A major criticism of many religions is that they require beliefs that are irrational, unscientific, or unreasonable. Stated differently, religious beliefs and traditions lack scientific or rational foundations. There are several aspects to this criticism, including:
Religions often posit facts that are contradicted by scientific evidence (e.g. evolution, origin of the universe, miracles); for example, the claim that prayer has a beneficial effect on others has been tested and disproved.[8]
Religions often require behaviors that are not sensible (such as the Old Testament prohibition against wearing garments of mixed fabrics, or punishing children of guilty parents).[9]
Religions and their holy books contain rules and laws designed to govern behavior and conduct, some of which—within a single religion—are contradictory or impossible to follow.[citation needed]
Religions and their holy books often contain conflicting facts or histories (for example, discrepancies in the Bible among the four Gospels of the New Testament).[10][11][12]
Religions have claimed the truth of stories which contain elements indistinguishable from fairy tales or superstitions (such as astrology or Santa Claus).[citation needed]
Religions cannot adapt to a changing world, and their teachings are outdated in comparison with modern Western morals. For instance, the rules on certain diets—such as the Torah's prohibition of eating pork or shellfish—may have made sense some thousands of years ago, when certain animals were often infested with parasites. However, such a prohibition in modern times may be illogical, as the quality and safety of food have improved.[citation needed]
Religions have promoted facts and histories that are contradicted by science. These often form the basis of significant controversies, such as the trial of Galileo for his purported heresy that the earth moves around the sun. The origin of the earth or universe is often described by holy books in the form of creation myths, which are contradicted by scientific theories of cosmology. The origin of the human species, as presented by many Christian sects, is contradicted by the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection. In other cases, religions assert the factual existence of phenomena such as miracles and angels, which are not necessarily contradicted by science, but find little or no scientific support.
Religious adherents, such as the notable Christian apologist C. S. Lewis, counter these arguments by suggesting that all religions, by definition, involve faith, or a belief in concepts that cannot be proven or disproven by science. However, some religious beliefs have been disproven by science, for instance Young Earth creationism.[13] Scientist Stephen Jay Gould agreed with C. S. Lewis and suggested that religion and science were non-overlapping magisteria.[14] Scientist Richard Dawkins has said that religious practitioners often do not believe in the view of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA).[8] Dawkins argues that any time a religious person claims that a certain event (e.g. the Love Parade stampede)[15] is a punishment by God or that they have been helped or rewarded by God for their actions ("thank god") the NOMA thesis is violated. For NOMA to hold, Dawkins argues the supernatural being in question must not have any effect on people's physical lives, and that only claims regarding the afterlife are allowed.
Child abuse
See also: Indoctrination, Brainwashing, Religion and children, and Child marriage
Critics such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins use the term "child abuse" to describe the harm that some religious upbringings inflict on children.[60][61] They claim that children are especially vulnerable to mental harms related to religion, including:
Terrorized by threats of punishment, such as eternal damnation in a fiery hell
Extreme guilt about normal, healthy sexual functions
Trained to disrespect science and reason
Indoctrinated into a particular religious faith, thus depriving the child of the opportunity to make their own free inquiry later, when they are mature
Dawkins is angered by the term "Muslim child" or a "Catholic child". He asks how a young child can possibly be considered intellectually mature enough to have such independent views on the cosmos and humanity’s place within it. By contrast, Dawkins points out, no reasonable person would speak of a "Marxist child" or a "Tory child."[60]
Child brides
Islam[62] has permitted the child marriage of older men to girls as young as 10 years of age. The Seyaj Organization for the Protection of Children describes cases of a 10 year old girl being married and raped in Yemen (Nujood Ali),[63] a 13 year old Yemeni girl dying of internal bleeding three days after marriage,[64][65] and a 12 year old girl dying in childbirth after marriage.[62][66]
Latter Day Saint church founder Joseph Smith married girls as young as 13 and 14,[67] and other Latter Day Saints married girls as young as 10.[68] The The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints eliminated underaged marriages in the 19th century, but several fundamentalist branches of Mormonism continue the practice.[69]
Critics such as Hitchens assert that many religions view some types of natural sexual activity (such as homosexuality or masturbation) as evil or immoral, and that this view can sometimes lead to neuroses or other ill effects.[59] Hitchens also argues that virginity is unhealthy, and can lead to emotional problems.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________
Suppression of scientific progress
John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White, authors of the conflict thesis, have argued that when a religion offers a complete set of answers to the problems of purpose, morality, origins, or science, it often discourages exploration of those areas by suppressing curiosity, denies its followers a broader perspective, and can prevent social, moral and scientific progress. Examples of scientific suppression by the Roman Catholic Church include the trial of Galileo for arguing that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and the execution of scientist and philosopher Giordano Bruno.
In more recent time, many debates have arisen that follow a pattern of faith versus reason, in particular the rise of fundamentalist and bible literalist opposition to science and liberal democracy. Examples include the creation-evolution controversy, and controversies over the use of birth control, the separation of church and state, opposition to research into embryonic stem cells, or theological objections to vaccination, anesthesia, and blood transfusion.[121][122][123][124][125]
During the 19th century what scholars today call the historical conflict thesis developed. According to this model, any interaction between religion and science must inevitably lead to open hostility, with religion usually taking the part of the aggressor against new scientific ideas.[126] The historical conflict thesis was a popular historiographical approach in the history of science during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but its original form is almost entirely discarded by scholars today.[127][128][129] Despite that, conflict theory remains a popular view among the general public,[130] and has been publicized by the success of books such as The God Delusion.
Historians of science including John Hedley Brooke and Ronald Numbers consider the "religion vs. science" concept an oversimplification, and prefer to take a more nuanced view of the subject.[130][131] These historians cite, for example, the Galileo affair[132] and the Scopes trial,[133] and assert that these were not purely instances of conflict between science and religion; personal and political factors also weighed heavily in the development of each. In addition, some historians contend that religious organizations figure prominently in the broader histories of many sciences, with many of the scientific minds until the professionalization of scientific enterprise (in the 19th century) being clergy and other religious thinkers.[134][135][136] Some historians contend that many scientific developments, such as Kepler's laws[137] and the 19th century reformulation of physics in terms of energy,[138] were explicitly driven by religious ideas.
Suppression of art and literature
Some religions have destroyed important artistic works and cultural or religious artifacts. The Taliban destroyed the Bamyan Buddhas in Afghanistan in 2001 in the name of Islam. Catholic priest Diego de Landa almost single handedly destroyed all knowledge of the Mayan hieroglyphs, with the desire to wipe out the Mayan religion. During the English civil war, Parliamentarian soldiers destroyed two of the Eleanor Crosses, one at Cheapside in London and another in Stony Stratford in Buckinghamshire, as they were viewed to be relics of the Catholic faith to which, as Puritans, they were opposed.
In 1989, Muslim religious leader Ayatollah Khomeini issued a religious edict condemning author Salman Rushdie to death for the publication of The Satanic Verses.[139]
In 2005, many Muslims protested against the publication of cartoons depicting Mohammad.
Muslims in Bangladesh issued a fatwa (religious decree) calling for the death of poet and author Taslima Nasrin because of the women's rights issues raised in her books, particularly her novel Lajja.[140]
Morality
See also: Human sacrifice, Honor killing, Morality and religion, and Religious intolerance
“ A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. ”
— Albert Einstein[141]
Nobel Peace laureate, Muslim, and human rights activist Shirin Ebadi has criticized dogmatic Islam as morally deficient, arguing that it elevates to moral status many ancient and ill-informed rules that may have been designed for reasons of hygiene, politics, or other reasons in a bygone era.[142][verification needed] An example of this would be the idea that women and men must be kept separate, or that women who do not cover themselves up modestly have tendencies for immorality, or are in some way responsible for sexual assault.[143][144]
Dawkins contends that theistic religions devalue human compassion and morality. In his view, the Bible contains many injunctions against following one's conscience over scripture, and positive actions are supposed to originate not from compassion, but from the fear of punishment.[24] Religious institutions typically declare they have special knowledge of absolute morality and invoke this in order to hinder debates on many issues such as stem cell research, euthanasia, and same-sex marriage.[124][145]
Treatment of homosexuals
“ If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. ”
— Leviticus 20:13|KJV
Many major religions, most prominently traditional Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Orthodox Judaism, consider homosexuality immoral. Singer Elton John said organized religion promotes the hatred of homosexuals: "I think religion has always tried to turn hatred towards gay people... Organized religion does not seem to work. It turns people into really hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate."[146]
In the United States, conservative Christian groups such as the Christian Legal Society and the Alliance Defense Fund have filed numerous lawsuits against public universities, aimed at overturning policies that protect homosexuals from discrimination and hate speech. These groups argue that such policies infringe their right to freely exercise religion as guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.[147]
Homosexuality is illegal in most Muslim countries, and in many of these countries carries the death penalty. In July 2005, two Iranian men, aged sixteen and eighteen, were publicly hanged for homosexuality, causing an international outcry. Human rights organisations estimate that hundreds of people have been executed for homosexuality by Iranian authorities since the 1979 revolution.[148]
However, many liberal religious groups, and particularly most New Age religions, are accepting of homosexuals and do not regard their behavior as sinful, in particular: Progressive Judaism, Neopaganism, Wicca, Raëlism, the United Church of Canada, the Anglican Church of Canada,[149] the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, Moravian Church,[149] Haitian Voodoo, Unitarian Universalism, and the Metropolitan Community Church, which was established almost specifically for this purpose.
RacismTreatment of women
In some Muslim countries, women wear hijabs or niqabs that conceal almost all of their bodies.
See also: Gender and religion and Misogyny
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2010)
Critics[who?] say that religions often treat women in a discriminatory fashion, given them status inferior to men, depriving them of opportunities, endorsing excessive punishments, and using torture and executions as a manner of subjugating them.
An example of such criticism is the treatment of women in modern Islam, such as the required wearing of a burqa in some sects, or denying women permission to drive cars.
Critics[who?] also claim that Islam authorizes the punishment of female rape victims, citing a Saudi Arabian case where a rape victim was sentenced to receive 90 lashes because she was in a car with a man that was not her relative.[158]
Critics including Hitchens and the United Nations also say that Islam is used to justify unnecessary and usually harmful female genital modification and mutilation, when the purposes range from depriving them of sexual satisfaction to discourage adultery, insuring they are still a virgin to their husbands, or falsely giving the appearance that they are still a virgin.[85][159]
[edit] Witch hunts
Another example is the use of witch trials by the Christian churches from 1480 through 1800. These trials, often resulting in torture or death of the alleged witch, were based on the Old Testament in the Exodus 22:18, which prescribes "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". Critics[who?] say that these trials were unfair, and that witchcraft was often not in evidence, and that the trials were generally used to punish assertive or independent women, such as midwives,[160] or activists.[161]
[edit] Cruelty to animals
Shechita
Kosher slaughter has historically attracted criticism from non-Jews as allegedly being inhumane and unsanitary,[162] in part as an antisemetic canard that eating ritually slaughtered meat caused degeneration,[163] and in part out of economic motivation to remove Jews from the meat industry.[162] Sometimes, however, these criticisms were directed at Judaism as a religion. In 1893, animal advocates campaigning against kosher slaughter in Aberdeen attempted to link cruelty with Jewish religious practice.[164] In the 1920s, Polish critics of kosher slaughter claimed that the practice actually had no basis in scripture.[162] In contrast, Jewish authorities argue that the slaughter methods are based directly upon Genesis IX:3, and that "these laws are binding on Jews today."[165]
More recently, kosher slaughter has attracted criticism from some groups concerned with animal welfare, who contend that the absence of any form of anesthesia or stunning prior to the severance of the animal's jugular vein causes unnecessary pain and suffering. Calls for the abolition of kosher slaughter have been made in 2008 by Germany's federal chamber of veterinarians,[166] and in 2011 by the Party for Animals in the Dutch parliament.[167] In both incidents, Jewish groups responded that the criticisms were attacks against their religion.[166][167]
Supporters of kosher slaughter counter that Judaism requires the practice precisely because it is considered humane.[165] Research conducted by Temple Grandin and Joe M. Regenstein shows that, practiced correctly with proper restraint systems, kosher slaughter results in little pain and suffering, and notes that behavioral reactions to the incision made during kosher slaughter are less than those to noises such as clanging or hissing, inversion or pressure during restraint.[168]
Religion has been used by some as justification for advocating racism. The Ku Klux Klan, Christian Identity movement, Mormon leaders, and some Post-Medieval Theologians[who?] have made claims that white people are closer to God than other races. Religious terrorist organizations such as the forenamed Ku Klux Klan, Kach and Kahane Chai and others also hold ostensibly racist views.[150][151]
The LDS Church excluded blacks from the priesthood in the church, from 1860 to 1978.[152] Most Fundamentalist Mormon sects within the Latter Day Saint movement, rejected the LDS Church’s 1978 decision to allow African Americans to hold the priesthood, and continue to deny activity in the church due to race.[153] Due to these beliefs, in its Spring 2005 "Intelligence Report", the Southern Poverty Law Center named the FLDS Church to its "hate group" listing[154] because of the church's teachings on race, which include a fierce condemnation of interracial relationships.
Register
Events
Popular
More
Post #201
