Acknowledgments to "Damien"
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/08/richard-dawkins.html
Judaism, Christianity and Islam are forms of socially sanctioned
lunacy, their fundamental tenets and rituals irrational, archaic and
more importantly when it comes to matters of humanity's long-term
survival, mutually incompatible. There are names for people who have
beliefs for which there is no rational justification. When their
beliefs are extremely common, we call them 'religious'; otherwise,
they are likely to be called 'mad,' 'psychotic' or 'delusional.' '' To
cite but one example: ''Jesus Christ-who, as it turns out, was born of
a virgin, cheated death and rose bodily into the heavens-can now be
eaten in the form of a cracker. A few Latin words spoken over your
favorite Burgundy, and you can drink his blood as well. Is there any
doubt that a lone subscriber to these beliefs would be considered
mad?'' The danger of religious faith is that it allows otherwise
normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them
holy.''
Criticizing a person's faith is currently taboo in every corner of our
culture. On this subject, liberals and conservatives have reached a
rare consensus: religious beliefs are simply beyond the scope of
rational discourse. Criticizing a person's ideas about God and the
afterlife is thought to be impolitic in a way that criticizing his
ideas about physics or history is not.''
A zippered-lip policy would be fine, a pleasant display of the
neighborly tolerance that we consider part of an advanced democracy,
if not for the mortal perils inherent in strong religious faith. The
terrorists who flew jet planes into the World Trade Center believed in
the holiness of their cause. The Christian apocalypticists who are
willing to risk a nuclear conflagration in the Middle East for the
sake of expediting the second coming of Christ believe in the holiness
of their cause. Such fundamentalists are not misinterpreting their
religious texts or ideals. They are not defaming or distorting their
faith. To the contrary, they are taking their religion seriously,
attending to the holy texts on which their faith is built. Unhappily
for international community, the Good Books that undergird the world's
major religions are extraordinary anthologies of violence and
vengeance, celestial decrees that infidels must die.
In the 21st century when swords have been beaten into megaton bombs,
the persistence of ancient, blood-washed theisms that emphasize their
singular righteousness and their superiority over competing faiths
poses a genuine threat to the future of humanity, if not the
biosphere: ''We can no longer ignore the fact that billions of our
neighbors believe in the metaphysics of martyrdom, or in the literal
truth of the book of Revelation,'' he writes, ''because our neighbors
are now armed with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.''
I have a particular ire for religious moderates, those who ''have
taken the apparent high road of pluralism, asserting the equal
validity of all faiths'' and who ''imagine that the path to peace will
be paved once each of us has learned to respect the unjustified
beliefs of others.'' Religious moderates are the ones who thwart all
efforts to criticize religious literalism. By preaching tolerance,
they become intolerant of any rational discussion of religion and
''betray faith and reason equally.''
The human need for a mystical dimension to life like mysticism and
other forms of knowledge, can be approached rationally and explored
with the tools of modern neuroscience, without recourse to
superstition and credulity.
At this time Islam is the reigning threat to humankind. Much like a
gruesome, Inquisition-style Christianity of the 13th century only
leads us to believe not all cultures are at the same stage of moral
development,'' I couldn't help but think of Ann Coulter's morally
developed suggestion that we invade Muslim countries, kill their
leaders and convert their citizens to Christianity.
I will say this of Faith: it has been the foundation of every
religion, every cult, every sect, every religious terrorist
organization that desired to gain advocates whose will greatly
exceeded their intelligence. When a religion asks that its followers
believe all that it declares, and to do so without evidence, it speaks
volumes of the intent and meaning of that religion. These churches,
temples and mosques, they will keep their followers in the shadows of
millennium past. Evolution is still howled as the great enemy of
faith. It simply has the greatest following of scientists and
evidence. It's not scientifically that any religion has ever tried to
debunk Evolution. They brought forth no evidence. They claimed no new
discoveries. Their only tactic was to point to tattered and very old
scriptues -- to flip through the pages, and read the rancid words,
almost as if they were pure gold. Faith does not require
investigation, or evidence, or demonstration, or observation, or
logical deductions. It simply requires that a person believe, in spite
of what evidence may say: it requires that a person blindfolds
themselves when demonstration is shown, to use earplugs when anyone
speaks of logic, and to turn away at every reason for them to believe
what Faith tells them is wrong. Those cults and sects which have
utilized violence for the realization of their apocalyptic future --
they required nothing but the willpower and a great deal of Faith.
.
|
