interpreted strictly, are incompatible with widely accepted scientific theories such as Evolution and the Big Bang. (See Creationism.)

Plurality of religious message

While there are some general similarities, there are also significant differences between religions. The plurality of religion illustrates many mutually exclusive claims, such as who has been selected for a higher purpose.

In application, some religions attack or defame other religions as being corrupt, such as Protestant leaders' criticism of Catholicism during the Protestant Reformation. Religions that are no longer widely practiced (e.g. ancient Greek religion, ancient Egyptian religion) are often seen today as untrue or fictional mythology.

Another issue of plurality is in the varying interpretation of the afterlife. Even different denominations of the same religion vary in their views on what exactly the afterlife entails, and what the temporal requirements are to secure their place in a positive realm (for example, Heaven, Valhalla) or negative realm (for example, Hell, Hades, or Purgatory).

Law of three stages

Main article: Law of three stages

Auguste Comte

Social construct

See also: Development of religion

Many criticisms hinge on the proposition that religion is a social construct and thus just another human ideology. Under this view, the origins of religion lie in human beings and human societies, not in the intervention of some divine being or cosmic truth. Accordingly, the historicity of religious accounts is called into question.

Opium of the people

Karl Marx

According to Karl Marx, religion is a tool utilised by the ruling classes whereby the masses can shortly 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.^[23]

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. - Karl Marx

Marx also viewed the Christian doctrine of original sin as being deeply anti-social in character. Original sin, he argued, 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, Marx argued, can be changed through the application of collective social planning.^[24]

Viruses of the mind

In his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins coined the term memes to describe informational units that can be transmitted culturally, analogous to genes.^[25] He later used this concept in the essay "Viruses of the Mind" to explain the persistence of religious ideas in human culture.^[26]

Dawkins argues that religious ideologies are a set of ideas and concepts working together to ensure the perpetuation and proliferation of the religion itself. For instance, important concepts in Christianity are raising your children to be Christians, following The Great Commission and its monotheistic nature. These are proposed to work together to protect the religion from competition from other memes. In this context, religion is criticized for being maladaptive in that it can cause the carrier of that meme to act irrationally, misallocate resources and feel guilt, fear or other negative emotions without real reason.

John Bowker criticized the idea that "God" and "Faith" are viruses of the mind, suggesting that Dawkins' "account of religious motivation ... is ... far removed from evidence and data" and that, even if the God-meme approach were valid, "it does not give rise to one set of consequences ... Out of the many behaviours it produces, why are we required to isolate only those that might be regarded as diseased?"^[27]

Alister McGrath has responded by arguing that "memes have no place in serious scientific reflection",^[28] that there is strong evidence that such ideas are not spread by random processes, but by deliberate intentional actions,^[29] that "evolution" of ideas is more Lamarckian than Darwinian,^[30] and that there is no evidence (and certainly none in the essay) that epidemiological models usefully explain the spread of religious ideas.^[31] McGrath also cites a metareview of 100 studies and argues that "[i]f religion is reported as having a positive effect on human well-being by 79% of recent studies in the field, how can it conceivably be regarded as analogous to a virus?"^[32]

Fruits of madness

Saint Francis Borgia performing an exorcism, by Goya.

American author Sam Harris, who has written on the subjects of neuroscience and reason, authored a book titled The End of Faith following the 9/11 terrorist attacks and later Letter to a Christian Nation. In The End of Faith, he compares religion to mental illness, saying it "allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy."^[33]

There are also psychological studies into the phenomenon of mysticism, and the links between disturbing aspects of certain mystic's experiences and their links to childhood abuse.^[34][35][36] In another line of research, Clifford A. Pickover explores evidence suggesting that temporal lobe epilepsy may be linked to a variety of spiritual or ‘other worldly’ experiences, such as spiritual possession, originating from altered electrical activity in the brain.^[37] Carl Sagan, in his last book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, presented his case for the miraculous sightings of religious figures in the past and the modern sightings of UFOs coming from the same mental disorder. According to Professor Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, “It's possible that many great religious leaders had temporal lobe seizures and this predisposes them to having visions, having mystical experiences.”^[38] Dr. Michael Persinger stimulated the temporal lobes of the brain artificially with a magnetic field using a device nicknamed the “God helmet,” and was able to artificially induce religious experiences along with near-death experiences and ghost sightings.^[39] Neuropsychology Professor John Bradshaw also says:

Some forms of temporal lobe tumours or epilepsy are associated with extreme religiosity. Recent brain imaging of devotees engaging in prayer or transcendental meditation has more precisely identified activation in such sites - God-spots, as Vilayanur Ramachandran calls them. Psilocybin from mushrooms contacts the serotonergic system, with terminals in these and other brain regions, generating a sense of cosmic unity, transcendental meaning and religious ecstasy. Certain physical rituals can generate both these feelings and corresponding serotonergic activity.^[40]

In his book Is Religion Dangerous?, Keith Ward specifically addresses the claim that religious belief is a "delusion." He quotes the definition in the Oxford Companion to Mind as "a fixed, idiosyncratic belief, unusual in the culture to which the person belongs," and notes that "[n]ot all false opinions are delusions." Ward then characterizes a delusion as a "clearly false opinion, especially as a symptom of a mental illness," an "irrational belief" that is "so obviously false that all reasonable people would see it as mistaken." He then claims that belief in God is different, since "[m]ost great philosophers have believed in God, and they are rational people" (an instance of argumentum ad populum). He argues that "[a]ll that is needed to refute the claim that religious belief is a delusion is one clear example of someone who exhibits a high degree of rational ability, who functions well in the ordinary affairs of life ... and who can produce a reasonable and coherent defense of their beliefs" and claims that there many such people, "including some of the most able philosophers and scientists in the world today."^[41]

Superseded by science, philosophy, and the arts

Philosophy and Christian Art. W. Ridgway, 1878

For nontheists, the explanatory need is satisfied by science and philosophy, ethics addresses concerns over questions of good and evil, and inspiration and beauty can be found in the arts.^[42]

Daniel Dennett, author of Breaking the Spell, said “I expect to live to see the evaporation of the powerful mystique of religion. I think that in about twenty-five years almost all religions will have evolved into very different phenomena, so much so that in most quarters religion will no longer command the awe it does today."^[43]

Geoffrey Miller,^[44] in November 2006 edition of New Scientist said: “Evolutionary moral psychology will reveal the social conditions under which human moral virtues flourish. The US will follow the UK in realizing that religion is not a prerequisite for ordinary human decency. Thus, science will kill religion - not by reason challenging faith, but by offering a more practical, universal and rewarding moral framework for human interaction. A naturalistic moral philosophy will replace the rotting fictions of theological ethics.”^[45] Dr. John Bradshaw, Professor of Neuropsychology Monash University Melbourne wrote: “Evolutional models are every bit as beautiful and intellectually and morally satisfying as the myths, stories and precepts of an ossified theology - and they can explain, predict and be applied in hosts of important and socially useful ways.”^[46]

Critics point out that many religions and practices once considered vital by their society, such as Haruspex,^[47] have long since died out. A short work by the ancient author Lucian of Samosata, titled “The Syrian Goddess” provides many examples of once thriving religions that no longer exist.^[48]

Survey research from the US indicates that many people change their religious affiliation over time. Those with no religious affiliation are the fastest growing group. However, this group has a relatively low retention rate (46%) when compared to other groups. Slightly over half (54%) of those raised in a family with no religious affiliation identify with one religion or another as adults. Of the 16.1% of adults reporting no religious affiliation, 1.6% self-identify as atheists, 2.4% self-identify as agnostic, and the rest report their religion as "nothing in particular."^[49]

In 1999, Comedian George Carlin performed a routine entitled "Religion/There is No God" on his HBO special You Are All Diseased where he refers to religion as "The all time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims." In the routine, he refers to God as "The invisible Man living in the Sky" and attacks the Church's income intake and tax exemption. He also attacks the idea of praying, instead he jokingly prays to Joe Pesci. Carlin satirically claims to be a sun worshiper because he can actually see the sun. At the end of this routine, Carlin calls religion superstitious and claims that God does not exist and has never existed, he then challenged God to strike first the audience, then himself, dead if he existed. This routine inspired many comedians to break out their views on religion (when George Carlin was on Bill Maher, he told Carlin it was his "There is No God" routine that inspired him to finally speak out against religion).

Harmful to the individual

Many aspects of religion are criticized by skeptics on the basis that they are harmful to the individual believer. Skeptics cite such things as dogmatic adherence to irrational beliefs and practices (e.g. snake handling, cult suicide, walking on water), unnecessary restrictions on natural human behavior and the subsequent mental and emotional trauma of fear and guilt.

Responding in the book The Irrational Atheist to criticisms that religion is harmful, Theodore Beale argues that religious individuals tend to be happier and healthier, more likely to have children, and more sexually satisfied than non-religious individuals.^[50] There is substantial research suggesting that religious people are happier and less stressed.^[51][52] Surveys by Gallup, the National Opinion Research Center and the Pew Organization conclude that spiritually committed people are twice as likely to report being "very happy" than the least religiously committed people.^[53] An analysis of over 200 social studies contends that "high religiousness predicts a rather lower risk of depression and drug abuse and fewer suicide attempts, and more reports of satisfaction with sex life and a sense of well-being,"^[54] and a review of 498 studies published in peer-reviewed journals concluded that a large majority of them showed a positive correlation between religious commitment and higher levels of perceived well-being and self-esteem and lower levels of hypertension, depression, and clinical delinquency.^[55][56] Studies by Keith Ward show that overall religion is a positive contributor to mental health,^[57] and a meta-analysis of 34 recent studies published between 1990 and 2001 also found that religiosity has a salutary relationship with psychological adjustment, being related to less psychological distress, more life satisfaction, and better self-actualization.^[58] Finally, a recent systematic review of 850 research papers on the topic concluded that "the majority of well-conducted studies found that higher levels of religious involvement are positively associated with indicators of psychological well-being (life satisfaction, happiness, positive affect, and higher morale) and with less depression, suicidal thoughts and behavior, drug/alcohol use/abuse." ^[59]

However, most of those studies were conducted within the United States.^[60] According to a 2007 paper by Liesbeth Snoep in the Journal of Happiness Studies, there is no significant correlation between religiosity and individual happiness in Netherlands and Denmark, countries that have lower rates of religion than the United States.^[61]

Dogmatism

Many religions promote beliefs that critics consider irrational superstitions, and defend themselves by opposing or suppressing rational and inquiring thought. Many of these religions teach that 'life is a test', and that believers are constantly under siege by those trying to lure them away from their faith.^[62] Douglas Adams argues that this is often by demanding that religious beliefs are shown greater respect than other beliefs: "Religion...is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything about; you're just not."^[63]

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 their conviction by rational arguments. The idea that rational reasoning is not relevant to religious beliefs is known as Fideism.

Ideological indoctrination of children

See also: Indoctrination

Richard Dawkins equates the religious indoctrination of children by parents and teachers in faith schools to a form of mental abuse on children. Dawkins is angered by the term “Muslim child” or a “Catholic child”, of which he discusses and devotes a whole chapter to in his book The God Delusion. 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".^[64]

Faith healing

See also: Exorcism and Faith healing

There is also the issue of how religion has addressed what it does define as mental illness. Faith Healing, and in its most extreme form, Exorcism have both been practiced by many traditions throughout history. In both cases, symptoms that would today be diagnosed by a doctor, psychiatrist or other medical professional in one way are interpreted as signs of spiritual malaise by the faith healer or exorcist. The cause and cure are defined using criteria set out by the faith tradition of the healer. As with all other aspects of differing traditions, these criteria will vary according to the healers' religion.^[65][66] Faith based practices for healing purposes have come into direct conflict with both the medical profession and the law when victims of these practices are harmed, or in the most extreme cases, killed by these ‘cures.’^[67][68][69]

Jerusalem syndrome

Main article: Jerusalem syndrome

There are certain places with deep associations with religious feeling, often called places of pilgrimage. One of these is Jerusalem, which is revered by followers of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Jerusalem has lent its name to a unique psychological phenomenon where Jewish or Christian individuals who develop obsessive religious themed ideas or delusions (sometimes believing themselves to be Jesus Christ or another prophet) will feel compelled to travel to Jerusalem.^[70][71]

During a period of 13 years (1980-1993) for which admissions to the Kfar Shaul Mental Health Centre in Jerusalem were analysed, it was reported^[72] that 1,200 tourists with severe, Jerusalem-themed mental problems were referred to this clinic. Of these, 470 were admitted to hospital. On average, 100 such tourists have been seen annually, 40 of them requiring admission to hospital. About 2 million tourists visit Jerusalem each year. Kalian and Witztum note that as a proportion of the total numbers of tourists visiting the city, this is not significantly different from any other city.^[73][74]

Harmful to society

Some aspects of religion are criticized on the basis that they damage society as a whole. Critics cite such things as religiously inspired or justified violence, resistance to social change, attacks on science, repression of women and homophobia.

Most religions hold their teachings or revelations to be those that are the closest to the universal truths and those of other religions to be further from, or more often, in direct contradiction with these truths. Critics of this world-view claim that this monopoly of universal truths leads, inevitably, to a very ingrained 'us vs. them' group solidarity and mentality (often referred to as moral superiority) which, to a wide range of extents, dehumanise or demonise 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.^[75]

Apologists often respond that those guilty of such actions are merely misguided extremists and don't represent mainstream religion, or that such things are only exceptions and that, by and large, religion is a positive civilizing influence on society. This may be a No true Scotsman fallacy.

One wide-ranging study^[76] has shown that there is a direct correlation between religiosity and societal dysfunction, including homicide, sexual disease, teenage pregnancy and marital problems. Data for this study was obtained from approximately 23,000 people in almost all (17) of the developed democracies. While the data was multi-national, further evidence of religion's effect on societal health was concluded from regional differences in the United States. According to Gregory S. Paul:

There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms.

An analysis published later in the same journal contends that a number of methodological problems undermine any findings or conclusions to be taken from the research.^[77] In the same issue, Gary Jensen builds on and refines Paul's study.^[78] His conclusion, after carrying out elaborate multivariate statistical studies, is that a complex relationship exists between religiosity and homicide with some dimensions of religiosity encouraging homicide and other dimensions discouraging it." Meanwhile, other studies seem to show positive links in the relationship between religiosity and moral behavior^{[79] [80] [81]} — for example, surveys suggesting a positive connection between faith and altruism.^[82] Modern research in criminology also acknowledges an inverse relationship between religion and crime,^[83] with many studies establishing this beneficial connection (though some claim it is a modest one).^[84] Indeed, a meta-analysis of 60 studies on religion and crime concluded, “religious behaviors and beliefs exert a moderate deterrent effect on individuals’ criminal behavior”.^[85]

Theodore Beale responds to criticisms that religion harms society by arguing that religious individuals tend to be more generous and more likely to have children.^[50] Religious belief appears to be the strongest predictor of charitable giving.^{[86][87][88][89][90]} One study found that average charitable giving in 2000 by religious individuals ($2,210) was over three times that of secular individuals ($642). Giving to non-religious charities by religious individuals was $88 higher. Religious individuals are also more likely to volunteer time, donate blood, and give back money when accidentally given too much change.^[88] A 2007 study by The Barna Group found that "active-faith" individuals gave on average $1,500 in 2006, while "no-faith" individuals gave on average $200. "Active-faith" adults gave twice as much to non-church-related charities as "no-faith" individuals. They were also more likely to register vote, volunteer, personally help some who is homeless, and to describe themselves as "active in the community."^[91]

Holy war and religious terrorism

Entry of the Crusaders into Constantinople by Gustave Doré (1832-1883).

Main articles: Religious war, Religious Terrorism, and Religious violence

Critics often point to the phenomenon of religious war as one of the more destructive consequences of religious belief.^[33][10] Theoretical physicist Michio Kaku considers religious terrorism as one of the main threats in man's evolution from a Type 0 to Type 1 civilization.^[92] Some argue that these are mostly caused by misinterpretations of the relevant religions' ethical rules and a combination of non-religious factors.^[93][94][95]

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.^[96] One of the most infamous quotes associated with religious fanaticism was made in 1209 during the siege of Béziers, a Crusader asked the Papal Legate Arnaud Amalric how to tell Catholics from Catharism when the city was taken, to which Amalric replied: "Tuez-les tous; Dieu reconnaitra les siens. (Kill them all; for the Lord knoweth them that are His.)^[97]

Terrorist atrocities such as the September 11, 2001 attacks, the 2005 London bombings and the Bali 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.^[98]

Although the causes of terrorism are complex, 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.^[96][99]

Some have criticized the concept that religion motivates terrorism, however. Robert Pape argues that the news reports about suicide attacks are profoundly misleading - "There is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world's religions". After studying 315 suicide attacks carried out over the last two decades, he concludes that suicide bombers' actions stem from political conflict, not religion.^[100]

Michael A. Sheehan argues that many terrorist groups use religious and cultural terms to conceal political goals and gain popular support.^[101] Terry Nardin suggests that religious terrorism does not differ in "character and causes, from political terrorism." ^[102] Mark Juergensmeyer argues that religion ". . .does not ordinarily lead to violence. That happens only with the coalescence of a peculiar set of circumstances - political, social, and ideological - when religion becomes fused with violent expressions of social aspirations, personal pride, and movements for political change."^[103]:10 and that the use of the term "terrorist" depends on whether or not the speaker believes the acts involved are warranted.^[103]:9

Impedance of science and human progress

Galileo facing the Roman Inquisition.

Critics argue that when a religion offers a complete set of answers to the problems of purpose, morality, origins or science, it often discourages exploration of those areas by suppressing curiosity, denies its followers a broader perspective, and can prevent social, moral and scientific progress. The classic example of this is the Catholic Church's attack on Galileo for suggesting that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

In more recent time, many debates have arisen that follow a pattern of faith versus reason, in particular the rise of fundamentalist and bible literalist opposition to science and liberal democracy. Examples include the creation-evolution controversy, and controversies over the use of birth control, the separation of church and state, opposition to research into embryonic stem cells, or theological objections to vaccination and anesthesia.^{[104][105][106][107][108]}

During the 19th century what scholars today call the historical conflict thesis developed. According to this model, any interaction between religion and science must inevitably lead to open hostility, with religion usually taking the part of the aggressor against new scientific ideas.^[109]

This framing of the historical relationship between religion and science as being predominantly one of conflict remained common in the historiography of science during the late 19th and much of the 20th centuries, was favoured by many scientists in the last 100 years, and is still prevalent in popular culture. Most of today's historians of science consider the conflict thesis an oversimplification, and prefer to take a more nuanced view of the subject.^[110][111] They now acknowledge that many scientific developments, such as Kepler's laws and the 19th century reformulation of physics in terms of energy, were explicitly driven by religious ideas.^[112] Religious organizations figure prominently in the broader histories of many sciences, with many of the scientific minds until the professionalization of scientific enterprise (in the 19th century) being clergy and other religious thinkers.^[113] Even the most prominent examples of conflict, such as the Galileo affair and the Scopes trial, were not purely instances of conflict between science and religion; personal and political factors also weighed heavily in the development of each.^[114]

Moral deficiency

See also: Religious intolerance, Human sacrifice, Honor Killing, and Female genital cutting

Critics such as Dr Shirin Ebadi say dogmatic religions are morally deficient, elevating to moral status many ancient and ill-informed rules that may have been designed for reasons of hygiene, politics, or other reasons in a bygone era.^[115] An example of this would be the idea that women and men must be kept separate, or that women who do not cover themselves up modestly have tendencies for immorality, or are in some way responsible for sexual assault.^[116][117]

Critics such as Dawkins contend that theistic religions devalue human compassion and morality. The Bible contains many injunctions against following one's conscience over scripture. In addition, positive actions are supposed to originate not from compassion, but from the fear of punishment.^[11] Religious institutions typically declare they have special knowledge of absolute morality and invoke this in order to hinder debates on many issues such as stem cell research, euthanasia and same-sex marriage.^[107][118]

In the scientific literature, the degree of religiosity is generally found to be associated with higher ethical attitudes.^[119] Although a recent study by Gregory S. Paul published in the Journal of Religion and Society argues for a positive correlation between the degree of public religiosity in a society and certain measures of dysfunction,^[120] an analysis published later in the same journal contends that a number of methodological problems undermine any findings or conclusions to be taken from the research.^[121] Other studies seem to show positive links in the relationship between religiosity and moral behavior^{[122] [123] [124]} — for example, surveys suggesting a positive connection between faith and altruism.^[125]

Opposition to homosexuality

A Westboro Baptist Church picket in Northlake, IL on November 29, 2005

See also: Homosexuality and religion

Many major religions consider homosexuality immoral. Singer Sir Elton John said organized religion promotes the hatred of homosexuals: "I think religion has always tried to turn hatred towards gay people... Organized religion does not seem to work. It turns people into really hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate."^[126]

In the United States, conservative Christian groups such as the Christian Legal Society and the Alliance Defense Fund have filed numerous lawsuits against public universities, aimed at overturning policies that protect homosexuals from discrimination and hate speech. These groups argue that such policies infringe their right to freely exercise religion as guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.^[127]

Homosexuality is illegal in most Muslim countries, and in many of these countries carries the death penalty. In July 2005, two Iranian men, aged sixteen and eighteen, were publicly hanged for homosexuality, causing an international outcry. Gay and human rights organisations estimate that hundreds of people have been executed for homosexuality by Iranian authorities since the 1979 revolution.^[128]

However, it should be noted that many liberal religious groups, and particularly most New Age religions, are accepting of homosexuals and do not regard their behavior as sinful/evil, in particular: Progressive Judaism, Neopaganism, Wicca, Raëlism, the United Church of Canada, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Methodist Church of Great Britain, the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, Moravian Church, Haitian Voodoo, Unitarian Universalism, and the Metropolitan Community Church, which was established almost specifically for this purpose.

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 some Post-Medieval Theologians made claims that white people are closer to God than other races. Religious terrorist organizations such as the forenamed Ku Klux Klan, Kach and others also hold ostensibly racist views.^[129][130]

Many Christians have made efforts toward establishing racial equality, contributing to the Civil Rights Movement.^[131] The African American Review notes the important role Christian revivalism in the black church played in the Civil Rights Movement.^[132] Martin Luther King, Jr., an ordained Baptist minister, was a leader of the American Civil Rights Movement and president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a Christian Civil Rights organization.^[133]

Misogyny

See also: Role of women in religion and misogyny

Political opposition

Many objections focus more on the churches and priests themselves, than on their doctrines or beliefs. Critics point out that these priesthoods give undue authority to unelected individuals. In many cases throughout history, they have support and upheld un-democratic and oppressive power structures, such as the absolutist monarchies of Europe, or the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt.

Authoritarian

See also: Theocracy and Censorship by religion

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 attempt at gaining their consent and often not allowing criticism of its policies.

In this sense, some religions can be seen as authoritarian, insofar as their goal is to define themselves 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.^[134]

Divine mandate

See also: Imperial cult

The ancient egyptians believed that upon taking the throne, the pharaoh became the earthly embodiment of the god Horus. They believed that in his role as both man and god, he was responsible for preserving not only the empire, but the universe itself.^[135]

Until the end of World War II the Emperor of Japan held a similar status,^[136] and deification of Roman emperors was common practice following the reign of Augustus.^[137] Systems such as this equated political opposition to heresy, and served to support existing power structures by suppressing dissent. On New Year's Day 1946, Emperor Hirohito (formally) declined claims of divinity with the declaration Ningen-sengen.

Dominionism

Main articles: Dominionism and Religion and fascism

The term "Dominionism" describes a political movement among fundamentalist Christians. It emerged in the late 1980s inspired by the book, film and lecture series, "Whatever Happened to the Human Race?" by Francis A. Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop.^[138]

Schaeffer's politics has influenced conservatives like Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye, John W. Whitehead, and although they represent different theological and political ideas, Dominionists believe they have a Christian duty to take "control of a sinful secular society", either by putting fundamentalist Christians in office, or by forcing biblical law into the secular sphere.^{[139][140][104]}

Social scientists have used the word "dominionism" to refer to adherence to Dominion Theology^{[141][142][143]} as well as to the influence in the broader Christian Right of ideas inspired by Dominion Theology.^[141] Although such influence (particularly of Reconstructionism) has been described by many authors,^[144][145] full adherents to Reconstructionism are few and marginalized among conservative Christians.^{[144][146][147]}

In the early 1990s, sociologist Sara Diamond^[148][149] and journalist Frederick Clarkson^[150][151] defined dominionism as a movement that, while including Dominion Theology and Reconstructionism as subsets, is much broader in scope, extending to much of the Christian Right.^[152] Other authors who stress the influence of Dominionist ideas on the Christian Right include Michelle Goldberg^[153] and Kevin Phillips^[154][155]

Essayist Katherine Yurica began using the term dominionism in her articles in 2004, beginning with "The Despoiling of America," (February 11, 2004),^{[156][157][158]} Yurica has been followed in this usage by authors including journalist Chris Hedges ^{[159][160][161]} Marion Maddox,^[162] James Rudin,^[163] Sam Harris,^[164] and the group TheocracyWatch.^[165] This group of authors has applied the term to a broader spectrum of people than have sociologists such as Diamond.

The terms "dominionist" and "dominionism" are rarely used for self-description, and their usage has been attacked from several quarters. Journalist Anthony Williams charged that its purpose is "to smear the Republican Party as the party of domestic Theocracy, facts be damned."^[166] Stanley Kurtz labeled it "conspiratorial nonsense," "political paranoia," and "guilt by association,"^[167] and decried Hedges' "vague characterizations" that allow him to "paint a highly questionable picture of a virtually faceless and nameless 'Dominionist' Christian mass."^[168] Kurtz also complained about a perceived link between average Christian evangelicals and extremism such as Christian Reconstructionism:

The notion that conservative Christians want to reinstitute slavery and rule by genocide is not just crazy, it's downright dangerous. The most disturbing part of the Harper's cover story (the one by Chris Hedges) was the attempt to link Christian conservatives with Hitler and fascism. Once we acknowledge the similarity between conservative Christians and fascists, Hedges appears to suggest, we can confront Christian evil by setting aside 'the old polite rules of democracy.' So wild conspiracy theories and visions of genocide are really excuses for the Left to disregard the rules of democracy and defeat conservative Christians — by any means necessary.^[167]

Other criticism has focused on the proper use of the term. Berlet wrote that "some critics of the Christian Right have stretched the term dominionism past its breaking point,"^[169] and argued that, rather than labeling conservatives as extremists, it would be better to "talk to these people" and "engage them."^[170] Sara Diamond wrote that "[l]iberals' writing about the Christian Right's take-over plans has generally taken the form of conspiracy theory," and argued that instead one should "analyze the subtle ways" that ideas like Dominionism "take hold within movements and why."^[171]

Criticism of specific religions

• Criticism of Christianity
• Criticism of Hinduism
• Criticism of Islam
• Criticism of Judaism
• Criticism of Buddhism
• Criticism of Prem Rawat (Maharaj Ji/Divine Light Mission)
• Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church
• Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses
• Controversies about Opus Dei
• Scientology controversy

See also

References

Irreligion Atheism List of atheists · Demographics · Religion · History · State atheism · Criticism · Discrimination · Weak and strong · Agnostic atheism · Implicit and explicit · Antitheism · Antireligion · Atheist Alliance International Ludwig Feuerbach Agnosticism List of agnostics · Agnostic theism · Agnostic atheism · Weak agnosticism · Strong agnosticism · Ignosticism · Apatheism Nontheism Secular Humanism · Post-theism  · Freethought · Secularism · Secularity · Criticism of religion · Freedom From Religion Foundation · Transtheism · Russell's teapot · Parody religion

External links

• Why I left
• Douglas Adams's speech: Is there an Artificial God?
• The Academy of Evolutionary Metaphysics
• “Why I am Not a Christian” by Bertrand Russell, March 6, 1927
• A Historical Outline of Modern Religious Criticism in Western Civilization
• The Poverty of Theistic Morality by Adolf Grünbaum
• Transcendent Experience and Temporal Lobe Epilepsy