Rationalists should attempt to destroy religion.

Let me begin by thanking my opponent for debating with me on this issue at such length. I'd like to start off where you and I both agree. We both agree that irrationality should be opposed in all of its various forms. This would indict religion, pseudo religion, astrology, alternative medicine, witchcraft, liberal dogmas, conservative dogmas, conspiracy theories, Sarah Palin etc. However, right now I'm focusing on religion. 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. We shall worry about pseudo religions in another debate. We both believe that bad ideas in religion, and elsewhere, exist on a continuum. Not all religions will be directly implicated in violent behavior. Indeed, there are many forms of seemingly benign irrationality. You pin this down with remarkable precision when you cite astrology as an example. People don't generally turn themselves into bombs or send their children to clear minefields on the basis of their astrological beliefs. [1] ======= Case Con ======= "There is something wrong with the all-encompassing "destroy religion," and Pro admits it when he carves exceptions." 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. [2] Although I do concede that some religions deserve to be destroyed sooner than others. Faith is as much the mother of hatred as reason is the guardian of love. === "However, the idea that a conceited elite can redesign society to make it better is implausible." Didn't you ever read about the scientific revolution or the enlightenment? Perhaps you would do well to pick up where you left off. [3] What it Socrates and other Greek philosophers took your very shoddy advice about the importance of new ideas or individuals? === "Pro grants that religion is a mechanism for social evolution, as I have claimed. He argues that it does not work fast enough. So what is the track record for the modern pseudo-religions: communism, fascism, and socialism?" If I understand your position correctly then you've created a false dichotomy. Society can either adopt religion or pseudo religions in your view. I hope it doesn't seem ad hominen when I say that I think your views on these matters are intellectually lazy- but they are lazy in the extreme. === Atheism can't be held responsible for evil actions that atheists commit because it isn't a worldview any more than atoothfairyism is. For this reason it can't be chastised for anything bad that atheists do. You're not comparing like with like. Atheists are only a group in the same way non-astrologers are a group. ====== Case Pro ====== I acknowledge that not all religions are directly implicated in acts of violence and still maintain that my position is strong enough to absorb this concession. Insofar as you don't attempt to alter the word religion to include humanism or other non-faith based ideologies I maintain that all religion should be destroyed. Christianity without miracles, faith or a God isn't really Christianity. Moreover, it isn't really religion. Religion, in the sense I'm using the word, implies faith in various propositions e.g. God, miracles, reincarnation, vicarious redemption, the divine origin of certain books etc. Rationalists should destroy religion because: 1.There is a deep-rooted link between religion and violence. This has gone unrefuted, insofar as you agree with me that it doesn't directly indict certain religions like Jainism. The core tenets of Islam however, can be held responsible for the acts of 911 and other acts of suicidal terrorism insofar as these acts are perpetrated out of deference to faith. The Koran is littered with directives to kill, convert, or subjugate infidels and these directives are still being acted upon. 2.Our irreconcilable religious differences are inspiring an appalling amount of conflict. This has also gone unrefuted apart from some vague platitudes that you gave. 3.Religion balkanizes humans into separate and incompatible moral communities. I haven't heard you raise any contentions with this so it still stands. 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. This has gone completely unchallenged so allow me to expand upon it. Religious moderates like members of the Church of England or the Quakers give cover, and thus tacit support, to religious extremists that perpetrate acts of violence and are thus implicated in the violence. They accomplish this by their insistence on having their unsupported and unsupportable beliefs defended without respect to evidence or reason. If you can defend the doctrine of the trinity on mere "faith" what's to prevent someone from defending the metaphysics of martyrdom on "faith"? By not calling into question the very project of believing in things on faith all religions, even Jainism, shares a burden in religious violence. What are the odds people would fly planes into our buildings if they grew up in a culture that was built upon reason and did not respect faith? It would be no more likely than Muhammad's flying to heaven on a winged hoarse. [4] 6.Religion stands in the way of medical research and social progress. I've given several examples about this and you've said pretty much nothing in response. 7. The unsupported supernatural claims of religion are patently absurd. None of what I have written so far should be perceived as a denial of the importance of ethics in our lives. We can teach our children things like the golden rule as an utterly wise distillation of our ethical impulses without ever having to lie to them about God and his magic books. Nothing needs to be believed on insufficient evidence in order to obtain a collection of overarching principles. The notion that we need certain levels of mythology in our culture to have cogent moral principles or to do charitable work is simply untrue. Nothing in the destruction of religion would entail us being reduced to stupefied ignoramuses that have to examine all of our decisions about the world from scratch. ======== Conclusion ======== Millions of people suffer and die for no good reason whatsoever. That so much of this suffering can be attributed to religious hatred, religious divisions, religious wars, and religious diversions of scarce resources makes it all the more obscene. Our situation is so bizarre. Millions of people are being murdered and jailed over what is little more than ancient literature. We should marshal the same emotional response to this situation we would evoke if we woke up one morning and found that millions of people were dying over rival interpretations of the plays of Shakespeare. The collusion of religious moderates in this diabolical enterprise makes them acquiescent and thus implicated in the religious violence that plagues our world. When religion isn't motivating people to murder each other it's stultifying the minds of children, blocking medical research, impeding social progress and creating divisive in groups and out groups. For these reasons and many more I affirm the resolution that religion should be destroyed at the hands of rationalists. Best, Freeman Sources [1] http://www.globalsecurity.org... [2] http://moses.creighton.edu... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.allaboutturkey.com...