When discussing the negative effects of religion, we shall not make the mistake of equating religion with only Christianity (as, unfortunately, many atheist comrades-in-arms do). Rather, we will study the effects of religion in general. This is a difficult endeavor because there are so many different religions. Yet, there are a few things that all religions share by definition:
They make supernatural statements;
They are sufficiently old (because otherwise they would be a New Religious Movement). Therefore, their moral framework and worldview typically predate our own.
They have survived until today (because otherwise they would be a mythology), and hence, they have 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 all before the law, 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.
We will focus on the major religions, i.e., those with more than 10 million adherents. The reader is reminded that the details of all major religions are discussed in the Chapter on Religions. 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). In what follows, we will occasionally limit our analysis to the most populous religions, whose adherents together comprise around half of the global population: Hinduism, Christianity (or, more precisely, Catholicism), and Islam.
Throughout this chapter, as throughout the entire book, a religion is understood as a set of statements called 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” and “There is a supernatural form of justice called Karma, which rewards good deeds in future lives”. 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 plus additional beliefs. For example, there are interpretations of Hinduism that believe in Samsara and Karma but, in addition, revere gods. As discussed before, we will occasionally say that a religion or an interpretation says, believes, prescribes, or prohibits something, by which we mean 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 its adherents do that something.
Before we proceed, we need to define one more technical concept: the mainstream form of a religion. By this, we mean the notional interpretation of a religion that contains all beliefs that are shared by the majority of adherents of said religion. 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 is a monolithic or recognized form of the faith. It does not even mean that the majority of Hindus believe in all statements of mainstream Hinduism. It just means that each belief in mainstream Hinduism is shared by a majority of Hindus.
In a nutshell
From an atheist point of view, religions are collections of stories that people tell each other. From a Humanist perspective, the harm of this practice unfolds as follows:
Religions do not make any predictions about the physical world because they are, by definition, unfalsifiable. This means that a religion does not tell us anything about the real world that cannot be known just as well without it. Thus, from the viewpoint of understanding the real world, religion is a useless construction.
Since a religion does not make any predictions about the real world, we can never determine if the religion is wrong (which is, again, just a consequence of its unfalsifiability). In this way, 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 is a set of moral values that are benign at best, besides the point in many cases, and in outright contradiction to the UN Declaration of Human Rights at worst: All major religions (except Taoism and some variants of Protestantism) give fewer rights to women; all major religions (except the Bahai Faith, Buddhism, and Taoism) oppose interfaith marriage; all major religions (except liberal Christianity and variants of Hinduism and Taoism) shun homosexuality; and all major religions trivialize or even glorify violence by presenting Hell as a solution to human wrongdoing. Liberal adherents of these religions play their part, too: They posit that it is okay to believe in God and to follow his will, just that they know what God really wants. This is, coincidentally, what the more conservative adherents claim as well. In this way, the more liberal adherents validate the practice of arguing with God’s will — and thus, ultimately, the more harmful interpretations of the faith.
Since no religion can be proven wrong, and since they all differ, they create clans of adherents that are based neither on kinship nor reason but on ideology. These clans don’t intermarry, and they prohibit changing camp. It is no surprise, then, that the boundaries between these clans coincide with conflict zones all over the world, be it in Israel and Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Somalia, Nigeria, Darfur, Libya, Yemen, Lebanon, Sri Lanka, the Balkans, Northern Ireland, Sudan, the Philippines, Kashmir, Bangladesh, or Pakistan.
Humanism (the flavor of atheism that we promote in this book) offers a constructive alternative to religious ideologies: It envisions a society based on reason and empathy in which knowledge about the physical world comes from science, ethical rules are derived from the desire to avoid suffering, political decisions are taken by democratic means, and people are free to do or believe anything that does not harm someone else.
Some people don’t try bacon because of religion.
I don’t try religion because of bacon.
Truth of Religious Claims
Medieval notion of truth
Let us start our criticism of religion by looking at the claims that religions make. By definition, religions make supernatural statements, i.e., claims about gods, spirits, supra-systems, or the afterlife. The religions present such statements to be as true as observed facts; they do not distinguish between fact and supernatural belief. Adherents of all major religions will explain some observable, natural facts (such as a falling apple) by scientific theories (e.g., gravity) and other facts of life (such as the genesis of the Universe) by supernatural intervention — with the same seriousness. We may argue that liberal Christians are an exception to this rule as 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.
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. 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 were compiled thousands of years ago as if they were facts verified through scientific discovery. In this way, religions convey a medieval, mystical, pre-scientific concept of truth. Religions hold that it’s okay to believe in unverified stories, whose only voucher for truth is tradition — as long as it’s their own. After all, 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 send our children to, most of us seek evidence of proven success. Religion, in contrast, governs the most serious decisions in life (such as who to marry, what to eat, what to do, what to avoid) without the slightest bit of evidence. For this to work, religions must 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 robs us of something way more fundamental: the means to distinguish truth from falsehood.
This devaluation of evidence has very palatable consequences. If evidence is no longer needed for belief, 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 charlatans who play with the gullibility of people. By abandoning evidence as a way to distinguish what is true from what is false, we basically lay down our arms against these teachings as well.
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, they are unfalsifiable. This means that there is nothing that an adherent would accept as a proof for their falsehood. God not answering your prayers? That’s because he decided not to grant your wish! Never seen evidence of life after death? That’s because Heaven is outside your perception! Never seen a god or spirit? That’s because they are invisible! Other examples for such unfalsifiable claims are abstract statements, such as “Life has a meaning” or “There is something greater than us”. There is no way to prove these statements false.
This unfalsifiability has three consequences. First, because these statements do not make any prediction about the real world, the believer knows nothing more than the nonbeliever about what will happen tomorrow (for if the statement told us something concrete about tomorrow, then the potential falsehood of this prediction would make the statement falsifiable). Without such predictions about tomorrow, however, the statement is literally meaningless in the sense of this book.
The second consequence of this unfalsifiability is more disturbing. Since the belief cannot be falsified, it is impossible to show that it is wrong — even hypothetically. This means that the believer has fallen through an ideological trapdoor: He has chosen a belief that prevents him from changing his mind. 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 and you cannot prove me wrong. For whatever argument you bring forward for your god, I can say that my gods are intentionally misleading you into your false belief, and that you just cannot notice it. You can say the same about me. We are each convinced that our respective worldview is the only right one, but neither of us can prove the other wrong. In such a setting, legitimacy cannot come from arguments or reasoning — it must come from somewhere else. All too often, it comes from amassing large numbers of adherents, from silencing critics, and, in some cases, 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 carry no meaning. Religions, however, cannot identify unfalsifiability as the problem, because if they did, they would immediately catapult themselves into senselessness. Hence, religions are bound to argue by nonlogical 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 also outright inadmissible in a rational discussion.
Men 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. This theory holds that the Earth is just a few thousand years old (see picture on the right). Other examples of such claims are that Buddha could produce fire from his upper body; that St. Joseph of Cupertino could fly; that Moses parted the Red Sea; that Jesus healed the sick, died and rose again, and could change water into wine2; that Muhammad traveled through Heaven to Jerusalem on a winged horselike creature; or that someone could speak the language of the birds[Quran 27:16]. 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 (the Bahai Faith), people being healed miraculously, or people levitating (Hinduism).
From a scientific point of view, of course, all of these claims are false. God did not create life; it emerged from proteins. Miracles do not happen; they are just stories. Faith healing does not work; it’s all just fraud and hearsay. Moses did not part the waters; that’s just a mythical story. People cannot levitate, and they don’t survive when they are killed; such accounts are just unverified legends.
In all of these cases, a religion claims something that is outright false. It then assuages us by saying that these claims are exceptional, isolated cases; that we should not criticize them because they are an element of faith; or that we cannot know the truth and should hence give the benefit of the doubt. But that is false. We do know the truth: These miraculous occurrences go against the laws of nature. (This is the definition of a miracle — something that goes against the laws of nature.) Hence, the laws of nature tell us that the miracles did not happen — and they have a much better track record of speaking the truth than any religion.
Thus, anybody who claims these miracles, and in particular, anyone 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 is what God really wants or what the religion really is, while all others are derivatives thereof. Liberals 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 will argue that the more liberal interpretations are modernized deviations from what the god(s) or holy men originally proclaimed.
In all of these examples, people claim to know what a supernatural entity really wants. From an atheist point of view, of course, the adherent’s interpretation of his religion is purely opinion. It is usually the result of whatever the adherent was told plus his own predilections. The adherent then comes to hold that his beliefs are what God wants. Thus, the believer, in effect, raises his own convictions to the level of the divine. Believers may complain that atheists know no higher authority than man. But believers go even a step further: They claim that their own opinion is God’s will and thus above that of man.
The believers, of course, are unable to see this flaw in their logic. For them, their belief is the will of God — not their own. They are unable to conceive the thought that other people may have an equally strong conviction to know an entirely different will of God.
Such a position is problematic because it gives believers a conviction that cannot be overturned by rational arguments. No moral obligation, no scientific proof, and no logical argument can override what God himself has told the believer. This is dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness3. Some believers hold that God wants them to mutilate the genitals of their daughters. Others believe that God wants women to be obedient to men. And some extremists even hold that unbelievers deserve death.
Now, we may say that in the Western world, claims of “what God really wants” are harmless. Yet, even a claim such as “God says all people shall live in peace” is not harmless. It basically tells the extremist: “It is okay that you want to follow God’s will, but you are misunderstanding him. I know what God really wants.” This is, coincidentally, what the extremist believes as well. Thus, by claiming that religious extremists have misunderstood God’s will, we validate the principle of arguing with God’s will, and thus, actually lend support to the extremists' 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. Adherents practice such methods because they believe the methods will somehow affect the future.
The problem is that they don’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 used to keep people in a religion and to lure them into a belief system, a moral framework, and a worldview. The claim promises people a power that it does not exist.
Some adherents argue that prayer is merely a request, not a commandment to the gods. 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 it could occur — or at least that asking increases the probability of it happening. It does not make sense to ask for something with the conviction that asking will definitively not have an effect.
Other adherents argue that prayer is merely an act of commemoration. They are not asking God to help the victims of a hurricane disaster, they are just raising awareness for the plight of these victims. Yet, people literally say “Lord, we ask you”. Indeed, to pray means “to make a request”: It derives from the Latin “precare”, which means “to entreat”4. In Italian, “pregare” means both “to pray” and “to ask”. The same is true of the French word “prier”. In German, “beten” (“to pray”) shares its root with bitten (“to request”). Prayer has always been a means to make something come about — and this means does not work.
The situation is worse when the claim of supernatural power is made by an official of the religion, such as a priest who claims to protect a house by blessing it; a faith healer who asks the gods to heal an illness; a monk who blesses 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 false power gives him an authoritative position in society. In other words, he uses a lie to secure his social status. Furthermore, this act is part of his job, and 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 after I die? What is morally right? While thousands of people have dedicated their lives to finding the answers to these questions, religions claim to already have the ultimate answers — 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 laws are still changing continuously. But the believer thinks that his current interpretation of his religion is the eternal and unchanged answer to all these questions — notwithstanding the fact that different believers, different eras, and different religions all have different eternal answers to these questions. In fact, there is a high chance that the believer himself adheres to a religion that changed its view on slavery, women’s rights, or brutal punishments quite recently.
For around 200 years, scientists have been seeking to understand the beginning of the Universe. On the way, they discovered atoms, quarks, and the Theory of Relativity, and they have given us X-rays, the GPS, radio, and aluminum. They have not, however, discovered what happened before the Big Bang. Here, the believer steps in. She holds that her theory can answer what thousands of experts cannot: Her God created the world. This is absurd, of course: Her theory has no verifiable evidence in its favor; it is not grounded, in any way, in astronomy, cosmology, physics, chemistry, biology, or geology; and it was, in fact, developed by people from the Bronze Age who thought that the Sun orbited around the Earth. And indeed, science has disproven religious theories about the real world over and over again throughout history.
Science does not yet fully understand the workings of the human mind. And yet, the believer considers it obvious that there is some spiritual substance in us called “the soul”. What is more, the believer knows, with complete certainty, that this soul will live on after the death of the body. And yet, despite being so sure about life after death, the believer thanks God whenever the chance to transition is avoided.
Some believers think that they can be in personal contact with the being who created the Universe. They believe that the creator of the world will take the time to help them, even with something as trivial as finding their car keys. And yet, in the very same minute the believer finds her keys, that supernatural being is letting hundreds of children starve to death, despite their prayers. Thus, the believer assumes that she is important enough to be helped by the creator of the Universe while millions of others are not. This is a sign of supreme arrogance6. As Iranian-Canadian author Armin Navabi argues: “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 planet”7. Given the size and the scope of the Universe, it is absurd to think that we might have any cosmically vital role within it7.
Some believers hold that life can have meaning only through belief in their god and that, hence, atheists cannot have a purposeful life. This is not just false, but also an arrogant hijacking of the concept8. What does the believer know about an atheist’s life?
You do not even know the question,
and you already claim to have the answer.
Weirdness
A “Shabbat-elevator” in Jerusalem, Israel, stops on every floor on Shabbat so that conservative Jews do not have to press any button, which would be prohibited by their faith.
Different religions have different beliefs. Usually, the beliefs of one religion appear strange or funny to adherents of another. 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 actually held by a religion.
Adherents marry only within their faith. And since their faith comprises only four families, each marriage must be approved by a geneticist 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 four distinct families9. Since they marry only among themselves, genetic disorders are a real danger, and so couples have their genes checked prior to marriage10.
Adherents believe that God wants them to cut off certain body parts as proof of their faith. Therefore, they perform rituals in which they amputate the body parts of children. True or false?
True. In Islam and Judaism, adherents believe they have to cut off the foreskin of a young boy’s penis. This ritual is frequently performed without anesthetization.
Adherents believe that to achieve liberation, one must renounce all possessions, including clothing. Therefore, the monks of this denomination remain naked. True or false?
True. Male monks of the Digambara denomination of Jainism live naked. Since women are not allowed to be naked in public, this obliges them to first be reborn as a man in order to achieve liberation.
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 so-called “Untouchables”11.
Adherents believe that a man has to suck the penis of a baby boy. True or false?
True. Judaism knows the ritual of Metzitzah B’peh, in which the man who performed the circumcision sucks out blood from the wound in the belief that this speeds up the healing process12. This ritual has become less popular in recent times.
Adherents believe that a specific ritual can protect them against throat illnesses. True or false?
True. Catholicism knows the Blessing of the Throats, which asks God to deliver the recipient from every disease of the throat13.
Adherents believe that they must throw their babies from a 10-meter balcony onto a blanket held below in order to bring good luck, health, and prosperity. True or false?
True. Hindu priests in the Indian state of Karnataka regularly perform this ritual14.
Adherents believe that their underwear is the most sacred of all things in the world because the underwear provides protection against temptation and evil. True or false?
True. The Latter-day Saints (also known as Mormons) wear a special underwear thought to spiritually protect them 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”15.
Adherents believe that the Earth will be destroyed soon. Therefore, they actively prepare for the end of the world. True or false?
True. For the last 2,000 years, mainstream Christianity has been teaching that the end of the world is near. This belief is based on sayings of Jesus that equate current times with the times before the Great Deluge[Bible: Matthew 24:37–39]. Christians have been predicting precise dates for the end of the world since Jesus’ death (Wikipedia maintains a list that is continuously updated16). The year 2012 was a popular guess, with 10% of the world population believing that the world would end that year17.
Adherents believe that an extraterrestrial dictator brought billions of his people to Earth, stacked them around volcanoes, and killed them using hydrogen bombs. The essences of extraterrestrials gather around people in modern times, causing them spiritual harm. True or false?
True. This is Scientology, with several hundred thousand adherents.
Adherents believe that the Universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster and that we should all wear a colander on our heads in reverence to that being. True or false?
Let’s say: As true as the other examples. Pastafarianism is a movement that declares itself a religion in order to draw attention to the preferential treatment that religions receive from governments. Pastafarians do occasionally wear colanders on their heads for this purpose18.
Adherents believe that they can be relieved from their sins by listening to a certain radio program. Since 1985, it has been possible to achieve absolution from sins also by watching a certain television program. Since 1995, relief can also be achieved via 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 papal blessing can expect forgiveness of their sins. More recently, the effect of the sermon can also be achieved by listening to transmissions via the radio, television, or internet19.
Adherents believe that at certain times of the year they are not allowed to eat or drink while the Sun shines, as a commemoration of their prophet’s revelation. True or false?
True. In Islam, during the month of Ramadan, adherents are not allowed to eat or drink during daytime. Therefore, they get up before sunrise to eat and then return to sleep. The same is true for the Bahais, who observe a 19-day fast.
Adherents believe that the 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 symbols20.
Adherents believe that they are not allowed to heat food on certain days. Therefore, there are special microwaves that can be switched on the night before 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 this, there are all kinds of appliances that simulate normal functionality but can be operated without pressing a button (see the picture above). For the same reason, Orthodox Jews make stacks of toilet paper the day before Shabbat because they are not allowed to rip off the paper21.
Adherents follow the philosophy of the Jedis, the extraterrestrial beings from the movie series Star Wars. True or false?
True. The religion of Jediism is inspired by the Star Wars series and has several hundred thousand adherents22.
Adherents hold weekly ceremonies during which they believe that they eat the flesh of a human. True or false?
True. In Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity, the bread that adherents eat during mass is believed to literally transform into the flesh of Jesus. (Interestingly, this does not work with gluten-free bread23.) In Protestant Christianity, the bread is only a symbol of Jesus’ flesh.
Adherents believe that they are not allowed to eat dairy products together with meat products. By extension, restaurants can have either dishes with dairy or dishes with meat, but not both. For example, a restaurant cannot offer both meat dishes and ice cream, because ice cream contains milk. True or false?
True. In Judaism, the coexistence of meat and dairy in restaurants is prohibited, as is the consumption of both food groups at the same time24. This is extrapolated from the Bible passage “Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk”[Bible: Exodus 34:26].
Adherents believe that they receive mercy from a certain deity if they crawl on their knees in the street to a place of worship. For this purpose, a crawl lane (similar to a bike lane) has been put in place, which people use by the thousands. True or false?
True. This is the pilgrimage of Orthodox Christians on the Greek Island of Tinos to the Holy Church of Panagia Evangelistria25.
Adherents believe bread cannot be owned on a certain day of the year. Since the State owns the bread factories, the State sells the bread in these factories to a hotel manager for $5,000 before buying 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 bread companies, the prison service, and the country’s stock of emergency supplies, the bread is sold every year to Mr. Hussein Jabar, a Muslim hotel manager residing in Abu Ghosh. The next day, Israel buys it back.26
Adherents believe that people who die 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. Items include paper televisions, computers, and mobile phones for technological comfort, and Viagra, call-girls, and condoms for physical comfort. True or false?
True. Chinese Folk Religion incorporates this belief. The paper replicas are called Joss papers27.
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 their usage within the community, the devices have their own group of phone numbers and a distinctive ringtone. True or false?
True. Haredi Jews have special “kosher connection” smartphones. They became necessary because while Rabbis banned television sets, they found themselves unable to ban computers and mobile phones28.
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
teaches me to suspect that my own is also.
Disconnection from reality
American author Marshall Brain tells the following story29:
Leprechauns can be found at the end of a rainbow.
Imagine that I have an adult friend. Once you get to know her, you realize something: She believes in leprechauns — diminutive 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 out loud 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 she 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, knowing this about her, 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 happier and less lonely.
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 religious believers have lost the connection to reality. That in itself may be harmless, but 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 will 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 they can talk with the supernatural, or that they will be saved by that same supernatural when they die. In this way, the other religious people make it impossible to criticize the absurdity of the situation.
Those who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Empty words
In this book, we have argued that religions are out of touch with reality and modernity. One way religions cover this up is by using what this book calls empty words, i.e., words that carry their usual meaning and connotation but then lose that meaning when one inquires about their actual real-world consequences. 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, his “love” for us has no consequence whatsoever. If a real person loved in this way, we would not call it love. We would call it apathy.
Another example is the fire of Hell. In Catholicism, since 1999, the eternal fire of Hell is no longer a literal fire — it does not actually hurt the condemned, it just burns away their sins. In Orthodox Christianity, too, the fire has been reinterpreted as 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”30. In this way, the “fire” has become an empty word, disemboweled of its usual meaning.
Judaism
The Bible explains that Jews are God’s “treasured people from all the nations”[Bible: Deuteronomy 14:2, Exodus 19:5] and that God chose Jews “because the Lord loved [them]”[Bible: Deuteronomy 7:7-8]. This assumed focus of God’s love did not sit well with the other adherents of that god31. 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 term32.) If everyone in the entire world is “chosen”, however, then the word does not actually mean anything.
Islam
Islam has a long tradition of interpreting individual verses and words of the Quran — a practice known as tafsir33. It is possibly due to this tradition that Islam has a particularly rich repertoire of empty words on offer. For example, women have fewer rights than men in mainstream Islam. Still, even the most conservative interpretations of Islam hold that “women are given the greatest honor in Islam”34. Usually, the word “honor” implies a position above the average person (it is synonymous with “privilege”35). In mainstream Islam, however, it is actually men who are considered above women[Quran: 2:228] — which is the exact opposite. When pressed, an apologist may argue that, in this context, honor means having certain rights and not being as subordinate as in pre-Islamic societies34. That, however, is a pretty low bar to clear. How is it, in any way, an “honor” for women to have less rights than men?
In the same spirit, some women call their head coverings (required by conservative interpretations of the faith) a “liberation” because they allow them to freely participate in public life36. From an atheist perspective, this is, of course, absurd: The veil liberates them from a restriction that conservative Islam imposed on them in the first place. The imposition of a constraint cannot be considered a “liberation” in any common understanding of the word.
Take another example: The Quran is considered a book of supreme wisdom and beauty, and a “literary miracle”37, as the Quran itself hints[Quran 2:23]. And yet, the Quran has never achieved popularity outside of Muslim communities38 (possibly because more than a quarter of the book talks exclusively about the terror of Hell and the despicableness of nonbelievers). Adherents argue that the beauty of the Quran unfolds only in Arabic. But can a “supreme wisdom” 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, Karma enforces the “law of automated justice”39, which automatically punishes people for their bad deeds. It has to be said, though, that this justice may arrive only in the next life40. Also, when that justice does arrive, perpetrators will not know for what they are being punished, as their previous lives will be inaccessible to them41. But what is “justice” if neither victim nor perpetrator know when it is being administrated and for what reason? The atheist’s answer is clear: an empty word.
Most religions
Most religions (although not all) propose methods to influence one’s fate, such as prayers, blessings, rituals, or intercessions. We have already discussed that these methods amount to false claims of power because they do not work. This shortcoming is often artfully hidden under empty words: “God answers your prayers” should literally mean that a god performs some action in return for one’s prayers. However, in the context of prayer, the word “to answer” just means “there is no reaction whatsoever”. The word has thus been voided of its meaning. In a similar way, phrases such as “Heaven protects you” or “This god protects you” should literally mean that one is safe from harm. But they don’t. These words have been hollowed out.
In all of these cases, words have been reinterpreted beyond recognition: Hell is no longer Hell, justice is not really justice, an answer is not an answer, and chosen people are no longer really chosen. All of these words have become empty.
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.
Claims of the afterlife
One more empty word that we see in religious contexts is the promise of the “afterlife” in the Abrahamic religions. For the ordinary believer who has not committed any major fault in this life, the afterlife is unequivocally described as something amazing: Depending on the flavor of the Abrahamic religion, an adherent can look forward to living like angels in Heaven (Christianity), to gardens of perpetual bliss (Islam), to a state of perfect happiness (Spiritism), to something similar to the Garden of Eden42 (Judaism), or at the very least, to a spiritual world (the Bahai Faith).
However, if people really believed in such a wonderful afterlife, they would rejoice when someone dies, knowing that that person is now enjoying the postmortal pleasures. People would also show no fear of their own death. On the contrary, they would anticipate it in happy excitement. And yet, people usually don’t. This incoherence is not just a modern phenomenon. In the 13th century, King Louis IX of France led a crusade to make Egypt Christian land. When his soldiers were defeated, one of them proposed that the entire unit kill themselves so that they could all be martyred and ascend to Paradise. Yet, the soldiers preferred to surrender43.
We can spot the same incoherence in Islam: A devout Muslim, Armin Navabi attempted suicide at the age of 14 in order to reach Paradise. One might think that his action would have caused admiration for his bravery and strength of faith. However, people were horrified. (Navad survived, recovered from his wounds, and became one of the most vocal ex-Muslim atheists7). Or consider the French attack on the Islamic State in Syria in 2015. Numerous Islamic State fighters died, and the organization duly declared them martyrs in Paradise. Theoretically, Paradise is a very enviable outcome for the fighters (who might otherwise have gone to Hell for their heinous participation in warfare). And yet, rather than thanking France for sending so many of their fighters to Paradise, the Islamic State ordered a suicide attack on Paris on November 13, 2015, indicating that the organization doesn’t believe their own stories of Paradise either21. Or consider the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center in New York. When the Islamist masterminds of this act were caught and convicted, they preferred to plead guilty and spend life in prison rather than suffer the death penalty and go to Heaven44. If even Islamic terrorists do not believe in eternal bliss after death, atheists wonder, then who does?
Moral Values
Dogmatic values in the Abrahamic religions
We now turn to the moral values that religions hold. 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 avoiding future suffering.
Some religions share this philosophy. The Five Precepts of Buddhism, for example, concern only worldly issues, and prohibit killing, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, and intoxication. The 18 titles of Hindu Law, likewise, regulate only earthly concerns, such as debts, ownership, field boundaries, contracts, verbal and physical assault, inheritance, and sexual violence. Of the Five Vows taken by Jains, four are concerned with the well-being of other people. Spiritualism, too, centers its morality on avoiding harm, by subscribing to the Golden Rule: “Treat others as you would like others to treat you”. The Bahai Faith knows a list of dos and don’ts, and, as we have already seen, these are, for the vast majority, centered on human well-being. The Wicca Faith even mirrors the Humanist understanding of moral values one-to-one, stating: “Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfil: An it harm none, do what ye will.”
In contrast, the moral frameworks of the older Abrahamic religions (i.e., Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) are not principally aimed at reducing suffering. They lump together offenses against the sacred and against fellow humans, often giving as much weight to the former as to the latter.
Judaism
Judaism derives 613 Commandments from the Torah45. Most of them are concerned with food constraints, idolatry, and rites rather than with fellow humans.
Islam
Islam is said to rest on the five pillars of prayer, almsgiving, fasting, pilgrimage, and the declaration of faith. Of these, only one is actually concerned with other people. In the same spirit, the Reliance of the Traveler (the most well-known Sharia, i.e., concrete elaboration of moral rules based on Islamic sources) contains just as many chapters on rules concerning the sacred (including prayer, pilgrimage, fasting) [Reliance of the Traveler: A, B, E, F, G, I, J, V, S, U] as chapters on rules governing inter-human relations (on matters of trade, alms, marriage, and slander)[Reliance of the Traveler: C, H, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R]. Furthermore, the most popular interpretations of Islam prohibit criticism of the Prophet Muhammad, apostasy, and/or blasphemy — none of which causes suffering to other living humans.
Christianity
Christianity knows the overarching call to “love your neighbor”. And yet, Jesus immediately complements this rule with the saying “Love the Lord your God with all your heart”[Bible: Matthew 22:34-40], giving the sacred rule as much weight as the inter-human one. The Ten Commandments lean more towards treating fellow humans. However, even they consecrate the first three rules to God and not to people.
In such systems, morality is not a question of whether someone is hurt but a question of religious duty. 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 line between the two, religions can piggyback 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
Detaching morality (i.e., what is good or bad) from its effect on humankind (i.e., suffering) has several consequences. First, certain behaviors may be immoral within the religion even though they do not hurt people. For example, not obeying ritual obligations is considered immoral even though no harm is done to any person. From a Humanist point of view, such rituals are needless restrictions of liberty. Second, and worse, certain behaviors may be moral within the religion even though they do hurt people. Examples are circumcision (prescribed in Judaism and Islam), female genital mutilation (prescribed in certain interpretations of Islam), and child marriage (permitted in Catholicism and mainstream Islam). These practices cause harm. But since harm is disconnected from morality within the Abrahamic value system, people can perform these rituals without concern. Such behavior is in direct contradiction with Humanist ethics. Third, a moral system that does not depend on its effect on people teaches that morality is something to be obeyed whether or not the reasons for doing so are understood: A behavior is “bad” not because it makes someone suffer but because it has been declared as such by a divine authority. This makes it impossible to adapt religious morality to modern society. For example, many societies have recently recognized that discrimination against homosexual people causes harm. Hence, laws have been put in place to sanction such discrimination. Religious frameworks, in contrast, have a much harder time adapting to such a reckoning because their understanding of morality does not depend on real-world effects. As American author Roy Sablosky summarizes: Kindness is good, cruelty is bad — and if that axiom is left out of a moral system, then none of the rest of it can have validity .
Dogmatic values have another drawback: They make it impossible to find compromises with people of a different religion. Compromises can be found only if people are ready to adapt their stance. A dogmatic moral framework cannot do that. Dogmatic values can even fuel extremism and fanaticism: A religion that accepts dogmatic values accepts that people believe something simply 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, such as the belief that a daughter must be married off at the age of 12, or that one 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. If you teach people that it is okay to follow dogmata, you should not be surprised that some people follow dogmata other than yours.
Obedience is not morality.
An atheist and Humanist view
For atheists, there are no God-given dogmata: Moral rules are made by people. This applies also to religious rules, which were, according to atheists, created by people and then later ascribed to gods. In a Humanist worldview, moral rules should be produced by human consensus. This requirement subdues the rules to argument, reason, and a system of checks and balances, making 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. And indeed, they are continuously adapted to technological progress and modified to mirror the consensus of society. Dogmatic rules, in contrast, cannot do that.
Heaven arms with compassion those whom it would not see destroyed.
Asceticism in the Indian religions
Buddhist monks chant the words of the Buddha to remind them of the virtues that the Buddha taught. 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 sidewalks, that would lead to a better life not just after rebirth, but also in the present — 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 analogs 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 state46. While many religions have known ascetics, asceticism is prevalent today mainly in Jainism, Tibetan Buddhism, and branches of Hinduism46.
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 lifestyle. 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, spiritual liberation from the cycle of Samsara even passes necessarily through asceticism47. 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 liberation4849. In Theravada Buddhism, too, it is the ascetic life of a monk that leads to liberation46.
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 waives the only occasion that one has to enjoy the time on this Earth. Thus, from an atheist perspective, any promise of liberation through ascetism is a treacherous way of making people waste their life. And that waste does not just concern the ascetics themselves: The ascetics, monks, and nuns in Buddhism46, Hinduism[Baudhayana Dharmasutra: II.10.18], and Jainism50 ask for alms. In this way, 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 their societies, they depend on other people’s money in the hope of achieving their own salvation.
Women’s rights
After having discussed the general mechanisms of moral values in the major world religions, we now turn to concrete moral questions. The first of these concerns the role of women. As we have discussed, the vast majority of people in this world adhere to a religion that does not give equal rights to women: Orthodox and Conservative Judaism, most denominations of Christianity, mainstream Islam, mainstream Hinduism, mainstream Confucianism, and Theravada Buddhism.
Liberal adherents will be quick to contend that the “real” Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, or Judaism is, in fact, egalitarian, and that the faith is being misinterpreted. This discussion, however, is not to be had with an atheist but with the conservative adherents of their own 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 interpretations comprise the majority of the world’s population — no matter whether these interpretations are “true” or not.
It is nearly needless to recall that any ideology that gives women fewer rights than men is directly opposed to Humanist values and the UN Declaration of Human Rights[Human Rights § 2]. This holds regardless of whether such discrimination is sold as an effort to “protect” 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 within the family structure. In a Humanist framework, women and men can take whatever roles they want, but they must have the same rights before the law.
Discrimination against women in written law is usually just the tip of the iceberg. It often goes along with (and supports) a general patriarchal attitude that it is okay for women to be less privileged than men. This attitude contributes to the nearly ubiquitous discrimination against women worldwide, amounting to fewer opportunities for education, honor killings, sex-selective abortions, domestic violence, laws that disadvantage rape victims, and a deep-rooted mindset that women are inferior in general (a topic on which the author has written elsewhere51).
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 one.
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 UN Declaration of Human Rights. Some argue against interfaith marriage by saying that if people marry outside of their religion, their partner is unlikely to share the same values. This, however, does not entitle us to outright forbid interfaith marriage — partners know better whether they share the same values. Others may argue that everyone is free to first exit their religion and then marry whom they wish. This, however, does not change the fact that any moral framework that does not grant the freedom to choose one’s partner is incompatible with the UN Declaration of Human Rights. If you have to exit the framework to get your rights, then the framework is incompatible with these rights.
Second, it is discriminatory to regard people of other faiths as unmarriageable. Imagine if a father were to say: “I do not want my daughter to marry a vegetarian”. That would be perceived as stupid, overgeneralizing, patronizing, and offensive. And this is exactly how adherents sound when they prohibit interfaith marriage.
Finally, the prohibition of interfaith marriage partitions mankind into distinct groups, so much so that the divisions begin to resemble the separation between animal species. This may seem a bold comparison, but it is true in the following sense of the word: While there are different definitions for the notion of animal species, one necessary condition is that its members can interbreed 52. This means that if two individuals cannot interbreed, they cannot belong to the same species. Since this is what religion enforces across people of different faiths, religion effectively creates different “species” of humans. This practice leads to an ignorance of the other and to intergroup 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 us would heal within a generation.
Family planning
We will now turn our attention to Sub-Saharan Africa. More than many other regions of the world, Sub-Saharan Africa suffers from poverty, food insecurity, lack of access to schooling and health care, political instability, ineffective or authoritarian governments, corruption, terrorism, armed conflicts, displacements, environmental stressors, and economic stagnation53. Many of these complications are directly caused or exacerbated by foreign influence: Developed countries, ex-colonial powers, and other countries vie for influence and meddle in local politics; multinational companies exploit resources without respect for the local population and environment (and, in some cases, the law); foreign countries finance militias or sell arms and impose disadvantageous trade or development treaties. Other complications reinforce each other: Climate change causes loss of livelihoods and migration; lack of livelihoods causes poverty, malnutrition, illness, and suffering; desperation increases the readiness of people to join militias or terrorist groups (who often capitalize on local resentments between people from different ethnicities or religions to drive conflicts and war); war causes human suffering and institutional instability; instability prevents investments; a lack of investments prevents the creation of a viable local economy; the lack of a viable economy increases the percentage of the population in poverty; cash-strapped governments cannot effectively invest in education, health care, or law enforcement; ineffective social services lead to corruption, crime, and violence, often between different groups vying for power; and this instability leads to the emergence of “strongmen” who accumulate power and suppress competitors, eventually often giving rise to authoritarian governments that divert resources from already limited social services (such as education and healthcare). Revenue from oil, foreign aid, or contraband enriches the elite or the warlords, whose main goal is to protect their cash cow rather than to foster networks of commerce that enrich a society and knit it together in reciprocal obligations54. One could fill page after page elaborating on this cycle, which is indeed what the author has done elsewhere51. Here, we will focus on the role of religion. In most of the complications we have enumerated, religion plays no role at all, neither exacerbating nor (as we will criticize later) attenuating. It does, however, contribute an orthogonal factor that makes many of these complications even harder to manage: The dominant religions in the region, Islam and Catholicism, both encourage large families (as do Judaism, Spiritism, the Bahai Faith, and Orthodox Christianity). Such an encouragement is understandable from a Darwinist point of view, but it aggravates the humanitarian problems of the region. Let us develop this argument step by step.
Average number of children per woman in 2023, according to the Population Reference Bureau. Blue is 0.8 children per woman, 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 means that 40%-60% of the population experience chronic hunger.CC-BY-SA Allice Hunter
As of 2022, the average woman in Sub-Saharan Africa has 4.5 children55. And as of 2023, the population of the continent (1.5 billion) has doubled since 1996, quadrupled since the 1970s, and increased six-fold since 195056. To understand what that means, consider a country such as France . In 1950, France had 42 million inhabitants. Today it has 66 million. If France had had the same rate of population growth as Sub-Saharan Africa, it would stand today at 250 million people. The country would just have collapsed under this level of population growth.
Such is the situation in many Sub-Saharan African countries: If a family struggles to feed two children, it is harder to feed five. If it is hard to find university scholarships for thousands of students, it is nearly impossible to find scholarships for tens of thousands. 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 also have some of the highest malnutrition rates57 (see graphics on the right). In addition, nearly half of all pregnancies in the world are unintended, according to the United Nations Populations Fund58. And yet, Islam and Catholicism further fuel this population growth: Nowhere in the primary scriptures of these religions is there a commandment to restrain the number of children. On the contrary, Catholicism even prohibits contraception. With this, these religions play their part in the complex network of factors that make life in Sub-Saharan Africa difficult.59
The problem appears elsewhere, too: In prevalent interpretations of Islam and Christianity, having children is primarily seen as a gift from God, and less as a conscious choice that has to be made responsibly. These religions have no rule in their scripture to say that people should refrain from having children when they are unable to care for them. And hence, we find that babies continue to be born under the most adverse of circumstances (war, famine, migration), in which the right and desire to have children and the responsibility for their upbringing face a difficult balance.
Leaders who forbid their followers to use effective contraceptive methods [...] express a preference for “natural” methods of population limitation, and a natural method is exactly what they are going to get. It is called starvation.
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%.
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: Opinions about child marriage vary widely. It is also not to say that child marriage is a direct result of one’s religion. On the contrary, child marriage correlates more with poverty than it does with religion. For example, Sub-Saharan 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 contain prohibitions on child marriage in their primary scripture. On the contrary, they explicitly allow it in their 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 don’t. These religions are thus a bystander to the practice — and so it continues unopposed by religion in Sub-Saharan Africa (mainly Catholic and Muslim), India (mainly Hindu), and Brazil (mainly Catholic).
Atheists suspect, of course, that these religions have little interest in preventing child marriages: The younger a bride marries, the more her sexually active lifetime will intersect with her fertile lifetime, thereby producing more children (adherents) and shortening the gap between the generations. Furthermore, the younger a girl marries, the less likely she is, and the less likely her children are, to be educated — which increases the chance that her children will remain religious. All of these factors serve the survival of the religion all too well.
Child marriage is incompatible with the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which requires “free and full consent of the intending spouses” for marriage[Human Rights § 16 (2)]. Children cannot give informed consent. Thus, any child marriage is, by definition, an arranged marriage, decided by the family and not by those concerned. When a young girl is married, her entire life is constrained without her consent. It is determined by others with whom and how she will spend the rest of her life, and (implicitly) that she will produce children at a young age. Indeed, the purpose of child marriage is usually procreation. Thus, the young girl is expected to have sex with a (usually older) man who she did not choose and who she has no way to refuse (in Islam, this policy is made explicit[Quran: 2:222-223]). This must be a traumatic experience for any young girl. Indeed, in many legislations, any sexual relation between an adult and an individual who legally is not old enough to consent amounts to statutory rape60. Thus, religions that have no clear prohibition of child marriage effectively allow statutory rape.
Beyond the psychological harm, child marriage also causes physical harm to both the underage spouse and her offspring. A 2025 report by the UN World Health Organization explains that “teenage pregnancy remains the leading cause of death for girls aged 15 to 19”61. As UNICEF notes, “child marriage robs girls of their childhood”, and girls who marry before 18 are more likely to experience domestic violence, less likely to remain in school, and more likely to have worse economic and health outcomes than their unmarried peers. Worse, these burdens are passed down to their own children.62 In addition, child marriage increases the risk for sexually transmitted diseases, cervical cancer, malaria, and obstetric fistulas. The girl’s children, too, are at increased risk for premature birth and death as neonates, infants, or children63. 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, in contrast, are accomplices to the practice.
Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil.
Homophobia
In their mainstream interpretations, most major religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, the Bahai Faith, Buddhism, and Confucianism) shun homosexuality. This is particularly visible in Islam: The vast majority of Muslims today reject homosexuality65, and homosexual acts are punishable by death in 12 countries worldwide, all of which are Muslim66. But even the more liberal forms of Islam, as well as most other major religions, regard homosexuality as unnatural and condemn homosexual acts.
Any singling out of a person 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 their more widespread discrimination: 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 difficult for individuals to “come out”. (Why do people even have to “come out” in the first place?) By stigmatizing homosexuality, 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, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the 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 Hindu India, there are prohibitive social taboos against atheism67, and the nonreligious struggle to find their voice and place in Indian society and politics68; in Christian countries, atheists are routinely discriminated against; and in many Muslim countries, atheists or converts to other religions face severe social ostracization, hatred, violence, legal harassment, and even punishment up to and including the death penalty. This disdain for, discrimination against, and persecution of atheists happens also because mainstream Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism do not accept apostates as equals.
The freedom of religion is an essential 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 UN Declaration of Human Rights. And 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 things69. We have seen that all major religions condemn blasphemy. As of 2023, 95 countries punish blasphemy, with penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment and, in 7 countries, even death (Nigeria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iran, Mauritania, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia)70.
For a Humanist, the freedom to question, criticize, mock, and even insult religion is every bit as essential as the freedom to practice it71[Human Rights § 19]. This is because we can determine the truth or falsehood of an ideology (religious or otherwise) only if we are allowed to question it. If the tenets of the ideology are true, they will withstand such questioning — simply by the force of their truth. Interestingly, it follows that any ideology (religious or otherwise) that prohibits such questioning cannot have truth as its goal. In many cases, its primary goal is just the maintenance of its own power.
We can be tempted to draw a line between criticizing a religion and mocking it. And yet, this line is almost impossible to draw. For example, pointing out that Catholics believe they are ingesting human flesh during the Eucharist sounds as if one is mocking their faith — although it is just a factually correct assertion. But even if it were possible to draw the line between criticizing and mocking, religion does not deserve protection, neither from mockery nor from criticism. This is because a religion is just an idea — it does not have rights72.
If we cannot mock and question an ideology, we will succumb to all of its harmful consequences. The world’s major religions have many: the mistreatment of women; the prohibition of interfaith marriage; the encouragement to have many children even in the face of malnutrition; homophobia; the shunning of apostasy; and the support of child marriage. By shielding religion from criticism, we shield these harmful practices, too. Any system that prevents us from criticizing ideologies is an accomplice to the injustices that they induce.
We can argue that such reasoning applies only to the most harmful interpretations of today’s religions. Yet, even the moderate interpretations of these religions usually suggest that faith should not be criticized. They create an aura of sensitivity around religious issues — “Faith has to be respected”, the saying goes. Some nonreligious people, too, lecture us to “respect all religions equally”. If a religion is criticized, some of its adherents and apologists react with indignation, anger, or worse. Hence, some governments have put in place laws that prohibit such criticism of religion, in order to protect the public peace. However, as German philosopher Michael Schmidt-Salomon has argued, the public peace is disturbed not by criticism of religion, but rather by religious fanatics who are unable to deal with such criticism. A law that blames their violent abuse of critics on the critics themselves thus reverses perpetrator and victim.73
The aura of sensitivity around religion then extends directly to the more harmful interpretations of faith. For example, Christianity cannot criticize Judaism for circumcising infants because Christianity has to defend the idea that faith must be respected. In Germany, Christian leaders have come to the support of their Jewish brethren in this matter74. Or consider the Islam-critical drawings in the French magazine Charlie Hebdo, which led Islamist extremists to attack the magazine’s headquarters and kill 12 people in 201575. The Pope compared the drawings 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”76. Thereby, the Pope explicitly justified if not the attacks themselves, then the need for revenge against criticism. Within Islam, moderate adherents go to great lengths to explain that extremist variants of the faith are “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 dismiss these arguments out of hand, or even shun the critics as Islamophobes. With this, the moderate adherents shield Islam from criticism — but shield also its more harmful interpretations in the same go. Thus, these adherents are more interested in protecting their religion than in identifying and rooting out the sources of Islamism. With this, they ultimately play into the hands of the fundamentalists.
In summary, by positing that faith should not be criticized, the moderate flavors of religion de facto protect the more harmful variants.
Take truth as the authority
not the authority as truth.
The case of Islam
The reader will have noticed that examples from Islam have appeared in nearly all points of criticism that we have discussed so far. While that may appear like an unfair singling out of a religion, it is not. To see this, let us remember that there are a number of design principles that convey Darwinian advantages to a religion. These include the promise of Heaven and Hell, the prohibition of interfaith marriage, and the punishment of apostasy. All religions have a Darwinian interest in perfecting these ideas. To this end, younger religions can learn from and improve upon older religions. Take the example of Hell: It did not exist in early Judaism, was created for Christianity, and was made a place of most detailed brutality in Islam. The same goes for Heaven: It did not exist in early Judaism, was created for Christianity, and is the most wonderful in Islam. Another example is proselytism: It was introduced by Christianity and then perfected by Islamic caliphates who implemented a system in which nonbelievers are first subdued and then nudged towards Islam via taxes and restrictions on daily life. Or consider interfaith marriage, which is prohibited in most major religions. Islam further perfected this prohibition: It does not allow interfaith marriage in general but permits the marriage of Muslim men with women of other faiths under the expectation that the children from said marriage will be Muslim. In this way, Islam allows for the expansion of the faith into non-Muslim environments. Yet another example is the prohibition of sex outside marriage: Conservative interpretations of Islam do not just subscribe to this principle, they also erase any female physical temptation from public life by imposing the veil upon women.
Islam has thus refined the strategies of its predecessors .
The problem is, of course, that many of these survival strategies (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 still refine these strategies before the Enlightenment made them unpopular.
These strategies have served Islam well: The conservative interpretations of the faith 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, freedom of speech, and women’s rights, no such trend is discernible in Muslim countries.
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”77. The interpretation of Islam defended by the OIC is thus the largest ideology on Earth that openly advocates unequal rights for men and women[CDHRI § 6a], denies gay people the right to exist78, and opposes freedom of religion[CDHRI § 10] and of speech7980818283. The primary victims of these tenets are, of course, Muslims themselves84.
Islam has also developed powerful mechanisms that stifle critique: In many Muslim countries, any criticism of Islam is considered blasphemy, which, as we have learned above, is punished by ostracization or even by law. Deviations from the religion are closely watched (and in some cases punished) by family and the community under the principle of “commanding right and forbidding wrong”85, by which adherents ensure each other’s compliance. In the West, criticism of Islam is muted by accusations of Islamophobia, international pressure from the OIC83, and Islamist terrorist attacks. Even just the depiction of the Prophet Muhammad is hamstrung by threats of Islamist attacks — effectively excluding the Prophet from any kind of discussion in caricatures, satire, documentaries, museum exhibitions, or illustrated biographies8687888990919293. (When Islamists attacked the French magazine Charlie Hebdo in 2015 for its caricature of the Prophet, millions gathered in support of the magazine94 — but none had the courage to also show drawings of the Prophet, thus effectively surrendering to the Islamists' demand.) These factors ensure that it is very difficult to critically analyze the religion, 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.
Dealing with Outdated Values
Changed moral frameworks
We have seen that most major religions are incompatible with Humanist values on several aspects. But on others, religions have actually changed their views towards a more enlightened perspective. Here we will discuss two examples: slavery 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 there is no explicit call to abolish slavery in any of the scriptures or historical interpretations of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. On the contrary, slavery was accepted as the normal state of affairs for millennia. Only after secular powers began to abolish slavery starting in the 19th century did religions finally change their position. Today, all major religions reject slavery.
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[Human Rights § 4]), how can it pretend to be a moral guideline for society today?
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 of a religious change of view concerns cruel punishments. As we have discussed, most major religions have known punishments that are considered cruel by today’s standards, including beating (Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism), amputation (Islam, Judaism, Confucianism, and Hinduism), and execution (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Confucianism, and Hinduism). The latter can take particularly brutal forms, such as crucifixion (Islam), stoning (Judaism), burning (Hinduism), or slow dismemberment (Confucianism). A Quranic verse also prescribes the concept of kin punishment, whereby an innocent clan member is killed in revenge[Quran 2:178].
These punishments are horrible by today’s standards. They are also incompatible with the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which states 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 primary goal of punishment should be not to induce suffering but to prevent future harm. In light of this, Humanists cannot understand how people could derive satisfaction from the mistreatment of another human being. And indeed, all major religions (except for the more conservative interpretations of Islam) have changed their stance on cruel punishments. Still, these punishments remain in religious scripture and have never been changed or removed. Even if adherents now promote their religion as humanist and gentle, this is in contradiction with their religion’s history and scripture. A religion that first promoted brutal punishments and then abandoned them is inconsistent and therefore should not be trusted when it comes to moral questions.
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 US 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 Walmart would be closed on the Sabbath due to lack of employees.
Dealing with incompatibility
We have seen that nearly all major religions have (or have had) a moral framework that is incompatible with the UN Declaration of Human Rights in at least one aspect. This is not surprising: These religions are centuries old. They are based on an ancient worldview in which accidents and diseases were thought to be a punishment of the gods, scientific knowledge of the laws of nature was unknown, and the Earth was thought to be the center of the Universe. It is no wonder then that this outdated physical worldview goes along with an outdated moral worldview.95 Several solutions are currently being tested by religions to deal with the divergence between their traditional values and today’s morality:
Continuity
One option for a religion is to just uphold the same moral framework despite it being outdated. Catholicism, for example, continues to be at odds with some Human Rights, in particular concerning child marriage, homosexuality, gender equality, and the rights of children. The Catholic Church continues to affirm its position as God-given — notwithstanding the fact that it has previously changed its “God-given” positions 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, which most notably oppose religious freedom and equal rights for men and women9697. Brutal punishments, too, 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.
Emphasis on previous progress
Another strategy religions use to justify their moral perspective is to focus on previous progress. For example, Buddhism does not give equal rights to women. However, it improved their position with respect to the Vedic society, in that the Buddha admitted women into the monastic order and affirmed their equality in intellectual and spiritual capabilities. Similarly, Islam did not abolish slavery, but it gave slaves some rights. At a time when slaves were mere objects, that was revolutionary. In the same vein, Christianity does not grant women equal rights, but it allowed women to lead (female) monasteries and receive an education. At a time when women had fewer rights than men, this was an unusual responsibility. As another example, the Torah codified the principle of “an eye for an eye”, which appears brutal today, but was revolutionary at the time because it limited excessive punishment. Other religions, too, can be credited with prohibiting cruel pagan rituals. When such a religion is criticized for its shortcomings, adherents can point to the early achievements of their system. They will argue that their religion has historically been very progressive. However, past achievements cannot make up for the fact that what was progressive a thousand years ago is often utterly backward now.
Extrapolation
Another way to deal with the evolution of human values is to interpret religious scripture as an indication for moral progress. For example, the fact that Jesus appreciated Mary Magdalene can be interpreted as an indication that 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 an instruction to abolish slavery over the long run. The fact that the Buddha allowed women to lead monasteries can be extrapolated to a general instruction to give men and women equal rights. These, however, are speculations. If it had been divine will to give women equal rights or to abolish slavery, then the respective prophet could just have stated that explicitly. If we start speculating about extrapolations, then why not extrapolate even further? What can we extrapolate from the fact that Jesus did not marry? What from the fact that the Prophet Muhammad was illiterate? What from the Buddha’s saying 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 to align with the present day. While the literal text stays the same, their interpretation changes so that the reading is always congruent with current values. However, since the literal text remains unchanged, it is actually adherents themselves who have to decide on an adaptation. Worse, whoever wishes to propose new values has not only to justify these new values, but also to come up with a new interpretation of the texts. Therefore, the texts always act as support for the status quo and never as a force for change.
Denial
Another option is to deny the divergence between religion and society. One can, for example, claim that “Hinduism is tolerant towards other religions” (even though current Hindu interpretation prohibits interfaith marriage), “Muslims had slaves just to protect them” (even though Arabs actively raided and sold slaves from places as far away as Iceland), “Islam gives equal rights to women” (even though mainstream Islam does not), “Hinduism does not support the caste system” (even though the caste system has existed within the faith for millennia), “Buddhism knows gender equality” (even though the Buddha made misogynistic comments that would be outrageous if they were not written in a holy book), or “Jesus loves everyone” (even though he invented Hell for nonbelievers). Denial does not change the fact that the traditional interpretations of these religions conflict with modern values.
Not the real religion
Religious leaders can also argue that the scriptures are being misinterpreted. However, if religious scriptures can be misinterpreted so easily (and for centuries, no less), we have to ask why the current interpretation would be the right one — and not, say, the medieval one. Besides, between 1000 and 1500 CE, when the world religions controlled most of Europe, the Arab world, and India unchallenged, there was no progress made toward increasing women’s rights, abolishing slavery, and or guaranteeing the freedom of religion, despite ample time to do so. Only when the religions lost their grip did religious views on these issues begin to move. And even if some religious leaders now present the clement interpretation of their religion as the “true” interpretation, this does not change the fact that millions still adhere to the “wrong” interpretations.
In atheist eyes, all of these strategies are but apologetic attempts to reconcile modernity and religion.
Truth never triumphs. Its opponents just die out.
Verbal acrobatics
To understand how religions reinterpret their sources, we give here some examples of verbal acrobatics that religions employ to this end.
Christianity
Christianity adapts to the current mainstream by artfully cherry-picking Bible verses. We have already seen several examples of this in the Chapter on Christianity: Slavery was first allowed, based on Bible verses — now it is shunned, also based on Bible verses. Similarly, abortion was first allowed, based on Bible verses — now it is shunned, also based on Bible verses. An equally impressive example is the interpretation of the Bible on matters of the death penalty, which can also go either way.
Islam
Islam has developed a rich tradition of interpretation and reinterpretation in which theological justification has been found for very diverse viewpoints. For example, adherents disagree on whether apostasy should be punished, and if so, whether flogging, amputation, and death are permitted as punishments. Adherents disagree also on whether a woman has to be veiled, whether she can be beaten for disobeying her husband, whether faiths other than Islam should be respected, and whether female genital mutilation is required. Each position on the above questions is supported by carefully interpreting verses from the holy sources. To see how that is done, we look here at only one example: slavery.
To begin, the Quran does not prescribe a punishment for the taking of slaves. The Reliance of the Traveler (the most well-known Sharia, which has been approved by the Al-Azhar University in Cairo) designates that children captured in war are may be enslaved and also annuls a slave women’s previous marriage[Reliance of the Traveler: o9.13]. From the 7th to the 19th century, Muslim raiders captured slaves across Africa and Europe (the word “razzia” derives from the Arab word for these raids98) and held and sold millions of them99100101. However, in 1833, Britain abolished slavery, followed by most Western countries and, later, the Muslim world (Saudi Arabia in 1962102). Suddenly, Islam also started supporting the abolition of slavery, as follows: Several Quranic verses laud the manumission of slaves[Quran 90:13, 4:92, 5:92, 58:3], as does the Sharia[Reliance of the Traveler: i1.20, o5.2, o20.2]. Since God rewards the freeing of a slave and permits the capturing of slaves only in war103, and since wars should eventually end, clerics concluded that God implicitly wanted to abolish slavery altogether (and presumably was just too 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”,104 and that, unbeknownst to the dozens of generations of Muslims who came before, “the Shariah has worked tirelessly to undo [slavery]”104.
Hinduism
One of the main stumbling blocks in reconciling the value system of Hinduism with contemporary values is the caste system. We have already discussed that this system has a long history in Hindu society and is mentioned in several scriptures[Bhagavadgita: 1.40-43, 4.13, 18.41-44][Laws of Manu: 1.87-91]. Yet today, scholars argue that the caste system is not actually intrinsic to Hinduism105. The argument runs as follows: Although the holy scripture of the Bhagavad Gita partitions humankind into castes, it mentions nowhere that caste is determined by birth. Therefore, the argument goes, caste is merely a description of one’s profession. (The question of why the Bhagavad Gita denounces Varna Sankara[Bhagavadgita: 1.40-43], the mixing of castes, remains unanswered.) The stipulations in the Laws of Manu (which explicitly define caste by birth[Law of Manu: 1.98-99]) are countered by a verse that says to “avoid [...] lawful acts [that] are offensive to men”[Law of Manu: 4.176]. Since the caste system is considered offensive, this verse is interpreted so as to permit the abolition of the castes. The question of why the Laws of Manu prescribe the caste system in the first place (or, more generally, why they permit their own rules to be considered so offensive that they can be abandoned) remains unanswered.
For today’s adherents of these religions, it is obvious that the current interpretation of the faith is the true will of their deities. And yet, the eternal truth that they believe in today is completely different from the eternal truth that their predecessors believed in just a hundred years ago. 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 1,500 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. The first topic we will discuss is that all religions have found ways to explain the evil and suffering in this world. The problem is that such explanations also always 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 could allow such evil to happen: It 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, however, mean that the evil in this world actually serves a purpose: It is, paradoxically, good that 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 suffering ultimately serves a good purpose, there is no need to remedy it. And if 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 suffering is actually 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
Hinduism teaches that bad behavior accumulates bad Karma, which leads to suffering in the next life. Good behavior, in contrast, produces good Karma. It then follows that whoever suffers has accumulated bad Karma, and therefore, that every person who suffers actually deserves their suffering — which is indeed what scripture says[Laws of Manu: 3 / 92]. Modern parlance avoids the word “deserve”, and instead calls the suffering a supernatural “justice”39 or a “correct situation to be in, given [one’s] action [in a previous life]”106. No matter which word or phrase we choose, the suffering is justified in the Hindu worldview. However, neither the suffering person nor anybody else knows what that person did wrong in a previous life. Such a punishment is, from a Humanist perspective, absurd, for how can the punishment lead to betterment if the person does not know what they are being punished for? In fact, there is no proof that the suffering person did anything wrong at all. And even if there were proof, that would still not justify such agonizing sufferings as illness or hunger. Any notion that someone would actually deserve such pains is incompatible with Humanist ethics41.
Buddhism
Like Hinduism, Buddhism teaches the theory of Karma. In Buddhist scripture, when a man suffers violence by villagers, the Buddha tells him: “Bear with it! The fruit of the Karma 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
Taoism knows the concept of Cheng Fu, i.e., the idea that the burden of one’s transgressions is passed down to the next generation as a kind of inherited retribution107108109. While this concept can be used to make adherents think twice before transgressing, and while some actions of today can indeed cause harm for future generations, the general notion that someone’s deeds in the past would in any way justify retributions against someone else in the presence is incompatible with Humanism.
This is not to say that adherents of these religions welcome the evil in this world or that they do not help others in need. On the contrary, helping others in need is a core tenet of all of these religions (and one of the ways in which the religions recruit new members). Rather, the criticism is that these religions justify the evil in this world as deserved, ultimately good, purposeful, negligible, recommendable, or acceptable. Why do the religions do this? One 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.
In psychology, the belief that everything in this world ultimately happens for a good reason is known as the Belief in a Just World (BJW). It is a very comforting hypothesis, and we will later show that it is one of the successful strategies that believers use to cope with difficulties in their lives. The flipside of the BJW is that it entails that any suffering in this world must happen for a just reason — in other words, that victims of misfortune ultimately deserve their fate. And indeed, when adherents of the BJW are confronted by those who have suffered violence (for example, rape victims), they tend to believe that the victim somehow brought it upon themselves. They also tend to believe that poverty is self-inflicted and that people are responsible for the illnesses they suffer. With this, believers heap the responsibility for any misfortune on the victims themselves11011195. This is, of course, a horrible thing to do from a Humanist perspective: First, it adds insult to injury. It is unjust, demeaning, and, in the majority of cases, simply factually incorrect to assume that the victim bears the sole responsibility for their suffering, let alone that they deserve it. Second, if the misery is the victim’s fault, then there is less reason to alleviate it. Why help someone who maneuvered themselves knowingly into trouble? Adherents of the BJW will, of course, insist that everyone should be helped, and they may even do so. However, psychological studies show that they tend to devalue and reject the victim110.
Ultimately, the adherents of the BJW justify the evil on Earth for their own emotional comfort, and that is inadmissible from a Humanist perspective.
If God has a plan, then everyone who died in the Holocaust died for a reason.
Prudery
By definition, a religion is old. When today’s religions were born, there were no effective means for paternity tests and very few for birth control. Hence, all major religions restricted sex to married couples and channeled all sexual energy into relations between husband and wife. Since then, technical means and societal norms have changed, but the religions have been unable to update their scriptures. Hence, still today, all major religions restrict sex to married couples. Premarital 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 marriage. Traditional Judaism regards ejaculation under any circumstance to be 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 attaining insight; Confucianism teaches the repression of 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. For a Humanist, any such prudery is just a needless restriction of life.
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, prohibit tatoos, and prescribe 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 is their body. Devaluing the body thus amounts to devaluing the human.
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. Scripture provides detailed descriptions of the tortures that await the sinner there, and this cruelty is presented as something normal, acceptable, and sometimes even noble. This is disturbing to a Humanist, in particular, when it is taught to children — something that 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 concern normal, justifiable behavior. These children learn to glorify a god who wiped out all of humanity by drowning. They grow accustomed to looking at the half-naked body of a man being tortured to death (Jesus) — an atrocity that is presented as a necessary step toward making God forgive the sins of humanity. They also learn that the man who loves humanity most (Jesus) came up with the idea that those who do not love him back will be roasted in Hell forever.
Islam
Every 10th verse of the Quran is concerned with describing Hell in the most vivid of 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 form of punishment by their all-loving God. The Quran also presents the amputation of hands and crucifixion, along with an array of tortures and ways of execution, as appropriate punishments for crimes. In some countries, all of these brutalities are taught to children in schoolbooks113114113115116. Indeed, a considerable proportion of Muslims wish to see these punishments applied117118, and they are actually applied in a number of countries.
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 can mean 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 and children still encounter them whenever they read the scripture.
Chinese Religions
Taoism and Confucianism often blend into Chinese Folk Religion. These religions know Diyu, a purgatory in which sinners have their tongues ripped out, and are then fried in oil cauldrons, put into a grinding machine, ground into a bloody pulp, and frozen into ice cubes that then break apart. This is considered not as something outrageous but as something justified and good.
Indian Religions
Hinduism and Buddhism, likewise, know a brutal Hell between two lifetimes 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 considered not as something outrageous but as something justified and good.
All of these stories trivialize violence. In the Abrahamic religions, cruelty is even presented as the will of a benevolent god, which effectively justifies and glorifies this violence.
Any glorification, justification, or trivialization of violence runs counter to Humanist values.
A religion clashes with Humanism whenever it values souls over lives.
Potential Consequences
Much effort has been devoted to explaining, justifying, softening, or reinterpreting 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 the media119120121122123. For decades, research has shown that exposure to violent behavior not only encourages the repetition of similar behavior, but also enables people to believe that violence or aggression may be acceptable in certain situations119. In particular, the dehumanization of people of other groups increases aggression towards these groups as well as induces a feeling that there is no obligation to apply moral human standards to these people119.
It is disputed as to what degree the same applies to religions124. One study shows that thinking about God discourages dehumanization of people of other faiths for Christians and Jews124. Others find that reading religious scripture that emphasizes God’s punishing nature increases intergroup aggression124. This inconclusiveness of scientific results is quite possibly due to the fact that there is not one religion but several, and that these differ in the frequency and role of violence in their texts. Nevertheless, we do find that more than half of the world’s violent conflicts arise between populaces of different religions. It is thus natural to ask whether such violence has something to do with the constant dehumanization of the “other” and the continuous dishing-out against deviators in the Abrahamic, Indian, and Chinese religions.
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: We will find parallels between religion and totalitarianism. A totalitarian regime is one that attempts to assert total control over the lives of its citizens125. Such a regime is characterized by, among other things,
an elaborate, all-encompassing ideology that makes promises of a utopian future126,
complete control of the citizen’s thoughts and actions127,
no respect for private space (and the gathering of sensitive information with which to blackmail and control the citizens)128,
a system of terror (physical or psychic)126, often enforced by a secret police125.
It is interesting to see that, by these criteria, all major religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Spiritism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Chinese Folk Religion) are totalitarian. They definitively have an elaborate, all-encompassing ideology that makes promises of a utopian future. They also take complete control of an adherent’s thoughts and actions by dominating education, the arts, and people’s conscience. They show a lack of respect for private space by dictating who people can marry and who 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. And finally, they employ a system of terror that is implemented not by a secret police but 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 see that they are being spied on), threatens people with torture in cases of disobedience, and is purposefully unpredictable in dishing out its punishments125, so as to further terrorize citizens with uncertainty and arbitrariness..
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 UN Declaration of Human Rights, which does not tolerate intrusion into the private sphere[Human Rights § 12]. The only reason why these religions 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 British author George Orwell. Hence, regimes that follow this extrapolated totalitarianism are now called Orwellian129. In Orwell’s books, such regimes know an all-seeing, all-knowing controlling entity called the “Big Brother” — a role that is found also in the Abrahamic religions, where it is taken by God. The regimes further know a torture chamber called Room 101 — which exists also in the Abrahamic religions, as the notion of Hell. The regimes then advance 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 as well. Orwellian regimes also know a Ministry of Truth that decides what “truth” is — much like the Abrahamic religions assert a monopoly on truth, at least when it comes to metaphysical questions. Finally, these regimes know the concept of “doublespeak”, in which words are used in opposition to their real meaning. In Orwell’s books, for example, the Ministry of Love is a government office that uses torture to extract confessions. This abuse of words, too, can be found in the Abrahamic religions: “God’s love” is doublespeak for “God’s complete apathy” and “God answers your prayers” means “nothing happens that would not have happened anyway”.
Thus, technically, the Abrahamic religions fulfill the criteria of an Orwellian regime. Religious leaders will, of course, contest this interpretation — much like we would expect Orwellian regimes to 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 argue that the major world religions are hindering the adoption of humanist values. This happens along three dimensions: moral, scientific, and economic.
Moral progress
Religions typically have a moral framework that cannot easily evolve: There is no mechanism by which the gods can update the framework when it no longer fits with mainstream society. This means that religious moral frameworks often trail behind contemporary values. When the divergence becomes too big, the religious framework will eventually be updated, accompanied by claims that the religion has been pushing for progressive moral values all along. But history has shown us that a change toward more humanist morals almost never originates from inside a religion after it is established. More precisely, once a religion has passed its first 150 years of existence, it will stop leading the way and only ever follow suit.
Examples are as follows:
Slavery was opposed by some smaller Christian groups, but first abolished by the British parliament and only much later removed from mainstream Christianity and Islam.
Cruel punishments were not abolished by religious preachers but by Enlightenment thinkers.
Equal rights for women were not spearheaded by religious figures but by Enlightenment thinkers, feminist activists, and communism.
Gay rights are not pushed forward by religions but by modern LGBTQI+ movements.
Freedom of (and from) religion was not spearheaded by 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 do religions usually not lead the way on such initiatives, they also hinder such movements by sticking to their supposedly divine moral frameworks. A believer who wishes to advocate for a new idea does not only have to become convinced of that idea, he also has to find in his religious sources a passage that could be used to justify said new conviction. This puts a double burden on the believer. As American philosopher Sam Harris has argued: “The doors leading out of scriptural literalism do not open from the inside”31.
An ideology can advocate for change only if the very advocacy of change is part of the ideology. Humanism, for example, advocates questioning all 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. Early religions provided answers to questions like “How does the Sun rise?” Today, the open questions that remain for religions to answer are more like “How did the Universe originate?”. Here, as well, religions provide their answers. The problem is that by providing their supernatural answers, they make all other (scientific) answers appear unnecessary, false, or even blasphemous. For example, the Bible tells us that God ordered the Sun to stand still so that Joshua could fight longer against the Amorite kings[Bible: Joshua 10]. For centuries, 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 supported heliocentrism as blasphemy130. We may argue that such charges are no longer brought forward in the Western world today. But even if blasphemy is not invoked, the very conviction of already having a supernatural answer discourages the exploration, understanding, and dissemination of alternative ideas.
Humanism, in contrast, explicitly encourages learning about the world continuously, in particular, through science.
Do not expect grapes from a burning bush.
Economic progress
We will now argue that the major world religions have hindered economic progress. For Christianity, this phenomenon is well known: Historically, the Christian attitude toward commerce held that money is evil, that business is bad, and that profit beyond the minimum necessary to support oneself is avarice54. And indeed, archaeological evidence such as the decrease in the number of cargo shipwrecks during the Middle Ages, when Christianity was the dominating force in Europe, suggests that the period saw one of the biggest economic regressions in history131. However, obstacles to economic progress can be found also in other religions. According to Israeli history professor Yuval Noah Harari132, this is because the major world religions tend to glorify the past. Their ideal world is the one of their respective prophet, i.e., Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, Buddha, Confucius, or the ancient Hindu sages. Accordingly, since the time of the prophets, the world has continuously gotten worse, and the well-being of humanity can come only from going back to that old world.
This has an important economic consequence on the business of giving loans, Harari says: The creditor must believe 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 whereby humanity constantly degrades. This impossibility is illustrated in the traditional Jewish133, Christian133, Muslim134, and Hindu135 prohibitions on charging interest (later watered down or abolished).
While the practice of lending money is obviously risky (as personal over-indebtedness, country defaults, and financial crises show), it is nevertheless an indispensable mechanism when it comes to financing any larger project: A storekeeper who wants to open a new shop, a farmer who wants to obtain land, a city that wants to build a toll bridge, a rail company that wants to build a tunnel, and even a country that wants to recover from war all need loans. Without the Marshall Plan, Europe would not have recovered as quickly after the Second World War. And the Marshall Plan was, at least in part, a loan. For all its problems, financial credit has helped spur economic growth and led to the material comfort that we enjoy in today’s wealthier countries. And indeed, 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.
I can’t understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones.
Exemptions to laws
Religions claim an authority above that of humans. With this, they are a potent basis for contesting human-made political systems136. And indeed, there have been several cases wherein religions have won exemptions from the secular law.
Judaism and Islam in Germany
Both Judaism and Islam require the circumcision of young boys. Such a procedure is, technically speaking, bodily injury: A body part is cut off without the consent of the concerned. In light of this, a German court ruled in 2012 that circumcision without medical indication is a criminal act137. This ruling caused a lot of embarrassment in Germany, which, as a country, 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 who traditionally circumcise infants on the eighth day after the baby’s birth, with the procedure performed by a religiously-trained (but not medically-trained) specialist, the article specifically permits circumcision by non-medical personnel during the first six months after birth for religious reasons138.
Islam in the UK
Muslim religious leaders have set up “Sharia Courts” in the UK that arbitrate in religious and family matters. These institutions cannot override British law, but they can entice litigants to enter contractual relationships. And indeed, members of the Muslim community are sometimes under considerable social pressure to enter contracts mediated by a Sharia Court when it comes to marriage, divorce, inheritance, and commercial relationships. These contracts are then personal contracts between the persons involved, which are enforceable under civil law — but do not follow the standards that their civil equivalents stipulate. For example, when a couple marries religiously through a Sharia Court (and not via a civil procedure), the contract invariably discriminates against the wife when it comes to divorce, dowry, and financial arrangements139140141. In such cases, the religious institution replaces a secular one to the disadvantage of the woman.
Christianity in the UK
In the United Kingdom, the Church of England has not just soft power (England’s king is crowned by England’s senior archbishop) and educational power (through 4,600 church-run schools), but also political power: 26 bishops in black-and-white robes sit in the House of Lords, where they can help shape laws142. Such power is bestowed upon no other religious or non-religious organization.
Charismatic Christianity in the US
Usually, parents are expected to care for their children. In particular, they are required to seek medical help if the child suffers from an illness or accident — as stipulated in laws on child neglect or non-assistance of a person in danger. However, the United States also 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 ones143. This exemption concerns, in particular, charismatic Christian faith healing practices. These, however, do not work. Thus, the law effectively allows parents to let their children suffer (and possibly die) for religious reasons144. In the same vein, almost all US states allow children to be exempted from mandatory vaccination on religious grounds145, thus exposing them to illness for reasons of their parents' faith.
Christianity in Germany
Anti-discrimination laws state 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 firing146 (i.e., they can decide to hire only Christians). As an example, the author went to a Catholic school in Germany (Preface) that was run by nuns but financed by the state. This school required that all teachers follow a Christian lifestyle. They were, for example, not allowed to divorce or remarry. At a 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 Espírita Beneficiente União do Vegetal believe they can understand God only if they drink Hoasca tea. Even though this tea contains Dimethyltryptamine (a controlled substance), adherents were given a religious exemption by the Supreme Court to continue importing the tea into the US147. In the UK, a British court let a Wicca adherent out of jail for four nights so they could worship the moon148. In another example, a Wicca prisoner claimed that he needed to carry with him a ritual knife149. The court ruled that the adherent’s beliefs were indeed religious, though not “usual” enough to grant him the knife. Just imagine what would happen if such a custom were indeed “usual” in some religion — would that oblige the state to give the prisoner 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 courts have attracted criticism for undermining the Indian judiciary, as a subset of the population is not bound to the same laws as everyone else. Furthermore, the courts are considered biased towards men, as Islamic jurisprudence does not believe in gender equality before the law1.
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 may claim to be divine but they are man-made systems. Therefore, they have to follow the law like everyone else.
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 revenue per year150. It is actually disturbingly simple to get oneself registered as a tax-exempt religious organization in the US, as British-American comedian John Oliver has demonstrated151152.
New rule: If churches don’t have to pay taxes, they also can’t call the fire department when they catch fire.
Rites and restrictions
All major religions come with some rites and restrictions. These may include:
Rituals such as prayer, religious service, and pilgrimage, or protocols prescribing other activities, such as the slaughtering of animals.
Constraints like fasting, inactivity on certain days of the week, and special clothing, such as veils for women in some interpretations of Islam, sables for Sikhs, kippas for Jews, and special underwear for Mormons.
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 meat (Judaism).
In short, all major religions restrict daily life in some way. These restrictions do not prevent any harm, and they are thus a needless reduction of personal liberty in Humanist eyes. However, some rites are not merely needless, but outright harmful. This concerns, foremost, female genital mutilation (the cutting of the female genitalia without medical reason). This practice is condemned by many Muslims, and also by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)153, based on interpretations of the Quran and other scripture154155156. However, in line with the tradition of widely differing interpretations of Islam, the practice is considered recommended or even mandatory by the Sharia[Reliance of the Traveler: e4.3], the Al-Azhar University in Cairo154 (until it changed opinion in 2007157), conservative interpretations of the faith158, all four schools of Sunni jurisprudence156, religious conservatives in Oman159, the Indonesian Council of Ulema160159161162, and the government of Brunei159. The practice is also supported on religious grounds by many Muslims, both in the West163 and in Muslim countries164, in particular in Malaysia159165 and Indonesia161, as well as in Sri Lanka, India, Singapore, the Philippines, and Thailand, where it correlates with Islam159. These adherents, scholars, clerics, and institutions hold that Islam favors female genital mutilation.
Unsurprisingly, Humanism is staunchly opposed to female genital mutilation as a cruelty that is prohibited by the UN Declaration of Human Rights[Human Rights § 5]. Female genital mutilation has, according to the UN, severe physical and psychological consequences for the victims166. This is even more true since, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), in 82% of the cases, the procedure is carried out by non-medical experts167. Thus, whoever approves of the procedure, whether Muslim or otherwise, whether out of religious motives or not, and whether the practice is the true interpretation of a faith or not, infringes on Human Rights.
Male circumcision (practiced almost ubiquitously in Judaism and Islam168) is also technically bodily injury: the amputation of a body part without medical indication (and frequently, without medical supervision). While the 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 death169. In addition, the WHO notes the necessity of informed consent. Humanists agree, of course: With informed consent, anyone is free to have a circumcision. However, who would willingly undergo a physical cruelty on the most intimate part of their body? There is a reason why the procedure is performed only on children. And this, of course, no Humanist can approve of170.
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 interfaith marriage, shun conversion, and build up a community based on religious conviction.
All of this leads to an estrangement between peoples. It encourages an “us versus them” mentality in which adherents of one faith consider themselves fundamentally 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, there was a wall across schoolyards that separated Protestant children from Catholic children until the 1960s.171 In Northern Ireland, most children are separated into Catholic and Protestant schools to this date. Thus, children make friends only within their own communities3. Only 9% of children go to school with those of another faith, and even then, they learn that it is a “false ideology that everyone is the same”172. It is no wonder, then, that these children grow up in an environment of ignorance or hostility towards other faiths.
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 bar173.
In Europe, researchers have identified a “group-based conformity, and a dissociation [of Muslims] from the areligious mainstream culture” 174, a development that has been seen, in particular, in the UK, Germany, and Sweden175139176177178.
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 of a more general phenomenon: The partitioning of society into religious communities. This partitioning runs counter to the Humanist ideal of a free and egalitarian 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 Hellfire 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]. (There is a verse that appears to save Jews and Christians[Quran: 2:63], but there is still no hope for Buddhists or Hindus, 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 Heaven179 — meaning all nonbelievers must go to Hell. The tenet is also taught in Saudi Arabian schoolbooks116 as well as in Saudi-run schools in the UK113.
Such a belief may seem harmless, given that the Hellfire is purely imaginary from an atheist point of view. But the belief is not harmless. Since it is the all-just God who condemns people to eternal Hellfire, this can mean only that these nonbelievers deserve eternal suffering. If such a belief is voiced in public or taught to children, it becomes an insult. It insinuates that nonbelievers are worth so little that they can be burnt like firewood. This an attack on the dignity of non-Muslims, a legal good that is protected by the UN Declaration of Human Rights[Human Rights §1, §12]. Anyone has a right to take offense if someone tells their children that all nonbelievers deserve to burn in Hell.
What do I have against conservative Islam?
That it worships a god who wants to burn me alive.
Proselytism
Christianity and Islam both actively seek to convert the rest of mankind to their religion, and both emphasize that the conversion must 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 continuously pushed to convert[Human Rights § 18]. Therefore, obligatory proselytism runs counter to Humanist values.
As it happens, both Christianity and Islam also shun people who leave the faith via conversion. Historically, both religions have put apostates to death. Variants of Islam still do. As soon as two religious communities meet, each of which wants to convert members of the other and punish apostasy, it is clear that the result will be conflict. Indeed, Christians and Muslims have clashed violently in the past, in particular, when Muslims conquered large parts of the Christian Byzantine Empire and Spain in the 7th and 8th centuries CE, or when Christians tried to regain Spain and the Levant in the Crusades and the Reconquista a few hundred years later. Still today, Muslims face societal discrimination in traditionally Christian lands, and Christians face legal discrimination and persecution in many traditionally Muslim lands181182. Statistics support our point: The majority of Muslims long for peace between religions, but at the same time, the majority of Muslims consider it a duty to convert others to their faith183. These goals cannot coexist.
Conflict
Conflicts arise surprisingly often along religious boundaries. Let us look at the list of the most violent armed conflicts (as of 2024):
2024 ongoing military conflicts with more than 1000 deaths per year (as collected by Wikipedia184)
In half of the ongoing military conflicts with more than 1,000 deaths per year, the factions coincide with religious boundaries. This does not necessarily mean that religion is the cause of the conflict. Many factors play a role in wars, including cultural and ethical differences, claims to power, oil, or land, interests of warlords or military powers, as well as other outside interests and interventions. However, it is striking how often these other factors coincide with religious frontiers.
This coincidence appears elsewhere, too. Take the conflict in the Middle East: Israel is Jewish, Palestine is Muslim. Or remember the civil war in Sri Lanka: The Tamils are Hindu, the Sinhalese are Buddhist. Or take the conflict in what was then Yugoslavia: Did you ever wonder why the Serbs, Bosniacs, and Croats were drawn into conflict even though they speak the same language? Part of the reason is that Serbs are Orthodox, Bosniacs are Muslim, and Croats are Catholic (consequently, the eternal conflict in the Balkans is proverbial). The same holds for the conflict in Northern Ireland: Unionists are Protestant while nationalists are Catholic. The same is true for the conflict in Sudan: The North is Muslim while the South is Christian and Animist. The same goes for the conflict in the Philippines: The majority of the country is Christian while the breakaway region is Muslim. Or consider the animosity between Armenia and Turkey: Armenia is Christian while Turkey is Muslim. The same goes for the everlasting conflict between India and Pakistan over the Kashmir region: 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; and Christians, Hindus, Shia Muslims, and Ahmadis are hounded in Pakistan185. While this is rarely made explicit, war boundaries coincide with religious boundaries again and again.
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”.
Preaching peace...
Most religious leaders condemn violence. They point out that violence is not allowed by the value system of their religion and/or that it goes against the will of their supernatural entities. 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 preach peace but seed conflict. Let us now see how this comes about.
... but seeding conflict
“Peace walls” such as this one separate some Catholic and Protestant communities in Northern IrelandCC-BY-SA David Dixon
We have already seen that Christianity and Islam engage in a natural antagonistic mechanism, in that they both shun apostasy but strive for the conversion of adherents from other faiths. Both religions also share another conflict-inducing factor: Interpretations from each have the habit of claiming to be the “true” interpretation of the religion. This problem was particularly visible in Christianity after the Reformation. During the Thirty Years' War in the 17th century, Protestants and Catholics slaughtered each other in the millions. This war was certainly also fueled by political and military interests, but claims of being the true religion played a major role (as the neat denominational segregation of combatants shows). Christianity eventually came to accept its diversity. Islam did not: The religion exhibits a wide diversity of beliefs, but at the same time, the majority of Muslims are of the opinion that there is only one correct interpretation of the faith — theirs186. Such a claim offends people of the other denominations who also believe that theirs is 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: In the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, Iraq was ruled by a Sunni (Saddam Hussein) while Iran was mainly Shia. In the civil war in Syria in the 2010s, the president Bashar al-Assad was an Alawite (Shia) supported by Shia Iran while most of the was Sunni. In Yemen, a civil war was waged in the 2020s between adherents of Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi (a Sunni, supported by Saudi Arabia) and the Houthis (who are mainly Shiite, and supported by Iran). In Lebanon, Hezbollah is a Shia militant group supported by Shiite Iran but opposed by most members of the Arab League, who are Sunni.
Major civilizations, according to Samuel P. Huntington, simplifiedCC-BY-SA DLommes
Another factor that can aggravate conflicts along religious lines was outlined in the 1990s by American political scientist Samuel P. Huntington. He argued that the world is divided into roughly seven 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), the 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 they 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.187
Other sources of conflict are more subtle: As we have seen, religions build up a closed community of believers by teaching exclusively their own faith and by prohibiting interfaith marriage and conversion. Furthermore, religious adherents believe in things that are considered weird by everyone else but take offense when this is pointed out. As Canadian-American psychologist Steven Pinker has argued: “When people organize their lives around [unverifiable beliefs], and then learn of other people who seem to be doing just fine without them (or worse, who credibly rebut them), they are in danger of looking like fools. Since one cannot defend a belief based on faith, the faithful are apt to react to unbelief with rage”, which, according to Pinker, tempts them to defend their faith by violent means54. Such temptation may be even stronger when combined with a divine confidence in one’s own faith. These factors are specific to religion, and not, say, to language. A language does not prohibit you from marrying someone who speaks a different language, and you can even become fluent in two languages. It is religion that does not permit this flexibility.
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. The easiest way to discharge these tensions is to seek safety in one’s own religious community and to scapegoat the other. Therefore, armed conflict often coincides with religious boundaries. While it would be false to say that religion in general is violent, it is probably true that religion can form a breeding ground for conflict.
Nothing unites a community as well as an attack on one of its members.
Underperformance
We have seen before that religious countries tend to be worse off economically than more secular countries. Many of them are also less well-governed, less democratic, and less peaceful. They are also more likely to suffer from higher criminality and corruption and lower life expectancy. We have argued that religion is not necessarily the cause for such misery. Rather, it is probably the misery that is the cause for the religiousness. Yet, we can still reproach religion for being an accomplice to this misery — not just because it benefits from the affliction, but also because it does not use its power to counter it.
Let us develop this argument step by step.
The power of religion
We first observe that religion has enormous power over people. For centuries, the messages of the Bible, the Vedas, the Quran, the Buddha, and Confucius have been taught by preachers and parents, shouted from minarets, shared in widely disseminated scripture, and hammered into every schoolchild’s brain. 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
If one had the power to write a book that every person in the country would have to study and read, that every child would get taught from an early age, and that every person would believe to be true, then one could change life dramatically. One could, for example:
establish the equal treatment of men and women;
reiterate the importance of education, literacy, and scientific research;
establish the freedom of religion and teach respect for all other religions, including the right to marry the adherents of other faiths;
condemn corruption;
praise democratic elections and ask adherents to respect the result of a vote even if it does not coincide with their own interests;
emphasize that all people have the right to self-governance;
promote family planning;
teach people the importance of a diversified diet full of vegetables, proteins, and micronutrients (e.g., iron, zinc, folic acid)57;
give very simple health advice, such as: 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 water95.
These tenets could literally save millions of lives and change life for the better for many. But no major religion maintains these tenets as part of their value system. On the contrary, many religions have the opposite 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.
Religious morality is designed neither to make people in general happy, nor to make any deity happy. It is designed to make priests happy .
