Secularism as Religion’s New Home

We are all too aware of acts and atrocities carried out by religious authority in the past and even in the present, as well as those verses in scripture that justified them. So is it no surprise therefore, that there are people who act on them? The apologist may argue that there may always be violent and dangerous people, but if one were to remove scripture as a source for ‘morality’ then in the very least, such people would no longer have a base to justify their actions. It would mean that their source that justifies their actions would no longer exist. But its really a non-starter because the argument presumes that 'people' and 'religion' are not mutually exclusive, when there is very little way of knowing that.

But while the fact that religion causes so much violence and hate is a good point to make, for me, it comes secondary to my first argument against it, which is "Is it actually true?" Because if it isn't true, as it most surely isn't, then people fighting, sentencing homosexuals to death, forcing women against their human rights, mutilating children's genitals, etc, only serves to make it look even more pathetic and stupid.

And this whole idea "Oh I have the true interpretation of religion 'X'! All those people committing genocide and atrocities in the name of religion 'X' have got it wrong!" is absolutely pathetic, and that's the most respect I can give to that argument.

'Liberal theology' actually derives its values far more from secular (and Humanist) practices and moral progresses, not from religion. Why Christians today don't stone to death disobedient children [Deuteronomy 21:18-21] or keep slaves [1 Corinthians 7:20-24] etc, is not because the Bible says not to [because it most surely does!] but because of secular moral progress - that is, progress IN SPITE of religion. The entire idea that somehow someone is against slavery because they think it what their God or holy book says, is completely, utterly, totally, absolutely wrong, completely wrong. There are no two sides to this. They'll make excuses and pass it off as much as they want, but they are wrong.

I can appreciate that there are decent, civil, kind, generous, warm-hearted people who, at least would like to think, that they're religious believers. I have family members who think like this myself, and I still love them dearly. But I simply argue that they're not really Christian, because Christianity at least, has come so far removed from itself now, that Christianity today would not recognisably be called 'Christianity' hundreds of years ago. 'Moderate Christians' would be classed as heretics or even atheists, heaven forbid [pun intended].

But religion doesn't have a self-correcting mechanism like science does. There isn't any way of changing the 'word of God', is there? The word of God is the word of God, as it is written in the holy books. Instead, it jumps on the back of the secular moral persuasion, which is self-correcting, and then claims that it's somehow 'grown up' or 'not so bad any more'. The so-called 'fundamentalist Christians' are simply the more 'theologically honest Christians'.

In a secular society, we need to make ourselves aware of this, and to not treat religion as some kind of rejuvenated or enlightened instruction manual on 'How to be a good person'. Its not. Religious people in more secular societies are actually far more secular [non-religious] than they realise.

Rotten To The Core

When we go back to the very beginning in the Bible with the Adam and Eve story, God banished them from paradise because they disobeyed God’s command, which was not to eat from the forbidden tree, which is called 'Original Sin'. But how is this by any stretch of the imagination, passed off and socially accepted? My suspicion is that they don’t imagine. But religious apologists often cite that it was because of Mankind’s ‘free will’ despite the logical inevitability that God knew all along that they would commit the Original Sin.

But the problem that I have the most is how can God justifiably ‘punish’ his alleged favourite creations for acquiring knowledge of good and evil, when they had no prior knowledge of good and evil? It would be like telling a 2-month-old baby that she’s not allowed to play with a certain toy. Then assuming she understood what you just said to her, walking out the room, coming back to find her playing with the toy, and then saying “I told you!” and booting her out of the house because she disobeyed you. It’s insane. You wouldn’t find it morally acceptable in any other context, would you? The issue of ‘free will’ aside, it still wouldn’t be morally justified even if Adam and Eve (and Mankind) did (does) have free will.

But it doesn’t matter whether the story is true or not. The point is that it’s the beginning of concept behind the Christian ideology. Jesus then came to forgive us of our sins, which stems from Original Sin. The central core behind Christianity, and indeed all the Abrahamic faiths, is that “You are created sick, and commanded to be well” as Christopher Hitchens so eloquently put it. I find it morally repugnant and offensive to human dignity.

‘You cannot be ‘well’ if you do not accept Jesus Christ as your lord and saviour’, is the rotten foul stench that has revolted me most about Christian dogma. Anyone who wishes to accept this as a moral basis to their life or to pretend that it makes them a better person because of it is a fool and wishes to be a slave. The entire point as to why Jesus died on the cross is because humans are foul sinful and shameless beings, which God allegedly created in the first place.

And above everything else, it gets even more stupid once you realise the inevitable conclusion that God doesn’t exist.

God in the Brain

Part One:


Playlist:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C4C38FD8924789B9