Rationalists should attempt to destroy religion.

The resolution proposes an intellectual jihad to "attempt to destroy religion." The resolution assumes that the only important characteristic of religion is dangerous mystical belief. That's a wrong assumption. Religion carries forward the evolving traditions of society. People need rules to live by: don't lie, cheat, steal, or harm others, respect reasonable customs of society, work hard, and work with your community. Many mystical beliefs, while wrong, are harmless. Jefferson's Deism or the Dahlia Lama's Buddhism harm no one. We should not attempt to destroy religion. We should appreciate it's stabilizing influence and let it evolve as a social institution. Over time, the mystical beliefs will fade in importance. Pro argues, "The ad hoc assertion that there may exist more harmful pseudo religions than some traditional religions is not a logical reason that religion should be preserved or that pseudo religion will always prevail upon religions demise or that both can't be simultaneously eroded." That pseudo-religions exist and are harmful is not an "ad hoc assertion." It's born out by the history of the last 150 years. Religious violence certainly still exists, but it's the minority of the violent conflicts of modern times. Pro's prime example of religion being destroyed is China, where the communist pseudo-religion has been much worse. The potential for harm is the same in religions and pseudo-religions because they both harness irrationality in the name of community. While the potential is equal, pseudo-religions are likely to be worse than the traditional religions they displace. It is because pseudo-religions as social institutions they are unevolved. Fresh ideologies are more effective at promoting all the things that Pro claims to characterize religion: balkanization of society, violence, and the waste and misdirection that comes from irrational behavior. Simply compare Chinese Communism to Tibetan Buddhism. If all existing religions were instantly abolished, we would soon get a voracious new set of religions and pseudo-religions. People are inherently tribal, they need simple rules, and they have all the instincts that fuel religion. The question is how those needs will be met. The virtue of traditional region is that as social institution time has purged most of the consequential unreasonableness out of it. Jihad and religious wars are not the norm for 99% of the world's believers. The pseudo-religions are not so tame. Rationalists should not attempt to destroy religion because traditional religion is a proven method of social evolution, it is better than what is likely to replace it, and rationalists should not adopt a goal of destruction. Rational people should not set out to destroy the truth in religion along with the mysticism. Pro has the burden of proof to establish that if traditional religious values are destroyed, that what will replace it will be better. He has not met that burden. Pro argues, "I contend that religious faith is harmful enough by its very nature that it's worthy of destruction even if it doesn't lead to violence. It stultifies the minds of children and is generally correlated with all sorts of societal ills." Pro's reference considers only two social ills: rejection of the theory of evolution and homicide rates. The reference points out that the least religious country, Japan, was most advanced in both categories. How is it that Japan was rated the least religious country, when another of Pro's references accurately shows that 96% of the population is Buddhist or Shinto? It is because Japan has the largest percentage of atheists. The Buddha himself was an atheist, advising that the question of the existence of God was not one to profitably pursue. Moreover, Japan's low homicide rate is surely due to the Buddhist cultural tradition. What the reference misunderstands, and Pro wrongly argues, is that religion is not mainly about Gods and mystical beliefs, it is about community and cultural tradition. There is also the idea that lack of belief in evolution is an important social ill. Faith-based opposition to evolution is wrong, but less harmful than, for example, the belief that cities ought to be sacrificed to avoid inconveniencing minnows. Ten percent of Americans believe that the sun revolves around the earth. It is pathetic, but it's also harmless. No one is killed or injured, and the cost to the public is small. Classifying lack of belief in evolution as a social ill shows an irrational obsession with wrong beliefs attributable to religion, as opposed to more widespread and harmful beliefs that are not religious. It's wrong for rational people to be so especially emotional about religous beliefs that err. 1. "There is a deep-rooted link between religion and violence." The link lies in tribalism as a cause of both religion and violence. Pro admits that there are peaceful religions, so clearly it isn't inherent in religion. Getting rid of religion will leave tribalism to express itself in ways untempered by tradition. 2. "Our irreconcilable religious differences are inspiring an appalling amount of conflict." Quite true, but the question is whether the situation would be improved if religion were destroyed. Would now-peaceful Buddhists be more peaceful if raised under one of the new political ideologies offering rules for living? Pro must prove they would, and has not. 3. "Religion balkanizes humans into separate and incompatible moral communities." Religion is a response to innate desires for community, tribalism, and for simple rules for living. Eliminating religion does not change human nature, so humans will naturally find a different expression of those needs. We should upset harmless traditions, only the dysfunctional ones. Jihadists must go, Jains, Buddhists, and even Presbyterians should be left alone insofar as their beliefs are harmless. 4. "Religion, very often, degrades ones ability to think coherently and thus make rational choices about the world." It degrades thought on topics that are dealt with by the religion, but I don't accept that it carries outside the religion. People are remarkable compartmentalized. That Jefferson believed in a Day of Judgment did not impair his thinking about government, and I think that holds widely. Many atheists hold wildly irrational beliefs on subjects other than religion. Some believe that government is, for all practical purposes, omnipotent, omniscient, and good --a ridiculous idea. Religious beliefs have generally been relegated to matters that do not affect the here-and-now. They worry about thinks that cannot be proved or disproved, and which are thus harmless. 5. "By not calling into question the very project [province?] of believing in things on faith all religions, even Jainism, shares a burden in religious violence." The theory is that failing to attack harmless belief supports harmful belief. If so then failure by others to attack astrology (harmless belief) makes them complicit in fascism (harmful belief). Insofar as that's true, it doesn't indict religion any more than others. I think there is an obligation to generally oppose irrational thinking, but the much greater obligation is oppose harmful ideologies. Suppose I wanted to support the resolution "Fire should be abolished." How would I go about that? I would make a long list of the horrors of house fires, hotel fires, and forest fires, and fires in planes, trains, boats, and automobiles. I would claim my opponent had never countered that any of these were not very bad. I would then claim that fire must be banned do to the overwhelming evidence. All that argument lacks is perspective. The same is true of Pro's arguments against religion. Religion is a response to human needs, not the driver. Rational people should oppose harmful irrationality. Sometimes that is religion, more often these days it is not. If we do that, society will progress.