Mistakes Made By Atheists in Podcasts and Debates

Religious and Heretical podcasts alike cater to their core audiences by maintaining a consistent message. A podcast would lose its effectiveness if it always tried to present a balanced point of view. If swaying opponents was the focus, the message would become watered down.

For example, if a Focus on the Family podcast about marriage discussed nothing of the sanctity of marriage and only spoke about the value of a two-parent household (ignoring the gender of the parents), the program would lose its appeal to its core demographic - socially conservative Protestant Christians.

Unfortunately, when these programs mischaracterize their opponents, fail to have a diversity of voices on their programs, and shy away from fair debates their message becomes too narrow. The narrowed message might remain relevant to its most devoted base of supporters, but it has the effect of turning off some open-minded opponents.

The podcast might intend to share its views impartially with the goal of winning over converts, but without proper attention it can fall into the trap of only speaking to the core audience. At its worst the message becomes toxic, hateful, ignorant and bigoted.

Atheist podcasts are not exempt from becoming narrowminded. In a quest for truth, atheists may become just as awful as hardcore religious people as their self-righteousness rears it ugly head on their programs in the form of mocking, sneering, and cold-hearted hatred for their opponents.

Perhaps I will list the pitfalls of the religious podcasts at a later time. For now I will focus on atheist podcasts and YouTube debates. I include YouTube debates since I think they, like podcasts, have a desire to rally their base and sway opponents.

1. Pursuing Atheism as a Religion

Some of the most outspoken atheists in the media are activists who come from a fundamentalist religious background. Fundamentalism adopts an old-fashioned, strict, conservative ideology which influences every part of one's life from worship to education to sex. When a fundamentalist becomes used to living every aspect of their life through the lens of their belief system, abandoning the belief system can leave a huge void. If the person turns to atheism they will be tempted to fit "atheist beliefs"* into all of the empty holes left by their losing their faith. For example, they might go from running bible studies to running atheist meetup groups in their community.

Atheist activists often want to spread a secular message to make amends for the "harm" they caused while they were fundamentalist believers converting people to their religious group. Others like JT Eberhard go so far as to reverse evangelize people by pointing out how their religious beliefs do not make sense with the hopes of convincing them to abandon their beliefs altogether.

There is a time and place for activism, atheist meetup groups, and blunt debates, but when these activists pursue their atheism with the same fervor as they followed their fundamentalist religion, they become extremely ineffective messengers of their cause. As is the case with many fundamentalists, extreme atheists become so obsessed with their message, so hateful of religious people, that they themselves become coldhearted and meanspirited. It prevents them from seeing any of the good in mysticism or spirituality. Their message can become toxic and push more religious people away rather than intrigue those who are doubting their beliefs.

*When I say "atheist beliefs" I am referring to the common ideas atheists tend to adopt and promote -  secularism, humanism, scientific inquiry, etc.

2. Overlooking the Fundamental Divide: Revelation vs. Reason

The JT Eberhard method of reverse evangelism will not work because the moment someone is told their beliefs make no sense they will erect a defensive wall. They will not admit they are wrong even if they understand the irrationality of it, if only to save face and not grant the critic the satisfaction of an admission.

There is a time and place for calling people out on their irrationality. That goes for the religious and irreligious. When Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe, who recently became head of a Congressional Committee on the Environment and Public works, said publicly that the Bible refutes climate change, he should have been called out by any thinking person within earshot. The Senator should be muzzled in this situation because his statements are potentially damaging to public policy.

But those calling Inhofe and his ilk to the carpet on extreme fundamentalist viewpoints will make little headway unless they acknowledge the biggest divide between atheists and believers - whether or not Revelation is an acceptable means of obtaining knowledge.

Pick a motion put forth in any pro-religion vs anti-religion debates - "God is Not Great," "We Are Better Off Without Religion," "God Does Not Exist," "Reason Triumphs Over Faith." Opponents of these motions can be placed on a sliding scale from extremely religious to very liberal in their beliefs. What they all have in common is the acceptance of Revelation as a legitimate means of learning about the world. In other words, they believe knowledge does not come exclusively from our reason where we observe the world and test hypotheses, but from some truth from a divine being.

Unless the opposing sides in the religious debate address the issue of Revelation they will constantly be talking past one another. But the atheist must be careful not to avoid the pitfall of thinking reason with a capital R is in itself a pure path to knowledge. Using reason does not in itself give humans knowledge. We must know how to distinguish between good ideas and bad ideas, not give into our prejudices, and constantly challenge ourselves to know more about the world.

3. Atheists are Irrational Too!

Simply because an atheist rejects divine revelation as a legitimate means of obtaining knowledge does not mean their rational approach of using reason and the scientific method to arrive at knowledge always results in correct beliefs!

Positive psychologist Jonathan Haidt has said, "When it comes to moral judgments, we think we're scientists discovering the truth, but actually we're lawyers arguing for positions we arrived at by other means."

Atheists coming from religion will boast about how they ultimately rejected God because they used reason and concluded he does not exist. If they are honest I bet many of them will attribute their falling away from faith to an emotional incident in their life. It is the same reason many without religion will turn to a belief in God - from an emotional occurrence in their life.

According to the theory proposed by Haidt, it was probably a combination of the person's experience, environment, education, and execution of reason which led the atheist to non-belief, but most likely the use of reason came into play most strongly after the fact when the individual was attempting to make sense of their status as atheist.

The irreligious should stop ridiculing the faithful for their disdain of science while boasting about their own reverence for science in order to project an air of superiority. People are not robots. We cannot be like Dr. Spock. We would all be annoying Sheldon Coopers running around.

4. Worship of Science

Atheists have a keen interest in science because science is the way in which mankind has transformed itself from knuckle-dragging, primeval brute to enlightened 21st century cyborg. Science has helped us understand more about the universe, freeing us from the perils of ignorance and superstition which plagued mankind since the dawn of time.

Many religious people are outright hostile to science because often new discoveries conflict with their theological worldview constructed by means of revelation. If this hostility remained with the individual most atheists would not care, but the hostility even appears in our highest levels of representative government. School board officials in religiously conservative areas favor teaching intelligent design alongside or instead of evolution. When public policy is anti-science, atheists are understandably upset and should take action.

But atheists should acknowledge that pure science has no conscience. Hitler's 3rd Reich learned a great deal from their experiments performed on Jews, homosexuals, and the handicapped. We know that kind of human experimentation is immoral but who or what decides what the boundaries are?

Also, science can inspire us, provoke us to act, satisfy our curiosity, but its pursuit is not the be all and end all of humanity. How many people in this world are extremely interested in physics, chemistry, astronomy, or anthropology? Sometimes atheists come off as eggheads who sit around reading science books all day.

5. Association With Liberal Politics

Conservative religious believers of all faiths tend to support conservative political causes. One of the most unfortunate result of this is the unholy alliance between the religious right and economically conservative politics. Thank you Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, and Pat Robertson! This affiliation has poisoned religion and politics for the foreseeable future.

Atheists seem to adopt left wing politics. This makes sense for a variety of reasons - liberals tend to enjoy discussing ideas, embracing diversity of opinion, have a keen interest in science, promote education, and are concerned with social justice. Many of these overlap with what atheists stand for. But many atheists are extremely vocal on issues about gender, sexuality, immigration, etc.

Adoption of liberal policies is understandable. After all, if most conservative religious people favor conservative politics, atheists will not feel comfortable with that group. But if a person is fiscally conservative or even socially conservative, tuning into atheist media and hearing only extremely left wing positions is going to be a turn off.

6.  Atheism is Not the Finish Line for Skepticism

Dear Atheist:

What if you're wrong?

- Listener

-------

Dear Listener,

Impossible.

- Atheist

Promoting skepticism is an excellent message. We all need to be more skeptical of our world. There is so much to learn, so much disinformation, and so many people trying to manipulate us through the media. But sometimes I wonder how skeptical atheists are of their own positions.

For example, atheists promote climate change as if they cannot wait for it to happen so they can celebrate an "I Told You So" moment with religious people. How skeptical are atheists of climate change and the claims of scientists who might have something to gain by it being true?

How skeptical are atheists of liberal politicians? We see how much politicians of all stripes are influenced by campaign donations. We see how much they lie in order to win their races. Why should one party be trusted more than another?

Do atheists ever question their conclusions about atheism itself? A little humility in this area would not be viewed as a weakness but as an admission of something everyone deals with - doubt.

Conclusion

When promoting their causes in podcasts or on YouTube atheists should avoid the pitfalls of a focused message. They should not try to pursue atheism as if it were a religion, acknowledge the reason vs. revelation divide in debates, admit their own irrationality, not come off as science worshipers, and try to be more balanced with political viewpoints.

Muhammad محمد Cartoon Censorship

As a sign of solidarity with the French people, and in honor of the  survivors, and the nine Charlie Hebdo employees who were killed in the recent terror attack by Muslim extremists in Paris, I am posting the cartoon of Muhammad محمد which sparked the attack:

Most major news networks are refusing to show the cartoon for fear of inciting violence, offending Muslims, or provoking an attack on their own operations.

By capitulating to the wishes of these extremists not to show images of Muhammad, we are agreeing with their position that the tenets of their religious faith are beyond reproach. We are not talking about defecating on Qur'ans, writing graffiti on mosques, or suppressing Muslim expression of faith. We are talking about the principle of censorship, and whether Islam deserves a special place above all other subjects to avoid ridicule.

A redditor posted this video yesterday of the late Christopher Hitchens' defense of publishing such cartoons because of its relevance to recent events in France:

ISIS is Islamic

Obama Is Wrong That ISIS Is 'Not Islamic' - Alistair Crooke

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/obama-isis-not-islamic_b_5843830.html

Finally an article in the media calling a spade a spade amid the pages and pages of political correctness elsewhere. We are so afraid of dignifying ISIS by granting its association with Islam that even our own President and Secretary of State tiptoe around the issue.

When Obama and Kerry say ISIS is not Islamic they are saying ISIS does not meet their definition of Islamic. They understand Islam to be a modern, peaceful religion encapsulated in the theology practiced by the peaceful Muslims worldwide.

There was a period in history when to be a Hebrew meant following Yahweh's orders to take the land of neighbors and slaughter every living thing in your path.

There was a later period in history when those same crimes were used as a justification for Christians to march across Europe to the Holy Land to beat back the Muslims.

Jews and Christians know God does not operate that way anymore. He does not suspend the laws of nature to intervene as he once did, nor does he audibly speak to leaders of nations to commit atrocities against other non-believing nations. Muslims are slow to get that message. Some Muslims still believe God (Allah) has commanded them to use violence to take what belongs to "true" believers. We can give them a little break since Islam was not invented until the 7th century AD. Jews and Christians have had time to become more moderate and to separate their theology from their politics. The silence of the moderates demonstrates that extremist Muslims might need more opposition from those unafraid to say politically incorrect things.

I do not think that religions are inherently violent. Religions are practiced using theologies, systematic understandings of how tradition, oral stories, and holy texts fit together to become a THING to be practiced. What you are worshiping is God; what you are practicing is a theology.

For a period of time, Jews did not have a political system separate from a religious one. Yahweh gave Moses a bunch of ecclesiastical and civil laws to transfer to the Jewish people. Leviticus WAS the law. It was the law to stone someone to death.

During the Inquisition the Church was so bent on carrying out God's work of rooting out heresy that it caused Christians to not follow Christ at all but a terrestrial authority who supposedly had the power to decide for God on Earth.

Today we see Muslims mixing religion and politics, imposing Sharia Law, and allowing extremist groups like ISIS to speak on behalf of Islam without fervent opposition from moderate Muslims.

Until Islam can be ubiquitously sanitized by a more contemporary theology the way Judaism and Christianity have, apocalyptic extremist groups will continue to be born and thrive.

Gov. Patrick's Intro to Obama Speech at Interfaith Memorial Service

Last Thursday night I was listening to live coverage of the President's speech at the interfaith memorial service in Boston that followed last Monday's Marathon bombings.  Governor Deval Patrick introduced the President with a list of things he is thankful for.  The most impressive aspect of the speech this second half:

"...And I am thankful, maybe most especially, for the countless numbers of people in this proud City and this storied Commonwealth who, in the aftermath of such senseless violence, let their first instinct be kindness. In a dark hour, so many of you showed so many of us that 'darkness cannot drive out darkness,' as Dr. (Martin Luther) King said. 'Only light can do that.'

"How very strange that the cowardice unleashed on us should come on Marathon day, on Patriots’ Day, a day that marks both the unofficial end of our long winter hibernation and the first battle of the American Revolution. And just as we are taught at times like this not to lose touch with our spiritual faith, let us also not lose touch with our civic faith.

"Massachusetts invented America. And America is not organized the way countries are usually organized. We are not organized around a common language or religion or even culture. We are organized around a handful of civic ideals. And we have defined those ideals, through time and through struggle, as equality, opportunity, freedom and fair play.

"An attack on a civic ritual like the Marathon, especially on Patriots’ Day, is an attack on those values. And just as we cannot permit darkness and hate to triumph over our spiritual faith, so we must not permit darkness and hate to triumph over our civic faith. That cannot happen. And it will not.

"So, we will recover and repair. We will grieve our losses and heal. We will rise, and we will endure. We will have accountability, without vengeance. Vigilance, without fear.And we will remember, I hope and pray, long after the buzz of Boylston Street is back and the media has turned its attention elsewhere, that the grace this tragedy exposed is the best of who we are..."


Then he introduced the President.   I have never listened to a speech by the Governor before, but this was profound.  Well done.

http://www.boston.com/news/source/2013/04/text_of_governo.html

The Harm of the Religious Experience

Intro

In a previous post I defended the religious experience as valuable to human existence because of the things it offers to individuals that have no direct, competitive substitute in secular society. The three greatest benefits of the religious experience include community, moral teachings, and prayer. Having all three under the same roof increases the benefit tremendously because members of the group meet regularly to learn and practice what is taught.

What cannot be completely described, what can only be felt, is the reinforcing feelings of peace and tranquility that result from following what one believes are the absolute-ly true commandments of a Creator that has one's spiritual path in his control. Being surrounded by others who believe the exact same creed with equal conviction enhances the experience. There are unique groups of religious followers who sacrifice everything for the good of each other with a long-term focus on winning the ultimate prize – immortality. The awe it inspires leads the devout to live in a state of tingly assurance where he cannot believe the world is missing out on such a glorious, liberating truth.

Here I will pose a seemingly random question: Is revelation a reliable means of obtaining knowledge?

The question is not the focus of my argument but should serve as a general wake up call to those who view alleged pronouncements from a divine being as heard by someone else as a legitimate form of learning about anything. After all, what matters is not what makes us feel peaceful, tranquil, and liberated, but what is true.

Make no mistake, fundamentalist monotheists deserve respect for the courage they have to affirm the truth of their faith in spite of so much secular opposition (1).  This argument is focused on the devout follower of a faith and not the person who inherited the label “Protestant” from their parents. If someone says they are a Christian, I assume they mean they believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, their Savior and Redeemer, and the one who will come again to judge the living and the dead.

Religion is not exempt from scrutiny to determine whether it is true or false. Spiritualists, cafeteria Catholics, and nominal believers will water down the argument by claiming religion falls into a separate category that cannot be evaluated in terms of absolute truth. They say the metaphysical nature of the subject renders it outside the realm of hard scientific or historical scrutiny. They say God's decrees are revealed, not scientifically tested; confirmation is felt, not reasoned to the full extent; and the coexistence among faiths is preferable to determining the truth or falsehood of any particular faith.

The focus of this argument is on the devout, who will be much more offended by criticism because it attacks the cause to which they have dedicated their existence. They actually believe their faith is true, something that infuses their actions with such conviction. Nominalists and spiritualists I hope will be persuaded to avoid any temptation to further their quest toward deeper religiosity.

Religious Harm, Micro to Macro

Religious believers have made a tremendous impact on helping the poor, on promoting peace, standing for social justice, and many other aspects of human existence. Having shown some heartfelt appreciation for the religious experience in my previous post, I would like to now focus on its harm, which turns out to be greater than the benefit it provides. The criticism is primarily against Christianity, but because of the similarities among the major monotheistic religions, the critique applies to them as well. I argue that the harm of the religious experience has to do with the damage it does to self esteem, relationships, and politics. It infects the individual, then two or more individuals, then a political system.

Intro to Self Esteem – Original Sin

Religions were started and continue to flourish because man from the beginning of time has tried to find answers to philosophical questions like, Who am I, What is my condition, How can I change, and Where will I go when I die? Many answers are provided by the major religions, but the one the major monotheistic religions use as their starting point is the belief that man is born in a sinful state which separates him from God. He must follow God's commands if he is to be set right with God to live a devout life and go to heaven.

Accepting the premise that man is born sinful is an essential part of the teaching of these faiths. Without a spiritual problem like sin there is no need for a spiritual solution. The religions have taken the bigness of space and time, and contrasted it with the smallness of man, using it to their advantage to demonstrate the gulf that exists between man and his grasp of the universe. Over time, man has gained more and more knowledge, making the gulf smaller and God's job more difficult. Still, the drum of original sin lives on.

The damage of this central tenet to one's psyche is obvious. If one is born sinful, one has no ability to change one's nature. Without God's solution, say the religions, the rest of man's life is a futile struggle for forgiveness, redemption, and ethical perfection. As soon as a religion gets a person to associate one's guilt, bad habits, failures, and passions to an inherited state of sinfulness over which one has no control but to obey, the believer has no choice but to accept the prescribed Atonement.

There is nothing wrong with a great big divine excuse to behave in a moral way, especially if the belief system in question is providing peace to the believer. But the temporary and intermittent relief that the feeling of forgiveness these faiths provide is completely overshadowed by the nagging invisible third party that is God hanging over one's shoulder. Man will continue to struggle with guilt, anger, pride, and failure even after he has drunk the spiritual medicine of Atonement because man is not perfect. The difference between the religious believer and the secularist at this point is that the secularist is concerned about the big philosophical questions, but is not so preoccupied with the sin and death part to allow it to be all-consuming. The secularist does not associate his behavior and feelings with a sinful nature because to him it's just a myth. But the religious man has already bought into his religion's spiritual solution so he will associate his failures with his own spiritual unworthiness. (insert footnote – this is how cults get members. the believer has accepted central tenets so moves to a different congregation that really has the truth). The most harmful consequence of this internal mental struggle between God's will and man's is that it reduces man to a groveling servant, willing to do whatever it takes to obey the commands set before him. Man's natural need to survive, set goals, and achieve success are hampered by self-doubt that he is not fulfilling God's will, but instead chasing after worldly satisfaction.

So let's recap. Man is faced with metaphysical questions about existence. Answers are provided by religions that include the sinfulness of man as a central problem. Man follows the commands of God to get rid of his guilt and live forever. Man is then the slave of the faith that he follows. What results is a feeling of peace and forgiveness that are bought at the expense of what I call “self esteem.”

Self Esteem

Self esteem is a profound psychological need that establishes the foundation for success. It is a feeling of self worth. It provides humans with the motivation to move forward in life against obstacles, and to take pride in success having achieved one's goals. Unfortunately, “religion is not only incompatible with self esteem, but actively destroys it by promoting premises that are against a successful, moral, and happy life” (2.)  The premises religions promote are that man is sinful from birth, that knowledge is gained by faith and not reason, and that ethical perfection is the sacrificing of one's self for others.

Think about everything that a person must do to overcome the obstacles he faces every day: Hunger, gravity, inertia, discouragement, sickness, tiredness. In order to furnish the means of existence and move on into the future, man must have enough reason to face the obstacles and achieve goals. Man uses his mind to support his own existence, first by acquiring knowledge through the senses; using the knowledge to fashion tools to make food, shelter, and clothing; then establishing a set of short and long-term goals.

When man is told in the midst of this ongoing activity that he has a sinful nature that is the cause of his failures and unhappiness, he begins to doubt himself. The free will and clean slate he thought he had from birth is a figment of his imagination. He is told that only by substituting his own goals for that of the One with the ability to fix his problem of original sin can he truly achieve happiness. Desperately, he submits. The feeling of “rightness” with God enters his heart, but the failure and self-doubt continues, for those teachings are riddled throughout the texts expounded upon by religious teachers. Man must continue to exist IN SPITE of his sinful nature because he is never able to overcome it.

I must emphasize the mental shift that results from succumbing to the idea of original sin. Until a certain point in his existence, man has acquired knowledge through the senses, using his reason to understand the world. Some things are unexplained, but man presses on, confident that through the same method used his whole life, he will grow to understand life's mysteries. Rest is granted, food is harvested, goals are achieved. All of a sudden, man is told from revelation that his goals are not correct, that his nature is not what he thought, and that he must alter his goals and activities to align with a cosmic plan! Instantly, man spends less time acquiring knowledge empirically and more time acquiring them through revelation. He constantly doubts his own conclusions about the world, instead relying on faith, even when the teachings of the faith do not make reasonable sense.

Man will go through an emotional rollercoaster on the faith journey, one minute fervently praising the Lord's name in worship, then another crying in a corner because of ethical failures. Man will attempt to achieve the goal of ethical perfection according to the demands of his faith with as much fervor as he does for his own existence in the worldly realm. But the ethical goal preached by many faiths is self-sacrifice above all else. Every believer recognizes the difficulty of this striving toward ethical perfection eventually because at what point does one stop thinking about one's self and start thinking about others? Ethical perfection can only be achieved by self-immolation, which is why Jesus of Nazareth is held in the highest regard in the Christian faith. Ethical perfection is a slow path to death.

Relationships

There is no doubt that when an individual commits his heart and soul to a cause dictated by God that his relationships with his fellow man will change as well. Have you ever noticed how an extremely committed believer will try his utmost to sneak in the topic of spirituality when having a discussion? It makes perfect sense that a person will want to discuss what they spend their entire life contemplating. But it's not mere discussions many are after, it's proselytizing. Love God, love your neighbor, then convert your neighbor.

When the secularist sits among a group of friends the conversation is free to grow organically in any direction. The committed believer, on the other hand, has an agenda to discuss religion. The believer views humanity in two separate classes – saved and unsaved. Every interaction with others is an opportunity to convert another person, to save them from the life of sin, and bring them into the fold. Constant evangelism is exhausting. Eventually stubborn friends will be pushed away and the believer will gravitate exclusively toward those already in the club.

Many faiths preach the believer to abandon everything for God, even family. In some ways it makes sense. If the cause to which a person has dedicated himself is cosmic, sacrificing family is a small price to pay. After all, there is a whole family of believers welcoming him into their flock. You might know someone in your own family who has gone to the extreme end of religious belief and won't talk to anyone in the family that isn't a part of that belief system.

To be fair, not all religious folk feel the need to convert their friends and family. But think about the tendency to lean forever in that direction. If church is attended at least once per week, prayers are said at least once per day, a bible study meets once per week, and on top of everything, the person has committed their mind to the religious cause, refraining from the discussion would be more difficult than indulging! If one believes the biggest problem for individuals (extended to humanity) is that the problem of original sin needs to be addressed, what follows is the conviction that friends and family will not be truly happy until they fix that problem. If they don't see it as a problem the believer will be consciously or unconsciously be making case for it.

Politics

Every human being lives under some form of political system. A collection of individuals with similar ideals grant power to a group of leaders into which they entrust the use of physical force to govern the collection. Laws and guns allow the leaders to maintain order. Leaders legislate with votes and the citizens vote in legislators. This is a political system in its most basic form. Every citizen has a different viewpoint on how society should operate. It is the clashing of this variety of viewpoints that make politics extremely complicated.

I concede the point that in its most abstract principles, the fundamentals of any system of government, being based in political philosophy, have a metaphysical element that involves axioms and premises: “We hold these truths to be self evident”, “We have been endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights”, “In order to have laws we must understand right and wrong,” etc. Evangelicals use the term “Judeo-Christian values” and the 10 Commandments as being foundational to our system of government in the United States. This is a stretch, but I will concede that point as well. But the problem with faith influencing political decisions in its most harmless form, is not the belief that there is a Creator who has given humans rights, but that there is no one religious document, some mana from heaven that is agreed upon worldwide that defines what these rights are and how they are to be used in a system of secular government.

The complications that arise from using one particular faith to influence a political system is why systems of government have evolved over the centuries away from theocracies toward democracies. Getting religion out of politics frees people from the shackles every belief system inevitably tries to place on its unconverted citizenry. Governments function best when they grant citizens the right to practice their faith within the confines of their lives while simultaneously separating religious influences in the political system. No one religion is mandated and none is able to gain political power to create such a mandate. Separation of church and state cannot completely stop its religiously devout citizens from voting.

The best-intentioned, most tolerant religious people will try to avoid the biases of their faith when making political decisions. But just like in their relationships with friends and family, these same individuals will be almost forced into thinking a certain way because of what is taught and reinforced with the religious group of which they are apart. It's not even about brainwashing, though that happens among extremists. It's about the conclusions that have been reached within each particular faith's most influential figures and theologians who have something to say about the issue.

For example, a typical evangelical will turn on a Christian radio station to listen to a sermon from a well known preacher. At the top of the hour selected news headlines will air that have a political bias. A show later that day will be a family-oriented program that will discuss how certain political issues are affecting the nuclear family. The believer who is just trying to learn how to grow in his faith ends up hearing political viewpoints throughout the day on this station. In many places, though, this kind of station is the only one available. The specific pastors, theologians, and other hosts the listener is engaged with might not have the same political views as the ones broadcast in the news or by the blatantly politically oriented shows, but the association takes place in the listeners head nonetheless.

So the religious person ends up adopting the political beliefs of the most leading, dominant, outspoken part of that faith, however extreme the views might be. His opinions on controversial topics like abortion, gay rights, euthanasia, welfare, war, international relations, etc. are influenced heavily by the religious teachers and texts, ideas that have come come primarily by means of REVELATION and not empiricism. Teachers and texts are quoted to support the political opinions of the believers. And the believers will not be content enough to pray because while they are praying, there will be those who are participating in the political process to get laws passed. They will realize prayer does not actually work so they will be forced to become active participants.

Take the issue of abortion. The bible is mute on abortion, yet almost all Christians have a strong opinion on the issue. Why is this so? Contemporary Christianity has adopted a theological position from some date in the past when some influential figure used some quote from Psalm 139 to say life begins at conception. This is the reigning belief in the church today. The believer who is brought into the fold must adopt this position or face the discomfort of using his own mind to come to conclusions about the issue that are opposite the generally accepted belief of the church. What has resulted from the countless hours of prayers to overturn Roe vs. Wade? Nothing. So when Christians see that prayer does not actually work they will vote in legislators who will vote in justices who will vote to overturn it.

The effect can get very ugly when the religious followers get heavily involved in government. Watch out they don't pulling quotes from older texts in the bible! At one point in time God told Israel to commit genocide against people around its homeland. This is well documented in the Old Testament. If the Jew, Muslim, or Christian believes these ancient texts to be their inspired Word of God then there is no wonder why so many wars have been justified in the name of the religion. How much simpler would the Israel-Palestine conflict be if we were just discussing land, economics, water, and culture? Instead we are wasting our time with terms like “promised land” and “holy land” and “Canaanites.”

Conclusion - The Mind Pitted Against Itself

To become a committed religious follower, one must accept the fundamental tenets of a faith. The spiritual diagnosis followed by the spiritual prescription opens a whole new world to the previously terrestrial-focused human. Peace quickly fills the heart after the guilt of having been blind to such a glorious truth has abated. But the peace is never fully realized because throughout the rest of the believer's life, he is constantly battling the contradiction of what his being requires and what is being asked of him by his God.

For fear of focusing too much on himself, and fearing the retribution for attempting to accomplish anything that might reek of glorifying his own self, the faithful servant slowly loses his self esteem. Charitable contributions to the flock are generated because in spite of the damage to ones psyche, the human has no choice but to keep himself alive through the sweat of his own brow. He cannot help but be motivated by the desire to achieve worldly success. The sweat fills the collection plates that pay the salaries of the staff that builds buildings to house ever more believers.

Relationships will change when proselytizing overtakes the innate ability to simply sit down and chat with another human without an agenda to convert. Eventually, the believer will focus less on converting and more on associating exclusively with his own kind to avoid the awkward result that occurs from having converted nobody after all. Viewing every person in the world as either saved or unsaved is a taxing on the mind.

Political participation will become focused on the political party that has aligned itself with the values of particular persons of faith. The believers must take care, but will always repeat the same mistake of their predecessors – once in power the religious will force through laws that achieve what their prayers were unable to change. If the religious gain too many seats in the government then theocracy will creep in to the point where the religious freedoms the men and women of faith once enjoyed for all will be a thing only written in a chapter of their history books. The state will become a more modern version of 17^th century New England, and the secularists will have to wait for time to pass before the theocrats realize that they are killing those who oppose them instead of loving them.

(1.) The secular opposition is not a war, but rather natural human progress against which religion must constantly fight by its very nature.

(2.) Locke, Edwin A. Religion vs. Self-Esteem, 2007

The Value of the Religious Experience

Those who see headlines about crazy religious issues wonder how in this age of advanced science and technology religion can still be so prevalent and meaningful in people's lives. The sciences have not answered all of life's deepest questions, but haven't they come far enough for us to search for meaning and morality elsewhere?

In this post I would like to make a case for why the religious experience is still relevant, and I would even go so far as to say valuable. Support for a devout life usually comes from those on the inside like Pastors, Rabbis, Clerics, Spiritualists, and Popes. They all attempt to draw you in based on the unique tenets of their respective faiths. I would like to be as objective as possible, presenting three primary reasons why religions have flourished after all these years in spite of the Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution, and Information Age.

The value of the religious experience involves gods, rituals, sacred texts and holy days. Since these things are often dismissed by nonbelievers as superstitious nonsense that only clouds people's judgment, I will focus on the things that are less ecclesiastical. The value of the religious experience stems from its ability to provide what secular society has not - community, moral guidance, and meditation.

1. Community

What if I told you there was a local organization where people just like you gathered on a weekly basis to perform in a routine fashion a bunch of things that help them lead a more fulfilling life? This
congregation of people pays dues to be members and agrees to behave in a certain way according to both the traditions and the commonly held beliefs of those within that specific community. You might think I'm talking about a church. I'm talking about a bowling league!

People want to be surrounded by others who share their same values. And they like the routine of meeting with those people at a familiar location where they can connect with others who are just like them. But like bowling leagues, there are fewer and fewer groups that can do this with as much success as religious organizations. Meeting up with friends on a regular basis is not a direct substitute for these gatherings. Why? Because when you meet with friends it's not done as a discipline.  Part of the value of church is that you go when you don't want to. Who wouldn't rather sleep in and watch football instead of dressing up early and pretending to like a bunch of people! A regular religious gathering creates a group of similarly-minded individuals who must relate to each other as a large family and not just as friends. Since the focus of the gatherings is outward on something other-worldly, the attention of everyone is how best to encourage the other toward achieving that closeness. The level of camaraderie ends up feeling like that of a team whose focus is on the championship. Participants are not biologically related to each other, yet the level of commitment is more than a friendship because of the goal everyone is seeking together.

The bond that develops is strengthened by spiritual songs that are sung in unison at services. They are as much devotional as they are uplifting for the soul. Even if the devotional lyrics were removed, the songs would still evoke a cathartic response. Do you enjoy singing songs with groups of people?  Karaoke and concerts are so popular because singing songs with words you can identify is an experience every person finds fulfilling. How much more fun is it to sing with a large group of people who share a common bond?

2. Morality

Aside from talk shows and family members where else can one turn in society to obtain ongoing advice about important moral decisions? We make decisions every day that have a moral component to them. How we respond to situations depends upon our conscience, which is shaped by our education, both formal and existential. Buying gum has little eternal significance, but what about the decision to lie to your boss about why you could not make it to work? When our decision making is
erratic, inconsistent, and harmful to others it can cause us grief. Religion has done a marvelous job of monopolizing morality to such an extent that it is difficult to find guidance in any other place unless one's physical or mental health is in jeopardy.

Religion is blasted by the crusader atheists for its antiquated laws that are enforced by threats of eternal punishment. What they overlook for the sake of their argument are the practical teachings many faiths offer for personal improvement and relationship building. According to the atheist crusaders people can learn the same kinds of lessons themselves in secular society. I would agree that human beings are capable of discovering general moral principles on their own, but finding practical applications to ongoing contemporary issues that people really struggle with is difficult to obtain.  Since the atheist rejects the moral laws of religious faith, they have a difficult time adopting the practical advice from which it comes.

Turn on any Christian radio station. At least one show in a six hour time frame will have a family-oriented program. These shows like Focus on the Family provide practical teaching on a variety of
domestic topics ranging from child rearing to how to maintain a successful marriage. Pastors will have whole sermon series' devoted to marriage. The messages might be labeled old fashioned, or even extreme, but they are designed to help people in their struggles, not simply to punish for disobeying God's commands. I will concede the atheist's point that the two cannot be separated; nevertheless, the value is still apparent.

On my way back from a wedding this weekend I came across a Catholic radio program called "The Doctor Is In." The program is hosted by a Catholic medical doctor who helps callers with their problems. She infuses practical wisdom with the teachings of the Catholic church. One woman called in asking what to do about a potential malpractice case in which her son had been improperly treated by a dentist who messed up his teeth. The host proceeded to offer advice based on her experience as doctor and as a devoted practicing Catholic. During the show the host made references to passages from the Bible and from the Catechism. Advice on this matter could be given by a number of secular professionals, but the justification is purely legal or financial. There is explicit moral backdrop to the decision making process.

3. Meditation

When was the last time you voluntarily stopped what you were doing, closed your eyes, and cleared your mind? Even in my short 30 years I can remember a time when the pace of life was slower. Going back to kindergarten I remember once each day we would lay down and take a "nap."  Sometimes soft music would play; other times, a teacher would read a short story. We probably did not always want a nap, but our teachers knew that if we napped we would behave better for the rest of the afternoon.

The 21st century takes us further into the information age where everything we need is available to us at the click of a button, which means we are also available at all times...at the click of a button.
Voice mails, text messages, emails, app notifications, facebook chats, twitter statuses, rss feeds, fantasy sports trades, online dating, google searches, multiplayer consoles, DVR, OnDemand programming, Netflix, IM...  Humans are not evolving fast enough to cope with the myriad distractions technology is throwing at us. We need time to relax our minds, digest information, focus on what is important, see things in perspective, and, in the case of religious faith, communicate with divine beings. The barrage of distractions makes prayer and meditation more valuable than it has ever been.

Prayer is the practice of communicating with an external force or god while meditation involves focusing, breathing, introspection, and the clearing of one's mind.  In order to successfully pray and meditate, all other distractions must be shut off or else it will not work. Thou shalt not pray and text simultaneously! Prayer is powerful because the very act assumes the existence a spiritual being more
powerful than one's self.  As adults we assume many responsibilities. We experience guilt and shame. We don't always know where to turn with our problems. Prayer satisfies our desire to have something greater than ourselves in control that cares about our needs and has the power to affect change on our behalf.

I put this category of prayer under meditation because some faiths do not believe in a divine being that listens to our needs. Some believe that there is a force or collective consciousness. Meditation helps us focus on something specific or nothing at all by placing ourselves in a peaceful environment and breathing deeply. Regardless of the subject of the meditation the very act gives us a chance to collect ourselves in a way that watching TV or surfing the web does not.

Conclusion

As one can see, when contemplating organized religion, many needs are satisfied under one roof.  In evaluating the enduring success of religious institutions it is easy to blame it on the gullibility of mankind, the slick marketing campaigns, preferential tax treatment, or religious leaders' hunger for power.

But if religion only survived because of its gullible followers who had been led on by gimmicks and power crazed leaders, so few people would go that religion would not even be the subject of a discussion worth having. People don't go to church because they want to adopt rules where they risk hell if they are broken! What has allowed it to endure for so many years is the lack of a substitute in secular society for what it offers to everyone- community, morality, and meditation. Add to that a convincing case for the absolute truth of its fundamental tenets, historical support for the story line, and the obvious real-world impact from its teachings, and there is a powerful force to be reckoned with.

Some Non-Religious Reasons Discouraging Same-Sex Marriage

What surprised me the most in my limited research on this topic was finding out how many states ban same-sex marriage altogether.  As of June 2011, 41 states prohibit same sex marriage, while just 10 allow marriage or civil unions.  The map below shows gay-friendly states in solid dark and light blue.  Anti-gay states are in dark red, light red, or pink.

   Same-sex marriage^1,2

   Unions granting rights similar to marriage^1,2

   Legislation granting limited/enumerated rights¹

   Same-sex marriages performed elsewhere recognized¹

   No specific prohibition or recognition of same-sex marriages or unions

   Statute bans same-sex marriage

   Constitution bans same-sex marriage²

   Constitution bans same-sex marriage and some or all forms of same-sex unions

¹May include recent laws or court decisions which have created legal recognition of same-sex relationships, but which have not entered into effect yet.
²Same-sex marriage laws in California are complicated; please see the article on Same-sex marriage in California
- Map source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg

I was expecting the map to be mostly light grey because I would have thought the issue too new to be considered by the courts in those states.

In a Reddit post today someone asked whether there are reasonable non-religious arguments against same-sex marriage.  After all, most of what we hear in the news about the issue is some social conservative ranting about the harm it would cause to our society, using religion as a backdrop to substantiate their point of view.

The most logical argument came from a user with the screen name "philoredditor" who pointed to the uncertainty involved in adopting a social change that could have harmful ramifications.

 Another set of good points was written eloquently by "stuckinabarrel" who wrote the following:

As you can see most of the non-religious arguments boil down to an uncertainty about the future, with most concerns being about changes in laws, the effect it would have on children, and the general stability of society that relies heavliy on current social norms to flow smoothly.

I think both religious and non-relgious people who argue against gay marriage are not bigoted, they just want things to stay the way they are.  Unfortunately it is the religious people who are the most vocal and who have spent the most time developing coherent arguments.

Eventually legalized gay marriage will prevail at the federal level because more Americans, especially the younger generation, see few problems with it.  Studies will continue to show the stability of children raised in same-sex households versus single parent households.  And if there is a slippery slope toward polygamy it will be so far down the road as to not be a factor in the decision to legalize gay marriage.

Link to Reddit post:
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/tcw5j/are_there_any_nonreligious_arguments_against/