The Credibility of Religion

The Credibility of Religion
Before the current effects of religion are brought into question, and before even events of the far past are looked at and scrutinized, it is the very origins of religion that must be looked at before a case to defend atheism/agnosticism is even developed. In this essay, I will speak of and address predominately Christianity. This is because in this country Christianity is dominant and therefore the most relevant. However, most of the points I make apply to all religions, past and present.

I: FAITH AND THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION

Before I even begin, let us look at this as a trial case: As in all cases, the prosecution has the burden of proof. It is not up to the atheist or agnostic to give proof why theism is false: Atheism and agnosticism are blank beliefs, their followers of open, clean minds, ready for any religious institution that may pass their own unique credibility tests. As of yet, if you are an atheist or agnostic, none have. Despite this, most want to hear Christianity’s case. Why should we believe every tenet, big or small, that you teach us? They would have it so that we believe it in chunks: If we believe in Jesus, we must be pro-life; If we believe in God and the Bible, we must be opposed to gays, female priests, contraception, etc. This should not be the case. Each and every law and rule is a separate case. Each one must be proven to stand up against a reasonable doubt. Of course, the way theism has gotten away with this block teaching of religion is by espousing blind faith. This is, of course, believing in something to which you have no evidence. This is considered to be a virtue, and people say with pride that they believe this. Why? Even if Jesus taught one good thing, does that mean that this other “good” thing must be true automatically? It’s also illogical to believe in something for which you have no evidence, and I feel that even by having to explain that, my own intelligence is being insulted. I could very well believe a purple unicorn lived in my back yard. When someone asked me how I could prove it, I’d say I just have to have faith. Of course, for this statement to have any weight, I have to say it in a solemn, proud voice, preferably with my hands folded and my eyes gazing skyward. I could of course also say, “What’s your proof against it?” and the naysayer would be stumped. This leads us back to burden of proof. Now, if I wrote the rewards of believing in the unicorn, the torture that awaits anyone who disobeys Him (He’s a male unicorn, of course – even though God doesn’t have a body, he always seems to end up male), and the simple rules and prayers that will keep you happy, I’d have a winner.

Why has religion persisted? It first appeared about 50,000 years ago in pre-historic times, and some believe this to be because of dreams. It helped explain why the sun rose and set, the seasons, why people and animals did what they did. They had no science, no ways of testing anything, and no interest in doing so. Thus, a simple, supernatural explanation was born. First, there was only polytheism. This, some scholars believe, is because they wanted to relate the gods to themselves, make them a divine shadow of their own kind. Of course, there was media value as well. The stories of Greek gods and heroes are far more interesting and fun then the myth of Jesus. Zoroastrianism is the first religion to even have monotheistic tendencies, and even that had two main forces: one the ultimate good, one the ultimate evil, and each had a small council of beings very similar to our angels and demons (If this sounds eerily like God and Satan, it’s because it’s a prototype of the very thing). Then came the dawn of monotheism, and eventually western religion.

In my opinion, new religions have spread so quickly because they are new. They are always on the cutting edge, defying customs, making the world better, helping humanity. Considering Jesus lived 2,000 years ago, he was amazingly liberal, bright, and wise. These ideals spread quickly, and before you know it, parents are teaching children, then grandchildren, and then great grandchildren. It’s persisted until today. Some psychologists believe that for some time now, religion has become so ingrained in a person’s psyche that it is literally impossible for them to let go of it, lest they become deranged or depressed. People are born curious, and when they hit a certain age, their psyche begins to develop the ability to think abstractedly, and to form inferences even if the actual subject isn’t written out in plain sight. This is why people crave religion. To look around you, to contemplate even a tiny bit of who you are, where you came from… You have to wonder what created you, what created the world and the universe. Evolution through natural selection is sufficient to explain how life began, and geologists, anthropologists, and paleontologists have explained how the earth and the planets got here. The Big Bang Theory, in my opinion, is a pretty good indication of how the first moments of our universe were spent. But of course, no amount of science can explain how something came out of nothing. Quantum physics, even, with all of its probabilities and astounding intermolecular revelations, is not sufficient. Logic tells us that if there is nothing, there must be nothing for eternity. Since there is nothing – no matter and no energy (Which actually are the same thing) – there can be no burst, no matter how tiny, of anything. The Big Bang is defined mathematically as one over zero, a theoretical fraction which has no literal connection. This one abstract and unexplainable fact leads modern theologians and theists to conclude that there must be a God.

This theory, on the surface, is the only conclusion to be drawn. However, there are holes. First of all, even if we were to assume that this is true, there is no reason to suggest that this particular god is your god, whatever it may be. Secondly, it might not even be one. It wasn’t until Zoroaster that “God” was even considered to be one thing. When you think about it, there is not a single reason why “God” should be one and not many entities. Still, for the sake of argument, let’s say that God created the universe. How? Let’s think logistically: If God created the universe, he also created physics, chemistry, microbiology – the sciences that make up our world. So, he had to have done it using physical means. Even if he were all-powerful, he would still have had to abide by the rules of the very thing he created. So, how did he do it? If there was nothing, there was no combustible or spark to set off the explosion that was the Big Bang. Come to think of it, if there was nothing, how was there God? If there was no universe, no light, sound, solids, liquids, gases, any kind of structure whatsoever, God is not even comprehensible as an abstract concept. He had no molecules, no atoms, and there was no space for him to take up even if he had them. What was he? Theists contend he was and is “pure spirit” but what does that mean? It’s not energy, because energy is something, and before God created the world, there was nothing. Theists would contend that a) God is so perfect, he can’t me envisioned by humans, or imagined with any kind of human characteristic, and b) God is so powerful he can transcend physical laws and create things beyond them. Well, the second point has already been refuted, because even considering God was a puppet master, his puppets would have to be connected by physical strings. On the first, I would say that a) The Bible says that God created man in his own image, which does create kind of a sticky situation, and b) If we as humans are asked to define or believe in something that’s beyond our comprehension, it is not logical to do so. It’s like asking someone to make up a color they’ve never seen before, or to imitate a sound they’ve never heard. Once envisioning that color or sound, you have heard or seen it, and the task becomes otiose. Thus the question becomes, how did he do it? How did God create the world without running into the philosophical barriers I just erected? I’m not saying there’s a scientific answer yet to how the world was made, but if you think believing in God gets you any closer, you’re wrong: the same walls are there, only they’re masked by simple answers like, “God was always here”, “God is pure spirit”, “He’s all powerful”, “He can create anything” – these, when thought about, amount to nothing. And, consider this: twenty years ago, we didn’t know how genetics were passed on. DNA was discovered. 150 years ago, we thought two people who were created on the sixth day of existence populated our entire human race. Evolution was discovered. 500 years ago the earth was thought to be flat. Man is discovering new things every day, and based on the amazing discoveries that have been made in the past couple decades, I believe it’s only a matter of time before the beginning of the universe is, if not fully explained, at least partially understood.


II. EVOLUTION

I have already cited it many times. Several decades after Darwin’s books were published, and further research and investigation began to prove his theories true, the mass populace began to take up his theories. In the past ten years or so, even religious fundamentalists have become believers in evolution through natural selection. However, as with all faults recognized in the theistic spider web, they are explained away using other strands in the same web. They explain that of course God created the world, but he created the life that would become man. Or, he created the world slowly over billions of years, and the whole “seven days” thing was a parable. These suggestions are open to criticism. Firstly, if “seven days” was a parable, that means all of the Bible stories from Noah’s Ark to David and Goliath to Moses – In short, the Torah/Old Testament – ones previously thought to be unbelievable because they were supernatural – can now be defined as parables. Why not? Phonetically speaking and content-wise, they are on the same level as the Creation story, and if it is a parable, the entire first half of the Bible means something else. Secondly, when entering into the school of thought that embraces a mashing of Darwinism and Creationism, we encounter the philosopher Peter Bysshe Shelly’s logical truth: “We can only infer from effects causes exactly adequate to those effects.” That means that when an event occurs and the cause is unproven (In this case, human life) we have no choice but to infer and reason a conclusion. One popular conclusion is that a Creator made life, and that’s why we are what we are. Another is that life evolved from a primordial state into what we are today. Both of these “causes” are exactly adequate to the effect, which is life. It would be the same, for example, if I had a piece of paper on a table next to a window, and I left the room. When I came back, the paper was on the floor. I could infer that the open window let in wind that knocked the paper down. I could also infer that the person sitting next to it accidentally knocked it down. However, it would be illogical to assume that first the wind knocked it down, and then the person picked it up and dropped it. This cause would be more then adequate to the effect, and therefore cannot be inferred logically. Evolution is sufficient to explain life, and so is a Creator. To say that it is a sum of the two cannot be reasoned with philosophical soundness. To choose between the two, it comes down to scientific evidence. Or blind faith.

For the past several years, the pendulum has swung in such a way that it has now become popular to question and even disregard Charles Darwin’s work. This is not surprising, considering the moment the thought of disregarding this known science was brought forth, containing several pieces of bogus and stretched science with it, it caught on with Creationist theists like wildfire. They had been waiting for years to bring back literalness to the Bible, and this was their chance. I shouldn’t speak in past tense, because as I write, Creationists are proposing teaching this myth in public schools as science. Not only does this fairy tale have no evidence, it can’t even be tested. Since it can only be hypothesized and concluded, with no experimentation in the way, it is not science. Even though evolution has not be 100% proven, which I fully admit, many scientists have and are investigating, trying to find the missing link, looking for fossils and geological evidence compatible with the theory. Creationists kneel down and pray, cite ancient texts that may or may not be true, and some act as cannibals by saying they eat the flesh and drink the blood of the living Christ every Sunday! Please, I beg of you, stop spitting in the face of reason and join the rest of your civilized species. But I digress. Opponents of Darwin’s theory indicate the Cambrian explosion, a point in pre-history when during a few centuries thousands of new phylum appeared and greatly advanced the evolutionary period. There are allusions that this was the time the Bible was talking about when it said God created the world. I read nothing about “God created the world in seven days, left it alone for a few million years, then came back and created the rest of it” in the Bible. The Cambrian explosion was a very natural part of a different kind of evolution that is rapidly taking the place of the former gradual, slow version so widely accepted. This kind exists in almost no change for a very long time, followed by short bursts of rapid evolution. This type is well documented, and is a good, real, explanation of the Cambrian explosion. It is a complicated question, because countless ecological, geological, and biological variables exist, and I am not a scientist. However, what I do know is that even if hypothetically the Cambrian explosion dis-proved evolution, in it no way propels Creationism. What kind of idiot Creator makes the universe, then comes back after a few eons and speeds it along. If I didn’t know better I’d say that these people believe God is on a schedule, pushing mankind along because he got bored watching over slime and algae.

III. CONTEMPORARY “EVIDENCE”

Holy books include the Torah, Bible, Qaran, and any other book summarizing the history, prayers, and general teachings of that religion. I could go on about how taking these works literally is illogical, and how they contain certain types of content that are incompatible with the supposed teachings of the church. These things are true. However, I propose that a holy book in its entirety be scrutinized and in some cases discarded. The origins of the Bible are largely unknown, and although the New Testament can be mostly credited to the Apostles, it was so long ago that it is a long way from certainty. In fact, I feel that the entire span of content is as well. The New Testament was written from 40 – 100 C.E. Guttenberg didn’t invent the printing press until the mid 1500s. The first reliable printed Bibles weren’t found until the early Middle Ages, around 1100. That’s a lot of leeway. How much had the Bible changed since then? If the Apostles existed, is it really their words that are being not only espoused, but taken word for word literally around the world? Even if there is a level of certainty, it is most definitely not enough to stand up to reasonable doubt. Holy books, although they do contain many good ethical truths which would make the world a better place, should be discarded as proof of God.

Another piece of evidence that isn’t used as much by a church or belief system as a whole, but more by individual believers, is prayer. This is the practice of talking directly or indirectly to God, usually thanking or praising Him, repenting for sins, and asking for things. Prayer is an integral part of most religions, and although the system and tone of each religion’s prayers are different, they are all used to give credibility to their respective faiths. How do they do this? I have heard numerous ways: “Prayer comforts me when I’m down, it makes me feel empowered and confident” “Every time I pray something good happens” “I asked for something and it came to me after praying”. Of course, there is the first point of skepticism, which comes after realizing that although all of these things have supposedly happened to you, they have also supposedly happened to people of every other religion, some of which pray to different gods. This right away should take away much of prayer’s credibility. Second of all, if you are a person who prays every day, or even just once or twice a week, there are bound to be coincidences when your prayers for a promotion, a new car, courage, knowledge, whatever, are answered. It’s just a law of averages. Besides, much of prayer’s effect is psychological anyway. If you are devout in your faith, when you pray, you believe whole-heartedly that you are going to receive an answer. You do, only it’s not an omni-present all-knowing Creator – it’s your own psyche. Another interesting facet of prayer, at least in my opinion, is the complex specificity that many times must accompany it. Since ancient times, cultures have used rituals, spells, and sacrifices, all to appease God or a god. These rituals have persisted today. Every little nuance of a mass or a prayer or a sacred ritual must be analyzed and asked of it, “why is that necessary?” God is the most powerful entity known to man (supposedly). He is omni-present, all-knowing, immortal. Why does he require a yarmulke to be worn by Jews? Why does he require Muslims to face Mecca when they pray? Why must Christians speak in Latin for certain prayers? Come to think of it, why must Christians dress up every Sunday? God sees us in the shower, in the bathroom, having sex; why does he require us on that one day to wear a button up shirt and nice pants? It’s ridiculous. All of these things are labeled as traditions, which they are, and are taken as seriously and as literally as any other theistic commandment. Of course, like any other theistic concept (or at least Christian), there is a net of safeguards set up to protect skepticism and rebellion. In this case, it is the tenet that God always answers prayers. If you ask for a relief for a sadness you may be feeling, but do not receive it, then obviously God is sending you a message by not relieving your pain. After all, he is more powerful then the most powerful of humans, and therefore can answer your prayers in more complex and abstract ways then you can comprehend. This securely takes away any good believer’s objections to prayer’s faults.

Theists contend that since their religion has stood the test of time – wars in the Middle Ages, the Crusades, World War II, dictators and tyrants, Communism – God must surely be trying to protect it. Firstly, the problem becomes that although your religion may have very well stood the test of time, many other religions have stood as long and longer. Hinduism has prevailed since centuries before Jesus. However, this argument does give one an opportunity to talk about the charming things theists have done throughout history. Let’s talk about the Crusades, when millions were killed out of supposed faith, when in reality it was greed and lust for power. Let’s talk about the Puritans, and a lovely little anecdote called the Salem Witch Trials. My personal favorite, the Inquisition, when the Pope – The Pope which, the Catholic Church says, is infallible when it comes to Church teachings – sanctioned the execution of tens of thousands of women. What, no men? Isn’t that interesting. Even today, exorcisms are performed, the Church allows the death penalty, and women are not allowed to be priests. But then again, those things are all in the past – the Church is tolerant of everyone nowadays… except for pro-choicers, gays, women, Democrats, skeptics, and pretty much anyone who dissents in any way. These people are labeled “cafeteria Christians” because they “pick and choose what they want to believe”. Not only is the Church’s history not credibility of religion, it is a strong argument against it.

One argument, which I have already disregarded, is on the large numbers of people who are a specific religion. Theists argue that with millions of people believing something, it has to be true. Two words: Adolf Hitler. It is true, only about 5% of people are atheist or agnostic. One third of Americans wouldn’t vote for a candidate, regardless of that candidate’s other political beliefs, if that candidate were an atheist or agnostic. Religion has spread with such fervor over the past two millennia, and I suppose even before that, that it’s not surprising such numbers believe in a fairy tale. Consider: Before Jesus, and even for some time after, millions were pagan. They still burnt animal and human sacrifices. Some religions, obscure and sparse as they may be, still do. On the base level, what really makes any monotheistic religion, any contemporary religion for that matter, any different? History tells us that although a religion may span millennia, they go out of fashion eventually. One must have a lot of blind faith to believe that their religion is any different.