We shall not make the mistake to say “religion” and mean only “Christianity” (as, unfortunately, many atheist comrades-in-arms have). Rather, we want to study the effects of religions in general. This is a difficult endeavor, because there are so many different religions. Yet, there are a few things that all major religions share by definition:
They make supernatural statements. Otherwise they’re not a religion.
They are sufficiently old to be considered a religion. Otherwise, they would be a new religious movement. Since religions are by definition old, their moral framework typically predates our current moral values. In the same way, their view of the world predates ours.
They have survived until today, which makes them a religion and not a mythology. Since the religion has survived until today, it has most likely used some of the religious survival memes that we have discussed before.
These commonalities allow us to identify and criticize traits that most major religions share.
We will look at these traits from a Humanist point of view, i.e., from the perspective of someone who defends equal rights for men and women, supports the freedom of religion, subscribes to a liberal moral framework, believes in science and logic, and is generally interested in the well-being of people and society.
The reader is reminded that the details of all major religions are discussed in the Chapter on Religions: The Indian religions (Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism), the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Spiritualism, the Bahai Faith), and the East-Asian religions (Confucianism, Taoism, Shintoism). The denominations of Christianity (Orthodoxy, Protestantism, and Catholicism) are discussed in the Chapter on Christianity. Islam is explored in detail in the Chapter on Islam(not available here for security reasons). We will occasionally limit our analysis to the most populous religions, Hinduism, Christianity (or more precisely Catholicism), and Islam, which together comprise around half of the world’s population.
Throughout this chapter, as throughout the entire book, a religion is understood as a set of belief statements (also called simply “beliefs”). For example, Hinduism is understood as a set of beliefs that include “There is a repeating cycle of birth, life, and death called Samsara”, “There is a supernatural justice called Karma, which rewards good deeds in future lives”, and a number of other such beliefs. An interpretation of a religion is a superset of these beliefs, i.e., a set of beliefs that contains the core beliefs of the religion and some more beliefs. For example, there are different interpretations of Hinduism that all believe in Samsara and Karma, but revere different gods. We will occasionally speak of the mainstream form of a religion to mean the interpretation (i.e., the set of beliefs) that the majority of adherents uphold. For example, 61% of Hindus believe that there is one Supreme Being with several manifestations1. Therefore, mainstream Hinduism contains this belief along with the belief in Samsara and the belief in Karma. This does not mean that what we call mainstream Hinduism is the “correct” Hinduism, let alone the “true” one. It does not mean either that “mainstream Hinduism” would be a monolithic or recognized form of the faith. It just means that the majority of adherents hold these beliefs, even if they differ in other beliefs. As discussed before, we will occasionally say that a religion “says”, “believes”, “prescribes”, or “prohibits” something, which just means that its beliefs contain such an affirmation, prescription, or prohibition. We will also occasionally say that some religion “does” something, by which we mean that adherents do that something.
If there is a god, atheism must seem to him as less of an insult than religion.
In a nutshell
From an atheist point of view, religions are stories that people tell each other. The harm of this practice unfolds as follows:
Religions do not make any predictions about the physical world. (They cannot do this because they are, by definition, unfalsifiable.) This means that, by adhering to a religion, one does not learn anything about the real world that could not be known otherwise as well. Religion is thus, from the viewpoint of understanding the real world, a useless construction.
Since a religion does not make any predictions about the real world, we can never find out if it is wrong (which is again just a consequence of its unfalsifiability). Thus, religion is an ideological trapdoor: once we start believing in it, we can never find out if we are mistaken. This means that a believer has left the sphere of rational argument. In religious matters, anyone can claim anything.
Tied to that ideological trapdoor are a set of moral values that are benign at best, besides the point in many cases, and sometimes in outright contradiction to the Human Rights: All major religions (except Taoism and some variants of Protestantism) give less rights to women; all major religions (except the Bahai Faith, Buddhism, and Taoism) oppose interfaith marriage; all major religions (except liberal Christianity and variations of Hinduism and Taoism) shun homosexuality; and all major religions trivialize or even glorify violence by presenting hell as a solution to human wrong doing.
Since no religion can be proven wrong, and since they all differ, they create clans of adherents that are based neither on kinship nor on reason, but on ideology. The boundaries between these clans coincide with conflict boundaries all over the world. Examples are the Middle East, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Somalia, Nigeria, Darfur, Libya, Yemen, Lebanon, Sri Lanka, the Balkans, Northern Ireland, Sudan, the Philippines, Kashmir, Bangladesh, and Pakistan.
Let us now discuss these elements in more detail.
Intellectual Dishonesty
Medieval Notion of Truth
By definition, religions make supernatural statements. These typically concern gods, spirits, supra-systems, or the afterlife. Such statements are presented to be as true as observed facts. Religions do not distinguish between “This is a fact” and “This is a supernatural belief”. We may argue that Liberal Christians are an exception to this rule, because they take a very light view on religious dogmata. Yet, even liberal Christians will say “There is a god” with the same seriousness as “The Earth is spherical”. They consider both statements equally true. Adherents of all major religions will explain the facts of life (such as the genesis of the universe, or the good and bad events of life) by reference to supernatural will — with the same seriousness as they will explain other things by scientific theories.
In reality, there is a fundamental difference between supernatural statements and scientific statements: Scientific statements are based on evidence in the form of validated theories, and supernatural and magical statements are not. They are just claims (and unfalsifiable ones at that).
Religion blurs the difference between these two types of statements. It teaches people to trust in tales that have been collected thousands of years ago as if they had the same status as scientific discoveries. It makes no distinction between empirical study and oral tradition. Thereby, religions convey a medieval, mystical, pre-scientific concept of truth. Religion says that it’s OK to believe in unverified things, in unverifiable things, or in stories whose only voucher for truth is tradition — as long as it’s their own. We can say that we all believe things that have not been proven. However, when it comes to serious decisions such as which medicine to take, which material to choose for a bridge, or which school to choose for our children, we all seek evidence. Religion, in contrast, governs the most serious decisions in life at all (whom to marry, what to eat, what to do and what to avoid) — and it does so without the slightest evidence in its favor. For this to work, religions have to downplay the need for evidence. They have to say that evidence is not always required for something to be believed. The problem is that, by removing evidence from the equation, religion has robbed us of something way more fundamental: The means to distinguish true from false.
The devaluation of evidence has very palatable consequences. If evidence is no longer needed to believe, then there is no argument that can be brought forward against superstitions, lucky charms, homeopathy, quacksters, conspiracy theorists, cult leaders, faith healers, televangelists, Scientology recruiters, and all other types of charlatans who play with the gullibility of people. Worse, once evidence is removed as a criterion, we have no argument against religious fanatics, hate preachers, and terrorist demagogues. By abandoning evidence as a way to distinguish true from false, we give these people free reign to live and teach their fanaticism.
We teach people that faith needs no proof, evidence or justification, and then watch them believe the wrong thing.
Unfalsifiable statements
The supernatural statements that religions make are not just unsupported by evidence, but even unfalsifiable. This means that they cannot be proven false — even hypothetically. Take for example the existence of a god, of spirits, of Heaven, reincarnation, or of the Tao. There is no way to prove that these supernatural entities do not exist. God does not answer when we pray to him? That’s because he decided to not grant your wish! We have never heard anybody showing us evidence about life after death? That’s because Heaven is outside our perception! None of the gods or spirits has ever shown up? That’s because they are invisible! Other examples are abstract statements such as “Life has a meaning” or “There is something greater than us”. These statements can never be proven wrong either.
This unfalsifiability has three consequences. First, these statements are devoid of meaning. They do not make any prediction about the real world. From knowing that there is a god, we know nothing more about what will happen tomorrow than the unbeliever. This is because, if the statement told us anything concrete about tomorrow, we could see tomorrow whether the statement is false — and thus the statement would become falsifiable. This lack of meaning explains why religious people know nothing more about the future than unbelievers.
The second consequence of the unfalsifiability is more disturbing: Since the belief cannot be falsified, it is not possible to show that it is wrong — even hypothetically. This means that the believer has chosen a belief that prevents him from changing his mind. A believer cannot change his opinion by logical argument, and hence one cannot discuss his faith with him. He has given up searching. He is locked in on his viewpoint. He has arrived at a conviction that is beyond reason.
The third consequence of unfalsifiability is that anybody can come up with any other unfalsifiable belief. For example, if you claim that there is a god, I can claim that there are two gods. You cannot prove me wrong. For whatever argument that you bring forward for your god, I can always say that my gods are intentionally misleading you into your false belief, and that you just cannot notice it. You will say the same about me. We are each convinced that our respective own view is the only right one — but none of us can prove the other wrong. In such a setting, legitimacy cannot come from arguments or reasoning. Hence, legitimacy has to come from somewhere else. All too often, it often comes from amassing large numbers of adherents, from silencing critics, and in some cases even from violent domination.
The solution to these problems is, of course, to disqualify unfalsifiable statements from discourse. It does not make sense to argue about unfalsifiable statements, just like it makes no sense to argue about statements such as “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously”. Such statements just carry no meaning. Religions, however, cannot identify unfalsifiability as the culprit. If they did, they would immediately catapult themselves into senselessness. Hence, religions are bound to argue by non-logical means. With this, they destroy the basis of rational discourse. And indeed, religious adherents engage in all types of arguments that are not just wrong, but outright inadmissible in a rational discussion.
People will fight for a superstition quite as quickly as for a living truth — often more so, since a superstition is so intangible you cannot get at it to refute it.
False claims
A leaflet in Jerusalem, dating the creation of the Earth to roughly 4000 BCE.
of a leaflet by the Western Wall Heritage Foundation in Jerusalem, Israel.
Religions make not just statements that are unsupported by evidence and unfalsifiable, but also statements that are outright false. The most prominent example is maybe the Young Earth theory upheld in some interpretations of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. It holds that the Earth is just a few thousand years old (see picture on the right). Other examples are that Buddha could walk on water, fly through space, multiply himself into a million and back again, grow and shrink at will, and produce fire from his upper body and water from his lower body; that St. Joseph of Cupertino could fly; that Moses parted the Red Sea; that Mohammad ascended directly to heaven; and that Jesus healed the sick, died and rose again, and changed water into wine2. Even liberal Christians will recite the Nativity story as if it were true — while it is historically false. In addition, some religions claim contemporary miracles: faith healing (Christianity), a prophet miraculously surviving an execution (Bahai Faith), people being healed miraculously, or people levitating (Hinduism). These claims serve the purpose of knitting the religious society together.
From a scientific point of view, of course, all of these claims are false. God did not create life. Evolution did. Miracles do not happen. They are just stories. Faith Healing does not work, it’s all just fraud and hear-say. Moses did not part the waters. That’s just a mythical story. People cannot levitate, and they don’t survive when they are killed.
In all of these cases, the religions claim something that is outright false. They assuage us by saying that these claims are exceptional isolated cases; by saying that we should not criticize them because they are an element of faith; or by claiming that we cannot know the truth, and should hence give the benefit of doubt. That is false. We do know the truth: These miraculous occurrences go against the laws of nature. (This is by definition, because a miracle is what goes against the laws of nature.) However, things do not go against the laws of nature: the laws of nature have a much better track record of speaking the truth than any religion. Therefore, the miracles did not happen.
Thus, anybody who claims these things, and in particular who teaches them to children, speaks a falsehood.
You are completely entitled to opinions that are not supported by evidence. But the moment you spread that opinion as fact, while knowing that it is not supported by evidence, you are a fraud.
Knowing what God wants
Most major religions fall into several denominations or interpretations. Usually, adherents of one interpretation claim that their interpretation of the religion is “What God really wants” or “What the religion really is”, while all others are derivatives thereof. Moderates will say that the more conservative interpretations of their religion take the holy scriptures too literally, and are therefore not the true intention of the religion. Vice versa, conservatives argue that the more liberal interpretations of their religion are modernized deviations from what the god(s) or holy men said originally. Some people even believe that God personally told them what is the right thing to do — in a dream or in prayer. They then take a decision because “God told them so”.
In all of these cases, people claim to know what the supernatural entity really wants. From an atheist point of view, of course, the adherent’s interpretation of his religion is purely his own opinion. It is the result of whatever he was told as a child plus his own predilections. He then comes to hold that this mixture happens to be what God wants. Thus, the believer in effect raises his own conviction to the level of the divine. Believers may complain that atheists know no higher authority than man. But believers go a step further: They claim that their own interpretation of their faith is even above that of man.
The believer, of course, is unable to see this. For him or her, their belief is the will of God, and not their own. He or she is unable to conceive the thought that other people may have the same strong conviction about an entirely different interpretation of the faith.
Such a position is a problem because it gives these people a conviction that cannot be overturned by rational arguments. No moral obligation, no scientific proof, and no logical argument can override what God himself told the believer. The unfalsifiablility of the belief protects it from counter-arguments. This is dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness3. Some believers hold that God wants them to mutiliate the genitals of their daughters, others that God wants women to be obedient to men, and again others that unbelievers deserve death.
Now we may say that in the Western world, claims of “what God really wants” are harmless. The Western God says things such as “buy the red shoes instead of the blue ones”, or “all people shall live in peace”. But even this is not just well-meaning harmlessness. It is a dangerous way of thinking because it approves of the principle to argue with God’s will in the first place. Thereby, it approves of the way that religious extremists and terrorists argue. It tells the terrorist: “It is OK that you want to follow God’s will, but you are actually getting him wrong. I know what he really wants.” This is, co-incidentally, the same argument that the terrorists use. They also believe that they know what God really wants. Thus, by claiming that religious extremists do not practice “God’s will”, we actually lend support to their argument. In this way, religion makes us vulnerable to all kinds of fanatics that free-ride on the vehicle that religion created in the first place: the idea of arguing with God’s will.
So many idiots speak in God’s name. If God were real, he would speak for himself. The fact that God does not speak, and that he allows any lunatic who comes along to speak “in his name”, shows us that God is imaginary.
False claims of power
Some religions offer a method to ask the gods or spirits for a wish. These methods can be prayers, blessings, rituals, or intercessions. If believers practice such a method, they do it because they believe that the method will somehow change the future. Many people argue that prayer is merely a request, not a commandment to the gods, and hence they do not expect the prayer to have a direct impact on reality. However, the very fact of asking the gods for something implies the expectation that something will happen in return — or at least increase the probability of it happening. It does not make sense to ask for something while knowing that this will definitively not have an effect. Why would people pray “Please God, help the victims of the hurricane disaster”, if they were convinced that this does not change anything? They pray because they do believe that their prayer changes something.
The problem is that it doesn’t. Prayer has absolutely no effect on the real world, apart from psychological effects. Thus, claiming that prayer has any effect on the world is a lie. It is used to keep people in a religion, and to lure them into a belief system, a moral framework, and a world view. Yet, it promises people a power that it does not have.
The situation is worse when this claim is made by an official of the religion: a priest who claims to protect a house by blessing it; a faith healer who asks the gods to heal an illness; a monk blessing a marriage; or a shaman who claims he can increase fertility. In all of these cases, the official wrongly assumes a power that he does not have. This wrong power gives him an authoritative position in society. Thus, he uses a lie to secure his social status. Furthermore, this act is part of his job. For this job, he gets paid — either by the religious organization or by donations, but in all cases ultimately from the believers. This means that he uses a lie to make a living.
Those who offer false consolidation are false friends.
Pretentiousness
And no, your planet is not the center of the universe. CC0 NASA, with Earth added
Religions typically provide answers to the most fundamental questions of humanity: where do I come from, where do I go, and what is morally right? While thousands of people have dedicated their lives to finding the answers to these conundrums, religions claim they already have the ultimate answers to all of them — but without providing any evidence. That is pretentious. Examples are as follows:
Over millennia, humankind has developed thousands of legal and moral systems, written hundreds of philosophical treaties, developed millions of laws, permitted and then abolished slavery, shunned and then endorsed women’s rights, invented and then prohibited smoking — and it is still changing its laws every few months. And yet, the believer thinks that his current interpretation of his religion is the eternal and unchanged answer to all these struggles. Some believers even use this imaginary authority to tell others what they have to do. At the same time, believers of all eras and all cultures were always convinced that their respective interpretation would be the eternal truth, and yet these truths were all different.
For around 200 years, scientists have been seeking for the beginning of the universe. They have discovered atoms, quarks, and the theory of relativity, and they have given us X-rays, the GPS, radio, and aluminium on the way. They have not, however, discovered what happened before the Big Bang. Here, the believer steps in: She thinks that she can answer what thousands of experts cannot answer. Her theory of the origin of the world was developed by people from the Bronze-age, who thought that the Sun orbits around the Earth. Her theory has no verifiable evidence to support it, and it has given mankind no X-rays, no airplanes, no medical cures, and in fact no scientific result at all. However, the believer still thinks her theory can answer what science cannot answer. This is absurd. First, science has proven religious theories wrong over and over again in history. Second, a person who has never studied astronomy, cosmology, physics, chemistry, biology, or geology is simply not qualified to describe and evaluate these fields of science.
Science has not yet fully understood the workings of the human mind. And yet, the believer considers it obvious that there is some spiritual substance in us, known as the soul. What is more, the believer knows with complete certainty that this soul will live on after the death of the body. Some believers are so sure of their belief that they tell other people that they have high chances to go to hell, or that their loved ones are safe in paradise, or that they will be reborn in a different world. And yet, despite being so sure about the life after death, these believers thank their god whenever the chance to this transition is avoided.
Some believers hold that their religion is the only way to give meaning to life. They maintain that “the meaning of life” can be given only by belief in their god(s), and that, hence, atheists cannot have a purposeful life. This is not just false, but also an arrogant hijacking of the term “Meaning of Life” 7.
Some believers think that they can be in personal contact with the being(s) who created and maintain the universe. They believe that they can communicate with the creator of the world, and that he takes the time to help them find their car keys. And yet, in the very same minute the believer finds her car keys, the supernatural being lets hundreds of children starve to death, despite their prayers. Thus, the believer assumes that she is important enough to be helped in person by the highest being, while millions of others are not. As the American author Marshall Brain opinions8: For a believer to talk about his or her blessings in a huge natural disaster like a hurricane is to implicitly ignore the damage and suffering that are plainly visible for all to see. For anyone to believe that God personally helped her while at the same time wreaking havoc on millions of others is a supreme arrogance. The Iranian author Armin Navibi argues in the same direction: To assume that God is not only personally invested in the minutiae of your life, but that your problems are ultimately more important than other problems he may be asked to solve is both selfish and absurd, considering the incredible amount of individual problems and concerns of every human on this planet9. On the contrary, given the size and the scope of the universe, it is absurd to think that we might have any cosmically vital role in it 9.
All of these attitudes are pretentious, in sense that they claim to know something with absolute certainty without any verifiable evidence. Thereby, they belittle the efforts of all those people who really try to find the answers.
You do not even know the question,
but you already claim to have the answer.
Weirdness
An elevator in Jerusalem, Israel
Different religions have different beliefs. Usually, the beliefs of one religion appear strange or funny to believers of another religion. To illustrate this, we list here some curious beliefs. The reader is invited to guess whether the beliefs are made up for this book, or whether they are really part of a religion.
Adherents of this particular religion marry only within their faith. Since their faith comprises only 4 families, each marriage has to be approved by a geneticist in order to avoid genetic disorders. True or false?
True. Samaritans (who were mentioned in the Bible in the parable of the good Samaritan) number only a few hundred, and consist of only 4 families10. Since they marry only among themselves, genetic disorders are a danger, and couples have their genes checked prior to marriage11.
Adherents believe that in order to achieve liberation, one must renounce all possessions, including clothing. Therefore, the monks of this denomination stay naked. True or false?
True. As we have already briefly discussed, the Digambara denomination of Jainism shares this belief, and male Digambara monks live naked. Since women are not allowed to be naked in public, this obliges them to be first reborn as a man in order to achieve liberation.
Adherents believed that they have to kill voyagers and steal their possessions in order to worship their god.
True. The Thuggees were a religious minority in India that worshipped their goddess Kali in this way12. The English word “thug” derives from this movement.
Adherents believe that certain “dirty tasks” can be carried out only by certain “dirty people”. One of these “dirty tasks” is cutting the umbilical cord of a newborn. True or false?
True. In mainstream Hinduism, cutting the umbilical cord can only be performed by a member of the “Untouchable Caste”13.
Adherents believe that a man has to suck the penis of a baby boy.
True. Judaism knows the ritual of “metzitzah b’peh”, in which the man who circumcised the penis of the baby sucks out blood from the wound14. This ritual has become less popular in recent times.
Adherents believe that a certain specific ritual can protect them against throat illnesses.
True. Catholicism knows the “Blessing of the throats”, which asks God to deliver the recipient from every disease of the throat15.
Adherents believe that their underwear is the most sacred of all things in the world. This is because the underwear provides protection against temptation and evil. True or false?
True. The Latter Day Saint movement (also known as the Mormons) requires wearing a certain type of underwear. This underwear has spiritual purposes, and protects against temptation and evil. Hence, Church President Joseph F. Smith taught that the garment was to be held as “the most sacred of all things in the world, next to their own virtue, next to their own purity of life”16.
Adherents believed that their savior will return during the lifetime of those who have met him. Since the savior has disappeared some hundred years ago, and has not reappeared since, adherents conclude that there must be a person who met the savior, and who is still alive — wandering around incessantly until the savior finally comes back.
True. Jesus promised “truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom”[Bible: Matthew 16:28]. Since Jesus’s kingdom has not yet come, medieval Christians concluded that there must be one person from that time who is still alive — the “Wandering Jew”17.
Adherents believe that the savior will come by airplane. To welcome the savior, they have created a special landing place, they dress up as airport assistants, they talk into wooden walky-talky imitations, and keep waiting for the savior to land. True or false?
True. In so-called cargo cults, indigenous populations believe that a savior, called John Frum, will come by plane and bring them goods. To facilitate his arrival, they imitate Western air traffic procedures with wooden tools18. When asked why they have been doing this for 20 years when John Frum has never come, leaders replied: Christians have been waiting for Jesus to return for 2000 years, and he has never come. 20 years are short in comparison3.
Adherents believe that the Earth will be destroyed soon. Therefore, they actively prepare for the end of the world. True or false?
True. Mainstream Christianity has been teaching for the last 2000 years that the end of the world is near. This belief is based on sayings of Jesus such as the following: “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage [...] and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.”[Bible: Matthew 24:37–39]. Christians have been predicting precise dates for the end of the world ever since Jesus’ death (Wikipedia maintains a list that is continuously updated19). The year 2012 was a popular guess, with 10% of the world population believing that the world would end that year20. As of 2010, 41% of Americans believe Jesus will return before 205021.
Adherents believed that the world will end in 1914. True or false?
True. Jehova’s witnesses found evidence in the Bible that the world would end in 1914. When it did not, they updated their prediction 1918, and later to 1925. They have currently abandoned these beliefs — possibly because they were false. Again, Wikipedia maintains a continuously updated list of unfulfilled predictions of Jehova’s Witnesses22.
Adherents believe that their genitals are retracting and will disappear. Women believe that their nipples will disappear, while men believe that their penis will disappear. True or false?
True. In East and Southeast Asia, Koro is the fear of the genitals or breasts retracting into the body, driven by culture and traditional beliefs23.
This particular church believes that gluten is essential to transform bread into their savior. True or false?
True. The Catholic Church holds that the altar bread physically transforms into the body of Jesus during Eucharisty. This does not work with gluten-free bread24.
Adherents believe that an extraterrestial dictator brought billions of his people to Earth, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs. The essences of these people form around people in modern times, causing them spiritual harm. True or false?
True. This is Scientology, with several hundred thousand adherents.
Adherents believe that they can be relieved from their sins if they listen to a certain radio emission. Since 1985, it is also possible to achieve relief from sins by watching a certain television program. Since 1995, relief can also be achieved over the Internet. True or false?
True. In Catholicism, those who are physically present in St. Peter’s Square in Rome, Italy, for the “Urbi et Orbi” blessing of the pope can expect forgiveness of their sins. In newer days, the effect of the sermon can also be achieved by listening to transmissions via the radio, television, or the internet25.
Adherents believe that God wants them to cut off a certain part of their body. Therefore, they perform rituals where they amputate body-parts of children. The ritual is performed without anesthetics. True or false?
True. In Islam and Judaism, adherents believe that they have to cut off the foreskin of a young boy’s penis. This ritual is frequently performed without anesthetization.
Adherents believe that, at certain times during the year, they are not allowed to eat or drink while the sun shines. Therefore, they get up at night before the sun rises in order to eat. Then they go to sleep again. True or false?
True. In Islam, adherents are not allowed to eat or drink during day-time during the month of Ramadan. The same is true for the Bahais, who observe a 19 day fast.
Adherents believe that copying of information (in particular the sharing of computer files) is a sacred activity. They also believe that in the beginning of the universe, there was a single bit, which was then copied over and over again to give rise to the universe. True or false?
True. The Missionary Church of Kopimism is registered as a religion in Sweden. CTRL+C and CTRL+V, the common computer shortcut keys for “Copy” and “Paste”, are considered sacred symbols26.
Adherents believe that they are not allowed to heat food during certain days. Therefore, there are special microwaves, which are switched on the night before, and which keep the food warm the entire night, so that adherents can eat warm food the next day without heating it. True or false?
True. In Judaism, adherents are not allowed to operate any devices on Saturday. To cater to these people, there all kinds of appliances that simulate normal functionality, but can be operated without pressing a button. For the same reason, orthodox Jews make stacks of toilet paper the day before Shabbat, because they are not allowed to rip off the paper on Shabat27.
Adherents hold weekly ceremonies. During these ceremonies, adherents believe that they eat a human. True or false?
True. In Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity, the bread that adherents eat during mass is believed to transform literally into the flesh of Jesus. In Protestant Christianity, the bread is only a symbol of Jesus’ flesh.
Adherents believe that God is a single being. At the same time, God consists of 3 separate entities. True or false?
True. In most denominations of Christianity, God is a unique entity that is three persons at the same time.
Adherents believe that they are not allowed to eat dairy products and meat together. Therefore, they cannot eat pizza that has cheese and meat on it. Restaurants have to separate meat and milk completely. For example, a restaurant cannot offer meat dishes and ice cream, because ice cream contains milk. You have to go to another restaurant to eat ice cream for desert. True or false?
True. The Bible says “Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk”[Bible: Exodus 34:26]. In Judaism, this is extrapolated to prohibit the coexistence of meat and milk in general in restaurants28.
Adherents believe that they have to throw their babies from a 10 meter balcony. This procedure is believed to bring good luck, health, and prosperity. True or false?
True. Hindu priests in the Indian state of Karnataka regularly perform this ritual 29.
Adherents believe that they receive mercy from a certain deity, if they crawl on their knees in the street. For this purpose, a “crawl lane” (similar to a bike lane) has been put in place, and people crawl on this lane in their thousands. True or false?
True. This is the pilgrimage of Orthodox Christians on the Greek Island of Tinos30.
Adherents believe that a man who robbed caravans, oversaw the enslavement of women and children, and had intercourse with a 9-year old girl is without moral fault. True or false?
True. According to Muslim tradition, the Prophet Muhammad and his followers routinely robbed Meccan caravans during their time in Medina. He oversaw the enslavement of the women and children of the Jewish tribe of the Qurayzah. He married his second wife, Aisha, when she was 6 years old, consummating the marriage when she was 93132. At the same time, Islam holds that Muhammad is without moral fault[Quran 33:21, 68:2-4], and questioning his integrity carries steep penalties in many Muslim countries.
Adherents follow the philosophy of the Jedis, the extraterrestial beings from the television series “Star Wars”. True or false?
True. The religion of Jediism is inspired by the Star Wars series, and has several hundred throusand adherents33.
Adherents believe that evil demons are afraid of white chickens. Therefore, they kill a white chicken and use it to chase away demons from a possessed person. True or false?
True. Hinduism knows several forms of exorcism, and this is one of them 34.
Adherents believe bread cannot be owned on one day of the year. Since the state owns the bread factories, the state sells the bread in these factories symbolically to a hotel manager for $5000, and then buys it back the next day. True or false?
True. In Judaism, some types of bread may not be owned on the Passover holiday. Since the State of Israel owns state bread companies, the prison service, and the country’s stock of emergency supplies, the bread is sold every year to Mr. Jaaber Hussein, a hotel manager residing in Abu Ghosh. The next day, the state buys it back.35
Adherents believe that people who died need physical items such as money or cars in their afterlife. To transfer these items to the dead after the funeral, paper replicas of these items are burned. The items include paper televisions, computers, and mobile phones for technological comfort, and Viagra, call-girls, and condoms for physical comfort. True or false?
True. East-Asian religious traditions incorporate this belief. The paper replicas are called “Joss papers”36.
Adherents believe that they should not come in contact with images of women. Therefore, they have specially configured smart phones that censor such content. To enforce its usage in the community, the devices have their own group of phone numbers and a distinctive ringtone. Members who circumvent this restriction and use the service WhatsApp will have their children expelled from school. True or false?
True. Haredi Jews have such a special “kosher connection” smartphones. This became necessary because while the Rabbis banned television sets and Internet connections, they could not ban computers and mobile phones37.
To an atheist, all of these beliefs are weird. Religion makes people believe things that would otherwise be considered completely absurd.
The easy confidence with which I can tell another man’s faith is a folly
tells me that my own is, too.
Disconnection from Reality
The American author Marshall Brain tells the following story38:
Imagine that I have an adult friend. Once you get to know her, you realize something. She believes in Leprechauns — dwarf-like figures of Irish mythology (pictured). She believes in them with all her heart.
She believes that she can talk to the Leprechauns by speaking silently to them in her head, or by speaking to them outloud with her hands folded.
She also believes that the Leprechauns will help her heal diseases.
If she loses something, she calls to the Leprechauns who live in her house to help her find it.
She says she has a personal relationship with the Leprechauns, and they guide her in many parts of her life.
She wears a shamrock necklace.
She believes that the Leprechauns created the universe. She says, “No one can deny that the Leprechauns created the universe, and no one can prove that they did not.”
When she dies, she believes that he will join the Leprechauns in a magical castle in the sky and live forever.
She believes that by talking to the Leprechauns, they will grant her wishes. Even if this has never happened in the past, she insists that it works.
Now, what do you think of my friend? Her beliefs are harmless, are they not? By speaking out loud to the Leprechauns living invisibly in her house, she feels less lonely and happier.
And yet... there is something creepy about it, isn’t there? Yes there is. It is creepy because you know that my friend is completely and totally delusional. She has lost her ability to distinguish the imaginary from the real.
In the very same way, atheists hold that believers in other supernatural reveries have lost the connection to reality. That in itself may be harmless. The trouble is that such people hold positions of power in our world. The presidents of the United States and of Pakistan, for example, are fervent believers in the supernatural — and they have access to nuclear weapons. They believe that they can influence reality by talking in their head. They also believe that when they die, they go to Heaven. Quite plainly, such people should not possess nuclear bombs.
The other religious people are actually accomplices to this situation. They insist that it is perfectly normal that these presidents believe that they can talk with the supernatural, and that they will be saved by that supernatural when they die. Thereby, the other religious people make it impossible to criticise the absurdity of the situation.
Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices.
Empty words
We have argued that religions are out of touch with reality and modernity. One way to cover this up is to use empty words. An empty word is a word that is used in its usual meaning, but then loses that meaning when it comes to nailing it down. Examples are as follows:
Christianity
Christianity holds that “God loves us”. However, this god does not do anything when we suffer, even though he could. Thus, the “love” has no consequence whatsoever. It is an empty word, disemboweled of its usual meaning. Another example is the fire of hell: In Catholicism, the eternal fire of hell is no longer really a fire since 1999. It does not actually hurt the condemned. It just burns away the sins. In Orthodox Christianity, too, the fire has been re-interpreted to be a side-effect of God’s love: It is “the presence of God’s splendid glory and love that is the scourge of those who reject its radiant power and light”39.
Judaism
The Bible explains that the Jews are God’s “treasured people from all the nations”[Bible: Deuteronomy 14:2, Exodus 19:5], and that God chose the Jews “because the Lord loved [them]”[Bible: Deuteronomy 7:7-8]. Now this assumed focus of God’s love did not go down well with other adherents of that god40. Hence, the term “chosen people” has been watered down to mean “people with a specific mission”. Some go on to state that “every people — and indeed, in a more limited way, every individual — is “chosen” or destined for some distinct purpose in advancing the designs of Providence.” (Wikipedia maintains a continuously updated list of reinterpretations of the term41). If everyone in the entire world population is “chosen”, however, then the word does not actually mean anything.
Islam
In mainstream Islam, women have less rights than men. Still, even the most conservative interpretations of Islam hold that “women are given the greatest honor in Islam”42. Usually, the word “honor” implies a position above the average person (it is synonymous with “privilege”43). In mainstream Islam, however, it is actually men who are “a degree above [the women]”[Quran: 2:228]. When pressed, an apologist can argue that “honor” means having certain rights and not being as subdued as in pre-Islamic societies42. This, however, this is less than the baseline established by the Human Rights, which gives all people the same rights. How is it any way an “honor” for women to have less rights than men?
In the same spirit, some women call the veil that the conservative interpretations of the faith impose on them a “liberation” because it allows them to freely participate in public life44. From an atheist perspective, this is absurd, of course, because the veil liberates women from a restriction that conservative Islam imposed on them in the first place. In any case, the imposition of a constraint cannot be considered a “liberation” in the common understanding of the word.
The Quran itself is considered a book of supreme wisdom and beauty, and a “literary miracle”45, as the Quran itself hints[Quran 2:23]. And yet, the Quran never achieved popularity outside Muslim lands46 (possibly because more than a quarter of the book talks exclusively about the terror of hell and the despicableness of unbelievers). Adherents argue that the beauty of the Quran unfolds only in Arabic. But can a literary miracle go away when it is translated?
Or consider Allah’s love: Allah loves his followers[Quran: 85:15, 2:222, 3:146, 2:195]. And yet, believers who do not follow God’s commandments are thrown into eternal hellfire without any possibility of redress[Quran: 30:45, 3:32, 22:38, 18:103-106]. But what does “love” mean if it does not know mercy?.
Hinduism
In Hinduism, we find the “law of automated justice”47 that is administrated by the karma: people are reborn in a state that reflects their previous good or bad deeds. It has to be said, though, that this justice may arrive only in the next life48. Also, when that justice arrives, the perpetrators will not know for what they were punished, as the previous lives are inaccessible to them49. So people are punished, but they don’t know for what. But what is justice if neither victim nor perpetrator know when it is administrated and for what reason? The atheist answer is clear: an empty word.
Most religions
Most religions (although not all) propose methods to influence one’s fate. These methods can be prayers, blessings, rituals, or intercessions. We have already discussed that these methods amount to false claims of power, because they do not work. Now the fact that they do not work is often artfully hidden under empty words: “God answers your prayers” would literally mean that the god performs some action in return to your prayer. However, since no action whatsoever happens in return to a prayer, it has come to mean “whatever happens anyway after the prayer will be considered the answer of God”. The word “to answer” has thus been voided of its meaning. In a similar way, sentences such as “Heaven protects you” or “This god protects you” would literally mean that you are safe from harm. But you are not. The words have been hollowed out.
In all of these cases, words have been re-interpreted beyond recognition: hell is no longer hell, justice is not really justice, an answer is not necessarily something that happens, and chosen people are no longer really chosen people. All of these words have become empty words.
Christians find themselves in extremely awkward and, quite frankly, embarrassing positions. They must believe that God answers their prayers even though it is quite obvious that he does not.
Moral Values
Dogmatic Values in the Abrahamic Religions
We now turn to the moral values that religions comprise. We have already seen that the Humanist moral system focuses on the notion of suffering: If something does not cause suffering to other humans or animals, it is allowed. If something does cause suffering, the perpetrator has to make up for the damage done. Furthermore, a punishment is applied to prevent the perpetrator from repeating the deed. The goal of this process is simple: It is aimed at compensating past suffering and at avoiding future suffering.
Some religions share this philosophy. The Five Precepts of Buddhism, e.g., concern only worldly issues, and prohibit killing, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, and intoxication. The 18 Titles of Hindu Law, likewise, regulate only earthly concerns. These are debts, ownership, field boundaries, contracts, verbal and physical assault, inheritance, and sexual violence. Of the Five Vows that Jains take, four are concerned with the well-being of other people. Spiritualism, too, centers its morality on the Golden Rule, “Treat others as you would like others to treat you”50. The Bahai Faith knows a list of do’s and don’t’s, and, as we have already seen, these are for the vast majority centered on human well-being. The Wicca religion even mirrors the Humanist understanding of moral values one-to-one, by stating “Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfil: An it harm none do what ye will”.
The moral frameworks of the older Abrahamic religions, in contrast, (i.e., Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) are not principally aimed at reducing suffering:
Judaism
Judaism derives 613 Commandments from the Torah51. And yet, the vast majority of them is concerned with food constraints, idolatry, and rites rather than with fellow humans.
Islam
Islam is said to rest on five “pillars”: the declaration of faith, prayer, almsgiving, fasting, and pilgrimage. Of these, only one is actually concerned with other people. The Reliance of the Traveller (the most well-known Sharia, i.e., concrete elaboration of moral rules based on Islamic sources) contains just as many chapters about rules that concern the sacred as it contains chapters about rules that govern inter-human relations[Reliance of the Traveller]. Furthermore, the most popular interpretations of Islam prohibit the criticism of the Prophet Mohammed, apostasy, and/or blasphemy — all of which do not cause suffering to other (living) humans.
Christianity
Christianity knows the overarching call to “love your neighbor”. And yet, Jesus complements this rule immediately by “Love the Lord your God with all your heart”[Bible: Matthew 22:34-40]. Of the Christian 10 Commandments, the first three are concerned with God, and only the remaining ones with other people.
This is part of a grander pattern, where moral rules are concerned at least as much with the supernatural as with other living beings. In such systems, morality is not question of whether someone is hurt, but a question of duty for its own sake. Such rules have served their religion well: by elevating rules about the sacred to the same level as rules about humans, and by blurring the difference between the two, the religions can piggy-back on the built-in human tendency to obey rules, and assure their own survival into the next generation.
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
The Consequences
Islam, Christianity, and Judaism detach morality from the effect on humankind. This has several consequences. First, certain behaviors may be immoral in the system, even though they do not hurt people. For example, not obeying ritual obligations is considered bad even though no damage is done to anybody. From a Humanist point if view, such rituals are needless restrictions of liberty. Second, and worse, certain behaviors may be moral in the system, even though they do hurt people. Examples are circumcision, female genital mutilation, or child marriage. Since the Abrahamic morality does not depend on whether someone is hurt or not, people can perform these harmful rituals unconcerned. Here, the religious system is in direct contradiction with Humanist ethics. Third, a moral system that does not depend on its effect on people teaches people that morality is something that they have to obey no matter whether they understand the reasons for it or not. This makes it impossible to adapt the values to the progress of society. It also makes it impossible to find compromises with other people who have a different religion. Compromises can only be found if people are ready to adapt their stance. A dogmatic religion cannot do that.
Dogmatic values can even fuel extremism and fanaticism. This works as follows: A religion that accepts dogmatic values accepts that people believe something just out of conviction — no matter whether there is an understandable reason for it or not, and no matter whether someone is hurt or not. The problem appears as soon as someone believes in a dogmatic value that is harmful. This may be the belief that his religion taught to everyone at school, that he has to marry off his daughter at the age of 12, or that he has to fight infidels. If we accept that dogmata are a valid reason for belief, then we have no argument against such a person. Whatever argument we bring, the person can always reply that he upholds his dogmata just like other people uphold their dogmata. He can always say that God told him to obey a dogma. Thus, the very concept of dogmata withdraws beliefs from the control of reason and argument.
It is thus surprising that moderate religious leaders teach their own dogmata on one hand, but complain about extremist dogmata on the other hand. If you teach people to follow dogmata, you should not be surprised that some people follow other dogmata than yours.
Obedience is not morality.
An Atheist and Humanist View
For atheists, there are no god-given dogmata. In atheist eyes, moral rules are made by people. This applies also to religious rules, which were, according to atheists, also created by people and then later ascribed to gods. In a Humanist world view, the overarching goal of rules is to avoid worldly harm to other beings. Such rules should be produced by a consensus of people. This requirement for consensus subdues the rules to argument, reason, and checks and balances. Thereby, it makes the rules less volatile to extremism. Much like open source software is more robust to bugs thanks to the collaboration of many people, secular values are more robust to fanaticism and discrimination thanks to their exposure to criticism from all sides.
This does not mean that secular values are always perfect. On the contrary, secular values have been brutal at times, they are far from being canonical or universally accepted, and they still offer plenty of room for improvement. Fortunately, secular rules can be changed if they are found to be imperfect. Secular rules are continuously discussed, changed, and improved. They are continuously adapted to technological progress, and modified to mirror the consensus of society. Dogmatic rules, in contrast, cannot do that.
The Buddha teaches us that we are each responsible for our own actions. If you are unsure whether an action is right or wrong, you can apply this simple rule of thumb as taught by the Buddha: If the action harms either yourself or another, then avoid doing that action. If not, then go right ahead. Now if you did harm somebody, then you have to make amends and ask for forgiveness. Ask the person that you wronged, and not a third party. If it is not possible to be forgiven by the person you wronged or to make amends, then you should let the matter go. Learn from it, and forgive yourself.
Asceticism in the Indian Religions
Buddhist monks monks chant the words of the Buddha in order to remind them of the virtues that the Buddha propagated and incorporated. When the monks acquire these virtues, they can hope for a better life after rebirth.
in Chiang Mai, Thailand
If, instead of chanting, the monks repaired the side walks, that would lead to a better life not just after rebirth, but already now — and not just for them, but also for the other people.
in Chiang Mai, Thailand as well
We have seen that Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism have value systems that are more centered on human well-being than their analoga in the older Abrahamic religions. However, these religions, too, have a peculiar moral value: asceticism, i.e., the practice of self-denial with the goal of attaining a higher spiritual state52. While many religions have known ascetics, today asceticism is prevalent mainly in Jainism, Tibetan Buddhism, and various branches of Hinduism52.
If someone wishes to live a secluded life to find spiritual fulfillment, there is nothing that a Humanist could have against that. The practice becomes problematic only if it is promoted as the ideal life style. This is indeed the case in some interpretations of these religions: In Jainism, the highest ideals of human life are represented by the ascetics, who renounce possessions, relationships, emotions, and desire, and who remain completely celibate in body and mind. In the Digambara denomination of Jainism, the spiritual liberation from the cycle of Samsara passes necessarily through asceticism53. In Hinduism, ascetics are known as Sannyasi. Their life is discussed in the Sannyasa Upanishads (sacred texts that extend the Vedas), and the rules that govern them are explained in the Dharmasutra[Baudhayana Dharmasutra: II.10.18] (legal sacred texts based on the Vedas). The latter holds that this practice makes the Sannyasi “fit to be united with Brahman”, and indeed, some interpretations of the faith promote asceticism as a path towards liberation5455. In Theravāda Buddhism, too, the ascetic life of a monk leads to liberation52.
From an atheist point of view, there is no Samsara, and thus no need to achieve liberation from it. On the contrary, by renouncing one’s worldly life, one wastes the only occasion that one has to enjoy the time on this earth. Thus, from an atheist perspective, any promise of liberation through an ascetic life is a treacherous way of making people waste their life. That waste does not just concern the ascetics themselves: the ascetics, monks, nuns in Buddhism52, Hinduism[Baudhayana Dharmasutra: II.10.18], and Jainism56 ask for alms. Thus, these people do not just waste their own life, but also the resources of the well-meaning people around them. Instead of being productive members of the society, they depend on other people’s money to achieve their own salvation.
Women’s rights
After having discussed the general mechanisms of moral values in the large religions, we now turn to concrete moral questions. The first of these concerns the role of women. We observe that the vast majority of people in this world adhere to a religion that does not give equal rights to women:
Traditional Judaism
This religion has traditionally given less rights to women. We have already seen that the Torah talks of wives as the property of their husbands[Exodus 20:17] and punishes the loss of female (but not male) virginity[Deuteronomy 22:13-21]. In this spirit, a traditional Jewish prayer goes “Blessed are you, Lord, our God, ruler of the universe who has not created me a woman”57. And indeed, the classical rabbinic social policy preferred to situate women’s activities in the private sphere of home, husband, children, and family economic endeavors, while men occupied the public domains of worship, study, community leadership, and judicial authority. To this date, women occupy a secondary status in Israel’s Jewish society, backed up by paternalistic legislation and the expectation that women will also assume most household responsibilities. Israeli women continue to fulfill the traditional Jewish role of enablers, supporting their husbands and sons, who hold the primary power and powerful jobs. While most Israeli women do fulfill a military service obligation, women in the military are limited to support positions. Israeli law gives the Orthodox religious establishment monopolistic control over marriage and divorce for all Jewish citizens, thus legalizing women’s substantial disadvantages in religious family law. As an example, over ten thousand women are “agunot”, i.e., women who cannot get a divorce because their husbands refuse to grant one or cannot be located.5859. That said, attitudes start to change: Reform Judaism holds that women are entitled to the same religious rights as men, and it ordains female rabbis60. In the US in particular, Jewish women take more assertive roles in their religion, and gradually water down traditional gender roles.58.
Most denominations of Christianity
Christianity is traditionally dominated by male entities. All its prophets are male. Its god is male (“Father in heaven”). Its main addressee of worship is male (Jesus). Hence, most major Christian denominations give leadership roles exclusively to males (priests, popes, bishops, etc.). This general preference for males in leading roles is just the tip of the iceberg. As we have already seen, it goes hand in hand with a less measurable, but more ubiquitous discrimination against women, in which men are generally considered the leaders in the family and society. This discrimination is then sold as a difference of roles — just that women are denied some roles while men are not. Pentecostalism and Lutheranism are an exception: they support full equality of the genders.
Mainstream Islam
The Quran holds that women may not marry Christians[Quran 60:10] (while men can[Quran 2:221]); that a woman has to be obedient to her husband[Quran 4:34]; that a son inherits twice the share of a daughter[Quran 4:11]; that, in court, the word of a man counts twice that of a woman[Quran 2:282]; that a woman is “a tilth” for her husband, which he can “approach as he wills”[Quran 2:222-223]; and that a man can “discipline” his wife[Quran 4:34]. The Sharia goes further, ruling that women have to cover every part of their body except hands and face[Reliance of the Traveller: f5.3], that they should cover their face if possible[Reliance: m2.3], and that they should not speak to men without necessity[Reliance: r32.6]. If the victim of a murder is a woman, her family can only claim half of the indemnity[Reliance: o4.9]. Husbands have full rights over their wives[Reliance: m5.4, m10.11]. Women may not travel[Reliance: m10.3], and she has to stay at home if her husband wants her to[Reliance: m10.4]. The husband can divorce his wife[Reliance: n1.1(a)], but the wife can only divorce her husband with his agreement[Reliance: n1.3]. In the view of the Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, this Sharia “conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community”61. While Muslims have different opinions on these questions, the basic inequality that a woman may not marry outside the faith while a man can is almost universally upheld62. Beyond this, most Muslims in Muslim-majority countries approve of one form or another of discrimination against women6364656667, and male dominance is enshrined in laws across much of the Arab world6869.
Bahai Faith
According to this religion, “The Emancipation of Women and The Achievement of Full Equality is one of the Most Important Prerequisites For Peace” [Lights of Guidance: Women / § 2090]. Unfortunately, this religion does not follow its own advice. The faith excludes women from its House of Justice, because its founder said so. The reason for this is unknown: The “wisdom of this will be known in the future, we can only accept, believing it is right, but not able to give an explanation calculated to silence an ardent feminist”[Lights of Guidance: Women / § 2073]. The religion also says “The Hearts of Women are More Tender and Susceptible Than the Hearts of Men”[§ 2091], “Woman by Nature is Opposed to War”[§ 2092], “The Woman has Greater Moral Courage Than Man” [§ 2093]. These are instances of benevolent sexism. If the faith really saw men and women as equal, it would make no such generalizations.
Mainstream Hinduism
The Laws of Manu require that “In childhood a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, when her lord is dead to her sons; a woman must never be independent”[Laws of Manu: 5.148]. On the contrary, “she shall obey [her husband]”[Laws of Manu: 5.151], and “a husband must be constantly worshipped as a god by a faithful wife”[Laws of Manu: 5.154]. The authenticity of these texts is disputed. This does not change the fact that the Hindu society works de facto as described in these laws: by help of religion and traditional practices, the patriarchal society propagates the idea that women should be subservient to men, that they are the weaker sex (emotionally, intellectually, as well as physically), and that girls are worth less than boys (because they usually do not earn money, will have to be endowed with a dowry, and will anyway be “married off” to another family). Due to these socio-religious beliefs of female inferiority, some female babies are killed, leading to a notable sex imbalance in India. The girls who survive are often reduced to household duties, they are measurably less literate than their male peers, and they are traditionally considered property of other people (first the father, then the husband) from their birth on. Most of Hindu women still follow restrictions of movement during menstruation based on religious beliefs, and in rural areas, school going girls are forced to stay home during their menstrual cycle, lest they pass by a temple in the street in an “unclean” state70.
Theravāda Buddhism
According to the Buddha, “It is impossible that a woman should be the perfect rightfully Enlightened One” [Pali Canon: Sutta Pitaka / Majjhima Nikaya / Bahudhaatukasutta]. According to him “women are prone to anger; women are envious; women are miserly; women are unwise. This is why women do not sit in council, engage in business, or go to Kamboja”[Sutta Pitaka / Anguttara Nikaya / 4:80]. Women are like black snakes, in that they are “wrathful, hostile, of deadly venom, double-tongued, and betray friends”[Sutta Pitaka / Anguttara Nikaya / 5:229—230]. “Women die unsatisfied and discontent in two things. What two? Sexual intercourse and giving birth”[Sutta Pitaka / Anguttara Nikaya / 4:61]. Maybe this is why, “for the most part women are adulterous”[Sutta Pitaka / Anguttara Nikaya / 5:229—230]. The Buddha classified women into 7 types of wives — which are either evil or submissive[Sutta Pitaka / Anguttara Nikaya / 7:59]. Modern apologists consider these sources unauthentic, and point to the fact that women have always played a significant role in Buddhism as lay disciples, that the Buddha admitted women into the monastic order, and that he affirmed their equality in intellectual and spiritual capabilities71. Nevertheless, even these apologists admit that the Pali Canon occasionally transmits patriarchal and misogynistic views71. These views are incorporated into Theravāda, the dominant Buddhist denomination in Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos and Thailand. For this denomination, a female birth is the result of less favourable karma than a male birth, that only a male can aspire to become a Buddha, and more generally that women are subordinate to men. As a result, Theravāda Buddhist countries are shaped largely by patriarchal attitudes, promoting a universal ideology of masculine superiority.71
Mahayana, the more liberal denomination of Buddhism, which is prevalent in China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, and Vietnam, takes a different path: The scripture of the Pure Land Sutras requires a change of sex at rebirth for women to attain Buddhahood72. However, later interpretations propose that this change of sex can take place in the woman’s mind, thus allowing her to start the path towards Buddhahood during her lifetime. While this possibility of Buddhahood is seen as proof of egalitarianism in modern commentaries73, the theme of sexual transformation still stereotypes the female as biologically and psychologically limited74. The view that Buddhahood is devoid of sexual traits was never actually practiced in either India or China.74 However, as Buddhism is mixed with Chinese religions in China, Christianity in Korea, Shintoism in Japan, Taoism in Taiwan, and atheism in Vietnam, and since many of these countries have been heavily influenced by Communism, it is hard to discern what impact these Buddhist interpretations have on the role of women in these countries today, if any.
Mainstream Confucianism
Confucius reportedly said that “Girls and inferior men are hard to get along with”[Analects: 17:23]. The “Lessons for women”, an influential Confucian text from around 100 CE (written by a woman), says that women should be silent, hard-working, and compliant75. The “Three Obediences” of Confucianism hold that women should be obedient to her father before getting married, to her husband while married, and to her sons after her husband’s death[Three Obediences and Four Virtues]. These principles are reflected in the Confucian family system, which is deeply patriarchic: it sees a woman as a complement to her husband’s family. Without that kinship tie, it would be nearly impossible for a woman to acquire social recognition. Widows may not remarry. In prioritizing the perpetuation of patrilineage, women often participate in gender oppressive practices such as female infanticide, child bride, and concubinage. It is in the wife’s interest that her new family has a male heir through which she anchors her place in the family, since her failure to produce children is one of the seven grounds for her expulsion from the marriage in the Confucian system. Newer readings have challenged these patriarchic interpretations, and see potential for gender equality in Confucianism76
Liberal adherents will be quick to point out that the “real” Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, or Judaism is in fact egalitarian, and that the faith is just being misinterpreted. This discussion, however, is not to be had with an atheist, but with the conservative adherents of these religions. They will have the theological and historical arguments for the more conservative interpretation of their faith. The atheist can just observe that there are conservative interpretations of these religions, and that these comprise the majority of the population of the world — no matter whether these interpretations are “true” or not.
In any case, note our precise terminology in the list above: We speak not of “Hinduism” (let alone of the “True Hinduism”), but of “Mainstream Hinduism”, i.e., of Hinduism as practiced by the majority of adherents. Even the liberal adherent cannot deny that the majority of Hindus (1) show allegiance to texts that have a misogynistic prima facie reading, and (2) behave exactly as misogynistic as the prima facie reading of the texts suggest. Thus, even liberal adherents agree that there are misogynistic interpretations of religions, and that these currently comprise the majority of the world population.
It is nearly needless to recall that any ideology that gives women less rights than men is directly opposed to Humanist values and the Human rights[Human Rights: § 2]. This holds regardless of whether such discrimination is sold as an effort to “protect” the women, whether it is veiled under talk of “equal spiritual value”, whether the situation for women was worse before that religion came into existence, or whether women “naturally” want to take a certain role in the family or not. In a Humanist framework, women and men can take whatever roles they want, but they have to have the same rights before the law. Most notably they all have to be protected equally, and this is achieved not by restricting the liberty of the potential victim, but by imposing limits on the potential aggressor.
A discrimination against women in the written law is usually just the visible tip of the iceberg. It goes usually along with (and supports) a general attitude that it is OK for women to be less privileged than men. This attitude contributes to the nearly ubiquitous discrimination against women in this world, with less education for women, honor killings, sex-selective abortions, domestic violence against women, laws that disadvantage rape victims, and a deep-rooted mindset that women are inferior in general (a topic on which the author has written elsewhere77).
At least in the Abrahamic religions, this misogyny might have brought Darwinian advantages to the belief system: In these religions, the discrimination of women generally goes hand in hand with less education, earlier marriage, and higher fertility rates, all of which correlate with more religiousness: the earlier women are married, the less educated they are, the more children they have, and the less educated these children will be, and the more religious (and populous) the society will be as a whole.
If the woman can’t choose her husband freely, he can never be sure of her fidelity. And thus was born the oppression of women from the evil of arranged marriages.
Interfaith Marriage
The mainstream interpretations of most major world religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Confucianism) prohibit or constrain marriage with people of another faith. While this is understandable from a Darwinian point of view, it is not so from a Humanist point of view.
First, the free choice of a partner is a Human Right[Human Rights: § 16 (1)]. Thus, any prohibition of marriage based on faith runs counter to the Human Rights. We may say that it is not good if people marry someone of a different religion, because the partners will likely not share the same values. This, however, does not entitle us to outright forbid interfaith marriage. The partners know much better whether they share the same values or not. We could also argue that everyone is free to just exit their religion and then marry whom they wish. This, however, does not change the fact that any moral framework that does not grant this freedom is incompatible with the Human Rights. If you have to exit the framework to get your rights, then the framework is incompatible with these rights.
Second, it is discriminating to put down people of other faiths as not marriageable. Imagine that a father decides “I do not want my daughter to marry a vegetarian”. That would be perceived as stupid, over-generalizing, patronizing, and offensive. And this is exactly what these religions do to people that do not adhere to them.
Finally, the prohibition of interfaith marriage partitions mankind. Consider the definition of a species: A species is a group of animals that can interbreed80, meaning that two individuals that cannot interbreed cannot belong to the same species. In this sense, the major world religions partition humanity into different species that marry only among themselves. This leads to an unawareness of the other “species”, to segregation, discrimination, and sometimes even violence. Half of the world’s most deadly conflicts run along religious lines. If people were allowed to intermarry, the scars that separate them would heal within a generation.
Fertility
Average number of children per woman in 2023, according to the Population Reference Bureau. Blue is 0.8, brown is 6.9.CC-BY-SA Korakys
Prevalence of chronic hunger in the world in 2022, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Dark red is 40%-60%.CC-BY-SA Allice Hunter
Nearly half of people on this planet adhere to a religion that encourages large families: Islam, Orthodox Christianity, and Catholicism. Such an encouragement is understandable from a Darwinist point of view, but it contributes to severe humanitarian problems, in particular in Sub-Saharan Africa (which is Catholic and Muslim).
The average Sub-Saharan African woman has 4.5 children, as of 202281. The population of the continent has doubled since 1996, quadrupled since the 1970’s, and increased 6-fold since 1950, to 1.5 billion people as of 202382. To understand what that means, consider a country such as France. In 1950, France had 42m inhabitants. Today it has 66m. If France had had the same population growth as Africa, France would stand today at 250m inhabitants — that’s more than Brazil. The country would just have collapsed under this growth.
This is roughly the situation many Sub-Saharan African countries are in: If a family cannot feed 2 children, it cannot feed 5. If a family cannot send one child to school, it cannot send 5 to school. If it is hard to find university scholarships for thousands of students, it is harder to find scholarships for tens of thousands of students. A population that grows exponentially cannot be supported by infrastructure (and foreign aid) that grows linearly, if at all. Indeed, the countries with the highest fertility rates are those with the highest malnutrition rates83 (see graphics on the right) — and these are Muslim and Catholic. Nowhere in the primary scriptures of these religions can we find the commandment to restrain the number of children (on the contrary, Catholicism even prohibits contraception). Therefore, the mainstream interpretations of these religions favor large families, and one of the consequences is severe malnutrition in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Leaders who forbid their followers to use effective contraceptive methods express a preference for “natural” methods of population limitation. A natural method is exactly what they are going to get. It is called starvation.
Homophobia
In their mainstream interpretations, most major religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, the Bahai Faith, Buddhism, Confucianism) shun homosexuality. This is particularly visible in Islam: The Quran decries “men lusting after fellow men”[Quran: 26:165-166, 7:80-81], and indeed, the vast majority of Muslims today reject homosexuality84, and homosexual acts are punishable by death in 12 Muslim countries85. But even the more liberal forms of Islam, as well as the other religions, do their part: They regard gays as unnatural, condemn homosexual acts, or encourage gay people to not engage in them.
Any singling out of people based on their sexual orientation runs counter to Humanist ideals of personal freedom. It is no one’s business whom someone loves, as long as it is consensual.
Any religious denomination that singles out gay people contributes to a culture in which these people are discriminated against. In most of the world, gay people cannot openly live their sexual orientation. They are harassed, stigmatized, and sometimes attacked. Even in more liberal countries, society makes it hard for gays to “come out” (Why do they even have to “come out” in the first place?). By stigmatizing gays or gay behavior, religion makes life needlessly harder for those 10% or so of us who are gay.
If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, [...] then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. [...] We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
Shunning Apostasy
As we have already discussed, the three largest world religions (Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) have a history of excluding or punishing apostates. This historical baggage still impacts the present: In Christian countries, atheists are routinely discriminated against, as we have already seen. In many Muslim countries, atheists or converts to other religions face severe social stigma, hatred, violence, legal harassment, and even punishments up to and including the death penalty. In Hindu India, atheists still lack legal recognition. This disdain for, discrimination against, and persecution of atheists happen also because mainstream Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism do not accept apostates as equals.
The freedom of religion is a central Human Right[Human Rights: § 18], as is the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of religious belief[Human Rights: § 2]. Thus, any system that proposes that atheists or adherents of other religions should not have the same rights as believers runs counter to the Human Rights. Any system that nurtures a disdain for atheists contributes to the discrimination and social pressure that atheists and agnostics witness in most countries in the world.
The basic premise is simple and rational: unless society encourages people to think freely, out of the box, originally and question present conditions, how can there be improvements, progress and innovations? That is why we see that the societies where apostasy is punished are among the most uncivilized terror-prone hells on earth.
Shunning blasphemy
Blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God or sacred things86. We have seen that all major religions condemn blasphemy. This is no abstract threat: As of 2023, 95 countries punish blasphemy, with penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment to death sentences. Seven countries (Nigeria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iran, Mauritania, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia) punish blasphemy even by death87.
For a Humanist, the freedom to question, criticise, mock and even insult religion is every bit essential as the freedom to practise it88[Human Rights § 19]. This is because we can find out the truth of an ideology (religious or otherwise) only if we question it. If the tenets of the ideology are true, then they will withstand the questioning by the force of their truth. It follows that any ideology (religious or otherwise) that prohibits questioning it cannot have truth as its ultimate goal. It must have other goals. In many cases, its goal is just the maintenance of its own power.
We can be tempted to draw a line between criticising a religion and mocking it. And yet, this line is almost impossible to draw: Just pointing out that Catholics believe that they eat a human sounds like mocking their faith — although it is just a factual assertion. But even if it were possible to draw that line, religion does not deserve any protection from mockery. This is because a religion is just an idea, it does not have rights89. Humans have rights. Thus, we have to protect people against insults (i.e., against pejorative false assertions), but not religions.
If we cannot mock and question an ideology, we have to succumb to all of its harmful consequences. The world’s major religions have many of these: the mistreatment of women, the prohibition of interfaith marriage, the encouragement of having many children even in the face of malnutrition, homophobia, the shunning of apostasy, or the support of child marriage. By shielding religion from criticism, we shield these harmful practices, too. If we want to save people from suffering injustices, and if we want to make life better for everyone, we have to be allowed to question and criticise ideologies. Any system that prevents us from doing so is an accomplice to the injustices that they induce.
We can argue that such reasoning applies only to the most harmful flavors of today’s religions. Yet, even the moderate interpretations of a religion contribute to the general despise of criticism. This is because even the moderate flavors posit that faith shall not be criticized. They have created an aura of untouchability around religious issues. “Faith has to be respected”, the saying goes. If the faith is not respected, some adherents react with anger or offense. This aura of untouchability then extends directly to the other more harmful flavors of religion. For example, Christianity cannot criticize that Judaism circumcises infants, because Christianity has to defend the idea that faith has to be respected. In Germany, Christian leaders have come to the support of their Jewish brethren in this matter90. Or consider the Islam-critical drawings in the French magazine Charli Hebdo, which led Islamists to attack the magazine’s headquarters and kill 12 people in 201591. The Pope compared the drawings of Charlie Hebdo to an insult to his mother, saying that “if [a close friend] says a swear word against my mother, he’s going to get a punch in the nose”92. Thereby, he explicitly justified if not the attacks themselves, then still the need for revenge, i.e., one religion protects the harmful variants of another. The same goes inside Islam: Moderate adherents go great lengths to explain that Islamism is “not the true Islam”, and that “Islam has nothing to do with Islamism”. When critics point out that Islamism can find fertile arguments in Muslim religious sources, and that these should thus be considered as factors in extremism, moderate adherents shun them as Islamophobes. With this, the moderate adherents shield their religion from criticism — but shield also its more harmful flavors. Thus, they ultimately play in the hands of the fundamentalists. In summary, by positing that faith cannot be criticized, the moderate flavors of religion de facto protect the more harmful variants.
Take truth as the authority
not the authority as truth.
Child Marriage
Women married at the age of 18 in 2023 (or latest data available), according to UNICEF. Blue is 0%, red is 60%, black is 76%.CC-BY Fabian M. Suchanek
Three of the largest religions of the world permit child marriage in their sacred texts: Catholicism, Islam, and Hinduism.
This is not to say that all Catholics, all Muslims, or all Hindus think that their religion permits child marriage. On the contrary, opinions about child marriage vary widely. It is also not to say that child marriage would be caused by these religions. On the contrary, child marriage correlates more with poverty than with religion. For example, Southern Africa has high rates of child marriage, while Western South America has low rates — and both are Catholic.
It is to say, however, that these three religions do not have anything against child marriage in their primary scripture, or even that they explicitly allow it in the primary scripture (Islam), secondary scripture (Hinduism), or official regulation (Catholicism). As a consequence, the institutions of these religions have historically not opposed child marriage, and popular interpretations of these religions still do not oppose it. The religions are thus a bystander to the practice. Hence, it continues unopposed by religion in Sub-Saharan Africa, which is mainly Catholic and Muslim, in India, which is Hindu, and Brazil, which is Catholic.
Atheists suspect, of course, that these religions actually have every interest in child marriages: The younger a bride marries, the more of her sexually active life time intersects with her fertile life time, the more children she will produce, the shorter the gap with the next generation will be, and the more adherents her religion will have (or, rather, that of her husband). Furthermore, the younger a girl marries, the less likely she is to receive education, and the less likely it is that her children are educated — all of which increase the chance that the children will remain religious.
Child marriage is incompatible with the Human Rights, because these require “free and full consent of the intending spouses” for marriage [Human Rights: § 16 (2)]. Children cannot give informed consent. Thus, any such marriage is, by definition, an arranged marriage, decided by the family and not by those concerned. If we have a young girl marry, we constrain her entire life without her having an informed word in it. We determine with whom she spends the rest of her life, with whom she will not spend the rest of her life, and (implicitly) that she is destined to produce children early.
Indeed, the purpose of marriage in the cultures that practice child marriages is usually the production of offspring. Thus, a young girl is expected to have sex with a (usually older) man that she did not choose. She has no way to refuse (in Islam, this policy is made explicit[Quran: 2:222-223]). That must be a traumatic experience for the girl. Indeed, in western legislations, it amounts to statutory rape — the nonforced sexual relation between an adult and an individual who legally is not old enough to consent to the behavior93. Thus, religions that have no clear prohibition of child marriage in their books effectively allow statutory rape.
Beyond the psychological harm, child marriage also causes physical harm to both the under-age spouses and their offspring. A UNICEF report explains that “medical complications from pregnancy are the leading cause of death among girls ages 15 to 19 worldwide. Compared with women ages 20 to 24, girls ages 10 to 14 are five times more likely to die from childbirth, and girls 15 to 19 are up to twice as likely, worldwide.” 94 Early marriage also has consequences for the children. A UNICEF report explains that early marriage “is also associated with adverse health effects for her children, such as low birthweight. Furthermore, it has an adverse effect on the education and employment opportunities of girls.” 95 There is a reason why such marriages are shunned in the Humanist moral framework and in international law. Religions that do not explicitly prohibit child marriage are accomplices to the practice.
Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil.
The case of Islam
The reader will have noticed that all nearly all points of criticism that we have discussed so far apply to Islam. That may appear like an unfair singling out of a religion. It is not. As we have seen, there are a number of design principles that convey a Darwinian advantages to a religion (the promise of Heaven and Hell, the prohibition of interfaith marriage, the punishment of apostasy, etc.). Thus, all religions had a Darwinian interest in perfecting these ideas. Religions that came later could learn from the religions that came earlier. Take the example of hell: it did not exist in early Judaism, it was created for Christianity, and it was made a place of most detailed brutality in Islam. The same goes for Heaven: it did not exist in early Judaism, it was created for Christianity, and it is the most wonderful in Islam. Another example is proselytism: No major religion apart from Christianity and Islam knows it at all. Historical Islam has perfected the Christian version by implementing a system where unbelievers are first subdued and then nudged towards Islam by taxes and restrictions on their daily life that cease only once they accept Islam. Or consider interfaith marriage. Most major religions prohibit the practice, but Islam has further perfected it: Islam allows the marriage of Muslim men with women of other faiths (with the expectation that the children will still be Muslim) and thereby allows expansion of the faith even in non-Muslim environments. Or consider the prohibition of sex outside marriage: Conservative interpretations of Islam do not just subscribe to this principle, but even erase any female physical temptation from public life by imposing women to be veiled. Islam has thus refined the strategies of its predecessors, and can benefit even more from them.
The problem is, of course, that many of these strategies of survival (eternal hell, prohibition of interfaith marriage, etc.) are contrary to a humanist understanding of morality. This is why religions born after the Enlightenment (such as Spiritism, the Bahai Faith, or New Religious Movements) can no longer support these principles. Since Islam is the youngest religion born before the Enlightenment, it could benefit most from the development of these strategies, before the Enlightenment made them unpopular.
These strategies have served Islam well: The conservative interpretations of Islam have remained remarkably resilient even in recent history. No event such as the Enlightenment took place in Muslim countries. Thus, while Christianity is slowly coming to accept homosexuality, freedom of religion, and women’s rights, most Muslims shun homosexuality, equal rights for women and men, interfaith marriage, blasphemy, and apostasy to this date.
Different from any other major religion, Islam has also succeeded in shaping the law in numerous countries, to the degree that Islamic law is, along with Civil Law and Common Law, one of the three types of law systems in the world. This entails that the tenets of conservative Islam are today enshrined in the legislation of numerous Muslim-majority countries. They are also defended at the international level by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which considers itself the “collective voice of the Muslim world”97 and represents all Muslim countries. The Islam defended by the OIC is thus the largest ideology on Earth that openly advocates unequal rights for men and women before the law[CDHRI § 6a], that openly denies gay people an existence in society98, and that opposes freedom of religion[CDHRI § 10] and freedom of speech99100101102103. The primary victims of these tenets are, of course, Muslims themselves104.
Islam has also developed powerful mechanisms that stifle critique: in many Muslim countries, any criticism of Islam or the Prophet Mohammed is punishable as blasphemy, in some cases by death. Deviations from the religion are closely watched (and in some cases punished) by the family and the community. In the West, criticism of Islam is muted by accusations of islamophobia, international pressure from the OIC103, and in extreme cases by Islamist terrorist attacks. These factors ensure that it is very difficult to critically analyse Islam, both in Muslim lands and in the West.
Don’t tell me what is the “true” Islam.
Tell the millions of Muslims who think otherwise.
Changed moral frameworks
We have seen that most major religions are incompatible with Humanist values on several aspects. That is not the case on all values: on some of them, the religions did actually change their view towards a more enlightened perspective. We will discuss two examples: svalery and brutal punishments.
Slavery
How it looks when you abolish slavery and you mean it. Go find that in your holy book. Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation of 1863
We have already seen that the explicit call to abolish slavery appears in none of the scriptures of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. It also appears nowhere in the historical interpretations of these religions. Slavery was accepted as the normal state of affairs during hundreds of years. Only after secular powers abolished slavery did the religions also finally change their view (starting from the 19th century).
Today, slavery is rejected by all major ideologies. It is also rejected by the Human Rights[Human Rights § 4]. Thus, the value systems of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have, at least historically, been at odds with today’s values. In Humanist eyes, this fact disqualifies these religions as moral guides: If a religion once erred on the one moral question on which now nearly all of humanity agrees (that slavery is wrong), how can it pretend to be a moral guideline for today’s society?
I have stayed in a house where a young household mulatto, daily and hourly, was reviled, beaten, and persecuted enough to break the spirit of the lowest animal. [...] And these deeds are done and palliated by men who profess to love their neighbors as themselves, who believe in God and pray that his will be done on Earth. It makes one’s blood boil, yet heart tremble to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty.
Brutal punishments
Another example for a change of view concerns the cruelty of punishments. As we have discussed before, most major religions have known punishments that are considered cruel by today’s standards. These are beating (Islam, Judaism, Hinduism), amputation (Islam, Judaism, Confucianism, Hinduism), and execution (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Confucianism, Hinduism). The latter can take very brutal forms, such as crucifixion in Islam, stoning in Judaism, burning in Hinduism, or the slow slicing of the body into several pieces over an extended period of time until death arrives, as part of the Five Punishments in Confucianism. The Quran also knows the concept of kin punishment, where an innocent person is killed in revenge[Quran 2:178].
These punishments are horrible by today’s standards. They are also incompatible with the Human Rights, which say that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”[Human rights: § 5]. Humanists, in particular, believe that the goal of punishment is not primarily to induce suffering, but to prevent future harm. Humanists cannot understand how people can get satisfaction from mistreating another human being. Still, these punishments are on the books of these religions. The scriptures have never been changed to remove them. Even if adherents of these religions now promote their religion as humanist and gentle, that is in contradiction with their history and scripture, which tells an entirely different story. A religion that has first promoted brutal punishments in the past and then abandoned them is inconsistent, and should not be trusted as a moral vanguard.
The Lord says: Whoever does any work on Sabbath must be put to death. Thus, the word of the Lord basically tells us to kill half of the U.S. population. But if God is an all-powerful being, he would kill them himself. There would be no need for people to do the murdering. These people would already be dead, and Wal-Mart would be closed on the Sabbath through lack of employees.
Dealing with incompatibility
We have seen that nearly all major religions have or had a moral framework that is incompatible with the Human Rights in at least one aspect. This is not surprising: these religions are centuries old. They are based on an ancient world view in which accidents and diseases were a punishment of the gods, physical laws were unknown, humankind was the center of the universe, and humans were considered incapable of giving themselves rules. No wonder that this outdated physical world view goes along with an outdated moral world view.105 Several solutions to this problem are being tried out:
Continuity
One option is to just uphold the same moral framework in spite of it becoming outdated. Catholicism, for example, continues to be at odds with the Human Rights, in particular in what concerns child marriage, homosexuality, gender equality, and the rights of children. The Catholic Church just affirm its position as god-given. It does not see that it has previously changed its god-given position on slavery, the death penalty, and religious freedom.
Mainstream Islam, too, remains conservative: In response to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the Islamic world has come up with several alternative “Islamic Human Rights”, most notably to fight against equal rights for men and women, and against religious freedom106107. Brutal punishments, too, just continue: Stoning as a judicial sentence exists in nine Muslim countries, and five Muslim countries have amputation as punishment in their law books. The majority of Muslims in the world continue to oppose interfaith marriage, apostasy, blasphemy, equal rights for women, and homosexuality, and these practices are outlawed in most Muslim countries. At the same time, these Muslims and Muslim countries would be outraged if conversion to Islam in the Christian countries were punished as severely as conversion to Christianity in Muslim countries.
Emphasis on previous progress
Another strategy is to focus on previous progress. Islam did not abolish slavery, but it gave slaves some rights. At a time when slaves were mere objects, that was revolutionary. Similarly, Christianity allowed women to lead (female) monasteries and receive education. At a time when women had less rights than men, this was an unusual responsibility. The Torah, valid for Jews and Christians, codified with the principle “an eye for an eye”. This principle was revolutionary, because it limited the punishment of a deed to the damage done by the deed. Buddhism does not give women equal rights, but improved their position with respect to the Vedic society. Other religions, too, can be credited with establishing other moral standards, or with prohibiting cruel pagan rituals. When their religion is criticised for other shortcomings, adherents can point to the early achievements of their system. They will argue that they have historically been very progressive. However, past achievements cannot belittle the fact that what was progressive a thousand years ago is utterly backward now.
Extrapolation
Another way to deal with the evolution of human values is to interpret the religious scriptures as indications for the right direction. For example, the fact that Jesus appreciated Mary Magdalene can be seen as an indication that, on the long run, Jesus desired equal rights for women (which is what feminist Christians hold). The fact that Islam appreciates the freeing of a slave can be understood as the instruction to abolish slavery on the long run. The fact that the Buddha allowed females to head monasteries can be extrapolated to the assumption that he desired equal rights for men and women. These, however, are speculations. If it had been the divine will to give women equal rights, or to abolish slavery, then the respective prophet could have easily stated that explicitly. If we start speculating about extrapolations, then what is the extrapolation of the fact that Jesus did not marry? What is the extrapolation of the fact that the Prophet Muhammad was illiterate and never undertook anything to change that? What is the extrapolation of the fact that the Buddha says that one should avoid sensual desires? There is the danger that we extrapolate the holy sources in whatever direction we like, and that religion becomes just a cloak of authority that we wrap around whatever view we want to support.
Auto-Adaptation
Some believers hold the view that the religious sources automatically adapt themselves. While the literal text stays the same, their interpretation changes, so that the current reading of the texts is always congruent with current values. The problem is that we never know when to change the interpretation and in which direction. Furthermore, whoever wishes to propose new values has not just to justify these new values, but also to come up with a new interpretation of the texts. Therefore, the texts always act as a support for the status quo, and never as a proponent for change. In the end, it is always the doubter who develop values, and religious interpretations that trail behind.
Denial
Another option is to deny the divergence between religion and society. One can for example claim “Hinduism is tolerant towards other religions” (while current Hindu culture prohibits marriage with non-Hindus), “Muslims had slaves just to protect them” (while Arabs actively raided slaves from places as far away as Iceland, and sold them), “Islam gives equal rights to women” (while mainstream Islam does not), “Hinduism does not support the caste system” (while the caste system has existed for millennia in this religion), “Buddhism is gender-neutral” (while the Buddha made misogynistic comments that would be outrageous if they were not written in a holy book), or “Jesus loves everyone” (while it was him who invented hell for the unbelievers). Denial does not change the fact that a traditional interpretation of the world religions conflicts with modern values.
Not the real religion
When confronted with a problematic stance of a religion, a believer can hold that this stance is not the real stance of the religion, but rather a wrong interpretation of the true religion. The problem is that every interpretation claims to be the real one. In any case, even if one interpretation were the “true one”, this does not change the fact that millions adhere to the “wrong one”.
Re-Interpretation
Religious leaders can find that the religious sources have been mis-interpreted. However, if religious scriptures can be misinterpreted so easily for centuries, this raises the question who guarantees that the current interpretation is the good one (or whether it would not be better to abandon the scriptures altogether). In any case, between 1000 CE and 1500 CE, when the world religions controlled Europe, the Arab World, and India unchallenged, the world saw no progress on these matters: Women’s rights remained the same, slavery was ubiquitous, and heresy or apostasy were punished severely. Only when the religions lost their grip these issues moved.
New Religion
If society and religion lose touch, people can develop a new religion. This has happened several times in history. The foundation of a new religion often leads to violence, if there is an established religion around. This is because most religions, once established, forget that they have been young before, and oppose new religions.
In atheist eyes, all of these strategies are but apologetic attempts to reconcile modernity and religion. They may, however, also be a necessary characteristic of religion: If a religion had prohibited slavery when the practice was ubiquitous, the religion would never had caught on. If it allowed slavery today, it would risk being abandoned. Therefore, only those religions that are sufficiently vague in their moral tenets can survive through the ages.
Truth never triumphs. Its opponents just die out.
Verbal Acrobatics
To understand how religions re-interpret their sources, we give here some examples of verbal acrobatics that religions employ to this end:
Christianity
This religion adapts to the current mainstream by artfully cherry-picking Bible verses. Slavery was first allowed in Christianity, based on Bible verses. Now it is shunned — also based on Bible verses. Abortion was first allowed, based on Bible verses, and now it is shunned, based on other Bible verses. An equally impressive example is the interpretation of the Bible in matters of death penalty, which can also go either way. More examples are discussed in the Chapter on Christianity.
Islam
This religion has developed a rich tradition of interpretation and re-interpretation, in which theological justification has been found for very diverse viewpoints: some adherents believe that Islam grants freedom of religion, while the majority of adherents believe that apostasy has to be punished; adherents disagree on the necessity of flogging, amputation, and death as punishments; they don’t agree whether a woman has to be veiled, whether she has to hide also her face, or whether she can be beaten if she does not obey her husband; adherents have different opinions as to whether faiths other than Islam should be respected; some adherents believe that Islam requires female genital mutilation while the majority of adherents believe it does not; and a minority of adherents believe Islam has to be spread by violent conquest. Each of these contradictory viewpoints is supported by carefully interpreting verses from the holy sources. To see how that is done, we look here at only one example, slavery. The Quran does not prescribe a punishment for taking slaves. The Reliance of the Traveller (the most well-known Sharia, which has been approved by the Al Azhar University in Cairo) makes children captured in war slaves, and annuls slave women’s marriages[Reliance of the Traveller: o9.13]. From the 7th century to the 19th century, Muslim raiders captured slaves in Africa and Europe (the word “razzia” derives from the Arab word for these raids108), and held and sold millions of them. However, in 1833, Britain abolished slavery, followed my most Western countries, and, later, the Muslim world (Saudi Arabia in 1962). Since then, Islam started concentrating more on the Quranic verses that laud the manumission of slaves[Quran 90:13, 4:92, 5:92, 58:3], which are also echoed in the Sharia[Reliance of the Traveller: i1.20, o5.2, o20.2]. The argument goes that, since God rewards the freeing of a slave, and permits capturing slaves only in wars109, and since wars should eventually end, God implicitly wanted to abolish slavery altogether (and was just to shy to say it). Consequently, numerous Muslim scholars from all over the world signed a letter in 2014 saying that “No scholar of Islam disputes that one of Islam’s aims is to abolish slavery”110. Also, unbeknownst to generations of late Muslims, “the Shariah has worked tirelessly to undo [slavery]”110.
Hinduism
One of the main stepping stones in the value system of this religion is the caste system. We have already discussed that this system has a long history in India, reaching back to 1500 BCE in different variations[Bhagavadgita: 1.40-43, 4.13, 18.41-44][Laws of Manu: 1.87-91]. In all variations, the members of the lower castes have less rights than the members of the higher castes. And yet, today, scholars have found “through deep study of ancient religious literature, [that] all such practices were contrary to true religion”111.
Today’s adherents of these religions hold that it is obvious that the current interpretation of the faith is the true will of their deity. And yet, the eternal truth that they believe in today is completely different from the eternal truth that their predecessors believed in a hundred years ago. Thus, their claim that their truth is eternal or clear is just wrong. As a corollary, what is taught today as eternal truth may be wrong some decades down the road.
Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.
Social Effects
Justification of Evil
...and he is not alone: The Cornwall Alliance of 1500 theological signatories believes that the Earth was created by God’s intelligent design and is hence robust to climate change.
We now turn to the social and psychological aspects of religion. One of these aspects is that all religions have found ways to explain the evil and the suffering in this world. The problem is that such explanations also justify the suffering:
The Abrahamic Religions
Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Spiritualism, and the Bahai Faith believe in an all-powerful god. Therefore, the evil in this world must come in one way or another from this god, or at least happen with his permission. Various theories have been developed as to how a benevolent god can allow evil to happen: The evil could be a punishment, a prerequisite for a greater good, a catalyst for spiritual growth, a part of a bigger plan unknown to us, or a test for the afterlife. All of these explanations mean that the evil in this world actually serves a purpose. It is, paradoxically, good that the evil happens. Such a viewpoint is abominable from a Humanist point of view. For a Humanist, suffering is never good. This is because if we accept that the suffering ultimately serves a good purpose, there is no need to actually remedy it. And if the suffering is a test for fitness for the afterlife, then why help someone who suffers? We don’t help people in high-school exams either...
Another line of reasoning goes that the suffering is actually either subjective, or minuscule in comparison to the joys of the afterlife. Such a viewpoint diminishes the plight of those who suffer. It is, therefore, inadmissible in any system that is based on empathy, such as Humanism.
Hinduism
This religion teaches that bad behavior accumulates bad karma, and leads to suffering in the next life. Good behavior, in contrast, produces good karma. It then follows that whoever suffers has accumulated bad karma in the past. This is because if that person had done good deeds, she or he would have accumulated good karma, and would not suffer. But since the person suffers, she or he cannot have done good deeds. Thus, every person who suffers actually deserves the suffering[Laws of Manu: 3 / 92]. Modern parlance avoids the word “deserve”, but calls the suffering a supernatural “justice”47 or a “correct situation to be in, given the action [in the previous lives]”112. No matter which word we choose, the suffering is justified in the Hindu world view. However, neither the suffering person nor anybody else what that person did wrong in a previous life. There is no proof either that this person did anything wrong at all. And even if there was a proof, that would not justify somebody suffering from illness or hunger. Any notion that someone would actually deserve such suffering is incompatible with Humanist ethics49. Worse, if we really believe that a person’s suffering is a deserved punishment, we would do best to not help that person. We don’t go free criminals from prison either.
Buddhism
Like Hinduism, Buddhism teaches the theory of Karma. The Buddha is recorded to tell a man who suffered violence by villagers “Bear with it! The fruit of the kamma that would have burned you in hell for many years, many hundreds of years, many thousands of years, you are now experiencing in the here-and-now!”[Pali canon: Majjhima Nikaya / Angulimala Sutta]. Again, any system that justifies suffering based on putative bad deeds in a previous life is incompatible with Humanism.
Taoism
This religion does not see suffering as a punishment for previous bad deeds113. However, Taoism seems to advocate a passive approach to the evil in this world. The Dao De Jing tell us that “one who suffers disgrace will succeed”[Dao De Jing: 22], and that “the person who suffers hardships for the nation, is the king of all under heaven”[Dao De Jing: 78]. If we believe that suffering is in any way laudable, then why should we help those who suffer?
The idea that suffering is in some way laudable is part of a larger concept in Taoism, Wu Wei, which literally means “non-action”. Any approach to life that does not actively aim to fight against injustice is incompatible with a Humanist ethical system.
This is not to say that adherents of these religions would welcome the evil in this world, or that they would not help others in need. On the contrary, helping others in need is a welcome recruitment ground. Rather, the criticism is that these religions justify the evil in this world as deserved, ultimately good, purposeful, negligible, recommendable, or acceptable. Any justification of innocent suffering, however, runs counter to the principles of Humanism. This is because once we accept suffering as something that serves a purpose, we can justify our own inaction in the face of harm, and thus contribute to its existence.
Why do the religions justify the evil? The reason is that such explanations provide emotional comfort: it is easier to bear the suffering in this world (and even one’s own suffering) if one can believe that this suffering happens for a good reason. The justification of evil thus makes a religion attractive, and gives it a Darwinian advantage over religions that do not provide such a justification. That does not make the practice any less objectionable, though.
If God has a plan, then everyone who died in the Holocaust died for a reason.
Prudery
By definition, a religion is old. In older times, there were no efficient means for birth control, or paternity tests. Hence, all major religions restricted sex to married couples. Since then, technical means and societal norms have changed, but the religions were unable to update their scriptures. Hence, still today, all major religions restrict sex to married couples. Pre-marital sex, masturbation, prostitution, and pornography have no place in mainstream Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, or Confucianism.
Beyond that, some religions shun sexual pleasure even inside the married couple. traditional Judaism regards any ejaculation in general unclean; Spiritism holds that sensuality shall not be given preference over reproduction in physical intimacy; the Buddha identifies sexual craving as one of the hindrances to attain insight; Confucianism teaches people to repress human desire, including sexual impulse, and holds that the primary purpose of sex is procreation; and mainstream Islam takes a suffocating stance on female beauty in public.
Scholars have argued2 that the prudery of the major religions is part of a larger pattern, in which religions see the body as an obstacle to spiritual fulfillment. Hence, the religions prescribe restrictions on bodily functions, such as prolonged fasting, mandated celibacy, or proscriptions against masturbation. They also propose modifications to one’s physical appearance, including head- or hair-coverings, full-coverage clothing, tattoos, as well as various body-purification rites, such as ritual ablutions (washing), baptism, circumcision, genital mutilation, and self-flagellation. All of these practices are driven by the idea that the body (in its natural form) is somehow impure, and needs to be overcome.
In Humanist eyes, of course, a human and their body are identical. Devaluing the body thus amounts to devaluing the human. In Humanist eyes, ancient prudery is just a needless restriction of life.
Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.
I am a human, and nothing human is foreign to me.
Most major religions know the concept of hell. The scriptures provide detailed descriptions of the tortures that await the sinner there. In all of these cases, the cruelty is presented as something normal, acceptable, and sometimes even noble. This is particularly disturbing when it is taught to children — which is what all major religions do.
Christianity
In Christianity, God orders mock executions, desires human sacrifices, and commits genocide. All of these stories are read to children as if they concerned normal, justifiable behavior. The children learn to glorify a God who wiped out the entire humanity by drowning. They learn to spend their day looking at the half-naked body of a man who has been tortured to death (Jesus). This atrocity is presented as a necessary step to make God forgive the sins of humanity.
Islam
Every 10th verse of the Quran is concerned with describing hell in the most vivid colors. People learn that burning men to death, and then replacing their skin so that they can be burnt to death again, is a valid way of punishment by the all-loving God. The Quran also presents the amputation of hands and crucifixion as the correct ways of punishment for crimes — along with an array of other tortures and ways of execution. In some countries, all of these brutalities are taught to children in schoolbooks. Hence, considerable proportions of Muslims wish to see these punishments applied.
Judaism
The Torah is full of descriptions of cruelty. God orders mock executions, desires human sacrifices, and commits genocide. Children learn to pray to this god as the most loving entity. The Torah also upholds the “eye for an eye” principle, which is essentially retaliation by amputation. The traditional techniques of execution were stoning, burning, slaying, and strangulation. Nowadays, amputation, retaliation, and execution are less popular. However, they have never been removed from the holy books. Children still come in touch with them whenever they read the scripture.
Chinese Religions
Taoism and Confucianism blend into the general background of Chinese folk religion. These know Diyu, a purgatory in which sinners are fried in oil cauldrons, are put into a grinding machine and ground into a bloody pulp, have their tongues being ripped out, and are frozen into ice cubes that then break apart. This is not criticised as something outrageous, but is presented as the normal course of things.
Indian Religions
Hinduism and Buddhism, likewise, know a brutal hell between two lifes on Earth. In Buddhism, people are “roasted in an immense blazing oven with terrible suffering”. In Hinduism, sinners are devoured by ravens, boiled in jars, and subjected to diseases. Again, this is not criticised as something outrageous, but is presented as the normal course of things.
All of these stories trivialise violence. Graphical violence is presented as something normal. In the Abrahamic religions, cruelty is even presented as a choice of their god. Since this god is presented at the same time as the object of worship, the Abrahamic religions effectively justify and glorify this violence.
Any glorification, justification, or trivialisation of violence runs counter to Humanist values.
A religion clashes with Humanism whenever it values souls over lives.
Potential Consequences
Much effort hads been devoted into explaining, justifying, softening, or re-interpreting violence in religious books. However, violent words have an impact that goes beyond the conscious: Hostile words can subconsciously make us more aggressive and more hostile towards people of other groups. This effect has been studied extensively for violence in the media115116117118119. For decades, research has shown that exposure to violent behavior not only encourages the repetition of the same kind of behavior, but also enables people to believe that violence or aggression may be acceptable in certain situations115. In particular, the dehumanization of people of other groups increases aggressive behaviors towards these groups, and induces the feeling of no obligation to apply moral human standards to these people115.
It is disputed to what degree the same applies to religions120. One study shows that thinking about God discourages dehumanization of people of other faiths for Christians and Jews120. Others find that reading religious scripture that emphasizes God’s punishing nature increases intergroup aggression, and that societies in which religious belief is fused with daily life tend to be societies where inequality and differences in religious beliefs are associated with intergroup conflict120. This ambivalence of scientific results is quite possibly due to the fact that there is not one “religion”, but several, which differ in the degree of violence in their texts121. Nevertheless, we do find that religion correlates with more than half of the world’s violent conflicts. Given this correlation, and given the justification of violence in the Abrahamic, Indian, and Chinese religions, it would be unwise to discard any causal effect from the start.
Particular attention should be devoted to the case of children, whom religions target abundantly. Religions teach children that cruelty is OK as punishment in some cases. When the children grow up, they will learn to distinguish the violence of the imaginary stories from the violence in the real world. Some children, however, never learn the difference.
When you recite to a child still in his early years the verse “They will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternative sides cut off,” regardless of this verse’s interpretation, and regardless of the reasons it was conveyed, or its time, you have made the first step towards creating a terrorist.
Totalitarianism
We will now draw a somewhat daring analogy between religion and totalitarianism. A totalitarian regime attempts to assert total control over the lives of its citizens122. Such a regime is characterized, among other things, by (1) an elaborate, all-encompassing ideology that makes promises of a utopian future123, (2) complete control of the citizen’s thoughts and actions124, (3) no respect for private space (and the gathering of sensitive information with which to blackmail and control the citizens)125, (4) strict control over moral order125, (5) the eradication of all critical thought125, and (6) a system of terror (physical or psychic)123.
Interestingly, all major religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Spiritism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, the Chinese Religions) are totalitarian by these criteria: They definitively have an “elaborate, all-encompassing ideology” “that makes promises of a utopian future”. They also take “complete control of the citizen’s thoughts and actions”, by dominating education, the arts, and people’s thoughts. They show “no respect for private space”, by dictating whom people can marry and whom they can love. They assert complete control over moral order, by prescribing an all-encompassing moral framework. They “eradicate critical thought” — by opposing criticism, and by shunning or even punishing adherents if they go astray. Finally, they employ a “system of terror”. In a totalitarian regime, this role is taken by a secret police122. In a religion, this role is taken by the supernatural. Much like a secret police, the supernatural knows everything that happens, but operates “in secret” — in the sense that the victim cannot know if they are being spied on. The supernatural threatens people with tortures in case of disobedience — which is exactly what the secret police does in worldly totalitarian systems. Finally, a secret police is purposefully unpredictable122, so as to further terrorize citizens with uncertainty and arbitrariness. The same can be said of the supernatural: it is utterly arbitrary in dishing out its punishments.
The major religions are thus totalitarian according to the definition of the word. Totalitarianism runs counter to liberal ethics. It also runs counter to the Human Rights, which do not tolerate intrusion into the private sphere[Human Rights: § 12]. The only reason why these religions can remain legal in Western countries despite their totalitarian affectation is that their threat to privacy is, well, imaginary.
Any system is fine, as long as you can change it.
Orwellianism
The concept of totalitarianism has been extrapolated to truly monstrous regimes in the books “1984” and “Animal Farm” by the British author George Orwell. Regimes that follow this extrapolated totalitarianism are called “Orwellian”126. They know an “all-seeing, all-knowing emblem of totalitarian control” called Big Brother — a role that is made-to-measure for the Abrahamic God. They know a torture chamber called Room 101 — which corresponds pretty closely to hell in the Abrahamic religions, too. They introduce the concept of “thoughtcrime”, i.e., the criminalization of the mere thought of objecting to state ideology. Again, this concept can be found in the Abrahamic religions. They know a “Ministry of Truth”, which decides what “truth” is — much like the Abrahamic religions assert a monopoly on truth, at least when it comes to metaphysical questions. Finally, they know the concept of doublespeak, where words are used in opposition to their real meaning. In Orwell’s books, for example, the “Ministry of Love” is where the government uses torture to extract confessions. This abuse of words, too, can be found in the Abrahamic religions: “God’s love” is a doublespeak for “God’s complete apathy” and “God answers your prayer” means “nothing happens that would not have happened anyway”.
Thus, technically, the Abrahamic religions fulfill the criteria of an Orwellian regime. They are thus Orwellian. Religious leaders will of course contest this interpretation — much like Orwellian regimes always contest that they are Orwellian.
What is wrong with inciting intense dislike of a religion if the activities or teaching of that religion are so outrageous, irrational or abusive of human rights that they deserve to be intensely disliked?
Stifling progress
We will now hypothesize that the major world religions are hindering the progress of humanity. This happens along three dimensions: moral, scientific, and economic.
Moral progress
Religions typically have a moral framework. This moral framework cannot easily evolve. There is usually no mechanism by which the gods could update the framework when it no longer fits the mainstream society. This entails that the religious framework often trails behind the society’s moral framework. Eventually, the framework will be updated — accompanied by claims that the religion has pushed for change all along. But a change for more humanist morals never originates inside a religion after it became a religion. More precisely: When a religion has passed its first 150 years of existence, it will retire ethically, and stop pushing for humanist values.
Examples are:
Slavery was abolished by the British parliament, and much later only removed from mainstream Christianity and Islam.
Cruel punishments were not abolished by religious preachers, but by Enlightenment thinkers.
Equal rights for women are not spearheaded by religious figures, but by Enlightenment thinkers, feminist activists, and Communism.
Gay rights are not being pushed forward by religions, but by modern LGBT+ movements.
Freedom of (and from) religion was not invented by the religious authorities, but by the Enlightenment.
The protection of nature, animals, and the environment was a non-issue for religions — until the green movement popularized it in the late 20th century.
Not only does a religion not spearhead such initiatives. By sticking to the divinity and eternity of its current moral framework, it also hinders such initiatives. A believer who wishes to advocate a new idea does not only have to become convinced of that idea. He also has to find in his religious sources a person or quote that says something similar, in order to justify that new conviction. This puts a double burden on the believer, and is a reason for slow change in religions. As Sam Harris has argued: the doors leading out of scriptual literalism do not open from the inside40.
An ideology can advocate change only if the very advocacy of change is part of it. Humanism, for example, advocates questioning current convictions, including its own.
For conservative people, the present is the end of the past. For progressive people, the present is the beginning of the future.
Scientific progress
Religions typically provide gap-fillers for the open questions about the universe. These used to be questions like “How does the sun rise” — which were quickly answered by means of a specific god. Today, the questions are more like “How did the universe originate?”. Here as well, religions provide their answers. The problem is that by providing an answer, they discourage us from finding other (scientific) answers. Worse, any other answer may be perceived as a challenge to the religious teaching, and hence as blasphemy. For example, the Bible tells us that God ordered the sun to stand still so that Joshua could fight longer[Bible: Joshua 10]. This was seen as a divine confirmation that the Sun orbits around the Earth. Hence, until 1822, the Catholic Church prohibited the publication of books that support heliocentrism — as blasphemy127. But even if blasphemy is not invoked, the very conviction of already having an answer discourages the exploration, the understanding, and the dissemination of scientific ideas.
Humanism, in contrast, explicitly encourages scientific research, and the learning about the world.
Economic progress
For the US, research on religious people has shown that they tend to object to innovation and are more risk-averse128. But there is a more general factor at work when it comes to stifling economic progress: The Israeli history professor Yuval N. Harari has argued129 that the major world religions tended (and tend) to glorify the past: The ideal world is the one of the respective prophet (Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius, the ancient Hindu sages). Since then, the world has continuously degraded. Hence, human well-being comes from going back to that old world. People could not imagine that the new world could actually be better.
This has an important economic consequence, Harari says: The entire business of giving loans to someone is based on the idea that the future will be somehow better: The creditor believes that the debtor will be able to pay back the loan in the future. That is, the creditor believes that the debtor will create a value in the future that currently does not exist — a thing of impossibility in traditional religious thinking, where humanity constantly degrades. This impossibility is illustrated in the traditional Christian and Muslim prohibitions to charge interest (later watered down or abolished).
While the practice of lending money is obviously risky (as personal over-indebtation, country defaults, and financial crises show), it is nevertheless an indispensable mechanism when it comes to financing any larger project: a person who wants to open a new shop in a village; a farmer who wants to obtain land to work on; a city that wants to build a toll-financed bridge; a rail company that wants to build a tunnel; even a country that wants to recover from war all need loans. Without the Marshall plan, Europe would not have recovered so fast after the second world war. And the Marshall plan was, at least in part, a loan. For all its problems, financial credit has helped the economic growth and the material comfort that we enjoy in today’s rich countries.
This institution of loans, in turn, is based on the trust that the future will be better. And it paid off: Humanity has now a higher a higher health standard and a better material life than 3000, 1000, or even 500 years ago. For all the faults of the current world, few people want to go back to the Middle Ages — thus defeating religious pessimism about the future.
Do not expect grapes from a burning bush.
Exemptions to laws
Religions deal in ultimate meanings that bear a claim to exceed merely secular authority. Thus, they remain a potent basis for contesting political legitimacy both within and beyond nation-states121. And indeed, there have been several cases where religions have won exemptions from the law.
Judaism and Islam in Germany
These religions require the circumcision of young boys. This is, technically speaking, bodily injury: a body part is cut off without the consent of the concerned. Therefore, a German court ruled that circumcision without medical indication is a criminal act130. This insight caused a lot of embarrassment in Germany, which feels historically obliged to accommodate the concerns of the Jewish community. Since the religious rule could not be changed, the law was changed instead: Article 1631d of the German Civil code was added to permit circumcision of male infants. To appease followers of Judaism, the article specifically permits the circumcision by non-medical personnel during the first 6 months after birth for religious reasons131.
Islam in the UK
Muslim religious leaders have set up “Sharia courts” in the UK, which arbitrate in religious and family matters. These courts have been criticised for disadvantaging women in divorce cases and for “meddl[ing] in legal issues that should be matters for the UK court” 132. Thus, the Sharia courts are close to a socially accepted exemption from the law.
Charismatic Christianity in the US
Usually, parents are expected to care for their children. In particular, they are required to get medical help if the child suffers from an illness or accident. This follows from variants of the laws on child neglect or non-assistance of a person in danger. However, the US has a law that exempts parents from this duty, if (1) the parents do not wish to provide medical assistance to their child due to religious beliefs or (2) choose to rely on spiritual means rather than medical care133. This concerns in particular charismatic Christian faith healing practices — which do not work. Thus, the law effectively allows parents to let their children die for religious reasons134. Furthermore, almost all US states allow children to be exempted from mandatory vaccination on religious grounds135.
Christianity in Germany
Anti-discrimination laws say that companies or organizations may not refuse a job candidate because of their religion. However, in the US and Germany, religious groups are exempted from anti-discrimination rules in hiring and firing136. They can decide to hire only Christians. For example, the author went to a Catholic school in Germany(Preface). The school was run by nuns, but financed by the state. This school required that all teachers who work there follow a Christian lifestyle. They were, e.g., not allowed to divorce and marry again. At any secular institute, any such requirement would be illegal. But for a Christian school, the law does not apply.
New Religions in the US and the UK
In the US, adherents of the Centro Espirita Beneficiente Unioao do Vegetal believe they can understand God only if they drink Hoasca tea. Even though this tea contains Dimethyltryptamin (a controlled substance), the adherents were allowed to continue importing that tea by the Supreme Court137. A British court has let a Wicca adherent out of jail for 4 nights to worship the moon 138. Another Wicca was narrowly prevented from obtaining a knife in prison as a “ritual object”139. The court ruled that his beliefs were indeed “religious”, but not “usual” enough to grant him a knife.
Islam in India
In India, Muslims have the option of resolving family and inheritance-related cases in officially recognized Islamic courts, known as dar-ul-qaza. These have attracted criticism for undermining the Indian judiciary, because a subset of the population is not bound to the same laws as everyone else. Furthermore, they are considered unfair towards women, as Islamic jurisprudence does not believe in gender equality before the law1
Apart maybe from the harm done to children, these exemptions do not cause much damage. Many of them concern only fringe groups or certain individuals. Furthermore, the cases remain limited to certain jurisdictions, or certain religions.
However, these cases prove a more general point: Religious belief can be granted an exemption from the law. This contradicts Humanist values, which demand equal treatment for all before the law. From a Humanist perspective, religions are organizations like all other organizations. They claim to be divine, but they are man-made systems. Therefore, it is unacceptable that they would stand above the law.
Apart from such ethical considerations, the exemptions granted to religious organizations are also expensive: in many countries, these organizations are exempted from paying taxes. In the US alone, these exemptions cost the government billions of dollars in tax revenue140. The American Comedian John Oliver has demonstrated how disturbingly simple it is to get oneself registered as a tax-exempt religious organization in the US141142.
As soon as you admit God on the political scene, he’s a tyrant. This is because, sooner or later, every dictator dies. God, however, does not.
Rites and Restrictions
All major religions come with some rites and restrictions. These may include
Rites
Rites may include regular praying, regular attendance of a religious service, pilgrimage, or slaughtering rites.
Constraints
Constraints may include fasting, special clothing (e.g. veils for women in some interpretations of Islam; sables for Sikhs; kippas for Jews; special underwear for Mormons), or inactivity on one day a week.
Dietary laws
Some religions have dietary laws, such as the prohibition of alcohol (Islam and the Bahai Faith), pork (Islam), beef (Hinduism), meat (as in some variants of Hinduism and Buddhism), or the combination of milk and meet (Judaism).
In short, all major religions restrict our daily life in some way. These restrictions do not cause much harm. However, they also do not prevent any harm. Therefore, they are in contradiction to the Humanist principle of liberal ethics, which permits anything that is harmless.
Harmful Rituals
In some cases, religious rituals are outright harmful. This concerns foremost female genital mutilation (the cutting of the female genitalia without medical reason). This practice is condemned by many Muslims, most notably by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)143, based on interpretations of the Quran and other scripture144145146. However, in line with the tradition of widely differing interpretations of Islam, the practice is considered recommended or even mandatory in Islam by the Sharia[Reliance of the Traveller: e4.3], the Al-Azhar University in Cairo144 (until it changed opinion in 2007147), conservative interpretations of the faith148, all four schools of Sunni jurisprudence146, religious conservatives in Oman149, the Indonesian Council of Ulema (MUI)150149151, the government of Brunei149, and many Muslims in the West152 and in Muslim lands153, in particular in Malaysia149154, Indonesia151, and in Sri Lanka, India, Singapore, the Philippines, and Thailand, where it correlates with Islam149.
Unsurprisingly, Humanism is staunchly opposed to female genital mutilation as a cruelty that is prohibited by the Human Rights[Human Rights § 5]. Female genital mutilation has, according to the UN, severe physical and psychological consequences for the victims155. This is even more true since, in 82% of the cases, FGM is carried out by non-medical experts, according to the WHO 156. Thus, whoever approves of the procedure against the will of the patient, no matter whether Muslim or not, and no matter whether out of religious motives or not, and no matter whether this is the true interpretation of Islam or not, infringes Human Rights.
But also male circumcision (practiced almost ubiquitously in Judaism and Islam157) is technically bodily injury: The amputation of a body part without medical indication (and frequently: medical supervision). While the World Health Organisation (WHO) sees evidence for a lower risk of reproductive tract infections and penile cancer in circumcised men, it also notes that “these conditions are rare”, and that “routine neonatal circumcision is not currently recommended on medical grounds”. It also notes that circumcisions undertaken in non-clinical environments can result in serious complications and even death158. In addition, it notes the necessity of informed consent. Humanists agree, of course: With informed consent, anyone is free to have a circumcision. Children, however, cannot give such informed consent. The circumcision of a child is thus a physical cruelty in the most intimate part of their body that no Humanist can approve of159.
When women are no longer oppressed, disfigured, or killed in the name of religion; when gay people are no longer legislated to second class citizens in the name of religion; when doctors can no longer deny crucial health care in the name of religion; when children are no longer indoctrinated with bigotry, fear, and hate in the name of religion; when it is no longer claimed that faith is greater than knowledge; then, and only then, will I lay down my banner of Anti-Theism.
Communitarianism
If we want world peace, mutual tolerance and respect, we have to understand what other people believe and why they do so. However, religions teach people exclusively about their own religion. No major religion encourages its adherents to read the scripture of the other religions. Furthermore, the religions typically prohibit marriage across religious boundaries. Thereby, the religions partition humanity into cells that are poised to persist over the generations to come. By prohibiting a conversion to another faith, the religions fortify the boundaries between these cells. By granting every adherent divine confidence in their faith, and by building up a community based on religious conviction, the religions further shield their adherents socially and intellectually from the other faiths.
All of this leads to an estrangement between the peoples. It encourages a thinking of “us versus them”, in which adherents of one faith consider themselves culturally different from people of other faiths. In French, this phenomenon is called “communautarisme”.
We give here some examples to illustrate how this phenomenon can look in practice:
In Germany, until the 1960’s, there was wall across schoolyards that separated the Protestant children from the Catholic children. 160
Children in Northern Ireland are separated into Catholic and Protestant schools. Thus, children make friends in different communities3. Only 9% of children go to school with children of the other faith 161. Even these learn that it is a “false ideology that everyone is the same”. It is no wonder then that these children grow up in an environment of ignorance or hostility towards the other faith. Let children go to school with children of the other faith, let them make friends with them, allow them to marry them, and the conflict between Protestants and Catholics will defuse within a generation.
In France, certain urban quarters have become so dominated by conservative Muslims, that women have been bullied out of public life. The pressure is so strong that women avoid walking around in a dress, or having a coffee in a bar162.
In Europe, researchers spot a “group-based conformity, and a dissociation [of Muslims] from the areligious mainstream culture” 163, a development that has been seen in particular in the UK, Germany, and Sweden 164165166167168.
In India, 45% of Hindus say they would not be willing to accept followers of another religion as neighbors1. Both Hindus and Muslims in India prefer to live religiously segregated lives, including when it comes to marriage and friendships.
All of these are but individual examples for a more general phenomenon: The partitioning of society into religious communities. This partitioning runs counter to the Humanist ideal of a free society.
Unfortunately, the love of “us” has an ugly cousin:
the fear and suspicion of “them”.
Hell
A supreme form of intolerance towards other faiths can be found in mainstream Islam. It condemns all non-Muslims to eternal hell-fire, based on Quranic verses to that effect[Quran: 22:19-21, 4:56, 56:92-94, 3:4, 4:160-161, 5:10, 5:36, 6:49, 6:70, 6:113, 98:6, 83:34, 3:85M, 4:18, 4:116-117, 4:48, 5:72, 9:113, 10:68-70, 3:85]. (A verse appears to save Jews and Christians[Quran: 2:63], but there is still no hope for Buddhists, Hindus, or let alone atheists.) Indeed, in all but 4 of the 38 Muslim-majority countries surveyed by Pew Research, more than half of Muslims believe that Islam is the only way to Heaven62 — meaning that all non-adherents must go to Hell. The tenet is also taught in Saudi Arabian schoolbooks65 as well as in the schoolbooks of Saudi-controlled schools in the UK169.
Such a belief may seem harmless, given that the hell-fire is purely imaginary from an atheist point of view. And yet, such a belief is not harmless. Since the all-just god condemns the unbelievers to eternal hell-fire, this can mean only that non-believers deserve eternal suffering. If such a belief is voiced in public, or taught to children, it becomes an insult: it means that unbelievers are worth so little that they can be burnt like fire wood. This an attack on the dignity of non-Muslims, a legal good that is protected by the Human Rights[Human Rights: §1, §12]. Any unbeliever has a right to take offense if someone tells their children that all unbelievers deserve to burn in hell.
What I have against conservative Islam?
That it worships a god who wants to burn me alive.
Proselytism
Christianity and Islam actively seek to convert the rest of mankind to their religion. Both religions emphasize that the conversion has to be voluntary, and may not be achieved by force. However, even peaceful proselytism is a profound sign of disrespect. It means that a religious community cannot accept that a person has a different faith. By extrapolation, it means that two communities of believers cannot live together without one community constantly bothering the other one to convert. It is a human right to follow whatever religion you choose, without being invited or pushed continuously to convert to some other religion[Human Rights: § 18]. Therefore, obligatory proselytism runs counter to Humanist values.
As it happens, both Christianity and Islam also shun people who convert away from their own religion. Historically, both religions have put apostates to death. Variants of Islam still do. If we put together two religions, which each want to convert the adherents of the other religion, but which each punish the conversion of their own adherents, the result is conflict. And indeed, tensions between the two religions run high.
Conflict
Conflicts arise surprisingly often along religious boundaries. Let us look at the list of the most violent armed conflicts (as of 2017):
2017 ongoing military conflicts with more than 1000 deaths per year (collected by Wikipedia171 )
In two-thirds of the ongoing military conflicts with more than 1000 deaths per year, the factions coincide with religious boundaries. This does not necessarily mean that religion is the cause of conflict. Many factors play a role in wars, including cultural and ethical differences, claims to power, claims to oil, claims to land, war lords, the military, and outside interests and intervention. However, it is striking in how many cases these other factors coincide exactly with religious frontiers.
This coincidence appears elsewhere, too. Take the conflict in the Middle East: Israel is Jewish, the Palestinians are Muslim. Or remember the civil war in Sri Lanka: The Tamils are Hindu in majority, the Sinhalese are Buddhist. Or take the conflict in ex-Yugoslavia: Did you ever wonder why the Serbs, Bosniacs, and Croats got into conflict, although they speak the same language? Part of the reason is that Serbs are Orthodox, Bosniacs are Muslim, and Croats are Catholic. As a consequence, the eternal conflict on the Balkans is proverbial. The same holds for the conflict in Northern Ireland: Unionists, who want the union with the UK, are Protestant, while nationalists, who want the union with Ireland, are Catholic. The same is true for the conflict in Sudan: While the North is Muslim, the South is Christian and Animist. The same is true for the conflict in the Philippines: While the majority of the country is Christian, the break-away region is Muslim. The same is true for the animosity between Armenia and Turkey: Armenia is Christian while Turkey is Muslim. The Second World War opposed the Christian United States to the Buddhist and Shintoist Japan. The same goes for the everlasting conflict between India and Pakistan for the region of Kashmir: India is Hindu and Pakistan is Muslim. Many other conflicts in South-East Asia run along religious lines, too: The Muslim Rohingya are persecuted by the Buddhist majority in Myanmar; Bangladesh chased non-Muslim tribes into India; Christians, Hindus, Shia Muslims, and Ahmadis are hounded in Pakistan172. While this is rarely made explicit, war boundaries coincide with religious boundaries again and again.
Nothing unites a community as well as an attack on one of its members.
Preaching Peace...
Most religious leaders condemn violence. They point out that violence is not allowed by the value system of the religion, and/or that it goes against the will of their supernatural institutions. This leaves us to ask why religion and conflict correlate so frequently. One hypothesis is that religion is not violent, but that it creates the ideal breeding ground for violence. According to this hypothesis, religions would preach peace, but seed conflict.
...but Seeding Conflict
“Peace walls” such as this one separate some Catholic and Protestant communities in Northern IrlandCC-BY-SA David Dixon
Let us first look at the proselytizing religions, Christianity and Islam. These religions aim to convert the adherents of other religions. At the same time, they historically shun or prohibit apostasy, i.e., changing one’s own faith. As soon as we put two religions together, which each wants to convert adherents of the other religions, but punishes apostasy of its own adherents, it is clear that the result is conflict. This has historically been the case, and this old antagonism quite possibly still fuels today’s conflicts173. Islam is still a case to the point: The majority of Muslims longs for peace between the religions, but at the same time, the majority of Muslims considers it a duty to convert others to their faith174. These goals cannot co-exist.
Another problem is the claim to be the “true” interpretation of the religion. Again, this claim is particularly visible in Islam: The religion exhibits a wide diversity of beliefs. At the same time, the majority of Muslims is of the opinion that there is only one correct interpretation of the faith175. Such a claim offends people of other denominations and religions, who also believe that they own the only true faith. The inability to accept that there exist several interpretations of Islam is quite possibly a key factor in the conflicts in the Muslim world. It also extends to other religions: The problem is that religion divides humanity into those who are “right” and those who are “wrong”176.
Major civilizations, according to Samuel P. Huntington, simplifiedCC-BY-SA DLommes
The American political scientist Samuel P. Huntington has proposed another factor that can aggravate conflicts along religious lines. He argues that the world is divided into roughly 7 civilizations (which are in turn defined largely by religion): the Western world (Protestant and Catholic Christianity), the East European world (Orthodox Christianity), India and neighboring countries (Hinduism and Buddhism), the Far East (East Asian religions), Muslim world (Islam), Latin America (Catholicism), and Sub-Saharan Africa (Catholicism and Islam). Conflicts arise mainly along the fault lines between these civilizations. His argument is that people feel adherence to their civilization and will support other people of the same civilization when these are attacked. This entails that a conflict between two places that belong to different civilizations can turn quickly into a conflict between larger entities, or even entire civilizations. In this way the civilization (which, in most cases, equals a religion) functions as an amplifier of local conflicts.177
Other sources of conflict are more subtle: Religious adherents believe in things that are considered weird by everyone else, but take offense when this is pointed out. This is obviously a recipe for conflict. Furthermore, religions usually teach adherents exclusively about their own faith. They prohibit marriage across religious boundaries, and shun a conversion to another faith. In this way, the religions shield their adherents socially and intellectually from other faiths. They build up a strong identification of people with their faith, in which adherents of one faith consider themselves culturally different from people of other faiths. Furthermore, they grant every adherent divine confidence in their own faith. This is helped by the fact that religious convictions are usually unfalsifiable, so that they cannot be proven wrong.
Now add to this setting anything that can be understood as a threat to the group: A dispute with people who happen to have another religion, a careless remark by the leader of another religion, scarcity of resources, social tensions, or poverty — and the easiest way to discharge these tensions is to seek safety in one’s own religious community and scapegoat the other religious community. Therefore, armed conflict often coincides with religious boundaries. While it would be false to say that religion in general is violent, religion at least forms the breeding ground for conflict.
Human history is filled with tragic stories of war and inhumanity. The concept of “Us” versus “Them” is at the core of many of these atrocities. Today we are faced with global challenges such as climate change, poverty and terrorism. It is time to finally realize there is only “Us”.
Underperformance
We have seen before that religious countries are usually poorer than less religious ones. Many of them are also less well-governed, less democratic, and less peaceful, and they suffer more from higher criminality, corruption, and lower life expectancy. We have argued that religion is not necessarily the cause for such misery, but that rather, vice versa, misery is the cause for religiousness. And still, we can reproach religion with being an accomplice to this misery. Not just because it has benefited from the misery, but also because it has not used its power to counter it.
Let us develop this argument step by step.
The Power of Religion
We first observe that religion has an enormous power on people. For centuries, the messages of the Bible, the Vedas, the Quran, the Buddha’s sayings, and Confucius’s writings have been re-iterated in temples, in schools, by preachers, and by parents. In addition, these religions are deeply rooted in most educational systems in this world, making sure every child gets in touch with the religion from the youngest age on. Religion is or was taught in every school, hammered into every child’s brain, re-iterated every week in religious gatherings, shouted every few hours from the minarets, and written in scripture that every single person in the country is exposed to. Thus, religion has an extraordinary outreach on society. In addition, its teachings are regarded by its adherents as absolute truth.
Such a religion has the power to change people’s lives. And it does:
It can prescribe rituals and customs
It can tell people what to eat
It can tell people what to wear
It can tell people whom to marry
It shapes a society’s value system, for example in the treatment of women
Religion is literally one of the most powerful systems on Earth. It can profoundly influence what people do and what they think.
The Results of Religion
Despite its enormous power, religion has not used its force to lift people out of their misery. If one had the power to write a book that every person in the country would have to study and read, that every child gets taught on from an early age, and that every person would believe to be true, then one could change life in that country dramatically. One could, for example,
establish the equal treatment of men and women
re-iterate the importance of education, literacy, and scientific research
establish the freedom of religion, teach the respect for all other religions, including the right to marry the adherents of the other religions
condemn corruption
praise democratic elections, and ask adherents to respect the result of a vote even if it does not coincide with one’s own interests
promote family planning
teach people the importance of a diversified diet with vegetables, proteins, and micro-nutrients (iron, zinc, folic acid, etc.)83
give very simple health advice: wash your hands frequently with soap; boil water before drinking it; give iodine supplements to pregnant women; defecate in latrines rather than in the fields; or treat diarrhea with salt and sugar in clean water105
These tenets could literally save millions of lives, and change life in poor countries for the better. But no major religion maintains these tenets as part of their value system. On the contrary, many religions have the opposites of some of these tenets on their books (see the respective articles). We thus conclude that on the one hand, religion has an enormous power, and has shaped entire societies, but that on the other hand, religion has not used that power to establish tenets that could change today’s societies for the better. Religion thus abuses its power.
Imagine there’s no heaven...
It’s easy if you try...
No hell below us,
above us only sky...
