Assumptions about and in Religion

Religion has its roots in genocidal massacres, ever-continuous wars, and internal corruption by higher statuses of the church. Though it would not be logical to judge a system of belief by its history, religion has in fact inflicted unto society much unforgivable damage. Even until current dates, religion is related to the complication of societal health – contrary to what religious supporters commonly advocate.

According the Journal of Religion and Society:
(http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html)

• A few hundred years ago rates of homicide were astronomical in Christian Europe and the American colonies (Beeghley; R. Lane). In all secular developed democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen homicide rates drop to historical lows.
• The positive correlation between pro-theistic factors and juvenile mortality is remarkable, especially regarding absolute belief, and even prayer (Figure 4).
• Life spans tend to decrease as rates of religiosity rise (Figure 5), especially as a function of absolute belief.
• Although the late twentieth century STD epidemic has been curtailed in all prosperous democracies (Aral and Holmes; Panchaud et al.), rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three hundred times higher in the U.S. than in less theistic, pro-evolution secular developed democracies (Figure 6).
• Increasing adolescent abortion rates show positive correlation with increasing belief and worship of a creator, and negative correlation with increasing non-theism and acceptance of evolution... (Figure 8). Claims that secular cultures aggravate abortion rates (John Paul II) are therefore contradicted by the quantitative data.
• The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health.
• … the U.S. is the only prosperous democracy that retains high homicide rates…

Here, I do not intend to draw causation relationships between religiosity and societal health, though one can plainly see positive co relationships between the two. Rather, I am trying to say that when considering the two aspects together, the obvious conclusion is that being religious will result in a higher statistical likelihood of bringing no benefit to societal health. Never mind the immorality based effects that religion has on society – though they are quite considerably horrendous – for it has no basis on the truth of the origin of life.
The other assumption made is that religion’s intelligent design does contribute to the scientific body of knowledge, and their research is commonly peer-reviewed. However, when a surfer goes to any creationist based homepages to find excerpts of peer-reviewed material – not the original article itself – only the original article is displayed. AAAS puts it so plainly and straightforwardly:

• (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2005/0427forum.shtml)
• “Lawrence Krauss, a physicist and author at Case Western Reserve … said proponents of intelligent design have not engaged in the traditional process of scientific publishing. In a survey of 10 million articles in 20 major science journals over the past dozen years, Krauss said, a colleague of his found 115,000 articles with "evolution" as a keyword. Of those, "intelligent design" was mentioned in 88. All but 11 of those mentions were in articles about engineering rather than biology, Krauss said. Of the remaining 11, eight were critical of intelligent design and three referred to conference proceedings rather than peer-reviewed journal articles.”

One then has to wonder if Intelligent Design has any strong grounds in claiming an alternative theory to Evolution.

Now it is time for the amusing portion. I shall present the claims of the church. I must admit, however, that these came from a Christian Baptist church that I went to when I once was a believer.

1. AIDS is a form of punishment for homosexuality.
2. Atheists worship the devil.
3. Hurricane Katrina is purely the action of Satan or God, and has nothing to plate tectonics and natural law.
4. Atheists are the devil’s angels and therefore all who believe in God must avoid them as much as possible.
5. Dover is prone to some natural disaster because the Dover Trial supported evolutionary theory, not intelligent design.
6. If our homes are not blessed with holy water, demons can come in easily.
7. If we see strange or odd things, that must be supernatural.
8. If we see something that looks like something related to something supernatural, it must be supernatural.
9. Every end has a supernatural element in it, and that only natural causes resulted in that end is discredited.
10. Life after death
11. Diseases are what God uses to punish people [ignore societal, personal, or environmental health]
12. Ghosts exist, but we do not actually know what they are composed of, or how they come to be.
13. God lives in three states of being, of which we do not need to understand how.
14. Etc…

Those critical of things can see the foolishness behind each of those advocated propositions. Of course, what I am doing here is a straw-man. However, remember that there are those who do sincerely believe in all, or if not at least some, of these beliefs. It was my mum, however, who told me that homosexuality causes AIDS, and that that was how God punished homosexuals. Having studied biology and read much about it, I am deeply disturbed by this statement (let alone all the other mentioned ones) and worried about her deeply religious and unquestioning mind. Yet, she is not the only misinformed individual; if you are unaware, then it would be interesting to note that the belief that homosexuality causes aids is popular belief, or societal myth.

In conclusion, all I can say is that religion has adverse effects on societal. Not only does it help to perpetuate false propositions and ideas, but is also of no help to scientific inquiry. For all the things religion has done for us, it would be quite reasonable for an average individual to not to take it too seriously.


[Do not forget, however, the wars that have been fought and justified by religion, of which millions of people were wasted for the sake of religion.]
Buddhism vs. Confucianism, Mongol invasions of Vietnam, 1258-1285
Buddhism vs. Confucianism, Mongol invasion of Vietnam, 1288
Buddhism vs. Communism, Chinese Invasion of Tibet, Tibet, 1950-1951 CE
Confucianism vs. Taoism, Mongol invasion of Western China, 1205-1209 CE
Confucianism vs. Taoism, Mongol invasion of Northern China, 1211-1234 CE
Confucianism vs. Islam, Mongol invasion of Central Asia, 1218-1220 CE
Confucianism vs. Islam, Mongol invasion of Baghdad, 1258
Confucianism vs. Shinto, Mongol invasions of Japan, 1274-1281
Confucianism vs. Islam, Mongol invasion of Baghdad, 1258
Confucianism vs. Buddhism, Mongol invasions of Vietnam, 1258-1285
Confucianism vs. Taoism, Mongol invasions of Southern China, 1279
Confucianism vs. Christianity, Mongol invasion of Hungary, 1285
Confucianism vs. Christianity, Mongol raid against Bulgaria, 1285
Confucianism vs. Christianity, Mongol raid against Poland,1287
Confucianism vs. Buddhism, Mongol invasion of Vietnam, 1288
Confucianism vs. Islam, Mongol invasion of Syria, 1299
Christianity vs. Zoroastrianism, Roman-Persian Wars, Mespotamia and Modern Turkey, 502-562 CE
Christianity vs. Islam, Byzantine-Arab Wars, Modern Lebanon and Turkey, 632-750 CE
Christianity vs. Islam, Umayyad Conquest of Iberia, Modern Spain and Portugal, 711-718 CE
Christianity vs. Islam , History of Islam in Southern Italy, Sicily and Southern Italian Peninsula, 831-902 CE
Christianity vs. Islam and Judaism, Reconquista, Iberian Peninsula, 923-1212 CE
Christianity vs. Islam, Crusades, Middle East, 1091-1402 CE
Christianity vs. Judaism, German Crusade, Germany, 1096 CE
Christianity vs. Confucianism, Mongol invasion of Hungary, 1285
Christianity vs. Confucianism, Mongol raid against Bulgaria, 1285
Christianity vs. Confucianism, Mongol raid against Poland,1287
Christianity vs. Indigenous Beliefs, European colonization of the Americas, The Americas, 1492-1890 CE
Catholicism vs. Eastern Orthodoxy, Fourth Crusade, Balkans-Greece and Anatolia, 1201-1204 CE
Catholicism vs. Protestantism, Wars of Religion, France, 1560-1598 CE
Catholicism vs. Protestantism, Thirty Years War, Western Europe, 1618-1648 CE
Protestantism vs. Catholicism, The Troubles, Ireland, 1609-1998 CE
Hinduism vs. Zoroastrianism, Seleucid Invasion of India, Indus River, 304 BCE
Hinduism vs. Pantheism, Battle of the Hydaspes River, Indus River, 326 BCE
Hinduism vs. Islam, Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent, 664-712 CE

Islam vs. Pantheism, Wars of Arabian Unification, See(Muhammad as a general), Arabia, 622-632 CE
Islam vs. Christianity, Byzantine-Arab Wars, Modern Lebanon and Turkey, 632-750 CE
Islam vs. Zoroastrianism, Islamic conquest of Persia, Modern Iran, 637-651 CE
Islam vs. Hinduism, Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent, 664-712 CE
Islam vs. Christianity, Umayyad Conquest of Iberia, Modern Spain and Portugal, 711-718 CE
Islam vs. Christianity, History of Islam in Southern Italy, Sicily and Southern Italian Peninsula, 831-902 CE
Islam vs. Christianity, Reconquista, Iberian Peninsula, 923-1212 CE
Islam vs. Christianity, The Crusades, The Middle East, 1091-1402 CE
Islam vs. Confucianism, Mongol invasion of Central Asia, 1218-1220 CE
Islam vs. Confucianism, Mongol invasion of Baghdad, 1258
Shi'ism vs. Kharijism, Battle of Nahrawan, Mesopotamia, 657 CE
Sunnism vs. Shi'ism, First Fitna, Arabia and Mesopotamia, 656-661 CE
Sunnism vs. Shi'ism, Second Fitna, Arabia and Mesopotamia, 683-692 CE
Sunnism vs. Shi'ism, Iraqi Civil War, Iraq, 2004 CE-ongoing
Judaism vs. Pantheism, Great Jewish Revolt, Levant, 66-135 CE
Judaism vs. Christianity, Reconquista, Iberian Peninsula, 923-1212 CE
Judaism vs. Christianity, German Crusade, Germany, 1096 CE
Shinto vs. Confucianism, Mongol invasions of Japan, 1274-1281
Taoism vs. Confucianism, Mongol invasion of Western China, 1205-1209 CE
Taoism vs. Confucianism, Mongol invasion of Northern China, 1211-1234 CE
Taoism vs. Confucianism, Mongol invasions of Southern China, 1279
Zoroastrianism vs. Hinduism, Seleucid Invasion of India, Indus River, 304 BCE
Zoroastrianism vs. Christianity, Roman-Persian Wars, Mespotamia and Modern Turkey, 502-562 CE
Zoroastrianism vs. Islam, Islamic conquest of Persia, Modern Iran, 637-651 CE

Read more!

Questioning the Plausibility of the Story of the Bible's Serpent (Re-Visited)

(The following was adapted from the King James Version of the Bible)
Genesis: The Fall of Man

[Genesis 2:16-17]

And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil for when you eat of it you will surely die.”

[Genesis 3:1-7]

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from the tree in the garden?”
The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘you must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
“You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
…the woman…took some and ate it… Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked…


It seems that despite contemporary criticisms of the bible, many critics still confess that the book is indeed a very wonderfully written book of fiction. Only one could imagine how religious people would react when they have read the following statement. Yet, in the eyes of many intellectuals and critics, the problems with the bible lie in the fact that its verses are either contradictory, inconsistent, illogical, or false. Here I shall discuss the logic behind the Genesis’ The Fall of Man, that is, whether the serpent did indeed lie to Eve at all. In my opinion, the answer to this question lies in the definition of ‘die’.

Before I begin my discussion, I would like readers to be aware that Eve, after having eaten of the Tree of Good and Evil, was alive still. Despite God’s warnings that Eve was to die after eating of the tree, Eve instead remained alive. This is where I shall start my discussion.

I would suppose that the first definition to consider is the literal definition of ‘die’. A common definition of ‘die’ would be to cease to live; undergo the complete and permanent cessation of all vital functions; become dead (adapted from dictionary.reference.com). This definition obviously does not apply because if it were so, then the story about the serpent’s deceitful act becomes implausible.

Therefore, the second definition of ‘die’ to consider is the theological one. The theological version of ‘die’ is to lose spiritual life (dictionary.com), and that the word ‘spiritual’ means to pertain to a divine, inspiring, or animating being or influence (dictionary.com) – in conjunction with the definition of ‘spirit’. Yet, a simple search in “dictionary.com” shows that there are many other more plausible theological definitions to the definition of ‘spirit’:


2.
the incorporeal part of humans

I wonder how this definition explains anything at all. What is it to mean immaterial? To lose a immaterial life and acquire a material life? I speculate that ‘immaterial’ pertains to immortality, and the word ‘material’ pertains to mortality. This is because to be of material, one must be confined to the natural laws of the universe, and therefore live a life that is restricted to natural law alone, and dieing in a natural manner. I also consider this speculation quite intriguing because to God, immaterialness is of a very important characteristic of him, as it is of his immortality – which pertains to the violation of natural law itself. Yet, though it works for the part where the tree of knowledge of good and evil is concerned, the part about the tree of life makes this speculation doubtful [I tried thinking of other speculations to its definition, and even attempted to search for a widely accepted theological definition for ‘incorporeal’ – meaning immaterial]. Simply put, while the Tree of Life governs mortality, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil governs wisdom – awareness of good and evil.

3.
the soul regarded as separating from the body at death.

This definition of spirit is indeed quite vague indeed, for even the definition of soul - the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect (dictionary.com) – is illogical also. If Adam and Eve both ate of the tree, why would they loose their moral awareness? This is very incoherent.

5.
a supernatural, incorporeal being, esp. one inhabiting a place, object, etc., or having a particular character: evil spirits.

If this definition were to be right, then what it means is that Eve will lose her supernatural self and live her life with her natural self. Again I speculate a similar hypothesis as #2, and came to the conclusion that the definition is very incoherent.

8.
an attitude or principle that inspires, animates, or pervades thought, feeling, or action: the spirit of reform.

This definition seems quite plausible in that this the loss of spirit, or attitude or principle, can be equated to the loss of Eve’s innocence. However, looking at the following quote:

Genesis 3:6
When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was…desirable for gaining
wisdom, she took some and ate it.

One has to wonder if a thought (or principle?!) can be equated to wisdom. The ability to think does not mean wisdom, for an individual may be critical and analytical, but not have true beliefs at heart.

9.
(initial capital letter ) the divine influence as an agency working in the human heart.

This definition seems much more plausible, at first sight, but if it were used then it implies the beginning of the absence of a Godly intervention. This is clearly not the case in the bible, for Genesis 3 does in fact have the presence of godly intervention – as God curses his children for disobeying his orders. If this definition is applied, then the section would become a textual contradiction.

12.
the soul or heart as the seat of feelings or sentiments, or as prompting to action: a man of broken spirit.

If the sprit meant the soul – dieing meaning the loss of the soul - then the definition of spirit becomes incoherent. The bible depicts the loss of innocence and the acquisition of knowledge and mortality. I speculate then that the soul may represent immortality, that the soul is like the beings of the heavens, having eternal life; God could have been giving a warning to Eve (and Adam), that if they disobeyed, they shall gain mortality, the loss of the soul. It is incoherent, then, because the idea of having no soul contradicts the claims of contemporary religious people, that humans have both a material body and a spirit. Often, they claim that while the soul that rises to the heavens, the body that decomposes and returns to the earth. For if all the next future generations of Adam and Eve were born to the world, bearing their curse of having no soul, then it is true that humans do not go to heaven or hell after death – for that role is supposedly governed by the soul. It then follows that the functioning of the human mind does not necessitate the existence of the soul, which then undermines the significance of religion itself.

If the spirit meant the heart, (I speculate that this is not the physical one for if it were, then real death shall proceed) the metaphorical one, then the definition itself is implausible. We who supposedly bare the curse from Adam and Eve are aware that we, in fact, do have emotions. If we had lost the heart, then we will not be what we are today.

16.
an individual as characterized by a given attitude, disposition, character, action, etc.: A few brave spirits remained to face the danger.

This definition simply does not follow from the context of the bible. On what basis does Eve, and supposedly all of the rest of us, lose an attitude, disposition or action? It is quite awkward to associate innocence with attitude, for attitude means a certain response, a worldview. Innocence simply guides that state of mind, and thus both words are not equal in definition.


So which one to choose then? For each of the definitions there is in itself a different reasoning behind it. While some definitions might work (only to some extent), others would not. Thus, I ended up checking up the Catholic Encyclopedia for the definition, and quite disappointingly, it spitted out a very vague answer.

In the following discussion, I attempted to decipher the meaning of the serpent’s story, and gave greater analysis on Eve’s death – which is critical to answering whether the serpent was indeed crafty or truthful. Thus, my analysis leads me to one obvious conclusion. Unless more deciphering is done to Genesis’ chapter 3, I see no basis on even considering whether the serpent was indeed crafty or not. While the definitions mentioned lack logic and coherence with the rest of the bible, others are in contradiction with contemporary religious beliefs.

I would like to end, however, by saying that no matter the amount of good hypotheses generated to explain the validity of the bible, as long as no empirical evidence is presented to verify its plausibility, all remains nothing but as a myth. To belief on empirically unjustified propositions would be similar to a hospitalized patient who believes he is Michael Jackson, Elvis, or George W. Bush. From a rationalist point of view, only a lunatic would belief myths as facts, and it takes religion to make intelligent people believe in silly things.

Read more!