I’m getting a bit thematic in my blog posts, but it’s merely a reflection or what currently occupies my mind, and right now, it’s the societal impact of religion.
While I understand the general causes that would lead one to find comfort in the concept of religion (no one understands the fear of death more than I), but I cannot grasps the idea of submitting one’s own mind to such blatantly utter nonsense. I don’t know what to call it — laugable, bizarre or just plain scary.
It is, quite literally, a claim of knowledge of something with no facts (faith is not faith if there is a reason or evidence), and it is such a weird claim beyond that. Some super-intelligent, super-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing man created and watches everything. How is that not MADNESS?
So, in the case that anyone religious actually reads this, how in the world can you possibly justify such an absurdity?
And before you answer, here are my template responses to the answers repeated ad nauseum that are logically fallacious:
-Pascal’s Wager. This is that there’s no risk. Simply, given there are more possibilities than religion X and no afterlife, this is flawed. This aside from the instance of Christianity that requires FAITH, which if you’re doing it as a safety net, is not faith.
-Nature. That nature is too spectacular and wondrous not to have had a creator. Aside from much of nature having been described biologically in terms of its development, the jump to the conclusion that there is a deity that created everything is baseless.
-Personal moment. That you felt something special in you that was a god speaking to you. People of ALL faiths claim this, and is no argument in favour of any specific religion. Additionally, not only is this not empirical, not testable, and not reliable, situations considered by some to be “spiritual” can be demonstrated and recreated naturally, anyway.
-Religious text. Unless a religious text offers some kind of knowledge that wasn’t available during its period of authorship, such as quantum theory in the Qu’ran, then it holds weight. Otherwise, the inconsistent realities of such text are evidence of nothing.
-Scientific gaps. Arguing that science cannot explain something does nothing to argue in favour of a deity, which is unrelated. Not only is the claim of the gap likely false, it is irrelevant. For example, if the theory of general relativity were proven inaccurate, it does not prove anything other than the theory’s own inadequacies. If a question doesn’t have an answer, that only means the question doesn’t have an answer.
-First cause. Claiming anything in existence requires a creator only leads to a logical infinite loop requiring the creator to have a creator to have a creator. This not even factoring in the incorrect assumption to begin with.
I can’t imagine any of these are taken seriously by more than a very small minority, so what then does it leave for the rest of the 80% of Canadians and Americans that are religious? Europe isn’t quite that high, but there are significant numbers there, and moreso throughout the world. What is it? Social pressure? Can that circumvent rational thought? It shouldn’t even require rational thought — simple connection of “invisible friends aren’t real” should be enough to raise the question.
I really need a reason to think religion isn’t a mental illness. Give me a reason. Oh, that’s right, religion ignores reason.