Rationalists should attempt to destroy religion.

It's certainly a pleasure to cross swords with a fellow rationalist on the future of religion. There are undoubtedly some important asymmetries in our views so this will hopefully be entertaining. ======= Case Con ======= Religion should not be destroyed by rationalists because: 1) It is a proven method for social evolution 2) It is better than what is likely to replace it 3) Rationalists should aim to convince, not to destroy 1. (a) 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. Likewise the fact that religion may have helped kick start civilization by forcing us to collaborate when we were in small groups does not prove that its useful or desirable in the modern world. In fact, a very strong case can be made that it is maladaptive considering how much needless suffering and hatred it inspires. 1. (b) "There are still religious conflicts, but they are really about culture embodied as religion, rather than derived from religion." I run into people that think like this all the time. Here is my challenge to you. If you believe that religious conflicts/ terrorism are simply reducible to US foreign policy, cultural grievances or social depravation then you must explain why there aren't any Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers. Tibetan Buddhists have lived under brutal treatment by the Chinese government far more sadistic than anything we have done in the Middle East. [1] Its not that it would be impossible for a Tibetan Buddhist to engage in this behavior, however it is very unlikely given how much emphasis is placed on compassion in Buddhism. There are some Buddhists that have even been tortured in Chinese jails for years and have come out saying things like- I just wished my treatment didn't cause me to hate my captors or to lose my compassion. You find me a Muslim that was tortured for years in an Israeli jail and says something like that after their release then I will eat my boot; I'm serious. If I had 10 pages of space to work with I would outline for you every verse in the Koran that advocates jihad and martyrdom. Jihadism is a, very plausible, logical outcome of adherence to a belief in the divine truth of the Koran. Consider for a moment the biographies of the 911 hijackers. All of them had college degrees and some of them even had PhDs. I don't know how many more architects and engineers have to fly planes into our buildings at 400 miles an hour before people like you realize that our conflicts with religion are not merely a product of culture or poverty. You and I both know what the last three words of the 19 hijackers were. 1 (c) "Arguments that religious people still do bad things proves nothing. Pro must prove that if religion did not exist, then people would do fewer bad things. Pro has offered no argument that such would be the case." I am not indicting religion for every bad thing a religious person has done throughout history. That would simply be a ridiculous thing to attempt to do. I am indicting religion for every evil or wicked thing a believer is likely to do only on the basis of their religious faith. These wicked actions can range from suicide bombings to preaching to children about hell. You and I are not likely to do either of these things because we don't believe in martyrdom or hell, presumably. There is a reason we never read about atheist suicide bombers in the news. Here is what I believe. Imagine the Koran was the exact same book but it contained one extra line that read, "If you meet a red headed woman on your doorstep at sunrise cut her head off." Just imagine a verse like this being passed down through the ages. If this verse existed we would be left with a world where red headed women were regularly found murdered in the Muslim world. But we would also be left in a world where apologists for Islam would say things like –this has nothing to do with Islam; Islam is a peaceful religion. Red headed women would be maligned as being culpably acquiescent in their murder for insulting the deeply held religious convictions of Muslims by wandering around at sunrise. Bags of heads would be uncovered in dumpsters and some people would examine this behavior and say things like ‘There was a Mormon man down the street that killed his wife and she was a redhead so lets not blame this solely on Islam". And others would say things like "some of the girls weren't actually redheads one of them looked like a strawberry blond". Other girls would be found shot and Muslims would say that this had nothing to do with Islam because decapitation is the only thing sanctioned in the Koran. Still others would say things along the lines of, "This verse is meant to be interpreted metaphorically therefore anyone that murders redheads is clearly not living by the lights of Islam". 2. Your assertion that if religion disappeared it would be replaced by something worse is unsubstantiated and fallacious. This type of reasoning would be analogous to me saying. "Women should not leave their abusive husbands because their life with them will be better than whatever is likely to replace it. After all they will probably just seek out another abusive relationship that may even be worse." The fallacy in this line of thought is obvious. Moreover, its not like it would be impossible to destroy religion. Many countries in the world have already largely accomplished this. [2] 3. (a) You seem to be playing with words just a little bit. When I say that religion should be destroyed this does not mean that I'm advocating that we systematically murder members of the clergy or bomb their churches. I tried to clarify this when I wrote, "A war of ideas is not waged with rifles; it's waged through conversation." Indeed, religion will be "destroyed" when people no longer take it seriously. 3 (b) The approach you seem to be advocating is that we should work towards moderating religion rather than destroying it outright. 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? It would have probably been along the lines of- what really is at fault here is fundamentalist witchcraft. There are bad witches but there are also good witches that use medicinal herbs and practice white healing spells. Lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater here, witchcraft is a social institution and it has always been with us. What we really need is moderate witchcraft. We just need to convince enough people to stop burning witches alive so that witchcraft and civil society can coexist peacefully. ====== Case pro ====== Rationalist should destroy religion because: 1.There is a deep-rooted link between religion and violence. 2.Our irreconcilable religious differences are inspiring an appalling amount of conflict. 3.Religion balkanizes humans into separate and incompatible moral communities. 4.Religion, very often, degrades ones ability to think coherently and thus make rational choices about the world. 5.Religious moderates give cover to religious fundamentalists by their insistence of having faith- belief without evidence- respected. 6.Religion stands in the way of medical research and social progress. 7.The truth claims of religion are false. As my character limit approaches I must cut myself a bit short. Even though I have touched on some of these things already I will create a much more thorough argument for them in the next round. Best, Freeman Sources [1] http://www.msnbc.msn.com... [2] http://dailyatheist.blogspot.com...