[Analysis and Opinion]
[ Introductory Note: It is never easy to hear someone tell you something that is directly contrary to what you’ve been told all of your life by your parents, teachers and folks that you trust and love the most. However, this website is dedicated to decision-making that is based upon fact-finding and the application thereto of reason, logic, science, and mathematics all balanced by practical considerations for important humanitarian concerns.
The author was raised as a Christian, joined the church, has taken communion and is from a family that, in his earlier years, was reasonably religious. The author does not recall ever hearing a sermon that seemed to convey an evil or mean-spirited message. In fact, just the opposite. Generally, the basic message conveyed in virtually every religious service he ever attended (beyond a strong belief in God and the truth of the words of the Bible) was one of love and forgiveness. The author harbors no animosity towards folks of any religion in any region of the World and has a fairly representative group of friends and acquaintances who profess a belief in God.
As such, although some will undoubtedly feel otherwise (and probably strongly so), this article is not intended to insult anyone or any religious group. Instead, it is intended to be a constructive critique and statement of the reasons why the author believes as he does based upon what the author believes are rational, reasonable and logical arguments.
Please forgive the exclusive use of masculine pronouns. Rest assured that the author believes in equal rights for all sexes (as well as for all other races, religions, ethnicities etc), but the author finds modern politically-correct writing styles to be unnecessarily awkward, especially in this context where God has traditionally been referred to in the masculine form.]
Given what mankind currently knows, no one can prove by rational, logical, mathematical or by scientific means, either the existence or non-existence of God. However, even if the existence of God were somehow proven, unless God were to physically manifest himself and tell us directly what He expects of us, it is impossible for mankind to make a universally accepted determination of what it is that God commands us to do and/or what rules we must live by. To remove reasonable doubt and for mankind to reach a universal consensus, God would essentially have to publicly, openly and directly reveal Himself (in a manner such that His identity and existence were beyond any further question or doubt) and tell all races, tribes and/or cultures exactly what the rules are that we are supposed to live by. Moreover, He would have to tell everyone in perfectly clear terms exactly the same thing.
In this regard, even in religions where God and/or one of his angels, relatives, prophets and/or disciples are said to have appeared and/or manifested himself or themselves to others, that manifestation was always viewed by only an infinitesimally small and very unrepresentative sample of the World’s entire population. If you are God, that is not exactly a fair or convincing way to make everyone believe in You. Nor does it allow for any kind of universal consensus as to what it is we all, as earthlings, must do. Clearly, if one of God’s purposes was to create conditions for mankind to live in peaceful co-existence , He certainly didn’t do a good job of creating the basic conditions upon which all of mankind could agree upon who exactly God is and/or what God’s expectations are. In other words, God more or less set up a situation where peace, love and harmony would be very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve because history as shown, that religious differences have been the cause of a multitude of wars. In short, people are all too willing to persecute and kill each other over religious differences.
Those who insist that others buy into their faith-based belief system are essentially telling others that they must abandon their common sense and ability to think rationally. And worse, they are telling those who are skeptical of faith-based religious dogma that they must accept something (usually religious stories involving miraculous events) that is almost always contrary to what factual history, science, common sense and their own life experience tells them. It is difficult to conceive of any philosophy or attitude that is more presumptuous and contemptuous of people than that. In short, religion almost always ends up insisting that people accept many things as being true that they ordinarily would never otherwise believe.
Bluntly stated, religion demands that people not think for themselves and believe the unbelievable. And this, of course, is virtually never a good idea for anyone who cares about their own well-being. And even worse, it often encourages people to blindly follow some religious or political leader who, in reality, has no more idea about what the ultimate reality is than his congregation. Moreover, to make matters even worse, that leader may use his influence to either line his own pockets or achieve some other selfish political, social, economic or other form of power.
Unfortunately, most religious folks seem to deem it irrelevant that the majority of the world’s population fundamentally disagrees with many of the most profound and fundamental beliefs that they (the religious folks) have. We can say this because, the last time we looked, no one religion has believers that constitute more than fifty percent of the World’s population. But some religious folks don’t even care that others may never believe as they do. This is because, they buy, hook, line and sinker, into the presumptuous idea that they are God’s chosen people. Either that or they believe that they are one of the lucky ones who: (i) was not only fortunate enough to hear about the correct version of who God is but (ii) was also smart enough (that is, smarter than the rest of us) to actually follow through and actually come to believe in the correct religious doctrine.
The very disconcerting and sometimes dangerous implication of the belief by many religious folks that they are either God’s chosen ones and/or that non-believers wont’ get into Heaven, are doomed to Hell, or that their lives are in any way inferior, is that religious folks often view themselves as being somehow privileged and better than the rest of us. In short, the idea that God has one chosen people and/or one preferred group of followers is very divisive and dangerous because it gives license to the believers to look down upon and therefore minimize the significance of the life of others. History has shown many times that religious persecutions (not to mention instances of genocide) are often based on the notion that folks who don’t share the religion of those in power are somehow inferior. Witness the extermination of Jews in Hitler’s Germany.
All of this is, emphatically, not to say that all religious folks look down upon or minimize the lives of everyone else. Thankfully, amongst those that we know, the vast majority do not minimize the lives of others. Nor do they conduct themselves as if to have some kind of moral superiority complex. The problem, however, is: Who knows what really lurks in the minds of men? We say this with a genuine sense of concern because, in an age of increasing xenophobic, jingoistic and other fascist tendencies, religious teachings can often be used to steer blind believers down dangerous, violent, politically destabilizing and discriminatory us-versus-them paths, especially in difficult times.
Moreover, to add to all of the foregoing, organized religious institutions inevitably ask for money—in some religions demanding it as a condition of acceptance into the holy flock. To the extent that this money is used for charitable or reasonable operational purposes this is fine. However, history has also shown that religious institutions almost always end up getting involved in politics. In the old days it was called king-making (today we call it good old fashioned “get our guy elected” politics)—and historically, the political activities of religious leaders have been a direct cause of much war and deadly conflict. We are relatively sure that somewhere there are more than a few well-researched papers exploring in detail the connection between religion, king-making and/or other political and election-related activities throughout history.
In short, one might reasonably ask: Weren’t religions, in reality, originally established in ancient times, not by God, but by cabals of rich and influential people primarily as a means to justify the crowning of one of their own cronies (another rich guy, or worse, some general) to be king to rule over a multitude of poor and uneducated peasants—all while at the same time preserving and defending the wealth and power of all of the other cabal members? (Historically most monarchies and countries that recognized a royal class also asserted that their monarchs (whether king or queen) ruled by “divine right”—and, as such, that they had been appointed to rule by God Himself. ) After all, how does one explain to a large, many times disadvantaged, suffering and/or impoverished group of peasants (who could otherwise be or become very angry) that some other guy has the right to rule them and live a life of luxury, all while they (the peasants etc.) suffer? Remember centuries or even decades ago, mankind was unaware of many of the things we know today from science. People who believe that lightening is caused by the wrath of God are getting to be fewer and farther between. We now know that most things formerly attributed to God have a more non-religious, scientific and commonplace explanation. But the point is long ago that was not true, and so back then having the church and royal classes assert that they ruled by divine right was a more convincing argument to the peasants and other nonroyal classes.
Let’s assume, however, that the origins and/or practice of religion had no evil purpose and/or that its founders and religious leaders were and are good and noble people with the very best of intentions for the their followers and/or for mankind in general. Nevertheless, adherence to the principles of reason, logic and science when making decisions, including in the determination of what life’s purpose, is a far better philosophical approach to life than a religious one. Why?
There are probably many reasons, however, let’s just focus on three that are of paramount significance because they have real life significance on a grand scale. The first is that decision-making based on reason, logic and science (which together we will refer to a “Logic”, “Logical” or “Logical Method”) is decision making based on facts, not raw subjective belief.
The second is that all Logical decision-making (herein the “Logical Decision-Making” or” LDM” ) is based on a set of rules, universally agreed upon in society. The big advantage of LDM, is that everyone has throughout history agreed upon these rules. An example of LDM is mathematical problem solving because it is done via a set of rules that everyone is taught in school. Similarly there are courses in Logic that one can take in school (usually college). The rules of Logic also operate much like mathematical rules and the rules of Logic are also universally accepted.
The scientific method, which is also part of LDM The scientific method relies on empirical (real-life) observation to determine facts and the rules of physics, chemistry and biology by which nature and existence operate. Moreover, and of critical importance is that fact that every factual conclusion and every rule that is accepted as legitimate under the scientific method must be independently verified by at least a second (and usually many more) observations by a third party. Peer review is often involved. In other words, if it can’t be duplicated in a second, third, fourth etc test, experiment or observation scientists do not accept the proposed fact or scientific rule as being true.
LDM is also based on reason. This is where things can get tricky because LDM is not perfect. What is “reasonable” is often subject to debate and so many times reasonable people can disagree on a proposed course of action and/or as to what the facts are. Sometimes the facts are not totally discernable. And many times people have to act on imperfect information and before 100 percent of the facts are known with certainty. This whole area gets into areas of mathematics dealing with statistics and probabilities. Note however, that the fields of statistics and probabilities have, universally agreed upon rules. In short, the LDM is honest enough to provide an objective basis, for recognizing and honestly dealing with uncertainty and probabilities. Moreover, sound reasoning always makes an earnest and energetic attempt to honestly, objectively and in an unbiased fashion determine the true cause and effect relationship between facts and what the probable outcome will be, if a certain decision is made.
The bottom line is that problems cannot be solved if one does not make decisions based on the facts, which is what LDM emphasizes. History has shown time and time again that problems cannot be solved based on sheer subjective belief. One can believe something all day, but if that belief is not based on fact then the problem will not be solved. For this reason, LDM is better at solving any and all problems than religion is.
It is also important to note that LDM is not an idea that inherently favors or disfavors any race, sex, tribe, religion, nationality, political party, philosophy or other group. It is totally neutral when it comes to the making of policy decisions. Democrats can have great ideas, so can Republicans. Moreover, so can independents and members of any other party. Importantly, this means that LDM is inherently unbiased, objective and neutral which means that all folks are far more likely to accept its use in decision-making. Moreover, it is inclusive because the source of the idea doesn’t really matter, it’s whether the idea is a good idea or a bad one that counts. If LDM is employed by all parties in any kind of debate, be it political, social, medical, familial or whatever, disagreements should only be about (i) what the true facts are (and/or what the probabilities of their being true are): (ii) what the most likely or expected outcome will be of any decision; (iii) a weighing of the probable tangible and intangible costs and benefits of that action; (iv) who will benefit and who will bear the cost or burden of that action; (v) by how much; (vi) is it legal, affordable and doable Note that the foregoing does not mention, “consistent with religious principles”. LDM does not presuppose that any social or political position or philosophy is preferrable to another. This is because subjective, biased and unprovable beliefs and suppositions have no place in LDM. (While there may be other considerations in LDM, the foregoing would typically be the most important ones.). [Moreover, and having said the foregoing, for reasons stated below the position here is that it is in the interests of peace and harmony, and therefore in everyone’s interest that all decisions also be consistent with the ”Golden Rule” (which is hereinafter discussed).]
And thirdly, one cannot easily resolve differences with people who strictly adhere to religious beliefs that have no independent verifiable basis in fact. Simply put, too often one cannot reason with a religious person about matters that are inconsistent with their perceived religious beliefs. What makes this fact dangerous for all concerned is that it often leads to violence and bloodshed. Given this fact, in an era with nuclear, biological and weapons of mass destruction, one has to wonder if religion is not a dangerous thing when it preaches things that are otherwise inconsistent with societal norms or the Golden Rule discussed below.
There may be other reasons why LDM is preferrable to a faith-based philosophy but the foregoing are reason enough to adopt a LDM philosophy.
So this leaves mankind in the unenviable position of having a world where some or all of its inhabitants make their own determination as to what the purpose of life is, while others blindly believe in some unprovable religious dogma that is not followed by more than fifty percent of the rest of the world. In essence, this means that unless we want eternal conflict or, worse, to fight and kill each other all of the time then we’d better find a way to get along or we are doomed.
We make the major assumption here that mankind generally is better off if he is at peace than if he is at war. We also assume, and sincerely hope, that the vast majority of humans agree with this first assumption. After all, economies and standards of living generally grow (or at least have a much better chance of growing) during peacetime than during war. Wars destroy not only lives but economic wealth as well. Moreover, it’s a lot easier to sleep at night knowing that your neighbor or someone from another nation isn’t going to bomb you or invade your neighborhood, destroy your house and perhaps kill you and your family. (While there are clearly times when war has benefited the victors with plunder, obviously those benefits are shared by only a small group of people. The losers obviously do not share in spoils of war and often suffer not only a big loss of wealth, but also loss of freedom and their dignity (if not their life). But even if one is a soldier in an army having unrivalled might, who wants to live under the constant threat of war or conflict? Even Alexander (whose army always won) had many of his soldiers die or get maimed in battle.)
It must be emphasized here that all of this doesn’t mean that religion is bad in all respects. In fact, many constructive teachings have religious roots. And, even the most ardent atheist would have to admit that most religions do a lot of good in a lot of ways. They often run charities and help the poor, the sick and the less fortunate. Teachings of love and forgiveness are obviously constructive and promote the well-being of all mankind. But this is because such teachings promote empathy, respect for others and hence peace. But here again, pursuing peace is what all reasonable and rational people realize that they must do irrespective of whether they are religious. That is, unless of course, of course, they are excessively self-centered, narcissistic, sociopathic and/or want to go to jail or live in a state of constant worry about future conflicts.
One of the most important and noble of all teachings found in many religions is the Golden Rule, which to paraphrase, teaches that one should conduct oneself in such a way as to treat others as he or she would like to be treated. The Golden Rule is thus closely tied with the notion of the need for all folks to respect others. We strongly believe in the Golden Rule for the basic reason that adherence to it is, in the end, virtually always required in order to achieve and/or to maintain peace amongst folks who come from different backgrounds and/or have differing points of view. This is especially true in the context of avoiding or resolving conflicts between peoples from different nations, tribes, races and/or religions.
But the Golden Rule is perhaps deficient on one respect. It doesn’t go far enough. Someone else may not want to be treated like you want to be treated, simply for their own unique religious, cultural or other reasons. This is where the idea of mutual respect hints at the importance of trying, as often as possible, to see the world through the eyes of someone else (particularly potential adversaries) and showing a significant level of respect for their beliefs and the way they conduct their lives. This doesn’ t mean one has to always agree with someone else’s point of view, but if one understands another’s viewpoint then he is better able to avoid conflict and keep the peace, especially if he is willing to look hard enough for ways of constructively avoid the conflict. But again, this is where beliefs by some that they are God’s chosen people often interferes with their ability to empathize with others. And this, in turn, can very much inhibit the ability of all to achieve and/or maintain peace.
Religious folks will often argue that someone who doesn’ t believe in God has no morals. In essence, asserting that atheists are amoral and/or cannot be trusted. This again, is dangerous propaganda that has been declared from the pulpit of many religions since the beginning of recorded history. The dual threats of the risk of eternal damnation in Hell and/or exclusion from the ability to associate with friends, family and other members of the community (that is, the threat of ostracism) have historically been two of primary tools used by many religions to threaten and therefore coerce others into believing in their version of God. Many religious leaders should be condemned for using this tactic to get and keep followers. Who wants to burn eternally in Hell? The thought is absolutely terrifying. And who wants to be viewed by members of the community as untrustworthy and/or be kicked out of society? Frankly, it’s all a very manipulative and an unfair way of trying to convince people that they should believe in a particular version of religion. After all, as has been stated, no one can prove that God does not exist. As such, there’s no real defense to this kind of unfair manipulation. The problem is that history has shown that these unscrupulous tactics by some religious leaders work, especially with poorer, disabled, uneducated and/or otherwise disadvantaged audiences.
The bottom line: Fear not the atheist or the agnostic. While there may be a few atheists and agnostics who are unscrupulous bad apples, the same can definitely be said for more than a few religious folks. We won’t mention here some of the murderous atrocities and pogroms that have been committed by or in the name of many religions.
And so, without peace there’s less life, only a precarious kind of liberty (that often degenerates into an authoritarian state) and even less happiness. In short, rational thinking people, regardless of whether they believe in God, know or should know (whether consciously or subconsciously) that that it’s almost always in their own personal interest to pursue peace instead of war or conflict. Folks who prefer a path of conflict (or the use of intimidation and/or brute force) to selfishly get their own way usually end up, and with good reason, in prison or dead. Unfortunately for mankind, however, some of these closet sociopaths always somehow end up in positions of power and influence or, worse, running countries as dictators.
This last point of course requires recognition that sometimes the use of force, and even war, is justified. The most obvious example, of course is something that the common law recognizes–namely, that the use of reasonably necessary force is justified in defense of one’s own life, liberty or property. However, addressing the issue of when force and/or war are justified is complicated and would require a treatise to address. But the major point is that the attainment and maintenance of peace is almost always in everybody’s self and collective interest, and therefore, the pursuit of peace should be the primary purpose of everyone’s life; or at least an essential part thereof.
How then is peace achieved? This is yet another very deep subject worthy of it’s own essay and obviously requires the cooperation of virtually everyone. However, the short answer is that the pursuit of peace requires that we all do what we can to make sure that everyone affected by any course of conduct or state of affairs feels as though they are being treated fairly. People get angry and sometimes very violent when they feel that they’ve been treated unfairly. Fair treatment ultimately requires a fair form of government.
What is a healthy and fair form of government? Again, much more needs to be written about this subject, but in short, a healthy and fair form of government is almost certainly one where everyone feels that they have a say in governmental decision-making. And, since everyone cannot be part of the government, this in turn, requires the next best thing—namely an elected representative government where citizens have the right to vote for elected officials who they believe will reflect their desires and values in all governmental law and policy making.
Again, time and space limitations come into play, but it is highly likely that promoting peace and fairness requires that a representative government, like the one described, also include the following characteristics: Three co-equal branches of government (a legislative, executive and judicial branch); the rule of law (that applies not only to its citizenry but to the government and it’s officials as well); the freedoms found in the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution; recognition and enforcement of notions of Equal Protection and Due Process of Law; separation of church and state, and a federal system where certain powers are reserved to states and localities so that they may address their own unique local concerns. In short, it requires something very akin to the U.S. Constitution.
The bottom line is that truly enlightened folks know that practicing the Golden Rule is in everyone’s interest, including their own. Moreover, a fundamental part of everyone’s purpose in life should be to pursue peace and to support the acquisition and maintenance of a healthy and fair form of government consistent with the provisions and principles just stated.
David Dixon Lentz March 28, 2022
Corrected June 17, 2023
Revised and Corrected June 19, 2023
Copyright © 2022 and 2023; David Dixon Lentz; All Rights Reserved.