Paul M Peterson

I found an interesting article on Lattenomics tonight. Entitled “church bashing is so much fun”, it is a critique of a post by one Carl Mather. Carl Mather posted a rant on the effect of religion on societies throughout history. Carl asserts that

Religions promote elitism, xenophobia, intolerance, ignorance and fascism (n. a governmental system with strong centralised power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs, etc.).

Religions encourage slavery, torture, murder, and unquestioning obedience to rulers, i.e. the church.

and Lattenomics responds, in part, saying

Carl doesn’t provide any evidence to support his assertions and just throws them out there them as self-evident truths. His article is a convenient exercise in shallow-thinking that goes like this: most people were religious in the past, and therefore religion is responsible for all atrocities committed in the past. Convenient, but bollocks nevertheless.

I have to make a special mention of Chris’ assertion that religion breeds fascism. What a load of utter crap! Fascist were vehemently anti-religious. Mussolini was “fiercely anti-Catholic” and Nazis were so hostile to religion they sent thousands of priests to concentration camps. In fact Mather’s article is exactly the sort of anti-religious propaganda that would make any fascist proud.

That is religions breed fascism is not an argument. It is a testable hypothesis. While I agree that Carl failed to mention any specific evidence of the link, nevertheless the documentation supporting his assertion is vast. Take for example the Aztec culture. Their religion taught them that vital bodily fluids contained magical energy which could prolong life. They also practiced something called thanatosis. These are religious beliefs which directly led them to behead thousands of people.

In more modern times, we have the witch burnings which killed hundreds of thousands of women in Europe in the late middle ages. The people lighting those fires were not atheists. There is also the example of the catholic churches selling of indulgences which allowed rich people to buy their way out of sin (that sounds pretty elitist to me).

Christianity can be held responsible, in part, for the crusades, which killed a lot of people. Nevermind that it was basically about forcing christianity on the entire populace of the Middle East. Islam can also be held responsible for its part in the reaction to the Christian invasion.

The author of Lattenomics makes the assertion that Russia and China under communism were not religious and were brutal. This is a pretty lame observation. He also includes Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy (which is historically wrong). The conclusion we are asked to make? That because Russia and China were atheist and also brutal dictatorships, all atheist societies will become brutal dictatorships.

I could rip this apart simply by pointing out that it is a failure of syllogistic logic. But I think the crux of the matter is the question “can an individual be moral in absence of religion’s influence?” I think we can. I have no scientific evidence for this. All I can point to, is the people I have known and cared for. Some of them are gay, some of them are mentally ill, some of them are handicapped, some of them are former and current drug users. They are all mostly moral people.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.