Response to “Why Religion should be opposed”
When you write an article entitled “Why Religion should be opposed”, and you know that almost your entire audience is religious, you know that you’re going to get a few responses. I started replying to these responses individually but, realizing that many of them were similar in form, I thought it best to write a reply article dealing with each ‘type’ of response with a paragraph so that we can formalize the conversation and avoid repetition.
Yesterday I had more visitors on my site than I’ve ever had before, and almost all to the article in question. I find it amazing that you can write challenging articles about sex, love, relationships, parenting etc and no one takes personal offence, but mess with someone’s religion and all ‘hell’ breaks loose, which is exactly the nature of religion, and why I oppose it. Thank you to everyone who has read my article – you were not so closed minded that you applied the “Thou shalt not read articles written by vile heathen” philosophy. Thank you to all those who shared an opinion and responded in some way – please share your thoughts on my other articles too.
I am now going to speak to each ‘type’ of response I received. I have no doubt that I will offend people all over again with this, but fortunately I’m not one of those Methodist-don’t-rock-the-boat-keep-your-opinions-to-yourself kinds of people who care about the word ‘offend’. “You offended me!” is not an argument in itself. If you wrote to me then you will find your reply in these words somewhere.
To the people who responded without taking the trouble to actually read the article
I was tempted to just copy and paste your thoughtless text with references following every unintelligent sentence saying “see paragraph 2″ or “did you skip paragraph 4?!” but I won’t. Feel free to read the article again, actually understanding the words I carefully strung together and then feel free to write an intelligent response.
To the bible bashers
These are the people who insist on using circular logic or Circulus in Probando, arguing that the Bible says that God exists, and the Bible is always right (because it was inspired by God), so God must exist. The problem with this is that the premises are circular in nature because each premise assumes the validity of the other. I have read the bible many times end to end, not to mention an equivalent number of times via piecemeal reading of scripture as required for sermons, devotions etc. There was a time I simply ‘believed’ that it was all true because (and please don’t skip over this): I was born and brought up in a Christian society; I was scared of hell and offending God; I was convinced by everyone around me that belief was better than intellect; I had a notion (because of conditioning) that to question the Bible’s absolute truth and perfection was ‘blasphemous’ and ‘rebellious’ (manipulative words used by religion to control). Bible bashers interpret scripture as it suits them for any particular cause or going church trend. 1000 years ago the scripture about women needing to cover their heads was taken very literally, but today most Christians choose to apply some rational thought to the subject, yet these same Christians will use other scriptures very literally when it suits them to do so. This also changes from congregation to congregation and denomination to denomination – so who makes the rules? Who’s interpretational methods are correct? It stands to reason that if one of them were ‘correct’ in the eyes of God then all the others would be wrong – if not, then God and all his followers are confused and God is not perfect. Telling me that something is true because the Bible says so is a fallacial argument. Feel free however to quote a particular argument, found in the Bible, that appeals to some sense of reason or logic and I’ll consider it with as much respect as anything Einstein or Hitchens has to say. So far I have had nothing like this. C’mon Christians!! You can do better than that. I myself could put forward some valid biblical arguments – I offer an open invitation to reasonable debate.
To those who have ‘personal experiences’ with God
These are the people who claimed they had ‘heard’ from God personally or had an ‘experience’ somehow involving God. This is probably the most difficult response to respond to. I remember (with a cold chill) the days of being an assistant pastor in a charismatic church in Benoni, times when we (the elders) would get together to discuss something, and in the middle of heated debate the senior pastor would say something like, “God told me we have to do it so let’s get started.” Well, who could argue with that? If God said it, who are we to question it? The result being that anything this particular man wanted, happened. You can’t argue with someone who has God in their corner. I could just as easily say, “I saw a unicorn at the bottom of my garden this morning – prove me wrong!” You know I am wrong because you know there are no unicorns, because if there were unicorns we’d have photos of them, and their discovery would be published in every newspaper in the world with probably a specimen in The Hague for testing and so forth. In this you use reason, so you would roll your eyes and say, “I’m sure you thought you saw a unicorn…” and pat me on the back condescendingly. So my response to you is, “I’m sure you thought you heard God – pity you don’t have any evidence (pat pat). If I were to believe all the ‘personal testimonies’ of people who claim God did something ‘good’ for them I’d also have to believe the suicide bombers of 9/11’s claims that God instructed them in their mission, or all the people who claim to have been abducted by aliens somewhere in the Midwest of the USA. You yourselves use rational thinking in all areas except this! I have, many times, wished that I could walk through my closet and end up in Narnia, but no amount of staring at the closet is going to help me understand the truth of my world. There are coats in the closet. Santa does not exist. God does not exist.
To the condescending self righteous
Ah, my favourite group! I wish there were fish like you in the water the last five times I went unsuccessfully fishing in dams and rivers around South Africa. The damn fish just stare at my bait and never bite. You however, are the most predictable and toothache inducing group of the lot. The people I refer to here are those who don’t bother showing my articles an ounce of respect by responding to the propositions put forward, but instead choose to take the: “you’re sick and in need of help from someone like me” approach. I refer to statements like, “Are you free my friend?” or “…but are you happy?” or “you are clearly speaking out of a place of hurt…” Spare me your noxious, patronizing, dripping, putrid self righteousness and amateur psycho-analysis! I pity you for needing to feel accepted or acceptable in society above truth; and thinking that anyone who doesn’t share your view must be somehow broken, un-whole or lost. Read my article on being a Salmon vs. a Sheep. Let me say this once, and never again: I am free! I am happy! I am fulfilled! I am not lonely! I am all these things more than I have ever been and that is precisely why I share my life with the world online. I’d gladly accept loneliness and suffering over oppression and mysticism any day, and if I was unhappy or lonely it would have nothing to do with you anyway – but that is not my fate – so respond to apples with apples and stop throwing lemons at me.
To the fence sitters
In some ways, this group irks me the most. These are the people who respond with paragraphs about how they believe in everything and nothing at all. My article is as much an argument against faith as it is against religion. People who say, “I agree with you that religion is wrong, but I still believe that a god or gods or some spiritual entity exists…” are religious, plain and simple. To sit on the fence is to avoid confrontation with society without having to conform particularly. It is at best a spineless agnosticism and at worst, closet atheism. Get out of the closet! You either believe, which requires the suppression of your reasoning; or you reason, and therefore have no need of faith. I don’t have to sit and philosophically ponder the weight, colour, acidity or molecular structure of an apple because the knowledge is already revealed through scientific means. All I need do is pick up a few books on the matter and the evidence presented simply removes any need for faith, or confusion about the apple. Sure, there are things we’re only beginning to understand in the realms of sub-atomic and quantum physics, but the key word is ‘understand’ – we’re not seeking to ‘believe’, we’re seeking to understand! We KNOW how the Earth was formed – we don’t need to BELIEVE some ancient myth about 7 days, or turtles holding up a flat earth etc. I have to confess that in my journey (like a pendulum swing) from belief to reasoning, I took a short stop at universalism and agnosticism, but only a short one – my mind could never be satisfied with believing in belief, or believing that anything was ‘unknowable’. Join me on the other side – it’s incredibly liberating!
To those who engaged in enlightened conversation!
You were a breath of fresh air!! These were the Christians, Muslims and Atheists who responded to my propositions with reasonable counter arguments – who did not ‘hide’ behind “God exists and that’s all there is to it” – but instead, spent a little time thinking about their position and responding with facts and sound reasoning, with respect for the subject. Although our views may be a universe apart, I welcome your comments and hope to engage with many more of you out there in the virtual universe.
Deon,
The concept of God is something I’d say no human can ever comprehend. And it is perfect to wonder and ask if there really exist God, we all have every right to do so.
However Deon, what I’d suggest here is for you to discuss evidences that will disprove the existence of God, I mean, let’s forget about “beleiving” (objective or subjective) that God exist. Maybe then, we can go further to make people (including you and I) “understand” that God does/do not exist.
Bash,
The reality is that currently God cannot be disproved scientifically (yet) but the issue is one of probability. It is far more logically probable that he doesn’t exist than that he does, and therefore is the most reasonable theory to adopt as an intellectual mind. I will write on this probability soon. PS: I’m a defender of everyone’s right to wonder and ask… I hope you see that. Keep posting.
Deon you strike me as the type of person who is obviously learned and very intelligent but it also seems to me that you only deal in absolutes in your mind. You are either for or against and I’m sure you were fairly convincing in your argument to yourself and to others when you on the religous side of the fence. It doesn’t have to be black and white there is plenty space for a grey area. You dont have to put your point across in an antagonistic way. Is this a character trait? Did you do this when you were religous? And if so, how do you feel now about pushing religon onto people and then doing an about turn? It seems to me you are over-compensating. There is space for all people to question and “fence sitters” as you would call them could still be putting together their pieces of the puzzle. Not everyone is as sure as you portray..
Denis,
I make no apologies for my style or character traits. If you want to start a fan page called “Deon is insensitive and too black or white” then please do so, and I’ll be your first fan. If you have an opinion about the content of my article, i.e. Why Religion should be opposed, then please enlighten us with it, even if it’s grey (of which I am very tolerant over a cigar and whiskey).
So many comments, strong emotions and thoughts over such an intangible issue, I can see why so many wars have been made over such a thing, or nothing.
Let’s face it, it’s hard to be without an opinion, almost like an orphan without a mother, but most people either don’t want to interact due to laziness or fear, uncertainty or stubborness and those that do take the risk of opening up themselves, the soft tender sides, to ridicule if their thoughts or words cannot contribute meaningfully.
I’d like to try, so what if i’m ridiculed, or you think less of me.
I was born and raised orthodox christian, drilled into making the sign of the cross over my chest from top to bottom, right to left, never left to right because that’s how the catholics do it, since I was old enough to understand.
When I asked why I had to do this I was lovingly answered, ‘because it shows that you love God’.
My intellect has never been studious, scholarly and my education ended in a matric, but my ‘inner’ me that has allowed me to survive this long has always steered me clear of ‘unconscious habits’ without concious thought of why I am doing them. Those who know me well joke at my constant ‘analysis’ of everything around me, maybe now you understand.
I recently read ‘a short history of nearly everything’ and they make a comparison between the timescale of our galaxy which is roughly 5 billion years and our portion of history , nearly 5 thousand years. Our brief existence is the tip (literally 1mm) of our fingernails on our outstretched arm which in turn makes up the balance of the five billion years.
How arrogant are we to assume that ‘we’ (pick a religion) are the chosen people of God, that he has given us lord and dominion over the earth and all that exists on it.
This is one of the sides of the fence that I look at when I sit there and I do it often.
I find it hard to believe that we cannot explain, after 100 years of empiracle and scientific work with the greatest minds on our planet, what an atom actually does and the best we can come up with is a theory of how atoms function, which I find absolutely amazing by the way. To me it is strange that atoms behave in the way that they do when they are ‘observed’ or ‘measured’ and completely differently on their own (Deon maybe here is another article for you). Could it be that there is an ‘underlying current of energy’ that can neither be created nor destroyed, is everywhere and nowhere at the same time and is part of everything in our universe and binds us in ways that we haven’t begun to understand?… sound familiar? If so, could that be ‘God’ but not the kind that religions talk about? This god doesn’t need prayer, ‘it’ doesn’t need fancy churches, red velvet, holy water or even books on ‘how to’ i.e. the bible. This God works on the most important energy of all, Love. There is something about a creation of ‘love’, a child, a masterpiece, a great song… atoms can’t do that all by themselves, even through our ‘influence’, it’s a ‘kind of magic’ that creates those things.
You see Deon (and company) i’m stuck on this fence, I really want to belive that God exists but can’t prove it enough to believe it. I also want to believe that he doesn’t exist because then I am the master of my own destiny.
Running within me, I can feel something, I am somehow connected to it, him, she, whatever you like to call it, this energy I feel in many ways and in many people in my life. As if I am here to experience something and report back to something in order to be ‘better’, ‘wiser’, I don’t know what to call it, there is too much coincidental experience in my life for me to believe that we are born, we live, we die, and that’s what life is all about.
There is more.
I believe that science is doing a whole lot more to find out than religions are. So back to the fence I go, because I don’t have to make my mind up today… or tomorrow.
Hi Bas, always good to hear from you.
Firstly, thank you for a thoughtful response, even though it was fairly non committal for the most part. I really have no problem with anyone having any opinion at all (as you more than anyone know) – I simply want people to take responsibility for their views and spend a little time in thought – both of which you have done. I know that it is extremely difficult to move from Agnosticism to Atheism (or Religion) when there is so much that is unknown in the world. My view of course is that science reveals a hundred times more of the truth than does religion. I write controversial articles that take a firm (in the words of Denis) ‘Black or White’ approach because then we can cut the devotional bullshit and get to what really matters. The reality of the matter is that sometimes I too wish there were unicorns and fairies and even a loving, all powerful, God – because then I’d live forever in a strange and wonderful place called heaven. There are times when I retreat to the safety of agnosticism because its easier to deal with the other 6 000 000 000 people living in the world when ‘m not opposing them, and when I want a little peace to do simple things that don’t require convictions about God and Truth like playing with my kids in a garden, or listening to “The Best of Dire Straights”. But then again, as you know more than anyone, I am not ‘cut out’ for being ‘normal’ or ‘conventional’ – as your bumper sticker says, I’m into doing ‘Epic Shit’ like offending the whole religious world so that they’ll look at their superstitions and consider the facts. I can’t do that by writing ‘middle of the road’ arguments. I’ve taken my stand, and my stand is Atheism. Now I’m waiting for someone who has taken a Christian or Muslim stand to tell me WHY???!!!
Ok… got you.
I will be here on the fence… but I might just surprise you one of these days and hop on over and build a pub and invite you for a guiness! Or two.
Hi Deon
Im always fascinated by the power of organised religion its subtle indoctrination that even you as an athiest seem to have trouble letting go.
This concept that god is male,refered to by the constant use of he or him in yours and and others responses.
Your arguments are sound but you sometimes come across a bit angry as if deep down you are still struggling with it.
Religion is a new concept.
In discussions with religous people i am often asked about creation, what existed before the big bang.I like to counter with the traffic jam all those souls who existed before religion must be in at heavens gate.
Religion is an immature societies response to a violent and unsofiticated world,we need to move on.
If suddenly one morning everyones long term memories were gone i believe the middle east would be a peaceful place.
When religion and history are combined you then have unforgiving war.
The one bit of solace i feel is that in armageddon the human race will cease to exist but the earth will carry on for at least the next 4 billion years and the universe will not even notice.
Grant, an interesting basket of ideas. I have let go of religion – I write about it in its own terms because its there and someone has to speak out about it.
Anger? Who cares? Not sure what your point is?
Religion is not new at all in terms of grouped societies – its over 6000 years old. Before that there were very few organised groups of any kind and based on what I see today religion was there back then too – probably some sort of animism or tribal type religions.
Armageddon? I though I was holding on to religion…
Hi Deon, very interesting points of view – the main article and your response to the responses. I hear your view and definition of fence sitters, but would like to share this thought.
My reading has led me to the point where I think organised religion is the biggest con in mankind’s history. I have read many books on pre-history and we just don’t know, but there is compelling evidence that history as we ‘know’ it is wrong. Zacharia Stitchen who has translated the Sumerian tablets puts some serious light on our interpretation of the past, genetic engineering etc. Most of the early bible can be traced back to these tablets, but with very different interpretations. In more modern times the Catholic church was developed as the arm of the Roman Empire to control the populace. Much of Christian doctrine is based on this fact. For example the Council of Nicea (excuse spelling) in 300AD confirmed Christ as a deity, a bunch of old dudes decided he was a god 300 years after his death (+-). This was in line with Roman belief whereby their emperors were deemed deities as well. Much of the other myth of Christian belief links to Egyptian mythology. Christianity in fact became the catch all religion for the Empire and had to appeal to as many as possible. Add to it confession and the inquisition and you have full control of your populace.
Now to my fence sitting bit, there is something about spirituality that we don’t know and the science model as we know it is also flawed. (read books like Web of Life). Given this we just don’t know. We live consciously in a 3 dimensional space with a time line that does not behave according to our day to day lives. Can spirituality be the 4th, 5th or nth dimension. On thsi platform we just don’t know, but there is a lot of evidence that there is something else. Its not god and its not religion, but there is something there and that’s the space I am most interested in.
Great comment Richard. Yes, I have toned down on the fence sitting thing over the past few months and even when I wrote the article my intention was to get people to stand for a point of view. I’m more than happy with the agnostic point of view because it’s the only one that’s 100% valid. Having said that, I still see the evidence of growing scientific discovery vs. religious bullshit and my logical mind says that science will eventually work it all out – maybe not now, or in our lifetime, but distant future generations will not be agnostics and they will certainly not be religious. I agree with everything you’ve said.
Nice article.
Specifically as an answer to Bash’s request (first reply to this post), unfortunately the request is backwards.
You do not set out to disprove the improbable (especially since it is virtually impossible to prove a negative, the limitation that stymies many people, trapping them in agnosticism) but rather need to prove the unlikely Hypothesis.
Example: I claim the Tooth Fairy exists. My father told me she’d take my tooth from under my pillow and leave me money (his gospel), and Lo and Behold it came to pass. I now put it to you to disprove the Tooth Fairy. sure you may find some fraudulent parents pretending to be the Tooth Fairy, but somewhere in the world the real Tooth Fairy is doing her good work.
Now obviously this hypothesis is preposterous. But the beauty of it is that it cannot be disproved – there is no reasonable way to examine every pillow in the world for a sodding tooth fairy. The logical fallacy here is that I’m asking you to disprove it – I’m putting forward an unlikely hypothesis, and therefore the burden of proof is on ME to prove my ridiculous claims. The same applies to proponents of the Creation Fairy – the burden of proof is on you to show (not necessarily even prove, simply show weight of probability if you can) that there is a god.
-Ed.
Nicely said Ed. The challenge of course is shaking people out of their stupor enough to even hear that beautiful piece of reasoning.
I can construct a well-reasoned argument Deon, but you’re asking me to move mountains. For that, apparently, you require Mohammed.