Rationalists should attempt to destroy religion.

An excellent topic. There is an active debate among atheists as to the likely future of religion, and how that might be achieved. Pro's topic bears directly on that. 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 Elaborating: 1) At one time Christians believed that the Bible endorsed slavery, but now they believe it prohibits slavery. Rather than being set in stone as determined by unchanging writ, religion is a social institution that evolves over time. In Christianity, what has happened to the divine right of kings, the harsh prohibitions of Puritanism, and the persecution of infidels? There are still traces in extreme sects, but now those are the exceptions. Many religions used to feature human sacrifice, including the Aztecs and the ancient Hawaiians. Those are gone. There are still religious conflicts, but they are really about culture embodied as religion, rather than derived from religion. There have been no shortage of wars not spawned by religion, and if religion disappeared it's doubtful that there would be any fewer. I'll elaborate on that in (2). Rationalists should understand that religion is really no more than an expression of culture. If it were really holy writ, it wouldn't change, but it quite obviously does change. Religion provides a set of rules for living in society. Attaching the rules to religion ensures that they change slowly as the formalities of religion are passed down through the generations. That's appropriate, because organizing a society and setting up it's rules is not easy. If we leave it to the whims of social innovation, we wander rather than make progress towards a better society. Many religions have ceased to exist because they could not evolve. Christianity has evolved through early asceticism, medieval authoritarianism, to what is now a serviceable code of conduct. Islam is not so evolved, both because it is a relatively new religion and because it has been isolated from many social pressures. Buddhism is a very old religion, and is arguably evolved into the most peaceful. 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. 2) Life is far too complex for each person to figure out from scratch. The problem of figuring out what to do in society becomes more complex as society has progressed beyond small tribes. There are hundreds of problems regarding how people should interact. Religion provides a starting point. What should you do when someone dies? It doesn't matter a whole lot what exactly is done, but people feel better if they have some tradition for funerals. Most religions have moved past intolerant of differing traditions on things that don't matter. Rules of behavior have certainly not converged, but they are a lot closer today then they were a few hundred years ago. Religion provides people with a time-tested default. It's imperfect, but it provides a necessary starting point for an individual to seek his own path. When religion is removed, humans still need a strong template for behavior, so they build a pseudo religion around ideology. For writing school books, there is code of 400 items for what can and cannot be said to meet standards of political correctness. Many words and phrases are forbidden in any context. Food need not be Kosher or Halal, but it must be certified organic. Clothing ought to be natural fiber. Straight marriage is a matter of no importance one way or the other; gay marriage is extremely important. You have a moral obligation to recycle, even things like glass bottles that are as inert as rocks. California prohibits new cars from being black, for reasons every bit as religious as prohibitions against eating pork. Smoking tobacco is evil, but marijuana is a divine right. Evil in the world is known to due entirely to America, George Bush, and/or capitalism. Deviltry lurks in every nook and cranny of society in the from of "special interests" and must be hunted down and burned. All-in-all the Puritans had weaker standards of moral purity. They would allow eating Doritos. I'm not claiming that all modern pseudo-religious rules are wrong, just that it is clearly a religious code immune to rational discussion. There's nothing wrong with the Golden Rule, either, yet it is clearly a religious rule. There are many examples of pseudo-religions cast as ideologies: communism, fascism, and a host of other 'isms. Get rid of modern housebroken religion, and will be replaced with a virulent pseudo-religion. It is inevitable because people must have shortcuts for decision making. One can dream about an ideal world where everyone is a model of Socratic rationality, but we cannot get there by destroying religion. The best strategy is to evolve into something as close as we can get. A model is suggested by Japan. Nearly everyone is Shinto or Buddhist, usually both. They honor the religious traditions and try to live by the religious rules. Yet about 70% of the population is atheist. Society evolves not only recognizing tradition, but genuinely valuing it. The resolution supposes that the traditional religions ought to be destroyed. What improvement would that yield? 3) Destroy: "To unbuild; to pull or tear down; to separate virulently into its constituent parts; to break up the structure and organic existence of; to demolish. ... But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves. --Ex. xxxiv. 13." http://define.com... Pro's wording of the resolution is classic Biblical wrath. Rationalist should be persuading, not playing God. Religions have excesses, and the goal should be to moderate those excesses. The extreme of Jihadism must be defeated, and so "destroyed" is probably the operative work in that case. But in general, something like Catholic prohibition of birth control can be countered effectively without demolishing the Catholic church. Few Catholics in developed countries obey the prohibition, so it's likely to eventually disappear. In Africa, Christian missionaries are the primary force opposing the traditional practice of female genital mutilation. Wanting to destroy the churches to support birth control, while failing to appreciate the good works done is irrational. The irrationality derives, I think, from viewing religion as something other than a social institution. ================= Religion is a stable social institution that has evolved and will continue to evolve. It meets human needs for quick answers to questions about how to live in society. Destroy it, and it will be replaced by a new social creation that is untested and unstable. Rationalists shouldn't destroy, they should help institutions evolve through persuasion. The resolution is negated.