This originally appeared on http://matthewfunti.me

 

As the expanding world of scientific inquiry grows with exponential understanding of the natural world, it's getting easier and easier to simply dismiss the nonsense comprising organized religion.

In 2011, you need not be a biologist to understand that evolution is a fact. You need not be a historian to understand the laughably false propositions of the holy texts of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. You need not be a doctor of physics to grasp the incredulity of the aforementioned claims of supernatural providence. In 2011, the most bleary-eyed skeptic can analyze the readily available evidence and dismiss religion as witchcraft, hucksterism, demagoguery and altogether full of shit.

Before Darwin and Hitchens and Wikipedia, the majority of people were devout believers. The lot of humanity bought stock in whatever denomination they were born and indoctrinated into and vigorously accepted the folklore of their familial line. Mormons are descendant from the ancient white peoples of North America (lol) and the Eucharist is literally comprised of the body and blood of the Christ (though, as if set up to refute any naysayers, the physical properties of crackers and booze remain unchanged). Without modern science or rational thought, there was no way to undermine the claims of those perceived to have a hotline to god; most thusly assented to their claims. The peril of speaking out against the church is an altogether different discussion, though another important part in the understanding of how/why these inexplicable traditions protect themselves and propagate.

As the days march forward and the historicity and validity of religious claims are undermined at every corner, it is getting increasingly harder to keep a shackle on the feeble minds of the faithful. Religion used to be characterized by deep liturgies of rich practice, but the tenets of many faiths have meddled down to dogmatic talking points that betray primitive ignorance and exploit the visceral fear of humanity.

Still palpable on the hearts and minds of all peoples is the fear of death. The promise of infinite paradise, therefore, is a very strong positive for 'believing,' and perhaps, the fear of eternal damnation even stronger. The guarantee of 72 non-corporeal virgins is an amazing thing to ponder if the concept of sex itself has been purposely perverted in one's mind. Whatever the afterlife affirmations religion titillates its followers with, the goal is the same. These salesman of the sacred stop at nothing to stimulate a human's fear of the beyond in order to stuff the coffers.

The world, though, is catching up.

Repressed nations aside, it's the growing portents of science that debase the physical claims of religion and force these antiquated superstitions into efforts of philosophical reorganization. What used to be a history of the world is now a parable. It's not important that Noah, an ancient Palestinian, would not have been able to successfully acquire two of every arctic animal. Nor were there fresh water aquariums aboard the ship capable of sustaining the sea creatures who would perish in a great salty oceanic flood. These details seem silly to even ponder but serve to show the utter preposterousness of believing such a fable as true. Though, there are some who maintain this delusion as historical fact, just as they picture winged angels playing harps or 72 naked chicks kowtowing to the every sexual need of a scraggly teenage suicide bomber.

(These people are not worth debating, by the way.)

As science's exponential grip firmly squeezes the possibility of religious divinity from the planet, a schism naturally occurs. A side of theology, among those who we can deem to be literate in the fields of science and history, have moved towards the rational. They have studied Darwin and can, too, accept our gradual climb towards homo sapien as the proven fact all conscientious students of world history do.

The other side, however, presents an ignorant world view affirmatively spitting on science and are conservative in their selective understanding of reality. These are the people dangerously heralding the 'end times' and pointing their hatred at supposed outcasts of society. It is these people who rile the tenets of fundamentalism towards bigotry and play on the fear of those whose trust they have wrongfully earned. It is these preachers who knowingly use psychology, eschatology and various other trickery to petrify congregations of devoted worshipers into submission. It is these people who manipulate the darkest fears of human existence for some religious end and it is these people who are impeding the progress of the world.

The first group of rational believers would not place themselves among those who can easily and accurately be labeled fringe extremists and fundamentalists, but there is some gray area to examine. Another full discussion could outline how even moderate religious beliefs foster the type of outlandish behavior that constitutes the second bunch of lunatics. I, and many other like-minded antitheists maintain this position. Remember, those who would identify themselves as moderate Christians and those positively malignant slugs who picket funerals and pray daily for Revelation still believe the same basic tenets entrenched in their individualized faiths. No honorable Christian would declare the Westboro Baptist sociopaths to be upholding the values of Jesus Christ, but if you are preaching the gospels, apologies, but you are playing on the same team as an entity the U.S. government has characterized as a hate group. Some might even argue that the Westboro Baptist Church are actually biblically sound as they, without question, derive their hatred directly and accurately from the bible.

In an email to a supposed believer who lists his position at some bible-bumping Jesus college as Instructor of Christian Theology and Church History, I wrote this:

I reject the bible as nothing more than clunky, self-citing epic poetry of dubious authorial quality (at best). I maintain that there is no divinity in it whatsoever and is resplendent with contradictions, historical inaccuracies, and untruths. Furthermore, there are repeated warrants and affirmations of slavery, misogyny, bigotry and genocide. In addition, what little factual historicity is known about the writing of the bible places the cobbling of the New Testament to, at minimum, a half century after the supposed events of Christ's life. 
My first question to you would be: how can such a book, one of innumerable inconsistencies and obvious shortcomings, be the basis for morality and/or any semblance of a "guide" for living?

I ask about morality first because, as I am sure you are aware, the scientific consensus and all scientifically literate faithful theologians deny any legitimacy of so-called 'creation science,' 'intelligent design' and the scientific/historical accuracy of the book itself while pointedly accepting evolution as true fact.

I look forward to your responses and have many further questions about some of your own writings as well as questions about deeper theological delinquency.

 

 

His response was 16 words, including a 'thank you' for my question. He then countered with a question of his own about how atheism can fund morality. Not only did he fully dodge my inquiry, but he asked a fully unrelated question of his own demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of the "religious" denomination I count myself amongst.
It's doubtful he has a good answer to this impossible question; there is none. His disjointed reply to my question received this follow up:

Your question posits a direct misunderstanding of atheism. Atheism, in and of itself, has nothing to do with morality and it is not where I draw my ethics from. I could define my personal understanding of atheism, but that is ancillary to the point. Suffice to say, I believe that there is no god. Thus, by definition, your question about atheism funding morality is an incomprehensible one - as the two items have nothing to do with one another. 
Christianity, however, claims an ultimate divine understanding of morality.

This is where I begin to have massive issues with the religion itself. The hypocrisy and solipsism embedded therein is overwhelming and abhorrent. I could cite the crusades, the inquisition, the everyday bigotry that homosexuals suffer at the hands of would-be moralist Christians.

 

 

I am still waiting for a response, though I do not think my inbox will receive any semblance of rational answer. When painted into a corner about the bible, the true believer still cites the inerrancy of the bible even in the face of outlandish contradictions and historical inaccuracies. For giggles, I included a link to a funny page in my email chronicling a laundry list of biblical contradictions. I sincerely doubt he moved his cursor over that particular bit of blue text and let fire a mouse-click.
As the burgeoning gap between moderation and lunatic fringe increases, the number of skeptics rise resultantly. Basically, it's getting easier to convince rational humans that religious belief is not rational. There still remains an insidious 'belief in belief' to undermine. Daniel C. Dennett writes laboriously and convincingly about this easily perceived concept in his brilliant case study of religion, Breaking the Spell. There are many among us who probably don't believe the inexplicable claims of religion, yet are still compelled to go along with it because they believe it's the proper thing to do. These people should study the refutations of Pascal and take a long hard look at the effects of their various beliefs. These believers in belief wager on the positives of religion. Though they cannot wrap their heads around the absurdity of the claims, the overarching promises are a tantalizing proposition, one worth the suspension of disbelief.

Others yet have simply never examined the possible falsehood of their respective religions. Those indoctrinated by their parents, and/or religious institutions might be the easiest to convince of the wrongdoing of religion. Having only ever been exposed to the false positives of religion, combined with the heavenly promises, they may have never considered the evils so firmly perpetrated by their fellow congregates and may be disturbed to learn that they themselves may have unknowingly participated.

Whatever the case is for believers, the sun must set on religion. Be it scientific explanation, or the realization of hypocritically direct evil causally advanced at the hands of their holy moralist guides -- the efficacy of religion's supernatural promises are waning and the societal implications that remain are mainly negative.

Until we slough off the incredulity of ancient prophecies, our world remains on a treadmill of progress. We may run very fast but we do not go anywhere. For thousands of years, religion has claimed to have answered the unanswerable. This arrogance wholly prevents the earth from achieving it's full potential and retards intellectual growth by claiming divine truth.

Only when the bonds of religious belief are finally broken can the world flourish through the process of legitimate inquiry about the universe and the search for true truths about humanity (instead of backward thinking proofs aimed at evidencing religious claims).

Until then, the sectarian nature of differentiated myth will serve only to segregate rather than unify and purposefully strive for pious ignorance.