Does religion do more harm than good?

So, earlier I wrote a response to an article called "Myth 2: Religion Does More Harm Than Good," sparked by an exchange on Facebook. In that response, I simply went through the article and pointed out the good and bad parts. I didn't actually address the question "Does religion do more harm than good?" That's what I aim to do now. Of course, there have been entire books written on this subject ("God is Not Great," by Christopher Hitchens, for example), so it's unlikely that I would be able to properly address this question in a single blog post. It should also be noted that it's unlikely I can do this without treading ground already walked by others, but I'll do what I can in giving a (relatively) brief answer.

Before I begin, it would be helpful if I define how I'm using religion. This may seem an obvious thing, but the definition has been debated before. So, the definition I'm using is as follows: religion is  a belief in supernatural forces and/or entities that have an effect on the natural world. It's a belief in entities or forces that are undetectable by any natural means (invisible, inaudible, etc). And yes, I'm blatantly stealing that definition from the one Greta Christina uses in her talk "Why Are You Atheists So Angry?" It's useful, and tends to be how we see religion playing out in the real world, rather than in sociological circles (not that sociological definitions are necessarily bad, but the ones I've seen are so broad you could toss in love of a sports team and have it match).

So let's start with a look back at a few things in the "Myth 2" article. Father Williams had this to say:

Hitchens and company claim to follow the Gospel principle of judging a tree by its fruits, but as for the tree of religion, they consider only the rotten fruits, never the good ones. The innumerable saints, geniuses and benefactors nourished by the Christian faith simply count for nothing. 

In making their case, Hitchens and company refrain from considering the almost countless ways that Christianity has benefited the world as we know it today. 

What of the hospitals? What of the orders of nuns established to care for the dying or educate young girls? What of the soup kitchens and orphanages? What of the preservation of classical culture? What of the artistic and literary treasures?

Let's start with hospitals. I really don't need to enumerate the good that hospitals have done, but I'll list a few points anyway: setting broken bones, treating cancer, helping heart attack victims, and oh yea, saving lives. Lots and lots of lives. This is the case for secular as well as religious hospitals. This is unequivocally a good thing. However, in December of 2010, Bishop Thomas Olmsted of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix stripped a hospital, St. Joseph's, of it's Catholic affiliation because the hospital performed an abortion for the purpose of saving a woman's life. From the letter the Bishop sent to the hospital administration:

I now ask that CHW agree to the following requirements by Friday, December 17, 2010. Only if all of these items are agreed to, will I postpone any action against CHW and St. Joseph’s Hospital. Specifically, I require the following in order for me to postpone any further canonical action directed against St. Joseph’s Hospital: 

1. CHW must acknowledge in writing that the medical procedure that resulted in the abortion at St. Josephs’ hospital was a violation of ERD 47, and so will never occur again at St. Joseph’s Hospital.

The abortion in question was performed to save a woman's life when she developed severe symptoms of pulmonary hypertension. She was dying, and without the abortion, she would die. Plain, and simple. There was no saving both. Yet, the "good" Bishop is requiring a promise that it would never happen again, even if it was the only way to save the woman's life. (I recall seeing an article written by a woman who went through a circumstance that sounded just like this, including the five kids, Catholic hospital, life threatening pregnancy, and reluctance on the hospital's part to have the abortion performed, but have been unable to find it. It might have been the same woman, but have been unable to find it. Anyone have a link to it?)

That Bishop uses his religious views to claim authority to let a woman die. He apparently wants all the Catholic hospitals to follow his authority in this matter (his letter is full of his claims to authority). That's a whole lot of harm, right there.

But there are other goods that religion does. For example, orders of nuns who take care of the dying and educate young girls. Mother Teresa is perhaps the most famous for taking care of the dying. She founded the Missionaries of Charity to care for the poor and sick, believing that she was following a calling placed on her by God. Here's a quote from Mother Teresa, which was given in response to a question at a 1981 press conference:

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."

That passion for suffering was on display in her 'hospices.' She did not provide painkiller, even in the worst cases. She felt that suffering was a way to be closer to Jesus. In other words, her religious views provided a very direct harm to people.

Moving on. In 2004, The Salvation Army threatened to close all of their soup kitchens in New York City if the city enacted legislation that would've required them and other businesses that deal with the government to provide benefits to the partners of gay employees. That's thousands of homeless who would've been affected. According to one Army official, "You cannot change theological views. Those are so deeply embedded, they form the root of the faith itself." The Salvation Army thinks gay sex is wrong, and was willing to cause harm to the homeless as a result.

I have very little to say about the preservation of classical treasures, or of the artistic value of religiously inspired pieces. Those things are important, although it's an open question if they're more important than the other, very real harms I've mentioned. I would however note that for the longest time, the patrons of artists were religious (and truthfully, probably the artists themselves), so it's hardly surprising.
_______________________________________________
But all I've really done so far is list some examples of harm caused by religion, using Father Thomas Williams's questions as a jumping off point. I have not yet shown clear reason to think religion does more harm than good, on balance. So, let me do that now. For this next part, I'm indebted to Greta Christina and JT Eberhard, as well as William K. Clifford's "The Ethics of Belief" (1877), specifically for making arguments that inform my views on this.

There is one thing that religions everywhere have in common: Faith. Now, before I go further, let me define how I'm using that word in this argument:

the belief in something without sufficient evidence to warrant belief, or the belief in something when the evidence contradicts the belief

Keep that definition in mind when you read my argument. "Faith" is often used in normal discourse to refer to things unrelated to religious belief, spiritual beliefs, or anything else that definition might refer to. For example, a husband might say to his wife "I have faith in your abilities" when she's worried about a job interview, or a college test, or some such. His "faith" in such a case could be better described as confidence, a confidence based on past experience with her, in which he's seen that she's talented, skilled, and good at what she does. Or, in another case, he might say "I have faith you haven't cheated on me," and in such a case "trust" is what he's actually talking about, based on the evidence of his experience with her, in which she's demonstrated integrity, and that she loves him enough to maintain the monogamy they've agreed to. I'm sure you can think of other examples. The point is that to avoid confusion and the fallacy of equivocation, I need to define how I'm using the word.

Anyway. Religion of all sorts have as a base faith. This faith underpins not just the factual claims of a religion ("God created the Universe, and us," "There's an afterlife," "We are judged upon death to determine if we belong in heaven or hell"), but also the moral claims that are supposed to follow from the factual claims. When you believe that God exists, and believe that God has moral authority, and dictates how we spend eternity, then you have good reason to follow the rules that you believe God has laid down, no matter if they conflict with your own thinking and reason.

Faith inspires people to do many things. It inspires people to be honest, to give to charity, to be generous, avoid violence, and to have hope. It also inspires people to engage in bigotry, oppression of women (see "Does God Hate Women?" by Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom for an excellent showing of exactly how religion oppresses women, even today), oppression of homosexuals, child abuse ("spare the rod, spoil the child"), and ignorance of science:

When asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people say they would continue to hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary scientific finding, according to the results of an October 2006 Time magazine poll. Indeed, in a May 2007 Gallup poll, only 14% of those who say they do not believe in evolution cite lack of evidence as the main reason underpinning their views; more people cite their belief in Jesus (19%), God (16%) or religion generally (16%) as their reason for rejecting Darwin's theory.

It may seem that the balance is coming out in favor of calling it equal in the question "Does religion do more harm than good," but I don't think it is. Faith provides a cop-out of any question. It let's you claim "It just feels right," "It makes me happy," or "I had a dream" as valid reasons for believing basically anything. Even when this leads to a positive, agreeable conclusion, such as "Don't rape women," it's still dangerous. If the reason that you agree with "Don't rape women" is because you think women are, in all but name, the property of their fathers first, and then husbands after marriage, rape becomes a matter of property vandalism, rather than a violation of a woman's right to control her body and sexuality. And if your reason for believing that is "God declared it so" and your reason for believing in God is faith, then faith has become a serious problem. Arguing against the premise that women are property is going to be very difficult, maybe impossible, if your faith tells you that God is the dictator of morality.

It's not just the extreme views in which faith can become a problem. If you have faith in karma, and that everything will work out all right in the end, then there's a strong chance that you won't do everything you need to do to help everything work out in the end. You're more likely to do all that's necessary if you consider that not everyone has a happy ending, and good people do have bad things happen to them, and that bad things sometimes never go away before death.

Of course, it's possible that if religion didn't so very often treat faith as a virtue, and advocate for it, that the dangers of faith could be minimized. I don't know, but I would certainly like to see a world where we tried that out for once, a world in which this quote by William Lane Craig didn't make sense to apparently 64% of the American public:

Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa.

 Yet, that is the world we're in. A world in which faith, and therefore religion, harms far more than it helps.

A response to a modern "myth"

Recently, I think I might have touched a few nerves on Facebook. I got asked why I come across as angry so often in some of my posts there that touch on religion, and so I answered. I blatantly stole the format Greta Christina used when she wrote "Atheists and Anger," and listed off a whole lot of reasons that I find to be angry about religion. I had some push-back and objections, and was accused of implying that "all religious people are assholes." I responded appropriately (which means, respectfully, and explaining my position as needed). A day or two later, I saw a link from one of those objectors, which, sans any personal comment from my friend, I took as an attempt to rebut my assertion that religion has done more harm than good. I told my friend I would examine it in more detail over the weekend. This post is the result of that, posted here because this will probably be long, and because the nature of the article cried out for a public rebuttal. 

The article is from the National Catholic Register, and is entitled "Myth 2: Religion Does More Harm Than Good," by a Father Thomas Williams, and dated April 1, 2008 (it appears to be an excerpt from a book, or perhaps a distillation of a section in a book, called "Greater Than You Think: A Theologian Answers the Atheists About God"). I know, that's ancient times on the internet, but the article is still relevant, even four years later. I think I'll respond to it by first addressing what's good or bad about the arguments, and then I'll go ahead and address whether I've changed my mind about religion being more harmful than not. Let's get started.

In their attacks on God and religion, the neo-atheist authors such as Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are especially vehement in their accusations concerning the effects of religion on the public order. 

The atheists charge that religion is a net evil for civilization, and allege that, on the whole, our society would be healthier and more secure without religious belief.

So far, so good. That's a fair summary of the conclusion many of us have reached (by us, I mean "New (Gnu) Atheists"; I'm not as popular as Hitchens, Dawkins, or Harris).

Hitchens, for instance, in his book God Is Not Great, asks whether the net effect of religion is positive or negative. Does religion do more harm than good (p. 217)? 

He answers with a resounding “Yes!”

Well, I haven't read that book (so I can't properly say how accurate Father Williams is portraying the book), but that does match up with my understanding of the view Hitchens held in life.

Religion is the cause of all social woes. The provocative subtitle of his book — How Religion Poisons Everything — seems to imply that religion does nothing but harm.

Hmm. Now we start to see problems. "Religion is the cause of all social woes." I am not aware of anyone claiming that "religion is the cause of all social woes." That's a very strong, very broad claim. Father Thomas is setting up a straw man fallacy here, an argument that's easy to knock down and claim he's defeated, but it's not actually the argument his opponent's making. Yet, with some sleight of hand, he can claim that it is. "Religion poisons everything" is a strong claim, true, but it's still not a claim that religion is the only cause, nor is it necessarily a claim that religion is a cause to every social woe--the woe might have already been there, and religion just made it worse. Naughty, naughty, Father Williams, trying to trick your readers like that. Not very honest of you.

This may strike us as strange, since the common wisdom of humanity has always held that religion makes people better, not worse. Our own experience often backs this up.

Just because an idea is popular, does not mean the idea is right. Ad populum fallacy, for those keeping score--claiming or implying that because a bunch of people agree with something, or are doing something, that must make it right, or worth doing. The popular question parents ask kids "If all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you jump off too?" is an attempt to inoculate our children against that fallacy. Some examples of popular ideas, either now or in the past: the earth is flat, women are inferior to men, chocolate is delicious, and (ironically) the Catholic Church is wrong (the RCC has roughly 1 billion adherents, in a world of 7 billion people, meaning most people think the RCC is wrong). In other words, popularity of an idea says nothing about it's truth. Also, my own experience has not backed up the idea that religion makes people better, but hey, he did say "often," so maybe I can ignore that quibble.

So what possible reasons could the atheists have to make the extravagant claim that religious belief has a negative effect on people’s behavior? What evidence do they put forward? 

On close examination, it turns out that the atheists’ real evidence is rather thin.

Given your track record at this point, Father Williams, I'm losing confidence in your ability to back that assertion up. But we'll see.

Rather than examine religious teachings and practice to discover their effects on society, Hitchens, for example, prefers to offer anecdotal evidence for his claim.

Anecdotes, or examples? There is a difference. Still, like I said, I haven't read the book, so I'll assume anecdotes, and anecdotes do not equal data, that's true.

He begins his 13th chapter titled “Does Religion Make People Behave Better?” with a personal attack on Martin Luther King Jr. 

Here Hitchens makes a clever, though absurd, assertion. He asks whether King’s Christianity made him a better person. His answer is that yes, Martin Luther King did all sorts of good things for society in the area of civil rights, but … here’s the kicker … he wasn’t a Christian. He may have said he was a Christian and thought he was a Christian, but he was mistaken, and Hitchens knows better. 

“In no real as opposed to nominal sense,” Hitchens avers, “was [King] a Christian” (p. 176). 

By what rhetorical legerdemain does Hitchens arrive at this conclusion? 

The only proof he puts forward to back up this thesis is that King didn’t advocate violence and didn’t threaten people with hell, so he must not have been a true Christian. 

This is like saying that Hitchens couldn’t be a true atheist, since he is too nice a guy.

Oh, snap! If that is, in fact, an accurate portrayal of Hitchens's argument in the book, then Father Williams rightly points out a fallacy on Hitchens's part. "Christian" is a fairly broad term, one that is probably best defined as "someone who purports to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ." But that doesn't necessarily mean they're strictly following them, or that ambiguous statements by the Biblical character of Jesus have not been interpreted differently by different people (although how ambiguity is seen in some of those verses is beyond me . . .).  (No True Scotsman fallacy--I've been helping a client with an Intro to Logic course, so I've got these fallacies running through my brain)

So what do our neo-atheist authors make of Christianity’s undeniable contributions to society? 

They basically start with the Martin Luther King premise: If a person did good things, he couldn’t have been religious. If he did bad things, he must have been religious — despite whatever evidence to the contrary. 

And if a clearly religious person did something good, he must have done it despite his being religious, and not because of it. And so the deck is hopelessly stacked against religion from the start.

Damn. And here it was looking like our priestly friend might turn things around. Once again he's back to setting up straw men, and knocking them down. Atheists in general are well aware that religious people have done good things. We are also aware that atheists and other non-religious people have done bad things, Stalin being an example that's all too often trotted out.

The other point there has slightly more of a leg to stand on, in that we are sometimes skeptical that religious people would suddenly stop being good if they lost they're religion. If you're religious, ask yourself this: if you were to stop believing in your religion tomorrow, if you suddenly came to believe that there's no god, no afterlife of reward or punishment, no physics-defying miracles, no karma, no reincarnation, would you stop being a good person? Would you stop being nice to people, or polite? If you donate to charity, or volunteer your time at a homeless shelter, and you've been doing so in the name of Jesus, or to get good karma, would you stop donating or volunteering? If you answer yes, why? If you answer no, why not? I suggest that most people would answer "No," because they would still be good people. Many, many atheists come from religious backgrounds. A number of us were even in the clergy. Many had belief, and some still miss those comforting beliefs. They may have reevaluated certain moral positions they held, but that would generally be done in the spirit of "I want to be a good person. My previous faith said that certain things were evil/good. Now that I know there's no god/afterlife/karma/whatever, I should check if the positions of my previous faith on morality are accurate." Or, "I want to be good. Am I actually being good?"

I will grant however, that there may very well be, even probably be, those individuals out there who are acting good only because they fear the results of angering their god(s). It may even be more common than I hope. To any such people: please don't lose your faith. At any rate, I still don't see the deck as being hopelessly stacked against religion when it comes to answering the question "Does religion cause more harm than good?"

Hitchens and company claim to follow the Gospel principle of judging a tree by its fruits, but as for the tree of religion, they consider only the rotten fruits, never the good ones. The innumerable saints, geniuses and benefactors nourished by the Christian faith simply count for nothing.

I'm not so sure that first sentence is entirely true, but even if it's close to true, the question becomes: how much do we need to? Many of the religious take pains to tell us how great they are, and how you need religion to be good, and don't hesitate to give examples. Which is fine, if they believe it, they should make the argument; but if they're so busy pointing out the good, why shouldn't those of us who disagree point out the bad? At any rate, when I get to addressing the actual question at hand, I'll look at the good as well.

In making their case, Hitchens and company refrain from considering the almost countless ways that Christianity has benefited the world as we know it today. 

What of the hospitals? What of the orders of nuns established to care for the dying or educate young girls? What of the soup kitchens and orphanages? What of the preservation of classical culture? What of the artistic and literary treasures? 

Instead, they choose to enumerate the things that Christianity hasn’t done to better the world or hasn’t done well enough or has simply done too slowly!

Hmm, yes, well, if you're going to seek to demonstrate that religion (not just Christianity, by the way) does more harm than good, then a part of that is going to be rebutting the idea that religion does a lot of good, by showing where it has failed.

This pseudo-methodology can be used to discredit anything. 

Let’s take the example of one of the most beneficent disciplines there is: medicine. Imagine if you were to undertake a study of the biggest blunders committed in the name of medicine throughout history — from botched surgeries, to bleeding with leeches, to cranial boring, to the hellish experimentation afflicted by Nazi doctors on war prisoners — and used such research as an indictment of the entire field of medicine. 

During the unprincipled years of the late 19th century, for instance, medical quackery abounded, and hundreds of traveling medicine shows extolled the virtues of worthless potions and products, from Dr. Kilmer’s Swamp Root, to Dr. Pierce’s Nasal Douche, to Kickapoo Indian Sagwa, to Dr. Hercules Sanche’s Oxydonor. 

By Hitchens’ standard, medicine has been an unmitigated disaster for humanity, and all doctors should be shuffled off to the guillotine! Yet if there can be good medicine and bad medicine, why can’t there be good religion and bad religion?

Actually, no. That analogy doesn't work. Implicit in the claim that "Religion does more harm than good" is the idea that religion does at least some good. What's at issue is the balance of harm vs good. The balance for medicine is clearly on the side of good, and so "Hitchens' standard" would not be condemning doctors to the guillotine.

Moreover, in their search for historical examples to make their case, the atheist authors spill very little ink calmly confronting the teachings and practices of religions today (except in the case of Islamic fundamentalists) and instead spend page after page describing the most hideous examples they can find of errors committed in the name of religion in centuries past.

Actually, most atheist authors that I've looked at -if you include bloggers and commentators, as I do- spill most of their ink confronting the religious teachings and practices of religion today, and not just historical, and not just of Islamic fundamentalists.

For example, Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II before him have repeated over and over again that God and religion cannot be co-opted to justify violence. Violence in the name of religion is an aberration. Yet nowhere do Hitchens or his cronies acknowledge this.

Catholicism is hardly the only religion out there that gets criticized by Gnu Atheists. It cannot follow that what one religious leader of a specific religion says about violence necessarily applies to every religion. Given the history of violence in the name of religion, it could hardly be called an aberration. Still, I'll acknowledge (after a Google search) that both those popes have made statements against violence (though I could not find sources for John Paul's quotes). Of course, there's still a Just War doctrine that's held by the Catholic Church.

Time after time Hitchens makes the claim that anything done in the name of religion could just as well be done in the name of secular humanism. Thus — he says — religion really contributes nothing.

An accurate assessment of the late Hitchens's views, as far as I know them.

He seems to miss the more important point: People actually do many good things by religious motivation that they wouldn’t do otherwise. People could be compassionate and selfless in the name of secular humanism, but the fact remains that they more often are compassionate and unselfish in the name of religion.

There's a claim that needs some examination. I'll attempt to do so in Part 2.

There is no doubt that religious people could do more, and Hitchens’ accusations, though mean-spirited, do oblige us to a serious examination of conscience and a renewed commitment to offer a more consistent witness. 

Yet an impartial examination of the facts will lead any objective observer to the conclusion that religion, and Christianity in particular, has been and continues to be an overwhelming force for personal and social good.

The religious do need to do some serious examination of conscience, that is certainly true. Next, I'll examine the claim itself that "Religion does more harm than good," and see if, as Father Williams claims, it really is a myth, as that was the end of the article. Not a good showing on his part, I think.

Pascal's Wager IS a risk . . . for the believers

Pascal's Wager is used too often by believers (especially of the Christian variety) to challenge non-believers, or warn them, or something. It's been dealt with numerous times in numerous places, and is always found wanting by the very people it's supposed convince. What I have realized though, is that it's also a problem (if indeed it is a problem) for the believers.

For those unfamiliar with it, Pascal's Wager (put forth by philosopher Blaise Pascal), was formulated with the Christian God in mind. It says that when attempting to determine whether to believe in God, it can be approached as a wager, heads or tails. God exists, or he doesn't. If you believe in God and follow his teachings and commandments in life, and you're wrong, you've lost very little -- a few fleshly pleasures perhaps, but not much of consequence. If you believe in God and do as he commands, and you're right, congrats, you get heaven. So it doesn't seem such a bad thing to believe in God. However, if you do not believe in God, and you're right, you gain little over the believer. If you do not believe in God, and you're wrong -- you get hell. Therefore, you potentially gain tremendously by believing, while potentially losing horrendously if you don't believe. The only reasonable wager then is to believe.

I'm not going to bother going through all the usual problems that are put forth with this wager, because it's been done so frequently. Go ahead and Google it,  you'll see. What I want to point out is the problem that I see for believers if they're wrong.

The wager says that there isn't much consequence if you're wrong, and you follow the commandments of God. Well, actually, there's a pretty big risk: the risk that you will cause or support needless suffering and immorality during your life. For example, homosexuality. If the believer follows the teachings that homosexuality is a sin, and uses that as an excuse to deny gay people a chance to love and be loved by their partners, but this is not in fact immoral, then the believer's wager has caused or supported suffering.

If you would like a more obvious example, then consider some of what is done under the auspices of the more fundamentalist Islam beliefs. If those believers are wrong, then things like honor killings, child marriages, female genital mutilation, and other abuses are all completely and utterly without a point. These horrible things will have been done to follow the commands of a non-existent God, causing suffering, misery, and potentially (even likely) caused the believer to miss out on some chances for positive, fulfilling relationships with the people s/he has harmed. I'd call that a huge risk.

Most of us don't like to be mistaken, and most of us don't like it when we make mistakes because of bad information. How much worse would it be to go against our empathetic and altruistic instincts because of a bad wager?

A little bit on faith

Over at Jerry Coyne's site, I found this little gem on the word "faith," as it's used in science and religion.

Let us once and for all make the distinction between the scientific and religious notions of faith—before they’ve become deliberately and permanently conflated by the faithful:

Faith_SCIENCE :  Confidence, based on mountains of experience, that answers to questions about reality are best derived from a combination of evidence and reason.

Faith_RELIGION : Confidence, based on no experience (indeed, even contrary to experience), that answers to questions about “reality” are best derived from personal revelation, authority, scripture, and dogma.

I agree entirely, but I wanted to say a bit more. I consider faith, of the religious variety, to be a delusion. More than that, I consider it to be a dangerous delusion. Why dangerous? Sure, plenty of fundamentalists have done horrible things in the name of faith, but there are also thousands of people who's faith has led and inspired them to do good and great things, such as fighting sexism. Well, yes, that's true. However, reaching a conclusion I (or anyone else) agree with based on a faulty premise is merely an accident -- beneficial perhaps, but not a good thing to encourage. Let me give you an example.

Here's an easy conclusion that most of us (I hope) will agree with: "It is wrong to rape a woman." Now, let's take two individuals, A and B, who both agree with the statement "It is wrong to rape a woman." Huzzah! A and B agree on this issue, and if so inclined, can work together to prevent people from raping women, and can work together to help women who have been raped, right? Great. Now let's consider the reasons that each has for believing "It is wrong to rape a woman."

A believes that a woman's body and sexuality belong to herself, and only herself. All rights and privileges pertaining to her body are hers, and hers alone. Rape is a use of her body that she has not in any way consented to, and therefore violates her rights. Thus, "It is wrong to rape a woman."

B believes that a woman's body and sexuality belong to her husband. All rights and privileges pertaining to her body are her husband's, and only her husband's. Rape is a use of her body that her husband has not in any way consented to, and therefore violates her husband's rights and property. Thus, "It is wrong to rape a woman."

Clearly, though A and B agree on the conclusion, the views and arguments that led to that conclusion are very different, and in fact, mutually exclusive. The two worldviews represented seem likely to lead to very different conclusions in other instances. Can a woman choose her own clothes? Can a woman choose for herself what surgery to undergo? Can a woman say "no" when her husband wants sex? Can a woman choose birth control?

Religious faith has led to good conclusions in a variety of people that I, and many others, would agree with. Faith has led people to donate money to charities, to be polite, to show compassion, to volunteer in food drives, to help the elderly when they need it, and to try ending wars. Faith has led people to fight against slavery, to promote women's rights, and to battle for equal treatment for minority races. Faith has promoted good works and good intentions.

But religious faith has also led to bad conclusions that I, and many others, would never agree with. Faith has led to people being rude, and gleefully telling someone they will go to hell. It has led to wars being started. Faith has led people to promote slavery, to oppress women, and to attempts at discriminating against minority races. Faith has promoted bad works and bad intentions.

Religious faith is often contrary to evidence, and this can lead to very bad decisions. For example, many with religious faith refuse to accept the evidence for evolution, instead believing that all life was created as is. This can lead to bad decisions in medicine. Evolution explains why it's a bad idea to quit taking your antibiotics before the full treatment is done, even though you feel better (it's not just to make sure you don't relapse, though that's part of it). Evolution explains why obesity is so easy to achieve in today's society, and why weight loss is not. Such understanding can lead to beneficial prevention and treatment measures. I could go on.

As another example, religious faith has led some to reject the dangers of global warming and climate change, on the basis that God won't let that happen. This is in contrast to the evidence that climate change is very real, and rather risky. That's a very dangerous attitude, especially when it's a politician making such a claim.

Faith may often lead to good, but since it's so subjective, and based on something not supported by evidence, it often leads to horrors. And because it can be so powerful, and tends to form the basis of the faithful's worldview, it makes it very easy to use faith to justify something bad, even for someone generally good. Faith is dangerous.

Heroes

I have some new personal heroes, people who are inspiring me, adding to my courage, and frankly, renewing hope. Their names are Damon Fowler, Jessica Ahlquist, and Harrison Hopkins. All three have and are fighting to maintain a separation of church and state in our public schools, and have faced trials and tribulations that make anything I dealt with in high school seem minor in comparison. Let me tell you a little bit about them.

Jessica Ahlquist is a high school sophomore in Cranston, RI. She and a friend noticed a painting of a "school prayer" in the auditorium. Eventually, she decided to support the removal of the prayer, and when she had a chance, spoke to a sub-committee meeting about having it removed. Naturally, she thought that they would remove it, since it's obviously a constitutional violation. Well, sadly, she was wrong. After a number of meetings, and various news reports, the school board voted to keep the prayer. Many of her fellow classmates have vilified her and harassed her.  Well, happily, she hasn't given up. She's taking them to court with the assistance of the ACLU. You can find more detail at her blog. The very first post tells the story.

Harrison Hopkins is a senior, graduating this year, at Laurens District High School in Laurens, SC. Inspired in part by Jessica's activism, he contacted the ACLU and the Freedom From Religion Foundation last April regarding the plans of his school to put it to a vote whether or not to have a prayer at graduation. See, he understands that even if the majority said "yes," it would still be unconstitutional. After the FFRF sent a letter to the school, the vote and prayer were officially canceled. Despite receiving backlash from his community, he too is continuing the fight. The graduation hasn't taken place yet, so we'll see what happens.

Damon Fowler I've talked about before. A senior in Bastrop, LA, he pointed out the law forbidding prayer at graduation to his school superintendent, said he would contact the ACLU if the prayer happened, and after consulting their attorneys, the school officially canceled the prayer. When Damon was outed as the letter writer, he suffered a "shitstorm" from his community. One of his teachers publicly insulted him in a local paper, he received threats of violence, and even death threats. The worst part? Eventually, his parents disowned him. His story went international, and the outpouring of support, emotionally, pragmatically, and even financially, has been absolutely amazing. Greta Christina wrote up a very nice summation and op ed piece on Damon's story over at AlterNet, and I highly suggest reading it.

So, now let me tell you why I find these three so heroic I would call them "personal heroes," a phrase I have rarely applied -- actually, never. They have taken a stand for what they believe in, despite severe opposition. They have faced up to those who ridicule, hate, and vilify them for being atheists, for wanting to see a separation of church and state, and for daring to speak up. The hardships they've endured are appalling. They've lost friends and acquaintances (and Damon lost family). I imagine that it's been emotionally difficult as hell at times, but they maintain and continue. Not a one of them indicates any serious regret for what they've done, and continue to do. They show a courage I can only hope to mirror. Their willingness to sacrifice of themselves for a greater good, for the rights of everyone (because make no mistake: church/state separation is good for everyone, not just atheists), shows a potential future for America and the world that is bright indeed.

If you want to learn more about these three in their own words, they've got a question and answer bit going on over at Reddit. Here's the link.

----This next bit gets a lot more personal. Stop if you don't want to see it, or you think you don't want to know. Keep going, and you take responsibility for gaining that knowledge.----

Here's the hard part. Heroes, by their actions and stories, call on us to be better than we've been, and to reach for our highest potential. They encourage us to step up and show the world what we're made of. Heroes encourage us to do, rather than simply be. Heroes . . . inspire.

If heroes inspire us to do things, then these three young people must surely have inspired me to do something, right? Yes, but it's not easy. I've lived for a long time with a fear that if my family, whom I love a great deal, ever found out that I'm an atheist, it would be . . . problematic. I've feared the pain that I might cause them, and I've feared ostracism and loss. My family is (so far as I know) Christian, one and all. My grandfather's a pastor, my mother "born-again," etc. When I was given a subscription to Discover Magazine at the age of 13 by my mother, she warned me that if I started talking about evolution, that subscription would be taken away. So, I think I've had good reasons for my fear (that's just one example). And because of those reasons, I've hidden myself from them. I've not directly lied by claiming beliefs I don't have, but I've dodged topics of discussion and kept my mouth shut. When I've written online in forums or comment sections of atheist/humanist blogs, I've done so under a pseudonym, just in case (that's also just in case a potential employer should ever google me). I've been hiding less of late then in the past, and censoring myself less, but . . .

But this means that my family doesn't know me. This means I can never let them be close, know who I am. Yet, I believe truth is important, very important. Truth matters. Reality is better than an illusion. And if three young people not even out of high school can face down entire communities, then I should be able to face my own fears.

Hi, my name is Nathan Salo Tumberg. It's a pleasure to meet you. I believe that humanity is a wonderfully fascinating, evolved creature, that is hopefully still evolving. I believe we have huge potential for good, and huge potential for evil. I believe that we are completely capable of being moral. I believe that meaning is all around us, in the lives we create for ourselves, the connections we make to our fellow inhabitants of this universe. I believe that critical thinking is one of the best tools we've devised, ever. I believe that questions are good, even great, and that discussion is even better. I believe that reality is more important than comfort. I believe that compassion is powerful, and key to morality. I believe in freedom and rights, and that these are worth fighting for. I believe that humanity is capable of being greater than we have ever been before, but I do not know if we will be.

I do not, however, believe that a god, any god, is necessary to, or for, the universe, morality, meaning, hope, or anything else. This life is what we have, and it's up to us to live it. If you don't like what I believe, that's fine. You don't have to. I'm open to discussion, but if you'd rather not, that's fine too. I'm not about to force myself or my thoughts on you.

My name is Nathan Salo Tumberg. Occasionally, I think. Would you care to have a discussion?

Humanity is good and evil. Don't blame it on god.

I would like to write today about humanity's nature. This is inspired in part by views I've held for a long time, by recent events in the world (such as the murders in Mazar-I-Sharif) , and the writing that some have done in response to those events (PZ Myers had a moving piece).

Christianity, Islam, and a variety of other religions tend to give the credit for the good and bad that humanity does in this world not to humans, but to either God or the Devil (or equivalent for the particular religion being discussed). The skill of a doctor who saves a child was guided and inspired by god; the murder of a child was brought about due to the devil's insidious whispers. God is begged for the strength to resist temptation, and praised when temptation is resisted, while the devil (or the flesh) is blamed when temptation is not resisted (the disconnect there is a subject to be touched on later). When great charitable acts are done, god is thanked; when selfishness rules, the devil gets his portion of blame.

This is all false. All the good and evil that humanity has accomplished in this world, is in us. When Hitler started the death camps, it wasn't an absence of god, or the presence of the devil: it was Hitler as human. When hundreds (or more) came together to help in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, it wasn't the divine hand of god: it was hundreds of people as humans. When a little boy at a parade caught some candy thrown by a fireman, and saw another little boy upset and crying because he didn't catch any, it wasn't god who moved the first boy to share his candy, but that boy's compassion and sense of fairness. When one child grabs another's beloved toy, and breaks it, that's not the devil at work, but selfishness and spite. When a father sees his child crying and takes the time to kneel down and hug him, and find out what's wrong, and do all in his power to fix it, that's not god moving within him, that's a father's love. When a different father jams his thumbs in his son's collarbone and threatens punishment when they get home if the child makes another sound, that's not the devil at work, and that is NOT a father's love.

When we look at all the good that people do in this world, whether small or large moments, whether saving a life or sharing a piece of candy, and then attribute that to god, we denigrate the people who are choosing to take those actions. Let me say that again: when we thank god for the good that people do in this world, we are DIMINISHING, not the action, but the people taking that good action. To say that the hand of a surgeon who saves a life was guided by god, inspired by god, takes away from the years of hard work and stress that the surgeon has undergone to develop that skill, as well as the system that allowed the surgeon to develop that skill. Do not say "Thank God", for that misplaces your gratitude. Rather, say "Thank you Doctor."

By the same reasoning, if we blame the devil for a father who abuses his son, we are absolving him of too much responsibility, and thus raising him up higher than he deserves. We should deal with such a father, not as if the devil is his influence, but as if the father is to blame. Correct and reform the father if possible, but never let him hide behind the devil.

I can think of times when I have shown compassion and goodness, and I can think of times when I've been cruel, selfish, and so-much-less than good. I look at the people I love, and the people I've known, and I see the same: moments of compassion, and moments of pettiness. I look at the world I see in the news, and I see the same: moments of good, and moments of evil. And everywhere, I see things that fall between the extremes. To blame or thank god for any of it, to blame or thank the devil for any of it, is false. More than false, it seems at times downright harmful.

If we continue to excuse our worst natures with appeals to the devil, or because some lady ate a piece of fruit she shouldn't have eaten, it can only make it more difficult to mitigate or (dare I hope?) eliminate our evil. In addiction therapy, it becomes necessary for the addicted to acknowledge the harm they've done to others in service to that addiction before it becomes possible to truly make amends, and break away from the addiction. If humanity is going to progress and improve, we must acknowledge the harm that WE have done to ourselves, and stop blaming it on god and the devil. As long as we deny our culpability, we enable ourselves to continue as we always have.