args

Rationalists should attempt to destroy religion.

1. (a) Pro argues, "The fact that you can cherry pick verses from the Bible for the cynical purpose of repudiating other parts of the Bible does not render it a morally wise book. It simply renders it irrelevant." Interesting, as I did not pick any verses from the Bible nor did I claim it to be morally wise. My claim is that some parts are wise and other parts are not wise, and as time goes on, the wise parts tend to be identified and emphasized, and the unwise parts dropped. That is somewhat along the lines of agreeing that it is irrelevant. I'm saying that religion is a social institution that evolves. Pro did not contradict my claim. Pro did not assert that Christianity strictly follows the Bible exactly as it did 300, 500, and 1000 years ago. That's unsupportable. It has evolved. (b) Pro challenges, "If you believe that religious conflicts/ terrorism are simply reducible to US foreign policy, cultural grievances or social [deprivation] then you must explain why there[ aren't any Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers." I never asserted any of the things Pro imagines. I'm pointing out that, for example, the Civil War, WWI, WW2, the Cold War and an endless list of conflicts have very little if anything to do with religion. If religion were somehow eliminated, the conflicts would arise in a different cloak. The reason that there are not any Buddhist suicide bombers is that Buddhism is a well-evolved religion that embodies a largely non-violent culture. That is precisely my argument for not destroying religion. Pro must argue why, if "There is a deep-rooted link between religion and violence." the Buddhists are not violent. (c) Pro says, "I am indicting religion for every evil or wicked thing a believer is likely to do only on the basis of their religious faith. " Your error is in claiming that if religion were destroyed, it would certainly be replaced by peace and reason. That is unsupported. One of Pro's two references is to how religion has been successfully destroyed in China, where they have suppressed Buddhism. So it is true that peace and reason have since prevailed in China, providing an improvement over Buddhism? Quite the opposite is true. Chinese communism is unvolved pseudo-religion. 2. Pro says, "Your assertion that if religion disappeared it would be replaced by something worse is unsubstantiated and fallacious." I substantiated it with an example. Where I live, no one forces me to pray or prohibits me from eating pork or forces me to wear a religious costume. However, I am not allowed to smoke a cigar in a cigar bar (even though the air is filtered cleaner than outdoors), I cannot buy a black car, schools must obey government standards of political correctness, and I must pay higher taxes to pay for irrational requirements. The prevalent pseudo-religion makes far more onerous demands on me than any traditional religion ever has. Pro gave the example of China, where religion was destroyed, yet rationality has not prevailed. I cited all the 'isms that abound. Pro ignored all the substantiation and claimed I gave none. Moreover, I explained why it was inevitable: people cannot possibly examine each decision in life from scratch. They must have a strong set of default principles, and they will have them. Pro did not rebut that argument, although he denied it. Does Pro claim that people are in fact capable of resolving every issue from scratch using nothing but facts and logic, and that without religion they will do so? The advantage of religion in such matters is not at all that it is religion, it is that it is an evolved social institution. 3. Pro asserts, "Indeed, religion will be "destroyed" when people no longer take it seriously." I didn't claim Pro had advocated bombing churches. My argument is that attempting to tear down religion as a focus of activity misses the point entirely. The Chinese tore down Buddhism and replaced it with something far worse. What rationalists should do is actively promote rational thinking. I gave Japan as an example. Pro's sources claim that 96% of the population claims they are Shinto, Buddhist, or both, yet Pro claims that religion has been successfully destroyed because only 25% say that religion plays a role in their lives on a daily basis. I claim that this reflects the transformation of religion into a cultural institution. That this is a good resolution, and that it doesn't reflect "destroying religion" as the resolution proposes. (b) Pro offers: "My opponent would do well to reflect on the state of our world 1000 years ago. One thousand years ago a belief in witchcraft was almost universal. What might someone like my challenger have said back then?" I'd say, "Be reasonable." Pro's assertion that witchcraft was universal then is not true. As far as I know, Buddhists, Daoists, and Confucians were not chasing witches. I think Pro's question is, "If religious irrationality prevails, wouldn't you try to oppose it?" Sure, and where it still prevails, as in radical Islam, it ought to be opposed as vigorously as ever. However, a thousand years ago there were plenty of other tyrannies and blatant irrationalities of a non-religious nature as well. Trying to destroy Buddhism while ignoring Ghengis Khan would be inappropriate, because GK posed the greater threat. In the modern world we have a variety of religious and pseudo-religious irrationality to worry about, and in many places the pseudo-religious is the greater threat. ======= Pro's Case ======= I don't have a good word for ideological substitutes for religion like communism, fascism, nationalism, tribalism, racism, and other modern extreme ideological beliefs. I call them pseudo-religions because they have all the traditional attributes of religion except supernatural belief. The pseudo-religions resolve questions of good and evil according simple rules, they provide tribal bonding that can be translated into the "moral us" versus the "immoral them," and they provide detail codes of social conduct. So, in Pro's list of seven reasons for destroying religion, one may replace the word "religion" with "pseudo-religion" and the list is equally true. This means that rationalists would err in focusing on destroying religion. They should attempt to destroy irrationality. In the United States right now, there is more irrationality in pseudo-religions than religions, but I advocate attempting to eliminate it wherever it occurs. Pro's error, I believe, is in supposing that religion is something special. It isn't. It is merely one manifestation of the unavoidable human need for rules and principles for making decisions and for guiding daily life. If also satisfies the tendency for humans to want to bond into tribes that distinguish themselves from other tribes, and to justify tribe action in terms of moral superiority over others. Religion has the advantage of being generally more benign as a consequence of generations of revisions in which the less tenable notions of society have been discarded. Yes, there are plenty of religious nuts left on earth, but if you took away their religion they would quickly find a new home in some radical ideology that gives them all same comforts. Pro should take on my basic arguments. Do people have the needs and tendencies I have supposed? Has religion evolved to more benign forms? Isn't it true that as I have described that pseudo-religion is more imposing on my life than religion? Are time-tested social rules a better starting point than new ideologies? If religion is destroyed, does peace and reason naturally prevail? Pro should also provide evidence that religion is inherently linked to violence as claimed, explaining the inherent link manifest in Buddhism, Jainism, and the Quaker religion. Pro gives examples of bad religion and then claims a generality. How is that claim different from citing bad atheists and then claiming a generality? Don't ignore my case.